that Nation there were still some among them that as a remnant were to be gained to Christianity and therefore while there was ground to hope for that they went on in that condescention to their infirmity observing that very Low which was then maintained by the Iews with the highest insolence and cruelty possible against Christ and his Followers When this Point is well weighed in its full extent and in all its consequences it will I hope satisfy many how far so great an end as the publick Peace and the edification of the whole Body ought to be pursued when the Apostles went so far in order to the gaining of a few And here it will be no impertinent digression to observe the Rules that St. Paul lays down to Christians in this whole matter I cannot think that it was so fully opened in Epistles that have been preserved down to our days as a main part of the Canon of our Faith without a special Providence of God that in those Rules we might see our own duty in the management of such Controversies as should afterwards arise Since besides a historical knowledge of the state of that time this is all the use that it seems we can now make of such long Discourses and Arguings and if this can be well stated it will be a sure thread to guide us First then St. Paul leads men above the valuing such matters too much as if the being of the one or the other side signified any thing towards their peace with God For all fierce Zealots are apt to imagine that by their zeal they please God and atone for great faults Therefore to take away that false Conceit this is often repeated That in Christ Iesus neither Circumcision nor Vncircumcision a vailed any thing but a new creature or faith which worketh by love and the keeping the Commandments of God and that the Christian Religion or the Kingdom of God consisted not in meat and drink that is in Rituals concerning the distinction of Meats clean and unclean but in much higher things righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost And he seems to assert that whosoever served Christ in these things was acceptable to God and ought to be approved of men whatsoever his sense might be as to all other things Another Position laid down is That every man ought to he fully persuaded in his own mind to have clear Principles and to frame these into as distinct Rules as possibly he could And this is the meaning of doing all things in faith which word signifies persuasion and ought to have been so rendered here And then all those difficulties that arise out of the misunderstanding of that word would cease so that the paraphrase of those so oftencited words will run thus Hast thou a persuasion have it within thy self so that then mayst appeal to God upon it For happy is the man that is so setled that he does not waver in a distraction of thoughts sometimes approving and at other times condemning the same thing for while a man is still doupting he is condemned within himself For instance If he eats freely of all Meats without regarding the Iewish distinctions and yet has within him an opinion of the obligatory force of those Laws he does not act upon clear Principles and Persuasions for while a man acts without these not knowing but that he may be sinning against God he does then really sin since he does things which he thinks are sins so that they become sins to him This is a plain account of those words which as it agrees exactly to their natural signification so it shuts out all the difficulties which arise out of them For the word rendred by doubting according to the sense in which it stands in all the other parts of the New Testament signifies the making distinction so that the meaning of it is He who thinks that there is still a distinction between meats clean and unclean is very guilty if he eats as long as he is under that persuasion A third Rule laid down by St. Paul is Teat in all such matters men ought not to assume an Authority to judge others that is to impose things upon them as if they had a Judiciary Authority over them Let not man judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a holy day that is Let no man in matters left at liberty pretend to an Authority over another for God is the sole Judge of all men And let no man judge his Brother that is offer to call him to an account of his Actions for we must all stand at the judgement-seat of Christ where he who is our only Judge as a Law giver will then be our Iudge by calling us to an account of our Actions Upon this follow the Rules of mens deportment towards one another Those that have larger Principles and higher Notions who in that respect are stronger and who by that freedom of mind and thought did eat without those nice distinctions of clean and unclean ought not to despise such as were yet fearful and straitned in their thoughts and durst not emancipate themselves as if they were men of low thoughts and narrow minds On the other hand Those who were still entangled with an opinion of the obligation of the Mosaical Law ought not to condemn such as acted with more freedom as if they were loose and lawless men To this a fourth Assertion is added That in such diversities of apprehensions men of both sides might be received and accepted by God both acting with good Intentions and following sincerely their Persuasions One man regarded a day He observed the Iewish Festivities their New Moons and days of rest called by the general word of Sabbaths yet in doing this under the sense of the Obligations of that Law lying still over him be regarded it to the Lord Another who reckoned himself freed from that Yoke did acknowledge that this his Liberty was occasioned by the Christian Religion so he in not observing it acknowledged that Religion which had set him free The same Rule is also instanced in observing the distinction of Meats the one did eat freely and thanked God for that liberty while the other did abstain from forbidden Meats and thanked God for that Law by which the Iewish Nation had so many special Priviledges beyond all other Nations so that God was honoured by both even in all that diversity of practices And perhaps a diversity of practices if with that a tender and perfect Charity could be maintained might be yet a greater honour to Religion than an absolute ageement in all points since it is a higher Instance of the power of Religion if men can love one another notwithstanding a diversity in opinion and practice than if they loved one another being in all points of the same mind and agreeing in the same practices After these came two Rules relating to private mens behaviour towards
