full and clear proofs of it in the New Testament And they had need be both full and clear before a Doctrine of this Nature can be pretended to be proved by them In order to the making this Mystery to be more distinctly Intelligible different Methods have been taken By one Substance many do understand a Numerical or Individual Unity of Substance and by Three Persons they understand Three distinct Subsistences in that Essence It is not pretended by these that we can give a distinct Idea of Person or Subsistence only they hold it imports a real diversity in one from another and even such a diversity from the Substance of the Deity it self that some things belong to the Person that do not belong to the Substance For the Substance neither begets nor is begotten neither breathes nor proceeds If this carries in it somewhat that is not agreeable to our Notions nor like any thing that we can apprehend to this it is said That if God has Revealed that in the Scripture which is thus expressed we are bound to believe it though we can frame no clear apprehension about it God's Eternity his being all one single Act his Creating and Preserving all things and his being every where are things that are absolute riddles to us We cannot bring our Minds to conceive them and yet we must believe that they are so because we see much greater Absurdities must follow upon our conceiving that they should be otherwise So if God has declared this inexplicable thing concerning himself to us we are bound to believe it though we cannot have any clear Idea how it truly is For there appear as strange and unanswerable difficulties in many other things which yet we know to be true so if we are once well assured that God has Revealed this Doctrine to us we must silence all Objections against it and believe it Reckoning that our not understanding it as it is in it self makes the difficulties seem to be much greater than otherwise they would appear to be if we had light enough about it or were capable of forming a more perfect Idea of it while we are in this depressed State Others give another view of this Matter that is not indeed so hard to be apprehended But that has an Objection against it that seems as great a prejudice against it as the difficulty of apprehending the other way is against that It is this They do hold That there are Three Minds That the first of these Three who is from that called the Father did from all Eternity by an Emanation of Essence beget the Son and by another Emanation that was from Eternity likewise and was as Essential to him as the former both the first and the second did jointly breathe forth the Spirit and that these are Three distinct Minds every one being God as much as the other Only the Father is the Fountain and is only self-originated All this is in a good degree Intelligible but it seems hard to reconcile it both with the Idea of Unity which seems to belong to a Being of Infinite Perfection and with the many express Declarations that are made in the Scriptures concerning the Unity of God Instead of going farther into Explanations of that which is certainly very far beyond all our apprehensions and that ought therefore to be let alone I shall now consider what Declarations are made in the Scriptures concerning this Point The First and the Chief is in that Charge and Commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles to go and make Disciples to him among all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Mat. 28.19 By Name is meant either an Authority derived to them in the virtue of which all Nations were to be Baptized Or that the Persons so Baptized are Dedicated to the Father Son and Holy Ghost Either of these Senses as it proves them all to be Persons so it sets them in an equality in a thing that can only belong to the Divine Nature Baptism is the receiving Men from a State of Sin and Wrath into a State of Favour and into the Rights of the Sons of God and the Hopes of Eternal Happiness and a calling them by the Name of God These are things that can only be offered and assured to Men in the Name of the Great and Eternal God and therefore since without any Distinction or Note of Inequality they are all Three set together as Persons in whose Name this is to be done they must be all Three the True God otherwise it looks like a just Prejudice against our Saviour and his whole Gospel That by his express Direction the first entrance to it which gives the Visible and Foederal Right to those great Blessings that are offered by it or their Initiation into it should be in the Name of Two Created Beings if the one can be called properly so much as a Being according to their Hypothesis and that even in an equality with the Supream and Increated Being The plainness of this Charge and the great occasion upon which it was given makes this an Argument of such Force and Evidence that it may justly determine the whole Matter A Second Argument is taken from this That we find St. Paul begins or ends most of his Epistles with a Salutation in the Form of a Wish Rom. 1.7 Rom. 16.20 24. 1 Cor. 16.23 1 Cor. 1.3 2 Cor. 1.3 Gal. 1.3 Gal 6.18 Eph. 1.2 Eph. 6.23 Phil. 1.2 Phil. 4.23 Col. 1.2 1 Thes. 1.1 1 Thes 5.28 2 Thes. 1.2 2 Thes. 3 18. 1 Tim. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.2 Tit. 1.4 Philem. 3.25 2 John 1.3 which is indeed a Prayer or a Benediction in the Name of those who are so Invocated in which he wishes the Churches Grace Mercy and Peace from God the Father and the Lord Iesus Christ which is an Invocation of Christ in conjunction with the Father for the greatest Blessings of Favour and Mercy That is a strange Strain if he was only a Creature which yet is delivered without any mitigation or softning in the most remarkable parts of his Epistles This is carried further in the Conclusion of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians The Grace of the Lord Iesus Christ the Love of God 2 Cor. 13.14 and the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you It is true this is expressed as a Wiâ—h and not in the nature of a Prayer as the common Salutations are But here Three great Blessings are wished to them as from Three Fountains which imports that they are Three different Persons and yet equal For though in order the Father is first and is generally put first yet here Christ is first named which seems to be a strange reversing of things if they are not equal as to their Essence or Substance It is true the Second is not named here The Father as elsewhere but only God yet since he is mentioned as distinct from Christ and the
with that we do also perceive the advantage of such an easy Thought as arises out of a Sensation such as Seeing or Hearing which gives us no trouble we think without any trouble of many of the Objects that we see all at once or so near all at once that the progression from one Object to another is scarce perceptible but the labour of Study and of pursuing Consequences wearies us though the Pleasure or the Vanity of having found them out compensates for the Pain they gave us and sets men on to new Enquiries We perceive in our selves a love of Truth and a vexation when we see we are in Error or are in the dark and we feel that we act the most perfectly when we act upon the clearest Views of Truth and in the strictest pursuance of it and the more present and regular the more calm and steady that our Thoughts of all things are that lye in our compass to know present past or to come we do plainly perceive that we do thereby become perfecter and happier Beings Now out of all this we can easily rise up in our Thoughts to an Idea of a Mind that sees all things by a clear and full Intuition without the possibility of being mistaken and that ever acts in that Light upon the surest Prospect and with the perfectest Reason and that does therefore always rejoice in every thing it does and has a constant Perception of all Truth ever present to it This Idea does so genuinely arise from what we perceive both of the Perfections and the Imperfections of our own Minds that a very little Reflection will help us to form it to a very high degree The Perception also that we have of Goodness of a desire to make others good and of the pleasure of effecting it of the joy of making any one wiser or better of making any one's Life easy and of raising his Mind higher will also help us in the forming of our Ideas of God But in this we meet with much difficulty and disappointment So this leads us to apprehend how diffusive of it self Infinite Goodness must needs be and what is the Eternal Joy that Infinite Love has in bringing so many to that exalted state of endless Happiness We do also feel a Power issuing from us by a Thought that sets our Bodies in motion The Varieties in our Thoughts create a vast Variety in the state of our Bodies but with this as that Power is limited to our own Bodies so it is often check'd by Disorders in them and the Soul suffers a great deal from those painful Sensations that its Union with the Body subjects it to From hence we can easily apprehend how the Supreme Mind can by a Thought set Matter into what Motions it will all Matter being constantly subject to such Impressions as the Acts of the Divine Mind give it This Absolute Dominion over all Matter makes it to move and shapes it according to the Acts of that Mind and Matter has no Power by any Irregularity it falls into to resist those Impressions which do immediately command and govern it nor can it throw any uneasy Sensations into that Perfect Being This conduces also to give us a distinct Idea of Miracles All Matter is uniform and it is only the variety of its Motions and Texture that makes all the variety that is in the World Now as the Acts of the Eternal Mind gave Matter its first Motion and put it into that Course that we do