to have been a meer humane Law so did it no way concern the service of God which the Excommunicate among the Jewes were not excluded from by it But was a meer civil punishment tending to change and abate the estate and condition of him that was under it in his freedom and intercourse with his own peole By all this hee seemes to fortifie the argument which Erastus had made showing that there is no such thing as Excommunication commanded or established by that Law and therefore that there is no such power in the Church But further seeing that there was no other company of men extant in the world for the Apostles to understand by the name of the Church when our Lord commanded him that was offended among his Disciples Tell it to the Church Mat. XVIII 16-20 hee insists strongly that neither the Church of Christ nor any Consistory or Assembly of men or particular person claiming or acting in behalf and under the title of the Church can be understood by those words of our Lord But that the name of the Church must necessarily signifie the Body of Jewes as well as Christians as unbelievers or that Consistory which was able to act in behalf of them in their respective times and places such as wee must also understand the witnesses there mentioned to be For it is manifest that at the beginning of Christianity onely Jewes were admitted to be Christians in so much that the dispute was hot about Cornelius and his company Acts XI 1. being no Jewes in Religion but yet such as believed in the true God and had renounced the worship of Idols Whereby it seemes the command of our Lord to baptize all Nations Mat. XXVIII 19. was then understood to concern onely those of all Nations that had made themselves Jewes by being circumcised afore Accordingly wee see that by virtue of Claudius his Edict commanding all Jewes to depart from Rome Aquila and Priscilla being Christians came to Corinth Acts XVIII 2. to show that Christians at that time must needs use the Jewes fashions who were therefore reputed Jewes by the Law of the Romanes and injoyed the benefit of their Religion by the Jewes privileges granted or confirmed by the same Claudius in Josephus Antiq XIX 4. Whereupon it seems necessarily to follow that the Excommunication then in force was that which the Jewes had introduced by humane Law confirmed by the Law of the Empire Though it is to be thought that the Christians upon particular agreement among themselves such as wee finde they had by Pliny Epist X. 97. Tertul. Apolog. cap. II. Euseb Hist Eccles III. 33. S. Hierome Chron. 2123. Orig. contr Celsum I. pag. 4. had limited the use of it to such causes and termes as their profession required Therefore when our Lord in the next words commands that hee which will not heare the Church be accounted as an Heathen or a Publicane As it is manifest that hee gives the Church no power but onely prescribes what hee would have the party offended to do So neither Heathen nor Publicane being in the condition of an excommunicate person among the Jewes how can it be understood that our Lord would have him to be excommunicate whom hee commands to be held as a Heathen man or as a Publicane The effect then of this precept of our Lord will consist in limiting the precept of the Law Levit. XIX 17. to the publishing of those offenses between parties the private complaint whereof should be neglected So that if the opinion of Gods people should be no more esteemed by the osfeuder the party offended freely to return his scorn by avoiding his familiarity as Jewes were wont to avoid the familiarity of Heathen men and Publicanes Now when our Lord adds in the next words Whatsoever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven The sense must either be general to signifie the obligation of all Law and the right and Power which one man may have by the act of his will to tye and limit another mans Or particular to the Law of Moses Whereby what was declared unlawfull by the Doctors and Professors of it was said in their language to be held or bound that which was permitted loose Which signification our Lord also uses Mat. XXIII 4. Luc. XI 46. This later sense concerning things and not persons will be farre from signifying that any man should be excommunicate And though Excommunication be a bond and was so among the Jewes yet how should wee understand that the Church is inabled to tye this bond by a commission the termes whereof containe all that superiors may do to oblige their inferiors This Author then acknowledges that S. Paul threatens Excommunication Gal. I. 8 9. 1 Cor. XVI 22. and that hee wishes himself that estate which it imports Rom. IX 3. Not as it hath been falsly imagined among Christians to be cut off from the communion of the Eucharist and other offices of Christianity But as it was used among the Jewes to inferre the abridgment of a mans freedome in publick conversation as vile and subject to the curses of the Church But when the same Apostle gives order that the incestuous person be delivered to Satan 1 Cor. V. 5. As also when hee saith that hee had delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus 1 Tim. I. 20. when hee ordereth them not to converse with such persons 1 Cor. V. 11. this hee takes no more to concerne Excommunication than those verses of the Psalms Blessed is the man that bath not walked in the counsail of the ungodly Or I have not sate with vain persons nor will have fellowship with the deceitfull That is to say that it is bad counsail towards God but neither ground nor signe of any commission to excommunicate in the body of the Church Whereas the Leviathan to show here out of order his sense of that place though hee acknowledge that both ancient and modern writers have understood it as if by the extraordinary graces which the Apostles then had to evidence the presence of God in his Church the excommunicate became subject to plagues and diseases inflicted by evil Angels to show that they came under the power of Satan when they were put out of the Church yet hee satisfies himself by saying that other learned men finde nothing like the excommunication of Christians in it pag. 209. and that it depended upon the singular privilege of the Apostles These are the grounds upon which the power of the Keyes and by consequence the charter and corporation of the Church and all Ecclesiastical right and power grounded thereupon are taken away in the first book de Synedriis to the same effect as in Erastus his positions But the Leviathan comes up close to the point in general and following the supposition which I have refuted That the Gospel or Christianity and the Scriptures that contain it are not Law till the secular Power that
Be it therefore granted that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with such additions as the place where they stand requires signifie that Body which at the time when our Lord spoke was Gods ancient people This signification if I mistake not descending from the first bodying of them into a Commonwealth in the Wildernesse when they might and were all called and assembled together to take resolution in what concerned their posterity as Commonwealths are presumed to be everlasting Bodies as well as themselves When after the return from the Captivity of Babylon they became dispersed into Aegypt Syria Mesopotamia Asia and elswhere owning still or challenging the same Lawes by owning which they first became one Body such Bodies of them as lived in Alexandria Antiochia Ephesus Nearda Sora Pombeditha or other Cities and their respective territories are by the same reason to be called the Synagogues of Alexandria Ephesus and so forth Being by that name sufficiently distinguished from the Gentile Inhabitants of the same Cities and Territories Neither is it pretended that there is any thing in the original force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why they should not both signifie the same But suppose our Lord Christ declare an intent of instituting a New people upon condition of imbracing his Gospel and use the old word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie this New people as well hee may use it for the near correspondence between them necessary it is that his hearers understanding him understand by that terme something else than the Law had deâ—clared afore And very convenient it was afterwards that when there fell out not onely distinction but opposition between the two Bodies they should be divided by names as they were by affections As the one is signified in all Church Writers by the name of the Synagogue the other by the name of the Church to signifie the distance which ought not to be between them but is For though nothing is more odious than to quarrel about words Yet as in divers things else the not appropriating the term of Synagogue to the Jewes as of Church to the Church which the Fathers throughly observe is an argument of not well distinguishing between the Law and the Gospel Which gives them a privilege in understanding the Scriptures above our times because as I said afore this is in my judgment the prime point of it notwithstanding all the advantages wee have above them for learning and a means to convey the same confusion to the minds of our hearers When therefore wee reade in the Apostles Writings of the Churches of Judaea and Samaria the Churches of Syria Asia Macedonia and Achaia when wee reade of the Church of Rome of Corinth Ephesus Philippi or Thessalonica And again in other places finde the name of the Church absolutely put without any addition to signifie the whole that containeth all the Churches named in other places so often do wee meet with so many demonstrations to common sense of several bodies signified by those that so speak as intended to constitute one whole Body of the Church After which nothing can be demanded but whether the intention of the Apostles prove them to be so onely in point of fact or in point of right which demand a Christian cannot make Our Lord in particular when hee answereth Mat. XVI 18. Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it cannot be understood to speak of building the Synagogue which Moses had built so long afore Here I would desire him that thinks it so strange that our Lord should understand by the Church something else than the Jewes signified by it to ask the Author of the Leviathan what reason hee had when hee acknowledged that the Church of Corinth Ephesus and Thessalonica is the Body of Christians living in those respective Cities And whether hee had reason to affirm that the Church so signified did do those acts of right which onely Bodies can do and which hee affirmeth the Church under the Apostles did do For if these reasons be not reconcileable it will be worth the considering what truth there is in that position which is maintained by two that cannot agree about the reasons upon which they maintaine it Neither let any difficulty be made from the difference that may arise who they be to whom our Lord conmands there to resort whom hee bids tell the Church one or more or all For when it is resolved that the Church is a Body or a Society it will be by the nature of the subject manifest that the right of acting in behalf of this Body must by the constitution thereof be reserved either to one or to a few or to the whole in some principal acts in others referring themselves to their Deputies as in popular Governments And whosoever they are that this right is reserved to hee that resorts to them is properly said to resort to the Church though our Lord declaring here the purpose of instituting a Church declare not whom hee will trust the power of acting for the Church with Before I go further I must inferre against the Leviathan that seeing the whole Church is signified by the name of the Church absolutely put without addition by the Apostles as the body which all particular Churches constitute therefore the Church is understood and intended by them as a Body capable of right and able to act though not by all that are of it yet by persons trusted for it A thing which hee that had remembred his Creed could not have doubted of For though the name of a Church may be said to rest in a number of men not united by any right into a visible Body yet one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church cannot consist of all persons maintaining the profession thereof in opposition to all Societies claiming that name but not holding the profession requisite but it must be distinguished by something which it acknowledgeth for Law to oblige it they do not Again if the Name of Church in the Apostles rest upon the bodies of Christians in the Cities of Rome Coriâ—th and Ephesus then can it not now as of divine right signifie the several States Kingdomes and Commonwealths wherein Christianity subsisteth Not onely because the bounds of Christendom are not either materially or formally the same with the bounds of those States under which it is now maintained But chiefly because the signification of that name in the Apostles once resting by divine right upon those Congregations can never be transferred upon those Commonwealths which subsiâ—t not by the same right but necessarily descendeth upon those Bodies which derive their succession from them by visible acts of humane right Against both I further inferre that the Church being signified as one by divine right in the Scriptures can never be understood now to consist in all those
of the Holy Ghost Where you see that upon inlightning that is Baptism we become partakers of the Holy Ghost And this consideration utterly voides the only reason why our Lord when he sayes to Nicodemus John III. 5. Verily verily I say unto thee unlesse a man be born again of waâ—er and of the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God should not seem to speak of the Sacrament of Baptism For at that time neither was the Sacrament of Baptism instituted nor the promise of the Holy Ghost annexed to it The Holy Ghost that is to say the gift of the Holy Ghost is no where promised before the ascension of Christ For besides that which I alledged in the beginning to show that it presupposeth Christianity When it is said John VII 37. The Holy Ghost was not yet because Christ was not yet glorified The dependance thereof upon the glorifying of our Lord is plainly expressed And that according to S. Paul Ephes IV. 8. 12. Shewing out of Psal LXVIII 18. that the graces of the Holy Ghost by which the Church is united and compacted into one Body are sent down by God as a largess in consideration of the advancement of our Lord to the right hand of God as in honour of that triumph Wherewith agreeth S. Peter Acts II. 33. Being then exalted to or by the right hand of God and having received the gift of the Holy Ghost as it is also called Acts X. 54. he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear Now let any man say that these visible operations of Holy Ghost whereby the world was to be convinced of the presence of God in the Church of Christians these indeed depend upon the ascension of Christ But without the invisible operation of the Holy Ghost no man ever to salvation from the beginning supposing this for the present but not granting it if any man that is a Christian demand proof for it Though this be true yet it was not expresly promised by God nor expresly Covenanted for by man till the publishing of Christianity upon the ascension of Christ Therefore the Baptism of repentance which John preached was without question effectuall to the remission of sins as the Gospels propose it Mark I. 4. Luke III. 3 For if I maintain the salvation of those who living under the Law understood the Covenant of Grace to be folded up in it by the preaching of the Prophets much more easily can I maintain the salvation of those who have imbraced the Baptism of Repentance for remission of sins which Joâ—n Preached provided that they came to Christ to whom John Baptist sent his Disciples so soon as the command of Christianity should take place and not otherwise But not by vertue of the Covenant of Grace published which it was not to be till the ascention of Christ but by vertue of the Covenant of Grace vailed under the Law which was not unvailed as yet during the time of passage from the Law to the Gospel when the baptism of John might take place Neither was the baptism of John in the name of the Father Son and the Holy Ghost which baptism our Lord never established till after his rising again Mat. XXVIII 19. but in the name of him that was comming as S. Paul saith to the Disciples Acts XIX 4. John truly baptised the baptism of repentance saing to the people that they should believe on him that was comming after him that is in Christ Jesus which words some have endeavoured to set upon the rack and to pull them from those which follow but they hearing this were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus as if they were not S. Lukes words but S. Pauls speaking of S. John's hearers that they were baptized by him in the name of the Lord Jesus A thing altogether unreasonable to imagine that the Disciples of John should make a question whether our L. Jesus were the Christ or not as Mat. XI 2. Luke VII 18. if they had been from the beginning baptized in his Name And the words might have served to represse this conceit in them that had submitted to take the meaning from the words For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which their meaning were it the meaning of the text would require Nor is it strange that they who had been baptized into the profession of admitting him that was comming for the Christ in hope by him to have remission of sins as their Fathers had alwayes hoped acknowledging our Lord Jesus not only to be the Christ but further sent by the Father to send the Holy Ghost should be baptized again in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost For the receiving of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of S. Pauls hands which followeth in S. Luke is sufficient evidence that it is the baptism of Christ and not of John Baptist whereof he speaketh Let us hear then the Commission of our Lord Christ to his Apostles Mat. XXVIII 19. Go make Disciples all Nation babtizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek in the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we insist upon the property of the word must necessarily signifie make Disciples But who are Christs Disciples Those that take up his Crosse to follow him Those that will do whatsoever he commandeth Those that bear much fruit Those of whom our Lord saith John VIII 34. If ye abide in my Word then are ye truly my Disciples As I shewed you before speaking of the profession of Christianity This before Christs death and the institution of Baptism Afterwards who are his Disciples Acts XI 26. It came to passe that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antivchia First at Antiochia but afterwards all over that Book as well as afore they are oftner called Disciples then Christians Neither is the name given to any but Christians saving those Disciples which I spoke of just now who under the baptism of John had given up themselves to our Lord Jesus as the Christ but through invincible ignorance knew not yet that the gift of the Holy Ghost presupposed Christs Baptism being ready as we see to receive it so soon as they understood it by the means of S. Paul Now there is nothing more manifest than that the gift of the holy Ghost is promised by our Lord in the Gospel to supply the want of his bodily presence and therefore when he declared unto them his departure and not much afore it Which things if they be true of necessity the promise of the Holy Ghost is annexed to the precept of being baptized given by our Lord at his departure and from that time to take place Neither is the meaning of his commission in the words alledged that they should first teach and then baptize though teaching that which Christianity professeth
and their posterity and that till this were done no child was intitled to the benefit of it How can it be imagined that the Covenant of Grace which is as all Covenants necessarily are the act of two parties should be inacted by the act of God alone in publishing the Gospel Indeed by that Declaration God of his infinite goodnesse hath obliged himselfe before to stand to all the promises of the Gospel with any man that shall professe and stand to his Christianity But till his profâ—ssion be made as Gods Law hath appointed that is by Baptism the Covenant is not inacted And therefore I allow that which S. Paul saith Rom. IV. 2. That Abraham received the sign of Cirumcision for a seal of righteousnesse of that faith which he had being uncircumcized But I do not allow that his circumcision was a bare sign of that right which he and his posterity had to the promise without it and before it speaking of the time after it was once inacted for a Law of that Covenant For afore indeed that it was so requiâ—ed his faith intitled him to the same promise without it For if the Law require that writings be drawn and sealed though these writings of themselves are meer evidences and signs to record the consent of the parties by which every contract subsists yet in as much as the Law requires them the consent of parties avails not to bring the contract Io effect without them Even so if the Law of God appoint the first Covenant to be signed by Circumcision the second by Baptism though it may be said to be in force conditionally towards them that have not yet signed it upon themselves yet are they not absolutely within it till that be done If the Roman Emperours Law require that their Souldiers when they were listed and imprested should also be marked wiâ—h the mark of a hot Iron recording upon their flesh that from thenceforth they were Souldiers it is reasonable to think that thenceforth and not afore they were intitled to the priviledges of Souldiers and liable to the penalties of leaving their colours This is that character of Baptism which S. Austin hath so much of and S. Chrysostome compares Circumcision to the same which therefore not onely signifies but brings with it the burthens and priviledges of Abrahams seed or Christs of-spring If therefore circumcision bringing with it the obligation of living according to the faith which Abraham had being uncircumcised and when the Law was afterwards given of living according to the Law do also bring with it a title to the promise made to Abraham and his seed Is it strange that Baptism visibly and necessarily bringing with it the obligation of Christianity upon them who are dedicated to God by the Church in giving that Sacrament should be intitled thereby to the regeneration of Gods spirit the earnest of our future inheritance In the children of the Israelites as there was nothing to intitle them to the promise made to Abrahams seed setting aside Circumcision and the Covenant that required it so was there nothing to hinder them or render them incapable of a temporall proâ—ise In the children of Christians either we believe originall sinne to be no bar to Gods Kingdom and fall into the Heresie of Pelagius Or that the New Covenant which is an act of two parties is inacted by the appointment of one in regard of the Elect who never knew of it but signifies nothing in regard of those that are not elect though never so much convict of it and yet have force to damn them whom onely Gods appointment could make it concern But if these extreams be equally destructive to Christianity it behoveth us to iâ—brâ—ce that which the correspondence between the old and new Covenant necessâ—rily inferreth upon that proportion which must be the same between Circumcision and Bâ—ptism and the promises to which they intitle us Neither is this Argument to be avoided but by avoiding the ground of all mysticall sense in the Scripture which is indeed the avoiding of all Christianity by acknowledging that there is no ground for iâ— in the Scriptures of the old Testament which all acknowledge For if the children of Christians are no lesse â—nâ—iâ—led to the promises of the New Testament then the Children of Abraâ—am under the Law were to the Lâ—nd of promise granting originâ—ll sinne to be a barre to the effect of them neither is it removed but by bringing them under the Covenant of Grace nor are they brought under it but by the act of the Church baptizing them and so obliging them to it And here comes in the saying of S. Paul exhorting them that were pricked in heart with the remorâ—e of our Lords death Acts II. 38. 39. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus unto remission of sinnes and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost For to you is the promise made and to your children and to all that are farre of whom the Lord our God shall call to you Indeed it seemeth that when the Apostle saith the promise is made to their children he meant to prevent a mistake that the promise which he speaks of conceâ—ns not onely the present generation but all succeeding ages of Gods people For when he addeth all those whom God shall call to you it seemeth that he intends not for the present to deterâ—ine whether those that wâ—re to be called to the same promises were to be ingrâ—â—fed into the Common-wealth of Israel by circumcision or not But all this being admitted seeing no age can succeed wherâ—of Infants are not one part and seeing that the Aposâ—le declâ—res the promises of the Gospel by Christ to belong to them no otherwise then they understood the promises of the Law to do of necessity it must follow that upon correspondent terâ—s they obtain interest in correspondent promises Which correspondence wherein it consists hath been oft enough said And this Argument is much inforced by the act of our Saviour commanding litle children of the state of Infants to be brought to him reproving them that would not have him troubled with them lâ—ying hands on them and blessing them Mat. XIX 15. Mark X. 15. 16. Luke XVIII 16. 17. for by this means it is effectually declared past all contradiction that the bâ—ssing which Christ came to give belonged to Infants For though this were all done upon another occasion to wit That our Lord had made them the pattern of that humility which he preacheth to Christians yet the very doing of it is evidence enough that he meant not to leave that estate uâ—provided of his blessing What his blessing is the Apostle expresseth Act. III. 26. To you first God having raised up his Son Jesus hath sent him to blesse you by turning every man from his sinnes If therefore that which barreth Infants of this blessing be nothing but Originall sinne and that neither Gods appointment alone nor the publishing
pray to God on his knee or prostrate on his face as the ancient people of God used to doe and the custome of the country obliged him to kneele to the Prince or to fall flat before him upon his face as the custome of the Persians required shall any man be so mad as to say that it is Idolatry to give a petition to a Prince upon his knee Surely if there were no other meanes for other men to discern whether his intent be to honor him as a Prince or as God I should not onely grant but challenge that other men are to rest in doubt of it nay perhaps to take it indeed for Idolatry in case he expresseth not his intent to have been otherwise But where the custome of the place makes that distinction that is requisite between God the Prince and the mans profession conformeth to the opinion and practice of the place to suspect a man of Idolatry in such a case were that degree of madnesse to which the jealous seldome attaine For suppose it were possible that he should indeed and in heart attribute to the Prince the honor due to God alone nay suppose that indeed he intended inwardly in heart to do it as all those did who under the Assyrians Persians Macedonians and Romans did commit true proper Idolatry to their Princes I demand what obligation any man can have to quest on that wherof God onely can be judge remaining secret in the heart but no man can take any harme by so long as it is not professed but kept secret Seeing then that there is no outward Idolatry without professing to give the honour due to God alone to his Creature as no inward Idolatry without secretly giving it and no giving it secretly without an apprehension adjudging the excellence proper to God to his Creature I am of necessity to infer that there is no Idolatry to be committed without an opinion that the Creature is God communicating the Name and Title the Attributes and Perfections and so by consequence the Honour and Reverence due to the Incomparable Excellency of God to his Creature And this is the opinion of all Pagans Hethens or Gentiles whose Idolatry the Scripture as well of the Old as of the New Testament taxeth and the Law maketh a capitall Crime for all Israelites but the Gospel hath converted all Nations besides Gods people from practising For had not the inward sense of all Nations besides Gods ancient people been corrupted by the deceitfulness of sin to the imagining of other Gods besides the true one from that light which convicteth all men of the true God it had not been possible they should have fallen away from the Worship of God to Idols This is that which S. Paul calleth the holding of the truth prisoner in unrighteousnes Rom. I. 18. when those who stood or might stand convict by the light of reason remaining in them that there is but one God Fountain and Ruler of all Creatures to whom all men must give account of their doings were led along by custome to worship the Creature instead of God attributing unto it the excellence of God And how in unrighteousnesse is plain enough to any man that shall consider that the true God searching the inward thoughts of all hearts demandeth account of the most secret intentions of the heart for his own Service whereas those imaginations which men set up to themselves to be honoured for God they are well assured can demand no such account at their hand Or rather whereas the Devill striving to derive upon himself the honour of God by suggesting unto man the Worship of the Creatures which they are known to be incapable of and therfore redoundeth upon him that seduceth them to it is willing to allow those whom he seduceth the liberty to wallow themselves in uncleannesse and unrighteousnesse yea and to accept it at their hands for the Service of their false Gods because being enmity unto God it is indeed his service For it is to be acknowledged that the Gentiles though corrupted with the worship of Idols had in them light enough to discern the true God and his Providence over all thâ—ngs and the account which he will take in another World of all things as S. Paul Rom. I. 18. 13. at large chargeth And Tertullian in his Book de Testimonio animae evidently maintaineth by the Sayings which he produceth frequented in the mouthes of the Gentiles But it is withall to be maintained that being thus bribed by the Devill with license to sin and willing to perswade themselves that they were in the right they whelmed it under the bushell of their Concupiscences perswading themselves that they were righteous enough whilst they served their imaginary Deities Be it therefore resolved that all Idolatry when it is formed for I speak not of the degrees by which mankind might be seduced to it necessarily includeth and presupposeth a conceit of more Gods then one which being once admitted there can no reason be given why not numberlesse as well as more then one To all this I see but one Objection made though from many Texts of Scripture for all comes to this inference That it is Idolatry to worship the only true God in or under an Image representing him to mans remembrance and therefore that the nature of Idolatry requireth not the imagination of more Gods then one This is first argued from the first Idolatry of the Israelites after the Law in making the golden Calf and worshiping it For the people having said when they saw it These are thy Gods or this is thy God O Israel that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt Aaron addeth To morrow is a Feast to the Lord Exod. XXXII 4. 5. using that name of God which the Scripture never attributeth to any but the true God Whereby it seemeth that Aaron and the people intended to represent the true God that had brought them out of the Land of Aegypt by this Image and to worship him under the same And Jeroboam when he set up his calves proclaimed in the same termes Behold thy Gods or behold thy God understanding the words to be said severally at Bethel and at Dan O Israell which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt And indeed there are so many circumstances seeming to argue that Jeroboam intended not to call a way the people from the worship of the true God that Abenezra the Jewe upon Exodus XXXII and Moncaus a Wallon Gentleman of late years in a book on purpose called Aaron purgatus seconded very lately by Gaffarell in his Curiosities translated since into English alleging a Persian author whom Grotins also seemeth to follow in his Anno-Annotations upon Exod. XXXII have made it their businesse to prove that neither he nor Aaron before him intended any other then to worship God before the representation of one of the Cherubims which he had commanded to be made to overshadow the ark of the Covenant For
it could be the same crime in them to worship the true God under an image as in the Gentiles to worship the elements of the world dead men imaginations in effect the Devile under the like image They made a calfe in Horeb and worshiped the molten image Thus they turned their glory into the similitude of a Calfe that eateth hay saith David Psalme CVI. 19. 20 of this act of the Isralites They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts and creeping things saith S. Paul Rom. I. 23. of the Gentiles who as I have showed did truly intend to worship those creatures for Gods And therefore must conclude that whatsoever Aaron might pretend to represent to the Israelits by this Calfe that they intended to worship for God And when the Israelites joined themselves to Baal Peor and ate the offerings of the dead Psal CVI. 23 Num. XXV 3-8 and Moses commandeth to hang up the Princes and the Judges to slay every one his man that were joyned to Baal Peor Phineas out of his zeale to God executeth his command not out of a private inspiration whereof nothing could appeare as hath fondly and perniciously been imagined and killeth a Prince among the Israelites But when Moses comming downe from the mount saw the calfe made he caused the Levites to revenge the fault by slaying three thousand of those that were guilty of it Ex. XXXII 25-30 And is it possible for any man to believe that the same punishment is assigned by God to the offering of sacrifices to a dead man as to the offering of it to the living God under or before an image Not that I intend to say this of Aaron or what his intention might be in complying with them and avoiding their mutiny without ever imbracing in his heart that idolatry to which he pretended to conâ—urre with them nor will I much contend with him that shall say he chose that figure which might represent something concurring to that worship of God which himselfe had commanded but the act of them that mutinousely constrained him to make them a God to goe before them I can by no meanes distinguish from the idolatries of Egypt which it was but late that they had forsaken As for Jeroboam it is most truly alleged that nothing obliged him to demand of the Isralites to worship any false God or to require of them more then Aaron had done upon their motion concurring himselfe to their Idolatry But then I must say also that by setting up his calves and constraining the people to resort to them for that worship which the Law obliged them to tender to God he certainely knewe that he must needs occasion the greatest part of the people to worship an other God besides the true God howsoever some of them might do that which Aaron had done in concurring with the rest of their people And perhaps the truth is that Jeroboam for this reason made choice of the same image wherein Aaron had offended afore But otherwise the appearance of the Idolatry of the gentiles in the act of Jeroboam that is in the service tendred his calves is evident in the scripture Otherwise how should the prophet Ahiah charge him that he had set up other Gods and molten images and groves 2. Kings XIV 9 15 16. as by Jeroboams owne fin And Baasha that walked in the way of Jeroboam 2. Kings XV. 24. as did also Omri after him 1 Kings XVI 26. are said to have provoked the Lord God of Israell to anger with their vanities 1. Kings XVI 13. 26. And Abia reproches Jeroboam 1 Chron. XIII 9. and his party that they had made them Pristes after the manner of the nations and other lands so that whosoever cometh to fill his hand with a bullock and seven Rames may be a Priest of no Gods For what are vanities or no gods but imaginary deities as Saint Paul saith that he preached to the Gentiles to turn from those vanities unto the living God Acts XIV 15. And the Prophet Jonas in his prayer II. 8. they that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in David Psal XXXII 7. Lying vanities is the same that S. Pauls ly when he saith the Gentiles changed the truth of God into a ly in worshipping the creature besides the creator God blessed for evermore Rom. I. 25. So also Deut. XXXII 22. 2 Kings XVII 15. Jeremy II. 5. VIII 19. X. 15. XIV 22. And why should the Prophet Osee object VIII 6. The workman made it therefore it is not God but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces Had not the calfe been taken for God And againe Os XIII 2. They say of them let the men that sacrifice kisse the calves For that this kissing was a signe of worshipping that which was taken to be God you have from Job XXXI 26 27. If I beheld the Sunne when it shined or the Moone walking in her height and my heart hath been seduced and my mouth hath kissed my hand The Sunne and the Moone being at a distance because they whose hearts were seduced to think them gods could not kisse them they kissed their hands to them in signe that they honoured them for gods Therefore they that kissed the calves whom they might come nigh did it in signe that they honoured them for gods As the answer of God to Elias saith I have reserved my self seven thousand men all the knees that have not bowed unto Baal all the mouthes that have not kissed him 1 Kings XIX 18. And therefore it seemeth very probable that these calves are also called Baalim by the said Prophet when he saith Osee XIII 1 2. When Ephraim offended in Baal he died And now they sin more and more and have made them molten images of their silver and Idols according to their own understanding all of it the work of craftsmen They say of them let the men that sacrifice kisse the calves The author of Tobit is for his antiquity more to be credited in the understanding of the Scriptures then all the conjectures we can make at this distance of time And he saith that the ten tribes went up to offer sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tobit I. 5. to the heifer Baal Whereupon it is thought that S. Paul also when he quoteth the answer of God to Elias 1 Kings XIX 18. I have reserved my self seven thousand men that have not bowed the knee to Baal in the feminine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. XI 4. referreth to the feminine substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if these calves were of the nature of Baalim it cannot be denied that they signified imaginary godheads such as the Baalim were Wherefore when it is objected in the first place that Aaron proclaimed a feast to the Lord by the name of the true God and that both he and Jeroboam said This is the
spirit of Christ hee is none of Christs So hee had premised Rom. V. 1-5 Being justified by Faith wee have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ together with the joy of hope by the love of God poured out in our hearts through the Spirit of God which is in us The Kingdome of God consisting in righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. XIV 17. If it be here objected that the Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to bring a man to Christianity and therefore cannot suppose it Supposing this for the present but not granting it because it is in controversie and must be resolved by the grounds which wee seek It will be easie to distinguish between the grace of the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost For hee that is converted to believe the truth of Christianity may acknowledge it to be of Grace but must not presume of the gift of the Holy Ghost that it is bestowed on him for his own till his conversion be complete by undertaking the profession of Christianity If it be further alleged that Cornelius and his company received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized The answer is ready from that maxime of Law That every exception against a Rule establishes the Rule in cases not excepted Cornelius no Jew but converted from Idols to worship the true God under the promises which the Jewes expected with his company of the same Faith being in the state of Gods grace upon that account receives the Holy Ghost before Baptisme because God knew him ready to undertake the profession of Christianity so soon as it could appear to be commanded by God And this for the satisfaction of S. Peter and the Jewes in that secret which hereby begâ—n to be declared that the Gentiles as well as the Jewes belonged to the Church It is true the graces of the Holy Ghost are of two kindes For some of them are given for the benefit and salvation of those in whom they are Some for the benefit and edification of the Church And it is true that both kindes are meant and expressed by these Scriptures But it is no lesse true that neither of them is to be had but supposing the truth of Christianity and of the Scriptures For the first kinde is granted to none but those that imbrace Christianity with a sincere intention of living according to that which they professe Being indeed the help that God by his Gospel promises and allowes them to go thorough with that high and difficult profession which they undertake Wee see the Apostles forsake their Lord and make a doubt of his resurrection before the coming of the Holy Ghost Whom having received they are ready to professe Christ in the midst of utmost dangers And S. John as hee giveth the reason why the righteous sin not because their â—eed abideth in them that is the word of the Gospel by which they were ingendred anew to be Christians 1 John III. 9. So hee giveth the reason why they were not to be seduced by the Heresies of that time because the unction which they had received from the Holy One taught them to know all things 1 John II. 20 27. Thus the Unction of the Spirit supposes the seed of the Word and the seed of the Word inferres the Unction of the Spirit And as when the Word of God came to the Prophets they were withall possessed by Gods Spirit moving them to deliver it to the people So when the word of Faith is established in the heart of a Christian as David saith the Spirit of God possesseth him with an inclination both to professe it and to live according to it As for the second kinde it is true they are granted to those that are not heires of Gods promises as it appeares by the instances of Saul surprised with the Spirit of Prophesie when hee intended the death of David 1 Sam. XIX 23 24. Of those that have prophesied and cast out Devils and done miracles in our Lords name to whom hee shall say I know you not Mat. VII 22 23. Of Caiaphas who prophesied of our Lords death when hee was compassing of it John XI 49 -52. And of Balaam in the last place as all know But as the former kinde supposeth true Christianity in him that hath it so doth this correspondently suppose the profession of it as under the old Law the profession of the true God The tryal of a Prophet under the Law was not the doing of a miracle alone If hee seduced from God in stead of taking him for Gods messenger they were to put him to death Deut. XIII 1-5 So the tryal was the doing of a miracle under the profession of the true God Under the Gospel No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus anathema nor can any man call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. XII 3. Supposing that a man speaketh such things as must come either from Gods Spirit or from evil Spirits the tryal is whether hee professe Christ or not And 1 John IV. 2 3. Every Spirit that confesseth Jesus come in the flesh to be Christ is of God And every Spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ that is come in the flesh is not of God Every Spirit that is every inspiration which a man of himself cannot have God will not have his people so tempted that under the profession of the true Religion the Devils instruments should have power to work miracles to seduce them from it Upon these terms prophesied Saul under the Law and upon the same terms prophesied those under the Gospel whom our Lord will not own having done miracles in his name As for Caiaphas it doth not appear that hee spoke those words whereby S. John saith hee prophened of our Lords death by revelation or inspiration from God For the reason is given why hee prophened because hee was High Priest that year Now when the High Priests declared Gods orders to his ancient people there is no appearance that they were inspired by revelation with that which they declared But that putting on the Pontifical robes Gods will appeared by the brest-plate of Urim and Tummim though now wee know not how Accordingly to were Caiaphas his words ordered this gift being ceased many ages afore as to containe a Prophesie of our Lords death by Gods intent but without his But Balaams case is farre otherwise Arnobius advers Gent. I. tells us that Magicians in their operations met with contrary Gods whom hee calls Antitheos that would not suffer them to proceed Balaam met with the true God and knew him to be so and all his Inchantments controlable by him and yet sacrifices to false Gods that by their help hee might curse Gods people In this case Balaam though commanded as a subject is not as a friend inspired by God when God forces him to speak what hee would not If any man then resolve the credit of the Scripture into the
