which Seneca noted but could give no reason of No man saith he is of a good mind before he is of a bad one we are all prevented And in the same place he saith No body is with difficulty reduced to Nature but he that hath made a defection from it Now supposing that God made all things perfect and instituted the nature of man more inclinable to acts agreeable to that perfection than to the contrary whence can it come that contrariwise Man naturally inclineth to that which is base and unworthy and is hardly taken off that corrupt way of acting contrary to reason and vertue and reduced to a perfection becoming his Institution and End but that the very principle of his nature is hurt and the root corrupt And because nothing can be Author of its own Principles by which it subsists no man can be said by his own act to have corrupted them Indeed we say a Man is of corrupt Principles when he hath contracted some evil habits disposing to wickedness but that is accessorie and not innate to him And if it be farther urged That no man can be guilty by anothers fault nor corrupted by anothers principle it is answered as before so long as it is only that others and not his own in some degree For as Thomas hath distinguished There is a Principle of Nature and a Principle of a Person and a Sin of Nature and a Sin of a Person Adam had not only principles whereby he himself subsisted but also was the principle of all his Successours So that Original sin was as well the sin of the one as the other So that from the depraved will of Adam as the first principle of all came the corruption of the Will of all Whereupon speaking strictly as we have said this Original sin is not properly sin in the Infant but a want of Original Justice seizing him and exposing him to destruction as Thomas and Catharinus also have taught which two are the effects of the sin of Adam upon himself and children but the very formal Reason of sin in his Posterity For where as some say It is natural Concupiscence moving to Evil and others That it is the absence of Divine Justice and Grace they differ rather in the niceties of speech than in the matter it self For to me it seems that the loss of Divine Perfection and Grace superadded to the nature of Man whereby he was abundantly able to secure himself and glorifie God in that state of happiness most neerly expresses the nature of it as in the sons of Adam For in Adam himself it was actual disobedience but Concupiscence inordinate doth rather express the consequence of it For upon that desolation in the soul of Man quickly arose a disorder of the inferiour Affections which by a general name is called Concupiscence or Lust by the Apostle in his Seventh Chapter to the Romans And Natural it is called because as out of the cursed ground sprang up briers thorns weeds and thistles where more useful fruit of the earth was intended so upon this curse of mans soul Evil motions arose to the hurrying him to Actual sin being themselves really sinful Again it is observable for the true resolution of the Question That there is commonly an ambiguity in this tearm Concupiscence it being sometimes taken for the act and exercise of that vitious principle in man fallen and sometimes for the Pravitie and degenerate temper of the soul making it prone to actual sins This latter is that which is properly called Original Sin though more properly Original unholiness or want of that instituted Integrity with which man was at first endowed and in it three things are to be considered First the privation of Supernatural Good Secondly Proneness to unnatural Evil against God Thirdly Odiousness and Culpableness before God who must needs be offended at the sight of so much deformity in his Creature contrary to his first Institution of it and Intention though this evil habitude should never break out into actual Rebellion against him by the exercise or putting it in execution by actual Concupiscence against the Law of God St. James seemeth Jam. 1. 14. to justifie this distinction where he saith Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed This gives us the original Lust or Concupiscence which inclines and moves to sin and to this is it to be imputed that a man so easily is withdrawn from truth and righteousness and noble acts becoming his high nature He goeth on Then when Lust hath conceived it bringeth forth Sin c. that is when the Radical Concupiscence or Concupiscibleness in man becomes impregnated and matured by outward opportunities and occasions of sinning it bringeth forth into outward act sin and the event and consequence of this sin is death So that the innate Lust lurking in the Soul and not actuated by outward occasions either inwardly to effect and desire or outwardly to act sin is not properly sin but metonymically only either as it is the effect of Adams sin or the cause of our sins but it is properly odious to God and exposing us to his heavy wrath so far at least as is seen in the deprivation of that be atitude to which man was at first designed And this exactly agrees with the nature of that sin For as that which was in Adam was actual disobedience in his Posterity is only want of that perfection which was due to their nature So Adam not only incurred the loss of that bliss he was capable of and in the ready way to enjoy but likewise the punishment of Sense answerable to his Sin of Commission and his Posterity was made subject to the punishment and loss of Gods favour and that bliss they were in Adam once ordained unto But when their Sins become Actual they are subject to punishment of Pain and torment for the same And by this the way is well prepared to make answer to that common doubt concerning the effect of Baptism and the state of the Regenerate in reference to Original sin and Concupiscence viz. whether Concupiscence remaining after Baptism in the Regenerate be sin or not Scriptures are alledged with great colour on both sides It is observed by Bishop Davenant that St. Paul calls Original Concupiscence sin in fourteen Davenant Deâ—â—rm â— several places in his sixth seventh and eighth Chapter to the Romans which if so Original sin it self must needs be oftner mentioned in Scripture than will be granted by many For mine own particular I see none of those places so exprest in the description of it that the law of Sin the Body Lex Peccati est violentiâ— consuctudinis qua trabit tenetur etiam invitus animus â—â— merito quo in cam volens illabitur Aug. in Confess Lib 3 c. 5. of Sin the Law of the Members the Lust of the Mind and Flesh and some other expressions to the same effect may not be