now call the Course of Nature so another Act of the same Mind can either suspend stop or change that Course at pleasure as he who throws a Bowl may stop it in its Course or throw it back if he will this being only the altering that Impulse which himself gave So if one Act of the Infinite Mind puts things in a regular Course another Act interposed may change that at pleasure And thus with Relation to God Miracles are no more difficult than any other Act of Providence They are only more amazing to us because they are less ordinary and go out of the Common and Regular Course of Things By all this it appears how far the Observation of what we perceive concerning our selves may carry us to form livelier and clearer Thoughts of God So much may suffice upon the First Article ARTICLE II. Of the Word or Son of God which was made very Man The Son which is the Word of the Father begotten from Everlasting of the Father the very and Eternal God of One Substance with the Father took Man's Nature in the Womb of the Blessed Uirgin of her Substance so that two whole and perfect Natures that is the Godhead and Manhood were joined together in one Person never to be divided whereof is one Christ very God and very Man who truly suffered was dead and buried to reconcile his Father to us and to be a Sacrifice not only for Original guilt but also for actual Sins of Men. THERE are in this Article Five Heads to be Explained I. That the Son or Word is of the same Substance with the Father begotten of him from all Eternity II. That he took Man's Nature upon him in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin and of her Substance III. That the Two Natures of the Godhead and Manhood both still perfect were in him joined in one Person never to be divided IV. That Christ truly suffered was Crucified Dead and Buried V. That he was our Sacrifice to Reconcile the Father to us and that not only for Original Guilt but for Actual Sins The first of these leads me to prosecute what was begun in the former Article And to prove That the Son or Word was from all Eternity begotten of the same Substance with the Father It is here to be noted That Christ is in Two respects the Son and the only begotten Son of God The one is As he was Man the Miraculous overshadowing of the B. Virgin by the H. Ghost having without the ordinary course of Nature formed the first beginnings of Christ's Human Body in the Womb of the Virgin Thus that Miracle being instead of a Natural begetting he may in that respect be called the begotten and the only begotten Son of God The other sense is That the Word or the Divine Person was in and of the Substance of the Father and so was truly God It is also to be considered That by the Word one Substance is to be understood that this second Person is not a Creature of a Pure and Excellent Nature like God Holy and Perfect as we are called to be but is truly God as the Father is Begetting is a term that naturally signifies the Relation between the Father and the Son But what it strictly signifies here is not possible for us to understand till we comprehend this whole Matter nor can we be able to assign a Reason why the Emanation of the Son and not that of the H. Ghost likewise is called begetting In
much from the Blessed Virgin on the one hand as she had been over-exalted on the other So they said that Christ had only gone through her But this Impiety sunk so soon that it is needless to say any thing more to refute it The Third Branch of the Article is That these two Natures were joined in one Person never to be divided What a Person is that results from a close Conjunction of Two Natures we can only judge of it by considering Man in whom there is a Material and a Spiritual Nature joined together They are Two Natures as different as any we can apprehend among all created Beings yet these make but One Man The Matter of which the Body is composed does not subsist by it self is not under all those Laws of Motion to which it would be subject if it were mere inanimated Matter but by the Indwelling and Actuation of the Soul it has another Spring within it and has another Course of Operations According to this then to subsist by another is when a Being is acting according to its Natural Properties but yet in a constant dependance upon another Being so our Bodies subsist by the Subsistence of our Souls This may help us to apprehend how that as the Body is still a Body and operates as a Body though it subsists by the Indwelling and Actuation of the Soul so in the Person of Jesus Christ the Human Nature was entire and still acted according to its own Character yet there was such an Union and Inhabitation of the Eternal Word in it that there did arise out of that a Communication of Names and Characters as we find in the Scriptures A man is called Tall Fair and Healthy from the state of his Body and Learned Wise and Good from the qualities of his Mind So Christ is called holy harmless and undefiled is said to have died risen and ascended up into Heaven with relation to his Human Nature He is also said to be in the form of God to have created all things Phil. 2.6 Col. 1.16 to be the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person with relation to his Divine Nature The Ideas that we have of what is Material and what is Spiritual Heb. 1.3 lead us to distinguish in a Man those descriptions that belong to his Body from those that belong to his Mind so the different apprehensions that we have of what is created and uncreated must be our Thread to guide us into the Resolution of those various Expressions that occur in the Scriptures concerning Christ. The design of the Definition that was made by the Church concerning Christ's having one Person was chiefly to distinguish the nature of the Indwelling of the Godhead in him from all Prophetical Inspirations The Mosaical degree of Prophecy was in many respects superior to that of all the subsequent Prophets Yet the difference is stated between Christ and Moses in terms that import things quite of another nature the one being mentioned as a Servant the other as the Son that built the House It is not said that God appeared to Christ or that he spoke to him but God was ever with him and in him Joh. 1.14 and while the Word was made flesh yet still his glory was as the glory of the only begotten Son of God The Glory that Isaiah saw was called his Glory and on the other hand God is said to have purchased his Church with his own Blood If Nestorius in opposing this meant only as some think it appears by many Citations out of him that the Blessed Virgin was not to be called simply the Mother of God but the Mother of him that was God and if that of making Two Persons in Christ was only fasten'd on him as a Consequence we are not at all concerned in the Matter of Fact whether Nestorius was misunderstood and hardly used or not but the Doctrine here asserted is plain in the Scriptures That though the Human Nature in Christ acted still according to its proper Character and had a peculiar Will yet there was such a constant Presence Indwelling and Actuation on it from the Eternal Word as did constitute both Human and Divine Nature one Person As these are thus so entirely united so they are never to be separated Christ is now exalted to the highest degrees of Glory and Honour and the Characters of Blessing Honour and Glory are represented in St. Iohn's Visions as offered to the Lamb for ever and ever It is true St. Paul speaks as if Christ's Mediatory Office and Kingdom were to cease after the Day of Judgment Rev. 5.13 and that then he was to deliver up all to the Father But though when the full number of the Elect shall be gathered the full End of his Death will be attained and when these Saints shall be glorified with him and by him his Office as Mediator will naturally come to an end yet his own Personal Glory shall never cease And if every Saint shall inherit an everlasting Kingdom much more shall he who has merited all that to them and has conferred it on them be for ever possessed of his Glory The Fourth Branch of the Article is concerning the Truth of Christ's Crucifixion his Death and Burial The Matter of Fact concerning the Death of Christ is denied by no Christian the Iews do all acknowledge it the first Enemies to Christianity did all believe this and reproached his Followers with it This was that which all Christians gloried in and avowed so that no question was made of his Death except by a small number called Docetae who were not esteemed Christians till Mahomet denied it in his Alcoran who pretends that he was withdrawn and that a Iew was crucified in his stead But this corruption of the History of the Gospel came too late afterwards to have any shadow of credit due to it nor was there any sort of Proof offered to support it So this Doctrine concerning the Death of Christ is to be received as an unquestionable Truth There is no part of the Gospel writ with so copious a Particularity as the History of his Sufferings and Death as there was indeed no part of the Gospel so important as this is The Fifth Branch of the Article is That he was a true Sacrifice to reconcile the Father to us and that not only for Original but for Actual Sins The Notion of an Expiatory Sacrifice which was then when the New Testament was writ well understood all the World over both by Iew and Gentile was this That the Sin of one Person was transferred on a Man or a Beast who was upon that devoted and offered up to God and suffered in the room of the offending Person and by this Oblation the Punishment of the Sin being laid on the Sacrifice an Expiation was made for Sin and the Sinner was believed to be reconciled to God This as appears through the whole Book of Leviticus was
