letters are Barbarians as to our speech Cap. 5. He saith Tradition being thus in the Church let us come to that proof which is from Scripture and so spends several Chapters in shewing the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles out of Scriptures From what hath been observed it is evident 1. That the Hereticks Irenaeus dealt with were in some thing of the Spirit of this Discourser that is only for their own Tradition and would neither be tryed by Scriptures nor any other Tradition but what was amongst themselves as our Discourser will disown tryal by Scriptures and by what was delivered in the Fathers Writings or Councils Cor. 14. and from all other Churches but the Roman Church Cor. 13 17. 2. That the reason why he so much insisted upon Tradition was because these Hereticks as they denied Scripture so they pretended to the best Tradition which way of his arguing speaks not Tradition the Rule of Faith but of considerable use in this case even as if we should dispute with a Pagan who owns not Christian Revelation concerning the truth of Christian Religion the using rational Arguments against him will shew that we count them very useful in this case but will not conclude that we own reason and not revelation for a Rule of Faith so if a Christian shall urge the Doctrine of the Old Testament as sufficient and certain against the Jew it would be a vain consequence to inferr that he makes this only and not the New Testament-Revelation the Rule of his Christian Faith 3. That Irenaeus did not think the urging the present Tradition of the Church sufficient against those Hereticks but thought it necessary to have recourse to the ancient Churches Tradition and this Doctrine of the ancient Church he evidenceth sufficiently from the writings as also from the verbal testimonies of them who were famous in the ancient Church and Protestants are as ready as any to appeal to the ancient Church and had we such a man as Polycarp who conversed with S. John we would receive his testimony as far as Irenaeus did But having only ancient Writings which Irenaeus thought sufficient in the case of Tradition we readily appeal to them 4. That when Irenaeus saies the Apostles Tradition is manifest in the whole World lib. 3. c. 3. or lib. 1. c. 3. though there be divers tongues in the World yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same That is the Church in the whole World believes and delivers the same Faith He speaks this against those Hereticks about those great Articles of Faith That there is one God and one Jesus Christ c. as himself expresseth lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 3. c. 3. for even in the time of Irenaeus there was not in all the World an agreement in all Doctrines since Victor Bishop of Rome and Irenaeus did not agree in this whether it was Lawful to Excommunicate the Asian Churches for their different observation of Easter Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 6. Now is this any consequence That Doctrine which teacheth one God c. against those Hereticks was generally continued in the Church till Irenaeus his time which was not two hundred years after Christ therefore all Doctrine must certainly be preserved without corruption in the Churches Delivery above sixteen hundred Years after Christ though we certainly know that besides Protestants other Churches do not now deliver the same things 5. When he said Ought we not to have followed Tradition if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures He saith not we ought to do so now they have left them but rather in these words intimates the contrary But now more directly to see his opinion of the Rule of Faith consider these words of his lib. 3. c. 1. The Gospel they then preached they after delivered to us by the Will of God in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith And then shewing how the Evangelists have delivered to us by Writing saith If any man assent not to them he despiseth even Christ the Lord and the Father and is condemned of himself and resisteth his own salvation Lib. 2. c. 46. Wherefore since the holy Scriptures both Prophetical and Evangelical clearly and without ambiguity and as they may of all be heard declare c. they appear very dull who blind their eyes at such a clear discovery and will not see the light of preaching C. 41. Having therefore the truth it self for our Rule and the testimony of God being openly manifest we ought not to reject the firm and clear knowledge of God If we cannot find the solution of all things in Scripture we must believe God in these things knowing that the Scriptures are perfect being spoken by the word of God and his Spirit Lib. 4. c. 66. Read more diligently the Gospel which is given us by the Apostles and read more diligently the Prophets and you shall find every action and every Doctrine and every passion of our Lord set forth in them Lib. 3. c. 11. The Gospel is the pillar and firmament of the Church and the Spirit of life wherefore it is consequent that it hath four pillars he hath given us a fourfold Gospel which is contained in one Spirit If then according to Irenaeus men may believe by the Scripture and that is the pillar and foundation of Faith and they that seek may find all Doctrine in it which is there clear and manifest is not this enough to shew he makes it a Rule of Faith If not we have observed him calling it by the name of a Rule also and declaring that none but the Barbarous Nations did then receive the Faith in an unwritten way SECT XI What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith ANd first in his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where in the begining of his Prooem having observed that some who profess themselves to believe in Christ differ in so great things as concerning God our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost by which words he manifestly refers to such Hereticks as Irenaeus before him treated of Such were Montanists Valentinians Marcionists c. he begins to lay a Rule he will proceed by in the words referred to by this Author Let the Ecclesiastical Preaching delivered from the Apostles by order of succession and remaining in the Church to this time be preserved that only truth is to be believed which in nothing differs from the Ecclesiastical Tradition This is his Rule he will proceed by in these Books by which in opposition to those Hereticks he means the Churches delivery of truth which was chiefly contained in the Scriptures as I shall evidence first because he useth promiscuously the phrases of Ecclesiastical Preaching and Scripture frequently in this Prooem and excepts against the Book called The Doctrine of Peter as being no part of it and in the end of the same Prooem declares that therefore he who would treat of these things to know what is truth in
separating party can justifie it self it must be able to plead truly and manifest that the Church from which it departs is so corrupt in Doctrine or Worship that it cannot Communicate therewith without sin and that its differing from it is founded upon its casting off such things as are really sinful and evil still retaining and embracing all such things as are true and good even all the rules of Faith and Life and due Order which the Christian Religion doth direct and include 3. Beginning with the Quakers I might take notice of their want of ordinary civil and courteous behaviour and outward expressions of reverence to Governours when Christianity injoins kindness humility courteousness and the due expressions of them to all men and honourable respect to be given to Superiors I might also mention their condemning the use of an Oath even in judicial proceedings which if rightly undertaken is an act of Religion in a solemn acknowledging the Omniscience and righteousness of God and is the most effectual way for the discovery of truth the maintaining justice preserving rights and ending strife But waving very many blameable errors received amongst them I shall insist on four things which their Teachers have both in their Writings and Discourses vigorously asserted which are of such a nature that those who embrace these Principles and practise according to them may well be esteemed to be as far from true Christianity as any persons who pretend to the name of Christians Yet in so wild and Enthusiastick a Sect I do not undertake to give assurance that they in all things do all of them hold the same opinions but do hope some of them may be drawn off from some of these evil Doctrines and Positions Here I shall observe 4. First Their denial of and casting reproachful expressions upon the Holy and Glorious Trinity The acknowledging the Trinity is a great part of the Christian Faith our Creed directing us to believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord and in the Holy Ghost And (d) Conc. Nicen Constantinopol the two first General Councils of the Christian Church were in a good part imployed in vindicating and asserting this Doctrine against the Arian and Macedonian Heresie And this Christian Faith is not only contained in and plainly deduced from the Holy Scriptures but is summarily expressed in that form of Christian Baptism which our Saviour established when he commanded his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And this Baptismal form which the Holy Scriptures express is so considerable a testimony to the Doctrine of the Trinity that many of those Hereticks who denied the Trinity thought themselves concerned not to own this generally established form of Christian Baptism but boldly undertook to innovate and change that form our Lord had ordained and his Church from him (e) Just Mart. Apol. 2. Tert. de Bapt. c. 6. 13. had universally received Upon this account (f) Sozom. Hist l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eunomius altered the Baptismal form not Baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost but into the death of Christ And amongst the Arians who owned not the Son to be co-eternal and of the same substance with the Father the form of Baptism was perverted and (g) Theod. Lect. Collect. l. 2. Theodorus Lector relates concerning an Arian Bishop who Baptized into the Name of the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost And before these when Paulus Samosatenus denied the Divinity of Christ his followers the Paulianists were injoined by the Council of (h) Conc. Nlc. c. 19. Nice to be re-baptized since the Baptismal form by them used (i) v. Justel in Cod. Ecel c. univ 19. was not into the Holy Trinity which he did not acknowledge And that one God in Trinity in whom the members of the Catholick Christian Church believed and into whose Name they were Baptized he is the object of the Christian Worship and Service and with one heart doth that Church give glory to the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost but they who disown the Trinity cannot be expected to perform this Worship and Service thereto 5. But besides what might be cited out of some of the Quakers Books against the Trinity I shall take the liberty to give a little account of what my self hath formerly been concerned in Almost three and twenty years since some of the chief Quakers being busie in these parts two of their Principal Teachers sent to me Nine Questions or Positions rather challenging me to dispute with them the first of which was against the three Persons of the Deity and the other took in all those things I here discourse of against the Quakers with more also I then accepted this challenge and we went through all these nine in three days discourse In the first day they plainly declared themselves against the three Persons of the Trinity much as they had done about the same time in their Conference with (k) The Quaker disarm'd Mr. Smith at Cambridge At that time in the Year 1659 I had the opportunity of charging George Whitehead in the presence of George Fox and as great a number of other Witnesses as the specious room in which we were could contain with as horrid and blasphemous words against the Trinity as I ever read or heard of which were contained in a Book written by him and three other Quakers against one Mr. Tounsend which was Intituled Ishmael and his Mother cast out I even tremble to write the words which the licentiousness of those times gave way to (l) Ishmael c. p. 10. The three Persons which thou wouldst divide out of one like a Conjurer are denied and thou shut up with them in perpetual darkness for the Lake and the Pit But he neither did nor could deny that this wicked assertion was written and published by him and his Companions and the same thing was urged against him out of the same Book at the Conference at Cambridge 6. Sometime after this as if they had a mind to shew themselves particularly zealous in the opposition of the Holy Trinity I received a paper (m) Directed to them that affirm that there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead and that the Father is the first and the Word the second and the Spirit the third and that the second was begotten as to his Godhead of Five Queries containing very many branches under them wholly levelled against the Doctrine of the Trinity and subscribed by George Whitehead and George Fox And after I had returned an Answer to these I received another large paper containing a long Harangue against the Holy Trinity with George Whitehead's name alone subscribed In this paper which I have by me it is declared That to call three distinct persons in the Trinity are Popish terms and names