former House there must have been some eminent Character in it beyond the former In particular the whole World was to be struck with it which is expressed in the Prophetick Strain by the shaking the Heavens and the Earth the Sea and the dry Land and the shaking of all Nations I do not argue from that which follows of the desire of all Nations because I know it is capable of another Translation and I will build upon sure grounds This Glory was likewise to bring Peace with it which cannot be literally understood since the Iews had very little Peace either from the days of Herod to whom they apply this or from the days of our Saviour to whom the Christians apyly it Now from all this it is to be inferred that the Apostles applying universally the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our Saviour could mean no other but that he was the true Iehovah by a more perfect Indwelling of the Deity in him than that had been which was in the Cloud This Glory was greater than the other for the other dwelt in a Mass of meer Matter whereas this dwelt in the Soul and Body of our Saviour and a Soul is much a perfecter sort of Being than the purest Matter possible This was also to last for ever whereas the other had a determined Duration and came to a period and the other did shine out only upon special Occasions whereas in this we all with open face as in a glass beholding the Glory of the Lord are changed into the same Image from Glory to Glory a period made up of the Phraseology that belonged to the Schechinah as is also that of his being the Brightness of the Father's Glory and the express Image or Character of his Person that of the Word which was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the Only Begotten Son of the Father that of the light of the Glorious Gospel or rather of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ and that of the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face or person of Iesus Christ all these with many more that might be quoted do so plainly allude to the Phraseology of the Cloud of Glory that it is not possible for any who consider things carefully to avoid the Evidence of it If it had not been so what can be said to justify this manner of expression especially the giving the Translation of the Incommunicable Name that was in the Old Testament in a thread all over the New to our Saviour This was the laying snares for the first Believers and that in the most important Point of all Religion so that since our Saviour denounced a Wo to him by whom Scandals should come the Apostles were the first that incurred it if they by a continu'd course of Style led the world to believe that a meer man was the great Iehovah If that had occurred only now and then the extent of the signification of the Greek word might be alledged but it being the Title which they constantly give him as well as it was that by which the Iews understood the Iehovah to be meant this cannot in any sort be justified from a gross Abuse put on the World if the Messias was not the Iehovah The great Objection that arises against this is that tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed the common Translation for Iehovah yet sometimes it is put for the other Hebrew words both Elohim and Adonai and that in the New Testament it is used rather in opposition or more properly in subordination to the Name of God which seems to be stated very plainly by St. Paul when he says there were many that were called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there were Gods many and Lords many in opposition to all which he asserts that to Christians there is but one God the Father of whom were all things and we in him and one Lord Iesus by whom were all things and we by him From hence it seems that the true Notion of this according to St. Paul is That as the Heathen Nations believed some supream Deities and other deputed or lower Deities that watch'd over particular Nations so we Christians do own only one Eternal God the Creator and Preserver of all and one Lord to whom he hath given the Government of all things So that this as it favours the Notion of one exalted to divine Authority and Honor it does likewise take away quite the whole force of this Argument and so it cannot be well establish'd without considering this very carefully It is then to be observed that through the Old Testament God is spoken of under two different Notions the one is general as he created and govern'd all things and the other is special as he was in Covenant with the Jewish Nation and as he govern'd them particularly by his Laws was present among them in a Visible Symbol and watch'd over them by a distinguishing Providence In this last sense Iehovah is the Name by which he is strictly express'd as their Federal God that had an immediate Care over them and a Right to them The Nations that lived in Idolatry had Notions which seem to be taken from this For as they believ'd some supream and some subaltern Deities so they also fanci'd that some even of those supream Deities were more especially related or appropriated to some places Thus as they conceiv'd them to be Supream they held them to be Gods and as they believ'd them to have a special Relation to any Place or Nation they were esteem'd according to this piece of Jewish Phraseology here us'd by St. Paul Lords as well as Gods In opposition to all which we Christians own but one Supream God and we do also believe that this great God is also our Federal God or Iehovah by his dwelling in the Human Nature of Iesus Christ So that he is our Lord not by an assumption into high Dignity or the communicating Divine Honor to him but as the Eternal Word dwelt bodily in him and thus he is our Lord not as a Being distinct from or deputed by the great God but as the great God manifesting himself in his Flesh or Human Nature which is the great Mystery of Godliness or of true Religion And this will give a clear account of all those other passages of the New Testament in which the Lord Iesus is mention'd as distinct from or subordinate to God and his Father The one is the more extended Notion of God as the Maker and Preserver of all things and the other is the more special Notion as appropriated to Christians by which God is federally their God Lord or Iehovah This I think does fully establish this Argument and takes away the whole force of the Objection against it But to carry this yet further the Apostles do not only name him thus in all their Writings but they