For so great and so important a Matter as this is must be supposed to be either expresly declared in the Scriptures or not at all The Article affirming That some General Councils have erred must be understood of Councils that pass for such and that may be called General Councils much better than many others that go by that Name For that at Arimini was both very Numerous and was drawn out of many different Provinces As to the strict Notion of a General Council there is great Reason to believe that there was never any Assembly to which it will be found to agree And for the Four General Councils which this Church declares she receives they are received only because we are persuaded from the Scriptures that their Decisions were made according to them That the Son is truly God of the same Substance with the Father That the Holy Ghost is also truly God That the Divine Nature was truly united to the Human in Christ and that in One Person That both Natures remain distinct and that the Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine These Truths we find in the Scriptures and therefore we believe them We reverence those Councils for the sake of their Doctrine but do not believe the Doctrine for the Authority of the Councils There appeared too much of Human Frailty in some of their other Proceedings to give us such an Implicite Submission to them as to believe things only because they so Decided them ARTICLE XXII Of Purgatory The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God THERE are two small Variations in this Article from that published in King Edward's Reign What is here called the Romish Doctrine is there called the Doctrine of School-men The plain reason of this is that these Errors were not so fully espoused by the Body of the Roman Church when those Articles were first published so that some Writers that softened matters threw them upon the School-men and therefore the Article was cautiously worded in laying them there But before these that we have now were published the Decree and Canons concerning the Mass had passed at Trent in which most of the Heads of this Article are either affirmed or supposed though the formal Decree concerning them was made some Months after these Articles were published This will serve to justifie that diversity The second difference is only the leaving out a severe word Perniciously repugnant to the Word of God was put at first but perniciously being considered to be only a hard word they judged very right in the Second Edition of them that it was enough to say repugnant to the Word of God There are in this Article five Particulars that are all Ingredients in the Doctrine and Worship of the Church of Rome Purgatory Pardons the Worship of Images and of Relicks and the Invocation of Saints that are rejected not only as ill grounded brought in and maintained without good warrants from the Scripture but as contrary to it The first of these is Purgatory concerning which the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is that every Man is liable both to Temporal and to Eternal Punishment for his Sins that God upon the Account of the Death and Intercession of Christ does indeed pardon Sin as to its Eternal Punishment but the Sinner is still liable to Temporal Punishment which he must expiate by Acts of Pennance and Sorrow in this World together with such other Sufferings as God shall think fit to lay upon him but if he does not expiate these in this Life there is a State of Suffering and Misery in the next World where the Soul is to bear the Temporal punishment of its Sins which may continue longer or shorter till the Day of Judgment And in order to the shortening this the Prayers and Supererogations of Men here on Earth or the Intercession of the Saints in Heaven but above all things the Sacrifice of the Mass are of great Efficacy This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome asserted in the Councils of Florence and Trent What has been taught among them concerning the Nature and the Degrees of those Torments though supported by many pretended Apparitions and Revelations is not to be imputed to the whole Body and is indeed only the Doctrine of Schoolmen though it is generally preached and infused into the Consciences of the People Therefore I shall only examine that which is the established Doctrine of the whole Roman Church And first as to the Foundation of it that Sins are only pardoned as to their Eternal Punishment to those who being justified by faith have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. Rom. 5.1 There is not a colour for it in the Scriptures Remission of Sins is in general that with which the Preaching of the Gospel ought always to begin and this is so often repeated without any such reserve that it is a high assuming upon God and his Attributes of Goodness and Mercy to limit these when he has not limited them but has expresly said that this is a main part of the New Covenant Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12 that he will remember our sins and iniquities no more Now it seems to be a Maxim not only of the Law of Nations but of Nature that all offers of Pardon are to be understood in the full extent of the Words without any secret Reserves or Limitations unless they are plainly expressed An Indemnity being offered by a Prince to persuade his Subjects to return to their Obedience in the fullest Words possible without any reserves made in it it would be lookt on as a very perfidious thing if when the Subjects come in upon it trusting to it they should be told that they were to be secured by it against Capital Punishments but that as to all Inferior Punishments they were still at Mercy We do not dispute whether God if he had thought fit so to do might not have made this distinction nor do we deny that the Grace of the Gospel had been infinitely valuable if it had offered us only the Pardon of Sin with relation to its Eternal Punishment and had left the Temporal Punishment on us to be expiated by our selves but then we say this ought to have been expressed The Distinction ought to have been made between Temporal and Eternal and we ought not to have been drawn into a Covenant with God by words that do plainly import an intire Pardon and Oblivion upon which there lay a limited Sense that was not to be told the World till it was once well engaged in the Christian Religion Upon these Reasons it is that we conclude that this Doctrine not being contained in the Scriptures is not only without any warrant in them but that it is contrary to those full offers of
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
so clear aâ—d so inseparable a Relation to the only True God as its proper Object that it is scarce possible to apprehend how it should be separated from him and given to any other And as this seems evident from the Nature of things so it is not possible to imagine how any thing could have been prohibited in more express and positive and in more frequently-repeated Words and longer Reasonings than the offering of Divine Worship or any part of it to Creatures The chief design of the Mosaical Religion was to banish all Idolatry and Polytheism out of the Minds of the Iews and to possess them with the Idea of One God and of One Object of Worship The Reasons upon which those Prohibitions are founded are universal which are The Unity of God's Essence and his Jealousy in not giving his Honour to another It is not said that they should not worship any as God till they had a Precept or Declaration for it There is no Reserve for any such time but they are plainly forbid to worship any but the Great God Matth. 4.10 because he was One and was Jealous of his Glory The New Testament is writ in the same Strain Christ when tempted of the Devil answered Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God Acts 14.15 Acts 17.29 1 Thes. 1.9 Rev. 19 1â— and him only shalt thou serve The Apostles charged all Idolaters to forsake those Idols and to serve the living God The Angel refused St. Iohn's Worship commanding him to worship God The Christian Faith does in every particular raise the Ideas of God and of Religion to a much grâ—ater Purity and Sublimity than the Mosaical Dispensation had done so it is not to be imagined that in the chief Design of Revealed Religion which was the bringing men from Idolatry to the Worship of One God it should make such a Breach and extend it to a Creature All this seems fully to prove the first Proposition of this Argument That God is the only proper Object of Adoration The next is That Christ is proposed in the New Testament as the Object of Divine Worship I do not in proof of this urge the Instances of those who fell down at Christ's Feet and worshipped him while he was on Earth for it may be well answered to that That a Prophet was worshipped with the civil Respect of falling down before him among the Iews as appears in the History of Elijah and Elisha nor does it appear that those who worshipped Chrisâ— had any apprehension of his being God they only considered him as the Messias or as some eminent Prophet But the mention that St. Luke makes in his Gospel Luke 24.52 of the Disciples worshipping Christ at his Ascension comes more home to this matter All those Salutations in the beginning and conclusion of the Epistles in which Grace Mercy and Peace are wished from God the Father and the Lord Iesus Christ are implied Invocations of him It is also plain that it was to him that St. Paul prayed when he was under the Temptations of the Devil as they are commonly understood 2 Cor. 12.8 9 Phil. 2 10. Heb. 1.5 Rev. 5.8 to the end Every knee must bow to him The Anâ—els of God worship him All the hosts in heaven are represented in St. Iohn's Visions as falling down prostrate before him and worshipping him as they worship the Father He is proposed as the Object of our Faith Hope and Love as the