works rites or Ceremonies of the Law delivered them by Moses as Saint Paul hath not only taught us but irrefragably proved against them in several places of his Epistles For the summ of his Argument and force may truly be reduced to this form as it is laid down more largely in his third Chapter to the Galatians Judaizing after the embracing of the Gospel of Christ Galat. 3. That way whereby Abraham Isaack Jacob and the most holy and renowned Patriarchs of the Jewish Line were justified before God must needs be it which God chiefly intended for the Justification of their Posterity to whom all the promises of God were made through them But neither Abraham nor Isanck nor Jacob were Justified by the Law of Moses so religious and rigorously now insisted on The first part of this reason will be easily granted by the Jews because they were the principal of the Jewish nation and honoured by God above any that succeeded them and therefore undoubtedly Justified by God But that this justification could V. 17. not be according to or by the Law of Moses Saint Paul in the forecited Chapter apparently proves where he shews that the Law was four hundred and thirty years after Abraham And how could that which then had no being be a cause of justification of Abraham Again the accounting of Righteous before God is to be justified before God But Abraham was accounted Righteous before God by Faith and Galat. 3. 6. Gen. 16. 6. Gal. 3. v. 7. not by Law For so saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Therefore They that are of Faith they are children of Abraham that is They who believed and live as did Abraham are Abrahams spiritual seed and heirs apparent of all the Promises made to him whereby all nations not the Jewish only should be blessed Furthermore No man could ever be Justified by that law but may rather be said to be condemned and cursed by it which he nor no man else did ever Deut. 27. 26. keep And the law saith expresly Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the Gal. 3. 10. words of this Law to do them which Confirming is well explained by the Apostle by Continuing For who ever by disobedience breaketh it cannot be said to confirm it or continue in it Now seeing all flesh failed more or less in the due observation thereof there must be provision otherwise made by God if so be he would have any saved It will perhaps be here said That God in such cases had appointed Sacrifices for expiations and reconciliations with him But against this not so much the Auctority as the Argument of the same Apostle makes in his Epistle to the Hebrews saying In those Sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins Heb. 10. once every year That is notwithstanding there were daily Sacrifices made according to the Law every day and upon special sins peculiar Sacrifices made by the offendor for an atonement yet every year to shew the insufficiencie of the Precedent Ceremonies mention was made of the sins of the People when the High Priest entred into the Holiest of Holie And the reason of this imperfection is given by the Author to the Hebrews when V. 4. he argueth First from the nature the Sacrifices themselves That it is impossible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins or as one of their own Prophets before him intimateth saying Wherewith shall I Mic. 6. 6. come before the Lord and bow my self before the High God Shall I come before him with Burnt offerings and Calves of a year old Will the Lord be pleased 7. with thousands of Rams or with ten thousands of Rivers of oil Shall I give my first born for my transgression The fruit of my body for the sin of my Soul And so again in the book of the Psalms Sacrifices and offerings thou Psal 4. 6 7. didst not desire mine ears hast thou opened Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hast thou not required Then said I Lo I come in the volume of the book it is written of me c. All which with many such like places do declare what esteem Good and Godly men had of the Legal Sacrifices that were but in themselves insufficient and unacceptable to Almighty God for either the expiating and satisfying for sins or the appeasing of God offended by the same and therefore some further remedie some more excellent means of reconcisiation were necessary And this appears from the ends of such Sacrifices instituted which principally were these First to declare a right that God had in all those Creatures which he had given man for his use and service Secondly to represent to man the guilt and punishment unto which he was subject by his sins as verily as that beast so slain and sacrificed before his eyes Thirdly to insinuate unto him the true means of becoming reconciled unto God offended which was A Second general end of the Old Law which was to prefigure the Messias and only true Saviour of the world who related not only to Abrahams seed but to all to whom the promise made to Abraham related viz. Gen. 22. 18. Galat. 3. 10. In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed And therefore if such an objection be made Wherefore serveth the Law if not to such Ends Saint Paul answereth thus It was added because of transgressions to whom the Promise was made Because of Transgression First by reason that the Oral Covenant made with Adam and renewed to Abraham suffice not of it self to contain man in his dutie without the additional statute committed to writing by Moses called signally The Law Secondly this became to them under it a rule and direction until such time as the seed to whom it was promised should come i. e. The fulness of the Gentiles to whom through Adam and Abraham both the Messias was promised Whence appeareth the vanitie of the Jews imagination supposing that God by an immutable decree had affixed the priviledges and benefits of the Gospel entirely to the Jews And this inferrs another argument used by Saint Paul against the perfection and perpetuity of the Jewish Law For nothing was promised to Abraham and his seed peculiarly but upon the Covenant of Circumcision But Abraham was not reputed righteous before God by vertue of Circumcision but being Righteous was Circumcised and all the principal Promises made to Abraham as the Father of the Faithful were before Circumcision as the historie in Genesis assures us and Saint Paul to the Romans argueth and concludes against the Jews They which are the children of the Flesh are not the Children of God that is in that respect or for that cause because they were lineally descended from Abrahams flesh and blood but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed i. e. They were the persons comprehended in the Covenant and promises made to
