Whatsoever his Apostles settled was by Authority and Commission from him therefore it is not to be denied but that if they had appointed any Sacramental Action that must be reckoned to be of the same Authority and is to be esteemed Christ's Institution as much as if he himself when on Earth had appointed it Matter is of the Essence of a Sacrament for Words without some material thing to which they belong may be of the Nature of Prayers or Vows but they cannot be Sacraments Receiving a Sacrament is on our part our Faith plighted to God in the use of some material Substance or other for in this consists the difference between Sacraments and other Acts of Worship The latter are only Acts of the Mind declared by Words or Gesture whereas Sacraments are the Application of a material Sign joyned with Acts of the Mind Words and Gestures With the Matter there must be a Form that is such Words joyned with it as do appropriate the Matter to such an use and separate it from all other uses at least in the Act of the Sacrament For in any piece of Matter alone there cannot be a proper suitableness to such an end as seems to be designed by Sacraments and therefore a Form must determine and apply it and it is highly suitable to the nature of Things to believe that our Saviour who has Instituted the Sacrament has also either Instituted the Form of it or given us such hints as to lead us very near it The end of Sacraments is double the one is by a Solemn Federal Action both to unite us to Christ and also to derive a secret Blessing from him to us And the other is to joyn and unite us by this publick Profession and the joynt partaking of it with his Body which is the Church This is in general an Account of a Sacrament This it is true is none of those Words that are made use of in Scripture so that it has no determined Signification given to it in the Word of God yet it was very early applied by Pliny to those Vows by which the Christians tied themselves to their Religion Lib. 10. Ep. 97. taken from the Oaths by which the Soldiery among the Romans were sworn to their Colours or Officers and from that time this Term has been used in a Sense consecrated to the Federal Rites of Religion Yet if any will dispute about Words we know how much St. Paul condemns all those curious and vain Questions which have in them the Subtilties and Oppositions of Science falsly so called If any will call every Rite used in Holy Things a Sacrament 1 Tim. 6.20 we enter into no such Contentions The Rites therefore that we understand when we speak of Sacraments are the constant Federal Rites of Christians which are accompanied by a Divine Grace and Benediction being instituted by Christ to unite us to him and to his Church and of such we own that there are Two Baptism and the Supper of our Lord. In Baptism there is Matter Water there is a Form the Person Dipped or Washed with words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Matth. 28.19 There is an Institution Go preach and baptize there is a Federal Sponsion 1 Pet. 3.21 Matth. 26.26 27. The answer of a good Conscience there is a Blessing conveyed with it Baptism save us there is one baptism as there is one body and one spirit we are all baptized into one body So that here all the constituent and necessary Parts of a Sacrament are found in Baptism In the Lord's Supper there is Bread and Wine for the Matter The giving it to be Eat and Drunk with the Words that our Saviour used in the first Supper are the Form Do this in remembrance of me is the Institution Ye shew forth the Lord's death till he come again 1 Cor. 11.23 to 27. is the Declaration of the Federal Act of our part It is also the Communion of the body and of the blood of Christ that is the conveyance of the Blessings of our Partnership in the Effects of the Death of Christ. 1 Cor. 10.16 17. And we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread this shews the Union of the Church in this Sacrament Here then we have in these two Sacraments both Matter Form Institution Federal Acts Blessings conveyed and the Union of the Body in them All the Characters which belong to a Sacrament agree fully to them In the next place we must by these Characters examine the other pretended Sacraments It is no wonder if the word Sacrament being of a large extent there should be some Passages in Ancient Writers that call other Actions so besides Baptism and the Lord's Supper for in a larger Sense every Holy Rite may be so called But it is no small prejudice against the number of Seven Sacraments that Peter Lombard a Writer in the Twelfth Century is the first that reckons Seven of them From that Mystical Expression of the Seven Spirits of God there came a conceit of the sevenfold Operation of the Spirit Lib. 3. Dist. 2. and it looked like a good Illustration of that to assert Seven Sacraments This Pope Eugenius put in his Instruction to the Armenians which is published with the Council of Florence and all was finally settled at Trent Now there might have been so many fine Allusions made on the number Seven and some of the Ancients were so much set on such Allusions that since we hear nothing of that kind from any of them we may well conclude that this is more than an ordinary Negative Argument against their having believed that there were Seven Sacraments To go on in order with them The first that we reject which is reckoned by them the second is Confirmation But to explain this we must consider in what respect our Church receives Confirmation and upon what reasons it is that she does not acknowledge it to be a Sacrament We find that after Philip the Deacon and Evangelist had converted and baptized some in Samaria Peter and Iohn were sent thither by the Apostles Acts 8.12 14 15 16 17. who laid their hands on such as were baptized and prayed that they might receive the Holy Ghost upon which it is said that they received the Holy Ghost Now though ordinary Functions when performed by the Apostles such as their laying on of Hands in those whom they Ordained or Confirmed had extraordinary Effects accompanying them but when the extraordinary Effects ceased the end for which these were at first given being accomplished the Gospel having been fully attested to the World yet the Functions were still continued of Confirmation as well as Ordination And as the laying on of Hands Heb. 6.2 that is reckoned among the Principles of the Christian Doctrine after Repentance and Faith and subsequent to Baptism seems very
him again and put him to an open shame when they are so faulty as the Corinthians were in observing this Holy Institution with so little Reverence and with such scandalous Disorders as those were for which he reproached them Of such as did thus Prophane this Institution he says farther that they do eat and drink their own Damnation or Iudgment that is Punishment for the word rendred Damnation signifies sometimes only temporary Punishments So it is said 1 Pet. 4.17 that Iudgment the Word is the same must begin at the House of God God had sent such Judgments upon the Corinthians for those disorderly Practices of theirs that some had fallen sick and others had died perhaps by reason of their drinking to excess in those Feasts But as God's Judgments have come upon them so the words that follow shew that these Judgments were only Chastisements in order to the delivering them from the Condemnation under which the World lies It being said that when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord 32. v. that we should not be condemned with the World Therefore though God may very justly and even in great Mercy punish Men who prophane this Holy Ordinance yet it is an unreasonable Terrour and contrary to the Nature of the Gospel Covenant to carry this so far as to think that it is an impardonable Sin which is punished with eternal Damnation We have now seen the ill Effects of unworthy Receiving and from hence according to that Gradation that is to be observed in the Mercy of God in the Gospel that it not only holds a Proportion with his Justice but rejoyceth over it we may well conclude that the good Effects upon the worthy receiving of it are equal if not superiour to the bad Effects upon the unworthy receiving of it And that the Nourishment which the Types the Bread and the Wine give the Body are answered in the Effects that the thing signified by them has upon the Soul In explaining this there is some diversity Some teach that this Memomorial of the Death of Christ when seriously and devoutly gone about when it animates our Faith encreases our Repentance and inflames our Love and Zeal and so unites us to God and to our Brethren that I say when these follow it which it naturally excites in all holy and good Minds then they draw down the returns of Prayer and a farther increase of Grace in us according to the Nature and Promises of the New Covenant And in this they put the Vertue and Efficacy of this Sacrament But others think that all this belongs only to the inward Acts of the Mind and is not Sacramental And therefore they think that the Eucharist is a federal Act in which as on the one Hand we renew our Baptismal Covenant with God so on the other Hand we receive in the Sacrament a visible Consignation as in a Tradition by a Symbol or Pledge of the blessings of the New Covenant which they think is somewhat superadded to those returns of our Prayers or of our other inward Acts. This they think answers the nourishment which the Body receives from the Symbols of Bread and Wine and stands in opposition to that of the unworthy Receivers being guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord and their eating and drinking that which will bring some judgment upon themselves This they also found on these words of St. Paul The cup of blessing that we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ St. Paul considers the Bread which was offered by the People as an emblem of their Unity that as there was one Loaf so they were one Body and that they were all partakers of that one Loaf From hence it is inferred that since the word rendred Communion signifies a communication in fellowship or Partnership that therefore the meaning of it is that in the Sacrament there is a distribution made in that Symbolical action of the death of Christ 2 Cor. 13. last verse Phil. 2.1 Eph. 3.9 and of the benefits and effects of it The Communion of the Holy Ghost is a common sharing in the effusion of the Spirit the same is meant by that if there is any fellowship of the Spirit that is if we do all partake of the same Spirit We are said to have a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ Phil. 3.10 in which every one must take his share The communication or fellowship of the mystery of the Gospel was its being shared equally among both Iews and Gentiles and the fellowship in which the first Converts to Christianity lived was their liberal distribution to one another they holding all things in common In these and some other places it is certain that Communion signifies somewhat that is more real and effectual than merely mens owning themselves to be joined together in a Society which it is true it does also often signify and therefore they conclude that as in Bargains or Covenants the ancient Method of them before Writings were invented was the mutual delivering of some Pledges which were the Symbols of that Faith which was so plighted instead of which the sealing and delivering of Writings is now used among us so our Saviour instituted this in compliance with our frailty to give us an outward and sensible Pledge of his entring into Covenant with us of which the Bread and Wine are constituted the Symbols Others think that by the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ can only be meant the joint owning of Christ and of his Death in the receiving the Sacrament and that no Communication nor Partnership can be inferred from it Because St. Paul brings it in to shew the Corinthians how detestable a thing it was for a Christian to join in the Idols Feasts That it was to be a partaker with devils So they think that the Fellowship or Communion of Christians in the Sacrament must be of the same Nature with the fellowship of devils in Acts of Idolatry Which consisted only in associating themselves with those that worshipped Idols for that upon the Matter was the Worshipping of Devils And this seems to be confirmed by that which is said of the Iews 1 Cor. 10.18 20. that they who did eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar which it seems can signify no more but that they professed that Religion of which the Altar was the chief Instrument the Sacrifices being offered there To all this it may be replied that it is reasonable enough to believe that according to the Power which God suffered the Devil to exercise over the Idolatrous World there might be some Inchantment in the Sacrifices offered to Idols and that the Devil might have some Power over those that did partake of them And in order to this St. Paul removed an Objection that might have been made that there could be no harm in
hovering about it but that it was translated into the Seats of departed Souls All these Three Senses differ very much from one another and yet they are all Senses that are Literal and Grammatical so that in which of these soever a man conceives the Article he may Subscribe it and he does no way prevaricate in so doing If men would therefore understand all the other Articles in the same largeness and with the same equity there would not be that occasion given for unjust Censure that there has been Where then the Articles are conceived in large and general words and have not more special and restrained terms in them we ought to take that for a sure Indication that the Church does not intend to tie men up too severely to particular Opinions but that she leaves all to such a liberty as is agreeable with the Purity of the Faith And this seems sufficient to explain the Title of the Articles and the Subscriptions that are required of the Clergy to them The last thing to be setled is the true Reading of the Articles for there being some small diversity between the Printed Editions and the Manuscripts that were signed by both Houses of Convocation I have desired the assistance both of Dr. Green the present Worthy Master of Corpus Christi College in Cambridge and of some of the Learned Fellows of that Body That they would give themselves the trouble to collate the Printed Editions and their Manuscripts with such a scrupulous exactness as becomes a Matter of this Importance which they were pleased to do very minutely I will set down Both the Collations as they were transmitted to me beginning with that which I had from the Fellows four Years ago These words said to be left out are found in the Original Articles Sign'd by the Chief Clergy of Both Provinces now extant in the Manuscript Libraries of C.C.C.C. in the Book call'd Synodalia but distinguish'd from the rest with Lines of Minium which Lines plainly appear to have been done afterwards because the Leaves and Lines of the Original are exactly numbred at the end which number without these Lines were manifestly false In the Original these words only are found Testamentum vetus novo contrarium non est quandoquidem c. The Latin of the Original is Et quanquam renatis credentibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio This Article is not found in this Original This is not found This is not found This Article agrees with the Original but these words The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith suppos'd to begin the Article are not found in any part thereof In the fourteenth Line of this Article immediately after these words But yet have not like nature with Baptism and the Lord's Supper follows quomodo nec penitentia which being mark'd underneath with Minium is left out in the Translation This Article agrees with the Original as far as these words and â—ath given occasion to many Superstitions where follows Christus in coelum ascendens corpori suo immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulit humanae enim naturae veritatem juxta Scripturas perpetuo retinet quam uno definito loco esse non in multa vel omnia simul loca diffundi oportet quum igitur Christus in coelum sublatus ibi usque ad finem faeculi sit permansurus atque inde non aliunde ut loquitur Augustinus venturus sit ad judicandum vivos mortuos non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus sanguinis realem corporalem ut loquuntur praesentiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri These words are mark'd and scrawl'd over with Minium and the words immediately following Corpus tamen Christi datur accipitur manducatur in coena tantum coelesti spirituali ratione are inserted in a different Hand just before them in a line and half left void which plainly appears to be done afterwards by reason the same Hand has alter'd the first number of Lines and for Viginti quatuor made quatuordecem The Three last Articles Viz. The 39th Of the Resurrection of the Dead the 40th That the Souls of men do neither perish with their Bodies neque otiosi dormiant is added in the Original And the 42d That all shall not be saved at last are found in the Original distinguish'd only with a Marginal Line of Minium But the 41st of the Millenarians is wholly left out The number of Articles does not exactly agree by reason some are inserted which are found only in King Edward's Articles but none are wanting that are found in the Original ARTICLE III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell· AS Christ Died for us and was Buried so also it is to be believ'd That he went down into Hell For his Body lay in the Grave till his Resurrection but his Soul being separate from his Body remain'd with the Spirits which were detainâ—d in Prison that is to say in Hell and there preached unto them ARTICLE VI. The Old Testament is not to be rejected as if it were contrary to the New but to be retained Forasmuch c. ARTICLE IX And although there is no Condemnation to them that believe and are Baptiz'd c. ARTICLE X. Of Grace The Grace of Christ or the Holy Ghost which is given by Him doth c. ARTICLE XVI Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost The Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is then committed when c. ARTICLE XIX All men are bound to keep the Precepts of the Moral Law although the Law given from God c. ARTICLE XX. Of the Authority of the Church It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Words written c. ARTICLE XXVI Of the Sacraments Sacraments Ordain'd of Christ c. ARTICLE XXIX Of the Lord's Supper The Supper of the Lord's is not only a Sign of c. Corpus Christi Col. Feb. 4 th 1695 6. UPON Examination we judge these to be all the material differences that are unobserv'd between the Original Manuscripts and the B. of Salisbury's Printed Copy Witness our Hands Io. Iaggard Fellow of the said College Roh Mosse Fellow of the said College Will. Lunn Fellow of the said College After I had procured this I was desirous likewise to have the Printed Editions Collated with the Second Publication of the Articles in the Year 1571. in which the Convocation reviewed those of 1562. and made some small Alterations And these were very lately procured for me by my Reverend Friend Dr. Green which I will set down as he was pleased to communicate them to me Note MS. stands for Manuscript and Pr. for Print Art 1. MS. and true God and he is everlasting without Body  Pr. and true God everlasting without Body Art 2. MS. but also for all actual sins of men  Pr. but also for actual sins of men Art 3. MS. so also it