Person whom we are to obey to pray to and to praise so that every Act of Worship both External and Internal is directed to him as to its proper Object But the Instance of all others that is the clearest in this Point is in the last Words of St. Stephen who was the first Martyr and whose Martyrdom is so particularly related by St. Luke He then in his last Minutes saw Christ at the right hand of God and in his last Breath he worshipped him in two short Prayers that are upon the matter the same with those in which our Blessed Saviour worshipped his Father on the Cross Lord Iesus receive my spirit Lord lay not this sin to their charge Acts 7.59.60 From this it seems very evident that if Christ was not the True God and Equal to the Father then this Protomartyr died in two Acts that seem not only Idolatrous but also Blasphemous since he worshipped Christ in the same Acts in which Christ had worshipped his Father It is certain from all this deduction of Particulars That his Human Nature cannot be worshipped therefore there must be another Nature in him to which Divine Worship is due and on the account of which he is to be worshipped It is plain that when this Religion was first published together with these Duties in it as a part of it the Iews though implacably set against it yet never accused it of Idolatry though that Charge of all others had served their purposes the best who intended to blacken and blast it Nothing would have been so well heard and so easily apprehended as a just Prejudice against it as this The Argument would have appeared as strong as it was plain And as the Iews could not be ignorant of the Acts of the Christian Worship when so many fell back to them from it who were offended at other parts of it so they had the Books in which it was contained in their hands Notwithstanding all which we have all possible reason to believe that this Objection against it was never made by any of them in the First Age of Christianity Upon all which I say it is not to be imagined that they could have been silent on this head if a mere Man had been thus proposed among the Christians as the Object of Divine Worship The Silence of the Apostles in not mentioning nor answering this is such a Proof of the Silence of the Iews that it would indeed disparage all their Writings if we could think that while they mentioned and answered the other Prejudices of the Iews which in comparison to this are small and inconsiderable matters they should have passed over this which must have been the greatest and the plausiblest of them all if it was one at all Therefore as the Silence of the Apostles is a clear Proof that the Iews were silent also and did not object this and since their silence could neither flow from their Ignorance nor their undervaluing of this Religion it seems to be certain that the first opening of the Christian Doctrine did not carry any thing in it that could be called the Worshiping of a Creature It follows from hence that the Iews must have understood this part of our Religion in such a manner as agreed with their former Ideas So we must examine these They had this settled among them That God dwelt in the Cloud of Glory and that by virtue of that Inhabitation Divine Worship was paid to God as dwelling in the Cloud that it was
many were made sinners As these words are positive and of great importance in themselves so all this is much the stronger by the opposition in which every one of them is put to the Effects and Benefits of Christ's Death particularly to our Justification through him in which there is an Imputation of the Merits and Effects of his Death that are thereby transferred to us so that that the whole Effect of this Discourse is taken away if the Imputation of Adam's Sin is denied And this Explication does certainly quadrate more entirely to the words of the Article as it is known that this was the Tenet of those who prepared the Articles it having been the generally-received Opinion from S. Austin's days downward But to many other Divines this seems a harsh and unconceivable Opinion it seems repugnant to the Justice and Goodness of God to reckon Men guily of a Sin which they never committed and to punish them in their Souls Eternally for that which was no Act of theirs And though we easily enough conceive how God in the Riches of his Grace may transfer Merit and Blessings from one Person to many this being only an Oeconomy of Mercy where all is free and such a method is taken as may best declare the Goodness of God But in the Imputation of Sin and Guilt which are Matters of strict Justice it is quite otherwise Upon that Head God is pleased often to Appeal to Men of the Justice of all his ways And therefore no such Doctrine ought to be admitted that carries in it an Idea of Cruelty Jer. 31.29 Ezek. 18.20 beyond what the blackest Tyrants have ever invented Besides that in the Scripture such a method as the punishing Children for their Fathers Sins is often disclaimed and it is positively affirmed that every man that sins is punished Now though in Articles relating to the Nature of God they acknowledge it is highly reasonable to believe That there may be Mysteries which exceed our Capacity yet in Moral Matters in God's foederal dealings with us it seems unreasonable and contrary to the Nature of God to believe that there may be a Mystery contrary to the clearest Notions of Justice and Goodness such as the condemning Mankind for the Sin of one Man in which the rest had no share and as contrary to our Ideas of God and upon that to set up another Mystery that shall take away the Truth and Fidelity of the promises of God Justice and Goodness being as inseparable from his Nature as Truth and Fidelity can be supposed to be This seems to expose the Christian Religion to the Scoffs of its Enemies and to Objections that are much sooner made than answered And since the foundation of this is a supposed Covenant with Adam as the Representative Head of Mankind it is strange that a thing of that great consequence should not have been more plainly Reported in the History of the Creation But that men should be put to fetch out the knowledge of so great and so extraordinary a thing only by some remote Consequences It is no small prejudice against this Opinion That it was so long before it first appeared in the Latin Church that it was never received in the Greek and that even the Western Church though perhaps for some Ignorant Ages it received it as it did every thing else very implicity yet has been very much divided both about this and many other Opinions related to it or a rising out of it As for those words of St. Paul's that are its chief if not its only Foundation they say many things upon them First it is a single Proof Now when we have not a variety of places proving any point in which one gives Light and leads us to a sure Exposition of another we cannot be so sure of the meaning of any one place as to raise a Theory or found a Doctrine upon it They say further That S. Paul seems to argue from that Opinion of our having sinned in Adam to prove that we are justified by Christ. Now it is a piece of Natural Logick not to prove a thing by another unless that other is more clear of it self or at least more clear by its being already received and believed This cannot be said to be more clear of it self for it is certainly less credible or conceivable than the Reconciliation by Christ. Nor was this clear from any special Revelation made of it in the Old Testament Therefore there is good reason to believe that it was then a Doctrine received among the Iews as there are odd things of this kind to be found among the Cabbalists as if all the Souls of all Mankind had been in Adam's Body Now when an Argument is brought in Scripture to prove another thing by though we are bound to acknowledge the Conclusion yet we are not always sure of the Premises for they are often founded upon received Opinions So that it is not certain that S. Paul meant to offer this Doctrine to our belief as true but only that he intended by it to prove our being reconciled to God through the Death of Christ and the Medium by which he proved it might be for ought that appears from the words themselves only an Opinion held true among those to whom he writes For he only supposes it but says nothing to prove it Which it might be expected he would have done if the Iews had made any doubt of it But further they say that when Comparisons or Oppositions such as this are made in Scripture we are not always to carry them on to an exact Equality We are required not only to be holy as God is holy but to be perfect as he is perfect 1 Pet. 1.15 16. Mat. 5.48 Where by the as is not to be meant a true Equality but some sort Resemblance and Conformity Therefore those who believe that there is nothing imputed to Adam's Posterity on the account of his Sin but this Temporary punishment of their being made liable to Death and to all those Miseries that the fear of it with our other concerns about it bring us under say that this is enough to justify the comparison that is there stated And that those who will carry it on to be an exact parallel make a stretch beyond the Phraseology of the Scripture and the use of Parables and of the many comparisons that go only to one or more points but ought not to be stretched to every thing These are the things that other great Divines among us have opposed to this Opinion As to its Consonancy to the Article those who oppose it do not deny but that it comes up fully to the highest sense that the words of the Article can Import Nor do they doubt but that those who prepared the Articles being of that Opinion themselves might perhaps have had that sense of the words in their Thoughts But they add That we are only bound to sign the Articles in a