therefore that Christians do believe for the same reasons for the which Infidels ought to believe I shall yield that it is onely the credit of Gods ancient people and of Christs Church that maâ—â—â— evidence that those miracles were truly done which I affirm to be the onely motive to believe being done at such distance of time and place from us But let not those that would learn mistake what is meant by the name of the Church For if you suppose the Church to be a Society of men whereof some by Gods appointment have power to oblige the whole then will the credit of the Scripture be resolved into the authority of the Church if the truth of those miracles on which alone the credit thereof is said to depend be grounded upon such a witnesse of the Church But my meaning is to suppose no more by the name of the Church in this place but the whole number of believers from Christ to the worlds end And so to say that there is no other reason why wee believe that such men as Moses and the Prophets as our Lord and his Apostles did such works as the Scriptures report to evidence that they came from God but the consent of all Christians that have imbraced the Gospel upon that motive Neither shall the Gospel hereby depend more upon the witnesse of man which may fail than it depends upon the witnesse of him who upon seeing what was done by our Lord and his Apostles should be moved to imbrace the Faith For though they had not taken effect with him but for the report of his eyes yet did not the force of them depend upon it Hee that considers shall finde that the consent of all believers in the whole motive of Faith more than supplies the use of our eyes in showing us sufficient reason to believe There is a distance of place as well as of time And God forbid wee should say those that never saw our Lord and his Apostles do the works for which wee believe had not sufficient reason to believe Their ears supplyed to them the use of their eyes inasmuch as experience and common sense shows that those things wherein the world agrees are no lesse certain and evident though morally than those which wee see with our eies Hee that should not traffick into the East or West-Indies or travail to Rome or Constantinople before hee had seen them must resolve not to see them The reason is because the world can have no common interest to deceive or to be deceived Much lesse could the Law of Moses least of all the Gospel of Christ have found credit the one imposing such an endlesse morosity of precepts to observe the other the Crosse of Christ had it not been originally manifest that such things were done to evidence that and this By which it appears that this reason supposes no authority in the Church founded upon the Gospel as a Society communicating in it because it supposes the same in the people of the Jewes as in the Church The authority of the Church standing upon the Gospel that which was over the Jewes on the Law whereof the one was to be removed when the other took place The reason because it referreth nothing to the Church but that intelligency which the community of mankinde furnish one another with for assurance in those things whereof all cannot be eye-witnesses by the consent of all which common reason makes to be as good evidence as our own senses And now it will not be difficult to say how the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves For inasmuch as the motives of believing are things recorded in Scripture it will be necessary to grant that the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves which are to be believed for those things which the Scriptures report But if wee be further demanded for what reason those motives which if true are sufficient to oblige all men to believe are taken to be true Hee that saies because they are recorded in the Scriptures grants that there is no reason to believe the Scriptures granting that there is no reason to believe the motives of faith but the report of those Scriptures the belief whereof supposes the truth of those motives But if wee impute the belief of that truth to the common sense of all who upon the supposition of them have submitted to Christianity and hold it wee have the whole truth of the Scripture evidenced upon such a ground as shall serve to inforce a resolution of whatsoever is questionable in Christianity upon it Whereas they who make the authority of the Church or the dictate of the Holy Ghost the reason of believing must either stand still when they are demanded the reason or give it by supposing Christianity and the Scriptures the truth whereof they pretend to prove by it which is the Circle that I spoke of afore admitting neither principle nor conclusion of discourse To confirm that which hath been said let me demand how the Writings of Homer or Virgil of Aristotle or Plato of Tully or Demosthenes of Hippocrates or Galen come to be admitted without any question for their Writings after some two thousand years more or lesse Is it not because ever since they were penned there have been those that have studied them for paterns of good Language and Oratory for the lest authors in Philosophy and Physick Because by them and through their hands they have been transmitted from age to age Is not their credit by this means so unquestionable that a man would be laught at that should ask other reason for it And yet what is this in comparison of that which is to be said for the Scriptures That all nations having starred aside to worship many Gods one people of the Jewes took upon them the worship of the onely true God according to the Lawes recorded in the books of Moses and that of so ancient time That being planted in the land of Canaan God stirred them up Prophets from age to age to keep them close to the service of their God That howsoever they kept them they alwaies professed to be under those Lawes as Gods That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles by commission from him in due time preached both Jewes and Gentiles to be rebels against God And that neither the Law of nature nor of Moses was able to free them from sin Tendering in Gods name the terms upon which all may be reconciled to God and evidencing their Commission by the works which they did in Gods name That all parts of the civil world being by that means convicted of the truth hereof undertook to professe Christianity notwithstanding the persecutions to which it was lyable and do continue in it till this time Is not this infallible evidence that wee have the very Writings of Moses and of the Prophets and Apostles and that they who left them us were sent by God seeing them admitted for Lawes to mens lives and conversations which
that was risen again it followes Then opened hee their mindes to understand the Scriptures which were onely then those of the Old Testament Surely Justine the Martyr in many places of his dispute with Typho the Jew as truly as manifestly professes that the understanding of Christianity in the Old Testament was a grace given to the Disciples of Christ among the rest of distributions of his Spirit upon his ascension into heaven shed forth upon the Church Eph. IV. 8 which being showed the Jews their eyes were darkened as their hearts hardened that they could not understand the truth in them Now it is not my purpose to say that thereby hee challenges to himself the same miraculous grace of the Spirit and that the Prophesies that concern Christ are by that grace interpreted by him in his writings and therefore as truly as those in the writings of the Apostles It is enough that the true meaning of the Scriptures in that behalf was first revealed to the Disciples of Christ by the immediate and extraordinary operation of Gods Spirit Though Christians building on that which they received from persons so inspired may have added many things inconsequent to those principles Now I suppose it is manifest to all mens reason that those things are not clear in the Scriptures to all understandings that could not be discerned in it without a miraculous operation of Gods Spirit But nothing can be more manifâ—st than those particulars of the Law which our Lord and his Apostles in the New Testament have by way of allegory expounded to be meant of his Person and Gospel and Kingdome That the first Adam was to be the figure of the second though to a contrary effect of life by Christ in stead of death by Adam and that hee took our flesh to be the Lord of all things in it as to the effect of the Gospel which the first Adam was made as to the dominion of the creature is clearly declared by the Apostles Rom. V. 12-14 1 Cor. XV. 45-49 Ebr. II. 6-15 That Noe and what befell the world hy the deluge under him was the figure of what befalls the Church under Christ by Baptisme is no lesse manifestly the doctrine of the Apostle 1 Pet. III. 20 21 22. And not onely this particular but all the rest that befell the Fathers and Prophets and Martyrs under the Old Testament is evidently made a figure of what befalls the Disciples of Christ under the Gospel Ebr. XI As it is also evident that the pilgrimages of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob and of their posterity the Israelites from Aegypt through the Wildernesse into the land of Promise is there declared and of all Christians received for the figure of that Journey which all professe to travail from sinne wherein it findeth them to the Kingdome of heaven and happinesse How else should the argument hold which the Apostles draw from that which befell the Children of Israel travailing through the Wildernesse to the land of Canaan to the duty of Christians in their Journey toward everlasting happinesse 1 Cor. X. 1-11 Ebr. III. 7 -IV 11. But after their coming into the land of Promise as the persecutions which the Prophets indured Ebr. XI 36 37 38. Mat. XXIII 34 evidence them to be the figures of Christs Crosse as the expiation made by all High Priests is evidently expounded by the Apostle to the Ebrewes to shadow the taking away of sinne by Christ So it is no lesse evident that all the Judges and Kings and High Priests and Prophets of Gods people anointed by God were figures of our Lord both in regard of his Church and the enemies of it than it is evident that our Lord Jesus is the Christ foretold by the Prophets Which things unlesse wee say as no man in his right senses will say that they are manifest to all that reade the Old Testament though they never heard of Christianity or the New wee cannot imagine that the substance of Christianity necessary to the salvation of all Christians is clear to all understandings in the Old Testament No lesse clear is it by the sayings and doings of our Lord recorded in the Gospels that it was not his intent freely and openly at least all waies and every where to declare the truth and substance of it by the said sayings and doings Manifest indeed it is that hee did publickly and freely declare himself to be that Christ whom the Prophets had foretold and the Nation expected and of this no doubt can be made by any man that with common reason examines all that is written in the Gospels Though not all times so free in declaring even this truth As it is evident by the words of the Jewes to him John X. 24. How long holdest thou our mindes in suspense If thou be the Christ freely tell us it And wee see Mat. XII 14 20. what difference of opinions there were about it in his life time forbidding his Disciples to declare it till his death But granting this to be manifest by the Gospels neither is it manifest by them that nothing else is requisite to salvation to be believed concerning his Person and Kingdome nor that thereby hee intended to make manifest what hee knew requisite to be believed of them that should imbrace it when it was become requisite This is enough to answer the Leviathan with pretending that it is not necessary to the salvarion of a Christian to believe any more than this that our Lord Jesus is the Christ Which if it could appear by the Gospels alone then would I not dispute any further that all the truth that is necessary to salvation is clearly delivered by the Gospels I do for my part believe that the substance of Christianity necessary to salvation is contained in the badge and cognisance which our Lord hath marked it with by his Commission to his Apostles Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Go make all nations Disciples baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you But shall I say it is clearly contained in these words about the intent and effect whereof there hath been and is so much dispute The Church it is well enough known hath alwaies rejected those that acknowledge not the Holy Trinity Father Sonne and Holy Ghost subsisting in one and the same Godhead At this day Socinus and his followers will have us believe onely that wee are to professe whether wee be baptized or not that our Lord Jesus is a man that was born of a Virgin by the power of God which is the Holy Ghost And for undertaking or for doing Gods message tendring reconcilement with God to mankinde hath by Gods gift the same power with God to govern his Kingdome and is to be honored as God for it Whether or no they would have us to believe this sense of theirs positively or would not be tyed to believe positively the sense of the
God delivered to the Church by the Apostles commanding them so to live For that which was as difficult as impossible to have been introduced without conviction of the will of God as the rest of Christianity of necessity must go for a part of it But that in such variety of mens fannies reasons and inclinations the Church consisting from the beginning of all Nations and dispersed all over the world should of their own inclination not swayed by any information of Gods will received with Christianity agree in the same Lawes and Rulers submitting to the exercise of the same Power upon themselves is as impossible as that the world should consist of the casual concurse of atomes according to Democritus and Epicurus The name of the Church without peradventure was first used to signifie the whole body of Gods people in the Wildernesse when they might be and were called together and assembled upon their common occasions which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies After which time the people continuing still one and the same by virtue of the same Lawes then received and the Powers placed in their Ruler Not onely the whole people but such parts of it as resorted to the same Government have still born and do bear the same name The Synagogue of Libertines Cyrenaeans Alexandrians Cilicians and Asians by example Acts VI. 9. which name first belongs to the respective Bodies of Jewes that subsisted at Rome Cyrene or Alexandria in Cilicia or Asia And consequently by Metonymy to the Places where such of those Bodies as chanced to be at Jerusalem might assemble themselves And to so many of those Bodies as being at Jerusalem did assemble at those Places Now no Christian can doubt that the Body of Christians succeeds in the stead of Gods ancient people And therefore the name of Gods Church when it stands without limitation signifies no lesse As when our Lord saith Mat. XVI 18. Vpon this rock will I found my Church Whatsoever the Disciples then conceived the Church should be our Lord that knew all by the name of it meant all that duly beares the name And therefore when hee saith once again Mat. XVIII 17. Tell it to the Church It is strange there should be Christians that should think hee means the Jewes and their Rulers And that the precept concernes Christians no longer now they have left the Jewes Though it is true a man cannot tell his cause to the whole Church but to that part of it to which hee can resort which is called by the name of the Whole as I said even now of the Synagogue S. Paul to the Colossians II. 24 25. calling the Church the Body of Christ saith That hee by the dispensation of God towards them which hee is trusted with is become the minister of the Church to wit as Angels are ministers of the Church because ministers of God towards it And therefore minister of the whole Church which is the Body of Christ not of any particular Church as if an Apostle could be bound to execute his office according to the discretion of any Church which for Gods cause hee attends As all Ministers are bound to execute their Office according to the will of them whose Ministers they are It is therefore the whole Church in which God hath set Apostles Evangelists Prophets and the use of the Graces rehearsed 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 11. Because the Office of these Graces can by no means be confined either to any particular Church or to any part of the whole Church The name of the Church signifies the same thing again Eph. I. 22. III. 21. V. 23-32 While all Christendome was contained in the Church at Jerusalem the name of the Church is so used Acts II. 47. V. 11. VIII 1 3. that it is no mater whether wee understand by it the whole Church or the Church of Jerusalem The reason Because all right and power that can at any time be found vested in the whole Church was then as fully in the Church at Jerusalem as it can be at any time in the whole Church though in respect of a Body never so much greater than it As a childe is as much a man the day of his birth as the day of his death and a tree as much as a tree when it growes one as when it is come to the height But Christianity being propagated among Jewes and Gentiles as wee reade of the Churches of Judaea Samaria and Galilee Acts IX 31. and must needs understand the Epistles to the Ebrewes to have been written to Churches consisting onely of Ebrewes as those of S. Peter and that of S. James which mentions the Elders of the Church James V. 14. So the Churches of the Gentiles in S. Paul Rom. XVI 4. wee easily understand to be the Churches of Asia 1 Cor. XVI 9. Apoc. I. 11. the Churches of Galâ—â—ia 1 Cor. XVI 1. the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. VIII 1. and the rest that were visible in S. Paâ—ls time Now suppose for the present that these Churches mentioned by the Apostles were no more than so many Congregations as our Independents would have it Seeing they deny not so many Churches to be so many Bodies what reason can they give why the name of the Church when it stands for the whole Church should not signifie the like There is a prerogative attributed to the whole Church by S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 25. when hee calls it the base and pillar of Truth For that this should be said of any particular Church it were too ridiculous to imagine Can the Church bear this attribute if it be not capable of doing any act that may verifie it And if it be not a Body what act can it do In fine the correspondence between Gods ancient people and his new Israel according to his Spirit seems to require That as the Religion of the Jewes and not any Civil Power of the Nation makes them all one Body at this day in point of fact by sufferance of Soveraignes because they were once so in point of right So the Religion of Christians should make them one Body in point of right how many Bodies soever they are burst into in point of fact by their own wantonnesse For the Independents exception which I spoke of can be of no force unlesse they will make it appear that all those Churches that are mentioned in the writings of the Apostles did assemble in one place Not that if this could be made to appear they had done their businesse But because if it do not appear their plea is peremptorily barred Wee reade then of M M M soules added in one day to CXX of the Church at Jerusalem Acts I. 15. II. 41. To these were added or with these they became VM Acts IV. 4. To whom were added multitudes of men and women Acts II. 47. V. 14. These assembled daily in private to serve God as Christians as well as in
them hee is fain to argue very hard that their women ought their men ought not to be vailed at divine Service Concluding that if his reasons would not prevail the contentious must rest in this That wee have no such custome neither the Churches of God Why so if particular Churches be not tied to keep unity with the whole And by and by proposing another disorder in that they received not the Eucharist in commune poore and rich hee reproveth it as contrary to that which hee had delivered to them from the beginning Concluding that The rest will I set in order when I come So 2 Thess II. 25. Stand therefore brethren and hold fast the Traditions which yee have been taught either by word of mouth or by any letter of ours Neither can it be imagined that all Christians should be bound to heare the Apostles and not be bound to hold those things for Lawes to their conversation in maters of Religion which the Apostles should teach them to that purpose Of this nature is the decree at Jerusalem Acts XV. 20 28. that the then Churches of the Gentiles should abstain from things strangled and bloud as well as from fornication and the pollution of Idols For what is the ground or the purpose of it but to preserve them in unity with the Churches of Jews become Christians Of this nature is that blessing or Thanksgiving mentioned by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 16 17. 1 Tim. II. 1. being as I have showed in a Discourse of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church pag. 350-370 a form of Prayer or Thanksgiving delivered in substance by the Apostles for which the Sacrament of our Lords Supper hath been alwaies called the Eucharist because it is to be celebrated with it Of the same nature is tha order which S. James gives of praying for the sick anointing them with oile aswell for the forgivenesse of their sins as for the recovery of their bodily health James V. 14 15. Which I suppose no man will deny that it concernes all Churches alike If there be this evidence in the Scriptures for the beginnings of Church Law the practice of the Church from this beginning will afford much more Hee that would deny the Tradition of the Rule of Faith what will hee say to the Creed of the Apostles Not that I would have the words and syllables of it to containe whatsoever it is necessary for the salvation of a Christian to believe But because the Creed is not the words of the Creed but the sense and meaning of them together with that coherence and dependence of the parts thereof one upon and with another which the reasons and grounds of them inforce But first let it be understood that I make a difference between the Rule of Faith and the substance of Christianity Supposing Christianity to consist partly in mater of Faith partly in mater of maners Partly in things to be believed partly in things to be done though the Creed extend onely to mater of Faith There is nothing more evident in the practice of the whole Church before the world had admitted the profession of Christianity than this That there was a time allowed and required by the Church for those that professed themselves converted to believe the truth of Christianity to give trial of their conversation before they were admitted to Baptisme The Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 32. name three years but with this limitation that if any man demonstrate extraordinary zele to Christianity hee be received without so long trial Therefore if Clemens Alexandrinus require five it makes no difference For what marvail if several Churches at several times had several customes when as upon extraordinary occasions they were dispensable The Constitutions require extraordinary trial of those that had practised any sort of Magick judging by the experience of the times that it was hard to part with such superstitions It is enough for my purpose that during this time they might learn to behave themselves as Christians by conversing among Christians by coming to Church and bearing a part in the praises of God and hearing the Scriptures read and expounded And what is more notorious in the practice of the ancient Church than the difference between Missa Catechumenorum and Missa Fidelium Between that part of the Office of the Church which Pretenders to Christianity were admitted to or Hearers that is Scholars and Learners of it and that which was peculiar to Believers that is those that were Baptized and made Christians It is the designe of Clemens Alexandrinus his Paedagogus to show how the Word whether our Lord Christ or his Gospel is the Pedagogue of mankinde in bringing them to be Christians Not as wee mistake that word to signifie the Master of a School but as the fashion was then for men of quality to appoint a sonne a Governor to conduct him to School and home againe to attend on him at his exercises and upon all occasions to put him in minde how it might become him to behave himself and to report to his Father if hee proved untractable Thus hee maketh Pretenders to Christianity to be conducted by our Lord Christ and his Gospel in the conversation of Christians till they come to demand their Baptisme of the Church As it is manifest by the end of the Book where this Governor conducting his charge to the Church gives him up into his own hands so hee saith expresly as no more Governor of children but Master of men in the School of his Church Supposing then the point of maners and godly life to be part of the substance of Christianity it is evident that the Church alwaies acknowledged a certain Rule of Faith in that those who were thus prepared were alwaies taught their Creed that is required to repete it and heare it expounded by those whom the Church trusted for that purpose It is not my intent here to insist that the words of the Creed were delivered by the Apostles themselves or that the Rule of Baptisme delivered by our Lord in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is not a sufficient Symbole or cognizance for a Christian For what is there necessary to the salvation of all Christians that is not contained in the profession of him that desires to be baptized into this Faith But it is enough for my present purpose that it was alwaies requisite that whosoever is baptized should be instructed upon what termes hee is to expect to be saved by Christ and that which all were required to professe for that purpose to be the Rule of Faith For whether it may appeare that this or that is of that nature must come to trial though the question be only of the sense of the Creed supposing that the very words were delivered by the Apostles themselves For example It is not possible to render a reason of the coming of Christ not mentioning the fall of Adam nor of that not
because all agreed that they transgressed therefore they were excluded the Church But Vincentius besides this advanceth another mark to discern what belongs to the Rule that is what the ground and scope of our Creed requires For it might be said that perhaps something may come in question whether consistent with the Rule of Faith or not in which there hath passed no decree of the primitive Church because never questioned by that time Wherein therefore wee shall be to seek notwithstanding the decrees past by the Church upon ancient Heresies Which to meet with Vincentius saith further that whatsoever hath been unanimously taught in the Church by writing that is alwaies by all every where to that no contradiction is ever to be admitted in the Church Here the stile changes For whereas Irenaeus Tertullian and others of former time appeal onely to that which was visible in the practice of all Churches By the time of the Council at Ephesus the dare of Vincentius his book so much had been written upon all points of Faith and upon the Scriptures that hee presumeth evidence may be made of it all what may stand with that which the whole Church had taught what may not I know this proposition satisfieth not now because I know Vincentius proceedeth upon supposition that the Church was and ought to be alwaies one Body in which that which agreeth with the Faith might be taught that which agreeth not might not Which is the question now in dispute For upon other termes it had been madnesse in him to allege and maintain the Council of Ephesus condemning Nestorius as infringing the Rule of Faith upon this presumption because ten received Doctors of the Church had formerly delivered the contrary of his doctrine It is well enough known that there are many questions in which though there may be ten Fathers alleged on one side yet there may be more alleged on the other side And it were a piteous case if Vincentius or I could tell you no wiser a way for the ending of Controversies in Religion than by counting noses The presumption lies in this That the witnesles that depose being of such credit in the Church as the quality which they beare in it presupposeth it cannot reasonably be imagined that they could teach that for truth which is inconsistent with Christianity but they must be contradicted in it and their quality and degree in the Church questioned upon it And that the Church having been alwaies one and the same Body from Christ whosoever should undertake to teach that for the Christian Faith which from the beginning had been counted false hee would have been questioned for contradicting that profession which qualified him for that rank which hee held in the Church It is the case of Nestorius who venting his Heresie in the Church gave the people occasion to check at it and the Council of Ephesus to condemn it Now Vincentius his discourse presupposeth that the doctrine of those ten whom hee allegeth had not been contradicted A thing which must needs be presupposed by him that supposed the Great Council of Nicaea had decreed no more than that which had alwaies been taught in the Church For it is plain that without questioning the Faith setled at Nicaea there is no room for the opinion of Nestorius But otherwise should ten of that quality which hee allegeth be so considerably contradicted that it must be presumed their doctrine was suffered to passe not as not taken notice of but as not contradicting the common profession of Christians it will appear a presumption that neither part is of the substance of Faith but both allowed to be taught in the Church And if it appear further that the fewer in number and the lesse in rank and quality in the Church hold that which dependeth more necessarily upon the Rule of Faith which containeth the substance of the Scriptures it will be no way prejudicial to the Unity and authority of the Church as a Corporation founded by God that a private man as I am should conclude it for truth against the greater authority in maters depending upon the foundation of the Church If it be said that this evidence supposeth the necessity of Baptisme to the making of a Christian Which not onely the Leviathaâ— is farr from granting who professeth himself bound to renounce Christ at the command of his Soveraign But the Socinians also and some of our Sectaries hold indifferent to salvation whether baptized or not I answer That the question here is not what belongs or belongs not to the Rule of Faith and Christian conversation necessary to the salvation of all Christians but whether there be any such Rule or not That the original and universal custome of Carechizing all Christians evidenceth such a Rule by the consent of all Christians as you have seen it evidenced by the frequent mention thereof in Scriptures That therefore it stands recommended to us by the same means and upon the same grounds for which wee receive the holy Scriptures And that though when the World was come into the Church and many more were baptized infants then afore it cannot be said that this order of Catechizing was so substantially performed as afore Yet the mater and theme of it remaining in the Tradition of the Creed and the sense of it in the writings of the Fathers and the decrees of the Church against Hereticks it remains still visible what belongs to it what not as I shall make appear in that which is questioned within the subject of this book Onely this is the place where I am to allege against the Leviathan why the profession of Christianity is necessary to the salvation of all Christians Whereupon it will follow without further proof that it is necessary to salvation to believe more than that Jesus is the Christ To wit whatsoever this Rule of Christianity containeth the profession whereof is requisite to Christianity Heare our Lord Mat. X. 32 33. Luke XII 8 9. Whosoever shall renounce mee before men him will I renounce before my Father which is in heaven And whosoever shall acknowledge mee before men him will I acknowledge before my Father which is in heaven And S. Paul Rom. X. 9 10. If thou confesse with thy mouth that Jesus is the Lard and believe with thy heaâ—t that God raised him from the dead that shalt be saved For with the heart a man believes to righteousnesse and with the mouth hee professeth to salvation And a Tim. II. 12. If wee deny him hee will deny us Our Lords Commission to his Apostles is Mat. XXVIII 19. Go make disciples all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Who are then Christs Disciples That wee may know what the Apostles are to make them whom they make Christs Disciples Yâ—e are my Disciples saith our Lord if yee do whatsoever I command you And John XV. 8. Herein is my Father glorified that yee heart 〈◊〉 fruit
governed by their own Nation shall wee imagine that this power was trusted with the High Priests because God had made them Soveraignes by the Law Or because after the King whom in that estate they could not have the High Priest was regularly the second person in the Kingdom For what a ridiculous thing is it to imagine that because Josue and the people to goe in and out at the word of the Lord by Eleazar the High Priest therefore the High Priest was alwaies Soveraigne Was it any more for Josue to be ruled by Elâ—azar the High Priest and his answer by Urim and Tummim not by going into the Sanctum Sanctorum than for Saul or David to be directed by the answer of the High Priest in those dayes when as our Author saith the right of the High Priest was by Gods permission though against Law seized in the Kings hands As for the Judges they that reade In those dayes there was no King in Israel every man did what was right in his own eyes with their eyes in their head do thereby understand that though the stories of the Idol in Dan and of Gibea are last in the book of Judges yet they are first in order of time before any Judge had succeded Josue the Judges having the same power for which Moses is called King in Israel Deut. XXXIV 5. For God being their King by the Covenant of the Law while hee raised up no Judge to be his Vicegerent in Moses stead hee governed theâ— by the Elders of the people to whom therefore Clemens and Eusebius and other Chronologers impute the time between Josue and Judges When this Government proved not of force to rule so stiff-necked a people and that God had raised up a Judge to refuse him was to refuse God who by manifest operations of his Spirit in him had declared him his Vicegerent Which is the plain reason why God pronounces that in refusing Samuel they had refused him and not Samuel For it is manifest that they might by the Law demand a King Deut. XVII 14 15. so ridiculous a thing it is to imagine that by demanding a King as other Nations had they rebelled against God who had made the High Priest their Soveraign For God expresseth their rebellion to consist in refusing Samuel whom hee had declared his Vicegerent who being once declared they were no more free do demand a King by the Law till his death Neither doth a Royal Priesthood or a Kingdome of Priests signifie that the High Priests were their Kings But that they who came out of bondage should now make a Kingdom themselves to be governed by their own Nation and Lawes which Lawes should consist much in offering sacrifices to God And those sacrifices though for the future special persons were to be appointed to offer them yet in regard they were offered in the name and on the behalf of the people whose offerings they were the body thereof are justly called Priests As all Christians to whom S. Peter challengeth the effect of this promise are ftiled by him a Royal Priesthood and by S. John Kings and Priests though nothing hinder them to have their Priests whose functions cannot be intermedled with by those who are no Priests without sacrilege In fine the effect of these words is that of the Prophet Esay LXI 5 6. that when the people shall be restored the Gentiles shall be their laborers and Vine-dressers while they in the mean time attend upon keeping holiday by offering sacrifices and feasting upon the sacrifices which they had offered It will now be easie to maintain that the Church when our Lord saith tell it the Church is not nor can be understood but of the Congregation of Christians though at that time in common speech it signified no more than the Congregation of Gods people For supposing that our Lord Christ came to contract a New Covenant with those that received him whereby they became his people on other termes and to other purpose than the people whom hee had before That hee conditioned with them to leave all things and take up his Cross That hee appointeth those that imbrace this condition to be baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost I say this being supposed they that before were the Congregation of Gods people are no more the Congregation of his people upon the same termes not by the same right or title though the same persons The one being his people under a Covenant for the Land of Promise and the condition of living by Moses Lawes The other under the promise of life everlasting which the former were not excluded from though not expresly included in it upon condition of receiving the Christian Faith and continuing in it Suppose wee that when our Lord Christ commanded them to baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost his Disciples understood no more by all this than that those who should become Proselytes to this new and true Judaisme which our Lord preached should be initiated unto the same by Baptisme as Proselytes then by custome were unto the Law because wee see after the resurrection of our Lord how strange it was to them that the Gospel should be preached to the uncircumcised as such Suppoâ—e wee further that all the Nation of the Jewes whether in Jewry or wheresoever dispersed and none but Jewes had received the Gospel of Christ so as the ancient and New people of God to consist of all the same persons I say all this supposed shall make no maner of difference in the case But there shall be as much difference between the Old and New people of God considered as Societies and Bodies constituted and therefore distinguished by the several Covenants upon which they subsist as if they consisted of all several perâ—ons Should a man judge onely by his bodily eyes and see the people of Rome as it was when the Soveraign Power was in the people and again after it had been seized by Augustus I could not blame him to say that it was the same people But hee that should look upon that people with his understanding as a Civil Society State and Commonwealth and â—ay it was the same all men of understanding would laugh at him for it how much soever the interest of Augustus required that it should seem the same to grosse people Apply this instance to the case in hand and I shall need say no more Several things must either have several names or the same name in several notions or significations If our Lord took upon him to teach his Disciples the New Covenant hee came to introduce to make them the New people of God which hee came thereby to constitute such is the correspondence between the Old and the New the old Name served best to signifie the New thing But in the same sense it could not serve to represent to his hearers the several termes upon which Jewes and Christians are Gods people