thing as this but fully asserted one and the same God Nor was there ever any question about this in their daies for as there were questions about things offered to Idols about Marriage and Divorce about veiling Women and the hope of the Resurrection in which he plainly refers to the Apostles writings so he saith if there had been any Question about this matter it would have been found as a most principal thing in the Apostle that is the Apostles writings and then adds the words cited by this Discourser And no other is to be acknowledged the Tradition of the Apostles than that which is this day published in their Churches In which words as Irenaeus and Tertullian elsewhere did against Heretical inventions in general so he here establisheth the Churches Tradition against Marcions innovation or he establisheth the Doctrine of Christ as his Church received it which principally included the Scriptures And that Tertullian chiefly designed against Marcion to establish the Scriptural Tradition may appear sufficiently from what hath been above observed To see yet more of Tertullians mind in this case observe that known place against Hermogenes who asserted matter co-eternal with God Advers Hermog c. 22. I adore the fulness of Scripture which manifests to me both the maker and his works But whether all things be made out of a subject matter I never yet read Let Hermogenes his shop shew it written If it be not written let him fear that woe that is denounced against them who add or take away What can be more full to shew the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith than to declare that nothing may safely be received but from it and that it is full and compleat SECT XIII What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith FRom this Father he only cites one place and that so much contrary to the plain design which is obvious to any eye that it appears evidently he never took it from Clemens himself but hath in practice discovered what certainty there is in his Oral way or taking things upon hear-say For shewing which nothing more is needful than the setting down the words of Clemens more largely Strom. lib. 7. He saith In those who are indued with knowledge the holy Scriptures have conceived but the Hereticks who have not learned them have rejected them as if they did not conceive some indeed follow the truths saying and others wrest the Scriptures to their own lusts but if they had a Judgment of true and false they would have been perswaded by the Divine Scriptures Then follow the words cited If therefore any one of a man becomes a Beast like those inchanted by Circe so he hath lost his being a man of God and one remaining faithful to the Lord who kicks against Ecclesiastical Tradition and leaps into the opinions of humane Heresies Then his next words are but he who returning out of error obeys the Scriptures and commits his life to the truth of a man in a manner becomes as God We have the Lord the original of this Doctrine both by the Prophets and by the Gospel and by the Apostles He who is to be believed of himself is worthy of all belief when he speaks in the Lords voice and the Scriptures Doubtless the Scriptures we use as our Criterion to find out things And then he shews That we are not satisfied with what men say but inquire and believe what God saith which is the only demonstration according to which Science they who have tasted only of the Scriptures are faithful What can be more plain than that Clemens his design here is not to guide men to the Oral way this Discourser talks of but as Origen and Tertullulian do so also Clemens against the way of the ancient Hereticks who were opposers of the Scripture commendeth the Churches Tradition which was in the Scripture Much more might be observed to this purpose from this 7. Strom. of Clemens and several other places but that I think the very place this Author blindfoldly chose is sufficient against him SECT XIV What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius OUr Discourser wisheth Protestants would seriously weigh the Sayings of this Father and consider what sustained him who was a Pillar of Faith in his daies This we assure him we will do and likewise highly honor that Rule of Faith which Athanasius made use of which we know was not Oral Tradition but Scripture The first testimony he produceth from Athanasius is in his Epistle de Synodis Arim. Seleuc. where speaking of the Arians who were not satisfied in the Council of Nice but sought after some other Synodical determination where they might have the Faith and therefore procured another Council to be called he saith Now they have declared themselves to be unbelievers in seeking that which they have not which are part of the words cited by this Discourser his following words I think cannot be found either in that Book or elsewhere in Athanasius which are All therefore that are seekers of Faith are unbelievers They only to whom Faith comes down from their Ancestors that is from Christ by Fathers do not seek and therefore they only have Faith if thou comest to Faith by seeking thou wast before an Vnbeliever Thus far this Discourser I think frames Athanasius Against the Arians in this Epistle Athanasius further saies If they had believed they would not have sought it as if they had it not and if you have wrote these things as now beginning to believe you are not Clergy-men but begin to be Catechumens Which words he writes upon occasion that the Arians Confession began not So believes the Catholick Church but the Catholick Faith was in the presence of Constantius put forth such a day as Athanasius there declares But that we may understand Athanasius his mind where they who are Believers must have Faith and not elsewhere seek it which also is the way he must understand it to come from Ancestors if any such words be any where in Athanasius in this very Epistle he declares it thus It is a vain thing that they running about pretend to desire Synods for the Faith for the holy Scripture is more sufficient than all Synods And if for this there should be need of a Synod there are the Acts of the Holy Fathers they who came together in Nice wrote so well that whoever faithfully read their Writings may by them be remembred of that Religion towards Christ which is declared in the holy Scriptures So that these words of Athanasius as they design not the promoting Oral Tradition so they do advance Scripture The next testimony cited and vainly flourished over is from Athan. de Incarn against Paulus Samosatenus where he concerning this Subject of the Incarnation of the Word shews That such great things and difficult to be apprehended cannot be attained to but by Faith And they who have weak knowledge if they here reject not curious questions and keep to the
Faith ruine themselves Wherefore saith he blessed Paul saith Great is the mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. A little after he saith To make an exact search is that few can do but to hold fast the Faith belongs to all who are perswaded by God Then follow the words cited He that searcheth after that which is above his reach is in danger but he who abides in the things delivered is out of danger Wherefore we perswade you as also we perswade our selves to keep the Faith delivered and avoid prophane words of novelty thus far this Discourser cites but then follows and to fear an inquisitive search into so great Mysteries but to confess that God was manifest in the flesh according to the Apostles Tradition By this view of the whole sense of Athanasius it is evident he designs to put them off from curious questions about these high Mysteries to relie on the written Scripture Tradition which in these words he refers to And in the same Treatise he urgeth other Scriptures to confirm this point using these words concerning Scripture-testimony it speaketh evidently it teacheth us as manifestly The last testimony he cites from Athanasius is in his Epistle to Epictetus where inveighing against him who wrote that Christs Body was consubstantial to his Divinity he indeed saith That things that are so manifestly evil it is not fit to lay them further open or spend more time about them lest thereby contentious men should judge them doubtful Then follow the words by this Author referred to it is sufficient to answer to such things and say that these things are not of the Catholick Church nor did our Fathers so think But his next words are But lest our silence should make them shameless it is requisite to speak something from the holy Scriptures And after many arguments from Scriptures saith Wherefore let them confess that they have erred being perswaded by the holy Scriptures So that we see he no way rejects the Scriptures from being his Rule though he said as Protestants also will that some Heresies may be so absurd that it is enough against them to shew them contrary to all anciently received Doctrine and the Catholick Church and yet even in these he referred to Scripture as the best means of conviction Though the judgement of Athanasius be already sufficiently manifest I shall briefly refer to two other testimonies One is a fragment of his 39. Epistle where when he had reckoned the Books of Scripture he saith These are the wells of Salvation in these only is the Doctrine of Godliness declared Let no man add any thing to these nor take any thing from them Another testimony is observable amongst his various Treatises against divers Heresies he hath one which concerns this Discourser and if as some think it be Theodoret's Treatise it will still be of use to us against them Who say men should not search out of Scriptures but be satisfied with their own Faith Where very much to our purpose I only mention one short expression Wouldest thou that I should reject the Scriptures where then shall I have knowledge Wouldest thou that I should forsake knowledge where then should I have Faith But I suppose I need add no more to evidence that Athanasius made Scripture the Rule of Faith SECT XV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil OUr Discourser likewise pretends to have S. Basil on his side from whom he cites two testimonies which must be examined The first whereof is to be found in his first Book against Eunomius where when Eunomius requires them who hear or read him not to attribute any thing to the greater party or the multitude or the dignity of persons S. Basil answers in the words this Authour refers to Shall we being perswaded by thee judge the Tradition which in all Ages past hath prevailed under so many holy men more dishonourable than your impious conceits But is this to make Tradition a Rule of Faith When I say that I will account more honourably of S. Basil's Judgement than of this Discoursers fond conceits do I by this make S. Basil the Rule of Faith And why may not S. Basil prefer other Catholick Teachers before Eunomius and yet not make them a Rule of Faith Yea it is evident from the very place he designs not here to speak of the Rule of Faith but to speak against the arrogancy of Eunomius yet in this Book he urgeth many things from the Scriptures with such Prefaces to them as these We will demonstrate from the Scripture We are taught of the Scripture How accurately and evidently they testifie And these things seem to make Scripture a Rule of Faith His other testimony is from S. Basil against the Sabellions Arians and Anomaeans where observing that those Hereticks delighted in some Sophistical niceties and did not entertain the plain