of the Scriptures depends The Second Proposition in the Article is That there is but one God As to this the common Argument by which it is proved is the order of the World from whence it is inferred That there cannot be more Gods than one since where there are more than one there must happen diversity and confusion This is by some thought to be no good reason for if there are more Gods that is more Beings infinitely perfect they will always think the same thing and be knit together with an intire love It is true in things of a Moral Nature this must so happen For Beings infinitely perfect must ever agree But in Physical things capable of no Morality as in creating the World sooner or later and the different Systems of Beings with a thousand other things that have no Moral Goodness in them different Beings infinitely perfect might have different Thoughts So this Argument seems still of great force to prove the Unity of the Deity The other Argument from Reason to prove the Unity of God is from the Notion of a Being infinitely perfect For a Superiority over all other Beings comes so naturally into the Idea of infinite Perfection that we cannot separate it from it A Being therefore that has not all other Beings inferior and subordinate to it cannot be infinitely perfect whence it is evident That there is but one God But besides all this the Unity of God seems to be so frequently and so plainly asserted in the Scripture that we see it was the chief Design of the whole Old Testament both of Moses and the Prophets to establish it in opposition to the false opinions of the Heathen concerning a diversity of Gods This is often repeated in the most solemn Words as Hear O Israel 6. Deut 4. the Lord our God is one God It is the First of the Ten Commandments Thou shalt have no other Gods but me And all things in Heaven and Earth are often said to be made by this one God Negative words are also often used 44. Isa. 6 8. There is none other God but one besides me there is none else and I know no other the going after other Gods is reckon'd the highest and the most unpardonable act of Idolatry The New Testament goes on in the same strain Christ speaks of the only true God and that he alone ought to be worshipped and served 17. Joh 3 4. Mat. 10. 1 Cor. 8.5 6. all the Apostles do frequently affirm the same thing They make the believing of one God in opposition to the many Gods of the Heathens the chief Article of the Christian Religion and they lay down this as the chief ground of our Obligation to mutual Love and Union among our selves 4. Eph. 4.5 6. That there is one God one Lord one Faith one Baptism Now since we are sure that there is but one Messias and one Doctrine delivered by him it will clearly follow that there must be but one God So the Unity of the Divine Essence is clearly proved both from the Order and Government of the World from the Idea of Infinite Perfection and from those express Declarations that are made concerning it in the Scriptures which last is a full proof to all such as own and submit to them The Third Head in this Article is that which is negatively expressed That God is without Body Parts or Passions In general all these are so plainly contrary to the Ideas of Infinite Perfection and they appear so evidently to be Imperfections that this part of the Article will need little Explanation We do plainly perceive that our Bodies are clogs to our Minds And all the use that even the purest sort of Body in an Estate conceived to be glorified can be of to a Mind is to be an Instrument of local Motion or to be a repository of Ideas for Memory and Imagination But God who is every where and is one pure and simple Act can have no such use for a Body A Mind dwelling in a Body is in many respects superior to it yet in some respects is under it We who feel how an Act of our Mind can so direct the Motions of our Body that a thought sets our Limbs and Joints a-going can from thence conceive how that the whole extent of Matter should receive such Motions as the Acts of the Supreme Mind give it But yet not as a Body united to it or that the Deity either needs such a Body or can receive any trouble from it Thus far the apprehension of the thing is very plainly made out to us Our thoughts put some parts of our Body in a present Motion when the Organization is regular and all the parts are exact and when there is no Obstruction in those Vessels or Passages through which that heat and those Spirits do pass that cause the motion We do in this perceive that a thought does command matter but our Minds are limited to our Bodies and these do not obey them but as they are in an exact disposition and a fitness to be so moved Now these are plain Imperfections but removing them from God we can from hence apprehend that all the Matter in the Universe may be so intirely subject to the Divine Mind that it shall move and be whatsoever and wheresoever he will have it to be This is that which all men do agree in But many of the Philosophers thought that Matter though it was moved and moulded by God at his pleasure yet was not made by him but was self-existent and was a Passive Principle but coexistent to the Deity which they thought was the Active Principle From whence some have thought that the belief of two Gods one good and another bad did spring Though others imagine that the belief of a bad God did arise from the corruption of that Tradition concerning fallen Angels as was before suggested The Philosophers could not apprehend that things could be made out of nothing and therefore they believed that Matter was co-eternal with God But it is as hard to apprehend how a Mind by its Thought should give Motion to Matter as how it should give it Being A Being not made by God is not so easily conceivable to be under the acts of his Mind as that which is made by him This conceit plainly destroys infinite Perfection which cannot be in God if all Beings are not from him and under his Authority besides that successive duration has been already proved inconsistent with Eternity This Opinion of the World 's being a Body to God as the Mind that dwells in it and actuates it is the foundation of Atheism For if it be once thought that God can do nothing without such a Body then as this destroys the Idea of Infinite Perfection so it makes way to this conceit That since Matter is Visible and God Invisible there is no other God but the vast extent of the Universe It is true God has
an Argument for it from our Saviour's Example He begins with the dignity of his Person expressed thus That he was in the form of God and that he thought it no robbery to be equal with God Then his Humiliation comes That he made himself of no reputation but took on him the form of a servant the same Word with that used in the former Verse after which follows his Exaltation and a Name or Authority above every Name or Authority is said to be given him so that all in Heaven Earth and under the Earth which seems to Import Angels Men and Devils should bow at his Name and confess that he is the Lord. Now in this Progress that is made in these words it is plain That the Dignity of Christ's Person is represented as Antecedent both to his Humiliation and to his Exaltation It was that which put the value on his Humiliation as his Humiliation was rewarded by his Exaltation This Dignity is expressed first That he was in the Form of God before he humbled himself He was certainly in the form of a Servant that is really a Servant as other Servants are He was obedient to his Parents he was under the Authority both of the Romans of Herod and of the Sanhedrim Therefore since his being really a Servant is expressed by his being in the form of a Servant his being in the form of God must also import That he was truly God But the â—ollowing words That he thought it not robbery to be equal or be held equal for so the word may be rendred with God carry such a natural Signification of his being neither a Made nor Subordinate God and that his Divinity is neither precarious nor by concession that fuller words cannot be devised for expressing an entire Equality Those who deny this are aware of it and therefore they have put another sense on the words in the form of God They think That they signify his appearing in the World as one sent in the Name of God representing him Working Miracles and delivering a Law in his Name and the words rendred he thought it no robbery they render he did not catch at or vehemently desire to be held in equal honour with God And some Authorities are found in Eloquent Greek Authors who use the words rendred he thought it not robbery in a figurative sense for the earnestness of desire or the pursuing after a thing greedily as Robbers do for their Prey This rendring represents St. Paul as Treating so sacred a Point in the Figures of a high and seldom-used Rhetorick which one would think ought to have been expressed more exactly But if even this sense is allowed it will make a strange Period and a very odd sort of an Argument to enforce Humility upon us because Christ though Working Miracles did not desire or snatch at Divine Adorations in an Equality with God The Sin of Lucifer and the cause of his Fall is commonly believed to be his desire to be equal to God and yet this seems to be such an extravagant piece of pride that it is scarce possible to think That even the Sublimest of Created Beings should be capable of it To be next to God seems to be the utmost heigth to which even the Diabolical Pride could aspire So that here by the Sense which the Socinians put on those words they will import That we are persuaded to be humble from the Example of Christ who did not affect an Equality with God The bare repeating of this seems so fully to expose and overthrow it that I think it is not necessary to say more upon this place Acts 20.28 1 Joh. 3.16 1 Joh. 5.20 Tit. 2.13 Jam. 2.1 The next head of Proof is made up of more particulars All the Names the Operations and even the Attributes of God are in full and plain words given to Christ. He is called God his Blood is said to be the Blood of God God is said to have laid down his life for us Christ is called the true God the great God the Lord of Glory the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords and more particularly the Name Iehovah is ascribed to him in the same word in which the LXX Interpreters had Translated it throughout the whole Old Testament Rev. 1.8 Rev. 19.16 So that this constant Uniformity of Stile between the Greek of the New and that Translation of the Old Testament which was then received and was of great Authority among the Iews and was yet of more Authority among the first Christians is an Argument that carries such a weight with it that this alone may serve to determine the Matter The Creating the Preserving and the Governing of all things is also ascribed to Christ in a variety of placâ—s but most remarkably when it is said That by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth Visible and Invisible Whether they be Thrones Col. 1.16.17 â—ohn 2.25 Mat. â—1 27. Mat. 9.6 Joh. 15.26 Joh. 14.13 Joh. 5 25 26. Joh. 6.39 40. or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him And he is before all things and by him all things consist He is said to have known what was in man to have known mens secret thoughts and to have known all things That as the Father was known of none but of the Son so none know the Son but the Father He pardons Sin sends the Spirit gives Grace and Eternal Life and he shall raise the dead at the last day When all these things are laid together in that variety of Expressions in which they lie scattered in the New Testament it is not possible to retain any reverence for those Books if we imagine that they are writ in a Stile so full of approaches to the Deifying of a mere Man that without a very Critical studying of Languages and Phrases it is not possible to understand them otherwise Idolatry and a Plurality of Gods seem to be the main things that the Scriptures warn us against and yet here is a pursued Thread of Passages and Discourses that do naturally lead a man to think that Christ is the True God who yet according to these men only acted in his Name and has now a high Honour put on him by him This carries me to another Argument to prove that the Word that was made Flesh was truly God Nothing but the True God can be the proper Object of Adoration This is one of those Truths that seems almost so evident that it needs not to be proved Adoration is the humble Prostration of our selves before God in Acts that own our dependance upon him both for our Being and for all the Blessings that we do either enjoy or hope for and also in earnest Prayers to him for the continuance of these to us This is testified by such outward Gestures and Actions as are most proper to express our Humility and Submission to God All this has
weak and brag continually of the Spirit by which they do pretend that all whatsoever they Preach is suggested to them though manifestly contrary to the Holy Scriptures This whole Article relates to the Antinomians as these last words were added by reason of the Extravagance of some Enthusiasts at that time but that Madness having ceased in Queen Elizabeth's time it seems it was thought that there was no more occasion for those words There are Four heads that do belong to this Article First That the Old Testament is not contrary to the New Secondly That Christ was the Mediator in both Dispensations so that Salvation was offered in both by him Thirdly That the Ceremonial and the Judiciary Precepts in the Law of Moses do not bind Christians Fourthly That the Moral Law does still bind all Christians To the first of these The Manichees of old who fancied that there was a Bad as well as a Good God thought that these Two Great Principles were in a perpetual struggle and they believed the Old Dispensation was under the Bad One which was taken away by the New that is the work of the Good God But they who held such monstrous Tenets must needs reject the whole New Testament or very much corrupt it since there is nothing plainer than that the Prophets of the Old foretold the New with approbation and the Writers of the New prove both their Commission and their Doctrine from Passages of the Old Testament This therefore could not be affirmed without rejecting many of the Books that we own and corrupting the rest So this deserves no more to be considered Upon this occasion it will be no improper Digression to consider what Revelation those under the Mosaical Law or that lived before it had of the Messias This is an Important Matter It is a great Confirmation of the Truth of the Christian Religion as it will furnish us with proper Arguments against the Iews It is certain they have long had and still have an Expectation of a Messias Now the Characters and Predictions concerning this Person must have been fulfilled long ago or the Prophecies will be found to be false and if they do meet and were accomplish'd in our Saviour's Person and if no other Person could ever pretend to this then that which is undertaken to be proved will be fully performed The first Promise to Adam after his Sin speaks of an Enmity between the Seed of the Serpent and the Seed of the Woman Gen. 3.15 It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel The one might hurt the other in some lesser Instances but the other was to have an entire Victory at last which is plainly signified by the Figures of bruising the Heel and bruising the Head which was to be performed by one who was to bear this Character of being the Woman's Seed The next Promise was made to Abraham In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed Gen. 12.3 Gen. 22.18 Gen. 26.24 Gen. 28.14 Gen. 49.10 This was lodged in his Seed or Posterity upon his being ready to offer up his Son Isaac That Promise was renewed to Isaac and after him to Iacob When he was dying it was lodged by him in the Tribe of Iudah when he prophesied That the Scepter should not depart from Iudah nor the Law-giver from between his feet till Shiloh should come and the gathering of the people that is of the Gentiles was to be to him It is certain the Ten Tribes were lost in their Captivity whereas the Tribe of Iudah was brought back and continued to be a political Body under their own Laws until a Breach was made upon that by the Romans first reducing them to the Form of a Province and soon after that destroying them utterly So that either that Prediction was not accomplished or the Shiloh the Sent to whom the Gentiles were to be gathered came before they lost their Scepter and Laws Moses told the People of Israel That God was to raise up among them a Prophet like unto him Deut. 18.15 to whom they ought to hearken otherwise God would require it of them The Character of Moses was That he was a Lawgiver and the Author of an entire Body of Instituted Religion so they were to look for such a one Numb 24. â—â— Balaam prophesied darkly of one whom he saw as at a great distance from his own time and he spoke of a Star that should come out of Iacob and a Scepter out of Israel Some Memorial of which was probably preserved among the Arabians In the Book of Psalms there are many things said of David which seem capable of a much Auguster Sense than can be pretended to be answered by any thing that befel himself What is said in the 2 d the 16 th the 22 d the 45 th the 102 d and the 110 th Psalms afford us copious Instances of this Passages in these Psalms must be stretched by Figures that go very high to think they were all fulfilled in David or Solomon But in their Literal and largest Sense they were accomplished in Christ to whom God said Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee In him that was verified Thou wilt not leave my Soul in hell neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see Corruption His hands and his feet were pierced and lots were cast upon his vesture Of him it may be strictly said Thy throne O God is for ever and ever To him that belonged The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my Right-hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool And The Lord sware and will not repent Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck The Prophets gave yet more express Predictions concerning the Messias Isaiah did quiet the Fears of Ahaz and of the House of David by saying The Lord himself shall give you a sign Behold Isa. 8 1â— a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son It was certainly no Sign for one that was a Virgin to conceive afterwards and bear a Son therefore the Sign or extroardinary thing here promised as a signal Pledge of God's Care of the House of David must lie in this That one still remaining a Virgin should conceive and bear a Son not to insist upon the strict signification of the Word in the Original The same Prophet did also foretell That as this Messiah or the Branch Isa. 11.1 2. should spring from the Stem of Iesse so also he was to be full of the Spirit of the Lord and that the Gentiles should seek to him ver 10. In another place he enumerates many of the Miracles that should be done by him He was to give sight to the Blind make the Deaf to hear and the Lame to walk Isa. 35. â— 6. He does further set forth his Character not that of a Warrior or Conqueror on the contrary He was not to cry nor strive Isa. 42.1 nor break the bruised