States Kingdoms and Commonwealths that professe Christianity First because several States Kingdomes and Commonwealths are not apt to constitute one visible Body signified by the name of the Church absolutely put for the Body of all Chrâ—stiâ—â—s For it is most truly said by Plate that all States are naturally enemies to all States but especially those that are borderers And how should so many enemies be signified as constituting one Body Secondly and most evidently because many parts which belong to the unity of the whole Church and help to make up the whole are not now governed by Christian Powers any more than the whole was from the beginning In fine whether the Leviathan had reason so confidently to affirm that the Church can do no act I report my self to that which hath been said of the excluding of Hereticks and Schismaticks out of the Church Seeing it cannot be denied to be the act of the whole Body that is to say of those tha are able to act in behalf of the whole Body which the whole Body is ruled by and obeyes For whether wee have record extant of any Council at which they were condemned or whether they were condemned in that Church where they appeared In as much as upon information of the proceedings by daily intercourse and correspondence the rest of the Church sentenced the same as finding the Rule of Faith and the Unity of the Church so to do the excluding of them becomes the act of the whole Church For how else are so many Heresies and Schismes come to an end with their Fathers Nay I will boldly say that whosoever died excommunicate because being excluded by his own Church hee could not be admitted by another Church whosoever for fear of this either submitted to that which any Council ever decreed in mater of Faith or reconciled himself to his own Church that hee might not be disowned by the whole whatever instances hereof the records of the Church afford so many witnesses wee have of the acts which the whole Church either did or was able to do CHAP. XV. How the Power of the Church is founded upon the Law The Power of the Kingdome Priesthood Prophets and Rulers of that people all of divine right How farre these qualities and the powers of them are to continue in the Church The sense of the Fathers in this point That the acts of S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not of force by virtue of the Law What Ecclesiastical Power should have been among the Jewes in case they had received the Gospel and so the State had stood ANd now it will not be difficult to answer that though the Power of Excommunicating did not belong to the Synagogue by Gods Law but by humane constitution providing for the maintenance of Gods Law and that of secular Power yet is it of the Churches right by Gods Law distinguishing the Society thereof from the Commonwealth But this will not be effectually nor sufficiently done unlesse I make the discourse general and show how the reason holds in other points of that right upon which the Church is founded I say then that if it be true that S. Paul sayes Rom. III. 21. Now the righteousnesse of God and so his Gospel which proclaimeth that righteousnesse is manifested without the Law being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets then are wee not to think that either the Church or any part of that right upon which it subsisteth can stand by the Law or be derived from it otherwise than as Christianity it self which destroyeth the Law may be derived from it because as S. Paul sayes it is witnessed by it For the Law will not fail to yield us such arguments of those rights as the correspondence thereof with the Gospel that is to say of the Synagogue with the Church requireth Consider wee then that by the Law God became King of his people but under God Moses his Vicegerent With this provision for succession that hee whom God should raise up in Moses stead should be obeyed as Moses Deut. XVIII 15 Besides wee know there were XII Princes of the XII Tribes from Moses to David Num. I. 4-16 II III VII 1 Chron. XXVII 16. XXVIII 1. And under these Princes it seems the Tribes were divided into Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens the Captains whereof were made Judges under Moses during the march through the Wildernesse Exod. XVIII 21 Deut. I. 15. And it should seem that the people continued to be divided by these Thousands and Hundreds in the Land because wee finde that in Davids time the whole Land and not onely the Souldiery were divided so 1 Chron. XIII 1 2 5. where David advising with the Captains of Thousands and Hundreds is said to advise with the whole Assembly of the People But as for the office of Judges there is no question but another course is taken by the Law of Deut. XVI 18. when they should be planted in the Land For when order is taken that Courts be set up in their Cities it is intimated that they were to come in stead of those Captains which had the ministring of Justice in their hands in the Wilderness And whereas besides the assistance of these Captains Mâ—ses is allowed LXX more of the Elders of Israel upon whom his Spirit is departed to help him in bearing the burthen of that people Num. XI 15 16 17 Provision is made for succession by the Law of Deut. XVII 8-13 That there be alwaies a standing Court at the place where the Ark should rest to which the more difficult causes should resort from the Courts of inferior Cities there to be finally decided Which being to be the seat of Moses successors Judges or Kings it is not onely the constant Tradition of the Jews but of it self evident that this Court did exercise and was to exercise that Power which was first committed to them that were chosen for the assistance of Moses Though nothing oblige us to believe that while the seat of the Ark was either not declared or nâ—â— constantly used it was alwaies in force according to the intent of this Law Beside these Powers established by the Law for the Government of that People wee have the Priesthood tied by the Law to the Tribe of Levi with divers privileges or pety jurisdictions in that quality annexed to it For when God commandeth Aaron that hee and his sons drink no wine or strong drink when they come into the Tabernacle that they may distinguish between holy and common between clean and unclean and teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord had commanded them by Moses Levit. X. 8-11 it is manifest that by this Law the people is referred to them for resolution in the cases here intended though what the cases are that are hereby intended and what rule their resolution should be tied to nothing hinders by other Lawes to be declared and limited And those ancient Doctors of the Jewes seem to
have reason that observe the terms of the Law Deut. XXI 5. every cause and every plague shall be according to their mouth inferring that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wee may translate doctrines but must understand that which the Greek calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or decrees must come out of their mouth Siphri 243. Pesicta Zoterta fol. 91. col 4. and instanding in the causes to be purged by the ashes of the Red Cow Num. XIX not as if none could sprinkle those ashes but a Priest which is otherwise ruled by Num. XIX 17. to be any man that was clean but because they could not be burnt but by a Priest Num. XIX 3. which is by their Law any Priest Maimoni in that Title I. 11 12. and because part of them was set aside for Priests to purifie with as another part for other Israelites Maim III. 4. So in the causes concerning Wives questioned by their Husbands being jealous by the Law of Num. V. 15. the causes of murther for which an Heifer was to be killed by breaking her neck Deut. XXI 5. And in the plagues of men houses and clothes Deut. XXIV 8. none of which could be decided without a Priest In this regard it seems to mee the Prophet sayes The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge and they shall require the Law at his mouth for hee is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts Mal. II. 7. and in termes Deut. XXX 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They shall teach Jacob thy Judgments and Israel thy Lawes According to the other Law Deut. XVII 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the doctrines that they shall teach thee Another Power in that people is that of Prophets which seemeth to be founded upon the Law of Deut. XVIII 20 21 22. where having commanded that the Prophet which should succeed Moses be obeyed as Moses the Law proceedeth to charge them to put to death whosoever should prophesie in the name of strange Gods And then giving a rule whereby to discern between a true and a false Prophet seems to intimate the authority of Prophets Which was so very great in that people that the Kings themselves were to obey them so long as they had the reputation of true Prophets whereupon wee see how they reprove them Elias Ahab 1 Kings XVIII 17. Elisha the King of Israel 2 Kings VI. 33. John Baptist and our Lord Christ Herod Mat. XIV 4. Luc. XIII 32. though when their reputation could by faction be questioned â—o often were they questioned condemned and killed for the messages they brought in Gods name as the Apostle saith Heb. XI 37. and as it befell our Lord Christ Nay further that when they taught that any particular Law should cease for the time they were to be obeyed as Elias commanded to offer sacrifice in another place than at Jerusalem 1 Kings XVIII 17. contrary to the Law of Levit. XV. 2-9 the Temple being then on foot Whereby it appeareth that the Prophets had their authority immediately from God not depending so much as upon his Law further than as the acknowledgment of the authority of it to come from God was a necessary condition to the receiving of them for Prophets as I said asore Seeing the mater thereof might cease to oblige if they should declare the will of God to be such The Commonwealth then of Israel subsisting by divine right that is by the appointment of God giving them freedome and the command of themselves upon condition of undertaking the Law not onely the Kingdom which is the form of Government limited by the Soveraigne Power placed in one person whether by the permission of God or his appointment together with the Ministers thereof Judges and Magistrates and Officers but also the Priestly and Prophetical Office must be understood to stand by the same title As for the Church which wee have seen to be the spiritual Israel of God and maintain to be one visible body by virtue of undertaking the Covenant of Grace which the Gospel tendreth It is manifest that the King thereof is the Lord Christ who professeth not to govern it by his bodily presence but by the Law of his Word and by the invisible presence of his Spirit which was to commence upon his departure That being here hee appointed XII Apostles as Patriarchs thereof under him as the XII Princes of the Tribes were under Moses and LXX Disciples or Apostles of an inferior rank under himself also as they under Moses But for the dispatch of such businesse concerning his Kingdom as that which neither the Captains of Thousands and Hundreds who were ordained Judges before the LXX were ordained to assist Moses neither after them the Judges of particular Cities that succeeded them could decide And shall wee not conclude all this correspondence to be as competent an argument as wee are to expect for the New Testament in the Old for the constitution of the Church in the institution of the Synagogue To wit that seeing wee see God hath appointed our Lord Christ hee his XII Apostles and LXX Disciples his ministers in governing of it that hee intended it a visible body to which the visible right of governing the same might be conveyed by the reasonable voluntary act of those in whom placing the power hee must needs place the right of propagating the same in his own absence One point indeed of difference there is wherein wee should abuse our selves too much to seek for any correspondence between the Synagogue and the Church For wee suppose the intent of God to have been that the Law should oblige one people but the Gospel all that are to attain salvation out of all people so that there is no particular seat of Gods worship according to the Gospel to which all Christians are bound to resort as Jerusalem was the seat of Gods worship which all Jewes were to resort to And wee suppose our Lord Christ to be in heaven where the Princes of Israel and the LXX Elders cannot be present to assist him with their ministery Therefore wee cannot imagine that hee appointed his LXX Disciples for a standing Assembly as under the Law But to be dispersed all over the world where Christian people should be though united by the same Rule which all should follow for the preserving of Christendom in unity Let no man therefore any more imagine that the title by which any Power is held or pretended to be held in the Church can be derived from that right which the Priesthood held under the Law So as from thence to inferre that the Power which the Priesthood had not under the Law is not under the Gospel to be ascribed unto the Church as it is the Church For I do of my own accord allege that seeing the Priesthood was purely ceremonial to figure that expiation of sin which Christ should bring to passe and therefore to expire when it was brought to passe it is not possible to imagine that any right
Christianity as the corruption of it Surely he that considers not amiss will finde that it was a great ease to them that were convinced to acknowledg a God above them to imagine the name and honor of this God to rest in something of their own choice or devising which being set up by themselves reason would they should hope to please and have propitious by such obedience and service as they could allow Correspondently God having given the Jewes a Law of such precepts as might be outwardly performed without inward obedience whosoever believe the most difficult point of Gods service to be the submission of the heart will finde it a gain that hee can perswade himself of Gods peace without it whatsoever trouble whatsoever cost hee be at for that perswasion otherwise If then there be in mans nature a principle of Paganism and Judaism notwithstanding that men cannot be at quiet till by imbracing a religion they think they are at peace with God Is it a strange thing that they who have attained the truth of Christianity should entertain a perswasion of peace with God upoâ— terms really inconsequent to or inconsistent with the true intent of it Surely if wee reflect upon the motives of it and the motives of them it cannot seem strange I have said and it is manifest that the nature of Christianity though sufficient yet were purposely provided not to be constraining that the effect of them might be the trial of those dispositions that should be moved therewith And is it a mervail that means to perswade those that have received Christianity that things inconsistent with that which was first delivered are indeed consequent to the same should be left among those that professe that they ought to receive nothing but what was first delivered by our Lord and his Apostles I say nothing now of renouncing Christianity while men professe this for I confesse and insist that while men do believe that there is a society of men visible by the name of the Church it will not be possible for them to forget their whole Christianity or to imbrace the contrary of it But I say that notwithstanding the profession of receiving Christianity from our Lord and his Apostles the present Church may admit Lawes whether of belief or of Communion inconsistent with that which they received at first I allege further that so long as all parts of the Church held free intercourse and correspondence with one another it was a thing either difficult or altogether impossible to bring such things either into the perswasion or practice of all parts of it according to the difficulty of bringing so great a body to agree in any thing against which any part might protest with effect And this held not onely before the Church was ingraffed into the State of the Romano Empire but also so long after as this accessory help of Christianity did not obscure and in the end extinguish the original intercourse and correspondence of the Church For then it grew both possible and easie for them who had the Secular Power on their side to make that which the authority thereof was imployed to maintain to passe for Tradition in the Church Seeing it is manifest that in the ordinary language of Church Writers Tradition signifies no lesse that which the Church delivers to succeeding ages than that which it received from the Apostles Adde hereunto the opinion of the authority of the Church truly pretended originally within the true bounds but by neglecting the due bounds of the truth of Christianity which it supposeth infinitely extended to all States which Powermay have interest to introduce For if it be not impossible to perswade those who know they have received their Christianity upon motives provided by God to convince the judgments and consciences of all that see them to imbrace those things to which the witnesse of them may be applyed that they are to imbrace whatsoever either the expresse act or the silent practice of the Church inforces whether the motives of Faith be applicable to them or not Then is it not impossible to perswade them any thing which this Power shall think to be for their Interest to perswade For no mans Interest it can be to go about to perswade the world that expresse contradictories are both true at once And if it were not impossible that the imaginations of most of them that dispute Controversies for the Church of Rome should be so imbroyled with the equivocation of this word Church as not to distinguish the Infallible authority thereof as a multitude of men not to be deceived in testifying the truth from the authority of it as a Body constituted upon supposition of the same Shall it not be easie for those who can obtain a reputation of the World that their act is to oblige the whole Church to obtain of the same to make no difference between that which is presently decreed and that which was originally delivered by the Apostles The said difference remaining disputable not onely by any text of Scripture but by any record of historical truth testifying the contrary to have passed for truth in any other age or part of the Church Upon these premises I do appeal to the common sense of all men to judge whether the Church professing to hold nothing but by Tradition from the Apostles may not be induced to admit that as received from the Apostles which indeed never was delivered by the Apostles For when the Socinians pretend that the Faith of the Trinity of the Incarnation and Satisfaction of our Lord Christ not being delivered by the Apostles in their writings crept into the Church as soon as they were dead they still maintain that nothing is to be admitted but what comes from our Lord and his Apostles But upon their supposition that Antichrist came into the Church as soon as they were dead are obliged to renounce all that can be pretended to come by Tradition and in that very next age Which I yield and insist that whosoever shall consider the intercourse and correspondence visibly establisht by the Apostles between all parts of the Church shall easily perceive to be a contradiction to common sense But when so much difference is visible between the State of the Church in several ages and what change hath succeeded in things manifest to inferre what may have succeeded in things disputable Hee must have his minde well and thoroughly possessed with prejudice to the utter renouncing of common sense that can indure a demand so contrary to all appearance to be imposed upon his common sense The same I say to the other demands of certain and sensible distances of time which they that see the end of may be certainly assured what was received at the beginning of them and so by mean distances this age what was held by the Apostles Of the like time for blotting out the remembrance of the truth as for introducing falshood For it is evidently true that
by some of theit own body that they who demanded Baptism were no counterfeits but would stand to what they undertook it ought to be an Argument that they were to undertake that which they give the Church security to perform And indeed this custom being nothing else but an appertenance or consequence of the Interrogatories of Baptism I need say no more but that it appears thereby what those that were admitted to Baptism undertook when they were to have Sureties to undertake for them that they dissembled not in that which they undertook But in the next place I will alledge the constitution of the Church and all the authority of it Grounded as by the means which I have imployed to make evidence of it appeareth upon supposition and presumption that by being baptized into the visible communion thereof we attain invisible communion in the promises which the Gospel tendreth There are some that take upon them to censure the ancient Church for the abuse which I spoke of even now in delaying of Baptism These men if they will go alwaies by the same weights and measures must call S. Paul to account why he makes this demand 1 Cor. V. 12 13. What have I to do to judge those that are without do not ye judge those that are within But those that are without God shall judge For those who professed only to believe Christianity though obliged to learn how to behave themselves like Christians for with what face could they demand Baptism otherwise yet to speak properly were not Christians were not of the Church Therefore Clemens Alexandrinus in the end of his Paedagogus bringeth in the Word that is our Lord Christ or his Gospel which he calleth the Paedagogue for governing these Children and Novices in Christianity in their way to the Church giving up this Office to himselfe as being to become for the future their Doctor and Master and Bishop◠at their entrance into the Churcch The passage is remarkable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is not for me to teach these things further saith the Paedagogue We have need of a Doctor to expound these holy Oracles and to him we must go And truly it is time for me to give over my Office of Paedagogue and for you to become the Doctors Hearers He receiving you bread with good government having behaved themselves well during the time of their trial shall teach you these Oracles And in good time here is the Church and the onely Doctor the Bridegroom the good mind of a good Father Christ or the Gospel of Christ is the Paedagogue that guides and governs Children in Christianity to the School that is to the Church to demand baptism having behaved themselves well by the way during the time of their triall When that is done he teaches them no more as children are taught by a Paedagogue But as a Master teaches his Scholars so Christ those that are become his Disciples by being baptized Therefore afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Paedagogue having set us in the Church hoth recommended us to himselfe the Word the Doctor and Bishop of all And this is our Lords Commission to his Apostles to make them Disciples that should take up his Crosse by baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Then to teach them to observe all that he had given them in Charge The same is the ground of Cassanders observation which is much to my purpose That the Church putteth no man to penance whatsoever his life may have been for any thing done before Baptism Zosimus thinks he layes a great imputation upon Christianity in pretending that Constantine finding no means to come clear of the bloud of his Wife Fausta or his Son Crispus gave ear to Christianity because it pretended to wash away all sin That Constantine should seek those meanes which Heathenism pretendeth to purge sin with may well be thought to proceed from the malignity of the Gentiles against the first Christian Prince For the rest not disputing of his doings before Baptism because the Church judgeth not that those are without though he professed Christianity when they were done it would be a disparagement to that Fountain which God hath opened for Juda and Jerusalem that there should be any sin which it cannot cleanse supposing the change sincere which the undertaking of Christianity professeth If not God is his Judge But though the Church refuse no man Baptism because professing Christianity he had delayed his Baptism yet as it appeared sufficiently by the scruple that was made of the salvation of those that died in that estate that the Church disallowed it so when they were come into the Church a mark of the authority of the Church was fastened upon them in that those that were baptized in their beds were made uncapable by one of those Canons which I spoke of in the first Book that were in force before the Church had any Canons in writing of being promoted to the Clergy For this you shall find objected to Noratianus by Cornelius in Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 43. That by the Canons he ought not to have been promoted to any rank in the Clergy because he had been baptized in his bed of sickness having delayed his Baptism for fear of persecution till he found himselfe in danger of death And though the Church put no man to penance for his life before Baptism because Christianity it selfe pretendeth a totall change in him that imbraceth it and that the Church judgeth not but presumeth of the truth of that change which is pretended by him that is without yet it fasteneth a mark of the authority which it purchaseth upon Christianity by providing that no man who had been ever put to penance should be promoted to any rank of the Clergy The reason is expressed in those words of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians pag. 54. speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preaching over Countreys and Cities they made the First-fruits of them whom they had converted Bishops and Ministers of them that should believe The learned Bloudell will have these First-fruits to signifie those that were first converted to Christianity A mistake more sutable to the prejudice which he had undertook to maintain then to the rest of his learning For who knoweth not that First-fruits are the best the floure the cream of the whole And if no man that dared not to professe Christianity no man that had been put to penance for failing having profest it is to be of the Clergy you see why they are called the First-fruits of Christians In the mean time if the Church judge not those that are without doth it not judge those that are within according to S. Paul Show me any thing that ever was called a Church that is shew me the time when and the place where Christianity was ever settled and exercised according to order and rule where those that had received Baptism were not under a discipline
or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which are sometimes translated in the Greek of the Old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying confidence â—s the resolution of Horatius Cocles not giving way to the enemy is called by Polibius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Livy subsistere â—osteâ—â— is to stand the enemy So Heb. III. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first confidence of Christians and 2 Cor. VIII 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confidence in bosting So Rom. III. 25. Whom God hath proposed as a Propitiatory through faith in his blood The propitiatory was set before the Israelites to assure them of Gods help according to the Law So is Christ faith the Apostle to them that have recourse to him with confidence alledging for themselves his blood shed for us So Jam. 1. 6. 7. But let him ask in faith nothing doubting For he that doubteth is like the sea waves tossed and stirred with the windes Let not such a man think that he shall obtaine any thing of God Where the efficacy of prayer is ascribed to an assured confidence of obtaining that which is desired and therefore that beliefe which according to the words of our Lord Mar. XI 23. 24. seemeth properly to consist in this assurance obtaines all prayers And not supposing S. Paul to speak of the common faith of all Christians when he faith 1 Cor. XIII 2. If I have all faith so as to remove mountaines yet as he insinuates that this is done by that particular assurance and confidence which that grace giveth him that hath it So must the conquest of the World by the common faith of Christians be ascribed to that assurance and confidence with which all Christians expect Gods promises And truly through the manifold indifference of signification which words will afford them that will use them to their purpose it cannot be denied that to believe God and to believe in God is sometimes all a thing Yet it is very hard to believe that they are intended by the Scripture to signifie alwayes the same thing being so frequently and ordinarily used with a difference For if we consider that in very many texts of the Old Testament the nature of Faith is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which speeches trusting and confidence in some body or some thing particularly in God when the speech is of religion is signified as well by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies believing in God it will be impossible to imagine that all such expressions import no more then barely believing those things to be true which God or man sayes though sometimes believing God and believing in God may signifie all one The Apostle Hebr. XI 33 34 35. thus reckoneth the marveilous things which through faith came to passe to the Fathers of the Old Testament Who by faith subdued kingdomes wrought righteousnesse obtained promises stopped the mouthes of Lions quenched the force of fire escaped the edge of the sword recovered of infirmities prevailed in warr put to flight armies of strangers women received their dead raised againe others were beaten to death not expecting deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection And can it be reasonable to impute these effects to the bare belief of Gods power or goodnesse or whatsoever else can be thought requisite for them then to believe when as that trust and confidence in God which supposeth that beliefe is both by the nature thereof nearer to these effects and apt to dispose them to undergoe those trials under which they found such deliverances For of them all we may say as the Apostle of Elias James V. 17 18. Elias was a man subject to like passions with us and he earnestly prayed that it might not raine and it rained not upon the land for three years and six moneths And againe he prayed and the heavens gave raine and the earth put forth her fruit The confidence which Elias had grounded upon Gods presence with him made him first pray for drought and then for raine which came to passe according to his saying 1 Kings XVII 1. that there should be neither dew not rain for those yeares but according to his word And so the trust which the rest there mentioned had in God to obtaine so great things as the Apostle sayes befell them that rather then the beliefe of Gods power and goodnesse or whatsoever else they were to believe chalenges so great effects to be ascribed to it I must now observe a third notion which this word faith signifies especially in the writings of the Apostles from whence this difficulty is in the first place to be derived which you shall find Hebr. X. 39. We are not of apostasy to destruction but of faith to the saving of the soul What is opposite to falling from faith but perseverance in it or what doth all this Epistle but learn the Jews that were Christians not to forsake Christianity for the persecutions raised against them by those of their kindred So here Faith is Christianity as apostasy the renouncing of it Then S. Paul when he saith that his Apostleship was for the obedience of faith in all nations Rom. I. 55. and Rom. XVI 26. that the Gospel is made known to all nations for the obedience of faith must needs signifie that submission which those that render themselves Christians do undertake for the performing of that condition whereupon the Gospel tenders everlasting life Of which he saith againe Rom. III. 27. that boasting is not excluded by the law of works but by the law of faith For every law being a condition upon which a man enjoys some benefit in some society whereof he is a part the law of faith must needs be that condition the undergoing whereof intitles all men to the common claime of all Christians which is their Christianity So when S. Paul exliorteth them Rom. XII 3. 6. to think of themselves unto sobriety according as God hath divided to every one a measure of Faith As againe If any man had the gift of Prophesie according to the proportion of faith It is manifest that his meaning in the latter text is If any man had profited so farre in Christianity that God thereupon had bestowed on him the grace of prophesying For though it is well known that God sometimes gave that grace to those whom he loved not to life as Saul and Balaam and Caiaphas and those who shall say once Lord have we not prophesied in thy Name Mat. VII 22 which notwithstanding under Christianity is limited to the profession thereof as I shewed you in the beginning yet it is as certaine that those whom God imployeth to his People and Church upon those commissions that require such graces those he useth to chuse for their proficiency in true Godlinesse The prophets of the Old Testament being so ordinarily assumed out of those that had lived in the study of godlinesse
under the discipline of the Prophets their masters that Amos VII 22. alledges it as a strange thing that God had made him a Prophet of an heardsman and that therefore he could not but do his message And is Saul among the Prophets became a riddle rather then a Proverb not to be resolved but by another question And who is the father of them that is that God the Father of all Prophets could give his Graces where he pleased without meanes 1 Sam. X. 11. 12. And therefore at the election of S. Matthias to the office of an Apostle to which this grace belonged the disciples pray Acts I. 24. Thou Lord that knowest the hearts of all shew whether of these thou hast chosen shewing the Christianity of the heart to be the foundation of that choice And when S. Paul exhorteth to think soberly of themselves according to that measure of Faith which God had divided to every one it is manifest that this measure of faith extends to all graces the thought whereof may carry a man beyond the bounds of sobriety That is a'l wherein Christianity consisteth So that the measure or proportion of Faith is the measure and proportion of Christianity which being given by God though seconded with graces which all had not he forbids them to be puffed up with Againe when the same Apostle hopeth that the faith of the Corinthians being increased should be magnified abundantly through them by his preaching the Gospel to the parts beyond them according to his own rule 2. Cor. X 15 16. What is that increase of faith but the setling of them in their Christianity which when it were done he hoped by their meanes to find accesse to preach to their neighbours I do confidently chalenge to this signification that text of S. Paul Gal. V. 6. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith that is acted by love Because I know that no man that understands Greek can deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in this place passive and because it cannot be understood without violence how faith should be acted by love but when that profession which we make at our Baptisme is performed for no other motive but that of God and his love What is then that work of the Thessalonians faith which S. Paul commendeth 1 Thes I. 3. which he prayeth God powerfully to fulfill 2 Thes II. 11. but the doing of that which they undertook to do when they were made Christians And what is the ministry of the Philipians faith Philip. II. 17. but the service which S. Paul did God in labouring to make them good Christians And what is the faith in which he would have the Corinthians to stand 1 Cor. XVI 13 Wherein He and Barnabas exhort the Churches to continue Acts. XIV 22 The bare profession of Christianity or the liabituated resolution of living according to it By which reason whensoever the profession of Christianity is signified by the name of Faith in the writings of the Apostles in which sense it stands as frequently there as in any other this habituated resolution is presupposed because upon presumption thereof men are made Christians to the Church as well as to God For that no man is really and naturally a Christian to God untill he be so legally to the Church unlesse it be when the effectuall purpose of being so is prevented by that necessity which reasonably cannot be prevented And hereupon it is that though men believe the truth of Christianity before they are made Christians by being baptized yet even in the Scriptures themselves believers and Christians are many times all one 1 Tim. V. 8. 16. If any man provide not for his owne and especially those of his houshold he hath denyed the faith and is worse then an infidell If any believer he or she have widows let them support them and let not the Church be charged VI. 2. Those servants that have believing masters let them not despise them because they are brethren but serve them the ratheâ— because they are faithfull and beloved Titus I. 6. If any man be blameless the husband of one wife having children that believe not blamed for riotousnesse or disobedience Apoc. XVII 14. They that are with the Lamb are such as are called and choice and believers And hereupon when the Apostle faith John III. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His meaning of necessity is this Beloved thou shalt do like a Christian what thou shalt do for the brethren and strangers Because no private trust but the common tye of Christianity obligeth to do good to Christian travelers of whom he speakes there And therefore Acts II. 38 44. S. Peter having said to those that were pricked in heart upon conviction of the resurrection of our Lord Repent ye and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sins And this being done it followeth But all the believers were together and had all things common Here I must not forget the stile and language of the most ancient Fathers of the Church who deriving from and referring all their studies to the Scriptures must needs speak in the same stile with them in matters of Christianity I do not intend therefore to say that they do not use the word Faith to signifie the belief of those things which the Gospel declareth to be true and that trust and confidence in God through Christ which the truth thereof naturally tendeth to produce Having shewed that both these conceptions are frequently signified by the terme of faith in the writings of the Apostles their masters But I say further that it is oftentimes used by them in this third sense which I spake of last to signifie Christianity that is the profession thereof presumed by the Church not to be counterseit This is very visible in Tertullian in whose language Faith and Baptisme are many times the same thing de exhortatione castitatis Cap. I. Nec secundas post sidem nuptias permittitur nosse And is not permitted to know any second marriage after Baptisme De Pudicitia Cap. XVI Quae amisso viro Fidem ingressa She who entered into the faith having lost her husband Is that became a Christian Ibid. Cap. XVIII Ante fidem post fidem Signifies before and after Baptisme Therefore in his Scorpiace Cap. VIII Talia a primordio prâ—cepta exemplâ— debitricem Martyrii Fidem ostendunt Such precepts such examples from the beginning shew that Faith is indebted in Martyrdome For it is Baptisme that obliges a Christian to Martyrdome rather then renounce the Faith So S. Cyprian following his master Epist ad Antonianum Si fidei calor praevalet If the heat of faith prevail And Deâ—opere Eleemosyna Credentium fides novo adhuc fidei calore fervebat The faith of believers was servent with the heat of faith being yet new For so Tertullian had said of Morcion in the place alledged in the first book Cont. Marc. IV. 4. In
in the same regard of the flesh Which is therefore the common principle by meanes whereof true righteousnesse can take no place without the Gospel of Christ neither in Jews nor Gentiles And therefore that which follows in S. Pauls discourse Rom. VII 14 leaving for the present the dispute how farre it takes place in the regenerate in all opinions must take place in the unregenerate upon a principle common to all mankind Which is this that as the Law of God is spirituall so man is carnall and by consequence sold under sinne For in whom there is a contradiction to the Law of God and that righteousnesse which it requireth of man from the inward motions of the heart so soon as the understanding becoms convict that this it requireth â—n him there is unquestionably a principle of rebellion against God for something that he is inclined to desire for himselfe without and against all respect of God Now by the processe of S. Pauls discourse all Christians that admit S. Paul must allow that it supposeth such a principle in all that come to Christianity whether or no it inferre the like in those that are already come to it To wit not to do what they like but what they hate and approving the Law to be good that forbids it to do the evil which they would not do not the good which they are willing to do So that though there be a Law of God which in their judgement they approve yet there is another Law in their menbers which prevailes against it to captive them to the law of sinne Which law be it the custome of sinne as much as you will provided that this custome have passed over all mankinde all that the Gospel is tendred to Seeing it is the choice of no man no nation but common to Adams posterity it must needs be derived by propagation from his sinne whom his posterity not knowing could not purpose to imitate The words of S. Paul Gal. V. 16 17. are to the same purpose Now I say Walk in the spirit and fulfill not the desires of the flesh For the flesh Iusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh and these are opposite to one another so that ye may not do that ye would For supposing the same dispute whether they be meant of Christians or of the unregenerate at least when Christianity is tendered when men are exhorted to imbrace it then is there in man a principle opposite to that which the spirit of God bringing the Gospel and brought by the Gospel requires And that inferrs the same consequence as afore But I must not forget the passage of S. Paul Ephes I. 1 2 3. And you being dead in trespasses and sins in which once ye walked according to the age of this world according to the Ruler of the dominion of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience among whom all we also conversed once in the lusts of our flesh doing the desires of our flesh and thoughts and were by nature the children of wrath as the rest also For I must observe that Paul writing to a Church of Gentiles converted to be Christians himself of a Jew first concludeth the Gentiles to be under the power of Satan And then least it should be thought that the Jews of whom himselfe was one were invited to be Christians upon other termes he inferreth of them that we also among them Gentiles were by nature children of wrath Where it is plaine that S. Paul having expressed the sinnes of the Gentiles in which he saith they were dead and having aequalled the Jewes to them for walking according to their lusts cannot possibly be understood to speake of the common birth of all men when he saith we were by nature the children of wrath as well as others Whosoever shall peruse Epiphanius a Christian Writer but in such a stile as those that were not bred to the learning and elegance of the Greeks language may be supposed to use and therefore much resembling the stile of the Apostles and of very good use for them who would inwardly be acquainted with their language he shall find this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very ordinarily used by him not to signifie as commonly it doth by nature or by birth but truly and really Which signification how well it suits with the words of S. Paul when he saith We Jewes were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really the children of wrath as also the rest that were Gentiles Let any man that can judge of learning judge So I insist not upon this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but upon S. Pauls discourse and upon the ground hitherto perswaded I argue That Jewes as well as Gentiles being thus concluded under the necessity of the Gospel which is the grace of Christ the ground of it can be no other then the corruption of all the posterity of the first Adam which onely the second Adam can cure I come now to our Saviours instruction to Nicodemus when of a Doctor of the Jews he became first a disciple of Christ John III. 3 5 6. Verily verily I say unto thee Vnlesse a man be born againe that is of water and of the holy Ghost he cannot see or enter into the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit Marvaile not that I said to thee We must be born again And to the same effect S. John himself speaking in his own person of our Lord Christ John I. 12 13. But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the children of God to wit to those that believe in his name Who were not born of blouds or of the will of the flesh but of God In these words I acknowledge a very considerable difficulty though perhaps it is not that which most men do forecast But I that do maintaine that the Baptisme of Christ was not instituted when these words were said having said already that the Baptisme of Christ is that to which the promise of remission of sinnes is allowed must needs find it hard to answer what our Lord meant when he said Vnlesse a man be born of water and of the holy Ghost For if the Sacrament of Baptisme were not then instituted when our Saviour spake these things to Nicodemus how shall we say that originall sinne is signified by these words wherein there is no mention of the cure of it Surely upon the ground afore setled that the second birth is by the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost given in consideration of the profession of Christianity by being baptized For this being setled it may remaine questionable what Nicodemus could then understand by the name of water but it cannot be questionable that there is no regeneration without the holy Ghost and no holy Ghost without that condition upon which the gift of the holy Ghost is due that is without Baptisme To