delivery in the Scriptures which was confirmed by the Fathers he exhorts in these words Lest thou shouldest separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son then follow the words cited by this Discourser Let Tradition deterr thee the Lord taught so the Apostles preached so the Fathers conserved it the Martyrs confirmed it let it suffice thee to speak as thou art taught And then he adds Away with these pieces of Sophistry either the Spirit is unbegotten or begotten if he be unbegotten he is the Father if he be begotten he is the Son if neither he is then a Creature Now that in this place he chiefly intends the confirmation of the Tradition in Scripture and the Councils decisions agreeable to this holy Scripture is evident from the design of his whole Book wherein he proves the truth by Scripture and thus declares his own sense not long before concerning the holy Spirit We exhort you that you would not seek to hear of us any time that which is pleasing to your selves but that which is well pleasing to the Lord and agreeable to the Scriptures and not contrary to the Fathers These words plead for the Rule of Scriptures not against them But that more clearly we may understand the opinion of S. Basil concerning the Rule of Faith I shall refer to his Treatise of Faith Tom. 2. where he declares That he would keep himself to what he had received from the Scriptures of Divine inspiration And a little after saith It is a manifest falling off from the Faith and evidence of Pride either to reject any thing of those things that are written or to bring in any thing of those things that are not written when our Lord Jesus Christ himself saith My Sheep will hear my voice What words could be more full to shew what he owned for the Rule of Faith SECT XVI What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith THis Discourser tells us he must not omit S. Austin I confess I wonder how he adventured to produce him when it is so manifestly apparent that he very frequently and
his heart bringeth forth evil things And this is that which the usual observation of the world hath testified as (f) Hierocl in Pyth. Carm. p. 140. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles declared men speak either good or evil sutably to the contrary inclinations of their minds There is indeed some difference here between the evil and the good heart The man of a malicious spirit may sometimes speak fair and smoothly even unto flattery and a wicked man may speak good words and act the hypocrite and the reason of this is because an evil heart may incline the man to dissemble and speak falsly but such words though they carry a fair appearance are evil words because full of fraud unfaithfulness and dissimulation But where the heart is good and upright there true integrity prevails and though an evil man may in many outward things speak and do as the good man doth out of hypocrisie and still continue wicked no good man can speak and do evil things according to the practice of the sinful and vicious person and whosoever doth so must be really wicked because goodness and uprightness both hate all counterfeiting and dissembling and all other compliances with sin and evil 7. and speaks a prevalency of sin But there is so much evil and wickedness contained under this sin of defaming others that a great part of the testimony which the Apostle gave of the Jews being estranged from true goodness and piety and being under sin is included herein He declares from the writings of the Old Testament Rom. 3.13 14 15. Their throat is an open Sepulchre with their tongues they have used deceit the poyson of asps is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness Their feet are swift to shed blood c. Now the sense of most part of these words is plainly contained in this sin I am declaring against And when the Apostle mentions their mouth being full of cursing it may be worthy our observation that contumelious speaking against and reproaching others doth in some degree really include in it the true and proper nature of cursing it being a plain declaration of the persons wishing and desiring evil to him of whom he speaks And what S. Paul adds that their feet are swift to shed blood even this is frequently the natural effect of the same sin For when men by evil speaking especially of their Superiours have wrought themselves and others into a greater dislike of them and hatred towards them how oft this hath fomented fierce passions and wrought dispositions to cruelty and put men upon insurrections and forwardness of shedding blood the Histories of all times and the remembrance of this last Age in our own Nation will give undeniable evidence Now such a temper which gives an apparent indication that they who practised such things were turned aside from God and the ways of piety cannot be thought reconcileable with the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion 8. Thirdly This practice is mighty dangerous 3. It exposeth the offender to condemnation with respect to mens great and eternal interests Many are too neglectful in calling themselves to an account for their words but God hath assured us that at the great day he will take an account of them and will not then allow that liberty that men now give themselves in evil speaking but even this sin may be sufficient to bring upon them eternal condemnation Our Lord hath declared Matt. 12.36 37. That of every idle word men shall give an account in the day of Judgment For by their words they shall be justified and by their words they shall be condemned And these words of our Saviour are so solemn and weighty as laying down a rule of proceeding in the future judgment and condemnation that they ought not to be slighted and disregarded but to be seriously pondered and considered Many of the ancient Writers interpret this Text concerning such words as were not useful and profitable to edification Thus S. Basil S. Hierom Greg. Magnus and others And (g) Iren. adâ—â— Haeres l. 4. c. 31. Irenaeus mentions them as such a Doctrine of our Saviour whereby he advanceth and exalteth the Christian Religion and the rules and precepts thereof And it is thence inferred that if such words which are not of use to good shall be under the heavy condemnation of the great Day much more those which are contumelious and include evil 9. But this strict interpretation Mat. 12.36 Concerning every idle word explained would deny Christians the liberty of ordinary conversation and that freedom of familiar speaking concerning common affairs which is necessary thereunto and it cannot well be thought that our Saviour whose yoke is easie would lay such a severe restraint upon his Disciples under pain of eternal damnation And therefore the notion entertained by Grotius and Dr. Hammond that by every idle word is understood every false and evil word including what is unseemly and unbecoming Sobriety is the much more probable sense of our Saviours speech and the account they give of it is very reasonable and considerable And this is a sense that wants not the authority of some of the Ancients Thus Theophylact expounds these words and so doth also S. Chrysostome both upon S. Matthew and (h) Chrys Serm. 62. in Paralyt elsewhere And (i) Eus praep Ev. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius declares that upon account of these words of our Saviour the Christians would not admit either any lye or any reproach nor any filthy nor any unseemly word 10. This sense is also agreeable to the manner of the Scripture expression in divers other places where it speaks of things and words hurtful and evil under such phrases as most directly signifie their being not useful Thus S. Paul calls such words as turn men from piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain words Ephes 5.6 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain babling 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 2.16 and the expressions of an empty word and an idle word are not much unlike but under that phrase the Apostle evidently intends wicked and sinful words So when the Idols of the Gentiles are oft called vanities as Act. 14.15 and the adhering to them a becoming vain in their imaginations Rom. 1.21 it is not only intended that these things are void of goodness but that they are things abominable So the Apostle intends that it will be of pernicious consequence to men when those who watch for their souls give up their account with grief when he only expresseth it to be unprofitable Heb. 13.17 And the Holy Scripture calls the works of darkness unfruitful when it designs them to be accounted hurtful Ephes 5.11 11. And this interpretation of these words of our Lord accords very well with the truth delivered in other Scriptures that revilers and lyars shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and that his Religion is vain who bridleth not
his tongue It is very suitable also to the occasion on which our Saviour spake these words which was the Pharisees defaming his Miracles and him in working them as if he did them by Beelzebub And therefore this speech hath a particular respect to words of calumny The sad doom of Reproachers hence observed and speaks the heavy doom of such persons as please themselves with speaking evil of others when Christ himself shall come to judge Let every Christian therefore stand in awe of this threatning of our Lord and carefully observe that precept of S. James Jam. 2.12 So speak ye and so do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty Both our words and actions will be hereafter judged according to that Gospel which passeth a Sentence against reproaching expressions And the Gospel is such a law of liberty that besides other advantages they who will seriously mind their duty may under it and by the grace thereof be set free from the power and rule of their passions and lusts and therefore the serving these under the grace of the Gospel is utterly inexcusable 12. Fourthly 4. A pious government of the tongue is an excellent Christian perfection The good and pious government of the tongue is a very considerable perfection in the practice of Religion For this manifests such a person to have gotten the victory over the passions and disorderly motions of his mind which are apt in others to discover themselves by rash words the tongue being a quick and glib mover and oft forward to express any prevailing irregular discomposure of the Spirit Hence Jam. 3.2 If any man offend not in word the same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the whole body But these words of that Apostle must be so understood as to speak particularly the perfection of him who thus behaves himself upon the true principles of Christianity For it must be acknowledged that passionate and reproachful words may be suppressed in some by the advantage of their natural temper of mildness and courteousness which doth not much encline them to this sin whilst they live in the practice of others In others they may be restrained by the rules of policy and subtilty and a strong resolution in the managing of some design and much may be done in others by mere rational and Philosophical considerations There are many instances among the ancient Philosophers and their followers of such persons as gained a considerable mastery of their passions and a great command of their words and actions Among others Socrates was a rare instance hereof if he came any thing nigh that admirable character that (k) Xenoph. Memor l. 1. p. 710. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xenophon gives him That no man ever saw Socrates do any action or heard him speak any word that was contrary to Religious piety or unholy This was mighty considerable though we understand it only with respect to the rules of morality admitted under the Pagan Philosophy And it is unbecoming Christians to come short of such examples when their Religion doth so wonderfully go beyond all the principles of Ethnick Philosophy 13. Where this is wanting the Christian spirit hath not had its due effect Christianity tends to bring men into a lively sense of the only true God to a clear knowledge of that excellent revelation delivered by our Saviour it guides unto that universal purity which excludes all the Idolatry and other vices which the most refined Paganism did admit it sheweth obedience to its precepts to be of the highest concernment imaginable from the plainest manifestation of the great account and judgment to come and the future state either of endless glorious perfection or of intolerable torment And it also most expresly manifests the great necessity of well governing the tongue both as to the practice of Religion and the obtaining everlasting happiness and it affords the aids and grace of the Holy Spirit to assist and enable us to the performance of all those duties it injoyns upon us Now this Religion cannot be received in any considerable degree by them who entertain the practice of evil speaking and reproaching which is contrary and opposite to it to the author of it and to the obtaining the good it proposeth to its followers But where the true fear of God and a conscientious regard to all the rules of the Christian life have prevailed for the well-ordering of the tongue it may be expected that they will have a like power and efficacy for the government of the whole man And where this member is disordered it becomes an incendiary and as a pestilential Contagion spreads abroad venome and evil and in S. James's expression it sets on fire the course of nature and it is set on fire of hell who also saith it is a world of iniquity and defileth the whole body Jam. 3.6 And the Great miscarriages of the tongue which in that Chapter are complained of with divers earnest and emphatical expressions appear plainly to be the censuring and speaking evil of others and the promoting and exciting strife and contention CHAP. II. The excessive disorders and unreasonable extravagancy of speaking evil when men give way to their passions and uncharitable temper manifested especially from the Censures our Saviour underwent SECT I. The best deserving persons are oft under obloquy and undeserved Censure Sect. I THese things being premised I shall now come to discourse 1. Of the great disorder of an ill-governed tongue in censuring and reproaching 2. Of the sinfulness of this practice and the great guilt thereof 2. First The tongue is such an unruly evil as S. James calls it Jam. 3.8 that when men indulge themselves in uncharitableness and censoriousness it puts them upon the contriving Censoriousness is unruly and wonderfully extravagant or pursuing the most unaccountable and unreasonable calumnies and slanders Good Hezekiah shall fall under the lavish revilings of a Rabshakeh and his reformation excellently and piously performed will be condemned as impious And Christianity it self was made a matter of reproach by Saul whilst he was a blasphemer a persecuter and injurious and by many others who professed themselves enemies unto it and the Christians in general were spoken of as evil doers 1 Pet. 2.12 But we cannot better discern how ungovernable and extravagant the censorious and uncharitable tongue is than by considering the instances of our blessed Saviour and other excellent men Even the Holy Jesus when he conversed upon Earth escaped not the sharp and bitter reproaches of reviling tongues though he deserved no censure nor gave any just occasion for any The persons considered who bear reproach And therefore what he and other good men met with will abundantly manifest the strange unruliness of a defaming temper which is contained under no bounds and limits of truth justice or charity 3. This may especially appear by our enquiring into three things 1. What the great excellencies were
things plainly obvious and manifest And in this case it is nothing of uncharitable and passionate reproaching which is contrary to the example of Christ but an exercise of sobriety and charity and a following his example to war against those hurtful evils which spread themselves in the world and to speak of those principles which are mischievous with dislike and detestation For though our Lord had a great kindness for the Jewish Nation yet their ill temper and their forsaking the true guidance of the Law made him rebuke them with sharpness and declare against them as an evil and crooked generation To discover the evil of ill designing men and false Doctrines is useful and good And if the manifest and prevailing errors of men which are dangerous to others might not be prudently exposed and solidly declared against many excellent and famous writings of the most eminent Fathers against the Gentiles the Jews and divers Heresies and Schisms which have hitherto been honoured and accounted useful in the Church of God must now be thought fit for nothing more than to be censured by an Index expurgatorius or to be ranked among prohibited Books Indeed persons who are concerned in the guilt are sometimes apt to be so far provoked at the just reproof and censure of their opinions or practices as to cry out upon it as if it were reviling or railing or to speak as the Lawyer did to our Saviour Luk. 11.45 thus saying Thou reproachest us also But our Lord did not think fit to desist from a free and needful declaration against evil how unacceptable soever it was to the offending persons as appears sufficiently from the Answer he returned to those words v. 46. And for others to do the like is both a faithful discharge of conscience towards God and the performing a work which is very useful and charitable unto men Thus he that gives a plain and true discourse in a time of mortality of the nature and danger and of the right and sure methods of prevention and cure for the diseases that then reign performs a work which if it be made good use of may preserve some and recover others from those distempers which may otherwise be fatal to them But as no diseases are so bad as those which defile and infect the minds and souls of men so here as (e) Basil Regul fus disp Resp 46. S. Basil truly affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that makes a covering for sin and that which is evil makes preparation for the death of the diseased person 4. It is evident that in the Holy Scriptures the Prophets in the Old Testament and the Apostles and other Officers in the Ministery of the New were to reprove and declare against prevailing evils In this case Isaiah was commanded to cry aloud and lift up his voice like a trumpet and shew the people their transgressions Isai 58.1 and Titus was required to rebuke the Cretians sharply Sinful practices and corrupt Principles are such real blemishes to those that cherish them that they cannot be laid open without reflecting some degree of disparagement upon them even as light it self brings a discredit to things uncomely and represents the loathsomness of what is noysome and deformed But there are some rules necessary to be observed Rules to be observed in speaking against those who deserve censure which ought to guide and govern our discourse concerning what is amiss among men in the world And it may be noted that in most cases there is greater caution to be used in speaking of the principles or actions of particular men as charging them therewith than of the openly avowed evil practices or opinions of any party or sort of men in a general consideration of them Because the former doth more especially refer to the persons towards whom we are bound to exercise charity but the latter doth most directly respect things and there is no charity due to falshood transgression and sin and personal actions may be more easily misapprehended and misrepresented than what is publickly owned by any party But in both these cases the difference between sinful reproaching and rash and uncharitable evil speaking on the one hand and an useful and sober reproof and censure and declaring against evil on the other hand lyeth in three things viz. in the respect they bear 1. To certain truth 2. To sobriety 3. To charity 5. First The first Rule is certain truth A just Censure is ever founded on certain and evident truth but the reproacher oft declares that evil for truth which is either in it self false or to him doubtful and only suspected But whoso layes that to the charge of others of which he hath no certain evidence becomes a false witness And false reporting or asserting that against another as true which is not certainly known to be so is in matters of ordinary conversation among men a crime much of the same nature with the same miscarriage of a witness in a Court of Judicature concerning matters of justice and right For in both of these is contained what (f) Phil. de Decal p. 763 764. Philo more particularly expresseth of the latter that truth which ought to be sacred and is as the light of the Sun which gives a right and clear prospect of things is hereby violated and things are disguised in the dark whereby others are misguided into a wrong judgment and are thence involved in a miscarriage and wrong and injury is done to the person concerned And whereas it is requisite for him who attempts any thing both to have sufficient knowledge thereof and to be a person of integrity whose testimony deserves credit he who will venture to declare things as true upon jealous suspicions doth miscarry in both these and is therefore wanting in the latter because he faileth in the former And such a person doth offend both against charity and truth 6. It was part of the description of those evil men 2 Pet. 2.12 that they spake evil of the things they understood not The venting uncertain jealousies and suspicions are oft-times of mischievous consequence For they frequently spread like wildfire Suspicions on plausible pretences not sufficient and are entertained as things certain upon slender appearances of proof and in publick affairs they sometimes become dangerous if not fatal to Church and State Nor is it sufficient to excuse such persons from sin if they proceed upon some seeming plausible probabilities which are mistaken and misapprehended by them Those Jews might seem to have some colour for what they laid to our Saviours charge who declared him to have said I am able to destroy the Temple of God and to build it in three dayes Mat. 26.61 Yet these persons misunderstanding or misapplying what he said concerning the Temple of his Body are called false witnesses v. 60. And therefore it becometh rash men who let loose their tongues many times upon no greater evidence or probability than
these false witnesses had to consider seriously what guilt they contract upon themselves But the upright man is no false accuser but hath a conscientious respect both to truth and charity so that he transgresseth against neither Our Lord blamed the Jews in many things but charged them with nothing but what was certainly true He called them hypocrites but he fully knew their temper and understood what was in man Indeed the censure of hypocrisie is not fit for other men to make use of in ordinary cases except it be where persons certainly manifest a vicious looseness of life and yet will sometimes seem very earnest and forward about purity and Religion or where themselves shall more privately declare their disesteem of what they publickly appear exceeding zealous for And partly by this Rule (g) Eus Eccl. Hist l. 2 c. 1. Simon Magus was charged with hypocritical dissembling a respect to Christianity 7. Secondly The second Rule is sobriety and a well composed temper of mind A just censure of the practices or Principles of others must be soberly managed when oft-times the opprobrious tongue is rash and heady and puts men upon running out of their places and stations and out of themselves also Hence some are forward to be inquisitive into the lives and behaviour of others and to pry into them with a narrow and curious search to see what they can discover to speak ill of while in the mean time they do not duly reflect upon themselves and examine and consider their own wayes These act against that sobriety which Religion requires and fall under that sharp censure of our Lord against them who behold the mote in their brothers eye but not the beam in their own Mat 7.2 3 4 5. And there are some who censure others by sinister judging and odiously representing the intentions and designs of their words and actions beyond what is evident These without due reverence to God or charity to their Neighbour so far usurp the place of God as to pass sentence on the inward thoughts and dispositions of the minds of men but they proceed herein neither according to the rules of goodness nor of righteousness And they also offend against this Rule who in speaking or writing against others let loose their expressions to gratifie their passions and fierce heats beyond what is sober and comely I acknowledge that sharp reproofs are in some cases very seasonable and proper and some practices and Doctrines are so greatly evil that it well becomes them who are lovers