Scriptures in ascribing all good things to God and in charging us to offer up the Honour of all to him seems very expresly to favour this Doctrine Since if all our good is from God and is particularly owing to his Grace then Good Men have somewhat from God that Bad Men have not for which they ought to Praise him The Stile of all the Prayers that are used or directed to be used in the Scripture is for a Grace that opens our Eyes that turns our Hearts that makes us to go that leads us not into Temptation but delivers us from Evil. All these Phrases do plainly Import that we desire more than a Power or Capacity to Act such as is given to all Men and such as after we have received it may be still ineffectual to us For to pray for such Assistances as are always given to all Men and are such that the whole good of them shall wholly depend upon our selves would sound very odly whereas we pray for somewhat that is special and that we hope shall be effectual We do not and cannot pray earnestly for that which we know all Men as well as we our selves have at all times Humility and Earnestness in Prayer seem to be among the chief means of working in us the Image of Christ and of deriving to us all the Blessings of Heaven That Doctrine which blasts both which swells us up with an Opinion that all comes from our selves and that we receive nothing from God but what is given in common with us to all the World is certainly contrary both to the Spirit and to the Design of the Gospel To this they addO bservations from Providence The World was for many Ages delivered up to Idolatry and since the Christian Religion has appeared we see vast Tracts of Countries which have continued ever since in Idolatry Others are fallen under Mahometanism And the State of Christendom is in the Eastern Parts of it under so much Ignorance and the greatest Part of the West is under so much Corruption that we must confess the far greatest part of Mankind has been in 〈◊〉 Ages left destitute of the Means of Grace so that the Promulgating the Goâ—pel to some Nations and the denying it to others must be ascribed to the Unsearchable Ways of God that are past finding out If he thus leaves whole Nations in such Darkness and Corruption and freely chuses others to Communicate the knowledge of himself to them then we need not wonder if he should hold the same method with Individuals that he doth with whole Bodies For the Rejecting of whole Nations by the lump for so many Ages is much more unaccountable than the Selecting of a few and the leaving others in that State of Ignorance and Brutality And whatever may be said of his extending Mercy to some few of those who have made a good use of that dim Light which they had yet it cannot be denied but their Condition is more deplorable and the Condition of the others is much more hopeful so that great Numbers of Men are Born in such Circumstances that it is morally impossible that they should not perish in them whereas others are more happily Situated and Enlightned This Argument taken from common Observation becomes much stronger when we consider what the Apostle says Rom. 9 11. particularly in the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians even according to the Exposition of those of the other side For if God loved Iacob so as to chuse his Posterity to be his People and rejected or hated Esau and his Posterity and if that was according to the purpose and design of his Election if by the same purpose the Gentiles were to be grafted upon that Stock from which the Iews were then to be cut off and if the Counsel or Purpose of God had appeared in particular to those of Ephesus though the most corrupted both in Magick Idolatry and Immorality of any in the East then it is plain that the applying the means of Grace arises meerly from a great Design that was long hid in God which did then break out It is reasonable to believe That there is a proportion between the Application of the Means and the Decree it self concerning the End The one is resolved into the Unsearchable Riches of God's Grace and declared to be Free and Absolute God's chusing the Nation of the Iews in such a distinction beyond all other Nations is by Moses and the Prophets frequently said not to be on their account or on the account of any thing that God saw in them but meerly from the Goodness of God to them From all this it seems say they as reasonable to believe that the other is likewise free according to those words of our Saviour's I thank thee O Father Lord of Heaven and Earth because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes The reason of which is given in the following words Matth. 1. 25.26 Ibid. 21 22 22. Even so Father for it seemed good in thy sight What goes before of Tyre and Sydon and the Land of Sodom that would have made a better use of his preaching than the Towns of Galilee had done among whom he lived confirms this That the means of Grace are not bestowed on those of whom it was foreseen that they would have made a good use of them or denied to those who as was foreseen would have made an ill use of them The contrary of this being plainly asserted in those words of our Saviour's It is further observable That he seems not to be speaking here of different Nations but of the different sorts of Men of the same Nation The more Learned of the Iews the Wise and Prudent rejected him while the simpler but better sort the babes received him So that the difference between Individual Persons seems here to be resolved into the good pleasure of God It is further urged that since those of the other side confess that God by his Prescience foresaw what Circumstances might be happy and what Assistances might prove efficacious to Bad Men then his not putting them in those Circumstances but giving them such Assistances only which how effectual soever might be to others he saw would have no efficacy on them and his putting them in Circumstances and giving them Assistances which he foresaw they would abuse if it may seem to clear the Justice of God yet it cannot clear his Infinite Holiness and Goodness which must evâ—r carry him according to our Notions of these Perfections to do all that may be done and that in the most effectual way to rescue others from misery to make them truly good and to put them in a way be happy Since therefore this is not always done according to the other Opinion it is plain that there is an unsearchable depth in the ways of God which we are not able to fathom Therefore it must be concluded That since
could they offer at it in a plain contradiction to such Principles as are consistent with the Christian Religion if the Doctrine of the Roman Church is true Here then we have not only the Scripture but Tradition fully of our side Some pretended Christians it is true did very early Worship Images but those were the Gnosticks held in detestation by all the Orthodox Irenaeus Epiphanius and St. Austin tell us Iren. l. 1. c. 24. Epiph. Haeres 27. August de Haeres cap. 7. that they Worshipped the Images of Christ together with Pythagoras Plato and Aristotle Nor are they only blamed for Worshipping the Images of Christ together with these of the Philosophers but they are particularly blamed for having several sorts of Images and Worshipping these as the Heathens did and that among these there was an Image of Christ which they pretended to have had from Pilate Besides these Corrupters of Christianity there were no others among the Christians of the first Ages that Worshipped Images This was so well known to the Heathens that they bring this among other things as a reproach against the Christians that they had no Images Which the first Apologists are so far from denying that they answered them That it was impossible for him who knew God to Worship Images But as human Nature is inclined to visible Objects of Worship so it seems some began to Paint the Walls of their Churches with Pictures or at least moved for it In the beginning of the Fourth Century this was condemned by the Council of Eliberis Can. 36. It pleases us to have no Pictures in Churches lest that which is Worshipped should be Painted upon the Walls Towards the end of that Century we have an account given us by Epiphanius Epiph. ep ad Joan. Hieros of his Indignation occasioned by a Picture that he saw upon a Veil at Anablatha He did not much consider whose Picture it was whether a Picture of Christ or of some Saint he positively affirms it was against the Authority of the Scriptures and the Christian Religion and therefore he tore it but supplied that Church with another Veil It seems private Persons had Statues of Christ and the Apostles Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 18. Aug. in Psal. 113. de Moribus Eccl. Cath. c. 34. which Eusebius censures where he reports it as a remnant of Heathenism It is plain enough from some passages in St. Austin that he knew of no Images in Churches in the beginning of the Fifth Century It is true they began to be brought before that time into some of the Churches of Pontus and Cappadocia which was done very probably to draw the Heathens by this piece of conformity to them to like the Christian Worship the better For that humour began to work and appeared in many Instances of other kinds as well as in this It was not possible that People could see Pictures in their Churches long without paying some marks of respect to them which grew in a little time to the downright worship of them A famous instance we have of this in the Sixth Century Serenus Bishop of Marseilles finding that he could not restrain his People from the Worship of Images broke them in pieces upon which Pope Gregory writ to him blaming him indeed for breaking the Images Greg. Epist. l. 9. Ep. 9. but commending him for not allowing them to be worshipped This he prosecutes in a variety of very plain Expressions It is one thing to worship an Image and another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped He says they were set up not to be worshipped but to instruct the Ignorant and cites our Saviour's Words Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve to prove that it was not lawful to worship the work of mens hands We see by a fragment cited in the Second Nicene Council that both Iews and Gentiles took advantages from the Worship of Images to reproach the Christians soon after that time The Iews were scandalized at their Worshipping Images as being expresly against the Command of God The Gentiles had also by it great advantages of turning back upon the Christians all that had been written against their Images in the former Ages At last in the beginning of the Eighth Century the famous Controversy about the having or breaking of Images grew hot The Churches of Italy were so set on the worshipping of them This is owned by all the Historians of that Age Anastasius Zonaras Câ—drenus Glycâ—s Theophanes Sigebert Otho Pris. Urspergensis Sigonius Rubens and Ciaâ—â—nius that Pope Gregory the Second gives this for the reason of their Rebelling against the Emperor because of his opposition to Images And here in little more than an Hundred Years the See of Rome changed its Doctrine Pope Gregory the Second being as positive for the worshipping them as the first of that Name had been against it Violent Contentions arose upon this Head The breakers of Images were charged with Iudaism Samaritanism and Manicheism and the worshippers of them were charged with Gentilism and Idolatry One General Council at Constantinople consisting of about Three hundred and thirty eight Bishops condemned the Worshipping them as Idolatrous but another at Nice of Three hundred and fifty Bishops though others say they were only Three hundred asserted the Worship of them Yet as soon as this was known in the West how active soever the See of Rome was for establishing their Worship a Council of about Three hundred Bishops met at Francfort under Charles the Great which condemned the Nicene Council together with the Worship of Images The Gallican Church insisted long upon this matter Books were published in the Name of Charles the Great against them A Council held at Paris under his Son did also condemn Image-worship as contrary to the Honour that is due to God only and to the Commands that he has given us in Scripture The Nicene Council was rejected here in England as our Historians tell us because it asserted the Adoration of Images which the Church of God abhors Agobard Bishop of Lions and Claud of Turin writ against it the former writ with great vehemence The Learned Men of that Communion do now acknowledge that what he writ was according to the sense of the Gallican Church in that Age And even Ionas of Orleans who studied to moderate the matter and to reconcile the Gallican Bishops to the See of Rome yet does himself declare against the Worship of Images We are not concerned to examine how it came that all this vigorous opposition to Image-worship went off so soon It is enough to us that it was once made so resolutely let those who think it so incredible a thing that Churches should depart from the received Traditions answer this as they can As for the Methods then used and the Arguments that were then brought to infuse this Doctrine into the World Acta Con. Nic. 2. Action 4 5 6
7. he who will read the History and Acts of the Nicene Council will find enough to incline him to a very bad Opinion both of the Men and of their Doctrine though he were ever so much inclined to think well of them Aquin. To. 1. quaest 25. dispuâ— 54. Sect. 2. After all though that Council laid the Foundation of Image-worship yet the Church of Rome has made great Improvements in it since Those of Nice expressed a detestation of an Image made to represent the Deity they go no higher than the Images of Christ and the Saints whereas since that time the Deity and the Trinity have been represented by Images and Pictures and that not only by connivance but by Authority in the Church of Rome Bellarmine Suarez and others Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. Suarez M. 3. Ysambert de Mist. Incarn ad quaest 25. dis 3. Vasquez in 3 Aquin. disp 103. c. 3. Cajetan in 3. Aquin. quaest 25. A. 3. prove the Lawfulness of such Images from the general practice of the Church Others go further and from the caution given in the Decree of the Council of Trent concerning the Images of God do infer that they are allowed by that Council provided they be decently made Directions are also given concerning the use of the Image of the Trinity in Publick Offices among them In a word all their late Doctors agree That they are lawful and reckon the calling that in question to be not only rashness but an error and such as have held it unlawful to make such Images were especially condemned at Rome December 17. 1690. The varieties of those Images and the boldness of them are things apt to give horror to modest Minds not accustomed to such Attempts It must be acknowledged that the Old Emblematical Images of the Egyptians and the grosser ones now used by the Chineses are much more instructing and much less scandalous Figures Con. Nic. 2. Act. 7. Act. 6. As the Roman Church has gone beyond the Nicene Council in the Images that they allow of so they have also gone beyond them in the degrees of the Worship that they offer to them At Nice the Worship of Images was very positively decreed with Anathema's against those who did it not A bare Honour they reckoned was not enough They thought it was a very valuable Argument that was brought from those words of Christ to the Devil Câ—n. Nâ—c Act. 5. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve that here Service is only appropriated to God but not Worship Among the Acts of Worship they reckon the Oblation of Incense and Lights and the reason given by them for all this is because the Honour of the Image or Type passes to the Original or Prototype So that plain and direct Worship was to terminate on the Image it self Durâ—n in Sâ—nâ—en l. 3. 〈◊〉 9. qu. 〈…〉 15. And Durandus passed for little less than a Heretick because he thought that Images were worshipped only improperly and abusively because at their presence we call to mind the Object represented by them which we worship before the Image as if the Object it self were before us The Council of Nice did plainly assert the direct Worship of Images but they did as positively declare That they meant only that it should be an honorary Adoration and not the true Latria which was only due to God And whatever some Modern Representers and Expositors of the Roman Doctrine may say to soften the harshness of the Worship of Images it is very copiously proved both from the Words of the Council of Nice Con. Nic. Act. 2. and from all the Eminent Writers in that Communion ever from the time of Aquinas Aquin. 3. p. q. 25. Art 3. See to the same purpose Alex. Hales Bonaventure Ricardus de Media villa palud Almans Bâ—el Summa Angelica and mâ—ny more cited by Bishop Stilligfleet 's Defence of the Charge of Idolatry Part. 2. Chap. 2. and of the Modern Schoolmen and Writers of Controversy that direct Worship ought to be offered to the Image it self This reserve of the Latria to God being an evident proof that all inferior Acts of Worship were allowed them But this reserve does no way please the later Writers for Aquinas and many from him do teach that the same Acts and Degrees of Worship which are due to the Original are also due to the Image they think an Image has such a relation to the Original that both ought to be worshipped in the same Act and that to Worship the Image with any other sort of Acts is to Worship it on its own account which they think is Idolatry Whereas others adhering to the Nicene Doctrine think that the Image is to be worshipped with an inferior Degree that otherwise Idolatry must follow So here the danger of Idolatry is threatned of both sides and since one of them must be chosen thus it will follow that let a Man do what he can he must commit Idolatry according to the Opinion of some very Subtile and Learned Men among them The Council of Trent did indeed decline to give a clear Decision in this Matter Con. Trid. Sess. 25. and only decreed that due Worship should be given to Images but did not determine what that due Worship was And though it appears by the Decree that there were Abuses committed among them in that Matter yet they only appoint some Regulations concerning such Images as were to be suffered and that others were to be removed but they left the Divines to fight out the Matter concerning the due Worship that ought to be given to Images They were then in hast and intended to offend no Party and as they would not justifie all that had been said or done concerning the Worship of Images so they would condemn no part of it See Bishop Stillingfleet ut Supra yet they confirmed the Nicene Council and in particular made use of that Maxim of theirs that the Honour of the Type goes to the Prototype Pont. Rom. Ordo ad Recip Imper Rubri and thus they left it as they found it So that the Dispute goes on still as hot as ever The Practice of the Roman Church is express for the Latria to be given to Images and therefore all that write for it do frequently cite that Hymn Crux Ave spes unica auge piis justitiam In benedictione novae Crucis Rogamus te Domine Sancte Pater Omnipotens sempiterne Deus ut digneris benedicere hoc lignum Crucis tuae ut sit Remedium Salutare generi humano sit Soliditas fidei profectus bonorum operum Redemptio animarum sit Solamen protectio ac tutela contra saeva jacula Inimicorum Per Dom. Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Patris Filii Spiritûs sancti benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta Salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut
orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant corporis animae sanitatem per eundem reisque dona veniam It is expresly said in the Pontifical Cruci debetur Latria and the Prayers used in the Consecration of a Cross it is prayed That the Blessing of that Cross on which Christ hung may be in it that it may be a healthful Remedy to Mankind a Strengthner of Faith an Increaser of Good Works the Redemption of Souls and a Comfort Protection and Defence against the Cruelty of our Enemies These with all the other Acts of Adoration used among them seem to favour those who are for a Latria to be given to all those Images to the Originals of which it is due and in like the Proportion for Dulia and Hyperdulia to other Images It is needless to prosecute this Matter further It seemed necessary to say so much to justify our Church which has in her Homilies laid this Charge of Idolatry very severely on the Church of Rome and this is so high an Imputation that those who think it false as they cannot without a good Conscience Subscribe or require others to Subscribe the Article concerning the Homilies so they ought to retract their own Subscriptions and to make Solemn Reparations in Justice and Honour for laying so heavy an Imputation unjustly upon that whole Communion There is nothing that can be brought from Scripture that has a shew of an Argument for supporting Image-Worship unless it be that of the Cherubims that were in the holiest of all and that as is supposed were worshipped at least by the High Priest when he went thither once a Year if not by the whole People But first there is a great difference to be made between a Form of Worship immediately prescribed by God and another Form that not only has no warrant for it but seems to be very expresly forbidden It is plain the Cherubims were not seen by the People and so they could be no visible Object of Worship to them Heb. 9.3 7. They were scarce seen by the High Priest himself for the Holiest of all was quite dark no light coming into it but what came through the Veil from the Holy Place and even that had very little Light Nor is there a word concerning the High Priests Worshipping either the Ark or the Cherubim It is true there is a place in the Psalms that seems to favour this as it is rendred by the Vulgar worship his footstool Psal. 99.5 9. for it is holy but both the Hebrew and the Septuagint have it as it is in our Translation worship at his footstool for he is holy and all the Greek Fathers cite these Words so Many of the Latin Fathers do also cite them according to the Greek and the last Words of the Psalm in which the same words are repeated make the Sense of it evident For there it is thus varied Exalt ye the Lord our God and worship at his holy hill for the Lord our God is holy These words coming so soon after the former are a Paraphrase to them and determine their Sense No doubt the High Priest worshipped God who dwelt between the Cherubims in that Cloud of Glory in which he shewed himself visibly present in his Temple but there is no sort of reason to think that in so Majestick a Presence Adoration could be offered to any thing else or that after the High Priest had adored the Divine Essence so manifested he would have fallen to Worship the Ark and the Cherubims This agrees ill with the Figure that is so much used in this Matter of a King and his Chair of State for in the Presence of the King all Respects terminate in his Person whatsoever may be done in his Absence And thus this being not so much as a Precedent much less an Argument for the use of Images and there being nothing else brought from Scripture that with any sort of wresting can be urged for it and the Sense and Practice of the whole Church being so express against it the Progress of it having been so long and so much disputed the tendency of it to Superstition and Abuse being by their own Confession so visible the Scandal that it gives to Iews and Mahometans being so apparent and it carrying in its outward appearances such a Conformity to say at present no more to Heathenish Idolatry we think we have all possible advantages in this Argument We adhere to that Purity of Worship which is in both Testaments so much insisted on we avoid all Scandal and make no Approaches to Heathenism and follow the Pattern set us by the Primitive Church And as our simplicity of Worship needs not be defended since it proves it self so no proofs are brought for the other side but only a pretended usefulness in outward Figures to raise the Mind by the Senses to just Apprehensions of Spiritual Objects which allowing it true will only conclude for the Historical Use of Images but not for the directing our Worship towards them But the effect is quite contrary to the pretence for instead of raising the Mind by the Senses the Mind is rather sunk by them into gross Ideas The Bias of Human Nature lies to Sense and to form gross Imaginations of Incorporeal Objects and therefore instead of gratifying these we ought to wean our Minds from them and to raise them above them all we can Even Men of Speculation and Abstraction feel Nature in this grows too hard for them but the Vulgar is apt to fall so headlong into these Conceits that it looks like the laying of Snares for them to furnish them with such methods and helps for their having gross Thoughts of Spiritual Objects The fondness that the People have for Images their readiness to believe the most incredible Stories concerning them the expence they are at to Enrich and Adorn them their Prostrations before them their Confidence in them their humble and tender Embracing and Kissing of them their pompous and heathenish Processions to do them Honour the Fraternities erected for particular Images not to mention the more universal and established Practices of directing their Prayers to them of setting Lights before them and of Incensing them these I say are things too well known to such as have seen the way of that Religion that they should need to be much enlarged on and yet they are not only allowed of but encouraged Those among them who have too much good sense that they should sink into those foolish apprehensions themselves yet must not only bear with them but often comply with them to avoid the giving of Scandal as they call it not considering the much greater Scandal that they give when they encourage others by their practice to go on in these Follies The enlarging into all the corruptions occasioned by this way of Worship would carry me far but it seems not necessary the thing is so plain in it self The next Head