is urged that the Books of the Scriptures cannot be of use to us if there is not in the Church a living speaking Iudge to declare their true sense Now this is rather more necessary with relation to the Decrees of Councils which as they are Writings as well as the Scriptures so they being much more Voluminous and more artificially contrived and couched need a Commentary much more than a few plain and simple Writings which make up the New Testament If then the Councils must be expounded there must be according to their main reasoning an Infallibility lodged somewere else to give their sense And the necessity of this has appeared evidently since the time of the Council of Trent for both upon the Article of Divine Grace and upon their Sacrament of Penance there have been and still are great debates among them concerning the meaning of the Decrees of that Council both Parties pretending that they are of their side Who then shall decide these Controversies and expound those Decrees This must not be laid over to the next General Council for then the Infallibility will be in an Abeyance and lost during that Interval So this Inference leads me to the last Hypothesis That the Infallibility is in the Pope and in him only And it must be confessed that this is the only Opinion that is consistent to it self in all its parts Here is a living and speaking Iudge and if he is not Infallible it is plain that they have no Infallibility at all among them And yet his Infallibility as it is a thing of which no man ever dreamt for the first nine or ten Ages so it has such violent presumptions against it that without very express proof it will not be reasonable to expect that any should believe it The Ignorance of most Popes the Secular Maxims by which they are governed the Political Methods in which they are elected the Forgeries chiefly of their Decretal Epistles by which their Authority was principally asserted and which are now as universally rejected as spurious as they were once owned to be genuine their aspiring to the same Authority in Temporals for many Ages which they have gained in Spirituals their having dissolved the whole Authority of the Primitive Constitutions and Ancient Canons of the Church and all that practice of Corruption that is in all their Courts by which the whole order of the Church is totally reversed All these are such lawful and violent Prejudices against them that they must needs fortify a man in opposition to any such Pretensions till it is very plainly proved These Characters agree so very ill with Infallibility that it is not easy to believe they can be together Since for above 800 years together the Papacy as it is represented by their own Writers was perhaps the worst Succession of men that can be found in any History And it will seem strange if God has lodged such wonderful Power with such a sort of men and yet has taken so little care of them to make them look like the proper Subjects of that Authority We do plainly see that the Primitive Church even when they enlarged their Papal Authority as to Government did it what out of a respect to St. Peter and St. Paul who they believed founded that Church and suffered Martyrdom in it and what or most chiefly out of their regard to the dignity of that City it being the Head of the Empire under which they lived and this appeared by their giving the same Priviledges to Constantinople when it became the Imperial City which was made second to the other and equal to it except only in order and rank But as for the Doctrine of the Church tho still the regard to St. Peter went far yet when Liberius subscribed to Semiarianism it was never pretended that his Authority had in any thing altered the case which must have been urged if he had been believed Infallible The Case of Honorius does fully discover the sense of the Church in the Sixth Century concerning their Infallibility He was condemned as a Monothelite by a General Council which was confirmed by several Popes who did by name condemn him Now we are not a whit concerned in his Cause and Condemnation whether it was just or not and whether it was upon a due examination or not It is enough for us that a General Council as well as several Popes in that Age had never dreamt of Infallibility otherwise they could not have condemned him or believe him capable of Heresy This might be brought down to many later Instances in which several Popes have been charged with Heresy one shall suffice They have pretended to an Authority from Christ to depose Kings and to transfer their Dominions to others This they have not only done by force and violence but by many solemn Decisions in which this Authority has been claimed as founded on several Passages of Scripture not forgetting those In the beginning not In the beginnings did God create and the great light that rules the day these with many more they have urged both from the Old and New Testament This they did with the utmost pomp of solemn Declarations and upon this Head they filled the World with Wars Some few writ against these Pretensions but the Popes stood to them and carried them on in a course of five or six Centuries with all possible vigour And during those Ages this Doctrine grew to be universally received by the Learned and Unlearned by all the Universities all the Divines Canonists and Casuists not one single Person daring to oppose so strong a Current So that Cardinal Perron was in the right when he affirmed that this was the Doctrine universally received in the Church for the last six Centuries without contradiction before Calvin's days and those few that seemed to write against it durst only oppose the Pope's direct Power in Temporals as the Superior Lord to whom Kings were but Vassals but durst not contradict his Authority over them in case of Heresy This then being so publick and uncontested a Point as it shakes the Authority of Oral Tradition and shews how Doctrines even in points in which mens Interests did strongly oppose them could get into the Church though not derived down from the Apostles so it totally destroys the Pope's Pretensions to Infallibility in the Opinion of all such as think this to be simply unlawful and that it subverts the Order which God has setled in the World For there is not any one Fact in History that can be less contested than that the Popes have assumed this Authority and that they have vouched Divine Warrants for it To this also we may well add another train of Difficulties about the Right to chuse this Pope in whom it is vested what number is necessary for a Canonical Election and how far Simony voids it and who is the Competent Judge of the Simony or in the case of different Elections who shall judge which of