of goodness An angry temper to be avoided to express a pious indignation and abhorrence towards them nor is it alwayes blameable to expose some wild extravagant fancies to the just contempt of others But in an undue manner to vent expressions of wrath or reproach or of scornfulness or scurrility and to treat others with an angry and waspish temper and instead of calmness to raise a storm of rage and fury these things are evil in themselves being contrary to the meekness and gentleness of Christianity and savouring of the fruits of the flesh and the root of bitterness and they are also very unsuitable to all sorts of men Such a temper is in several respects the worse in them who defend evil error and falshood because they have no just reason to express their displeasure against the things they reject or against the persons with respect to the ill influence of their assertions and what aspersions they cast upon the defenders of the truth have some reflexion on the truth it self and this their behaviour speaks their greater averseness from it and oft makes them more stedfastly perverse in their error And this method is also very unbecoming the defenders of such excellent things as truth and goodness because they neither need nor approve such unworthy Artifices in the managing their cause and the use of such things brings a disparagement and disadvantage to the best cause and it is most suitable to truth and goodness to appear like themselves every way blameless and unexceptionable 8. They also act against sobriety and irreverence to Superiors and a due government of themselves who take upon them frowardly and irreverently to censure their Superiors and to defame them and thereby to lessen and vilifie their reputation and Authority Such persons act against the duty of their places as inferiours in which state they ought out of reverence to God and his Ordinance and out of respect to men also to honour them who are over them Yea though there may be some real fault they may not make it their business to expose them This was the miscarriage of Ham in his behaviour towards his Father Noah And it is noted both by (h) Ambr. de Noe Arca c. 30. S. Ambrose and by (i) Chrys Hom. in Gen. 9. S. Chrysostome that Ham in doing this undutiful action is particularly expressed to be the Father of Canaan not only as S. Ambrose speaks ut vitio authoris deformaretur haereditas that this might be a blemish and disparagement to his posterity who descended from him but because on this occasion of Ham's irreverent disrespect to his Father Canaan his Son and his Posterity were under a curse and doomed to a state of subjection Gen. 9.25 And therefore if any men should neither have any fear of God nor regard to themselves if they have any respect to the good of their posterity they are thereupon concerned to honour those who are in superior relations to them 9. The ancient Councils (k) Conc. Constant c. 6. of the Christian Church very justly expressed great displeasure against those who out of an ill temper would even undeservedly lay things to the charge of the Bishops and Clergy that they might lessen their reputation and esteem and hinder the Churches peace and settlement and promote disturbances therein And such disorderly practices though they have too much prevailed in the World do greatly offend against very many precepts of Religion both towards God towards our selves and towards others But while the Christian Church for peace and order sake and for the sake of piety too required a just honour to be preserved to its Officers it still maintained such a care of true goodness that where any of the Clergy were really faulty it not only (l) ibid. allowed regular accusations to be orderly prosecuted against any of its Officers but also appointed (m) Can. Ap. 74. Antioch 14 15. its Censures to be inflicted upon them after sufficient evidence of their offences 10. Now our blessed Lord Thus our Saviour practised in his sharp censures of wicked men acted nothing but what was every way suitable for him to do When he came into the world Religion was strangely defaced amongst the Jews and they who should have taken the care of it set up very many false doctrines and ill rules of practice But our Saviour was sent as a great Prophet and Teacher
the place which God chuseth under the New Testament What is urged by Innocentius the Third hath no infallible evidence as he chose Jerusalem under a great part of the Old Testament and that all that is in the Book of Deuteronomy continues established under the Gospel And it may be wondered that such a thing should be affirmed if it were not to impose on others when the Book of Deuteronomy contains many things concerning the Aaronical Sacrifices and other Jewish Feasts and in that is that particular permission of divorce which our Saviour will not allow of under the Gospel Deut. 24.1 Mat. 19.8 9. and a repetition of many Mosaical Laws whence it was called by the Greek Translators Deuteronomy 11. In the same Epistle as a proof of this plenary and supreme power seated in the Pope he produceth what S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6.3 and tells us that Paul that he might expound the plenitude of power writing to the Corinthians saith Nescitis quoniam Angelos judicabitis quanto magis secularia Know ye not that ye shall judge Angels how much more the things of this life or things secular But what the Apostle wrote in that Epistle to the Corinthians bid directly concern the Church of Corinth And therefore if he had discoursed of a plenitude of power or the highest universal Authority over all the parts of the World or the Church as he did not it would appear from this place to be as much if not more fixed in S. Paul and the Church of Corinth as any where else and it must needs be hard to prove that S. Paul in these words declared a plenitude of power in the Bishop of Rome both over Corinth and all the World when he said Know ye not that we shall judge c. 12. What light the two great Luminaries give to the Popes power But that proof which passeth all the rest which is urged in the same decretal Epistle is from Gods making two great Luminaries the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night from whence it is there inferred that the power of the Bishop of Rome is as much above all Secular power as the Sun is above the Moon And it may be also hence collected that the Imperial power is derived from the Papal as was declared hence by (b) v. Addit ad Pâ—de Marc. de Couc S. sâ—â—p l. 2. c. 3. Boniface the Eighth Now from hence it may appear that a pretended testimony from the first Chapter of Genesis may be as effectual though it be nothing to the purpose as if it had been taken out of the Book of Deuteronomy And this is such a wonderful Argument that so far as the strength of it will reach it will not only prove the highest power of the Bishop of Rome to be ordained of God before the coming uf Christ and even before any promise made concerning the Messias and before the fall of man but that this was established before Adam was created and was one of the principal things done in the framing and making of the World And therefore if this authority be rightly applied it is indeed an early testimony of the greatest antiquity of this power in the Church of Rome and deriveth its original much higher than most men have been aware of and it confutes the great mistake of those Novelists who pretend it to be founded in any eminency of authority conveyed unto S. Peter when it was so clearly ingraved upon the brightness of the Sun beams but not to be seen by mens eyes in the first springing forth of their light 13. Such things as these are so trifling and frivolous that they deserve not any serious consideration or answer And it can scarce be imagined that they who laid down these testimonies as a foundation to support the Papal power could have any other design than to delude and impose upon the great ignorance of the World And if it be a wicked and abominable thing for any private man to forge an evidence for an Estate or to counterfeit the Kings broad Seal to serve his interest it is far worse to design to deal falsly in that which hath respect to the authority of the sacred Majesty of God and to the greatest rights of men and the publick interest and peace of the World And I think no men ever spake more wildly about these things than the Popes themselves have done the extravagancy of their pleas bearing an equal proportion to that of their claims 14. Thirdly I observe Observ 3. The high Papal power was unknown to the ancient Roman Bishops that the pretence of this high Papal power which for some hundred years hath been of ill consequence to Christian Kingdoms hath this manifest mark of an encroachment usurpation and innovation in that the more ancient Bishops of Rome never knew any thing thereof but did profess and own their subjection to Emperours and their Authority The testimonies of divers of them have been to this purpose produced by Protestant Writers And it may be sufficient here to note that I have (c) Christ loyalty B. 1. ch 5. Sect. 3. To Leo the Great in another place shewed that Leo the Great submissively owned his subjection to the Imperial Authority and that with respect to the external administration of matters Ecclesiastical And it is manifest from the Writings of Gregory the Great that he both submissively behaved himself towards Mauritius the Emperour as a subject towards his Sovereign Lord and that he thought he ought so to do When Mauritius declared his desire that there might be a good accord between S. Gregory and John Patriarch of Constantinople (d) Gr. Ep. l. 4. Ep. 76. Gregory writes to Mauritius giving him the title of Dominus noster à Deo constitutus his Lord whom God had constituted and owns himself to be his Servant and such language is very frequent in his Epistles and lets the Emperour know that in that matter in which the cause of God was also concerned he would do what on his part could be done To Gregory the Great Dominorum jussionibus obedientiam praebens yielding obedience to the commands of his Lord and in this case he saith Serenissimis jussionibus obedientiam praebeo Which words shew sufficiently that he claimed not any Sovereignty over the Emperour but acknowledged his owing subjection to him And when Mauritius had made a Law that no person in any publick Secular Office should be received into Ecclesiastical Orders and that no Souldiers might be admitted into Monasteries Gregory writes a Letter to the Emperour concerning this Law expressing his good liking and approbation of the former part but with much (e) Gr. Ep. l. a. Ep. 100. earnestness declaring his dislike of the latter part as being contrary to God and Religion And in the close of that Epistle he acquaints the Emperour that in subjection to his commands he had