Fathers of the Church Clemens Alexandrinus Tertulliane Origen and others with Justine the Martyr have taught us That God spake unto the Fathers of the Old Testament by the ministery of the same second person of the Trinity by whom in our Flesh the Gospel was intended to be published in the last ages of the world And that therefore our Lord Christ is called the Word of God The Socinians think they have said enough to refute and renounce this advantage which Christianity hath alwaies used against the Jewes when with the Jews they have alledged that all those apparitions which those Fathers believe were ministred by our Lord Christ were the apparitions of meere Angles among whom one as principall in the Commission represented the person of God and in that regard is both called by the propper name of God not communicable to any creature which we I know not by what right translate Jehovah seeing it is a thing manifest that our Lord Christ and his Apostles did not pronounce it as it is certaine the Jewes among whom they lived did not at that time and also worshiped with the honour that is properly due to God alone And truly that it was alwaies some angel that is called by the proper name of God and worshipped as God by the Fathers in their apparitions is a thing so manifest through the Scriptures that I will not undertake any unnecessary trouble to prove it Neither do I think this any thing prejudicial to that which the Fathers of the Church teach For when they deliver that these apparitions were of the nature of prefaces and preambles to the apparition of the Word in our flesh it seems to be supposed that as the Word at the last assumed our flesh wherein to appear which afterwards he was never to let go againe according to the saying of divines after S. Gregory Nazianzene quod semel accepit nunquam dimisit so at the first he was wont to assume some Angelicall nature wherein he might appear to deal with men though not to retaine it for ever but to dismisse it the businesse for which it was assumed being done Neither is that any thing difficult which may be objected that these Angels did take unto them usually the bodies of men in which they might converse with men And therefore that when they are called by the name and worshipped with the honour of the onely true God there being something visible to which these things cannot be attributed they must be ascribed to the invisible nature of the Angels Not for it self which were Idolatry but in regard of God whose person they represent as Ambassadors and therefore are honoured with the honour due to the Prince whom they represent as the Jewes and with them the Socinians do understand those titles wheresoever in the Old Testament they are attributed to Angels This were some thing indeed if it were not manifest that the proper name of God is attributed to those Angels by whom God deales with men without assuming to them mens bodies There is nothing of this kind more eminent then that of Moses Exod. XXIII 21 22 23. Behold I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared Look to thy self because of him and hear his voice provoke him not for he will not pardon your apostasy for my name is in the midst of him But thou shalt hearken to his voice and shalt doe all that I shall speak I will be an enemy to thine enemies and persecute thy persecutors For afterwards when they had sinned and God proffers to send an Angel with them to drive out their enemies because if he should go himself among them and they rebell againe he should destroy them It is manifest that Moses is not content till he hath obtained of God that himself would go along with them For before when Moses had pitched the Tabernacle without the camp he spake with God face to face there and the people worshipped towards that quarter But afterwards by his prayer he obtains that Gods face should go with them to give them rest having otherwise no desire to venture upon the voyage Exod. XXXIII 2 5 9 10. 11 14 15 16. Whereby it is manifest that the face of God in this place is the same that is called in another place the Angel of Gods face because he represented the person of God and therefore is called by the name of God and the name of God is said to be in him and Moses is said to talk face to face with God because he had conference with this Angel in the name of God who is called God face to face Whereas when God proffers barely an Angel he is not content but insists upon this And for this reason it is that whereas it is certaine that the Law was given by the ministery of Angels neverthelesse it is said that God spake all the ten commandments Because that Angel that had the commission and is called God spake them And afore though it is certain that it was the Angel of God who went before the camp of Israel in a pillar of a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night because it is said Exod. XIV 19. And the angel of the Lord that went before the camp of Israel removed and came behinde them and the pillar of cloud removed from before them and stood behind them yet it is said Exodus XIII 20. that it was the Lord that went so before them It is therefore manifest that the Name and Worship of God is given to the Angels that represent God as well when they assume to themselves no bodies as when they doe As for that which the Jewes and with them the Socinians alledge that it is because Ambassadors represent the persons of the Princes that send them and therefore are honoured with the honour that is properly due to them It is ridiculous and against common sense For certainly it is one thing to say that Ambassadors are honoured in consideration of the Princes from whom they come another with the same honours Ambassadors are strangers where they come Ambassadors and therefore for their own sakes must be respected where they come otherwise then at home otherwise then their aequalls where they come much more in respect of the Princes from whence they come But that any Prince should honour the Ambassador of any Prince with the same honour wherewith he would honour his Master if he were there is ridiculous to imagine Much lesse the Ambassador of God between whom and any creature that he can imploy upon any Ambassage there is incomparably more distance then between any Prince and any subject he can use Honour inwardly is nothing but the esteem a man hath of that which he honours outwardly nothing else but the signes whereby he expresseth it And though the conceit which a man hath of God is comparable with that which he hath with his
not believe him when he tells them heavenly things Because none of them have been in heaven as the Sonne of man who being come from heaven notwithstanding remaines in heaven Whether he mean onely That having been there in heaven and learnt the effect of his commission and being still there in heart as all Christians are he can tell them things from heaven which they will not believe Or that having been in heaven and not having forsaken it for his coming into the World he knowes the truth of all that he witnesses here by seeing the counsailes of God there even while he is here And that these are those things which he hath seen in his Fathers house to wit those counsailes which the Father out of his love to him had made him acquainted with and taught him to execute even as they had learnt in the devils shop their Father to execute his designes For can any man imagine that his being onely born of the Virgine by the power of God which is they say the holy Ghost is a sufficient reason why God should not onely shew him what he meant to do for our salvation but joyne him with himself in the work and that honour for it whereof no Angel that is the highest creature is capeable Or that all this is such an expression as manhood can bear of that participation of Gods counsailes which the Word having been acquainted with from everlasting was no stranger to while being in the World he was executing the same Surely when our Lord sayes that he is to leave the world to go back to the Father he declares an intent to abide in heaven for everlasting Therefore when he saies he came forth from the Father to come into the world To understand onely that he left the private life he had lived afore he began to preach to appear publickly to the World in his Office might justly be accounted a piece of frenzy if there were not haeresy in it The opposition between heaven where the Father is and the world being so manifest in the words that nothing but the vaine glory of maintaining a party could cause it to be overseen If these things be true we shall not need to go farre for the sense of our Lords words John XVII 5. And now glorify thou me O Father with that glory which I had with thee before the foundation of the World Because we see how many times in this Gospel by being with the Father our Saviour expresseth not his being in heaven when the Baptist began to preach but his being in heaven from the beginning of the World till he was born upon earth For can any doubt be made that the glory which he had with the Father from the beginning is that which he was to be exalted to at his rising againe As for that answer of his to the Jews that demanded of him having said Abraham your Father desired to see my day and saw it and rejoyced Thou art not yet fifty years old and hast thou seen Abraham To which Jesus answered and said Verily verily I say unto you before Abraham was I am John VIII 56 57 58. I perceive the World is ashamed to hear what Socinus is not ashamed to answer That the sense of the words is and so they ought to be translated Before Abraham become Abraham Or before he become Abraham I am Meaning that here you see me before the calling of the Gentiles whereby the Prophesie of Abrahams name Father of a great people is fulfilled For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make both the name of Abraham to go before the Verbe in sense and the verb to signifie the time past So that there must have been another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as this that goes afore and if there had been so it must have been translated before Abraham was Abraham or before he was Abraham not before he become Abraham But for our Lord to say before Abraham was I am to wit in the purpose of God is no lesse impertinent to their question then to say I am here before the calling of the Gentiles And to imagine that our Lord would give an answer utterly impertinent to their question I know not how it can stand with his profession though not to declare all that truth which for the present they were not able to beare may well stand with it CHAP. XIV The Name of God not ascribed to Christ for the like reason as to creatures The reasons why the Socinians worship Christ as God do confute their limitations Christ not God by virtue of his rising againe He is the Great God with S. Paul the true God with S. John the onely Lord with S. Jude Other Scriptures Of the forme of God and of a servant in S. Paul BUT the Apostle adds still more and goes forwards saying And the Word was God Though here the Socinians thinke they have enough to plead when they can say that the name of God which is here used is not proper to signify God himself which the name of four letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so signifyeth in the Old Testament that it is never attributed to any creature but by abuse That is to say as imployed to expresse the sense of such men as believe not in the true God alone but attribute his honour to some of his creatures For it is very well known and granted on all hands that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here translateth is attributed first to Gods Angels then to Gods ministers in governing his People The reason whereof I take to be this that having entred into covenant with God to have him for their soveraigne and to live by his Lawes they must needs be bound to acknowledge and to honour those who had commission from him whether immediately or mediately to govern his people by the said Lawes in stead of God himself as deputies Commissioners or Ambassadors represent the persons of those Soveraigns from whom they come This I suppose is a generall reason why this name of God in the Old Testament is communicated to the Governours of Gods people which the Socinians cannot with any reason refuse Neither can I imagine how it should be more evidently justified then by that of God to Moses Exod. VII 1. Behold I have made thee Pharaohs God and Aaron thy brother shall be thy Prophet For Aaron is made Moses his Prophet to publish his Orders to Pharaâ—h because he was a man of a ready tongue which Moses was not Exod. IV. 14 15 16. Prophet being no more then Interpreter or Truchman as Onkelâ—s translates it And therefore Moses is called also here Aarons God because he was to give the Orders which Aaron was to publish But Pharaohs God as Ruler and Prince over Pharaoh who was Ruler and Prinâ—â— of all Egypt as to those things which God should by him command Pharaoh to
do I suppose then that we cannot come to a more peremptory issue with the Socinians then by putting to triall whether this name of God be attributed to our Lord Christ to signify such a quality as is incompetible to a creature noâ— that be more peremptorily tried then by evidencing what is the honour and esteem which the name of God importeth in our Lord Christ and in Gods creatures For seeing that honour inwardly is nothing else but the esteem which a reasonable creature beareth in mind of that which it honoureth outwardly the signs of that esteem And seeing the distance between the nature of God and that of the creature is so unvaluable that it is impossible that he who believeth that there is that which deserveth the name of God should ever imagine that there is more then one It must remaine no lesse impossible that whosoever takes God for God should ever take any creature of never so great eminence for the same Indeed that inward honour which I found in the esteem of the minde is a thing of a finite and moderate nature whether it represent God or his creature the understanding in which it is not being capable of any thing that is not proportionable to it Which notwithstanding nothing hinders a finite conceit in the mind of a creature to represent an infinite perfection in that which it representeth if any true conceit of God can be found in any of his understanding creatures It is then manifest that I say not among the Socinians but among those who upon misunderstanding the grounds of Reformation have fallen away from the most holy Faith of the Church concerning the ever blessed Trinity there hath fallen a difference whether our Lord Christ is to be worshipped as God or not Socinus being now in appearance the head of that party which would have it so And therefore I shall not much need to dispute that but onely for satisfaction of the reader repeat some of those texts of Scripture which they seem to have stopped the mouthes of their adversaries with For when the Apostle saith Heb. I. 6. When he bringeth his onely begotten Sonne into the World he saith And let all the Angels of God worship him Supposeth he not that men should do that which Angels by Gods authority do And our Lord discourses John V. 22 23. that God hath given the power of judging to the Sonne That all may hanour the Sonne as the Father He that honoureth not the Sonne honoureth not the Father that sent him And This is that will of God the knowledge whereof moves Angels and men to fall down before the Lamb that was slaine and give him honour and glory Apoc. V. 8-13 Nor can any Christian deny that he was worshipped in any other sense or quality either by the blind man whom he had restored to sight John IX 39. or by others whom we find to be accepted of him as those who had been well instructed of him and by him in that which they owed him Luke XVII 5. Lord increase our Faith Mar. IX 24. Lord uphold my unbelief Mat. XX. 30. Have mercy upon us O Lord thou Sonne of David Luke XVII 13. Jesu Master have mercy upon us And Lord save us we perish Therefore our Lord saith to the Angel of Laodicea Apoc. III. 18. I advise thee to buy of me gold tried from the fire For what should he buy it with but the worship of God by prayers And the Apostle Heb. IV. 14 15. We have not an high Priest that cannot compassionate our infirmities but who was tempted in all things like us without sin Let us therefore go to the Throne of his grace that we may obtaine mercy and find grace for help in time Againe S. Paul Rom. X. 12 13. The same Lord is rich to all that call on him For whosâ— shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved For that the worship of the onely true God goes with the name of the Lord ascribed to the Lord Jesus in the New Testament no question can be made So saith S. Luke of the first of Martyrs Acts VII 59 60. And they stâ—ned Stephen praying and saying Lord Jesu receive my Spirit And kneeling he cried with a loud voice saying Lord lay not this sinne to their charge Every Christian can tell by what he does whom Stephen calls Lord. And that is enough to shew how ridiculous they make themselves who when S. Stephen saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have it understood that he calls upon the Lord of Jesus not upon the Lord Jesus For when S. Stephen offers to Christ the same prayer which Christ had offered to the Father and David to God Luke XXIII 46. Psal XXXI 6. Is it not the same honour whereof God alone is capable For they that should say that S. Stephen prayed this not because all Christians are to pray so but because he saw our Lord Christ at the right hand of God Should make that which would have been Idolatry otherwise to become acceptable service to God upon an accident depending on the free will of God And what else did S. Paul when he said 2 Cor. XII 8 9. Therefore besought I God thrice that it might depart from me But he said to me My Grace is sufficient for thee For my power is effectuall through weaknesse Most willingly therefore will I glory in my weaknesse that the power of God may dwell in me And S. John when he prayes Come Lord Jesus Apoc. XXII 20. prayes to him whose coming he desires that is whose strength is effectuall through weaknesse And whom else prayes S. Paul to when he saies 1 Thes III. 11 12. But God who is our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ prosper our Journey to you And 2 Thes II. 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father who hath loved us and given everlasting comfort and good hope through grace comfort your hearts and strengthen you in every good word and work For there being here no difference between the worship tendered to God and to Christ I must needs infer that it is the same which S. Paul signifies when he intitles his Epistle to all that call upon the name of the common Lord 1 Cor. I. 2. It is true they that alledge all these arguments doe likewise caution that this worship and these prayers which are tendered to God absolutely are tendered to Christ with limitation of some certaine circumstances which being supposed it becomes due to Christ being alwayes due to God But if the difference between God and his creature be not acknowledged it is impossible Christianity should stand If the difference between the worship due to God and to his creature be not acknowledged it is impossible the difference between God and his creature should stand Because worship is nothing else but the acknowledgement of this difference Therefore where the worship of God is tendered to his creature either the creature is made an Idol
Christ not the Son of God who made the world they could not rightly say that they held God the Father So that his argument being proper against them demonstrates who they are And this is the reason of that which went afore And ye have an unction from the holy one and know all things I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth but because ye know it and that no ly is of the truth And of that which immediately followes Let that therefore which ye have learned from the beginning remaine in you If that remaine in you which ye have heard from the beginning ye also shall remaine in the Sonne and in the Father For because they knew what Faith they had imbraced when they became Christians no man need tell them that they who would not have our Lord Jesus to be the Christ were liars and the holy Ghost which good Christians receive upon the hearty profession of Christianity he justly presumes will maintaine them in it This for the text of Saint Jude But I say further that the Name of the true God the great God the onely God which all of them attribute to God is attributed to him in equivalent terms not onely in those texts of the Old Testament when the proper name of God is given to the Angels that spake in the person of God which I spoke of afore But also in those where the name attributes an action of the onely true great God are given to the Messias which we agree is our Lord Jesus And therefore that there can be no cause to bring in unusual figures of speech to expound these texts for fear they should say that which is so many times said in the Scriptures S. Paul Rom. XIV 10 11. We shall all stand before the judgement seate of Christ saith he For it is written As I live saith the Lord unto me shall every knee â—ow and every tongue give praise to God Which any man may see is said of God by his Prophet Isa XLV 23. And therefore I marvaile it should seem strange that the same person should be called the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ Titus II. 20. when the appearance there mentioned is not the appearance of the Father but of Christ who shall appear judge at the last day though he have from the Father the glory wherein he shall appear Againe when he saith 1 Cor. II. 8. Had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory It is manifest that he ascribes unto Christ the title of the onely true and great God in Psal XXIV 7 8 9 10. So the Apostle Heb. I. 10. affirming that to be said of Christ which we read Psal CII 25 26 27. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of thine hands They shall perish but thou shalt indure They all shall wax old as doth a garment And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy years shall never fail For whereas they grant that the end is of Christ where he speakes of ending the world at his coming to judgement But not the beginning where he speaks of making the world because there he is called by the proper name of God I call all the world to witnesse what there is in the words to argue that he speakes not still of the same person of whom he began to speak What will they not do to rack the Scriptures and force them to say what they never meant that are not ashamed to advance pretenses in which there is so little appearance rather then confesse what all the Church of Christ maintaineth So when the Prophet sayes Mal. III. 3. Behold I send my messenger and he shall sweepe the way before thee and suddenly shall the Lord whom ye seek come to his Temple It is so manifest that he ascribes the title of the onely true God to the Messias that Grotius who is so much carried away with the Socinians exposition of divers texts in this point could not forbear to say that the hypostaticall union is signified by this And therefore it is manifest what Lordship we are to understand where Zachary saith to the Baptist his Sonne Thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his wayes Luke I. 46. So when the Prophet David saith of the Messias Psal CX 1. The Lord said to my Lord sit thou on my right hand untill I make thine enemies thy footstool And the Apostle inferreth upon it Heb. I. 13. To which of the Angels said he ever Sit thou at my right hand untill I make thine enemies thy footstoole He remitts us for his meaning to that which he had premised there of Christ Heb. I. 3. that having merited by himself the cleansing of our sinnes he sate down on the Throne of Majesty in the highest heavens And againe Heb. VIII 1. We have such an high Priest as is set down on the right hand of the Throne of Majesty in the heavens For the Majesty of God being presented in the Scripture by that which is most glorious upon earth of a King upon his Throne as king of heaven and earth whose commands all the Angels stand about the Throne ready to execute To seat our Lord Christ upon the same Throne is to commit the highest degree of treason against the Majesty of God by challenging for him the honour due to God alone if he be not the same God on whose behalfe those words challenge it Ask any Jew that hath learned God from the Old Testament what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Thron of Glory is or rather what he is that sits on it and see if he do not refuse our Lord Christ that priviledge because he must allow him to be the onely true God if he do not But why should I be troubled to fit him with the title of the onely true God wo expressely challenges to be esteemed aequall to God John V. 21 22 23. For as the Father raiseth and quickneth the dead so also doth the Sonne quicken whom he please For neither doth the Father judge any man but hath given all judgement to the Sonne that all may honour the Sonne as they honour the Father He that honoureth not the Sonne honoureth not the Father that sent him Which is as much as if he had said he that honoureth not the Sonne as he honoureth the Father having said afore That all may honour the Sonne as they honour the Father As for that answer of his John X. 32-36 The Jewes answered him saying For a good work we stone thee not but for blasphemy and because thou being man makest thy self God Jesus answered them Is it not written in your Law I have said ye are Gods If he called them Gods to whom the Word of God came and the Scripture cannot be voided Tell you him whom the Father hath sanctified and
drew back straight Shewing thereby that the Christiane Faith which he meant to sophisticate makes the living soul to which the first Adam was framed to be the image of God because the quickning Spirit which our Lord Christ was to become by being incarnate was figured by it CHAP. XVI The testimonies of Christs Godhead in the Old Testament are first understood of the figures of Christ Of the Wisdome of God in Solomon and elsewhere Of the writings of the Jewes as well before as after Christ BEE This then the evidence of the state of our Lord Christ afore his coming in the flesh out of the Scriptures of the New Testament The sense of which to make good I have been forced to imploy two peremptory arguments grounded upon that reason upon which we admit the New Testament to have been signified by the Old The first the Name and honour of God alone given to the Angels that were imployed by God to speak to his Prophets in his own person and names as the forerunner of our Lord. The second those passages of the Old Testament concerning the Messias which attribute to him the name and works and honour of God and by those that admit the New Testament cannot be denied to belong to our Lord Jesus by the â—ewes themselves they are most an end acknowledged to belong to the Meâ—â—â—as And of this I was to put the reader in mind that he may expect this truth out of the Old Testament by evidences answerable to that declaration thereof which the Light of that time required For I shall freely avow that the next argument that I shall use standeth absolutely upon supposition of that which I delivered in the first book concerning the figuring of the Messias by those persons of whom the Prophets of the Old Testament writ So that the sense of the passages which I shall now alledge is in some sort fulfilled and verified in those things which fell out to those figures Though admitting the said ground it will be requisite to look after a more perfect and compleat verifying of them in our Lord Christ Whereupon it cannot be strange that the meaning of them should appear more full and proper in him then it can be maintained in them of whom it cannot be denied that they are meant in the Old Testament Sâ—ch is that memorable passage of the Prophet David Psal XLV 8 9. Thy seat O God is for ever The Scepter of thy kingdome is a scepter of righteousnesse Thou hast loved righteousnesse and hated iniquity therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladnesse above thy fellows And Psal LXXII 15. He shall live and unto him shall be given of the gâ—â—d of Arabia prayer shall be made ever unto him and daily shall â—e be praised Of the same kind is that of the Prophet Isaiah IX 6 7. A little one is given us A sonne is borne us On whose shoulder is the Rule And his name shall be called the Admirable the Counsellor the mighty God the Father of eternity the Prince of Peace Of the greatnesse of his Empire and peace there shall be no end Vpon the Throne of David and his kingdome to restore and settle it in judgement and righteousnesse from this time forth for evermore And Isa XI 12. And there shall come forth a shoot from the root of Jesse and a bud shall come up from his stock Vpon whom shall rest the Spirit of the Lord The Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel and fortitude the Spirit of knowledge and godlinesse and he shall smell with the fear of the Lord. And Jer. XXIII 5 6. Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that I will raise up unto David a sproute of righteousnesse and he shall reign as a king and be wise and execute judgement and righteousnesse upon the earth In his daies shall Judah be saved and Israel dwell safe And this is the Name by which they shall call him The Lord our righteousnesse Or our righteous Lord. For I do avow and maintaine that all that will justifie that our Lord is foretold and figured in the Old Testament upon true grounds and consequent to their own sayings must say that these things are verified of some Prince of Gods ancient people This of Jeremy for the purpose in Zorâ—babel who is called the Sprout Zach. VI. 12. And King Zach. IX 9. Jer. XXXI 7. those things of Esay in Ezekias as those things of David no man doubts to be fulfilled first in Solomon of whom the title of Psal LXXII saies expresly that it is intended Neither will I make any difficulty to yeeld the Socinians that the title of Zorobabel may well be God is our righteousnesse or that the title of Ezâ—kias in Isa VII 14. may well be God is with us No otherwise then the pillar which Moses erected Ex. XVII 15. is called the Lord my standard Or the altar of Isaac Gen. XXXIII 20. God the God of Abraham But when it is granted on their side which the Jews themselves cannot refuse that these things are meant in a more sublime sense of the Messias And that in respect of Salvation purchased us and divine honors to himself which the Socinians cannot refuse though the Jewes do those things which are said of God in the Old Testament are attributed to our Lord Christ in the New Then will I stand upon it that the throne of the most high God ascribed to our Lord Christ by David imports no more then when he saies Psal CX 1. The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou on my right hand untill I make thine enemies thy footstool And therefore that there can be no cause either to abuse the signification of the Name of God when the Prophet saith Thy throne O God is for ever Or to have recourse to that other shift that God is said to be Christs Throne because the founder of it when it is manifest that the Throne which is spoken of is Gods Throne For it is to be considered that when it is said Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever using that Name of God which is communicated to his Angels and to the Rulers of his people and therefore in the first place to the Messias that is to our Lord Jesus supposing him to be the Christ Whatsoever conceit of the Messias the Old Testament can allow when the new declareth that our Lord Jesus is set down at Gods right hand upon his own Throne it necessarily declareth him the same God with him upon whose Throne he sits In like manner I do not deny but challenge and maintaine that the prayer and praises tendered the Messias according to David may and must be understood to be such as might be tendered to Solomon an earthly Prince But when I can charge all that admit the New Testament by their own consent that it is the honour of the onely true God which Christians tender our Lord Christ of whom they
Irenaeus expresly maintaineth him one and the same God with the Father and true God and his generation ineffable without beginning and from everlasting Clemens makes him God â—quall to God as his Sonne Origen not in any work now extant that may be questioned but as he is alledged by Athanasius de decretis Synodi Niceâ—ae saies of him that if there be any image of God who is invisible that image must also be invisible with a great deal more to the same purpose where he also quotes Theognostus in secundo hypopseon affirming the same at large to set aside those that are questioned And shall we not think our selves obliged so to understand their words which the importunity of Heresies have made questionable that they may consist and agree with those which remaine unquestionable Especially all of them agreeing in this That the world was made and is governed by Christ And that the whole dispensation of God tending to the salvation of mankinde whether before the Law or under the Law as well as since his appearing in the flesh was executed by him as a preface and prologue to his coming in the flesh a supposition which all seem to ground themselves upon especially against the Jewes in giving account of our common Christianity That our Faith is in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost That we are to glorifie to worship and to be baptized in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost And in counting all Hereticks that denied it For communion with the Church not communicating with those who believe it not because they believe it not is an evidence which no words of doubtfull construction can obscure in the judgement of any man that is reasonable Nay among the very heathen that have made any mention of the Christian Faith doth not Plinies Epistle concerning the Christians acknowledge that they sung hymns to Christ as to God Doth not Lucian in his Philopatris manifestly expresse the Faith of the Trinity as the cognizance of Christians at that time hath it not appeared by these inventions wherewith the Gnosticks sophisticated it that the Fulness of the Godhead consists in the Trinity according to the Christian Faith as according to the severall Sects of them in their severall inventions That the Christians honoured and worshipped the blessed Trinity as those Sects did those imaginatitions of their own which they call the Fullnesse of the Godhead When Ebion Cerinthus Artemon Theodorus and after them Sabellius Noetus Praxâ—as and Paâ—lus Samosatenus were disowned by the whole Church and excluded the communion of all Christians did not all Churches that agreed in refusing them find themselves possessed of a contrary Faith as the reason for which they were refused Were all Christians out of their simplicity cunning enough to assoile all the reasons whereby these and Arius to boot did or might argue their pretenses from texts of Scripture Or did they think themselves bound to rest in the visible consent of the whole Church whether they were able to do that or not In fine the learned Jesuite Petavius in the Preface to his books de Trinitate and the beginning of the first as he hath evidently shewed that the substance of the faith of the Trinity is acknowledged by these ancient Christians some of whose words seem to disparage the Godhead of our Lord Christ So he indeavoureth to shew that they did it out of a desire to reconcile the faith with the doctrine of Plato and his followers If his opinion be admitted there will remaine evidence enough for the Tradition of Faith even in their writings whose skill in the Scriptures goes not the right way to maintaine it The plain song will be good musick though the descant transgresse Though for my part having seen what he hath said I repent me not of that which I had conceived out of Tertullianâ— That out of a desire to reconcile the creation of wisdome in the Proverbs according to the Greek not the doctrine of Plato with the rule of Faith they conceived this a supposition fit to do it That by Gods proceeding to create the World his mind or wisdome which incarnate is our Lord Christ attained not the essence and being which it had in God from everlasting but the denomination and quality of his Word and Sonne For you shall find there that most of them concurre in the speculations of Tertulliane Whereby you may see that this learned Jesuite is not agreed with the Cardinall du Perron to deny the reason why we hold the Faith of the holy Trinity originally from the decree of the Council of Nicâ—a and from that authority of the Church which maintaineth it But from the reason whereupon that decree was grounded and made That is from the meaning of the Scriptures expressed and limited by the Tradition of the Church And therefore not burthening my self here with the expounding of all those passages of their writings before Arius which may seem to derogate from the Tradition of the Church in that point I shall referre the Reader to those things whereby he showeth that they do unanimously concurre in maintaining the same Faith For if there be amongst them that have had speculations tending to reconcile some Scriptures to it which are not onely ill grounded as I dispute not but this of Tertulliane is but also prejudiciall to the Faith as some of Origens whom I have mentioned already That this is to be imputed to the inconsequence of their severall discourses not to any difference in their common Faith I remit you to that which he hath said to judge Onely whereas he de Trinitate II. 2. hath given you a full account of those Fathers which expound the words of our Lord The Father is greater then I to be meant of his Godhead which I have onely named in gross I will advise you again hereupon that many things which are said of the Sonne as inferior to the Father as when he is said to Minister unto the Father in creating the World may be imputed not to any inequality in that Godhead which is the same in all the Trinity but unto the manner of having it the Father originally as the Fountaine the Sonne and the holy Ghost as from him wherein the difference of the persons consisteth To the same Petavius de Trinitate VIII 2. I remit them that would be satisfied of the sense of the Fathers in that which I alledged for the reason why our Lord is called the Word by S. John To wit that the intercourse between God and man after the fall was executed and managed by his Ministry Not because I think this name of the Word unfit to signifiy the originall proceeding of the Sonne from the Father much lesse his concurrence in and to the creation of all things But because believing as I do that the mystery of the Trinity is revealed by the coming of our Lord I find great reason to conceive that his Apostle intended thereby to intimate
exalted Neither is it any difficulty that Christ could not be exalted to any eminence that should not be due to him as God in mans flesh and therefore that which was due to him as incarnate could not be due to his Crosse For the assumption of mans nature being a work of God and not of nature the state which our Lord Christ was to assume in our nature was not determinable any way but by the voluntary apointment of God and the Father who ordered it So that nothing hindred the effects of the holy Ghost dwelling in our Lord Christ without measure to be exercised in such measure and upon such reasons as God should appoint nor the declaration of the fullnesse of the Godhead dwelling in our flesh to depend upon his obedience and suffering in it The declaration hereof is that which S. Paul calls that name above all names at which all things bow which the giving of the holy Ghost to our Lord Christ to convince the world of it upon his exaltation is that which effecteth So saith S. Peter Acts II. 33 Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God and having received the promise of the holy Ghost of the Father he hath shâ—d forth this which ye now see and hear For it is true our Lord promised his disciples the holy Ghost John XIV 16 17 18. XVI 7 13 14 15. But this promise he received upon his advancement to the right hand of God being then and thereupon enabled to perform it And therefore it is that which our Lord signifies Mat. XXVIII 18. When he saies All power is given to me in heaven and upon earth Go ye therefore and make disciples all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost For the event shews that this power consists in sending the holy Ghost whereby the World was reduced to the obedience of the Christian Faith So that when our Lord saies Mat. XI 27. All things are delivered unto me by the Father he means the right to this power though limited in the exercise of it unto the time and state of his advancement which gave him right in it And though it be granted as I said afore that the generall terms of all power in heaven and earth and all things are to be understood of that which concerns his kingdome Yet seeing the ground thereof consisting in giving such measure oâ— the holy Ghost to his disciples as the advancement of his kingdom requires supposes the fullnesse thereof to dwell in his own flesh it imports no disparagement to the Godhead of Christ that the exercise thereof in our flesh is limited to that time and that state of his advancement which the Father appointeth S. Paul Ephes IV. 7-11 writeth thus Now to every one of us is grace given according to the measure of Gods gift To wit in which God pleased to give it Therefore he saith Going up on high he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men Now that he ascended what is it but that he descended first into the lower parts of the earth He that descended is the same who also ascended farre above all heavens that he might fill all things And he hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Doctors Where it is manifest that he sets forth the ascension of our Lord in the nature of a triumph after the victory of his Crosse as Conquerors lead captives in triumph and give largesses to their subjects and souldiers And that which S. Paul terms giving gifts to men David out of whom it is quoted Psal LXVIII 18. calls receiving gifts for men Our Lord being his Fathers Generall and by his Commission conquering in his name Receiving therefore of him who gave him Commission the gifts which he bestowes at his triumph can any man doubt that he receives them in consideration of the discharge of that Commission which he undertook And these gifts are the meanes by which the Gospel convicteth the World and taketh effect in it The same appears by the conquest of Christs Crosse and those Scriptures that speak of it Col. II. 15. Disarming principalities and powers he made an open shew of them triumphing over them through it To wit his Crosse to which he had said just afore that he nailed the decrees of the Law that were against us Heb. II. 14. Seeing then that Sonnes partake of flesh and blood he also likewise did partake of the same that by death he might destroy him that had the power of death even the devil and free as many as through fear of death were all their life long subject unto bondage 1 Cor. XV. 54-57 When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortall immortality then shall that come to passe which is written death is swallowed up in victory Death where is thy sting Hell where is thy victory The sting of death is sinne and the strength of sinne is the Law But thanks be to the Lord which giveth us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ How doth God grant victory by our Lord Jesus Christ are we not and he severall persons by nature the conflicts severall what doth this conquest contribute to ours but by inabling us to overcome How that but by the help of God granted in consideration of it How are slaves to the fear of death freed from death by Christs death but because there is no condemnation for them that live by the Spirit of life granted them in consideration of his death And what is the triumph of the Crosse over the powers of darknesse but this that by the meanes of it they are disabled to keep mankind prisoners as afore And wherein consists the condemning or the executing of sinne in the flesh which S. Paul spake of afore but in this that by the death of Christ we are inabled to put it to death The Parable of our Saviour is manifest in this that as the branches bear fruit by being in the vine that is of it so Christians by being in Christ John XV. 1-8 and that force by virtue whereof they bear it not being conveyed but by Gods appointment why God had appointed the merits and sufferings of Christ to go before this conveyance but to procure it is not reasonable Therefore our Lord John VIII 31 36. If ye abide in my word ye shall be my disciples indeed and shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free And againe Verily verily I say unto you that every man that sinneth is a slave to sinne Now the slave abideth not for ever in the house but the Sonne for ever If therefore the Sonne set you free you shall be free indeâ—d The Sonne of God sets free the slaves of sinne not as the Sonnes of men by the death of their Fathers becoming heirs and granting freedome to whom they please but by dying himself and by his death helping them to their freedome And S. Paul 1 Cor. II.