scandalous Parts Such as the Worship of subordinate Gods and of Images These are the chief Grounds upon which we separate from the Roman Communion Since we cannot have fellowship with them unless we will join in those Acts which we look on as direct violations of the First and Second Commandment God is a jealous God and therefore we must rather venture on their Wrath how burning soever it may be than on his who is a consuming Fire ARTICLE XXIII Of Ministring in the Congregation It is not lawful for any Man to take upon him the Office of publick Preaching or Ministring the Sacraments in the Congregation before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to this work by Men who have publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation to call and send Ministers into the Lord's Uineyard WE have two particulars fixed in this Article The First is against any that shall assume to themselves without a lawful Vocation the authority of dispencing the things of God The Second is the defining in very general Words what it is that makes a lawful Call As to the First it will bear no great difficulty We see in the old Dispensation that the Family the Age and the Qualifications of those that might serve in the Priesthood are very particularly set forth In the New Testament our Lord called the Twelve Apostles and sent them out He also sent out upon another occasion Seventy Disciples And before he left his Apostles He told them that as his Father had sent him so he sent them John â—â— 2â— Which seems to Import that as he was sent into the World with this among other Powers that he might send others in his Name so he likewise empowered them to do the same And when they went planting Churches as they took some to be Companions of Labour with themselves so they appointed others over the particular Churches in which they fixed them Such were Epaphras or Epaphroditus at Colosse Timothy at Ephesus and Titus in Crete To them the Apostles gave Authority Otherwise it was a needless thing to write so many directions to them in order to their conduct They had the Depositum of the Faith 2 Tim. 1.13 with which they were chiefly entrusted Concerning the succession in which that was to be continued we have these Words of St. Paul The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithful Men 2 Tim. 2.2 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3. 1 Tim. 2.12 1 Tim. â— c. who shall be able to teach others also To them directions are given concerning all the different Parts of their Worship Supplications Prayers Intercessions and giving of thanks and also the keeping up the decency of the Worship and the not suffering of Women to Teach like the Women Priests among the Heathen who were believed to be filled with a Bacchick Fury To them are directed all the Qualifications of such as might be made either Bishops or Deacons They were to examine them according to these and either to receive or reject them All this was directed to Timothy that he might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God 1 Tim. 3.15 1 Tim. â— 1 3 17 19 22. He had Authority given him to Rebuke and Entreat to Honour and to Censure He was to Order what Widows might be received into the Number and who should be refused He was to receive Accusations against Elders or Presbyters according to directed Methods and was either to Censure some or to lay Hands on others as should agree with the Rules that were set him And in conclusion he is very solemnly charged 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 2.15 2 Tim. 4.2 5. to keep that which was committed to his Trust. He is required rightly to divide the word of truth to preach the word to be instant in season and out of season to reprove rebuke and exhort and to do the work of an Evangelist and to make full proof of his ministry Some of the same things are charged upon Titus whom St. Paul had left in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting Tit. 1.5 9 13. and to ordain Elders in every City Several of the Characters by which he was to try them are also set down He is charged to rebuke the people sharply and to speak the things that became sound doctrine He is instructed concerning the Doctrines which he was to Teach and those which he was to Avoid and also how to Censure an Heretick He was to admonish him twice Tit. 3.10 and if that did not prevail he was to reject him by some publick Censure These Rules given to Timothy and Titus do plâ—inly Import that there was to be an Authority in the Church and that no Man was to assume this Authority to himself according to that Maxim that seems to be founded on the Light of Nature as well as it is set down in Scripture as a standing Rule agreed to in all Times and Places No Man taketh this honour to himself Heb. 5.4 but he that is called of God as was Aaron St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians did reckon up the several Orders and Functions Rom. 12.6 7 8. 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 12 13 16. that God had set in his Church and in his Epistle to the Ephesians he shews that these were not transient but lasting Constitutions For there as he reckons the Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers as the Gifts which Christ at his Ascension had given to Men so he tells the Ends for which they were given For the perfecting the Saints by Perfecting seems to be meant the initiating them by Holy Mysteries rather than the compacting or putting them in joint For as that is the proper Signification of the Word so it being set first the other things that come after it make that the strict Sense of Perfecting that is Compleating does not so well agree with the Period for the work of the Ministry the whole Ecclesiastical or Sacred Services for the edifying the Body of Christ to which instructing exhorting comforting and all the other Parts of Preaching may well be reduced and then the duration of these Gifts is defined 'Till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect Man This seems to Import the whole State of this Life We cannot think that all this belonged only to the Infancy of the Church and that it was to be laid aside by her when she was farthâ—r advanced For when we consider that in the Beginnings of Christianity there was so liberal an Effusion of the Holy Spirit poured out upon such great Numbers who had very extraordinary Credentials Miracles and the Gift of Tongues to prove their Mission it does not seem so necessary in such a
the Phrases would grow old and sound harshly A few Alterations once in an Age will set this matter right besides that the use of such Forms does fix a Language at least as to those Phrases that are used in it which grow to be so familiar to our Ears by constant use that they do not so easily wear out It is above Eighty Years since the present Translation of the Bible was made and above One hundred and forty since our Liturgy was compiled and yet we perceive no uncouthness in the Phrases The simplicity in which such Forms must be drawn makes them not so subject to Alteration as other Composures of Rhetorick or Poetry but can it be thought any inconveniency now and then to alter a little the Words or Phrases of our Service Much less can that be thought of weight enough to balance the vaster prejudice of keeping whole Nations in Ignorance and of extinguishing Devotion by entertaining it with a Form of Worship that is not understood Nor can this be avoided by saying that the People are furnished with Forms in their own Language into which the greatest part of the Publick Offices are translated For as this is not done but since the Reformation began and in those Nations only where the Scandal that is given by an Unknown Language might have as they apprehend ill effects so it is only an Artifice to keep those still in their Communion whom such a gross Practice if not thus disguised might otherwise drive from them But still the Publick Worship has no Edification in it nor can those who do not understand it say Amen according to St. Paul Finally they urge the Communion of Saints in order to which they think it is necessary that Priests wheresoever they go may be able to officiate which they cannot do if every Nation Worships God in its own Language And this was indeed very necessary in those Ages in which the See of Rome did by Provisions and the other Inventions of the Canonists dispose of the best Benefices to their own Creatures and Servants That Trade would have been spoiled if Strangers might not have been admitted till they had learned the Language of the Country And thus instead of taking care of the People that ought to be edified by the Publick Worship Provision was made at their cost for such Vagrant Priests as have been in all Ages the Scandals of the Church and the Reproaches of Religion ARTICLE XXV Of the Sacraments Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only Badges or Tokens of Christian Mens Profession but rather they be certain sure Witnesses and effectual Signs of Grace and God's Will towards us by the which he doth work invisibly in us and doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him There are Two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extream Unction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles partly are States of Life allowed in the Scriptures but yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper for that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about but that we should duly use them And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholsome Effect or Operation but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves Damnation as St. Paul saith THERE is a great Diversity between the Form of this Article as it is now settled and that published by King Edward which begun in these Words Our Lord Iesus Christ gathered his People into a Society by Sacraments very few in number most easily to be kept and of most excellent Signification that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. There is nothing in that Edition instead of the Paragraph concerning the other five pretended Sacraments Next comes the Paragraph which is here the last only with the Addition of these Words after Operation Not as some say ex opere operato which Terms as they are strange and utterly unknown to the Holy Scripture so do they yield a Sense which savoureth of little Piety but of much Superstition And in conclusion the Paragraph comes with which the Article does now begin so that in all this Diversity there is no real difference For the Virtue of the Sacraments being put in the worthy receiving excludes the Doctrine of Opus operatum as formally as if it had expresly been condemned and the naming the Two Sacraments instituted by Christ is upon the Matter the rejecting of all the rest It was most natural to begin this Article with a Description of Sacraments in General This difference is to be put between Sacraments and other Ritual Actions that whereas other Rites are Badges and Distinctions by which the Christians are known a Sacrament is more than a bare matter of Form and as in the Old Testament Circumcision and Propitiatory Sacrifices were things of a different Nature and Order from all the other Ritual Precepts concerning their Cleansings the Distinctions of Days Places and Meats These were indeed Precepts given them of God but they were not federal Acts of renewing the Covenant or reconciling themselves to God By Circumcision they received the Seal of the Covenant and were brought under the Obligation of the whole Law they were by it made Debtors to it and when by their Sins they had provoked God's Wrath they were reconciled to him by their Sacrifices with which Atonement was made and so their Sins were forgiven them The Nature and End of those was to be federal Acts in the offering of which the Iews kept to their part of the Covenant and in the accepting of which God maintained it on his part so we see a plain difference between these and a meer Rite which though commanded yet must pass only for the Badge of a Profession as the doing of it is an Act of Obedience to a Divine Law Now in the new Dispensation though our Saviour has eased us of that Law of Ordinances that grievous Yoke and those beggarly Elements which were laid upon the Iews yet since we are still in the Body subject to our Senses and to sensible things he has appointed some federal Actions to be both the visible Stipulations and Professions of our Christianity and the conveyances to us of the Blessings of the Gospel There are two Extremes to be avoided in this Matter The one is of the Church of Rome that teaches That as some Sacraments imprint a Character upon the Soul which they define to be a Physical Quality that is Supernatural and Spiritual so they do all carry along with them such a Divine Virtue that by the very receiving them the
unless we do thus believe It were not suteable to the Truth and Holiness of the Divine Nature to void a Covenant so solemnly made and that in favour of wicked men who will not be reformed by it So Faith is the certain and necessary Mean of our Salvation and is so put by Christ since upon our having it we shall be saved as well as damned upon our not having it On the other hand the nature of a Ritual Action even when commanded is such that unless we could imagine that there is a Charm in it which is contrary to the Spirit and Genius of the Gospel which designs to save us by reforming our Natures we cannot think that there can be any thing in it that is of it self effectual as a Mean therefore it must only be considered as a Command that is given us which we are bound to obey if we acknowledge the Authority of the Command But this being an Action that is not always in our power but is to be done by another it were to put our Salvation or Damnation in the power of another to imagine that we cannot be saved without Baptism and therefore it is only a Precept which obliges us in order to our Salvation and our Saviour by leaving it out when he reversed the words saying only he that believeth not without adding and is not Baptized shall be damned does plainly insinuate that it is not a Mean but only a Precept in order to our Salvation As for the Ends and Purposes of Baptism St. Paul gives us two the one is that we are all baptized into onâ— body we are made members one of another 1 Cor. 12.13 We are admitted to the Soâ—â—â—ty of Christians and to all the Rights and Priviledges of that Body which is the Church And in order to this the outward action of Baptism when regularly gone about is sufficient We cannot see into the sincerity oâ— mens Hearts Outward Professions and regular Actions are all that fall under mens Observation and Judgment But a second End of Baptism is Internal and Spiritual Of this St. Paul speaks in very high terms when he says that God has saved us according to his mercy Tit. 3.5 by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost It were a strange perverting the design of these words to say that somewhat Spiritual is to be understood by this washing of regeneration and not Baptism when as to the word save that is here ascribed to it St. Peter gives that undeniably to Baptism and St. Paul elsewhere in two different places Rom. 6. Col. 2. makes our Baptism to represent our being dead to sin and buried with Christ and our being risen and quickned with him and made alive unto God which are words that do very plainly import Regeneration So that St. Paul must be understood to speak of Baptism in these words here then is the inward effect of Baptism It is a death to sin and a new life in Christ in imitation of him and in conformity to his Gospel So that here is very expresly delivered to us somewhat that rises far above the Badge of a Profession or a Mark of difference That does indeed belong to Baptism it makes us the visible Members of that one Body into which we are Baptized or admitted by Baptism but that which saves us in it which both deadens and quickens us must be a thing of another nature If Baptism were only the receiving us into the Society of Christians there were no need of saying I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost It were more proper to say I Baptize thee in the Name or by the Authority of the Church Therefore these august words that were dictated by our Lord himself shew us that there is somewhat in it that is Internal which comes from God that it is an admitting men into somewhat that depends only on God and for the giving of which the authority can only be derived by him But after all this is not to be believed to be of the nature of a Charm as if the very act of Baptism carried always with it an inward Regeneration Here we must confess that very early some Doctrines arose upon Baptism that we cannot be determined by The words of our Saviour to Nicodemus were expounded so as to import the absolute necessity of Baptism in order to Salvation for it not being observed that the Dispensation of the Messias was meant by the Kingdom of God but it being taken to signifie Eternal Glory that expression of our Saviour's was understood to import this that no Man could be saved unless he were Baptized so it was believed to be simply necessary to Salvation A natural consequence that followed upon that was to allow all Persons leave to Baptize Clergy and Laity Meâ— and Women since it seemed necessary to suffer every Person to do that without which Salvation could not be had Upon this these hasty Baptisms were used without any special Sponsion on the part of those who desired it of which it may be reasonably doubted whether such a Baptism be true in which no Sponsion is made and this cannot be well answered but by saying that a general and an implied Sponsion is to be considered to be made by their Parents while they desire them to be Baptized Another Opinion that arose out of the former was the mixing of the outward and the inward effects of Baptism It being believed that every Person that was born of the Water was also born of the Spirit and that the renewing of the Holy Ghost did always accompany the washing of Regeneration And this obliged St. Austin as was formerly told to make that difference between the regenerate and the predestinated for he thought that all who were Baptized were also regenerated St. Peter has stated this so fully that if his words are well considered they will clear the whole matter He after he had set forth the miserable state in which Mankind was under the figure of the Deluge in which an Ark was prepared for Noah and his Family says upon that The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us 1 Pet. 3 21. Upon which he makes a short digression to explain the nature of Baptism not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer or the Demand and Interrogation of a good conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Iesus Christ who is gone into Heaven The meaning of all which is that Christ having risen again and having then had all power in heaven and in earth given to him he had put that vertue in Baptism that by it we are saved as in an Ark from that miserable state in which the world lies and in which it must perish But then he explains the way how it saves us that it is not as a Physical action as it washes away the filthiness of the flesh