went about always doing good and was as a lamb without spot is so oft affirmed in the New Testament 1 Pet. 1.19 that it can admit of no Debate This was not only true in his Rational Powers the superior part called the Spirit in opposition to the lower part but also in those Appetites and Affections that arise from our Bodies and from the Union of our Souls to them called the Flesh. For tho' in these Christ having the Human Nature truly in him had the Appetites of Hunger in him yet the Devil could not tempt him by that to distrust God or to desire a miraculous supply sooner than was fitting He overcame even that necessary Appetite whensoever there was an occasion given him to do the will of his heavenly Father Joh. 4.34 He had also in him the aversions to pain and suffering and the horror at a violent and ignominious Death which was planted in our Natures and in this it was natural to him to wish and to pray that the Cup might pass from him But in this his Purity appeared the most eminently That tho' he felt the weight of his Nature to a vast degree he did notwithstanding that limit and conquer it so entirely that he resigned himself absolutely to his Father's Will Not my will but thy will be done Besides all that has been already said upon the former Articles to prove that some taint and degree of the Original Corruption remains in all Men the peculiar Character of Christ's Holiness so oft repeated looks plainly to be a distinction proper to him and to him only We are called upon to follow him to learn of him and to imitate him without restriction whereas we are required to follow the Apostles only as they were the followers of Christ 1 Cor. 11.1 1 Pet. 1.15 Mat. 5.48 And though we are commanded to be holy as he was holy in all manner of conversation that does no more prove that any man can arrive at that pitch than our being commanded to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect will prove that we may become perfect as God is The Importance of these words being only this That we ought in all things to make God and Christ our patterns and that we ought to endeavour to imitate and resemble them all we can There seems to be a particular design in the Contexture and Writing of the Scriptures to represent to us some of the Failings of the best Men For though Zacharias and Elizabeth are said to have been blameless that must only be meant of the Exterior and Visible part of their Conversation that it was free from blame Luk. 1.6 and of their being accepted of God but that is not to be carried to import a sinless Purity before God For we find the same Zachary guilty of misbelieving the Message of the Angel to him to such a degree Ver. 20. that he was punished for it with a Dumbness of above Nine Months continuance Perhaps the Virgin 's Question to the Angel had nothing blame-worthy in it Luk. 2.49 Joh. 2.4 but our Saviour's Answers to her both when she came to him in the Temple when he was Twelve Years old and more particularly when she moved him at the Marriage in Cana to furnish them with Wine look like a Reprimand The Contentions among the Apostles about the Preheminence and in particular the Ambition of Iames and Iohn cannot be excused St. Peter's Dissimulation at Antioch in the Judaizing Controversy Matth. 20.20 24. Gal. 2.11 12 13 14. Act. 15.39 and the sharp Contention that happened between Paul and Barnabas are recorded in Scripture and they are both Characters of the Sincerity of those who Penned them and likewise Marks of the Frailties of Human Nature even in its greatest Elevation and with its highest Advantages So that all the high Characters that are given of the best Men are to be understood either comparatively to others whom they exceeded or with relation to their outward Actions and the visible parts of their Life Or they are to be meant of their Zeal and Sincerity which is valued and accepted of God and as it was to Abraham is imputed to them for Righteousness Yet this is not to be abused by any to be an encouragement to live in Sin for we may carry this Purity and Perfection certainly very far by the Grace of God In every Sin that we commit we do plainly perceive that we do it with so much freedom that we might not have done it here is still just Matter for Humiliation and Repentance By this Doctrine our Church intends only to repress the Pride of vain-glorious and hypocritical Men and to strike at the Root of that filthy Merchandise that has been brought into the House of God under the pretence of the Perfection and even the over-doing or supererogating of the Saints ARTICLE XVI Of Sin after Baptism Note very deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is the sin against the Holy Ghost and unpardonable Wherefore the grant of Repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our Lives And therefore they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin as long as they live here or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent THis Article as it relates to the Sect of the Novatians of old so it is probable it was made a part of our Doctrine upon the Account of some of the Enthusiasts who at that time as well as some do in our Days might boast their Perfection and join with that part of the Character of a Pharisee this other of an unreasonable rigour of Censure and Punishment against Offenders By deadly Sin in the Article we are not to understand such Sins as in the Church of Rome are called mortal in opposition to others that are venial As if some Sins though Offences against God and Violations of his Law could be of their own nature such slight things that they deserved only Temporal Punishment and were to be expiated by some piece of Pennance or Devotion or the Communication of the Merits of others The Scripture no where teaches us to think so slightly of the Majesty of God or of his Law There is a curse upon every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 And the same Curse must have been on us all if Christ had not redeemed us from it The wages of Sin is death And St. Iames asserts that there is such a Complication of all the Precepts of the Law of God both with one another and with the Authority of the Lawgiver that he who offends in one point Jam. 2.10 11. is guilty of all So since God has in his Word given
Conceit brought in a Superstitious Error in Practice among the Ancient Christians of delaying Baptism till Death as hoping that all Sins were then certainly pardoned A much more dangerous Error than even the Fatal One of trusting to a Death-bed Repentance For Baptism might have been more easily compassed and there was more offered in the way of Argument for building upon it than has been offered at for a Death-bed Repentance St. Peter's Denial his Repentance and his being restored to his Apostolical Dignity seem to be Recorded partly on this account to encourage us even after the most heinous Offences to return to God and never to reckon our Condition desperate were our Sins ever so many but as we find our Hearts hardened in them into an obstinate Impenitency Our Saviour has made our pardoning the offences that others commit against us the measure upon which we may expect pardon from God and he being asked What limits he set to the number of the faults that we were bound to pardon by the Day if Seven was not enough he carried it up to seventy times seven a vast number far beyond the number of offences that any Man will in all probability commit against another in a Day But if they should grow up to all that vast number of 490 yet if our Brother still turns again and repents Luk. 17.4 we are still bound to forgive Now since this is joined with what he declared that if we pardoned our Brother his offences our heavenly Father would also forgive us Matt. 18.35 then we may depend upon this That according to the sincerity of our Repentance our sins are always forgiven us And if this is the Nature of the New Covenant then the Church which is a Society formed upon it must proportion the Rules both of her Communion and Censure to those set in the Gospel A heinous Sin must give us a deeper sorrow and higer degrees of Repentance Scandals must also be taken off and forgiven when the offending Persons have repaired the offence that was given by them with suitable degrees of sorrow St. Paul in the beginnings of Christianity in which it being yet tender and not well known to the World was more apt to be both blemished and corrupted did yet order the Corinthians to receive back into their Communion the Incestuous Person 1 Cor. 5.5 whom by his own Directions they had delivered to Satan they had excommunicated him 2 Cor. 2.7 and by way of reverse to the Gifts of the Holy Ghost poured out upon all Christians he was possessed or haunted with an evil Spirit And yet as St. Paul declares that he forgave him so he orders them to forgive him likewise and he gives a reason for this Conduct from the common principles of pity and humanity lest he should be swallowed up by overmuch sorrow What is in that place mentioned only in a particular instance is extended to a general rule in the Epistle to the Galatians If any one is overtaken in a fault Gal. 6.1 ye which are spiritual restore such a one in the Spirit of meekness considering thy self lest thou also be tempted Where both the supposition that is made and the reason that is given do plainly insinuate that all Men are subject to their several infirmities So that every Man may be overtaken in faults 2 Tim 4.2 Tit. 1.13 1 Joh. 5.16 The charge given to Timothy and Titus to rebuke and exhort does suppose that Christians and even Bishops and Deacons were subject to faults that might deserve correction In that passage cited out of S. Iohn's Epistle as mention is made of a sin unto death for which they were not to pray so mention is made both there and in S. Iames's