these things But that which is here to be enquired and examined is Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought not according to the institution of Christ and by his authority to be administred in both kinds 15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament against Christs Institution in both kinds of Bread and Wine is so plain from the words of its Institution that this is acknowledged in the (d) Ubi sup c. 1. Council of Trent And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church (e) Sacris c. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum Dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum Dicens Accipite quod trado vasoulum Omnes ex eo bibite Sic Sacrificium istud instituit He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood saying Take this Cup which I deliver drink ye all of it Thus did he institute that Sacrifice These expressions have a particular respect to that Command concerning the Cup Matt. 26 27. Drink ye all of it And it may be further observed that those words in the Institution Do this in remembrance of me are a Precept which hath special respect to the receiving both the kinds both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words Do this to establish the whole Institution that as (f) Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expresseth their sense ut hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus ab eo quod Christus docuit fecit non recedatur that we should do what our Lord did and should not depart from what Christ taught and did Yet these words have a more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament For Do this c. in S. Luke and S. Paul comes in the place of take eat c. in S. Matt. and S. Mark and in these words of S. Paul Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me the words as oft as ye drink it do plainly import thus much that the Command do this in that place doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup. 16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians that from hence (g) de Consecrat di 2. c. 7. Cum omne Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses which had in some places been entertained Insomuch that he declares against delivering the Bread dipt in the Cup upon this reason because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels concerning the Master of truth who when he commended to his Apostles his Body and his Blood Seorsum panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians where he useth this as an Argument to all particular Christians against communicating in any Idolatrous Worship 1 Cor. 10.21 ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned And the Council of Trent (h) Sess 21. c. 2. owns that from the beginning of Christianity the Sacrament was given in both kinds But they following much the steps of the Council of Constance account neither the Institution of Christ nor the practice of the ancient Church to be in this case any necessary guide but they declare the custom then received to be changed upon just reasons 17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ might be eluded and a Mist cast before the Sun divers Romanists and particularly (i) de Euchar l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communicants Bellarmine declare that Christs command drink ye all of it was given to the Apostles only and not to all Communicants To which I answer 1. That the Apostles at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament were not consecrating but communicating and therefore the Command given to them as receiving the Sacrament is a rule for Communicants Which binds all Communicants and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest And indeed the ancient Church made no such distinction in this case between Priest and People but acknowledged as (k) Chrys Hom. 18. in 2 Epist ad Corinth S. Chrysostome expresseth it that the same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup And agreeable hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England which declare (l) Art 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike 2. That this device would serve as effectually if it were considerable to take away the Bread with the Cup from the people that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them 3. The Command of Christ with the reason annexed Matt. 26.27 28. Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins doth give sufficient light to discern to whom this Precept is designed to wit to all them who desire to partake in the Communion of the blood of the New Testament for the Remission of sins and that is to all Communicants in that Sacrament 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25 26. plainly applys Christ's Command concerning the Cup to all who come to the Holy Communion in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution concerning the Cup he immediately says to the Corinthians For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come And he re-inforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup indefinitely to all who are to Communicate v. 28. Let a Man not only the Priest examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. 18. But here the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Churches authority and power in the Sacrament (m) Ubi sup c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum salva illorum substantia statuere vel mutare to appoint and change things in dispensing the Sacraments still preserving their substance And they seem to intimate that the Communion in both kinds No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People is not of the substance of the Sacrament because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacrament we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament according to his Institution The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature and therefore to change this
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
who appointed not this kind of Covenanting established the Christian Church in that way of Unity that it was one Church but these have ordered this method for the dividing it 20. Secondly This casts a disparagement on Christs Institution of Baptism as if this Ordinance of his was not sufficient and effectual for the purposes to which he appointed it whereof one was the receiving Members into his Church and the Communion thereof The Scriptures declare Christians to be Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12.12 and that they who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and therefore by this Sacramental Ordinance members are received into fellowship with Christ and communion with his Church But these expressions in the Assembly-confession of (i) Conf. c. 27. n. 1. Sacraments being Instituted to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the World And of Baptism being ordained by Christ for the solemn admission of the party Baptized into the visible Church are rejected and left out in the declaration of Faith by them of the Congregational way And we are told by the New England Independents that (k) Answ to 32. Qu. to qu. 4. they do not believe that Baptism doth make men members of the Church and they there say strangely enough that Christ Baptized but made no new Church Wherefore when Christ appointed Baptism to receive members of his Church this Covenant which he never appointed is by them set up thus far in the place and room of it 21. Thirdly By making this Covenant the only right ground of Church-fellowship they cast a high reflexion on the Apostolical and Primitive Churches who neither practised nor delivered any such thing as if the Apostolical Model must give place to theirs and those first Churches must not be esteemed regularly established But this Covenant managed in the dividing way is somewhat like the practice of Novatus who hath been ever reputed guilty of great Schism who ingaged his followers by the most solemn Vow that they should never forsake him nor return to Cornelius their true Bishop only his Covenant had not a peculiar respect to a particular Congregation But this bond of their own promise and vow was intended to keep them in that separation which the more solemn Vow of Baptism and undertaking Christianity ingaged them to reject And it is a great mistake to imagine that the former ought to take place against the latter or that men may bind themselves to act against the will of God and that thenceforth they ought not to observe it 22. Fourthly The confinement of Church-membership to a single Congregation entred under such a particular Covenant is contrary to several plain duties of Christianity For according to this notion the peculiar offices of Brotherly Love as being members one of another and that Christian care that follows thereupon it limited to a narrow compass together with the exercise of the Pastoral care also which ought to be inlarged to all those professed Christians with whom we do converse And it is of dangerous and pernicious consequence that the duties of love and being helpful to one another and provoking to love and good works upon account of our membership with the Church visible though these things be in practice too much neglected should be straitned by false and hurtful notions and opinions It was none of the least miscarriages of the Jews that when God gave them that great Commandment to love their Neighbour as themselves they should satisfie themselves in the performing this duty with a much more restrained sense of the word Neighbour than the Divine Law intended And it must not be conceived that false imaginations concerning the bounds of the Church and fellowship therein will be esteemed in the sight of God a sufficient discharge from the duties he requires men to perform to others nor will this be a better excuse under Christianity than the like mistake was under Judaism 23. Thirdly I shall consider their placing the chief Ecclesiastical power and authority in the Body of the people or the members of the Church To this purpose by some of them we are told that (m) Answ to 32. Qu. to Q. 14. in Peter and the rest the Keys are committed to all Believers who shall join together in the same confession according to the Ordinance of Christ and they give the people the power of (n) Answ to Qu. 15. censuring offenders even Ministers themselves if they be such And on this account at least in part I suppose the Congregational Churches in their Declaration of Faith omitted the whole Chapter of (o) Ch. 30. Church censures contained in the Assembly's Confession in which they had declared the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be committed to the Church Officers Now besides that the way of Government and Censure by the major Vote of the people hath been the occasion of much confusion in some of their Congregations that which I shall particularly insist on is the great sin of intruding upon any part of the Ministerial Authority or neglecting due regard or reverence thereto How plain is it in the Scripture that the Apostles governed and ordered the state of the Christian Church and that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches did and were to do the like It was to the Apostles as chief Officers of the Christian Church that Christ declared Joh. 20.23 whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained and Matt. 18.18 whatsoever yet shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose in Earth shall be loosed in Heaven And by these and such like words the power of inflicting Censures and receiving to and conferring of the priviledges of the Church as well as of dispensing all those Ordinances whereby the grace of God and remission of sins are particularly tendered are appropriated to the Officers of the Church as part of their Office 24. In this plain sense were these Christian Laws generally understood by the Primitive Church which practised accordingly which they who read the ancient Canons must necessarily confess And the same is manifest from the particular Writers of the first Ages For instance even (p) Cyp. Ep. 27. S. Cyprian from what our Lord spake to S. Peter of the power of the Keys and of binding and loosing infers the Episcopal honour and that every act of the Church must be governed by those Prefects or Superiors And from those words and what our Saviour spake to his Apostles Jo. 20. about remitting sins he concludes that only the Governours in the Church (q) Ep. 73. can give remission of sins And when Rogatianus a Bishop complained to Cyprian concerning a Deacon who behaved himself contumeliously towards him S. Cyprian commends his humility in addressing himself to him (r) Ep. 65. when he had himself power by virtue of his Episcopacy and the