XI 50. 51. 52. But in what sense doe Christians find it true Surely no man that ever prayed to God in Christs name need to be told it It is requisite therefore that we have recourse to the consideration of those thinges which the Scripture uses to joyne with the mention of Christs dying for us if we will rightly determine the meaning of it And so having premised the consideration of a sacrifice upon which our sinnes were charged of our ransome by the price of it of reconciliation and propitiation for sinne obtained for us by it we must conclude that when the Scripture speakes of Christs death for us the meaning of it cannot be satisfyed by granting that he died to move us to be Christians CHAP. XXIX The grant of Grace in consideration of Christ supposes satisfaction made by him for sinne Neither our sinnes imputable to Christ nor his sufferings to us formally and personally but as the meritorious causes which satisfaction answereth The effect of it the Covenant of Grace as well as help to performe it The Fathers saved by the Faith of Christ to come The Gospel a new Law The property of Satisfaction and Punishment in Christs sufferings Of the sense of the Catholike Church THere remaines one argument from the premises where I concluded that effectuall Grace is appointed from everlasting and therefore granted in time in consideration of Christ and his merits according to S. Paul Ephes I. 3-6 For if this grace be granted in consideration of Christ and life everlasting appointed from everlasting and granted in time in consideration of that quality which this grace effâ—cteth it cannot in reason be avoided that remission of sinne and life everlasting is granted here in right and title and in effect in the world to come in consideration of that quality which the effectuall helps of Grace of their own nature tend to produce which they are appointed by God to produce and which really and in effect thus are produced being granted by God in consideration of Christs obedience But why should I be so solicitous to restore all those Scriptures to their true meaning which they have set upon the rack to make them speak a false having such evidence of reason that by this position they make the death of Christ voide and needlesse even in their owne judgement For though if they should say that Christ came onely to show those workes that migh be sufficient to make his Gospell credible and give us good example I could not say that the death of Christ were to no end Yet would they say that it were to no competent end complaining as they do how much they are wronged when they are understood to acknowledge no further end of his coming But when they say that he died to induce men to be Christians by inacting the Covenant of Grace that is assuring them that God will stand to it on his part and that according to the example of Christ bearing his Crosse they shall attaine his glory I demand how all this can be more assurance then every man hath that is peremâ—orily assured otherwise as no man doubts but competently it may be assured otherwise that the Gospell of Christ is Gods message For when sufficient evidence is once made and a man is convinced to beleeve that God promises remission of sinnes and everlasting life to them that imbrace it can he that beleives God to be God remaine any more doubtfull of the truth of his promise To Pharao and to his people it was necessary that the wonders of God should be repeated till they stood convict that there was no God else which they beleived not afore But to them that admit the God of Israel to be the onely true God being convict that the Gospell is his promise is any further assurance requisite that he will stand to it who were not God if he should not stand to it when they say that Christ died to the end that being advanced to be God he might be able to bring his promises to effect I referre my selfe to the sense of any man that is able to thinke of God with due reverence whether it be possible to imagine that a meere man having made promises to mankind in Gods name can live with God to see Gods promises frustrate And by consequence whether it can appeare necessary that our Lord Christ should be advanced to be God that he might be able in his owne person to fullfill the promises which he had made us in his Fathers Name I referre my selfe to that which I have said to show the word of God which took the flesh of man from the Virgine to be God from everlasting as the Sonne of God and his everlasting wisâ—ome and image And therefore not advanced to be God in consideration of his obedience But that having condescended to that state which his obedience in doing his fathers message and testifying the truth thereof required the Sonne of God incarnate was advanced in our flesh by the appointment of God in reward of his obedience to the privilege of sending the Holy Ghost to make his Gospell effectuall to convert the nations to Christianity that by them he might be acknowledged and glorified for that which he was from everlasting So that the end of his coming being to obtaine that grace by which the world might be converted to Christianity and being converted obtaine remission of sinnes and life everlasting for it and neither of these purposes admitted by Socinus we may well say to him as S. Paul sayes to the Jews Gal. II 21. If righteousnesse be by the Law then is Christ deade in vaine So if righteousnesse came as Socinus would have it then is Christ deade to no purpose Because all that he requires might have been as well effected without it Whereas a due valuable consideration in regard whereof the converting grace of the Holy Ghost and remission of sinnes and life everlasting in consideration of the effect thereof should be granted could not have been had without it It is strange to be observed how litle Socinus hath to produce out of the scriptures to prove a position of such consequence as this All his businesse in a maner being to draw those texts which heitherto have been understood in the sense of the Church to his intent I can for the present recall no more then those frequent passages of the Apostles especially S. Paul whereby they affirme the righteousnesse and salvation of Christians to come by the meere grace of God and our Lord Christ Which I need not here repeate no wayes apprehending the infernce That it cannot be said to come from the meere grace of God if I suppose the consideration of Christs obedience and sufferinges as the purchase of it It is true in the wordes of the Prophet Jeremy XXXI 34-34 alleged by the Apostle Ebr. VIII 8-12 to be meant of the Gospell we find a promise of God to pardon the sinnes of his
easy to wipe it off with S. Pauls argument as any of those vaine words that were advanced in his time For if for those thinges the wrath of God cometh upon Gentiles that are darknesse much more upon them who being become light have a share in the works of darknesse if S. Pauls argument be good And whatsoever induces a man to beleeve otherwise belonges to those vaine words which S. Paul forbids them to be deceived with The prophesy of Ezekiel must needes have a roome here which in order to induce the backsliding Israelites to repentance protests that God judgeth the righteous that turneth from his righteousnesse and the sinner that turneth from his sinne not according to the righteousnesse or to the sinne from which but according to that to which they turne Ezek. XVIII 5 For to say that the Prophet of God speaking in Gods name of the esteeme and reward which God hath for righteous and unrighteous speakes onely of that which seemes righteousnesse and unrighteousnesse to the world or which an hypocrite cousens himselfe to thinke such is such an open scorne to Gods word as cannot be maintained but by taking righteousnesse to signify unrighteousnesse and turning for not turning but continuing in that wickednesse which was at the heart when he professed otherwise Which is nothing else but to demand of us to renounce our senses and the reason common to all men together with the signification of these wordes whereby God deales with us in the same sense as we among our selves to make good a prejudice so prejudiciall to Christianity And what shall we doe with those examples and instances of holy men recorded in holy Scripture to have fallen from Gods grace into his displeasure beginning with our first parents Adam and Eve whom no man doubteth to have beene created in the state of Gods grace that will not have theire fall redound upon Gods account For if it be said that this is a difference between the Covenant of workes first set on foote with our first parents in Paradise and the Covenant of grace tenderd by our Lord Christ It is said indeed but it cannot be maintained without destroying all that hath been premised of the Covenant of Grace and the condition of the same Which though it take place under the Covenant of workes which is supposed forfeite to restore mankind to the hope of a heavenly reward upon conditions proportionable to theire present weaknesse hath notwithstanding appeared to be tendred to their free choice as containing conditions by transgressing whereof they forfeite as much as Adam could doe The examples of Saul and Solomon and David and S. Peter have in them indeed some difference one from another but is there any of them that imports not the state of damnation after the state of grace S. Peter it is plaine forfeits the condition of professing Christ whom he that denieth if our Lord say true in the Gospell Luke XII 8. 9. shall himselfe be denied at the generall judgment and can we imagine his teares to have been shedde without sense of this forfeite Wherefore whatsoever seedes of grace remained in him to move him to repentance as soone as he was become sensible of his estate it is manifest that he had lost the state of grace which he laboureth to recover by repentance I will not examine how much longer David lay in his sinnes then S. Peter before the Prophet Nathan brought him to the sense of them It is enough that he prayes so for pardon as no man could doe for that which he thought he had afâ—ore He prayes also for the restoring of Gods Spirit to him againe Psal LI. 10. 11. 12. Make me a clean heart O God and renew a right Spirit within me Cast me not away from thy presence and take not thine holy Spirit from me O give me the comfort of thine helpe againe and stablish me with thy free Spirit For that which he prayes God not to take away he acknowleges to be forfeite So that it is but of reason that he further desires that it be restored him rather then continued Some thinke they avoide this by understanding onely the Spirit of Prophesy to be his desire not wanting the Spirit of regeneration whereby he desires it Which in the case of David no way takes place without offering violence to the words And I have sufficiently advised that by the helpe of Gods Spirit granted out of that grace which preventeth the Covenant of grace and that state of grace which dependeth upon the undertaking of it a man is inabled to desire the gift of Gods Spirit to dwell in him according to that which the Covenant of Grace promiseth As for Saul and Solomon both of them indowed with Gods Spirit the one of them must not be understood ever to have been in the state of grace the other to have ever fallen from it For it is alleged that Balaam and Caiaphas prophesied and our Lord shall say to those that had prophesied and cast out devils and done miracles in his Name I never knew you Mat. VIII 22. 23. But S. Paules words would be considered concerning his Apostles office 2 Cor. III. 4. 5. 6. This confidence we have towards God through Christ Not because we are sufficient of our selves to thinke any thing as of our selves but our sufficience is of God who hath made us able ministers of the New Testament not of the letter but of the Spirit For if the grace of an Apostle suppose not the grace of a Christian how hath S. Paul confidence to God in the grace of an Apostle given him by God which a Christian obtaineth through Christ Certainly no man spares to argue from these words that we are not able of our selves to think any thing towards the discharge of a Christian mans office as taking it for granted that a good Apostle supposes a good Christian And what an inconvenience were it to grant that God imployes men that are not good upon his messages to mankind giving them the oporation of the Holy Ghost to demonstrate that he sendes them which is sufficient credit for all that they deliver as in his name unlesse we will imagine it no inconvenience that God gives testimony to those whom he would not have to be beleeved As for Balaam it is manifest that he was imployed by unclean Spirits to maintaine men in theire Idolatries by foretelling things to come by their means And that Gods appearing to him to hinder him from cursing his people was upon the same account as Arnobius saith that Magicians did use to find the virtue of Spirits opposite to those unclean Spirits whome they imployed not suffering them to bring to effect those misehevious intentions for which they set them on work And by this means it was that Balaam not being imployed by God is forced to declare that will of God which he would have made voide As for Caiaphas it is not to be imagined that he had any
revelation of that truth which he declareth by the inspiration of Gods Spirit but that God who from the beginning had used the High Preists by Urim and Thummim to declare his direction to that people directed his words so that they might serve to declare that will of his which he had never acquainted him with as a Prophet of his nor could have been acknowledge for that will which God intended to declare by him had not S. John by the Spirit of God declared Gods intent in so directing his words Wherefore when God changed Saâ—les heart at his parting with Samuel and sent his spirit upon him straight wayes 1 Sam. X. 9. 10. it seemes that having liked so well of him as to call him to be Prince of his people he indowed him with the grace of his Spirit for the discharge of that place which onely a good man could rightly discharge Whereupon it followes that the taking away of this Spirit and sending an evill Spirit in steade thereof to torment him are the evidences of his fall from that inward grace which the gift of Gods Spirit presupposed afore Whereby we may judge what the Parable of the uncleane Spirit cast out and returning with seven Spirits worse then himselfe Mat XII 43. 44. 45. Luke XI 24. 25. 26. imports to our purpose though being a Parable I bring it not into consequence The like is to be said of those who having prophesied and done miracles in our Lords name shall not be acknowledged by him at the day of judgement For when he saith I never knew you he speaketh out of the knowledge of God which reaching from one end to the other at the same instant when they had the grace of Prophesy to witnesse their imployment from God foresaw that they would fall away and becoming Apostates retaine no part in the kingdome of heaven which they had preached No mervaile if he take them not for his who he sees are not to be his for everlasting To which purpose the graces of Gods Spirit are promised true Christians Marke XVI 17. Acts II. 38. V. 32. And though Origen hath excellently said that the name of Christ had such power over devils that some times being alleged by evill men it did the deed though rather when out of the sound and genuine disposition of beleivers as those Ebrews who in our Lords time did exorcise Devils as he showes us Mat. XII 25. and as we learne by Justine Martyr Irenaeus Tertulliane and Theophilus of Antiochia produced there by Grotius that so they did till theire time yet the doing of miracles in evidence of the Gospell which they preached alleged by those whome our Lord shall disclaime seemes to import a great deale more then the casting out of devils by naming the name of Christ and therefore to containe the approbation of those men whose imployment from God they seemed to witnesse Here is the place where I will give the true meaning to three or foure Scriptures for so many there are that in opposition to the whole streame of Gods book men will needes produce to reconcile the promises of the Gospell with the present guilt and love of sinne in Christians that have beene overtaken with it Jesus answered and said to the Samaritane woman John IV. 13. 14. 15. Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst againe But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall not thirst for ever but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up to life everlasting The woman said to him Lord give me that water that I may not thirst nor come hither to draw I allow him that hath a mind to it to translate our Lords words shall never thirst For it is plaine the woman understood him as if he had told her of a water which whoso should once drink of should never be a thirst any more as long as he lived But if she failed of his meaning because she understood not that he spake of thirsting in the world to come do not they faile of his meaning who when he saith he that drinks of my water shall not thirst for everlasting understand it to be that he shall never thirst in this world Being so plaine that he shall not thirst in the world to come They make him say He that once tastes of my Grace in him the spring of it shall never dye in this world which is that the woman understood him to say in the literal sense because she understood not that he spake of the world to come He comparing this world with the world to come saith He that drinkes of my water in this world shall not thirst in the world to come Which is to say that he who departs from the Christianity which once he professed in this world does not drink of my water in this world because he comes short of my promise that in him it shall be a well of water springing up to life everlasting I have no reason to be afraid any more of the difficulty of S. Pauls words Rom. VIII 28-39 having showed by evident arguments that the subject of them are they that love God they that are called according to purpose they that he foreknew to be such they that walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit in Christ Jesus For to such I may well allow that all workes for the best because God having foreappointed them to be once conformable to the pattern of his sonne that he might be the first-borne of many calleth them â—o their trialls and finding them faithfull in them justifyeth and glorifyeth them therefore Nor can S. Pauls words signify more supposing when he saith whom he foreknew those he predestinated whom he predestinated those he called whom he called those he justifyed whom he justified those he glorified That he speakes of those whom God foreknew to be qualified as afore then this that knowing them to be such he appointed them to bear Christs Crosse and to inherit his glory for the reward of it Wherefore when it followes What shall we then say to these things If God be with us who can be against us He that spared not his own Sonne but delivered him up for us all how shall he not with him give us all things It is manifest that the quality which S. Paul understandeth in them whom he comprehends when he names us is no other but that which he hath described true Christians by thus farre And therefore when he proceeds Who shall impeach the elect of God It is God that justifieth who shall condemn It is Christ that died or rather that is risen againe who is also at the right hand of God Who also maketh intercession for us It is manifest that this word elect hath no maner of reference to Gods everlasting decree but to the present Christianity of those whom God declareth to account his choice ones his jewels his first fruits out of
bloud as understanding themselves aright all Christians must needs do Unlesse wee can maintain that wee receive the body and blood of Christ not onely when wee receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist but also by receiving it there is no cause why our Lord should say This is my body this is bloud when hee delivered onely the sign of it to good and bad and therefore not out of any consideration of the quality of them that received it And what a grosse thing were it to say that our Savior took such care to leave his Church by the act of his last will a legacy which imports no more than that which they might at all times bestow upon themselves And let mee know whether the Church could not devise signes enow to renew the memory of Christs death or if that be likewise included to expresse their profession also of dying with Christ by bearing his Crosse if our Lords intent had been no more than to appoint a Ceremony that might serve to commemorate our Lords death or to expresse our own profession of conformity to the same For certainly they who make no more of it whom I said wee may therefore properly call Sacramentaries cannot assign any further effect of Gods grace for which it may have been instituted and yet make it a meer sign of Christs death or of our own profession to dy with Christ or for Christ But if I allow them that make it more than such a sign to have departed from a pessilent conceit and utterly destructive to Christianity I cannot allow them to speak things consequent to their own position when they will not have these words to signifie that the elements are the body and bloud of Christ when they are received but become so upon being received with living faith which will allow no more of the body and bloud of Christ to be in the Sacrament than out of it For the act of living faith importeth the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ no lesse without the Sacrament than in it Certainly it is no such abstruse consequence no such farr fetched argument to inferr If this is my body this is my bloud signifies no more than this is the sign of my body and bloud then is the Sacrament of the Eucharist a meer sign of the body and bloud of Christ without any promise of spiritual grace Seeing that being now a Sacrament by being become a Sacrament it is become no more than a sign of the body and bloud of Christ which though a living faith spiritually eateth and drinketh when it receives the Sacrament yet should it have done no lesse without receiving the same I will here allege the discourse of our Lord to them that followed him to Capernaum John VI. 26-63 upon occasion of having been fed by the miracle of five loaves and a few little fishes Supposing that which any man of common sense must grant that it signifies no more than they that heard it could understand by it and that the Sacrament of the Eucharist not being then ordained they could not understand that hee spake of it but ought to understand him to speak of believing the Gospel and becoming Christians under the allegory of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud But when the Eucharist was instituted the correspondence of the ceremony thereof with the allegory which here hee discourseth is evidence enough that as well the promise which hee tendreth as the duty which hee requireth have their effect and accomplishment in and by the receiving of it I must here call you to minde that which I said of the Sacrament of Baptisme that when our Lord discoursed with Nicodemus of regeneration by water and the Holy Ghost John III. not having yet instituted the Sacrament of Baptisme in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost nor declared the promise of giving the Holy Ghost to them that should receive the same it must needs be thought that hee made way thereby to the introducing of that Ordinance the condition and promise whereof hee meant by the processe of his own and his Apostles doctrine further to limit and determine In like maner I must here insist and suppose that hee speaks not here immediately of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud in the Eucharist which his hearers could not then fore-tell that hee meant to ordain but that the action thereof being instituted with such correspondence to this discourse the intent of it may be and is to be argued from the same Now I have showed in due place that the sayings and doings of our Lord in the Gospel are mystical to signifie his kingdome of Glory to the which hee bringeth us through his kingdome of Grace So that when our Savior fed that great multitude with the loaves and the fishes which hee multiplied by miracle to the intent that they might not faint in following him and his doctrine it is manifest that hee intimateth thereby a promise of Grace to sustain us in our travail here till wee come to our Countrey of the Land of Promise When therefore hee proposeth the theme of this discourse saying Yee seek mee not because yee have seen miracles which serve to recommend my doctrine but because yee have eaten of the loaves and were filled Labor not for the meat that perisheth but for that which indures to life everlasting hee showes two things First that his flesh and bloud sustain us in our pilgrimage here because hee showes the Manna which the Fathers lived on in the Wildernesse to be a figure of it Secondly that they bring us to immortality and everlasting life in the world to come by expounding the figure to consist in this that as they were maintained by manna till they died so his new Israelites by his flesh and bloud by eating his flesh and drinking his bloud which hee was giving for the life of the world never to dye Now wherein the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud consisteth hee showes by his answer to their question upon this Warning them to work for the meat that lasts unto everlasting life which hee tenders and not for that which perisheth The question is What shall wee do to work Gods works And the answer The work of God is this to believe in him whom hee hath sent I have showed in due place that the condition which makes the promises of the Gospel due is oâ—r Christianity to wit to professe the faith of Christ faithfully that is not in vain Therefore when our Lord saith The work of God is this To believe on him whom hee hath sent hee means this fidelity in professing Christianity For indeed who can imagine otherwise that hee should call the act of believing in Christ that work of God which Christ came to teach Gods people Hee then that considers the death of Christ that is to say the crucifying of his flesh and the pouring out of his bloud with that faith which supposes all
the bread and the wine to remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as sense informs and the word of God inforces if the same word of God assirm there to be also the body and bloud of Christ what remaineth but that bread and wine by nature and bodily substance be also the bodily flesh and bloud of Christ by mystical representation in that sense which I determined even now and by spiritual grace For what reason can be imagined why the material presence of bread and wine in bodily substance should hinder the mystical and spiritual presence of the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament whereby they are tendered of grace to them that receive Shall they be ever a whit the more present in this sense if the substance of bread and wine be abolished than if it be not Certainly unlesse wee believe the spiritual grace of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to possesse those dimensions which the Elements hold and if so then are they not there Sacramentally and mystically but bodily and materially wee can give no reason why the bodily presence of the Elements should hinder it So farr is this from being strange to the nature and custome of humane speech that supposing the invisible presence of one thing in another and with another which is visibly present it cannot otherwise be expressed than by saying this is that though every man know what distance there is between their natures The Dove in the which the Holy Ghost was seen to come down and rest upon our Lord the fiery Tongues in which the Holy Ghost rested upon the Apostles the fire and the whirlewinde in the which Gods Angels attend upon him and upon his commands in regard whereof it is said Psalm CIV 4. Hee maketh his Angels Spirits and his Ministers a flaming fire are they not as truly said to be the Holy Ghost or those Angels as the Holy Ghost or those Angels is said to come down to rest or to move because those things rest and come down or move whereas the Holy Ghost otherwise can neither rest nor come down nor those Angels move as the fire or the winde moves in which they are I know it may be said that neither the Dove nor those Tongues are called the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures Nor do I intend to build upon any supposition that they are This I say whosoever understands the capacity of words serving for instruments to signifie mens mindes may firmly conclude rhat they may as well be said to be the Holy Ghost as it may be said that the Holy Ghost came down because the Dove came down For can there be any occasion for a man of sense to conceive cloven Tongues of fire to be the Godhead of the Holy Ghost because they are called the Holy Ghost in regard they are used to demonstrate the presence of it when no man complains that any man of sense hath occasion to mistake the God-head to move because the Holy Ghost is said to come down in the bodily shape of a Dove I know it may be said and is said that in the Text of the Psalm that I quoted it is not to be translated winds but spirits or spiritual substances because the Apostle having alleged it to show the difference between them and our Lord Christ Ebr. I. 7 14. inferreth that they are ministring Spirits signifying thereby not winds but that which Christians signifie by the name of spiritual substances And I yield that they are so called not onely in the common language of Christians but in the Apostle also here and by our Lord speaking in the common phrase of Gods people when hee saith A spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee see mee have Luke XXIV 39. upon occasion of that appearance of Gods majesty which is either presented to or described by the Prophets in the Old Testament with his Throne attended by Angels the visible signs of whose presence are whirlewind and fire So in the place quoted Psalm CIV 2. That puts on light for a robe stretches the heavens as a curtain laies the beams of his chambers in the waters makes the clouds his chariot and walks upon the wings of the winde Whereupon followes That makes his Angels Spirits or Winds and his Ministers a flame of fire which answers winds not spiritual substances Compare the description of Gods appearance Psal L. 3. Our God shall come and shall not keep silence a consuming fire shall go before him and be very tempestuous round about either with the visions of the Prophet Ezekiel I. and Daniel VII or with the description of the same laid down Psalm XVIII 10-14 and you will have reason to say as I do Especially when you reade Hee rode upon a Cherub and did fly hee came flying upon the wings of the wind where a Cherub in the first clause is the wind in the second The same sense being repeted according to the perpetual custome of the Psalms So when Angels appeared in the shape of men was it not true to say this is an Angel but wee must suppose the nature of man abolished If the Holy Ghost and Angels be of spiritual nature the flesh and the bloud of Christ bodily then are they at as great distance from the Dove from the Tongues from the Fire from the Wind from the men in which they appeared as the flesh and bloud of Christ from the elements of the Eucharist Nor is the mystical and Sacramental presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ever a whit more destructive to the bodily presence of the elements then the invisible presence of the Holy Ghost or Angels to the visible presence of those things in which they were Nay if I may without offense allege that which is most pertinent to this purpose not being usually alleged in it That maner of speech which all orthodoxe Christians use in calling the person of our Lord Christ either God or Man according to the nature which they intend chiefly to signifie or in ascribing the properties of each nature to the said person respectively to the subject of their speech hath no other ground than this which I speak of For all affirmatives Philosophers know signifie the subject that a man speaks of to be the very same thing with that which is attributed to it As when this wall is said to be white this wall is the same subject with this white Therefore when a thing is said to be that which in nature wee see it is not as when a mans picture is said to be hee the saying though extremely proper if you regard what use the elegance of speech requires is unproper to the right understanding of the nature of the things wee speak of though a man would not be so well understood commonly if hee should go about to explain his meaning by more or other words As I conceive I am not so well understood in writing thus
as our Lord was when hee spoke the words that I indeavor to clear When therefore the properties of the divine nature are attributed to the Manhood of our Lord supposing as all good Christians do that neither natures nor properties are confounded what can wee say but this That by such attributions as these in the Language of his Prophets the Apostles God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union of two natures in one person of our Lord And what shall wee then say when the name of Christs body and bloud is attributed to the bread and wine of the Eucharist but that God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union between the body and bloud of Christ and the said bread and wine whereby they become as truly the instrument of conveying Gods Spirit to them who receive as they ought as the same Spirit was alwaies in his natural body and bloud For it maters not that the union of the two natures is indissoluble that of Christs body and bloud onely in order to the use of the elements that is speaking properly from the consecration to the receiving The reason of both unions being the same that makes both supernatural to wit the will of God passed upon both and understood by the Scriptures to be passed upon both though to several effects and purposes Therefore I am no way singular in this sense All they of the Confession of Auspurg do maintain it before mee and think it enough to say that it is an unusual or extraordinary maner of speech when one thing is said to be another of a several kinde and nature but which the unusual and extraordinary case that is signified both expounds and justifies They indeed maintain another reason of this presence and therefore another maner of it For if by virtue of the hypostatical union the omnipresence of the God-head is communicated to the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist then is the flesh and bloud of Christ there not onely mystically but bodily But if supposing both the elements and the flesh and bloud of Christ bodily present it may neverthelesse truly be said This is my flesh This is my bloud How much more if as I say the elements onely be there bodily but the flesh and bloud of Christ onely mystically and spiritually And therefore I finde it reasonable for mee to argue that the sense of so many men both learned and others understanding the words of our Lord in this sense ought to convince any man that it is not against common sense and therefore tending so much to make good the words of our Lord and the holy Scripture it not to be let go I do not intend neverthelesse hereby to grant that the sense of these words This is my body this is my bloud for This is the signe of my body and bloud is a true sense because abundance of learned as well as ordinary people take it so to be But well and good that it might have been maintained to be the true sense of them had no more been expressed by the Scripture in that businesse For then I suppose the sense of the Church of which I say nothing as yâ—t could not have evidenced so much more as I have deduced by consequence from the rest of the Scripture But the mystical presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being further deduced from the Scripture by good consequence I conceive the common understanding of all those men who granting that do not grâ—nt the Elements to be abolished sufficient ground for mee that the signification of these words This is my body this is my bloud inforceth it not Whereas on the other side the substance of the Elements is not distinguishable by common sense from their accidents for whether the quantity and the mater be all one or not whether beside the mater and accidents which the quantity is invested with a substantial form berequisite is yet disputable among Philosophers And therefore no reason can presume that the Apostles to whom these words were spoken did understand This of which our Lord speaks to signifie the sensible accidents of bread an swine severed from the material substance of the same I may therefore very well undertake to say that this sense of the words is more proper than conceiving the substance of bread and wine to be abolished the effect of grace to the Church remaining the same For the property of speech is not to be judged by the signification of a single word but by the tenor of the speech wherein it stands and the intent of him that speaks declared by his actions and the viâ—ible circumstances of the same Now our Lord having taught those to whom this was spoken that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud is done by living faith must be supposed by appointing this Sacrament tendring his flesh to eat and his bloud to drink to limit and determine an office in the doing whereof his flesh and bloud is either eaten and drunk or crucified according to the premises If then the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud out of the Sacrament be meerly spiritual by living faith shall not the presence thereof in the Sacrament be according Shall it not be enough that they are mystically present in the Sacrament to be spiritually eaten by them that receive them with living faith to be crucified of them that do not Is it any way pertinent to the spiritual eating of them that they are bodily present Is it not far more proper to that which our Lord was about tending without question to the spiritual union which hee seeks with his Church that hee should be understood to promise the mystical than the bodily presence of them in the Sacrament which is nothing else than a Mystery by the proper signification and intent of it I grant an abatement of that which the terms of body and bloud were originally imposed to signifie being without question that which is visible and subject to sense But if the nature of the action which our Lord was about of the subject which his words expresse be such as requires this abatement then cannot the original sense of these words be so proper for this place as this abatement Here I will observe that the Council of Trent it self Sess XIII cap. I. speaketh so warily in this mater as not to exclude all maner of tropes from the right sense of these words saying Indignissimum sanè flagitium est ea à quibusdam contentiosis pravis hominibus ad sictitia imaginarios trapos quibus veritas caernis sanguinis Christi negatur contra universum Ecclesiâ— sensum detorqueri It is indeed a very great indignity that they are by some contentious and perverse persons wrested aside to contrived and imaginary tropes whereby the truth of Christs flesh and bloud is denied contrary to the whole sense of the Church They were wiser than to