Epistle of sins for which they were to pray Jam. 5.15 16. and which upon their Prayers were to be forgiven All which places do not only express this to be the tenor of the New Covenant That the sins of Regenerated Persons were to be pardoned in it but they are also clear precedents and rules for the Churches to follow them in their Discipline And therefore those words in S. Iohn that a man born of God doth not and cannot sin must be understood in a larger sense of their not living in the practice of known sins of their not allowing themselves in that course of Life nor going on deliberately with it By the sin unto death is meat the same thing with that Apostacy mentioned in the 6th of the Hebrews Among the Iews some sins were punished by a total excision or cutting off Heb. 6.6 and this probably gave the rise to that designation of a sin unto death The words in the Epistle to the Hebrews do plainly import those who being not only Baptized but having also received a share of the Extraordinary Effusion of the Holy Ghost had totally renounced the Christian Religion and apostatized from the Faith which was a Crucifying of Christ anew Such Apostates to Judaism were thereby involved in the crime and guilt of the crucifying of Christ and the putting him to open shame Now Persons so Apostatizing could not be renewed again by Repentance it not being possible to do any thing toward their conviction that had not been already done and they hardning themselves against all that was offer'd for their conviction were arrived at such a degree of wickedness that it was impossible to work upon them there was nothing left to be tried that had not been already tried and proved to be ineffectual Yet it is to be observed that it was an unjustifiable piece of rigor to apply these words to all such as had fallen in a time of trial and persecution for as they had not those miraculous means of conviction which must be acknowledged to be the strongest the sensiblest and the most easily apprehended of all Arguments so that they could not sin so heinously as those had done who after what they had seen and felt revolted from the Faith Great difference is also to be made between a deliberate sin that a Man goes into upon choice and in which he continues and a Sin that the fears of death and the infirmities of Human Nature betray him into and out of which he quickly recovers himself and for which he mourns bitterly There was no reason to apply what is said in the New Testament against the wicked Apostates of that time to those who were overcome in the Persecution The latter sinned grievously yet it was not in the same kind nor are they in any sort to be compar'd to the former All affectations of excessive severity look like Pharisaical Hypocrisy whereas the Spirit of Christ which is made up of Humility and Charity will make us look so severely to our selves that on that very account we will be gentle even to the failings of others Yet on the other hand the Church ought to endeavour to conform her self so far to her Head and to his
Images which were sacred Emblems and Hieroglyphicks that were not meant to be a true representation of the Divine being but were a combination of many Symbols intended to represent at once to the thoughts of the Worshipper many of the Perfections of God These were most particularly practised in Egypt and to them the copiousness of the Second Commandment seems to have a particular respect such having been the Images which they have lately seen and which seem the most excusable of all others when I say all this is laid together with the Commandment it self and with those other Laws that accompany and explain it nothing seems more evident than that God intended to forbid all outward Representations that should be set up as the Objects of Worship It is also very plain That the Prophets expostulated with the People of Israel for their carved and molten Images as well as for their false Gods And among the Reasons given against Images one is often repeated To whom will ye liken me Which seems to import that by these Images they represented the Living God And Isaias often Isaiah 40.18 to 27.44.9 to 21. Jer. 10. to ver 17. Hab. 2.18 19 20. as also both Ieremiah and Habakkuk when they set forth the folly of making an Image of praying to it and trusting in it bring in the Greatness and Glory of the Living God in opposition to these Images Now though it is possible enough to apprehend how that the Iews might make Images in imitation of the Heathens to represent that God whom they served yet it is no way credible that they could have fallen into such a degree of Stupidity as to fancy that a piece of Wood which they had carved into such a Figure was a real Deity They might think it a God by Representation as the Heathens thought their Idols were but more than this cannot be easily apprehended So that it is most reasonable to think that they knew the God they had thus made and prayed to was only a piece of Wood but they might well fall into that Corruption of many of the Heathen of thinking that they honoured God by serving him in such an Image If the Sin of the Iews was only their having other Gods and if the worshipping an Image was only Evil because a false Deity was honoured by it Why is Image-worship condemn'd with Reasons that will hold full as strong against the Images of the True God as of false Gods if it had not been intended to condemn simply all Image-worship Certainly if the Prophets had intended to have done it they could not have expressed themselves more clearly and more fully than they did To this it is to be added That it seems very clear from the History of the Golden Calf Exod. 32 1 4 5. that the Israelites did not intend by setting it up to cast off the true Iehovah that had brought them out of Egypt They plainly said the contrary and appointed a Feast to Iehovah It is probable they thought Moses was either burnt or starv'd on Mount Sinai so they desired some visible Representation of the Deity to go before them they intended still to serve him but since they thought they had lost their Prophet and Guide they hoped that this should have been perhaps as a Teraphim to them yet for all this Acts 7.41 Psal. 106.19 20. the Calf is called an Idol and they are said to have changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass So that here an Emblem of the Deity is called an Idol They could take the Calf for no other but as a visible Sign or Simbol in which they intended to Worship their God or Elohim 1 King 12.27 to the end and the Lord or Iehovah Such very probably were also the Calves of Dan and Bethel set up by Ieroboam who seemed to have no design to change the Object of their Worship or the Nature of their Religion but only to divert them from going up to Ierusalem 1 King 16.31 2 King 10.28 29. and to furnish them with Conveniences to Worship the Living God nearer home His design was only to establish the Kingdom to himself and in order to that we must think that he would venture on no more than was necessary for his purpose Besides we do clearly see an opposition made between the Calves set up by Ieroboam and the Worship of Baal brought from Tyrus by Ahab Those who hated that Idolatry such as Iehu and his Family yet continued in the Sin of Ieroboam and they are represented as zealous for Iehovah though they Worshipped the Calves at Dan and Bethel These are called Idols by Hosea Hosea 8.4 5. From all which it seems to be very evident that the Ten Tribes still feared and worshipped the true Iehovah This appears yet more clear from the sequel of their History when they were carried away by the Kings of Assyria and new Inhabitants were sent to People the Country who brought their Idols along with them and did not acknowledge Iehovah the true God but upon their being plagued with Lions to prevent this 2 Kings 17.28 32 41. the King of Assyria sent one of the Priests that had been carried out of the Country who taught them how they should fear the Lord out of which that mixture arose that they feared the Lord and served their own Images This proves beyond all contradiction that the Ten Tribes did still Worship Iehovah in those Calves that they had at Dan and Bethel And thus it appears very clear that through the whole Old Testament the use of all Images in Worship was expresly forbid and that the Worshipping them even when the true God was worshipped by them was called Idolatry The words in which this matter is expressed are copious and full and the reasons given for the Precept are taken from the Nature of God who could be likened to nothing and who had shewed no similitude of himself when he appeared to their Fathers and delivered the Law to them The New Dispensation does in all respects carry the Ideas of God and of true Religion much higher and raises them much above those compliances that were in the Old to Mens Senses and to sensitive natures and it would seem to contradict the whole design of it if we could imagine that such things were allowed in it which were so expresly forbid in the Old Upon this occasion it is remarkable that the two fullest passages in the New Testament concerning Images are written upon the occasion of the most refined Idolatry that was then in the World which was at Athens When St. Paul was there his Spirit was moved within him when he saw that City full of Idols He upon that charges them for thinking that the Godhead was like unto gold or silver or stone graven by art or man's device Acts 17.16 25 to 29. He argues from the Majesty of God who made the World and all things