things and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things of which the Priest did partake But it is not so now The same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup. So far S. Chrysostome 4. Though this interpretation restraining it to the Clergy contrary to Reason History and the Doctrine of that time should be allowed yet would not this be enough to reconcile it with the present Tradition which delivers that the Clergy also if they do not consecrate must not receive in both kinds 5. This first answer is acknowledged frivolous from some of the grounds above-mentioned and rejected by many of the more learned Papists and Baronius ad annum 496. n. 20. calls it frigidam solutionem a cold or dull solution but pretends to give a better which now follows The other Answer necessary to be examined is That this Canon refers to the Manichees and that it was only their receiving in one kind which Gelasius condemns as Sacriledge of whom it is thus written in Leo his fourth Sermon for Lent When they dare to be present at our Mysteries to conceal their Infidelity they so order themselves at the Communion of the Sacraments that sometimes they receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth that they may the more safely be concealed but they altogether decline to drink of the Blood of our Redemption which we therefore certifie your holiness that this sort of men may be known of us by these tokens and that when their Sacrilegious dissembling is discovered they being marked and detected may be driven by the Priestly Authority from the Saints society That to these the words of Gelasius refer is the answer of Baronius ad an 496. n. 21. Binnius in Vit. Gelasii and this also is approved by Bellarmine But 1. If Leo did discern this to be the practice of some Manichees fifty years before Gelasius his time this is no evidence that they were such of whom Gelasius writes had he intended the Manichees there can no reason be imagined why he as well as Leo should not mention them but since he expressed this in a more general way that some were found there is no reason to restrain this to the Manichees 2. That expression that he knew not by what superstition they were bound up cannot fitly be applied to the Manichees For it was a matter not unknown but well known why the Manichees refused the Cup. Saint Austin about an hundred years before Gelasius sets down the reason of that Lib. 16. adversus Faust c. 3. They refused Wine and other things he saith not out of any strictness to subdue the body but as being unclean and called them filth and the gall of the people of darkness And lib. 20. c. 13. he saith the Manichees account it Sacriledge to tast Wine they own their God in the Grape but not in the Cup as if the treading or pressing did offend them So that it was known why the Manichees refused Wine upon all occasions Yea the very word of superstition suits not the Manichees refusal who were acted by gross Heresie and amongst other things they hereby maintained the distinction of things clean and unclean in their own nature whereas superstition rather intimates a design of reverence and veneration of the Sacrament but misplaced and not well guided 3. Nor can those words either let them receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole be applicable to the Manichees For if we consider the nature of Manicheism how great an Heresie it was that S. Austin in several places observes That they denied worship to the God of the Old Testament they blasphemed the Prophets they denied Christ to be born of the Virgin they did worship the Sun and own him to be God and many other gross things they held as the good and evil first Cause the denial of the Resurrection and the like that concerning such Hereticks Gelasius and the Roman Canons should appoint that they might be admitted to the partaking of the whole Sacrament no man who knows the discipline of those times can admit For no crime was owned greater than Heresie and that the Heresie of Manicheism was in the daies of Gelasius greatly abhorred by the Christians may appear in that after the death of Zeno the Emperour when Ariadne had declared Anastasius the Successor Euphemius the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to consent because he was a Manichee unless he should first under his hand-writing confirm the Faith of Chalcedon as is related by Theodorus Lector Collect. lib. 2. and not long after he shews how the Christians detested this Manichean Emperour because an Heretick which was in the very daies of this Gelasius Further when it is considered that this Gelasius the first Causa 24. Qu. 1. Acacius non est declares that whoever falls into any Heresie once condemned involves himself in that same condemnation It is not imaginable that he would allow the Eucharist to be given to a Manichee whom he must own as a condemned Heretick Nor could a Manichee be otherwise owned by Gelasius when in his time they stood condemned not only by the Civil Laws of Valentinian Gratian Theodosius and Honorius but also by a Roman Council in the daies of Pope Leo the Great in which as appears from Leo Serm. 5. de Jejuniis decim mens they determined that the Christians should wholly expel these accursed and contagious men from their friendship At which time Leo would not receive them who returned from Manicheism until they had first condemned the Manichees by open profession in the Church and by their subscriptions and at length had time injoined them for their penance as is observed by Baronius ad Ann. 444. n. 5. And can it then be imagined that when Gelasius had found such out he would give them liberty to be received to the Eucharist forthwith especially if it be observed that in another Canon of this same Gelasius Causa 24. Qu. 2. c. nec quisque He declares That they might not partake of the purity of the Lords Table with any Heretick which Table saith he our Ancestors did alwaies abundantly keep severed from all Heretical pollution Yea further can it be thought any way probable that when Leo in the above-mentioned words declares the Manichees to be in infidelity to receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth and sacrilegiously to dissemble in taking that and therefore to be rejected as contagious and accursed from all society of Christians yet Gelasius should judge these infidels thus sacrilegiously dissembling and unworthy yea accursed and condemned by former Councils fit for the highest Communion of Christians and allow them to receive the holy Eucharist Strangely wide must they needs be who would expound Gelasius by those words of Leo. 4. If notwithstanding all this those persons of which Gelasius writes had been Manichees this would indeed have shewed the persons in Gelasius his time who received only in one kind
SECT I. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures HE first goeth about to prove by Scripture That the Rule of Faith is self-evident from Isai 35.8 This shall be to you a direct way so that fools cannot err in it Which words as cited by this Author shew only the knowledge of God under the Gospel to be so clear and evident that they who will seek after him and live to him though of low capacities may understand so much as is requisite for their right walking which Protestants assert also and own this evidence to be in Scripture But that Tradition may be proved this Rule of Faith by Scripture he alledgeth Isai 59.21 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seed and from the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever But 1. to have Gods Word and Spirit in their mouth proves their delivery not a Rule of Faith or unerring then must the speeches of every private Christian who shall be saved be a Rule of Faith because the Scriptures assure us That every one who shall be saved hath both the Spirit of Christ and his word in their mouth see Rom. 8.9 Rom. 10.9 10. Mat. 10.32 2. Though all who are born of God shall have his word in their mouth this will not secure us that what is by any Society of men declared as truth upon Tradition is Gods Word no more than what the Psalmist saies Psal 37.30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom and his tongue talketh of judgement would assure that the Doctrines owned by the way of Tradition among the Jews were alwaies the true Doctrines since it might well be that those Jews were not such righteous men as it may also be that the generality of some visible Church are not Gods seed 3. Gods Word may be in the mouth where the holy Scriptures are the Rule We read Josh 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night Where it is evident that when Joshua was to keep the Law in his mouth he had the Book of the Law for his Rule and had his acquaintance with the Law by meditating in it God saith Mal. 2.6 concerning Levi The Law of truth was in his mouth and Vers 7. they shall seek the Law at his mouth and when they did thus in Ezra's time he read the Law out of the Book of Moses and that Book did Hilkiah send to Josiah While S. Paul professed his Faith with his mouth he declared that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets When we read Deut. 31.21 22. This Song shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their Seed vers 22. Moses therefore wrote this Song the same day and taught it the Children of Israel Is it not evident that it was from the writing of Moses that this Song was in their mouth and that writing by which they were taught surely was their Rule to know this Song by Next to this he urgeth as pithy and home but not to his purpose Jer. 31.33 I will give my Law in their bowels and in their hearts will I write it and notes that S. Paul contradistinguisheth the Law of Grace from Moses 's Law in that the latter was written in Tables of Stone and the former in fleshly tables of mens hearts But 1. What proof is here of Tradition being the Rule of Faith Had the Scripture said that under the Gospel Christians should receive the Law of God no otherwise than from one anothers hearts it might have seemed to serve his purpose S. Austin de Spiritu litera c. 21. having mentioned the place fore-cited of Jeremy and that of S. Paul to which this Discourser refers inquires what are the Laws of God written by God himself in their hearts but the very presence of the holy Spirit who is the finger of God by whom being present Charity which is the fulness of the Law and the end of the Commandment is poured forth in our hearts Now if God causeth his commands to be inwardly imbraced by a Spirit of love and piety this is far from conveying to them a Spirit of infallibility 2. Nor doth S. Paul contradistinguish the Law of Moses and the Gospel in those words but he contradistinguisheth the way of Gods inward writing in the heart from the way of his outward writing in those tables For even the Law of Moses was also written in the hearts of them who feared God as the Laws of Christ were more eminently in the hearts of Christians Hence such expressions as these Psal 119.11 Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee Psal 37.31 The Law of his God is in his heart none of his steps shall slide Yea Moses tells the Jews Deut. 30.11 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far of v. 14. but the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it Yet though Gods Law before the coming of Christ was in the hearts of his people yet was the Book of the Law then their Rule as now is the Old and New Testament 3. If that place of S. Paul be considered 2 Cor. 3.3 it will evidence that what the Holy Ghost going along with his Ministry had written in the fleshly tables of their hearts was enough to commend his Apostleship which is the scope and design of that place but it no ways signifies that these Corinthians even at this time were not capable of erring in any Doctrine of the Faith for he declares to them in this same Epistle chap. 11.3 that he fears lest as Satan beguiled Eve so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ 4. And if we could have been assured as we cannot that the delivery of truth in the Church of Corinth was a Rule of Faith this would plead much for the Tradition of the Greek Church rather than of the Roman which agreeth not with it and so would destroy Romish Tradition But as this Discoursers citations of Scripture Authority are very impertinent I shall in brief observe whether the Scripture do not evidently declare it self to be the Rule of Faith To the which purpose besides many other places observed in the foregoing part of this answer let these be considered S. Luke 1.4 5. It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou maist know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Now that is a Rule of Faith which is the best way to ascertain us of Faith and from these words it is evident that even in the times
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