comparison S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses in this case is sanctified by virtue of the Name of Christ remaining the same for sensible substance for I confidently maintain that the negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destroyes the sense as the comparison justifies for who sayes that the oile of the Chrisme or the water of Baptisme is changed for substance but for force changed into a spiritual virtue So also the water both that is exâ—rcized and that which Baptisme is done with not onely retains the worse but also receiveth sanctification Theodoret Dial. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord would have those that receive the divine mysteries not regard the nature of the things they see but upon the change of their names believe the change which grace effecteth For hee who called his natural body corn and bread and again named himself the Vine honours the visible Symboles with the name of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding his grace to it And Dial. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither do the mystical signes after consecration depart from their own nature but remain in the same substance and figure and form and may be seen and touched as afore The Pâ—eface to the Romane Edition of these Dialogues â—aith that Theodoret uses this language because the Church had as yet decreed nothing in this point An excuse much like the censure of the Epistles of Isidore of Pâ—lusium printed at Anwerpe which are licenced as containing nothing contrary to faith oâ— good manners For if the Church is able to make new Articles of Faith then may whosoever licenses books passe this censure because by the act of the Church making that Faith which was not so afore the dead might incurr the contrary censure But supposing that the Church is not able to do such an act that which was not contrary to the Faith when Theodoret writ it can never be contrary to it I will end with Facundus because the formal terms of my opinion are contained in his words Sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit As wee call the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup his body and bloud Not because the bread is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and bloud Whereupon our Lord himself also called the bread and cup which having blessed hee delivered to his disciples his body and bloud This is in few words the sense of the whole Church concerning this businesse Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna saith that the Gnosticks forbore the Eucharist because they believed not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins which the Lord raised again by his goodnesse But why believed they not this because they would not believe Transubstantiation or because they would not believe that our Lord Christ had flesh Let Tertullianâ— speak contra Marc. IV. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterùm vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset That bread which hee took and distributed to his disciples hee made his body saying This is my body That is the figure of my body But the figure it had not been if the truth of his body were not Otherwise an empty thing such as an apparition is â—ad not been capable of a figure For as Maximus saith in the third of those Dialogues against the Marcionists that go under Origens name what body and bloud was that whereof hee ministred the bread and the cup for signs and images commanding the Disciples to renew the remembrance of them by the â—ame As for that which is alleged out of Irenaeus I. 9. of Marcus the Magician and Heretick Pro calice enim vino mixto â—ingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermâ—nem invocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit uâ— putetur ea Gratia ab eis quae sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare in illius caliâ—em l. illum per invocationem ejus Making as though hee would give thanks for the cup mixed with wine and inlarging the word of invocation by which I said the Eucharist is consecrated to much length hee makes it to appear purple and red That men may think that Grace drops the bloud thereof from the Powers over all into that cup by the means of his invocation For had Irenaeus said that this Magician turned the wine into the substance of bloud in truth or in appearance it might have been alleged that the Christians whose Sacrament this Magician counterfeited though other Gnosticks as Ignatius saith quite balked the Eucharist and used it not believed that to be bodily bloud which is in the chalice and that therefore hee did it But when hee saith onely that hee made it appear purple and red perhaps hee used white wine which by juggling hee made seem red However there is no appearance that because hee made that look red which was in the cup therefore those Christians whom hee labored thereby to seduce did believe the bodily substance of Christs bloud to be in the Eucharist in stead of the substance of wine and under the dimensions of it It remains that I take notice in as few words as is possible of those contentions that have passed about this presence and the dissiculties which Transubstanhath found in getting the footing which it hath in the Western Church The book which Paschasius Radbertus Abbot of Corby near Arniens writ under the Sons of Charles the Great to prove that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is that same which was born of the Virgin is yet extant Though the more curious finde no such thing as Transubstantiation in it but rather a conceit of the impanation of Christs body if such a hideous term may passe that is that the God-head of our Lord Christ being by the operation of the Holy Ghost united to the elements the body and bloud of Christ is by the same means united to the fame A conceit not farr wide of that which Rupertus Abbot of Duitsh near Cullen about the year MCX teacheth that the bread is assumed by the Word of God to be his body as that is his body which was formed of the flesh of the Virgin Nor is there in effect much difference between this conceit and that of Consubstantiation at least according to those that ground
sorts of Oblations commanded by the Law and practised by Gods ancient people For First-fruits Tithes and accursed things that is things dedicated to God under a curse upon them that should convert them to any other use Leviâ— XXVIII were not dedicated to be spent upon the Altar in Sacrifices but to the maintenance of the Temple or of them that attended upon the service of it But seeing wee have now showed that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice it followeth that those Oblations which are dedâ—cated to God to be spent in the celâ—bration of the Eucharist in reference whereunto I have already showed that all Oblations of Christians are consecrated to God because dedicated to maintain the Communion of his Church whereof the Eucharist is that Office which is peculiar to Christianity are not barely consecrated to God but to the service of God by Sacrifice For those things which under the Law were consecrated to God to be sacrificed upon the Altar were not then first offered to God when they were killed and the parts of them burnt upon the Altar But from the time that they were declared Gods goods for that purpose as by the Law it self may appear in the precept of the second Tithe which for two years belonging to the poor the third year was to be spent in sacrificing at Jerusalem and so by Law and by no mans act consecrate to the Altar Deut. XIV 22-29 In as much then as I have showed that the Eucharist is a Sacriâ—iâ—e in so much and for that very reason that which Christians offer to God for the celebration of the Eucharist is no otherwise a Sacrifice than those things which were appropriated to the Altar under the Law were Sacrifices from the time that they were dedicated to that purpose Saving alwaies the difference between Sacrifices figurative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse such as Christianity supposeth all the Sacrifices of the Old Law to be and the commemoration and representation of the same past which I have showed that the Eucharist pretendeth And truly having showed that this representative and commemorative Sacrifice is of the nature and kinde of Peace-Offerings in as much as it is celebrated on purpose to communicate with the Altar in feasting upon it And knowing that every beast that was sacrificed for a Peace-Offering was attended with a Meat-Offering of floure and a Drink-Offering of wine which are the kindes in which the Eucharist is appointed to be celebrated I must needs say that those species set apart for the celebration of the Eucharist are as properly to be called Sacrifices of that nature which the Eucharist is of to wit commemorative and representative as the same are to be counted figurative under the Law from the time that they were deputed to that use This is then the first act of Oblation by the Church that is by any Christian that consecrates his goods not at large to the service of God but peculiarly to the service of God by Sacrifice in regard whereof the Elemenâ—s of the Eucharist before they be consecrated are truly counted Oblations or Sacrifices After the Consecration is past having showed you that S. Paul hath appointed that at the celebration of the Eucharist prayers supplications and intercessions be made for all estates of the world and of the Church And that the Jews have no right to the Eucharist according to the Epistle to the Hebrews because though Eucharistical yet it is of that kinde the bloud whereof is offered to God within the Vail with prayers for all estates of the world as Philo and Josephus inform us Seeing the same Apostle hath so plainly expounded us the accomplishment of that figure in the offering of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the Father in the highest heavens to obtain the benefits of his passion for us And that the Eucharist is nothing else but the representation here upon earth of that which is done there These things I say considered necessarily it follows that whoso believes the prayers of the Church made in our Lords name do render God propitious to them for whom they are made and obtain for them the benefits of Christs death which hee that believes not is no Christian cannot question that those which are made by S. Pauls appointment at the celebration of the Eucharist offering up unto God the merits and sufferings of Christ there represented must be peculiarly and especially effectual to the same purposes And that the Eucharist may very properly be accounted a Sacrifice propitiatory and impetratory both in this regard because the offering of it up unto God with and by the said prayers doth render God propitious and obtain at his hands the benefits of Christs death which it representeth there can be no cause to refuse being no more than the simplicity of plain Christianity inforceth But whether the Eucharist as in regard of this Oblation so in regard of the Consecration may be called a propitiatory Sacrifice this I perceive is yet a question even among those of the Church of Rome For it is acknowledged that there is yet among them a party even since the Decree of the Council of Trent who acknowledging the nature of a Sacrifice propitiatory in the Eucharist in regard of the offering of it already consecrated according to the order of the Latine Masse to God for the necessities of the Church utterly deny any nature of such a Sacrifice in it by virtue of the Consecration otherwise True it is these men are looked upon as bordering upon Hereticks in regard they acknowledg no other nature of a Sacrifice but that which those who acknowledg no Transubstantiation may grant without prejudice to their positions And if my aim were onely to hold a mean opinion between â—wo extreams and not freely to declare what may be affirmed with truth it might seem very convenient to take up that position for which I may allege a party at present extant in the Communion of the Church of Rome But having resolved to set all regard of faction behinde the consideration of truth manifested by the Scriptures I stick not to yield and to maintain that the consecration of the Eucharist in order to the participation of it is indeed a Sacrifice whereby God is rendred propitious to and the benefits of Christs death obtained for them that worthily receive it But this perhaps neither in the sense nor to the interest of them who make it their businesse to maintain the present abuses of the Church of Rome by disguising the true intentions and expressions of the Catholick Church That I may be understood without prejudice in this point I will lay down the difference of opinion that remains in the Church of Rome â—â—nce the Council of Trent as I finde it reported by Jacobus Bayus de Eucharistiâ III. 15-18 Hee complains of an opinion that the nature of a Sacrifice is not seen in conâ—ecrating the Elements to become the body and bloud of
I come to conclude against the Anabaptists Our Lord saith to Nicodeâ—â—us Joh. III. 3. Verily verily I say unto thee unlesse a man be born again hee cannot seâ— the Kingdom of God And what this new birth is he setteth forth in answering that impertinent question which Nicodemus not understanding him makes how a man should come out of his Mothers belly the second time Verily verily I say unto thee unlesse a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit Here I will grant the Anabaptists that the Sacrament of Baptism is not instituted by these words but by the act of our Lord after his Resurrection when he gives his Apostles their Commission Go make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you Mar. XXVIII 18. But for reasons which perhaps they will not thank me for though they be not able to refute As yet when this discourse was held it was not declared to all that took our Lord for a Prophet that he was the Sonne of God Nicodemus himselfe that comes to him as a Prophet saying Master we know thou art a Prophet come from God For no man could do the works that thou dost unlesse God were with him If he go away instructed that the same which obliges him to take our Lord Christ for a Prophet concludes him to be the Christ the Son of God he is beholden to the freedom of our Lord in declaring to him the pretense of his coming by this discourse But for the purpose of sending the Holy Ghost it cannot be imagined that it was declared from the beginning of our Lords preaching who reveals not the intent of his death to his Apostles till he grew towards the time of it The priviledge of sending the Holy Ghost being part of that state to which he was to be exalted rising from death How then can it be imagined that our Lord should from the beginning of his preaching appoint all to be baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is the Sacrament of Baptism that makes us Christians Certainly it is not the same thing for John to baptize in the name of him that should come as for the Apostles in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost Unlesse we think that all the people of God who expected a Messias expected him to be the Son of God which Christians worship our Lord Christ for and they crucified him for pretending to be There is therefore no cause why we should offer that violence to the Scripture Acts XXX 4. 5. John indeed baptized the baptism of repentance saying to the people that they were to believe in him that came after him that is in Christ Jesus And hearing this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus which I showed you is offered by those that would have it to signifie That those who were baptized by Iohn Baptist were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus For other answers that are devised to avoid to clear a Scripture I count them not worth the refuting so evidenâ—ly they force the express sense of the words And among them none more unreasonable thâ—n that which saith that these men were not indeed baptized with the baptism of Iohn though they thought they were And that S. Paul when he sayes John indeed baptized with water saying to the people that they should believe in him that was to come even in Christ Iesus argues and perswades them that they were not indeed baptized with the Baptism of Iohn though they thought they were For of all things in the world could men be deceived to think that they professed that which the Baptism of Iohn must oblige them to professe and did not Nor can it be said with any appearance of truth that Iohn baptizing unto repentance those whom he sends for the means of salvation for the future to him that was to come did baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus in as much as it is necessary to be said that the Apostles when they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Acts II. 38. VIII 16. X. 48. did sufficiently intimate the name of the Father whose Son they preached our Lord to be and also of the Holy Ghost whom our Lord had promised to those that are baptized as Irenaeus so long since hath exquisitely cleared the difficulty how they observed their Commission of baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Baptizing as S. Luke reports in the Name of the Lord Jesus But of Iohn the Baptist it is said Ioh. I. 29-34 That the morrow after he baptized our Lord he declared him to be the man that was to come after him in whose name he had baptized that he knew him not but came to declare him and that by the coming down of the Dove upon him it was revealed to him that he should know our Lord to be the man that came to Baptize with the Holy Ghost Whereby it appeareth that he cannot be thought to have baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus as that importeth as much as baptizing in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost For though it is evident that Iohn knew our Lord when he came to be baptized that he knew him to be in the world from the time that he began to preach and that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost Yet not knowing the man from the time that he began to baptize how could he baptize in his name and as the Son of God that was to give the Holy Ghost before our Lord himselfe had preached and declared upon what terms it was to come I suppose it is easie enough to distinguish between baptizing in the name of Christ and baptizing with an intent of sending them whom he baptized to Christ to be baptized with the Holy Ghost Neither is this to say that Iohns Baptism availed not to remission of sinnes for the time that it was on foot by Gods appointment when as we acknowledge that dispensation of Grace which was intimated and conveyed by the Law to have been the means to bring some to the righteousnesse of faith How much more the twilight of the Gospel under John the Baptist But that before the Covenant of Grace was published by the preaching of our Lord and inacted on Gods part by his death upon the Crosse or rather by raising him from death it was not time to determine that act by which God intended that profession which he requires for the condition of it should be solemnized and celebrated Therefore there came water and blood out of our Lords side upon the Cross to intimate the ground upon which this Sacrament should be in force for the future And if this be the condition
so that the precept concerns the Church no more then that grace appears But that the effect of it reaches to all ages of the Church abating that which depended upon the miraculous graces proper to the Apostles time For suppose remission of sinne past warranted the sick by the Keyes of the Church that have passed upon him Yet all Christians are to assure themselves that their spirituall enemies are most busie about them in that extremity Whither out of despair to prevail if not then or out of hope then to prevail Their malice being heightned to the utmost attempt of casting him down by the extremity of that instance God forbid then that the Prayers of the Church should be counted unnecessary in such an instance though the remission of sinne be provided for otherwise For all obstructions to Gods grace requisite in so great weaknesse to overcome being the effect and consequence of sinne Neither can it be said that the Apostle attributeth the remission of sinne to the Unction by the promise which he annexeth to the injunction whereby he imployes the Keyes of the Church to that end Nor can it be indured in a Christian to count the removing of them unnecessary and superfluous especially the patient being so disposed and in such a capacity for the effect of them by submitting to the ministery of the Church for the remission of his sinne And therefore certainly as it is necessary to presume that the promise of bodily health is not absolute and generall but where it pleaseth God to give evidence of his presence in and to his Church by the effect of his temporall blessings So that health of mind necessary to resist the tempter with which Christianity obliges us to suppose that Christians prayed for with bodily health the Prayers of the Church are not effectuall to obtain but upon supposition of that disposition which the Church requireth and that procured by the Keyes of the Church supposing the party obliged to have recourse to the Church for it How well this opinion agreeth with the sense of the Catholick Church I have argument enough both in the sayings of the Fathers whereby they express the reason of anointing the sick and in the practice of the Church Origen Homil. II. in Levit. Est adhuc dura laboriosa per paenitentiam remissio peccatorum cum lavat peccator in lachrymis stratum suum fiunt ei lachrymae suae panes die ac nocte cum non erubescit sacerdoti domini judicare peccatum suum quaerere medicinam secundum eum qui ait Dixi pronunciabo adversum me iniquitatem meam domino tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei In quo impletur illud quod Apostolus dicit Si quis autem infirmatur vocet Presbyteros Ecclesiae imponant ei manus ungentes eum oleo in nomine domini oratio fidei salvabit infiâ—num si in peccatis fuerit remittentur ei There is yet a hard and painfull remission of sinnes by Penance when the sinner washeth his Couch with tears and his tears become his bread day and night and when he is not ashamed to declare his sinne o the Priest of God and seek his cure according to him that saith I said I will declare my sinne to the Lord against my selfe and thou forgavest the impiety of my heart Wherein is also fulfilled that which the Apostle saith But if a man be sick let him send for the Priests of the Church and let them lay hands on him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and if he be in sinne it shall be forgiven him Here he gives Priests the power of forgiving sinne from S. James S. Chrysostome de Sacerdotio â— II. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For not onely when they regenerate us by Baptism but afterwards also have they power to remit sinnes For is any man sick among you saith he let him call the Pastors of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of Lord. Shall we then ascribe the effects of this power to the bodily act of anointing with oyl or to their Prayers not supposing that disposition to be procured by their ministery which the promise of remission supposeth Neither of both will stand with the premises seeing the Prayers of the Church cannot be effectuall to them that submit hot to the Ministery of the Church when it becomes uecessary for the procuring of that disposition which qualifies for remission of sinne so that the sense of the ancient Church declared here by Origen and S. Chrysostome must be understood to proceed upon consideration of the power of the Keys exercised upon the sick person that receiveth the unction with prayers for his ghostly and bodily health S. Augustine de Tempore Serm. CCXV Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit corpus sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat accipiat Et inde corpusculum suum ungat ut illud quod scriptum est impleatur in eo Infirmatur aliquis Videte fratres quia qui in infirmitate ad Ecclesiam accurrerit corporis sanitatem recipere peccatorum indulgentiam merebitur obtinere As oft as any infirmity comes let him that is sick receive the Body and Blood of Christ And then let him anoint his Body that that which is written may be fulfilled in him If any man be sick See brethren that he who shall have recourse to the Church in sickness shall be thought worthy to obtain both the recovery of bodily health and indulgence for his sinnes Now I ask whether the Rule of the Church will allow the communion of the Eucharist to him that hath not recourse to the Church for the cure of his sinne when he ought to have recourse to it For if we suppose the Eucharist to be given him upon confession of sinne then the reason which I pretend appears If without it is because nothing obliges him to have recourse to the Keyes of the Church at that time And so the prayers of the Church and the Eucharist and the unction are therefore effectual because the Church rightly supposeth him qualified for remission of sinnes without recourse to other means For daily sinnes and hourly are abolished by daily and hourly devotions with detestation of the same and yet more firmly abolished by partaking of these offices ministred by the Church Here I must give notice that I undertake not that this Sermon is S. Augustines own which I see is censured among those pieces that have crept under his name by mistake or by imposture For the stile also seemeth to make it some hundreds of years later then his time But I think it more advantage to my opinion that it held footing in the Church so long after S. Austin then that it appeareth to have been the sense of his time For the sense of the now Church of Rome that remission of sin
is to be attributed to the Unction appears to be of so much the later date And therefore I alledge also the words that are quoted out of the Book de rectitudine Catholicae conversationis among S. Austines Works Qui aegrotat in solâ dei miserecordiâ confidat Eucharistiam cum fide devotione accipiat oleumque benedictum fideliter ab Ecclesiâ petat unde corpus suum ungatur Et secundum Apostolum oratio fidei salvabit infirnuim alleviabit eum dominis Nec solum corporis sed animae sanitatem accipiet Let him that is sick trust onely in the mercy of God and receive the Eucharist with faith and devotion and faithfully send for the consecrated oyl from the Church that his body may be anointed with it And according to the Apostle the Prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall give him ease And he receive health not onely of Body but soul also This indeed is something like that which they say now in the Church of Rome that our originall inclination to evill dulnesse and faintnesse to good and aversenesse of the mind from spirituall exercises are those reliques of sinne which this Unction cureth In the mean time remission of sinne is or ought to be presupposed by the Keyes of the Church passed upon him that duly receives the Eucharist Nor can that health of the mind which cureth these infirmities be attributed to the Unction which pretends bodily health but to the prayers of the Church prescribe to be made for the sick in that estate And since those that deduce the office of anoiniting the sick and by consequence the effect of it from the practice of the Apostles curing with oyl as Bede Theophylact and Euthynius upon Mark VI. how will they justifie the spirituall promise of remission of sinne to depend upon the bodily act of anointing the sick but upon supposition of that disposition of the soul which qualifieth for it which cannot be supposed when recourse ought to be had to the Keyes of the Church for obtaining it and is not And thereforâ— there can be no greater argument thereof in the practice of the Church then this that the orâ—inary use of this unction both in the Eastern and Western Church is after receiving the Euâ—hariâ—l which supposeth in the Church a legall presumption at least of the parâ—â—es being in the state of grace The words of venerable Bede upon Mark VI. 13. are by no means to be neglected Dicit Apostolus â—acobus Infirmatur quis in vobis Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae orent super ipsum ungentes eam â—leo in nomine dâ—mini Et si in peccatis sit dimittentur ei Unde patet ab ipsis Apostolâ—â— hunc Sanctae â—cclesiae morem esse traditum ut energumeni vel alii quilibet aegroti uâ—gantur oleo pontificali benedictione consecrato The Apostle James saith Is aâ—y man among you sick let him bring the Priests of the Church and â—et them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord. And if he be in sinnes they shall be forgiven him Whence it appeareth that this custome was delivered to the Holy Church by the Apostles that the vexed with evill Spirits and other sick persons be anointed with oyl consecrated by the blessing of the High Priest I believe no lesse By that which the Apostles did then it appeareth that thereupon S. James ordered and the Church used to anoint the sick in hope of bodily health but with prayers for the soul also and that by the ministers of the Church when the case required their presence that is when the ministers of the Keyes was requisite But when he saith That the vexed with unâ—leâ—n spirits as well as the sick were to be anointed with it he toucheth thar whiâ—h he declareth more at large uâ—on James V. 14. 15. Hoc Apostolos fecisse in Evangelio legimus nunc Ecclesiae consuetudo tenet ut infirmi oleo coâ—secrato ungantur a Presbyteris oratione comitante sanentur Nec solum Presbyteris sed ut Innocentuis Papa scribit etiam omnibus Christianis uti licet eodem oleo in sua aut suorum infirmitate ungendo Quod tamen oleum non nisi ab Episcopis licet confici Nam quod ait in nomine domini significat oleum consecratum in nomine domini Vel certe quia cum ungunt infirnium momen domini super eum invocare debent This was not onely read in the Gospel that the Apostle did but also the custome of the Church now holdeth that the sick be anointed with consecrated oyle by the Priests and cured by Prayer accompanying the same Nor may onely Priests but also all Christians as Pope Innocent writeth use the same oyle when they or theirs are sick by anointing Which oyl notwithstanding is not to be consecrated but by the Bishop For that which he sath in the name of the Lord signifieth that the oyl must be consecrated in the name of the Lord. Or he saith it forsooth because when they anoint the sick they are to call upon the Name of the Lord over him The words of Pope Innocent Epist I. Quod non est dubinum de fidelibus aegro tantibus accipi vel intelligi debere qui sancto oleo Chrismatis perungi possunt quo ab Episcopo confecto non solum sacerdotibus sed omibus uti Christianis licet in sua aut suorum necessitaâ—e inungendo Which words of S. James are without doubt to be taken and understood of believers that are sick who may be anointed with the holy oyle of anointing Which being consecrated by the Bishop not Priests onely but all Christians may use when they or theirs need it by anointing And by and by Nam poenitentibus istud infundi non potest quia genus est Sacramenti Nam quibus reliqua Sacramenta negantur quomodo unum genus putatur concedi For it cannot be poured upon Penitents because it is a kind of Sacrament For how should it be thought that one kind can be allowed them whom the rest of the Sacraments are refused Bede agâ—in Si ergo infirmi in peccatis sint haec Presbyteris Ecclesiae confessi fueriâ—â— ac perfecto corde ea relinquere atque emendare sategerint dimittentur eis Neque enim sine coâ—fessione emendationis peccà ta querunt dimitti Unde recte subiungitur Confitemini ergo alteurtium peccata vestra orate pro invicem ut salvemini In hac autem sententia illa debet esse discretio ut quotidiana leviaque peccata alterutrum coaequalibus confiteamur eorumque quotidianà credamus oratione salvari Porro gracioris leprae immunditiaem juxta legem sacerdoti paudamus aâ—que ad ejus arbitium qualiter quanto tempore jusserit pacificari curemus If the sick then be in sins and shall have confessed them to the Priests of the Church and indeavoured to leave and mend them with a perfect heart
of Christians that is of the whole Church occultae quoque conjunctiones id est non priâ—s apud Ecclesiam professae juxta maechiam fornicationem judicari perclitantur Among us even clandestine mariages that is not professed before the Church are in danger to be censured next to adultery and fornication And therefore Ad uxorem II. ult Unde sufficiamus ad senarrandam faelicitatem ejus matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat How may we be able to declare the happinesse of that mariage which the Church interposeth to joyn de Monogamiâ cap. XI Quale est id matrimonium quod eis a quibus postulas non licet hahere What maner of mariage is that saith he speaking of marying a second wife which it is not lawfull for them of whom thou desirest it to have Because it was not lawful for the Clergy who allowed the people to mary second wives themselves to do the same Ignatius Epist ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becometh men and women that mary to joyn by the consent of the Bishop that the mariage be according to the Lord and not according to lust It hath been doubted indeed whether we have the true Copy of Ignatius his Epistles or not whether this be one of them or not But that Copy being found which Eusebius S. Jerome and others of the Fathers took for Ignatius his own and hath all that the Fathers quote just as they quote it nothing of that which stood suspected afore to refuse them now is to refuse evidence because it stands not with our prejudices Not that this power of the Church stands upon the authority of two or three witnesses These were not to be neglected But the Canons of the Church and the custome and practice of the Church ancientâ—r then any Canons in writing but evidenced by written Law which could never have come in writing had it not been in force before it was written suffer it not to remain without evidence In particular the allowance of the mariages of those who were baptized when they were admitted to Baptism evidenced out of S. Austine the Constituions and Eliberitane Canons evidenceth the Power of the Church in this point unquestionable And therefore against the Imperiall Lawes I argue as against the Leviathan that is if any man suppose that they pretend to secure the conscience of a Christian in marying according to them upon divorce Either the Soveraign Power effects that as Soveraign or as Christian If as Soveraign why may not the Christians of the Turkish Empire divorce themselves according to the Alâ—oran which is the Law of the Land and be secure in point of conscience If as Christian how can the conscience of a Christian in the Eastern Empire be secured in that case wherein the conscience of a Christian in the West cannot be secured because there is no such Civil Law there the Christianity of both being the same For it cannot be said that the Imperiall Lawes alleged were in force in the West after the division of the Empire I argue again That they cannot secure the conscience but under the Law of our Lord as containing the true interpretation of fornication in his sense And can any man be so senselesse as to imagine so impudent as to affirm that the whole Church agreeing in taking the fornication of maried people to signifie adultery hath failed but every Christian Prince that alloweth and limiteth any other causes of divorce all limiting severall causes attaineth the true sense of it Will the common sense of men allow that Homicide Treason Poysoning Forgery Sacriledge Robbery Mans-stealing Cattle-driving or any of them is contained is the true meaning of Fornication in our Lords words That consent of parties that a reasonable cause when Pagans divorced per bonam gratiam without disparagement to either of the parties can be understood by that name For these you shall find to be legall cause of divorce by those acts of the Emperours Lastly I argue If these causes secure the conscience in the Empire by virtue of those Laws why shall not those causes for which divorce was allowed or practiced amongst the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes do the like For that which was done by virtue of their Lawes reported there cap. XXVI XXX is no lesse the effect of Christian power that is Soveraign He that could find in his heart to tell Baronius reproving the Law of Justine that allowed divorce upon consent that Christian Princes who knew their own power were not so easily to be ruled by the Clergy p. 611. can he find fault with the Irish marrying for a year and a day or the Welch divorcing for a stinking breath Had he not more reason to say that knowing their power they might chuse whether they would be Christians or not The dispute being What they should do supposing that they are Christians And therefore it is to be maintained that those Emperours in limiting the infinite liberty of divorces by the Romane Law to those causes upon which dowries should be recoverable or not being made for Pagans as well as for Christians did as it were rough hew their Empire to admit the strict law of Christianity in this point And that this was the intent and effect of their acts appears by the Canons which have been alleged as well in the East as in the West made during the time when those Laws were in force For shall we think the Church quite out of their senses to procure such Canons to be made knowing that they could not take place in the lives and conversations of Christians to the effect of hindring to mary again If we coulde so think it would not serve the turn unlesse we could say how S. Basil should testifie that indeed they did take place to that effect and yet the Civill Law not suffer them to take effect From our Lord Christ to that time it is clear that no Christian could mary again after divorce unlesse for adultery some not excepting adultery In the baseâ— times of that Empire it appears by the Canons of Alexius Patriarch of C P. and by Matthaeus Blastares alleged by Arcudius p. 517. that those causes which the Imperiall Lawes allowed but Gods law did not took place to the effect of marrying again But that so it was alwaies from Constantine who first taxed legall cause of divorce nothing obliges a man to suppose For though the Emperours Law being made for Pagans as well as for Christians might inable either party to hold the dowry yet the Christian law might and did oblige Christians not to mary again The Mileuitane Canon showes it which provideth that the Emperour be requested to inact that no Christian might mary after divorce For this might be done saving the Imperial Laws But when we see the Civil Law inforce the Ministers of the Church to blesse those Mariages which the Civil Law allows but Gods Law makes adulteries the party that is put away