The justest abatement that we can offer for thisCorruption which is too manifest to be either denied or justified is this They were then engaged with the Heathens and were much set on bringing them over to the Christian Religion In order to that it was very natural for them to think of all methods possible to accommodate Christianity to their taste It was perhaps observed how far the Apostles complied with the Iews that they might gain them St. Paul had said that to the Iews he became a Iew and to them that were without law 1 Cor. 9.19 20. that is the Gentiles as one without law that by all means he might gain some They might think that if the Iews who had abused the light of a Revealed Religion who had rejected and crucified the Messias and persecuted his Followers and had in all respects corrupted both their Doctrine and their Morals were waited on and complied with in the observance of that very Law which was abrogated by the Death of Christ but was still insisted on by them as of perpetual Obligation and yet that after the Apostles had made a solemn decision in the matter they continued to conform themselves to that Law all this might be applied with some advantages to this matter The Gentiles had nothing but the Light of Nature to Govern them they might seem willing to become Christians but they still despised the nakedness and simplicity of that Religion And it is reasonable enough to think that the Emperors and other great Men might in a Political view considering the vast strength of Heathenism press the Bishops of those times to use all imaginable ways to adorn Christianity with such an exteriorForm ofWorship as might be most acceptable to them and might most probably bring them over to it The Christians had long felt the weight of Persecution from them and were no doubt much frighted with the danger of a Relapse in Iulian's time It is natural to all Men to desire to be safe and to weaken the numbers of their implacable Enemies In that state of things we do plainly see they began to comply in lesser Matters For whereas in the First Ages the Christians were often reproached with this that they had no Temples Altars Sacrifices nor Priests they changed their dialect in all those Points so we have reason to believe that this was carried further The Vulgar are more easily wrought upon in greater Points of Speculation than in some small Ritual Matters Because they do not understand the one and so are not much concerned about it But the other is more sensible and lies within their compass We find some in Palestine kept Images in their Houses as Eusebius tells us others began in Spain to light Candles by Day-light and to paint the Walls of their Churches And though these things were condemned by the Council of Elliberis yet we see by what St. Ierom has cited out of Vigilantius that the Spirit of Superstition did work strongly among them We hear of none that writ against those abuses besides Vigilantius yet Ierom tells us that many Bishops were of the same Mind with him with whom he is so angry as to doubt whether they deserved to be called Bishops Most of these abuses had also specious beginnings and went on insensibly Where they made greater steps we find an opposition to them Epipli Heres 79 Epiphanius is very severe upon the Collyridians for their Worshipping the Blessed Virgin And though they did it by Offering up a Cake to her yet if any will read all that he says against that Superstition they will clearly see that no Prayers were then Offered up to her by the Orthodox And that he rejects the thought of it with Indignation But the respect paid the Martyrs and the opinion that they were still hovering about their Tombs might make the calling to them for their Prayers seem to be like one Mans desiring the Prayers of other Good Men and when a thing of this kind is once begun it naturally goes on Of all this we see a particular Account in a Discourse writ on purpose on this Argument of curing the Affections and Inclinations of the Greeks by Theodoret Theod. de cur Gr. affect l. 8. de Martyr who may be justly reckoned among the greatest Men of Antiquity and in it he insists upon this particular of proposing to them the Saints and Martyrs instead of their Gods And there is no doubt to be made but that they found the effects of this compliance many Heathens were every day coming over to the Christian Religion And it might then perhaps be intended to lay all those aside when the Heathens were once brought over To all which this must be added that the good Men of that time had not the Spirit of Prophesy and could not foresee what Progress this might make and to what an Excess it might grow they had nothing of that kind in their View So that between Charity and Policy between a desire to bring over Multitudes to their Faith and an Inclination to secure themselves it is not at all to be wondred at by any who considers all the Circumstances of those Ages that these Corruptions should have got into the Church and much less having once got in they should have gone on so fast and be carried so far Thus I have offered all the Considerations that arise from the State of Things at that time to shew how far we do still preserve the Respect due to the Fathers of those Ages even when we confess that they were Men and that something of human Nature appeared in this Piece of their Conduct This can be made no Argument for later Ages who having no Heathens among them are under no Temptations to comply with any of the Parts of Heathenism to gain them And now that the abuse of these Matters is become so scandalous and has spread it self so far how much soever we may excuse those Ages in which we discern the first beginnings and as it were the small Heads of that which has since overflow'd Christendom Yet we can by no means bear even with those beginnings which have had such dismal Effects and therefore we have reduced the Worship of God to the Simplicity of the Scripture Times and of the First Three Centuries And for the Fourth we reverence it so much on other Accounts that for the Sake of these we are unwilling to Reflect too much on this Another Consideration urged for the Invocation of Saints is that they seeing God we have reason to believe that they see in him if not all things yet at least all the Concerns of the Church of which they are still Parts and they being in a most perfect State of Charity they must certainly love the Souls of their Brethren here below So that if Saints on Earth whose Charity is not yet perfect do pray for one another here on Earth they in that State of Perfection do certainly
not err in discharging their Commission and the Terms of the Covenant of Grace being thus settled by them all who were to succeed them were also empowered to go on with the Publication of this Pardon and of those glad Tidings to the World So that whatsoever they declared in the Name of God conform to the Tenor of that which the Apostles were to settle should be always made good We do also acknowledge that the Pastors of the Church have in the way of Censure and Government a Ministerial Authority to remit or to retain Sins as they are Matters of Scandal or Offence tho' that indeed does not seem to be the meaning of those Words of our Saviour and therefore we think that the power of pardoning and retaining is only declaratory so that all the exercises of it are are then only effectual when the Declarations of the Pardon are made conform to the Conditions of the Gospel This Doctrine of ours how much soever decried of late in the Roman Church as striking at the Root of the Priestly Authority yet has been maintained by some of their best Authors and some of the greatest of their School-men Thus we have seen upon what reason it is that we do not conclude from hence that Auricular Confession is necessary in which we think that we are fully confirmed by the Practice of many of the Ages of theChristian Church which did not understand these words as containing anObligation to Secret Confession It is certain that the Practice and Tradition of the Church must be relied on here if in any thing since there was nothing that both Clergy and Laity were more concerned both to know and to deliver down faithfully than this on which the Authority of the one and the Salvation of the other depended so much Such a Point as this could never have been forgot or mistaken many and clear Rules must have been given about it It is a thing to which Humane Nature has so much repugnancy that it must in the first forming of Churches have been infused into them as absolutely necessary in order to Pardon and Salvation A Church could not now be formed according to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome without very full and particular Instructions both to Priests and People concerning Confession and Absolution It is the most intricate Part of their Divinity and that which the Clergy must be most ready at In Opposition to all this let it be considered that though there is a great deal said in the New Testament concerning Sorrow for Sin Repentance and Remission of Sins yet there is not a Word said nor a Rule given concerning Confession to be made to a Priest and Absolution to be given by him There is indeed a Passage in St. Iames's Epistle relating to Confession but it is to one another not restrained to the Priest James 5.16 as the Word rendred Faults seems to signify those Offences by which others are wronged in which case Confession is a degree of Reparation and so is sometimes necessary but whatever may be in this it is certain that the Confession which is there appointed to be made is a thing that was to be mutual among Christians and it is not commanded in order to Absolution but in order to the procuring the Intercessions of other good Men and therefore it is added and Pray for one another By the words that follow that ye may be healed joyned with those that went before concerning the Sick it seems the Direction given by St. Iames belongs principally to Sick Persons and the conclusion of the whole