of their Parents they are naturally their Guardians and if they are entitled to any thing their Parents have a right to transact about it because of the weakness of the Child and what Contracts soever they make by which the Child does not lose but is a gainer these do certainly bind the Child It is then suitable both to the constitution of Mankind and to the dispensation of the Mosaical Covenant that Parents may dedicate their Children to God and may bring them under the obligations of the Gospel and if they may do that then they certainly procure to them with it or in lieu of it a share in the blessings and promises of the Gospel So that they may offer their Children either themselves or by such others of their Friends to whom for that occasion they transfer that Right which they have to transact for and to bind their Children All this receives a great confirmation from the decision which St. Paul makes upon a case that must have hapâ—â—ned commonly at that time which was when one of the Parties in a Married state Husband or Wife was Converted while the other continued still in the former state of Idolatry or Infidelity Here then a scruple naturally arose Whether a Believer or Christian might still live in a married state with an Infidel Besides the ill usage to which that diversity of Religion might give occasion another difficulty might be made Whether a Person defiled by Idolatry did not communicate that Impurity to the Christian and whether the Children born in such a Marriage were to be reckoned a holy seed according to the Iewish Phrase or an unholy unclean Children that is Heathenish Children who were not to be Dedicated to God nor to be Admitted into Covenant with him For unclean in the Old Testament and Unciâ—cumcised signify sometimes the same thing and so St. Peter said that in the case of Cornelius God had shewed him that he should call no Man common or unclean 1 Cor. 14. in allusion to all which St. Paul determines the case not by an immediate Revelation but by the Inferences that he drew from what had been Revealed to him he does appoint the Christian to live with the Infidel and says that the Christian is so far from being defiled by the Infidel that there is a communication of a Blessing that passes from the Christian to the Infidel the one being the better for the Prayers of the other and sharing in the Blessings bestowed on the other The better part was accepted of God in whom mercy rejoices over judgment there was a communication of a Blessing that the Christian derived to the Infidel which at least went so far that their Children were not unclean that is shut out from being dedicated to God but were holy Now it is to be considered that in the New Testament Christians and Saints or Holy stand all promiscuously The Purity of the Christian Doctrine and the Dedication by which Christians offer up themselves to God makes them Holy In Scripture Holiness stands in a double Sense the one is a true and real Purity by which a Man's Faculties and Actions become Holy the other is a dedicated Holiness when any thing is appropriated to God in which sense it stands most commonly in the Old Testament So Times Places and not only Persons but even Utensils applied to the Service of God are called Holy In the New Testament Christian and Saint are the same thing so the saying that Children are Holy when one of the Parents is a Christian must import this that the Child has also a right to be made Holy or to be made a Christian and by consequence that by the Parents Dedication that Child may be made Holy or a Christian. Upon these Reasons we conclude That though there is no express Precept or Rule given in the New Testament for the Baptism of Infants yet it is most agreeable to the Institution of Christ since he conformed his Institutions to those of the Mosaical Law as far as could consist with his Design and therefore in a thing of this kind in which the just tenderness of the human Nature does dispose Parents to secure to their Children a Title to the Mercies and Blessings of the Gospel there is no reason to think that this being so fully set forth and assured to the Iews in the Old Testament that Christ should not have intended to give Parents the same Comforts and Assurances by his Gospel that they had under the Law of Moses Since nothing is said against it we may conclude from the nature of the two Dispensations and the proportion and gradation that is between them that Children under the New Testament are a holy seed as well as they were under the Old and by consequence that they may be now Baptized as well as they were then Circumcised If this may be done then it is very reasonable to say what is said in the Article concerning it That it ought in any wise to be retained in the Church For the same Humanity that obliges Parents to feed their Children and to take care of them while they are in such a helpless state must dictate that it is much more incumbent on them and is as much more necessary as the Soul is more valuable than the Body for them to do all that in them lies for the Souls of their Children for securing to them a share in the Blessings and Privileges of the Gospel and for Dedicating them early to the Christian Religion The Office for Baptizing Infants is in the same words with that for Persons of Riper Age because Infants being then in the power of their Parents who are of Age are considered as in them and as binding themselves by the Vows that they make in their Name Therefore the Office carries on the supposition of an internal Regeneration and in that helpless state the Infant is offered up and Dedicated to God and provided that when he comes to Age he takes those Vows on himself and lives like a Person so in Covenant with God then he shall find the full effects of Baptism and if he dies in that state of Incapacity he being Dedicated to God is certainly accepted of by him and by being put in the Second Adam all the bad effects of his having descended from the First Adam are quite taken away Matt. 19.13 14. Christ when on Earth encouraged those who brought little Children to him he took them in his arms and laid his hands on them and blessed them and said suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God Whatever these words may signify mystically the literal meaning of them is that little Children may be admitted into the Dispensation of the Messias and by consequence that they may be Baptized ARTICLE XXVIII Of the Lord's Supper The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have
among themselves one to another but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death Insomuch that to such as rightly worthily and with faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation or the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be Proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up and Worshipped In the Edition of these Articles in Edward the VIth's Reign there was another long Paragraph against Transubstantiation added in these words Forasmuch as the Truth of Man's Nature requireth that the Body of one and the self-same Man cannot be at one time in divers places but must needs be in one certain place therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places And because as Holy Scripture doth teach Christ was taken up into Heaven and there shall continue unto the end of the World a Faithful Man ought not either to Believe or openly Confess the Real and Bodily Presence as they term it of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper WHEN these Articles were at first prepared by the Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign this Paragraph was made a part of them for the Original Subscription by both Houses of Convocation yet extant shews this But the design of the Government was at that time much turned to the drawing over the Body of the Nation to the Reformation in whom the old Leven had gone deep and no part of it deeper than the belief of the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so particular a Definition in this matter in which the very word Real Presence was rejected It might perhaps be also suggested that here a Definition was made that went too much upon the Principles of Natural Philosophy which how true soever they might not be the proper subject of an Article of Religion Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this Paragraph though it was a part of the Article that was Subscribed yet it was not published but the Paragraph that follows The Body of Christ c. was put in its stead and was received and published by the next Convocation which upon the matter was a full Explanation of the way of Christ's Presence in this Sacrament that he is present in a heavenly and spiritual Manner and that Faith is the mean by which he is received This seemed to be more Theological and it does indeed amount to the same thing But howsoever we see what was the Sense of the first Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign it differed in nothing from that in King Edward's Time And therefore though this Paragraph is now no Part of our Articles yet we are certain that the Clergy at that time did not at all doubt of the Truth of it we are sure it was their Opinion Since they subscribed it though they did not think fit to publish it at first and though it was afterwards changed for another that was the same in Sense In the treating of this Article I shall first lay down the Doctrine of this Church with the Grounds of it and then I shall examine the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which must be done copiously For next to the Doctrine of Infallibility this is the most valued of all their other Tenets this is the most Important in it self since it is the main Part of their Worship and the chief Subject of all their Devotions There is not any one thing in which both Clergy and Laity are more concerned which is more generally studied and for which they pretend they have more plausible Colours both from Scripture and the Fathers and if Sense and Reason seem to press hard upon it they reckon that as they understand the Words of St. Paul every thought must be captivated into the obedience of Faith 2 Cor. 10.5 In order to the expounding our Doctrine we must consider the Occasion and the Institution of this Sacrament The Iews were required once a Year to meet at Ierusalem in remembrance of the deliverance of their Fathers out of Egypt Exod. 12.11 Moses appointed that every Family should kill a Lamb whose Blood was to be sprinkled on their Door-posts and Lintels and whose Flesh they were to eat at the sight of which Blood thus sprinkled the destroying Angel that was to be sent out to kill the First-born of every Family in Egypt was to pass over all the Houses that were so marked And from that passing by or over the Israelites the Lamb was called the Lord's passover as being then the Sacrifice and afterwards the Memorial of that Passover The People of Israel were required to keep up the Memorial of that Transaction by slaying a Lamb before the Place where God should set his Name and by eating it up that Night They were also to eat with it a Sallet of bitter Herbs and unleavened Bread and when they went to eat of the Lamb they repeated these Words of Moses That it was the Lord's Passover Now tho' the first Lamb that was killed in Egypt was indeed the Sacrifice upon which God promised to pass over their Houses yet the Lambs that were afterwards offered were only the Memorials of it though they still carried that Name which was given to the First And were called the Lord's Passover So that the Iews were in the Paschal-Supper accustomed to call the Memorial of a thing by the Name of that of which it was the Memorial And as the Deliverance out of Egypt was a Type and Representation of that greater Deliverance that we were to have by the Messias the first Lamb being the Sacrifice of that Deliverance 1 Cor. 5.7 John 1.29 Compare Matt. 26.26 Mark 14.22 and the succeeding Lambs the Memorials of it so in order to this new and greater Deliverance Christ himself was our Passover that was sacrificed for us He was the Lamb of God that was both to take away the Sins of the World and was to lead Captivity Captive To bring us out of the Bondage of Sin and Satan into the Obedience of his Gospel He therefore chose the time of the Passover that he might be then offered up for us And did Institute this Memorial of it while he was celebrating the Iewish Pascha with his Disciples who were so much accustomed to the Forms and Phrases of that Supper in which every Master of a
Family did officiate among his Houshold Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was very Natural to them to understand all that our Saviour said or did according to those Forms with which they were acquainted There were after Supper upon a new covering of the Table Loaves of Unleavened Bread and Cups of Wine set on it in which though the Bread was very unacceptable yet they drank liberally of the Wine Christ took a Portion of that Bread and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said This is my body which is broken for you Do this in remembrance of me He did not say only this is my body but this is my body broken so that his Body must be understood to be there in its broken State if the Words are to be expounded literally And no reason can be assigned why the Word Broken should be so separated from Body or that the Bread should be literally his Body and not literally his Body broken The whole Period must be either literally True or must be understood mystically And if any will say that his Body cannot be there but in the same state in which it is now in Heaven and since it is not now broken nor is the Blood shed or separated from the Body there therefore the Words must be understood thus This is my Body which is to be broken But from thence we argue that since all is one Period it must be all understood in the same Manner And since it is impossible that Broken and Shed can be understood literally of the Body and Blood that therefore the whole is to be mystically understood and this appears more evident since the Disciples who were naturally slow at understanding the easiest Mysteries that he opened to them must naturally have understood those Words as they did the other Words of the Paschal Supper This is the Lord 's Passover That is this is the Memorial of it And that the rather since Christ added these Words Do this in remembrance of me If they had understood them in any other Sense that must have surprized them and naturally have led them to ask him many Questions Which we find them doing upon Occasions that were much less surprizing as appears by the Questions in the 14th of St. Iohn that discourse coming probably immediately after this Institution Whereas no Question was asked upon this so it is reasonable to conclude that they could understand these Words This is my Body no other way but as they understood that of the Lamb This is the Lord 's Passover And by consequence as their celebrating the Pascha was a constant Memorial of the Deliverance out of Egypt and was a Symbolical Action by which they had a Title to the Blessings of the Covenant that Moses made with their Fathers it was natural for them to conclude that after Christ had made himself to be truly that which the first Lamb was in a Type the true Sacrifice of a greater and better Passover they were to commemorate it and to communicate in the Benefits and Effects of it by continuing that Action of taking blessing breaking and distributing of Bread Which was to be the Memorial and the Communion of his Death in all succeeding Ages This will yet appear more Evident from the Second Part of this Institution he took the Cup and blessed it and gave it to them saying This Cup is the New Testament or New Covenant in my blood drink ye all of it Or as the other Gospels report it This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins As Moses had enjoined the sprinkling of the Blood of the Lamb so he himself sprinkled both the Book of the Law and all the People with the Blood of Calves and of Goats Hâ—b 9.20 saying This is the Blood of the New Testament or Covenant which God had enjoined you The Blood of the Paschal Lamb was the Token of that Covenant which God made then with them The Iews were under a very strict Prohibition of eating no Blood at all But it seems by the Psalms that when they payed their Vows unto God they took in their Hands a cup of Salvation that is Psal. 116. of an acknowledgment of their Salvation and so were to rejoice before the Lord. These being the Laws and Customs of the Iews they could not without Horror have heard Christ when he gave them the Cup say This is my Blood The Prohibition of Blood was given in such severe Terms as that God would set his face against him that did eat blood Levit. 7.26 27. Levit. 17.14 and cut him off from among his people And this was so often repeated in the Books of Moses that besides the natural Horror which Humanity gives at the mention of drinking a Man's Blood it was a special Part of their Religion to make no use of Blood yet after all this the Disciples were not startled at it Which shews that they must have understood it in such a way as was agreeable to the Law and Customs of their Country and since St. Luke and St. Paul report the Words that our Saviour said when he gave it differently from what is reported by St. Matthew and St. Mark it is most probable that he spake both the one and the other that he first said This is my Blood and then as a clearer Explanation of it he said This cup is the New Testament in my Blood The one being a more easy Expression and in a style to which the Iews had been more accustomed They knew that the Blood of the Lamb was sprinkled and by their so doing they entred into a Covenant with God And tho' the Blood was never to be sprinkled after the first Passover yet it was to be poured out before the Lord in remembrance of that sprinkling in Egypt In remembrance of that deliverance they drank of the Cup of Blessing and Salvation and rejoiced before the Lord. So that they could not understand our Saviour otherwise than that the Cup so blessed was to be to them the Assurance of a New Testament or Covenant which was to be established by the Blood of Christ and which was to be shed In lieu of which they were to drink this cup of Blessing and Praise According to their Customs and Phrases the Disciples could understand our Saviour's Words in this Sense and in no other So that if he had intended that they should have understood him otherwise he must have expressed himself in another Manner And must have enlarged upon it to have corrected those Notions into which it was otherwise most Natural for Iews to have fallen Here is also to be remembred that which was formerly observed upon the word Broken that if the Words are to be expounded literally then if the Cup is literally the Blood of Christ it must be his Blood shed poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body And if it is