of ransome Ephe I. 13. IV. 30. Unless a reason could be showed why S. Peter and S. John should travail from Jerusalem to Samaria to do that which they need not do at Jerusalem where they were Or originally why the Imposition of the Apostles hands should be requisite to procure some the Holy Ghost and not others This being that which the Scriptures record of the Apostles all men know how ancient how general the custome hath been in the Church for Bishops to confirm the baptized by praying for the effect of it which is the Holy Ghost with Imposition of hands Professing thereby that they own their Faith and Baptism and acknowledge them for part of their flock as acknowledged by them for their Pastors Which is that eminence of honour due to the Bishop in which the welfare of the Church consisteth saith S. Hierome advâ—rsus Luciferianâ—s For Tertullian also de Bapt. cap. XVII reserveth unto the Bishop the right of granting Baptism though he allow not onâ—ly Priests and Deacons but partly also Laymen to Baptize Now if from the beginning this priviledge was reserved the Apostles in signe of the truth of that Baptism which so they allowed If those who received Baptism at years of discretion hâ—â—ing theâ—â—elves made profession of their faith were neverthelesse to acknowledge thâ—ir Paâ—â—ors and the Unity of the Church wrapped up in them as that uâ—on which the effect of Baptism dependeth How much more those that are bâ—ptized Infanâ—s Who cannot otherwise according to the original constitution of the Church be secured that they profess the faith of the whole Church but by their Bishops allowance through whom they have communion with the wâ—ole Church For as I have showed that there was originally no other mean to maintain the unity of the Church but the faith of the Bishop to secure the whole Church of the faith of his flock So was the â—same the onely mean to secure the flock that they held the faith of the whole Church which owned their Bishop and his faith And howsoever the profession of faith may be limited and the Bishop in exacting the same yet is it necessarily an act of chief Power in the Church to allow the communion of the Eucharist So that when once Presbyterians share this part of the Bishops Power among their Triers allowing them to admit to the Communion those that can say the Catechism which they made themselves First they put upon us a new faith which we must own for the faith of the Church Then to debauch Partizans to themselves they authorize the malice of gross carnall Christians to domineer over their neighbours whom they may easily pick a quarel with for not answering their Catechism but are not able either to warrant or to teach them the truth of the least tittle of it which so neerly concerning their salvation how necessary is it that it be reserved to the Head of each Church Besides that by acknowledging him they visibly submit to the Laws of the Church by which he governs and to his authority in such maters as the Laws do not determine which is the very means of maintainidg Unity in the Church And truly the consideration of this point discovers unto us the onely sure ground upon which any man may resolve what offices of christianity may be ministred by the several Orders of the Church For when the power of Confirming proper to the Bishop evidenceth that he alone granteth Baptism either by particular appointment or by general Law in which his authority is involved but a Layman sometimes may minister it we see what S. Paul means when he sayes 1 Cor. I. 17. God sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel Our Lord having said Mat. XXVIII 19. Go Preach and make Disciles of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost To wit that the Power of appointing it not the ministery of doing it is proper to the Apostles and their successors Which reason will hold in sundry particulars concerning Ordination concerning Absolution and Penance concerning confirmation and others In all which this being once secured that no man act beyond the Power which he receiveth it will be no prejudice to the unity of the Church that some Orders do that by particular commission from their Superiours which their Order inables not all that are of it to do Because in such cases it is not Authority but Ministery which they contribute As for the order of Priesthood that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is equall to the Power of the Keys in which that Order hath an Interest in the inward Court of Conscience the outward Court of the Church being reserved to the Bishop with advice and assistance of his Presbyters whereas the power of Preaching and Baptizing is of ordinary Right communicable to Deacons For the proof of all this I referre my selfe to that which I have said in the Right of the Church Chap. III. and to that which must be said here in due place Let not then those of the Presbyteries or Congregations think their businesse done till they can give us some reasonable account how all the Christian world should agree to set up Bishops into a rank above their Clergy and People both if this had been forbidden nay if it had not been so ordered by the Apostles Not that I grâ—nt them to have any more appearance of evidence from the Scriptures to destroy the superiority of the Bishops and the concurrence of the Clergy to the maintenance of unity in the Church then the Socinians have to destroy the faith of the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction of Christ But because I do grant these as I granted the other that there is that appearance of evidence which every one that is concerned to be subject to Bishops cannot evidenly resolve as every one that is bound to believe the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction is not bound to be able evidently to resolve all objections which the Socinians can make against it out of the Scriptures For it is granted that S. Hierome hath alleged many texts of Scriptures to show that Bishops and Priests were both the same thing under the Apostles and that therefore the difference between them is but of positive humane right by custome of the Church and hath many followers in this opinion among Church Writers Though with this difference that it can never be pretended that S. Jerome or any Ecclesiastical Writer after or before S. Jerome ever alleged the words of S. Paul 1. Tim. V. 17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour specially those that labour in the word and doctrine or any other syllâ—ble of the whole Scripture to show that any of those that S. Paul pronounces worthy of double honour were Laymen that is of the rank of the people Which is now an essential ingredient of the design both of our Presbyteries and also so farre as I know of the
Bishop above his Presbyters not to be derived from any agreement of the Church but from the appointment of the Apostles In the mean time suppoâ—â—ng the whole Church to agree in that which God had inabled them to agree in having not tied them to the contrary but having tied them to live in viâ—â—ble unity and communion all Churches with all Churches they that depart from this Unity upon this account shall bee no less Schismaâ—â—cks then had the Superiority of Bishops been setled by the Apostles This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XVIII The Apostles all of oequall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-â—minence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it SOme consideration I must now bestow upon that Position which derives a Monarchy over the Church from S. Peters priviledges For I make no scruple to grant that he was indeed the first and chief of the Apostles as he is reckoned in the Gospels Mat. X. 2. Mar. III. 16. Luk. VI. 14. and that in likelihood because he was the first in leaving all to adhere unto our Lord as the man to whom our Lords call is directed Luk. V. 4-11 though he was first brought to our Lord by bis brother Andrew as Philip once brought Nathanael that was not of the twelve John I. 41-46 so that this first call gave them acquaintance but made them not Apostles And from this beginning we may well draw the reason why S. Peter is alwaies the forwardest to answer our Lords demands and to speak in the name of his fellows Mat. XIV 28. XV. 25. XVI 16. XVII 24. XVIII 21. XIX 27. XXVI 33. Mar. VIII 29. X. 28. XI 21. XIV 29. Luk. VIII 45. IX 20. XII 41. XVIII 28. XXII 34. Joh. VI. 68. XIII 6. Act. I. 13. 15. II. 14. 37. IV. 8. which it would not become the reverence we owe the Apostles so impute to S. Peters sorwardnesse without acknowledging the ground of it being visible But these priviledges will not serve to make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles The stress lies upon Mat. XVI 16-19 And Simon Peter answered and said Thou arâ— the Christ the Son of the living God And Jesus answered and said to him Blessed art thou Simon Son of Jonas for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee but my Father in the heavens And I say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loose in the heaven And upon John XXI 15. 16 17. where S. Peter thrice professing to love Christ receives of him thrice the command of Feeding his sheep But will this serve the turn ever a whit more It must be either by virtue of the mater which our Lord sayes of or to S. Peter or by virtue of his saying it to S. Peter and to none else Against this later consideration I conceive I have provided by the premises For seeing there is a sufficient reason to be given otherwise why S. Peter answers before the rest when our Lord demand whom they acknowledge him to be the reply of our Lord addressed to him alone will give him no more then the precedence not the Soveraignty over the Apostles Which is still more evident in S. John because S. Peter having undertaken before the rest to stand to our Lord in the utmost of all his trialls had deserted him most shamefully of them all denying udder an oath to have any knowledge of him For it is not observed for nothing that he professes the love of Christ thrice Let S. Peter then be the Prince Apostle or the chiefe Apostle let him be if you please the Prince of the Apostles there will be found a wide distance between Princeps Apostolorum in Latine as some of the Fathers have called him and Soveraign over the Apostles When Augustus seized into â—is hand the soveraign Power of the Romane Empire nomine Principis as we read the beginning of Tacitus under the title of Prince He was well aware that the Title which he assumed did not necessarily proclaim him Soveraign which he deâ—â—red not to do As for the â—aâ—er of our Lords words those that fear where there is no fear wil have our Lord say that he buildeth his Church upon the Faith of S. Peter profâ—ssing our Lord to be Christ Or to point at himselfe when he saith Upon this Rock will I build my Church But what needs it Saith he any more to S. Peter then S. Paul saith to the Ephesians II. 20. Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone Or S. John of the new Jerusalem Revel XXI 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations upon which were the names of the XII Apostles of the Lambe How then shall S. Peter be Soverâ—ign by virtue of an attribute common to him with the rest of the Apostles Some conceive that when our Lord proceeds to tell him that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church He meanâ— no more but that he will rescue his from death by raising them again But raising from death implies raising from sinne in the Old Testament expresses it in the New And the City of God which is the Church in the New Testament referrs to the City of Satan that oppugneth it And therefore The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Cannot signifie lesse then a promise that the Church shall continue till our Lords second coming to judgement notwithstanding the malice of Satan and his complices But S. Peter is not the onely foundation of it though no body else be named here Again our Lord gives S. Peter the Keyes of his Church here as in S. John he commands him to feed his flock But is the office of feeding Christs flock S. Peters peculiar Have not the Apostles the charge of it even from our Lord do they do it by virtue of S. Peters commission or by his appointment How are they Christs Apostles otherwise As for the Keyes of the Church they are given to S. Peter here they are given to the Twelve by the power of remitting and retaining sinnes as I have shewed John XX. 21. 22 23. by the power of binding and loosing they are given to the Church Mat. XVIII 18. And can any man make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles and over the Church by virtue of that which is no priviledge of his the rest of the Apostles and the Church being all indowed with it Hear we not what S. Luke saith Act. VIII 14. The Apostles
indeed there is a great deale of reason to maintaine that those living creatures consisting of four faces whereof one was the face of an oxe heifer or calf which Ezekiel in the I. II. III. and X. Chapters of his Prophesies describeth drawing the Throne of Gods Majesty were no other then the Cherubim which Moses according to the pattern showed him in the mountaine had caused to be made over the Arke Which is also to be said of the Seraphim with six wings which the Prophet Esay saw about Gods Throne Esa VI. and is expresly said of the four living creatures which Saint John sees Apoc. IV. 6 7 8. in compassing Gods Throne They conceive then that Aaron and Jeroboam intended no more but to give the people a visible signe of Gods presence out of his own prescription to Moses Aaron onely to satisfy the people and to retaine them to the worship of the true God whom he proposed to them to worship by this slight But Jeroboam being under the Law which God had made that his presence should no where besought but at the place which he should chuse and that choice being executed by his appointment of Solomon to build him the Temple at Jerusalem Deut. XII 5-14 compared with Levit. XVII 3-6 2 Sam VII 2 3-13 1 King V. 5. VI. 11 12 13. VIII 29. 1 Chron. XXII 10. 2 Chron. VII 12. It is manifest therefore that he transgressed this Law and made a Schisme in Israel by transgressing of it who were to remaine one people in Religion by the meanes of it whatsoever might succeed in the civile government But it seems neverthelesse that he intended no way to recall them from the worship of the true God And therefore Joahaz the sonne of Jehu not departing from the sinne of Jeroboam prayes to God and obtaines deliverance from the Syrians And his Son Joas obtaines an answer from God by the Prophet Elizeus 2 King 4 5 6 14-19 as did his son Jeroboam by Jonas XV. 25 26 27. And indeed when Jeroboam is said to set upon house of high places 2 King 12. 31. why should we make this worse then other high places which for a time were tolerated in Israel because it was not yet fully declared what place God would chuse but after the Temple was built were indeed unlawfull but so that no man can conceive that it was Idolatry to sacrifice in them For when the good Kings are commended for destroying Idolatry and seeking onely the true God it followeth oft times that neverthelesse the people still resorted to the high places 1 Kings XII 2 3. XIV 3 4. XV. 3 4 34 35. which would be inconsequent if it had been Idolatry to resort to the high places though it was an evil custome that prevailed against the Law Therefore the Prophet Osee declares it for a curse against Israel that they should remaine a long time without sacrifice statue Ephod or Teraphim Os III. 4. And Micah of Mount Ephraim his mother having consecrated her money to the Lord that is to the true God for it is the incommunicable name God which the Scripture there useth and made thereof a molten and a carved image had an house of God with an Ephod and Teraphim having set them up in his house Jud. XVII 1-5 to wit because he served God in the same order as he was served at the Tabernacle onely before an image representing his presence as it was represented by the Cherubim in the Tabernacle This therefore is the Idolatry which the second Commandment forbiddeth namely to make an image representing the prefence of God and consequently to fall down and worship the true God before it Which when God declareth to be matter of jealousie to him he sheweth it to be the breach of the Covenant of wedlock which he had entred into with the Synagogue which she on her part was found to renounce by so doing Though it is true those that excuse Aaron and Jeroboam as if they intended onely to use the same symbole of Gods presence which Moses and Solomon by Gods order had set up at the place appointed by God thereby to perswade the people that it was all one whether they found God at Jerusalem or where they set them up must say by consequence that in so doing the Covenant of God was violated by departing from that precept of his law but with no intent to fall away to other Gods for to commit Idolatry in it For had Jeroboams intent been to bring in false gods what had been the difference between his sinne and the sinne of Omri and Ahub of Ahaz and Manasses afterwards 1 Kings XVI 25 30-33 XXI 25 26. 2 Kings XVI 3. XXI 3-9 For if all Idolatry implieth a defection and apostasy from the true God to imaginary deities was it not the same thing for Jeroboam to set up his calves supposing that he set them up to represent such deities as for Ahab to serve Baal or Manasses and the ten tribes 2 Kings XVII 7 8 9. to commit the same Idolatries for which the Amorites were cast out from before the Israelites Besides that in reason it seemeth utterly uncredible that the Israelites having worshipped the true God till Solomons death nay that Jeroboam himself having received assurance of the kingdome by Gods Prophet Ahiah 1 Kings XI 26-40 as Jehu by Eliseus with instructions concerning the house of Ahab the execution whereof God alloweth 2 Kings IX 7-10 X. 30. I say it seemeth a thing very incredible that those people in a moment of time as it were upon the publishing of Aarons and Jeroboams innovations should change the inward sense and reverence which in their heart they had acknowledged the true God to yield the same to any imaginary godhead which they by their Calves might pretend to represent Neither was it a thing any way consequent to Jeroboams interest which it is plaine was the onely reason that moved him to innovate to debauch the people to this point For if he might obtaine of them not to go up to Jerusalem to worship the true God there how did it concern him to insist further with them to worship any false God of his devising within his dominions A thing farre more difficult to draw all them to who feaâ—ed God from the heart in the ten tribes then to induce them for fear of him to worship him at a wrong place continuing faithfull to his Kingdome This is the difficulty or if you please these are the difficulties which are or may be alledged against that definition which to the nature of Idolatry requireth the beliefe of more gods then one But no way tend to satisfy us of any other generall reason for which both this and other actions should hear upon them the common mark and stamp of Idolatry by the penalties of it in the Scriptures For what reason can indure to believe that the mark and penalties of Idolatry should rest upon actions of so vast a distance
God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt I answer with the Wisdom of Solomon XIV 21. that idolaters did ascribe unto stones and stocks the incommunicable Name of God Which if it can be said of the Gentils that knew not the incommunicable name of God the Israelites which used it must needs attribute it to those imaginary deities which they advanced to the rank of the onely true God And truly S. Steven Acts VII 39 40 41. describing this act by no other terms then those whereby the Scripture expresseth the Idolatries of the Gentiles prosecuteth with an allegation out of Amos V. 25. thus Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven as it is written in the book of the Prophets O ye house of Israel did ye offer me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of fourty yeares in the wildernesse Nay ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the Starre of your god Rempham figures that ye had made to worship them Which it seems is to be understood all during their travaile in the wildernesse because S. Steven charging them that they sacrificed not to God in the wildernesse seemeth to presse it further by naming to whom they did sacrifice And what Tabernacle doth he charge them to have taken up but that which the Priests took up to carry in the wildernesse Which being the tabernacle of the true God they by intending to worship Moloch in it made his Tabernacle So that it cannot be strange if they attribute the name of the true God to those whom turning idolaters they held as true Gods as he I will not dispute why they chose the figure of a calfe let who please allow the reasons alledged If I did not find idolatry in the acts of Aaron and Jeroboam I might easily be ridde of all these objections otherwise For if Aaron and Jeroboam did not commit Idolatry how is it Idolatry to worship God under an image But finding the markes of idolatry in them I must needs acknowledge in them the reason of all idolatry according to the Scriptures Supposing Aaron intended onely a symbole of Gods presence consecrated by him in his Tabernacle Jeroboam to follow his example those that were set upon apostasy by the instigation of the mixt multitude that came with them out of Egypt Exod. XII 38. and set them on murmuring for flesh Num. XI 4. turning back in their hearts to Egypt Acts VII 38. that is to the â—dolatries which they had practised there Ezek XX. 7. may well be thought to have set up the calfe which the Egyptians worshipped But I need not build on conjectures having showed that idolaters might exercise their idolatry even towards a symbole of Gods own service Neither is it any marvaile that Jehu should honor Josaphats posterity because he served God 2 Chron. XXII 9. though that may be imputed to the time when he had not yet declared to follow the sinne of Jeroboam and his posterity seek God and his Prophets having never tied the people to worship any false God but onely done that which by necessary consequence at least if we count what in discretion must needs come to passe according to the common course of humane affairs must needs produce idolatry And supposing they set up the idolatry of the Egyptians they might as well have recourse to God and his Prophets in their necessities as Ahab humbled himself at the word of Elias 1 Kings XXI 27. how farre soever we may suppose that he went in acknowledging the true God for the same will as easily be said of Jehu and his postirity Now it seems to me a thing most certaine that high places were tolerated between the dividing of the Land and the building of the Temple Whether because the precept of the Law was not yet in force God having yet declared no setled choice of any place for his seruice as he saith to David 2 Sam. VII 6 7. or because soone after the Tabernacle was setled in Shiloh the Ark was taken by the Philistines and so the Tabernacle desolate as the Jewes understand it For who can allow that Gideon a Judge stirred up by Gods Spirit should set up an high place for Gods worship against his Law Judges VI. 34. VIII 23. For the mention of an Ephod there VIII 27. is but to say that the Order of Gods service in those high places was according to the Order of the Tabernacle But what occasion of idolatry these high places did give we may easily gather by the Law Levit. XVII 5 7. which declareth that when they were not tied to the Tabernacle in the wildernesse but offered their sacrifices in the open fields they sacrificed to Devils For being beset round with idolatrous nations that confined the deities which they worshipped to their Temples and Images it is no marvaile if they were tainted by the same not to understand the true God whom they worshipped in the tabernacle to be every where as much present as in the Tabernacle The true worshippers of God in Spirit and Truth under the Law understood it well enough with Gideon neither is it any marvaile being then licensed and in use if he conceived it might be for the service of God to set up an high place in his City But by the event we see what advantage the worse part hath to turn that which is well meant to ill uses when the people fell so soon to idolatry upon that occasion that it became a snare to Gideon and his house And surely when Moses was in the mount with God and the presence of God was not seen about the tabernacle is not this that which the people allege to Aaron to make them a God as professing not to believe that Moses his God was among them but finding it necessary that God who brought them out of Egypt should go ebfore them Exod. XXXII 1 2 And so Jeroboam setting up a new place of Gods presence and the whole nation having admitted the presence of the God of Israel to be confined to Solomons Temple it followed that the grosser sort of people who could not distinguish the omnipresence of God from the conceits of the idolatrous nations which they were incompassed with appropriating severall gods to severall countreys as the Syrians thought the power of God to reach to the mountaines and not to the valleys 1 Kings XX. 23. must needs take it for another God that Jeroboam set up for the God that brought Israel out of Egypt and conforming to his Law worship him under that conceit For when S. Steven having related how Solomon built God an house addeth straight to correct the mistake of the Jewes to whom he spake Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in Tempels made with hands as saith the Prophet Heaven is my Throne and earth is my footstoole what house will ye build me saith the Lord Or what is the place of my rest Hath not my hand made all these things Acts
in opposition to the flesh seeing the soules of the Fatherâ— which by the dispensation of the Law appeared not freed from the Devin wâ—re indeed free by the Gospel uâ—der the Law it is no marvaile that â—ur Lord Christ represents his soule as in the power oâ— those who had the power oâ— death who â—aith This is your time and the time of the powers of darkenesse Doâ—h S. Paul make any more oâ— thâ—s text Heare his words Actâ— Xâ—Iâ— 34-37 That he raised him from the dead no more to returne to corruptioâ— thus he saith I will give you the sure meâ—cies of David Wherefore he saith also in an other Psalm Thou shall no suffer thine holy one to see corruption For David having served the counsaile of God in his generation fell asleep and was added to his Fathers and saw corruption But he whom God raised â—â—w no corruption He argues the mysticall sense in our Lord Christ 〈◊〉 the literall sense in David was come to nothing by his death but how the mysticall sense in our Lord Christ By his triumphing in Hell or by rising againe Therefore S. Paul againe Rom. X 6-9 thus wrâ—steth the words of Moses out of the Jewes hands to the establishing of the Gospel upon supposition that the law is the figure of it Say not in thy heart who shall goe up into heaven as Moses Deut. XXX 12. faith The Law is not in heaven that thou shouldest say would to God some body would bring it us from heaven that we might heare and doe it So saith he of the Gospel thou needest not say would to God some body would go up into heaven To wit to bring downe Christ Or who shall goe downe into the deep as Moses addeth The Law is not beyond sea that that thou needest say would to God some body would goe beyond sea and bring it us that we might heare and doe it So thou needst not say would to God some body would goe downe into the deep To wit to bring Christ up from the dead But what saith it The Law correspondent to the Gospell The word is neere in thy mouth and in thy heart That is the word of Faith which wee preach That if thou prâ—fesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus believing with thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Here it is plaine the deepe is not named for the place of the damned but for that place or for that state out of which it was hard to recover Christ supposing him dead As it was hard to bring the law from beyond the seas The deep I deny not represents to us the place of the damned Luke VIII 31. as also the parts that are under the earth Phi. II. 10. Apoc. V. 13. may comprehend also the dead Therefore the deep signifies the place of the damned not necessarily as here but because the speech is of the region of Devils of the sealing up of the devill in the deep Just as I said of the grave the pit and the place under the earth that when the scripture speakes of the Giants of the enemieâ— of Gods people of Davids enemies in Gods people it signifies either the place or at least the state of the damned which the Old Testament must needs acknowledg acknowledging the happinesse of Gods people Psalme IX 18. Proverbs V. 8 VII 27. IX 18. And so went Corah and his complices quick into Hell Num. XVI 30 33. So Psalme LV. 24. LXIII 10. The proper place of the dâ—mned spirits seemeth to be properly called by S. Peter Tartara when he saies that God delivered them to be kept for judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in chaines of darkenesse being cast downe into Tartara or Hell 1. Peter II. 4. Now the state of death brings not Christian soules into Hell unlâ—sse wee suppose that the place of good souls under the Law which supposition I have destroyed Therefore the bringing of Christ from the deep is done by raising him again So quoting David againe Ephes IV. 8 9 10. Therefore he saith Psa LXVIII 17. Going upon high he led captivity captive and gave men gifts Now that he ascended what is it but that he first descended into the lower paâ—ts of the Earth He that descended is the same that ascended far above all things to fill or fulfill all things The Psalme speakes of the Arke going up into the Tabernacle or Temple figuring the going up of our Lord to the right hand of God as Psalme XXIV 6-10 XLVII 5. The going up of the Arke was Gods triumph over the Idolatrous nations whom he cast out of the Land of promise giving gifts to his people in it The going up of our Lord Christ S. Paul saies implies that he had come downe before into the lower pâ—rt of the Eearth Either in respect of mount Sinai upon which the Psalme describes God with that attendance which the aâ—ke the Cherubines thereof signifie his host of Angels in the words just afore Or we may well understand the lower parts of the earth to signifie by the figure of apposition the earth that is below as flumen Rheni Vrbs Patavii signifie the river Rhine and the City Padna For we have a peremptory instance in Psa CXXXIX 15 where David saith that he was fashioned in the lower parts of the earth speaking of his mothers wombe therefore meaning the earth below The ascension therefore of Christ pretending to fill rather then fulfill all with his graces of which he proceeds to speake requires no descent into hell which he pretends not to fill with his Graces If the resurrection ascension of Christ satisfie these texts so that they require no further descent then into the state of deaâ—h supposing what I said before of the soules of the fathers under the Old Testament I must needs conclude that the body of Christ being buryed his soule went with the good theifes soule into Paradise or the bosome of Abraham where the soules of the Fathers were refreshed of their travells till the first and then the second comming of our Lord. Paradise we know was the place of mans happniesse wherein he was created whence having sinned he was shut out In our Lords time Gods people it is plaine understood well enough the state of the righteous soules in the other world You have seene it out of those boâ—kes which we call Apocrypha Supposing the place unknown as indeed it is how could it be more properly signified then by the name of Paradise opening unto us the whole allegory by which the happinesse which wee seeke to recover by the covâ—nant of grâ—ce was expressed to us by God first in the Land of promise secondly in the Church after in the heavens after the redemption of our bodies The true Land of promise to which the Gospell and the Church secretly taught and built under the Law introduceth us because the Law cannot is that Paradise to which Christ restoreth Adam that was
this that the body being buryed the soule goe ad Inferos For in Psalmum II. he exemplifies in Dives and Lazarus And Lactantius VII 21. Nec tamen quisquam putet animas post mortem protinus judicari Omnes in una communique custodia detinentur dones tempus adveniat quo maximus index meritorum faciat examen Yet let no man think that soules are judged straight after death They are kept in one common guard till the time come for the Soveraigne Judge to examine theire deserts He denies them to be judged whom Novatianus acknowledgeth to be prejudged or forejudged He means our common guard but intends not to deny the gulfe which it is parted with S. Ambrose de Bono Mortis X. XI saith that those lodgings which the Apocryphichall Esdras speaketh of are the many lodgings which our Lord saith are in his fathers house Iohn XIV 2. and speaking of the Gentiles Satis fuerat dixisse illis quod liberatae animae a corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peterent id est locum qui non videtur quem locum Latine infernum dicimus It had been enough for them to have said that soules freed from their bodies goe to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to a place not seen which place wee call hell in Latine Signifying that according to Christianity all soules going to Esdras his lodgings may be said to goe to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latine makes to be under the Earth But whether Christianity so understand it or no not expressing Againe Ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis expectant anims remunerationem debitam Alias manet paena alias gloria Et tamen nec illae interim sine injuria nec istae sine fructu sunt While therefore the fulnesse of time is expected soules also expect their own reward Some punishment some glory attendes yet neither they without hardship nor these without benefit in the meane time Yet as it followes neither grieved with cares neither vexed with the remembrance of that which is past as the wicked but foreseeing their rest and glory to come injoy the quiet of their lodgings under the guard of Angels If it be excepted that there is no mention of the Fathers soules Let it be considered how many Church-writers have made the bosome of Abraham in which Lazarus rested before our Lords death a place of rest and refreshment from death till the day of judgement Their words you may find in the answer to the Jesuits Challenge named afore p. 260-267 Where those expositions of the Gospell which goe under the name of Theophilus of Antiochia Euthymius of Lions write two opinions the one placing it under the earth the other above because the rich man lifted up his eyes From whence the second of those dialogues against the Marcionists that goe under Origens name argueth that it is in heaven So far is the ancient Church from being agreed that those store-houses wherein it is agreed that all soules are kept till the generall judgement are beneath the earth And though he was a Christian that writ the Apocryphall book of Esâ—ras II. from whom S. Ambros and S. Austine receive their store-houses of Soules yet speakes it in the person of Esdras concerning the Fathers of the Old Testament In the meane time of the removing of them by the descent of Christ out of the Verge of Hell into heaven not one word in all this which certainely may serve to evidence that there never was nor is any such Tradition in the Church In fine the descent of righteous soules in to hell and the deliverance of them from thence by the descent of our Lord Christ may be understood two severall waies Either according to the literall sense of the old Testament or according ot the mysticall sense of the New For it is manifest that Adam was condemned to labor the earth first and then to returne to the earth And this being expulsed out of Paradise The secret of Christianity consisting in this that our Lord Christ should restore the posterity of Adam from those sorrowes which brought him to the earth whence he was taken to Paradise whence he was expulsed was not to be revealed though it was to take effect in all who in effect though not in forme imbraced and held the Covenant of Grace during the old Testament The land of promise and the blessings thereof were then the pledges of this hope To leave them by death was then to acknowledge themselves liable to the second death which returning to the earth signified so long as their returne to Paradise was not revealed Though to them which understood what the Land of promise signified it was to returne into paradise The new testament succeeding to reveale the mystery of the old must it not needes seeme strange that the Fathers of the old Testament should behave themselves towards death as they who had not this hope Supposing this reason not then to be declared it neede not seeme strange not supposing the same it seems to cal in question som thing of our common Christianity The Gospel opens the secret representing Dives in Hel torments Lazarus in Abrahams bosom But our Lord Christ himselfe being brought downe to the dust of the earth to deliver mankind from the second death signified by the same did our common redemption require that he should come any further under death and them who had the power of it our common Faith might seeme maimed in not believing it But the worke of redemption being accomplished upon the Crosse the effect of it was to be tryed by the disposing of his soule Which effect whether those that belonged to the new Testament under the Old understood by the scriptures of the Law they understood it as did the Devil by theire deliverance out of his hands For the reason of their deliverance he might not understand till the rising of Christ againe taught it When therefore wee see the soules of Adam and his posterity assigned by the Fathers of the Church to the powers of darkenesse let us understand it to hold according to the Old Testament and it will comprehend also the souls of the Fathers Who belonged to the New Testament When we heare them describe them in the rest of Abrahams bosome according to that which our Lord revealeth let us understand the effect of the New Testanent in them that dyed under the Old Without distinguishing thus I conceive it will be impossible to reconcile the Fathers to themselves and the common faith For pressing that which they say on either side you will not faile to make them crosse one an other as well as the Scriptures But thus distinguishing the common faith will remaine that which Macrina in Gregory Nyssens dialogue de anima resurrectione answers to the question Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is To wit that the translation of the soule from this visible world to that which is not seen is all that can be had