Period shews That it relates only to the private Prayers of good Men for one another The effectual fervent Prayer of a righteous man availeth much So that this place does not at all belong to Auricular Confession or Absolution Nor does there any Prints appear before the Apostacies that happened in the Persecution of Decius of the Practice even of confessing such heinous Sins as had been publickly committed Then arose the famous contests with the Novatians concerning the receiving the lapsed into the Communion of the Church again It was concluded not to exclude them from the hopes of Mercy or of Reconciliation yet it was resolved not to do that till they had been kept at a distance for some time from the Holy Communion at last they were admitted to make their Confession and so they were received to the Communion of the Church This time was shortned and many things were past over to such as shewed a deep and sincere Repentance and one of the Characters of a true Repentance upon which they were always treated with a great distinction of Favour was if they came and first accused themselves This shewed that they were deeply affected with the Sense of their Sins when they would not bear the load of them but became their own Accusers and discovered their Sins There are several Canons that make a difference in the degrees and time of the Penance between those who had accused themselves and those against whom their Sins were proved A great deal of this strain occurs often in the Writings of the Fathers which plainly shews that they did not look on the necessity of an Enumeration of all their Sins as commanded by God Otherwise it would have been enforced with Considerations of another nature than that of shortning their Penance The first occasion that was given to the Church to exercise thisDiscipline was from the frequent Apostacies into which many had lapsed during the Persecutions and when these went off another sort of Disorders began to break in upon the Church and to defile it Great numbers followed the Example of their Princes and became Christians but a mixed Multitude came among them so that there were many Scandals amongst that Body which had been formerly remarkable for the purity of their Morals and the strictness of their Lives It was the chief business of all those Councils that met in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries to settle many Rules concerning the degrees and time of Penance the Censures both of the Clergy and Laity the Orders of the Penitents and the Methods of receiving them to the Communion of the Church In some of those Councils they denied Reconciliation after some sins even to the last though the general Practice was to receive all at their Death Dallaeus de Confessione Morinus de Poenitentia but while they were in a good state of Health they kept them long in Penance in a publick Separation from the Common Priviledges of Christians and chiefly from the Holy Sacrament and under severe Rules and that for several Years more or fewer according to the Nature of their Sins and the Characters of their Repentance of which a free and unextorted Confession being one of the chief this made many prevent that and come in of their own accord to confess their sins which was much encouraged and magnified Confession was at first made
our Saviour's speaking of giving his Flesh to them to eat it he adds They foolishly and carnally thought Lib. 20. con Faust. c. 21. in Psal. 98. v. 5. that he was to cut off some parcels of his Body to be given to them but he shews that there was a Sacrament hid there and he thus Paraphrases that Passage The words that I have spoken to you they are spirit and life Vnderstand spiritually that which I have said for it is not this Body which you see that you are to eat or to drink this Blood which they shall shed who crucifie me But I have recommended a Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood shall quicken you And tho' it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly Primasius compares the Sacrament to a Pledge Comm. in 1 Ep. ad Cor. which a dying Man leaves to any one whom he loved But that which is more Important than the Quotation of any of the words of the Fathers is that the Author of the Books of the Sacraments which pass under the Name of St. Ambrose Lib. 4. dâ— Sacram. c. 5. tho' it is generally agreed that those Books were writ some Ages after his Death gives us the Prayer of Consecration as it was used in his time He calls it the Heavenly Words and sets it down The Offices of the Church are a clearer Evidence of the Doctrine of that Church than all the Discourses that can be made by any Doctor in it the one is the Language of the whole Body whereas the other are only the private reasonings of particular Men And of all the Parts of the Office the Prayer of Consecration is that which does most certainly set out to us the sense of that Church that used it But that which makes this Remark the more Important is that the Prayer as set down by this pretended St. Ambrose is very near the same with that which is now in the Canon of the Mass only there is one very Important variation which will best appear by setting both down That of St. Ambrose's is Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Corporis Sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui pridie quam pateretur c. That in the Canon of the Mass is Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quae sumus benedictam ascriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis Corpus Sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi We do plainly see so great a resemblance of the later to the former of these two Prayers that we may well conclude that the one was begun in the other but at the same time we observe an Essential difference In the former this Sacrifice is called the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ. Whereas in the later it is Prayed that it may become to us the Body and Blood of Christ. As long as the former was the Prayer of Consecration it is not pofsible for us to imagine that the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence could be received for that which was believed to be the true Body and Blood of Christ could not be called especially in such a part of the Office the Figure of his Body and Blood and therefore the change that was made in this Prayer was an evident proof of a change in the Doctrine and if we could tell in what Age that was done we might then upon greater certainty fix the time in which this change was made or at least in which the inconsistency of that Prayer with this Doctrine was observed I have now set down a great variety of Proofs reduced under different Heads from which it appears evidently that the Fathers did not believe this Doctrine but that they did affirm the contrary very expresly This Sacrament continued to be so long considered as the Figure or Image of Christ's Body that the Seventh General Council which met at Constantinople in the Year 754 and consisted of above Three hundred and thirty Bishops when it condemned the Worship of Images affirmed that this was the only Image that we might lawfully have of Christ and that he had appointed us to offer this Image of his Body to wit the Substance of the Bread That was indeed contradicted with much confidence by the Second Council of Nice in which in opposition to what appears to this day in all the Greek Liturgies and the Greek Fathers they do positively deny that the Sacrament was ever called the Image of Christ and they affirm it to be the true Body of Christ. In conclusion I shall next shew how this Doctrine crept into the Church for this seems plausible that a Doctrine of this nature could never have got into the Church in any Age if those of the Age that admitted it had not known that it had been the Doctrine of the former Age and so upwards to the Age of the Apostles It is not to be denied but that very early both Iustin Martyr and Irenaeus thought that there was such a Sanctification of the Elements that there was a Divine Vertue in them And in those very Passages which we have urg'd from the Arguings of the Fathers against the Eutychians tho' they do plainly prove that they believed that the Substance of Bread and Wine did still remain yet they do suppose an Union of the Elements to the Body of Christ like that of the Human Nature's being united to the Divine here a Foundation was laid for all the Superstructure that was afterwards raised upon it For tho' the Liturgies and Publick Offices continued long in the first simplicity yet the Fathers who did very much study Eloquence chiefly the Greek Fathers carried this matter very far in their Sermons and Homilies They did only apprehend the Profanation of the Sacrament from the unworthiness of those who came to it and being much set on the begetting a due reverence for so holy an action and a seriousness in the performance of it they urg'd all the Topicks that sublime Figures or warm Expressions could help them with and with this exalted Eloquence of theirs we must likewise observe the state that the World fell in in the Fifth Century Vast Swarms out of the North over-run the Roman Empire and by a long continued Succession of new Invaders all was sackt and ruined In the West the Goths were followed by the Vandals the Alans the Gepides the Franks the Sweves the Huns and the Lombards some of these Nations but in conclusion the Saracens and Turks in the East made Havock of all that was polite or learned by which we lost the chief Writings of the first and best Times but instead of these many spurious ones were afterwards produced and they passed easily in dark and ignorant Ages All fell under much oppression and misery and Europe was so over-run with Barbarity and Ignorance that it cannot be easily