and the full Evidence of an Object that is before us and that is clearly apprehended by us So there is a great difference to be made between our Reasonings upon Difficulties that we can neither understand nor resolve and our Reasonings upon clear Principles The one may be false and the other must be true We are sure that a Thing cannot be one and three in the same respect our Reason assures us of this and we do and must believe it but we know that in different respects the same thing may be one and three And since we cannot know all the possibilities of those different respects we must believe upon the Authority of God revealing it that the same thing is both one and three tho' if a Revelation should affirm that the same thing were one and three in the same respect we should not and indeed could not believe it This Argument deserves to be fully opened for we are sure either it is true or we cannot be sure that any thing else whatsoever is true In confirmation of this we ought also to consider the nature and ends of Miracles They put Nature out of its channel and reverse its fixed Laws and Motions and the end of God's giving Men a power to work them is that by them the World may be convinced that such Persons are Commissionated by him to deliver his Pleasure to them in some Particulars And as it could not become the Infinite Wisdom of the Great Creator to change the Order of Nature which is his own Workmanship upon slight Grounds so we cannot suppose that he should work a Chain of Extraordinary Miracles to no purpose It is not to give credit to a Revelation that he is making for the Senses do not perceive it on the contrary they do reject and contradict it and the Revelation instead of getting credit from it is loaded by it as introducing that which destroys all credit and certainty In other Miracles our Senses are appealed to but here they must be appealed from nor is there any Spiritual end served in working this Miracle for it is acknowledged that the effects of this Sacrament are given upon our due coming to it independent upon the Corporal Presence So that the Grace of the Sacrament does not always accompany it since unworthy Receivers tho' according to the Romish Doctrine they receive the true Body of Christ yet they do not receive Grace with it And the Grace that is given in it to the worthy Receivers stays with them after that by the destruction of the Species of the Bread and Wine the Body of Christ is withdrawn So that it is acknowledged that the Spiritual effect of the Sacrament does not depend upon the Corporal Presence Here then it is supposed that God is every day working a great many Miracles in a vast number of different Places and that of so extraordinary a nature that it must be confessed they are far beyond all the other Wonders even of Omnipotence and yet all this is to no end that we can apprehend neither to any sensible and visible end nor to any Internal and Spiritual one This must needs seem an amazing thing that God should work such a Miracle on our behalf and yet should not acquaint us with any end for which he should work it To conclude this whole Argument We have one great advantage in this matter that our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament of a Mystical Presence of Christ in the Symbols and of the effects of it on the worthy and unworthy Receivers is all acknowledged by the Church of Rome but they have added to this the Wonder of the Corporal Presence So that we need bring no Proofs to them at least for that which we teach concerning it since it is all confessed by them But as to that which they have added it is not necessary for us to give Proofs against it it is enough for us if we shew that all the Proofs that they bring for it are weak and unconcluding They must be very demonstrative if it is expected that upon the authority and evidence of them we should be bound to believe a thing which they themselves confess to be contrary both to our Sense and Reasons We cannot by the Laws of Reasoning be bound to give Arguments against it it is enough if we can shew that neither the words of the Institution nor the Discourse in the sixth of St. Iohn do necessarily infer it and if we shew that those Passages can well bear another sense which is agreeable both to the words themselves and to the style of the Scriptures and more particularly to the Phraseology to which the Iews were accustomed upon the occasion on which this was Instituted and if the words can well bear the Sense that we give them then the other advantages that are in it of its being simple and natural of its being suitable to the design of a Sacrament and of its having no hard consequences of any sort depending upon it then I say by all the Rules of expounding Scripture we do justly infer that our Sense of those words ought to be preferred This is according to a Rule that St. Augustin gives to judge what Expressions in Scripture are Figurative and what not Lib. 3. de Doct. Chris. c. 16. If any place seems to command a Crime or horrid Action it is Figurative And for an Instance of this he cites those Words Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man you have no life in you Which seems to command a Crime and an horrid Action and therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay up in our Memory with delight and profit that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us And this was given for a Rule by the great Doctor of the Latin Church so the same Maxim had been delivered almost two Ages before him Hom. 7. in Levit. by the great Doctor of the Greek Church Origen who says that the understanding our Saviour's words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter is a Letter that kills These Passages I cite by an Anticipation before I enter upon the enquiry into the Sense of the ancient Church concerning this Matter because they belong to the words of the Institution at least to the Discourse in St. Iohn Now if the Sense that we give to these Words is made good we need be at no more pains to prove that they are capable of no other Sense Since this must prove that to be the only true Sense of them So that for all the Arguments that have been brought by us against this Doctrine arising out of the Fruitfulness of the Matter we were not bound to use them For our Doctrine being confessed by them it wants no Proof and we cannot be bound to prove a Negative Therefore though the Copiousness of this Matter has afforded us many
the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ he carried himself in his own hands in some sort when he said This is my Body St. Chrysostom says the Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord And in another Place reckoning up the improper Senses of the word Flesh he says the Scriptures use to call the Mysteries that is the Sacrament by the Name of Flesh and sometimes the whole Church is said to be the Body of Christ. So Tertullian says Christ calls the Bread his Body and names the Bread by his Body Tertul. Lib. 4. adv Marci c. 40. The Fathers do not only call the consecrated Elements Bread and Wine They do also affirm that they retain their proper Nature and Substance and are the same thing as to their Nature that they were before And the Occasion upon which the Passages that I go next to mention are used by them does prove this Matter beyond Contradiction Apollinaris did broach that Heresy which was afterwards put in full Form by Eutycheâ— and that had so great a Party to support it that as they had one General Council a pretended one at least to favour them so they were condemned by another Their Error was that the human Nature of Christ was swallowed up by the Divine if not while he was here on Earth yet at least after his Ascension to Heaven This Error was confuted by several Writers who lived very wide one from another And at a distance of above a hundred Years one from another St. Chrysostom at Constantinople Theodoret in Asia Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch and Gelasius Bishop of Rome All those write to Prove that the human Nature did still remain in Christ not changed nor swallowed up but only sanctified by the Divine Nature that was united to it They do all fall into one Argument which very probably those who came after St. Chrysostom took from him Epist. ad Celarium So that though both Theodoret and Gelasius's Words are much fuller yet because the Argument is the same with that which St. Chrysostom had urged against Apollinaris I shall first set down his Words He brings an Illustration from the Doctrine of the Sacrament to shew that the human Nature was not destroyed by its Union with the Divine and has upon that these Words As before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body though the nature of Bread remains in it And yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son So the divine Nature being joined to the Body Both these make one Son and one Person In Photi Bibli Cod. 229. Ephrem of Antioch says The Body of Christ which is received by the faithful does not depart from its sensible Substance So Baptism says he does not lose its own sensible Substance and does not lose that which it was before Dial. 1st and 2d â—ont Eutych Theodoret says Christ does honour the Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the nature but adding grace to nature In another Place pursuing the same Argument he says The mystical Symbols after the sanctification do not depart from their own nature For they continue in their former substance figure and form and are visible and palpable as they were before But they are understood to be that which they are made Pope Gelasius says The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing Lib. de duâ—bus nat Christ for which reason we become by them partakers of the divine Nature and yet the substance of Bread and Wine does not cease to exist And the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in holy Mysteries Upon all these Places being compared with the Design with which they were written which was to prove that Christ's Human Nature did still subsist unchanged and not swallowed up by its Union with the Divinity some Reflections are very obvious â—irst If the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament had been then received in the Church the natural and unavoidable Argument in this Matter which must put an end to it with all that believed such corporal Presence was this Christ has certainly a natural Body still because the Bread and the Wine are turned to it and they cannot be turned to that which is not In their Writings they argued against the possibility of a substantial Change of a Human Nature into the Divine but that could not have been urged by Men who believed a substantial Mutation to be made in the Sacrament For then the Eutychians might have retorted the Argument with great Advantage upon them The Eutychians did make use of some Expressions that were used by some in the Church which seemed to Import that they did argue from the Sacrament as Theodoret represents their Objections But to that he answers as we have seen denying that any such substantial Change was made The Design of those Fathers was to prove that things might be united together and continue so united without the change of their Substances and that this was true in the two Natures in the Person of Christ And to make this more Sensible they bring in the Matter of the Sacrament as a thing known and confessed For in their arguing upon it they do suppose it as a thing out of dispute Now according to the Roman Doctrine this had been a very odd Sort of an Argument to prove that Christ's Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine because the Mysteries or Elements in the Sacrament are changed into the Substance of Christ's Body only they retain the outward appearances of Bread and Wine To this an Eutychian might readily have answered that then the Human Nature might be believed to be destroyed And though Christ had appeared in that likeness he retained only the Accidents of Human Nature but that the Human Nature it self was destroyed as the Bread and the Wine were destroyed in the Eucharist This had been a very absurd way of arguing in the Fathers and had indeed delivered up the Cause to the Eutychians Whereas those Fathers make it an Argument against them to prove that notwithstanding an Uninion of two Beings and such an Union as did communicate a Sanctification from the one to the other yet the two Natures might remain still distinguish'd and that it was so in the Eucharist Therefore it might be so in the Person of Christ. This seems to be so evident an Indication of the Doctrine of the whole Church in the Fourth and Fifth Century when so many of the most eminent Writers of those Ages do urge it so home as an Argument in so great a Point that we can scarce think it possible for any Man to consider it fully without being determined by it
And so far we have considered the Authorities from the Fathers to shew that they believed that the Substance of Bread and Wine did still remain in the Sacrament Another Head of Proof is that they affirm that our Bodies are nourished by the Sacrament which shews very plainly that they had no Notion of a Change of Substance made in it Iustin Martyr calls the Eucharist Apol. 2 That food by which our flesh and blood through its transmutation into them are nourished Irenaeus makes this an Argument for the Resurrection of our Bodies Lib. 5. adv Haeres c. 2. that they are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ When the Cup and the Bread receives the Word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ by which the substance of our flesh is encreased and subsists And he adds that the flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and is made his Member Tertullian says The flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ. Origen explains this very largely on those words of Christ De Resurrect c. 8. In Mat. c. 15. It is not that which enters within a man that defiles the man He says if every thing that goes into the Belly is cast into the Draught then that food which is sanctified by the Word of God and by Prayer goes also into the belly as to that which is material in it and goes from thence into the draught And a little after he adds It is not the matter of the Bread but the Word that is pronounced over it which profits him that eats it in such a way as is not unworthy of the Lord. The Bishops of Spain in a Councel that sat at Toledo in the Seventh Century Con. Tol. 16. Can. 6. condemned those that began to Consecrate Round Wafers and did not offer one intire Loaf in the Eucharist and appointed that for so much of the Bread as remained after the Communion that either it should be put in some Bag or if it was needful to eat it up that it might not oppress the belly of him that took it with an over-charging burden and that it might not go into the digestion They fancying that a lesser quantity made no digestion and produced no Excrement In the Ninth Century both Rabanus Maurus and Heribald believed that the Sacrament was so digested that some part of it turned to Excrement which was also held by divers Writers of the Greek Church whom their Adversaries called by way of reproach Stercoranists Others indeed of the Ancients did think that no part of the Sacrament became Excrement but that it was spread through the whole Substance of the Communicant â—yril Caâ—ech Mest. 5. Chrysost Hom. in Euch. To. 5. Damas lib. 4. de Ortho. fide c. 14. for the good of Body and Soul Both Cyril of Ierusalem St. Chrysostom and Iohn Damascene fell into this conceit but still they thought that it was changed into the Substance of our Bodies and so nourished them without any Excrement coming from any part of it The Fathers do call the Consecrated Elements the Figures the Signs the Symbols the Types and Antitypes the Commemoration the Representation the Mysteries and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood which does evidently demonstrate that they could not think that they were the very Substance of his Body and Blood â—ib 4. adv Maâ—cion c. 40. Tertullian when he is proving that Christ had a true Body and was not a Phantasm argues thus He made Bread to be his Body saying This is my Body that is the figure of my Body From which he argues that since his Body had that for its figure it was a true Body for an empty thing such as a Phantasm is cannot have a figure It is from hence clear that it was not then believed that Christ's Body was literally in the Sacrament for otherwise the Argument would have been much clearer and shorter Christ has a true Body because we believe that the Sacrament is truly his Body than to go and prove it so far about as to say a Phantasm has no figure But the Sacrament is the figure of Christ's Body therefore it is no Phantasm Comm. in Psâ—l 3. St. Austin says He commended and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood And when the Manicheans objected to him that Blood is called in the Old Testament the Life or Soul contrary to what is said in the New He answers that Blood was not the Soul or Life but only the Sign of it and that the Sign sometimes bears the name of that of which it is the Sign â—ib â—â—nt 〈◊〉 1â— So says he Christ did not doubt to say This is my Body when he was giving the Sign of his Body Now that had been a very bad Argument if the Bread was truly the Body of Christ it had proved that the Sign must be one with the thing signified The whole Ancient Liturgies and all the Greek Fathers do so frequently use the words Type Antitype Sign and Mystery that this is not so much as denied it is their constant Style Now it is apparent that a thing cannot be the Type and Symbol of it self And tho' they had more frequent occasions to speak of the Eucharist than either of Baptism or the Chrism yet as they called the Water and the Oyl Types and Mysteries so they bestowed the same descriptions on the Elements in the Eucharist and as they have many strong Expressions concerning the Water and the Oyl that cannot be literally understood so upon the same Grounds it will appear reasonable to give the same Exposition to some high Expressions that they fell into concerning this Sacrament Facundus has some very full Discourses to this purpose He is proving that Christ may be called the Adopted Son of God as well as he is truly his Son and that because he was Baptized The Sacrament of Adoption that is Baptism Defen Conc. Chalced. l. 9. may be called Baptism as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup is called his Body and Blood Not that the Bread is properly his Body or the Cup properly his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood St. Austin says That Sacraments must have some resemblance of those things of which they are the Sacraments So the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Body and the Sacrament of his Blood is after some manner his Blood And speaking of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice of Praise he says Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by the Sacrifices that were the Types of it In the Passion the Sacrifice was truly offered and after his Ascension it is Celebrated by the Sacrament of the Remembrance of it And when he speaks of the murmuring of the Iews upon
given either to Superstition or Irreverence And for the Sick or the Prisoners we think it is a greater Mean to quicken their Devotion as well as it is a closer adhering to the Words of the Institution to Consecrate in their Presence for tho' we can bear with the practice of the Greek Church of reserving and sending about the Eucharist when there is no Idolatry joyned with it yet we cannot but think that this is the continuance of a practice which the state of the first Ages introduced and that was afterwards kept up out of a too scrupulous imitation of that time without considering that the difference of the state of the Christians in the former and in the succeeding Ages made that what was at first innocently practised since a real necessity may well excuse a want of exactness in some matters that are only positive became afterwards an occasion of much Superstition and in conclusion ended in Idolatry Those ill effects that it had are more than is necessary to justifie our practice in reducing this strictly to the first Institution As for the lifting up of the Eucharist there is not a word of it in the Gospel nor is it mentioned by St. Paul Neither Iustin Martyr nor Cyril of Ierusalem speak of it there is nothing concerning it neither in the Constitutions nor in the Areopagite In those first Ages all the Elevation that is spoken of is the lifting up their Hearts to God The Elevation of the Sacrament began to be practised in the Sixth Century for it is mentioned in the Liturgy called St. Chrysostome's but believed to be much latter than his time â—erm Const. in Theor. Tit. 12. Bibl. patr Ivo Carn Ep. de Sacr Missae T. 2. Bibl. pat German a Writer of the Greek Church of the Thirteenth Century is the first that descants upon it he speaks not of it as done in order to the Adoration of it but makes it to represent both Christ's being lifted up on the Cross and also his Resurrection Ivo of Chartres who lived in the end of the 11 th Century is the first of all the Latins that speaks of it but then it was not commonly practised for the Author of the Micrologus tho' he writ at the same time yet does not mention it who yet is very minute upon all particulars relating to this Sacrament Nor does Ivo speak of it as done in order to Adoration but only as a form of shewing it to the People Dur. Rat. div offic lib. 4. de Sexta parte Can. Durand a Writer of the 13 th Century is the first that speaks of the Elevation as done in order to the Adoration So it appears that our Church by cutting off these Abuses has restored this Sacrament to its Primitive Simplicity according to the Institution and the practice of the first Ages ARTICLE XXIX Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the Use of the Lord's-Supper The wicked and such as be void of a lively Faith altho they do carnally and visibly press with their Teeth as St. Austin saith the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the Sign or Sacrament of so great a thing THIS Article arises naturally out of the Former and depends upon it For if Christ's Body is corporally present in the Sacrament then all Persons good or bad who receive the Sacrament do also receive Christ On the other hand if Christ is Present only in a Spiritual Manner and if the Mean that receives Christ is Faith then such as believe not do not receive him So that to prove that the Wicked do not receive Christ's Body and Blood is upon the Matter the same thing with the proving that he is not corporally Present And it is a very considerable Branch of our Argument by which we prove that the Fathers did not believe the corporal Presence because they do very often say That the Wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament Here the same distinction is to be made that was mentioned upon the Article of Baptism The Sacraments are to be considered either as they are Acts of Church-Communion or as they are federal Acts by which we enter into Covenant with God With respect to the Former the visible Profession that is made and the Action that is done are all that can fall under human cognisance So a Sacrament must be held to be good and valid when as to outward appearance all things are done according to the Institution But as to the internal Effect and Benefit of it that turns upon the Truth of the Profession that is made and the sincerity of those Acts which do accompany it For if these are not seriously and sincerely performed God is dishonoured and his Institution is prophaned Our Saviour has expresly said that whosoever eats his Flesh and drinks his Blood has eternal Life From thence we conclude that no Man does truly receive Christ who does not at the same time receive with him both a Right to eternal Life and likewise the beginnings and earnests of it The Sacrament being a federal Act he who dishonours God and prophanes this Institution by receiving it unworthily becomes highly guilty before God and draws down Judgments upon himself And as it is confessed on all hands that the inward and spiritual Effects of the Sacrament depend upon the State and Disposition of him that Communicates so we who own no other Presence but an inward and spiritual one cannot conceive that the Wicked who believe not in Christ do receive him In this Point several of the Fathers have delivered themselves very plainly Origen says Christ is the true Food whosoever eats him shall live for ever of whom no wicked Person can eat Comment in Matth. c. 15. for if it were possible that any who continues Wicked should eat the Word that was made Flesh it had never been written Whoso eats this Bread shall live for ever This comes after a Discourse of the Sacrament which he calls the typical and symbolical Body and so it can only belong to it In another place he says The Good eat the living Bread which came down from Heaven but the Wicked eat dead Bread which is Death Tom. â— Spiâ—il Sacr. d' Achâ—ry Zeno Bishop of Verona who is believed to have lived near Origen's time has these words There is cause to fear that he in whom the Devil dwells does not eat the Flesh of our Lord nor drink his Blood though he seems to communicate with the Faithful since our Lord has said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him St. Ierom says They that are not Holy in Body and Spirit do neither eat the Flesh of Iesus nor drink his Blood In cap. 66. Isaiae of which he said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life Tract