either from Hethen writers or from the Scriptures There being nothing under the earth but that which answereth this Hemispere above the earth Which clause is added to meete with one opinion of the Gentiles that the lower hemispere is the place of soules and the torments of Hell which they call Tartara as much beneath it as heaven is above this Onely here it must be provided that the gulfe be not forgotten which our Lord fixeth between Abrahams bosome and the place of torments Dionysius Eccles Hierarch Cap. II. seemeth to agree with Gregory Nyssenâ— and so doe others whom unlesse you distinguish thus you wil not find to speak things consequent to themselvs And I am much confirmed in it first by the difference of opinions among the fathers concerning Samuels soul Which we as there be enough of them that cannot indure to yeild it to have been in the devils power to raise so are they by that meanes obliged to maintaine the rest of the Fathers souls with Samuels to have gon into Abrahams bosom with Lazarus Secondly by their agreement in acknowledging that Paradise which was shut upon man for the sinne of Adam is opened by the death of Christ to receive the righteous For to conceive that they understood this of that Paradise which Adam was expulsed would be to make them too childish But understanding it of that estate which that Paradise signified you have Saint Basil assigning Paradise to Lazarus de Jejunio Hom. I. Besides another Homily intitled to Zeno Bishop of Verona Nay you have expresly in Philo Carpathius upon Cant. VI. 2. My love is gone into his garden Or his Paradise Tunc enim Paradisum triumphator ingressus est cum ad inferos penetravit Then did he enter Paradise in triumph when he pierced into hell Making the beds of spices there to be the souls of the Fathers to whom our Lord conducted the good thiefe And Olympiodorus upon Cant. III. saith that some make Paradise under the earth and that there Dives saw Lazarus Others in heaven Whereas the letter of the Scripture placeth it upon the earth But howsoever that the righteous are both in joy and peace and also in Paradise Thinges not to be reconciled not distinguishing as I do Lastly the reason of Faith setleth me upon this ground The reason of Faith I say not the rule of Faith For I do not say that any part of the dispute belongs to that which the salvation of all Christians necessarily requireth them to believe He who understandeth that himself is saved by imbracing Christianity and living according to it I do not understand why he should be damned because he understood not by what meanes the Fathers afore Christ were saved provided he deny not their salvation to the disparagement of Christianity whereof they were the forerunners And this is the case of Hermes and Justine and Clemens and if there were any others who thought that the Fathers or the Philosophers were saved by believing in Christ at his descent into hell meerly because they understood not the ground of that difference between the litterall and mysticall sense of the Old Testament which I have said Indeed in regard it is by consequence destructive to Christianity that the Fathers should have attained salvation any wayes but as Christians in that regard I answer the position is by consequence prejudiciall to Christianity But because by that consequence which the most censorious of the error do not owne and not owning necessarily incurre some other inconvenience to Christianity I say not that they destroy the common faith who hold it but that they destroy the true reason of it which subsisteth not unlesse we grant that the Fathers obtained salvation by Christ Nor that unlesse we grant that they came not under the Devils Power by death who died qualified for salvation as that time required There remaines no question what company the soul of Christ was with for the time that it remained parted from the body nor how the descent thereof to Hell is to be understood supposing the premises The Tradition of the descent of Christs soul into hell can by no meanes be parted from the Tradition of an intent to visite the soules of the Fathers That supposes that the soules of the Fathers were disposed of under the earth whether in the intrails of the earth or in the hemisphere below us as the Heathen did imagine And infers that the intent of it was to redeem them out of the devils hands to go with our Lord Christ into his kingdome Could this be maintained to be the Tradition of the Church I might be straitned by the Tradition of the Church But as I have showed it to be by consequence prejudiciall to the Faith So I have showed that there is no Tradition of the Church for the disposing of all soules before Christ under the earth whether in the devils hands or otherwise Nor for the translating of any soule from under the earth to heaven with Christ and by Christ But for the continuance of all in those unknown lodgings where they are disposed at their death till the day of judgement whether before or after Christ Though the Latine hath no name to signify them but inferi or infernum necessarily signifying as to the originall of the word the parts beneath the earth There is therefore no question to be made as to the Tradition of the Church that the soule of Christ parting with the body went to the soules of the Fathers which the Gospell represents us in Abrahams bosom whether the death of Christ removing the debt of sin which shut Paradise upon Adam make that place known to us by the name of Paradise to which our Lord inducted the good thiefe Or whether the Jewes had used that name for the place to which they believed the soules of the righteous do go But there is therefore no Tradition remaining of the descent of Christs soul into hell to rescue the soules of the Fathers out of the Verge of Hell commonly called Limbus Patrum to go with him into his kingdome True it is which Irenaeus saith and the Tradition of the Church will justify it that our Lord Christ was to undergo the condition of the dead for the redemption of mankind And therefore the separation of his humane soul from the body was really the condition in consideration whereof we are freed from the dominion of death True it is that this dominion of death is signified in the Old Test by the returning of Adam to the earth of which he was made And that the grave is an earnest of the second death in all those that belong not to the N. Test while the Old was in force Therefore that our L. Christ was to undergo the condition common to mankinde to which the first Adam was accursed is a part of our common faith Because the curse was to be voided by his undergoing of it Accordingly therefore you shall find by the
already how farre they containe an exception to this In the case of Timothy ordained to that work which Saint Paul by his Epistles instructeth him how to discharge what shall we conceive to be the effect of imposition of the hands of the Presbytery supposing him thereupon indowed with a grace of doing miracles or speaking strange languages but without any gift of saving grace to direct the use of the same to the salvation of his people What else but that which a sword is in a mad mans hand or knowledge eloquence or understanding in him that should set himself to raise himself a sect of followers into heresie or schisme Which should God allow Timothy upon Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery allowing it that Christian people might have confidence in so great a Pastor in whom they saw such manifestation of Gods Spirit might he not reasonably be said to allow him means to seduce Christian people I will not therefore contend but the Grace that was given Timothy by Prophesy signifieth some visible manifestation of Gods Spirit in him concerning whom there had Prophesies gone afore in the Church of how great eminence he should be in it But so as to suppose that saving grace wherein it manifested God to be in Timothy which saving grace though not wanting in him when he came to receive imposition of hands because he who receiveâ— it being no true Christan shall never receive that effect by it yet might by the effect thereof be extended applied or determined to the right use of whatsoever miraculous grace he might thereby receive in the service of Gods Church For to him that hath by nature or by Gods blessing upon his honest indeavours an ability to preach to dispute to resolve in Christianity and hath not by Gods saving grace the intent to use it well what doth such a gift bring but ability to do mischief Therefore the gift given Timothy by imposition of hands being that which was prayed for in behalf of him by those who laid hands on him is the grace to behave himself well in the function which thereby he receiveth Which being obtained by the prayers of the Church what reason leaveth it why the prayers of the Church should not still obtaine the like setting aside the difference between them that pray or him for whom they pray And certainly the effect of all prayers depends upon the same conditions be it never so much the ordinance of God which they desire him to blesse Here is then I meane in Ordination an ordinance of God solemnized with the visible câ—remony of imposition of hands signifying the overshadowing of Gods protection or of his Spirit which it pretendeth to procure upon the promise of Gods presence with his Church when it prays to him Which if it be therefore reckoned among the Sacraments of the Church as the property of the term will certainly bear it so can it be no disparagement to the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist as if it came in ranck with them For the grace which it procureth as it is limited to a particular effect of ministring to the Church the ordinances of God according to that trust which he reposeth in the office So is the grace which God appointeth to be convayed to his people by the ministry of every office no lesse to be obtained by that outward profession under which the order of the Church obliges them to minister the same whatsoever a mans inward intention that is not visible may be then if he really did intend to do his best for the service of God and the salvation of his people I speak now so farre as the order of the Church goes For otherwise it cannot be doubted that a mans personall abilities may give a great deal of life to the publick order of the Church and adde much in prosecution of the true intent and in order to the due effect of it All which the Grace to indeavour the faithfull discharge of each office and the blessing of God upon such indeavours which the blessing of the Church with imposition of hands prayes for containeth and effecteth But of all powers of the Church and the offices which they produce there is none that cometh so nigh the promises of the Gospel as that which consists in binding the sinnes of those that visibly transgresse their Christianity upon them and in loosing them upon visible Penance For this restoreth to a capacity for the gifts of the Holy Ghost forfeited by transgressing the Covenant of our Baptisme and by admitting to communion in the Eucharist immediately reneweth the same And truly the whole worke of it is nothing else but the satisfying of the Church that the man hath appeased the wrath and regained the favour of God that is satisfied God in the language of the ancient Church in consideration of the satisfaction of our Lord Christ accepting his Penance for satisfaction which of it selfe it is not And in regard of this great vertue and effect of penance I marvail not that in the reformation Melancthon is found to have reckoned it a third Sacrament after Baptisme the Eucharist For the name of Sacrament seemeth most duely to belong to the acts of those Offices which conduce most to the attaining or to the maintaining of the state of Gods Grace And truly it cannot be denyed that the solemnity of Penance in the ancient Church was such as might wel serve to signifie the recovering of that Grace the ground which Christians have for the helpe whereof it so effectually intimateth So though a mans own repentance in private hath the same promise of Grace yet the solemnity of Performing penance in the Church seemeth requisite to the nature and quality of the Sacrament in whatsoever sense it shall be attributed to it And this solemnity all reason will allow must needs have been of great effect to procure and settle in the penitent that disposition for pardon which it seemeth to professe This solemnity being so much abated in private penance that nothing of it remaines saving the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notwithstanding so long as it remaines an office of the Church which limiteth the forme and the rules according to which it is done with due hope of effect there is no reason why the nature of a Sacrament should be therefore questionable When it is given out and simple Christians are so governed as if they were obliged to believe that attrintion is changed into contrition by vertue of the Keyes of the Church passing upon it that is that he who is not qualified for pardon when he confesses is by receiving the sentence of absolution qualified for pardon so that neither staine nor guilt of sin remaines but the debt of temporall punishment whereas the time of Canonical penance grounded a presumption that the change was wrought then may there seeme to be cause of questioning whether penance be a Sacrament that is an holy office of the Church in
not yet onely as it inables me to conclude that this kind of prayer is not Idolatry This necessarily followes from the premises Because a man cannot take that Saint or Angel for God whose prayers he desires But manifestly showes that his desire is grounded upon the relation which he thinkes he hath to him by our Lord Christ and by his Church Neverthelesse though it be not Idolatry the consequence and production of it not being distinguishable from Idolatry the Church must needes stand obliged to give it those bounds that may prevent such mischeif as that which shall make it no Church For though the degrees are not visible by which the abuse is come to this height yet I conceive it appeares by Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. XXVIII that before S. Jerome the Saints had no roome in the Litanies which answer Pray for us after every Saints name There he telleth that S. Jerome first translated Eusebius his Martyrologe containing what Saints died on what dayes of the year at the request of Chromatius and Heliodorus Bishops upon occasion of that commendation which the Emperor Theodosius had given Gregory Bishop of Cordova for commemorating every day at the Eucharist the saints of the day And afore this he affirmeth the Saints names had no room in the Letanies And Chemnitius hath given us the transcript of an ancient Letanie out of a written Copy belonging to the Abbey of Corbey upon the Wesor which calleth upon the Saints Sancte Petre Sancte Paule c. but so that the suffrage is Exaudi Christe O Christ hear us or them for us which is the effect of the first sort of Prayer and an evident argument that the formes now in force took possession by degrees For the Letatanies are properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord have mercy upon us as the Liturgies of Saint Basil and Saint Chrisostome call them By that forme of service which the Constitutions of the Apostles relate where the Deacon indites to the people what they are to pray for in behalf of all estates in the Church and their necessities you shall see the people answer onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord have mercy That is their part Thence came the name of Letanies whether such devotions were used in Processions or otherwise That in the Letanies of Saint Gregory whereof we read in his life I. 41. 42. The Saints were spoken to the people answering Ora pro nobis pray for us it is easy to believe For of Charles the Great and Walafridus his time there is no question to be made That the same was done in Saint Basils Letanies whereof Epist LXIII or in those which Mamertus Bishop of Vienna instituted as we find by Sidonius Epist V. 14. VII 1. which have since been called Rogations there is no manner of appearance And the innovaâ—ion of Petrus Fullo the Eutychian Bishop of Antiochia after the Councile of Chalcedon which Nicephorus relates Eccles Hist XV. 28. in bringing the Blessed Virgine into the prayers of the Church is enough to assure us there is no Tradition of the Apostles for it A difference very considerable For grant the monuments of Saints and Martyrs the places for Christians to meet at for Gods service in publicke for their private devotions by primitive Christianity All this while the service of God is the work the honour of the Saints determines onely the time and place of it Processions celebrated with Letanies were assemblies for Gods service to turn away his plagues and the like And when the Saints come into them their honor becomes part of the work for which Christians assemble Suppose a simple soul can distinguish between Ora pro nobis and Domine miserere between Pray for us and Lord have mercy upon us How shall I be assured that it distinguishes between the honour that Pagans gave the lesse gods under Jupiter the Father of gods and that which himself gives the Saints under the God of those Saints And is it enough that the Church injoynes not nor teaches Idolatry Is it not further bound to secure us against it I know not whether it can be said that Processions and Letanies are voluntary devotions which the people are not answerable for if they neglect They were first brought in and since frequented at the instance of Prelates and their Clergy and if they be amisse the people are snared by their meanes that is by the Church if the Church bear them out in it And by these three sorts of Prayers it appears that without giving bounds to private conceits there is meanes to stop mens course from that extreamity which whether it be reall Idolatry or not nothing can assure us Upon these terms I stand I have heard those relations upon credit not to be questioned which make their devotions to Saints hardly distinguishable from the Idolatries of Pagans That they who preferred them could not or did not distinguish I say not In fine they demonstrate manifold more affection for the Blessed Virgine or some particular Saints then for our Lord. That they call not upon Saints to pray for them but to help them That they neither expresse nor can be presumed to meane by praying for them but by granting their prayers In fine that they demonstrate inward subjection of the heart wherein Idolatrie consists I cannot disbelieve those who relate what they see done What may be the reason why to them rather then to God It was a meanes to bring the world to be Christians that it was preswaded that God protected Christians by the intercession of those Saints whose Festivalls they solemnized But it brought them to be Christians with that love of the world and the present commodities of it which Christianity pretends to leave without the Church among the Pagans Should they resigne these affections to their Christianity they would have immediate recourse to God whom having to friend they know they need neither be troubled for plague nor toothach nor any thing which the Crosse of Christ consists with While they cannot assure themselves that they do no marvaile if they would have such Christianity as may give them hope of that by the Saints which God assures them not by it I grant it no Idolatrie that is not necessarily any Idolatrie to pray to Saints to pray for us The very matter implies an equivocation in the word praying which nothing hinders the heart to distinguish But is it fit for the Church to maintaine it because it is necessarily no Idolatry I grant Ora pro nobis in the Letanies might be taken for the ejaculation of a desire which a man knowes not whether it is heard or not as some instance in a leter which a man would write though uncertaine whether it shall come to hand or not and I could wish that the people were taught so much by the form as a powerfull meanes to preserve the distance between God and his creature alive in their esteem I count it not
is a thing necessary to the subsistence of all communities Nor is a private person chargeable with the faults of the Lawes under which he lives untill it appeare that by the meanes of those faults he must faile of the end for which the community subsisteth That is of salvation by communicating with the Church of Rome But to make a private Christian a party to the decrees and customes of the Church by swearing to admit and imbrace them all because he communicateth with it is to make him answerable for that which he doeth not He that would swear no more then he believes nor believe more then he can see cause to believe being a private Christian and uncapable to comprehend what Lawes and customes are fit for so great a Body as the Church must not swear to the Lawes of the Church as good or fit were there no charge against them because past his understanding but rest content by conforming to them to hold communion with the Church But in stead of mending the least of those horrible abuses which the complaints of all parts of Christendome evidence to be visible to exclude all that will not sweare to them is to bid them redeem the communion of the Church by transgressing that Christianity which it ought to presuppose Well may that power be called infinite that undertakes to do such things as this But how should the meanes of salvation be thought to consist in obeying it Here is then a peremptory barre to communion with the Church of Rome onely occasioned by the Reformation but fixed by the Church of Rome That order which severall parts of Christendome had provided for themselves under the title of Reformation might have been but provisionall till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tollerable agreement in order whereunto a distance for a time had been the lesse mischievous had not this proceeding cut off all hope of peace but by conquest that is by yeilding all this And therefore this act being that which formed the Schisme the crime thereof is chiefly imputable to it As therefore I saide afore that the Sacrament of Baptisme though the necessary meanes of salvation becomes a necessary barre to salvation when it inacteth a profession of renouncing either any part of the Faith or the unity of the Church So here I say that the communion of the Eucharist obtained by making a profession which the common Christianity alloweth not a good Christian to make is no more the meanes of salvation to him who obtaineth it upon such termes how much soever a Christian may stand obliged to hold communion with the Church And this is the reason that makes the communion of the Church of Rome absolutely no more warrantable then afore now that it is become unwarrantable to communicate with Presbyteries and Congregations But comparatively an extremity in respect to the contrary extremity holds the place of a meanes Nor did I ever imagine that the humor of reforming the Church without ground or measure may not proceed to that extremity that it had been better to have left it unreformed then to have neglected those bounds which the pretense of Reformation requireth I say not that this is now come to passe comparisons being odious But this I say that he who goes to reforme the Church upon supposition that the Pope is Anti-Christ and the Papists therefore Idolaters is much to take heed that he miskenne not the ground for that measure by which he is to reforme And taking that for Reformation which is the furthest distant from the Church of Rome that is possible Imagine that the Pope may be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters for that which the Catholick Faith and Church alloweth It is a marvaile to see how much the zeale to have the Pope Antichrist surpasses the evidence of the reasons which it is proved with For otherwise it would easily appeare that as an Antipope is nothing but a pretended Pope so Antichrist is nothing else but a pretended Messias He who pretends to be that which Christ is indeed and to give salvation to Gods people Our Lord foretells of false Christs and false Prophets Mat. XXIV 24. Marke XIII 22. and those are the Preachers of new Sects which pretended to be Christs and which pretended not to be Christs Simon Magus and Menander we know by Irenaeus and Epiphanius Dositheus by Origen upon Matthew pretended all of them to be the Messias to the Samaritanes who as Schismaticall Jewes expected the Messias as well as the Jewes Saturninus and Basilides were false prophets but not Antichrists because not pretending that themselves were the Messias but pretending some of those whereof they made that fullnesse of the Godhead which they preached to consist to be the Messias Among the Jewes all that ever took upon them to be the Messias besides our Lord Jesus are properly Antichrists Among whom Barcochab under Adriane was eminent But there is reason enough to reckon Manichaeus and Mahomet both of that ranck As undertaking to be that to their followers which the Jewes expected of the Messias to save them from their enemies and to give them the world to come For Manichaeus seems indeed to have given himself the Name of Menahem signifying in the Ebrew the same as Parucletus in Greeke because he pretended to be assumed by the holy Ghost as not he but Christians believe that the Word of God assumed the manhood of Christ But when he writ himself Apostle of Jesus Christ in the head of his Epistle called the foundation which S. Austine writes against it was not with an intent to acknowledge our Lord the true Christ whose coming he made imaginary and onely in appearance but to seduce Christians with a colourable pretense of the name of Christ and some ends of the Gospels as you heard Epiphanius say to take himself for that which Christ is indeed to Christians Saint Austine contra Epist Fund cap. VI. suspecteth that he intended to foist in himself to be worshipped in stead of Christ by those whom he seduced from Christ And shows you his reason for it there But whether worshipped or not for it cannot be said that Mahomet pretended to be worshipped for God by his followers though he could not be that which our Lord Christ is to Christians unlesse he were worshipped for God yet he might be that which the Messias was expected to be to the Jewes in saving them through this world unto the world to come Whether Christians are to expect a greater Antichrist then any of these towards the end of the world or not is a thing no way clear by the Scriptures And the authority of the Fathers is no evidence in a matter which evidently belongs not to the Rule of Faith It is not enough that Saint John saith Ye know that the Antichrist is coming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 John II. 28. for how many thousand articles are there that signify no such eminence and
declares himself further when hee saith IV. 34. Panis percipiâ—ns invocationem Dei jam non communis est The bread that hath admitted the invocation of God is no more common bread To wit that word of instituion in virtue whereof the Church calleth upon God to make the elements his body and bloud Some of them say it is done by Gods word as the world was made by it But the world was made by the word of Gods command And in these words This is my body this is my bloud command there is none In these Do this in remembrance of mee there is a command which includes a warrant or promise Though the effect of it depend upon the execution of the command by the Church whereas immediately upon Gods word the world was made And this is that word S. Augustine meant when hee said Accedat verbum ad elementum sit Sacramentum The word being applyed to the element the Sacrament is made But this application is the execution of Christs Ordinance not saying that hee said This is my body this is my bloud For hee saith the body and bloud of Christ is onely that quod ex fructibus terrae susceptum ac prece mysticá consecratum rite sumimus Which wee duly receive being taken out of the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer which I speak of De Trinit III. 4. To the same purpose Epist LIX A saying or two of S. Chrysostomes indeed I remember that name those words speaking of the consecration as by which the flesh and bloud of Christ became present in the Eucharist In II ad Tim. Hom. II. that as the words which our Saviour then spoke are the same which the Priest now uses so is the Sacrament the same and consecrated by Christ as that was And Hom. de Judâ— hee saith to inferre the same The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest but the elements are consecrated by the Power and Grace of God This is saith hee my body By this word the bread and wine are consecrated Not by the rehearsing of these words but by virtue of his command Do this And by virtue of that blessing or thanksgiving upon which our Lord affirms the elements which hee had consecrated to be his body and bloud For the meaning may well be referred to the institution of Christ and the execution thereof by the Church which S. Chrysostom supposing may well say that upon this affirmative of our Lord This is my body this is my bloud depends the Consecration of the Eucharist Not as that which effecteth it but as that which evidenceth and assureth it in as much as it was said by our Lord Christ upon supposition of that blessing or prayer which hee appointeth it to be consecrated with So the Author de Caenâ Domini in S. Cyprian that since our Lord said Do this in remembrance of mee This is my body this is my bloud the bread and the cup being consecrated by these words become profitable to the salvation of man True it is indeed in as much as the appointment of our Lord Christ is not completely executed by consecrating the Eucharist but by respectively delivering and receiving it you may truly say that by virtue of these words Take eat this is my body this is my bloud that which every man receives becomes the body and bloud to him that receives it For as I have said that it becomes the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in order to our feasting upon it so is that which I receive completely and finally the body and bloud of Christ to mee when I receive it But this sense supposing it already to be the body and bloud of Christ to all that communicate in it according to Christs ordinance cannot be to the purpose of them that would have it become such to all that receive it by virtue of these words by which it becomes so finally to him that finally receives it An Objection indeed there is but which lies against the other opinion as much as against this out of S. Gregory Epist VII 64. Indict II. Orationem verò Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus quia mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent Et valdè mihi inconveniens visum est ut precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Et ipsam traditionem quam Redempâ—or noster composuit super eâ—us corpus sanguinem taceremus But the Lords Prayer wee therefore say straight after the Prayer because the custome of the Apostles was to consecate the sacrifice of oblation with that alone And it seemed to mee very inconvenient that wee should say over the oblation the Prayer which a School Doctor had composed And silence the Tradition which our Redeemer composed over his body and bloud For if the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist by saying the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory here seems to affirm thâ—n can there be no Tradition of the Apostles whereby a certain Prayer is prescribed as that wherein the consecration of the Eucharist consisteth Therefore if it should appear that S. Gregory did indeed believe that the Apostles used the Lords Prayer in celebrating the Eucharist with an intent to consecrate the Sacrament by the same I confesse I should rather adhere to S. Basil affirming the Apostles to have delivered certain words that is the meaning of certain words to call upon God for the consecrating of the elements into the body and bloud with For in so doing I should not preferâ— S. Basil but the whole Church the practice whereof so general and so original as hath been declared could have no beginning but that which our common Christianity pretendeth from the Apostles before S. Gregory And truly that the Consecration should end with the Lords Prayer I do easily believe to come from the practice of the Apostles so ancient and so general I finde that custom which S. Gregory maintains Nor is it any more that S. Jerome hath said in his third book against the Pelagians though hee is sometimes alleged for that which S. Gregory saith Sic docuit Apostolos suos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater noster qui es in coelis So taught hee his Disciples that believers dare say every day at the sacrifice of his Body Our Father which art in heaven By â—nd by Paâ—em quotidianum sive super omnes substantias venturum Apostoli deprecantur ut digni sint assumptione Corporis Christi The Apostles pray for daily bread or above all substances to come that they may be worthy to receive the Body of Christ All this concerns the concluding of the Consecration with the Lords Prayer as it did alwaies conclude For â—â—r â—ight hee allegeth that as soon as a man is baptized coming to the Communion hee is to say Forgive us our Trespasses But before that form was made which
S. Gregory saith Scholasticus composed whether hee mean a man of that name or as I conceive some Doctor that professed the Scriptures if S. Gregory should tell mee that some other form to the same effect was not in use I could not believe him believing the premises The substance and effect whereof under the name of Eucharistia or the Thanks-giving is that which the Church from the beginning consecrated the Eucharist with by the appointment of our Lord and according to the practice of his Apostles So Rabanus de Institutione Clericorum I. 32. affirms that the whole Church consecrates with Blessing and Thanksgiving the Apostles having taught them to do that which our Lord had done Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. XXII relates two several opinions concerning this businesse as it appears by his discourse Et relatio majorum est ità primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas sicut modò in Parasceve Paschae in quo die apud Romanos Missae non aguntur communicationem facere solemus Id est praemissâ— Oratione Dominicà sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepti commemoratione passionis adhibitâ eos Corpori Dominico communicâsse Sanguini quos ratio permittebat And there is a relation of our Predecessors that in the first times Masse was done as now on Good Friday on which day Masse is not said at Rome the communion is wont to be made That is that the Lords Prayer premised and the commemoration of his death applyed those whom reason allowed did communicate in the Body and Bloud of our Lord. The practice of the Church of Rome here mentioned is that which still continues not to consecrate the Eucharist either on Good Friday or the Saturday following For then Masse is said so late that it belongs to Easter day And on Maundy Thursday the Eucharist is consecrated and reserved to be received on Good Friday That any commemoration of Christs death is made at the receiving of it as Rabanus saith I finde not This is certain that no man imagines that the Eucharist is consecrated by any thing that is said or done at the receiving of it but at the Masse on the day before And this in the Greek Church is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Liturgy of the elements that were consecrated afore Which they use on other days besides Therefore this opinion that the Apostles should celebrate so would import that they celebrated the Eucharist without consecrating of it That is that they never appointed how it should be consecrated Which neither Rabanus nor any of these whose opinion he relates can maintain Nor supposing the premises is it tenable And therefore I take the true meaning of S. Gregories words to be laid down in another opinion related afore by Rabanus Quod nunc agimus multiplici orationum cantilenarum consecrationum officio totum hoc Apostoli post eos proximi ut creditur orationibus commemoratione passionis dominica faciebant simpliciter That which wee act by an Office compounded of many and divers Prayers Psalms and Consecrations all that the Apostles and the next after them did plainly with prayers and the commemoration of our Lords passion as it is thought For the consecration may well be understood to be made plainly by prayer with commemoration of our Lords passion in opposition to that solemnity of Lessons Psalms and Prayers which at the more solemn occasions of the Church it was afterwards celebrated with Though wee suppose it to conclude alwaies with the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory requires And herewith the words of S. Gregory seeâ— to agree when hee â—aith Vt ad ipsam â—solummâ—do orationem To consecrate at or with it alone not by it alone But if this opinion cannot passe having indeed no constraining evidence but that S. Gregories words will needs require that they conâ—ecrated the Eucharist by the Lords Prayer alone I will will then â—ay that the Apostles understood the petition of our dayly bread as S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer doth To wit of the breâ—d and drink of the Eucharist daily celebrated and received For supposing this intent and meaning there is nothing pretended to be done by the consecration which that Petition signifieth not Praying that God will give us this day the dayly food of our â—ouls by the elements presently provided for that purpose And all this will no way prejudice that which hath been said of the mater and form of the consecration derived by Tradition from the Apostles to be frequented at more solemn occaâ—â—ons of Christian Assemblies For that Assembly which believing that Christians are justified by undertaking to professe the Faith and to live according to it and that our Lord hath left us his body and bloud of the Eucharist to convey the Holy Ghost to our â—ouls that they may be able to perform what they undertake should pray the Lords Prayer over the Elements proposed with that intent I cannot doubt of their receiving the Body and bloud of Christ Provided that where the occasion will bear more solemnity the Order of the Church received from the Apostles be not neglected Whereas supposing Christians to believe that they are justified by believing that they are justified or predestinate in consideration onely of Christs sufferings and that the Eucharist is instituted onely for a signe to confirm this Faith Though they should regularly use that form of consecration which I maintain to come by Tradition from the Apostles I would not therefore grant that they should either consecrate the Eucharist or could receive the Body and bloud of Christ by it Sacrilege they must commit in abusing Gods ordinances to that intent for which hee never appointed it but Sacrament there would be none further then their own imagination And upon these premises I am content to go to issue as concerning the sense of the Catholick Church in this point If it can any way be showed that the Church did ever pray that the flesh and bloud might be substituted instead of the elements under the accidents of them then I am content that this be counted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist But if the Church onely pray that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements may make them the body and bloud of Christ so that they which received them may be filled with the grace of his Spirit Then is it not the sense of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance because supposing that they remain they may neverthelâ—sse become the Instrument of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it no otherwise than his flesh and bloud conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the body and bloud of Christ Sacramentally that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is not here to be denied that