despising the Blessings which he tenders by those Institutions Wherefore since Episcopal Ordination hath been of so general Practice from the Apostles in the Church of God and is regularly established and continued in this Kingdom no Man in this Church with respect to Order Unity and Apostolical Institution can reasonably expect that God will ever own him as his Officer in the Ministry of Reconciliation unless he be admitted thereto by such Ordination And private Christians both out of Duty to God and out of respect to their own Safety may not so esteem of any who oppose themselves against this Order because of the Danger under the New Testament of perishing in the gainsaying of Core And let every Person whosoever he be be wary how upon any pretence whatsoever he undertakes to execute any proper part of the Power of the Keys unless he be set apart thereunto by regular Ordination And now I shall conclude my Discourse with three Inferences First This gives us an account whence all that Opposition and Difficulty doth arise which the Ministration of the Gospel and the faithful Servants of God therein do meet with The Devil will use his utmost Power by all his Methods to hinder so good a Work as this Ministration is intended for Hence the Holy Jesus and most of his Apostles met with opposition even unto Death And as all the Persecutions of the Christian Church had an especial eye upon the Clergy so that violent one under Dioclesian Eus Hist l. 3. c. 12. for the first Year fingled them only out to be the Subjects of his Fury These are the ordinary Mark against whom all the Churches Enemies shoot their poysoned Arrows envenomed from the Malignity of the Old Serpent And when the Evil One cannot proceed by open Violence he oft makes use of Instruments to fix slanderous Censures and Calumnies upon the Officers of Christ to render their Ministration the less prosperous and successful in the World Insomuch that their Devoutness in Religion is by some upbraided with Ceremoniousness and their consciencious Observance of due Order and Averseness to Faction is branded with the odious Term of Popery and their embracing the necessary Reformation of the Church is by others stigmatized with the infamous Names of Heresy and Schism Thus our Saviour was called Beelzebub himself accused of Blasphemy and his Doctrine of Heresy Besides these things the vicious and scandalous Practices of too many who profess the Truth the various Schisms and other manifold Corruptions in the Doctrine and Practice of Religion and I wish I might not add the undue Proceedings of some Patrons in conferring Ecclesiastical Preferments are all of them dangerous Methods made use of by the Evil One to hinder the attaining the great Ends of this Ministration Secondly I now address my self to you my Reverend Brethren It is a weighty Charge a Business of great Importance that we are called unto and as we are Stewards of the Living God it is required of us that we be found faithful And for the putting us in mind of that serious Care and Diligence which we are to use in our Ministry I know not how to speak otherwise so well as by recommending the serious and frequent considering that useful Exhortation in the Book of Ordination And let us particularly look well to our own Paths for tho the Excellency of God's Ordinances doth not depend upon the Instruments yet if a Blemish appears in any of our Lives it becomes a great Prejudice to the Designs we should carry on among Men and will open the Mouths of our Enemies and if there be a Judas among the Apostles the Devil is ready to make a special use of him to his purposes But let us observe that Rule which but a few Verses after my Text the Apostle tells us was the Practice of himself and other Officers of the Christian Church Giving no Offence in any thing that the Ministry be not blamed but in all things approving our selves as the Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.3 4. Thirdly Let every one in their places lay to their helping-Hand to promote the Success of this Ministry upon themselves and others Wherefore let every Man who lives under the Dispensation of the Gospel reject all Wickedness of Life and exercise himself unto Godliness and so he will certainly advantage himself and probably others by his good Example And let all those who have the management of the Authority of the Church in their hands indifferently check the Neglect and Contempt of the Publick Service of God and all other Viciousness and Evil which comes within the Limits of their Authority and countenance and encourage all real Vertue Goodness Holiness and Religion And those Parish-Officers who stand charged upon their Oaths to give an account of Offences which is noted by our 26th Canon to be the chief Means whereby publick Offences may be reformed and punished and whose Miscarriage is there severely censured let not them sinfully neglect their Oath and their Duty the right Discharge of which may tend to the Glory of God the flourishing of the Church and Religion and the bringing Men into the Ways of Happiness And because the Apostle proposeth that humbling Question concerning the Ministerial Charge Who is sufficient for these Things Let us earnestly implore the Help and Grace of God to assist us and succeed our Ministrations to the great Good of Men. And let every devout Christian join his fervent and frequent Prayer to this end and purpose That he who hath committed to us this Ministration would bring all those who partake thereof unto true Holiness of Life here and eternal Happiness hereafter through the Merits of Jesus Christ our Lord To whom with the Father and the Holy-Ghost be all Glory for evermore Amen A SERMON Preached at NORWICH March 2. 1678. JOEL 2.12 Therefore also now saith the Lord Turn ye even to me with all your heart IN the foregoing part of this Prophecy there is a dismal appearance of things concerning Judah a heavy threatning of sad Calamities therein both by Famine and Sword in the first Chapter and former part of the second The dreadfulness hereof is represented according to an usual Prophetick Style as if God was making the whole Fabrick of his Creation to totter v. 10. The Earth shall quake before them and the Heavens shall tremble the Sun and Moon shall be dark and the Stars shall withdraw their shining And this great Calamity was like to be the more sad because of the terror of God's Vengeance going along with it v. 11. The Day of the Lord is great and very terrible and who can abide it In such a case as this these words which our Church directeth to be read at the beginning of Lent which is now near and which are of excellent use at all times are the beginning of the Prophetical Direction for their help and recovery from this sad Condition and such a Remedy as recovereth one gasping
Donatists falsly charged one of the Ordainers of Caecilianus and pretended this as a ground of their Separation 2. Their Righteousness did much consist in such a Zeal as was disorderly fierce furious and censorious They were diligent in compassing Sea and Land to make Proselites but it was that they might be their Followers and Admirers Their professing a great Respect to the Prophets and their Pretence of Traditions was chiefly to gain Credit to their own Dictates Their Zeal was a violent espousing the Interest of their own Errors and was not so much for God and his Law as for themselves and their own Party like that of the Donatists Annal. Eccles an 306. n. 42. mentioned by Baronius who could with more patience hear Men speak lightly of Christ than of Donatuâ— And they were so censorious that they not only despised the Publicans but esteemed the People as not knowing the Law to be cursed and condemned the most holy Jesus for a Blasphemer an Enemy to Caesar and one who cast out Devils by the Prince of Devils Their violent Fierceness was evident by their bloody Cruelties under the Government of Alexandria and at other times Jos Antiq. l. 13. c. 2â—â— and especially in their being much concerned in prosecuting our Lord to the Death and treating him with so many Indignities and his Apostles after him with various Methods of Hatred and Cruelty and particularly murdering James the Just the first Bishop of Jerusalem But in the Religion of our Saviour the contrary Temper of pursuing true and sincere Piety Faith and the Fear and Love of God and of Mercifulness Meekness and Charity is made indispensably necessary to our eternal Happiness And to this end we are commanded to learn of Christ to be meek and lowly Mat. 11.29 that we may find Rest unto our Souls But if St. James and St. John be for calling for Fire from Heaven this is declared to be greatly opposite to the Spirit of the Gospel For tho it allows and establisheth just Rules of Government and the Use of the Power of the Sword therein yet it condemns all Cruelty and Fury And if St. Peter in his Zeal will unwarrantably draw his Sword he must receive a severe Check from our Lord and Master 3. They miscarried also by their unduly affecting the Vogue and Applause of Men in their Religious Performances To this purpose they made broad their Philacteries Exod. 13.2 5. Deut. 6.4 Ch. 11 13 14 15. that they might seem to Men to give great respect to those Precepts of the Law inscribed in them concerning the worshipping acknowledging and obeying God And for a pretence of extraordinary Sanctity they made use of long Prayers and put up their Devotions even in the Corners of the Streets And their Fasting Praying and giving Alms was done that they might be seen of Men while it might well have become such Actions to have been managed by a better Principle By this means they gained a great Interest among the People but made use of it to very ill purposes even to the opposing the Doctrine of our Saviour And Josephus tells us Antiq. Jud. l. 13. c. 18. they could 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their Credit bring the People to be ill-affected either to the King or the High-Priest But our Saviour pronounceth frequent Woes against them for their Hypocrisy and lets them know that all this while they are out of God's Favour and that what is highly esteemed among Men is an Abomination in the sight of God Luke 16.15 Now both Reason and Religion will recommend a good Name as useful and desirable so far as it can be gained in doing our Duty and practising Sincerity But if the World be so degenerate that the faithful and upright Man must needs meet with Censures and Revilings here as Christ himself and his Apostles did so must all his Disciples take up the Cross and bear the Reproach In this case the Blessed Jesus declared Luke 6.26 Wo be to you when all Men shall speak well of you And whereas the Scribes and Pharisees are said to do all their Works to be seen of Men Mat. 23.5 St. Hierom there affirms that he who in this is like to them Hieronym in Mat. 23. Scriba Pharisaeus est is in the same condition with the Scribes and Pharisees When St. Peter against the Rule of his Duty would withdraw from the Gentiles to ingratiate himself with the Jews St. Paul thought it necessary to reprove him sharply as not walking uprightly and according to the Truth of the Gospel Indeed the inordinate Pursuit of Vain-Glory and the valuing the Esteem or Favour of any Men above the discharge of a good Conscience is so opposite to true Religion to a lively Sense of God and Faith in him that in this respect our Saviour said How can ye believe which receive Honour one of another 4. Their Righteousness superstitiously laid a great stress on little outside Things and such as were no parts of real Religion They were strict in washing those hands which remained polluted by evil Works and in washing Pots and Tables as if these and such other Things were of doctrinal necessity They were careful to tithe Mint and Anise and appeared hugely scrupulous about the Obligation of their unlawful Vow of Corban but with respect to that Vow could without regret dispense with the neglect of honouring superior Relations against the fifth Commandment They received the Traditions of their Scribes with a great and inordinate Veneration even above the Law it self and of these unwritten Traditions they had a great Number as the Scripture intimateth and Josephus expresly testifieth Ant. l. 13. c. 18 And out of a pretext of Purity they rejected all Converse with Publicans tho such as were justified rather than themselves But true Christian Righteousness must consist in minding and chiefly valuing the great Duties of true Piety and Holiness And by our Saviour's Doctrine a Wo is denounced against the Pharisees little Strictnesses while they neglected the weighty things of the Law And their observing and urging those things as greatly necessary which indeed were not truly good were so far from pleasing God that our Lord declared That in vain they worshipped him teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men Mat. 15.9 therein applying to them those Words of the Prophet Esay according to the Version of the Septuagint Isa 29.13 5. They were haughty and imperious but not submissive to Rulers and Governours They were forward to bind heavy Burdens on the Shoulders of others but were not themselves willing to stoop to the Duties of Obedience and Subjection They were so little Friends to Caesar that by them the Question was propounded Mat. 22.15 17. Whether it was lawful to give Tribute to Caesar or no and were so averse to Authority that as Josephus relates they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make War and otherwise were injurious towards