26. in Joan. St. Augustin expresses himself in the very Words that are cited in the Article which he introduces with these words He that does not abide in Christ and in whom Christ does not abide certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood tho he may visibly and carnally press with his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a Matter to his Condemnation And in another Place he says Lib 21. de Civ Dei c. 25. Neither are they speaking of vitious Persons to be said to eat the Body of Christ because they are not his Members to which he adds He that says Whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me and I in him shews what it is not only in a Sacrament but truly to eat the Body of Christ and to drink his Blood He has upon another Occasion those frequently cited Words speaking of the difference between the other Disciples and Iudas in receiving this Sacrament Tract 54. in Joan. These did eat the Bread that was the Lord panem Dominum but he the Bread of the Lord against the Lord panem Domini contra Dominum To all this a great deal might be added to shew that this was the Doctrine of the Greek Church even after Damascene's Opinion concerning the Assumption of the Elements into an Union with the Body of Christ was received among them But more needs not be said concerning this since it will be readily granted that if we are in the Right in the main Point of denying the corporal Presence that this will fall with it ARTICLE XXX Of both Kinds The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to Lay People For both Parts of the Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men alike THere is not any one of all the Controversies that we have with the Church of Rome in which the decision seems more easie and shorter than this The words of the Institution are not only equally express and positive as to both kinds but the diversity with which that part that relates to the Cup is set down seems to be as clear a demonstration for us as can be had in a matter of this kind and looks like a special direction given to warn the Church against any corruption that might arise upon this Head To all such as acknowledg the Immediate Union of the Eternal Word with the Human Nature of Christ and the Inspiration by which the Apostles were conducted it must be of great weight to find a Specialty marked as to the Chalice of the Cup it is said Drink ye all of it whereas of the Bread it is only said Take eat so we cannot think the word all was set down without design It is also said of the Cup and they all drank of it which is not said of the Bread We think it no piece of trifling nicety to observe this Specialty The words added to the giving the Cup are very particularly Emphatical Take eat This is my Body which is given for you is not so full an Expression as Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of Sins If the surest way to judg of the extent of any Precept to which a reason is added is to consider the extent of the Reason and to measure the extent of the Precept by that then since all that do communicate need the remission of Sins and a share in the New Covenant the reason that our Saviour joins to the distribution of the Cup proves that they ought all to receive it And if that Discourse in St. Iohn concerning the eating of Christ's Flesh and the drinking his Blood is to be understood of the Sacrament as most of the Roman Church affirm then the drinking Christ's Blood is as necessary to Eternal Life as the eating his Flesh by consequence it is as necessary to receive the Cup as the Bread And it is not easie to apprehend why it should still be necessary to consecrate in both kinds and not likewise to receive in both kinds It cannot be pretended that since the Apostles were all of the Sacred Order therefore their receiving in both kinds is no Precedent for giving the Laity the Cup for Christ gave them both kinds as they were Sinners who were now to be admitted into Covenant with God by the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood They were in that to shew forth his death and were to Take eat and drink in remembrance of him So that this Institution was delivered to them as they were Sinners and not as they were Priests They were not constituted by Christ the Pastors and Governours of his Church till after his Resurrection when he breathed on them and laid his hands on them Joh. 20.22 and blessed them So that at this time they were only Christ's Disciples and Witnesses who had been once sent out by him on an extraordinary Commission but had yet no stated Character fixed upon them To this it is said that Christ by saying Do this constituted them Priests so that they were no more of the Laity when they received the Cup. This is a new conceit taken up by the Schoolmen unknown to all Antiquity There is no sort of Tradition that supports this Exposition nor is there any reason to imagin that Do this signifies any other than a Precept to continue that Institution as a Memorial of Christ's Death and Do this takes in all that went before the taking the giving as well as the blessing and the eating the Bread nor is there any reason to appropriate this to the Blessing only as if by this the Consecrating and Sacrificing Power were conferred on the Priests From all which we conclude both that the Apostles were only Disciples at large without any special characters conferred on them when the Eucharist was instituted and that the Eucharist was given to them only as Disciples that is as Laymen The mention that is made in some places of the new Testament only of breaking of Bread can furnish them with no Argument for it is not certain that these do relate to the Sacrament or if they did it is not certain that they are to be understood strictly for by a Figure common to the Eastern Nations Bread stands for all that belongs to a Meal and if these places are applied to the Sacrament and ought to be strictly understood they will prove too much that the Sacrament may be consecrated in one kind and that the breaking of Bread without the Cup may be understood to be a compleat Sacrament But when St. Paul spoke of this Sacrament he does so distinctly mention the drinking the Cup as well as eating the Bread that it is plain from him how the Apostles understood the words and intent of Christ and how this Sacrament was received
in that time From the Institution and Command which are express and positive we go next to consider the nature of Sacramental Actions They have no virtue in them as Charms tyed either to Elements or to words they are only good because commanded A different state of things may indeed justifie an alteration as to Circumstances The danger of dipping in cold Climates may be a very good reason for changing the Form of Baptism to Sprinkling and if Climates were inhabited by Christians to which Wine could not be brought we should not doubt but that whensoever God makes a real necessity of departing from any Institution of his he does thereby allow of such a change as that necessity must draw after it So we do not condemn the License that is said to have been granted by Pope Innocent the Eighth to celebrate without Wine in Norway nor should we deny a Man the Sacrament who had a natural and unconquerable aversion to Wine or that Communicated being near his last Agonies and that should have the like aversion to either of the Elements When those things are real and not pretended Mercy is better then Sacrifice The punctual observance of a Sacramental Institution does only oblige us to the essential parts of it and in ordinary Cases The pretence of what may be done or has been done upon extraordinary occasions can never justifie the deliberate and unnecessary alteration of an essential part of the Sacrament The whole Institution shews very plainly that our Saviour meant that the Cup should be considered every whit as essential as Bread and therefore we cannot but conclude from the nature of things that since the Sacraments have only their effects from their Institution therefore so total a change of this Sacrament does plainly evacuate the Institution and by consequence destroy the effect of it All reasoning upon this Head is an arguing against the Institution as if Christ and his Apostles had not well enough considered it but that 1200 years after them a Consequence should be observed that till then had not been thought of which made it reasonable to alter the manner of it The Concomitance is the great thing that is here urged since it is believed that Christ is intirely under each of the Elements and therefore it is not necessary that both should be received because Christ is fully received in any one But this subsists on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation so if that is false then here upon a controverted opinion an uncontroverted piece of the Institution is altered And if Concomitance is a certain consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation then it is a very strong Argument against the Antiquity of that Doctrine that the World was so long without the notion of Concomitance and therefore if Transubstantiation had been sooner received the Concomitance would have been more early observed The Institution of the Sacrament seems to be so laid down as rather to make us consider the Body and Blood as in a state of Separation than of Concomitance the Body being represented apart and the Blood apart and the Body as broken and the Blood as shed Therefore we consider the design of the Sacrament is to represent Christ to us as dead and in his Crucified but not in his Glorified state And if the opinion be true that the Glorified Bodies are of another Texture than that of flesh and Blood which seems to be very plainly asserted by St. Paul in a Discourse intended to describe the nature of the Glorified Bodies then this Theory of Concomitance will fail upon that account But whatsoever may be in that an Institution of Christ's must not be altered or violated upon the account of an Inference that is drawn to conclude it needless He who instituted it knew best what was most fitting and most reasonable and we must choose rather to acquiesce in his Commands than in our own reasonings If next to the Institution and the Theory that arises from the nature of a Sacrament we consider the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages there is not any one point in which the Tradition of the Church is more express and more universal than in this particular for above a thousand years after Christ. All the accounts that we have of the Antient Rituals both in Iustin Martyr Cyril of Ierusalem the Constitutions Apol. 2. Catech. Mist. 4ta Const. Apost l. 2. c. 57. Eccles. Hiera c. 3. and the pretended Areopagite do expresly mention both kinds as given separately in the Sacrament All the Antient Liturgies as well these that go under the Names of the Apostles as those which are ascribed to St. Basil and St. Chrysostom do mention this very expresly all the Offices of the Western Church both Roman and others the Missals of the latter Ages I mean down to the Twelfth Century even the Ordo Romanus believed by some to be a work of the Ninth and by others of the Eleventh Century are express in mentioning the distribution of both kinds All the Fathers without excepting one do speak of it very clearly as the universal practice of their Time They do not so much as give a hint of any difference about it So that from Ignatius down to Thomas Aquinas Aquin. Com. in 6. Johan v. 53. In Summa par 9. quast 80. art 12. there is not any one Writer that differs from the rest in this point and even Aquinas speaks of the taking away the Chalice as the practice only of some Churches other Writers of his time had not heard of any of these Churches for they speak of both kinds as the Universal practice But besides this general concurrence there are some Specialties in this matter in St. Cyprian's time some thought it was not necessary to use Wine in the Sacrament they therefore used Water only and were from thence called Aquarii It seems they found that their Morning Assemblies were smelt out by the Wine used in the Sacrament and Christians might be known by the smell of Wine that was still about them they therefore intended to avoid this and so they had no Wine among them which was a much weightier reason than that of the Wine sticking upon the Beards of the Laity Yet St. Cyprian condemned this very severely Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Cecil in a long Epistle writ upon that occasion He makes this the main Argument and goes over it frequently and that we ought to follow â—hrist and do what he did And he has those memorable words If it be not lawful to loose any one of the least Commands of Christ how much more is it unlawful to break so great and so weighty a one that does so very nearly relate to the Sacrament of our Lord's Passion and of our Redemption or by any Human Institution to change it into that which is quite different from the Divine Institution This is so full that we cannot express our selves more plainly Among the other Profanations of the Manicheans
seldom awakened But what is the proper proportion of Time that can best agree both with mens Bodies and Minds is only known to the great Author of Nature Howsoever from what has been said it appears that this is a very fit matter to be fixed by some sacred and perpetual Law and that from the first Creation because there being then no other method for conveying down Knowledge besides Oral Tradition it seems as highly congruous to that State of Mankind as it is agreeable to the words in Genesis to believe That God should then have appointed one day in seven for commemorating the Creation and for acknowledging the great Creator of all things But though it seems very clear that here a perpetual Law was given the World for the separating the Seventh day yet it was a meer Circumstance and does not at all belong to the standing use of the Law in what end of the Week this day was to be reckoned Whether the first or the last So that even a less Authority than the Apostles and a less occasion than the Resurrection of Christ might have served to have transferred the day There being in this no Breach made on the good and moral design of this Law which is all in it that we ought to reckon sacred and unalterable The degree of the Rest might be also more severely urged under the Mosaical Law than either before it or after it Our Saviour having given plain Intimations of an Abatement of that rigour by this general Rule That the Sabbath was made for man Mark 2.27 and not man for the Sabbath We who are called to a state of freedom are not under such a strictness as the Iews were Still the Law stands for separating a Seventh day from the common Business of Life and applying it to a Religious rest for acknowledging at first the Creator and now by a higher Relation the Redeemer of the World These Four Commandments make the first Table and were generally reckoned as four distinct Commandments till the Roman Church having a mind to make the Second disappear threw it in as an Appendix to the First and then left it quite out in her Catechisms Though it is plain that these Commandments relate to two very different Matters the one being in no sort included in the other Certainly they are much more different than the coveting the Neighbour's Wife is from the coveting any of his other concerns Which are plainly two different Acts of the same Species And the House being set before the Wife in Exodus though it comes after it in Deuteronomy Exod. 20.17 Deut. 5.21 which being a repetition is to be governed by Exodus and not Exodus by it stands for the whole Substance which is afterwards branched out in the particulars and so it is clear that there is no colour for dividing this in two But the first two Commandments relating to things of such a different sort as is the worshipping of more Gods than one and the worshipping the true God in an Image ought still to be reckoned as different And though the reason given from the Jealousy and Justice of God may relate equally to both yet that does not make them otherwise one than as both might be reduced to one common Head of Idolatry so that both were to be equally punished In the Second Table this Order is to be observed There are Four Branches of a man's Property to which every thing that he can call his own may be reduced His Person his Wife and Children his Goods and his Reputation So there is a Negative precept given to secure him in every one of these against Killing committing Adultery Stealing and bearing false Witness To which as the chief acts of their kind are to be reduced all those acts that may belong to those Heads Such as Injuries to a man in his person though not carried on nor designed to kill him every Temptation to uncleanness and all those excesses that lead to it every act of Injustice and every Lye or Defamation To these Four are added two Fences the one Exterior the other Interior The Exterior is the settling the Obedience and Order that ought to be observed in Families according to the Law of Nature And by a parity of Reason if Families are under a Constitution where the Government is made as a common Parent the establishing the Obedience to the Civil Powers or to such Orders of Men who may be made as Parents with Relation to Matters of Religion This is the Foundation of Peace and Justice of the security and happiness of Mankind And therefore it was very proper to begin the Second Table and those Laws that relate to human Society with this without which the World would be like a Forest and Mankind like so many Savages running wildly through it The last Commandment is an inward Fence to the Law It checks Desires and restrains the Thoughts If free Scope should be given to these as they would very often carry men to unlawful Actions for a man is very apt to do that which he desires so they must give great disturbance to those that are haunted or overcome by them And therefore as a mean both to secure the quiet of mens minds and to preserve the World from the ill effects which such desires might naturally have this special Law is given Thou shalt not covet It will not be easy to prove it Moral in the strictest sense yet in a Secondary Order it may be well called Moral The Matter of it being such both with relation to our selves and others that it is a very proper Subject for a perpetual Law to be made about it And yet as St. Paul says Rom. 7.7 he had not known it to be a Sin if it had not been for the Law that forbids it for after all that can be said it will not be easy to prove it to be of its own nature Moral Thus by the help of that distinction of what is Moral in a primary and in a secondary Order the Morality of the Ten Commandments is demonstrated That this Law obliges Christians as well as Iews is evident from the whole Scope of the New Testament Instead of derogating from the Obligation of any part of that Law our Saviour after he had affirmed That he came not to dissolve the Law but to fulfil it and that Heaven and Earth might pass away Matth. 5.17 18. but that one tittle of the Law should not pass away he went through a great many of those Laws and shewed how far he extended the Commentary he put upon them and the Obligations that he laid upon his Disciples beyond what was done by the Iewish Rabbies All the rest of his Gospel and the Writings of his Apostles agree with this in which there is not a Tittle that looks like a slackning of it but a great deal to the contrary A strictness that reaches to idle Words to passionate Thoughts and to
all impure Desires being enjoined as indispensably necessary for without holiness no man can see the Lord. And thus every thing relating to this Article is considered and I hope both explained and proved ARTICLE VIII Of the Three Creeds The Three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of Holy Scripture ALthough no doubt seems to be here made of the Names or Designations given to those Creeds except of that which is ascribed to the Apostles yet none of them are named with any exactness Since the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost and all that follows it is not in the Nicene Creed but was used in the Church as a part of it for so it is in Epiphanius In Anchoreto before the Second General Council at Constantinople and it was confirmed and established in that Council Only the Article of the Holy Ghost's proceeding from the Son was afterwards added first in Spain Anno 447. which spread it self over all the West So that the Creed here called the Nice Creed is indeed the Constantinopolitan Creed together with the Addition of Filioque made by the Western Church That which is called Athanasius's Creed is not his neither â—or as it is not among his Works so that great Article of the Christian Religion having been settled at Nice and he and all the rest of the Orthodox referring themselves always to the Creed made by that Council there is no reason to imagine that he would have made a Creed of his own besides that not only the Macedonian but both the Nestorian and the Eutychian Heresies are expresly condemned by this Creed and yet those Authorities never being urged in those Disputes it is clear from thence that no such Creed was then known in the World as indeed it was never heard of before the Eighth Century and then it was given out as the Creed of Athanasius or as a Representation of his Doctrine and so it grew to be received by the Western Church perhaps the more early because it went under so great a Name in Ages that were not Critical enough to judge of what was genuine and what was spurious There is one great difficulty that arises out of several Expressions in this Câ—â—ed in which it is said That whosover will be saved must believe it That the Belief of it is necessary to Salvation and that such as do not hold it pure and undefiled shall without doubt perish everlastingly Where many Explanations of a Mystery hard to be understood are made indispensably necessary to Salvation and it is affirmed That all such as do not so believe must perish everlastingly To this two Answers are made 1. That it is only the Christian Faith in general that is hereby meant and not every Period and Article of this Creed so that all those severe Expressions are thought to import only the necessity of believing the Christian Religion But this seems forced for the words that follow And the Catholick Faith is do so plainly determine the sâ—gnification of that word to the Explanation that comes after that the word Catholick Faith in the first Verse can be no other than the same word as it is defined in the third and following Verses so that this Answer seems not natural 2. The common Answer in which the most Eminent Men of this Church as far as the Memory of all such as I have known could go up have agreed is this That these Condemnatory Expressions are only to be understood to relate to those who having the Means of Instruction offered to them have rejected them and have stifled their own Convictions holding the Truth in Unrighteousness and chusing darkness rather than light Upon such as do thus reject this great Article of the Christian Doctrine concerning One God and Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and that other concerning the Incarnation of Christ by which God and Man were so united as to make one Person together with the other Doctrines that follow these are those Anathâ—maes denounced Not so as if it were hereby meant that every man who does not believe this in every tittle must certainly perish unless he has been furnished with sufficient means of conviction and that he has rejected them and hardned himself against them The Wrath of God is revealed against all sin and the wages of sin is Death So that every Sinner has the Wrath of God abiding on him and is in a state of Damnation yet a sincere Repentance delivers him out of it even though he lives and dies in some sins of Ignorance which though they may make him liable to damnation so that nothing but true Repentance can deliver him from it yet a general Repentance when it is also special for all known sins does certainly deliver a man from the guilt of unknown sins and from the Wrath of God due to them God only knows our hearts the degrees of our knowledge and the measure of our obstinacy and how far our Ignorance is affected or invincible and therefore he will deal with every man according to what he has received So that we may believe that some Doctrines are necessary to Salvation as well as that there are some Commandments necessary for Practice and we may also believe that some Errors as well as some Sins are exclusive of Salvation all which imports no more than that we believe such things are sufficiently revealed and that they are necessary Conditions of Salvation but by this we do not limit the Mercies of God towards those who are under such darkness as not to be able to see through it and to discern and acknowledge these Truths It were indeed to be wished that some express Declaration to this purpose were made by those who have Authority to do it But in the mean while this being the Sense in which the Words of this Creed are universally taken and it agreeing with the Phraseology of the Scripture upon the like occasions this is that which may be rested upon And allowing this large Explanation of these severe words the rest of this Creed imports no more than the Belief of the Doctrine of the Trinity which has been already proved in treating of the former Articles As for the Creed called the Apostles Creed there is good reason for speaking so doubtfully of it as the Article does since it does not appear that any determinate Creed was made by them None of the first Writers agree in delivering their Faith in a certain Form of Words every one of them gives an Abstract of his Faith in Words that differ both from one another and from this Form From thence it is clear that there was no common Form delivered to all the Churches And if there had been any Tradition after the Times of the Council of Nice of such a Creed composed by the Apostles the Arians
one Wife He adds upon that this is a great Mystery That is from hence another Mystical Argument might be brought to shew that Iew and Gentile must make one Body for since the Church was the Spouse of Christ he must according to that Figure have but one Wife and by consequence the Church must be One Otherwise the Figure will not be answered unless we suppose Christ to be in a State answering a Polygamy rather than a single Marriage Thus a clear Account of these Words is given which does fully agree to them and to what follows But I speak concerning Christ and the Church This which is all the Foundation of making Marriage a Sacrament being thus cleared there remains nothing to be said on this Head but to Examine one Consequence that has been drawn from the making it a Sacrament which is that the Bond is Indissoluble And that even Adultery does not void it The Law of Nature or of Nations seems very clear that Adultery at least on the Wife's part should dissolve it For the end of Marriage being the ascertaining of the Issue and the Contract it self being a mutual transferring the Right to one anothers Person in order to that End the breaking this Contract and destroying the End of Marriage does very naturally infer the Dissolution of the Bond And in this both the Attick and Roman Laws were so severe that a Man was Infamous who did not Divorce upon Adultery Our Saviour when he blamed the Iews for their frequent Divorces Matth. 5.32 Matth. 19.9 Mark 10.11 Luke 16.18 established this Rule that whosoever puts away his Wife except it be for Fornication and shall marry another committeth Adultery Which seems to be a plain and full Determination that in the Case of Fornication he may put her away and Marry another It is True St. Mark and St. Luke repeat these Words without mentioning this Exception so some have thought that we ought to bring St. Matthew to them and not them to St. Matthew But it is an universal Rule of expounding Scriptures that when a Place is fully set down by one inspired Writer and less fully by another that the Place which is less full is always to be expounded by that which is more full So tho' St. Mark and St. Luke report our Saviour's Words generally without the Exception which is twice mentioned by St. Matthew the other two are to be understood to suppose it for a general Proposition is true when it holds generally and Exceptions may be understood to belong to it though they are not named The Evangelist that does name them must be considered to have reported the matter more particularly than the others that do it not Since then our Saviour has made the Exception and since that Exception is founded upon a natural equity that the Innocent Party has against the Guilty there can be no reason why an Exception so justly grounded and so clearly made should not take place Both Tertullian Basil Chrysostom and Epiphanius allow of a Divorce in case of Adultery Tertul. lib. 4. cont Marcion c. 34. Basil. Ep. ad Amphil c. 9. Chrysos hom 17. in Matth. Epiph. haeres 59. Cath. Conc. Elib c. 65. Conc. Arel c. 10. Conc. Affric c. 102. Causa 32. q. 7. In decr Eug. in Conc. Flor. Erasm. in 1. Ep. ad Cor. 7. Cajetan in Matth. 19. c. 9. Cathar in 1. Ep. ad Cor. 7. l. 5. Annot. and in those days they had no other Notion of a Divorce but that it was the Dissolution of the Bond the late Notion of a Separation the Tie continuing not being known till the Canonists brought it in Such a Divorce was allowed by the Council of Elliberis The Council of Arles did indeed recommend it to the Husband whose Wife was guilty of Adultery not to Marry which did plainly acknowledge that he might do it It was and still is the constant practice of the Greek Church and as both Pope Gregory and Pope Zachary allowed the Innocent Person to Marry so in a Synod held at Rome in the Tenth Century it was still allowed When the Greeks were reconciled to the Latins in the Council of Florence this matter was past over and the care of it was only recommended by the Pope to the Emperor It is true Eugenius put it in hisInstruction to the Armenians but tho' that passes generally for a part of the Council of Florence yet the Council was over up before that was given out This Doctrine of the Indissolubleness of Marriage even for Adultery was never settled in any Council before that of Trent The Canonists and Schoolmen had indeed generally gone into that Opinion but not only Erasmus but both Cajetan and Catharinus declared themselves for the Lawfulness of it Cajetan indeed used a Salvo in case the Church had otherwise Defined which did not then appear to him So that this is a Doctrine very lately settled in the Church of Rome Our Reformers here had prepared a Title in the new Body of the Canon Law which they had Digested allowing Marriage to the Innocent Party And upon a great occasion then in Debate they declared it to be Lawful by the Law of God And if the Opinion that Marriage is a Sacrament falls the conceit of the absolute Indissolubleness of Marriage will fall with it The last Sacrament which is rejected by this Article that is the Fifth as they are reckoned up in the Church of Rome is Extreme Vnction In the Commission that Christ gave his Apostles among the other Powers that were given them to confirm it one was to cure diseases and heal the sick pursuant to which St. Mark tells Mark 6.13 that they anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them The Prophets used some Symbolical actions when they wrought Miracles so Moses used his Rod often Elisha used Elijah's Mantle our Saviour put his Finger into the deaf Man's Ear and made Clay for the blind Man and Oil being upon almost all occasions used in the Eastern Parts the Apostles made use of it But no hint is given that this was a Sacramental Action It was plainly a Miraculous Virtue that healed the Sick in which Oil was made use of as a Symbol accompanying it It was not prescribed by our Saviour for any thing that appears as it was not blamed by him neither It was no wonder if upon such a president those who had that extraordinary Gift did apply it with the use of Oil not as if Oil was the Sacramental Conveyance it was only used with it The end of it was Miraculous it was in order to the recovery of the sick and had no relation to their Souls though with the cure wrought on the Body there might sometimes be joined an operation upon the Soul and this appears clearly from St. Iames's words James 5.14 15. Is any sick among you let him call for the elders of the church and let him pray over him anointing him with
oil in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up All hitherto is one Period which is here closed The following words contain new matter quite of a different kind and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him It appears clearly that this was intended for the recovery of the sick Person which is the thing that is positively promised the other concerning the pardon of Sins comes in on the by and seems to be added only as an accessary to the other which is the principal thing designed by this whole matter Therefore since Anointing was in order to healing either we must say that the Gift of healing is still deposited with the Elders of the Church which no body affirms or this Oil was only to be used by those who had that special Gift and therefore if there are none now who pretend to have it and if the Church pretends not to have it lodged with her then the Anointing with Oil cannot be used any more and therefore those who use it not in order to the recovery of the Person delaying it till there is little or no hope left use not that Unction mentioned by St. Iames but another of their own devising which they call the Sacrament of the dying It is a vain thing to say that because saving and raising up are sometimes used in a Spiritual sense that therefore the saving the sick here and that of the Lord 's raising him up are to be so meant For the forgiveness of sin which is the Spiritual Blessing comes afterwards upon supposition that the sick Person had committed sins The saving and raising up must stand in opposition to the sickness so since all acknowledge that the one is Literal the other must be so too The supposition of sin is added because some Persons upon whom this Miracle might have been wrought might be eminently Pious and if at any time it was to be applied to ill Men who had committed some notorious sins perhaps such sins as had brought their sickness upon them these were also to be forgiven In the use of miraculous Powers those to whom that Gift was given were not empowered to use it at pleasure they were to feel an inward Impulse exciting them to it and they were obliged upon that firmly to believe that God who had given them the Impulse would not be wanting to them in the execution of it This confidence in God was the faith of Miracles Matth. 21.21 of which Christ said If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seâ—d ye shall say to this mountain remove hence to yonder place and nothing shall be impossible unto you 1 Cor. 13.2 Of this also St. Paul meant when he said If I have all faith So from this we may gather the meaning of the prayer of faith and the anointing with Oil that if the Elders of the Church or such others with whom this Power was lodged felt an inward Impulse moving them to call upon God in order to a miraculous Cure of a sick Person then they were to anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord That is by the Authority that they had from Christ to heal all manner of Diseases And they were to Pray believing firmly that God would make good that inward motion which he had given them to work this Miracle and in that case the effect was certain the sick Person would certainly recover for that is absolutely promised Every one that was sick was not to be Anointed unless an Authority and Motion from Christ had been secretly given for doing it but every one that was Anointed was certainly healed Christ had promised that whatsoever they should ask in his name â—ohâ— 14 1â— he would do it His Name must be restrained to his Authority or pursuant to such secret Motions as they should receive from him This is the Prayer of Faith here mentioned by St. Iames it being an earnest application to God to join his Omnipotent Power to perform a wonderful Work to which a Person so divinely qualified felt himself inwardly moved by the Spirit of Christ. The supposition of the sick Persons having committed sins which is added shews that sometime this vertue was applied to Persons of that eminent Piety that though all Men are guilty in the sight of God yet they could not be said to have committed sins in the sense in which St. Iohn uses the phrase signifying by it either that they had lived in the habits of sin or that they had committed some notorious sin But if some should happen to be sick who had been eminent Sinners and those sins had drawn down the Judgments of God upon them which seems to be the natural meaning of these words if he have committed sins then with his bodily Health he was to receive a much greater Blessing even the Pardon of his Sins And thus the Anointing mentioned by St. Iames was in order to a miraculous Cure and the Cure did constantly follow it so that it can be no president for an Extreme Unction that is never given till the recovery of the Person is despaired of and by which it is not pretended that any Cure is wrought The Matter of it is Oil Olive Blessed by the Bishop the Form is the applying it to the Five Senses with these words Per hanc Sacram Vnctionem Rituale Rom. Con Trid. Seâ—s 14. suam piissimam Misericordiam Indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid peccasti per visum auditum olfactum gustum tactum The proper word to every Sense being repeated as the Organ of that Sense is Anointed It is Administred by a Priest and gives the final Pardon with all necessary assistances in the last Agony Here is then an Institution that if warranted is matter of great Comfort and if not warranted is matter of as great Presumption Cons. Apost l. 3. c. 16. l. 7. cap. 42 44. Tertul. de bapt c. 10. Cypr. Ep. 70. â—lem Alex. paedag l. 11. c. 8. Dionys. Areop de Eccles. hier c. 7 8. In the first Ages we find mention is made frequently of Persons that were Cured by an Anointing with Oil Oil was then much used in all their Rituals the Catechumens being Anointed with Oil before they were Baptized besides the Chrism that was given after it Oil grew also to be used in Ordinations and the dead were Anointed in order to their Burial So that the ordinary use of Oil on other occasions brought it to be very frequently used in their Sacred Rites yet how customary soever the practice of Anointing grew to be we find no mention of any Unction of the sick before the beginning of the Fifth Century This plainly shews that they understood St. Iames's words as relating to a miraculous Power and not to a Function that was to continue in the Church and to be esteemed a Sacrament That earliest mention of it by Pope Innocent