necessary to Salvation are as clear as those under the Old But this is not so clear as Circumcision To which we answer That this is as true taking in the whole manifestation of Gods will For the clearness of the Sacraments enjoyned in the Old Testament do conduce to the clearness of them signified by them And there needs nothing more be said for the clearing of the necessity of these than to admit them to have succeeded those two in the Old Testament And we find not such necessity particularly imposed upon us of receiving the Eucharist as was upon the Israelites of receiving the Paschal Lamb but general necessity without determination of time or place the Gospel expresseth unto us upon the hope of salvation which is sufficient The vertue and Efficacie of this Sacrament above-touched proves this farther but it needs it self be proved according to those extravagant opinions brought by Modern Divines into the Church that it is only a seal of our Faith and eternal Favour of God in Predestinating us to Glory As if First all according to their judgements that were baptized were ordained to Glory and this were assured them by that Seal Or Secondly that God had Predestinated any to Life without the necessary means to it Or that remission of sins Actual and the expiation of Original were not necessary to the entring into Life or that God had so simply and absolutely ordained us to heaven that he had not ordained these two as Means to obtain Perkins on Gal. 2. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod Haret Fabul 5. c. 2. this For what can be a more horrible prophanation of this Sacrament then to say with one upon the Galatians We are born Christians if our Parents believe and not made so in Baptism Which is contrary to the Doctrine of our Catechism and the whole stream of Primitive Doctors of the Church from whom we may Gather this threefold Effect of Baptism First it is not only a sign as the same Persons say of our Covenant but it is the Covenant it self made between God and Man For God indeed doth make a Promise but he maketh no Covenant otherwise than by Baptism God made a Promise to Abraham that his seed should be blessed before Circumcision but he made no Covenant with him but by Circumcision nor is any actually in the Covenant of Faith but by being baptized Doth not the Scripture expresly say that God gave Abraham the Covenant of Act. 7. 8. Circumcision Circumcision then was not only a Sign of that Covenant though that it were but an Essential part of it Circumcision therefore was a sign in a twofold sense First in respect of the Covenant under the Law as words whereof the Covenant consists are signs of the Will of the Covenanters to the ear and works outward are in like manner signs of the same to the Eye which sort of signs are not distinct from the thing it signifies For God Covenanted with Abraham that he should use those Ceremonies Now this outward visible Covenant was a sign of an inward and invisible relating to the righteousness of Faith as St. Paul saith of Abraham And he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness Rom 4. 11. of Faith So that is the Second way in which Circumcision may be said to be a sign viz. As the whole Sacramental Covenant of which it was a part signified the Covenant of Faith into which we are entred by Baptism as the Jews into the other by Circumcision A Second effect of Baptism is to wash away all sins as well Original as Actual of which that Prophesie of Zacharie is generally understood In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and Zechar. 13. 1. to the inhabitants of Jerusalem For sin and for uncleanness To which St. Paul agrees in his Epistle to the Ephesians speaking of the Church That Eph. 5. 26. he might sanctifie it and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word Where the Word sanctifieth the Water and the water sanctifieth the Person which it can no otherwise do then by washing off the sins of the Soul As St. Peter hath it Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer 1 Pet. 3. 21. of a good Conscience towards God That is at the time of baptism whereby the filth of the Spirit necessarily implied to make up the correspondence is put away And St. Paul telleth the Corinthians They were washed 1 Cor. 6. they were Sanctified viz. By Baptism But whether Original sin be so far extinguished in the baptized as no more remains should be found is much doubted to which we briefly and clearly answer from the distinction of Sins For sometimes the Cause of sin is termed sin Sometime the Effect of Sin is called Sin whereas Sin is properly the Evil Act it self or the omission of an act due from us Original Sin in us is not so properly called Sin as it was in Adam who actually sinned and that with a consent of his own will But it is rather the Effect of his Actual transgression which doth originally adhere to us and is called sin upon this threefold account First because it is the necessary effect or consequence of Adams Sin as we find Moses to speak in Deuteronomy And I took your sin the Calfe which ye made The Calfe was the fruit of their Sin and Deut. 9. 21. not their sin it self So is that evil Effect the Sin Original because it is the evil consequence of it Secondly It is Sin because it doth partake of the nature of sin in one of the principal parts making up sin They are two The Obliquity of the Act or Deformity and disagreement to the accurate Law of God and the disobedience of the will and pravity thereof This latter original sin as it was actual in Adam had as well as the former but so is it not with us There can be no such disobedience in the Will where there is no Will. There is no will in Infants besides the remote faculty it self and therefore all sin yea all humane acts requiring consent of the Will original sin cannot be sin in this sense But taking sin for a dissonancy from 1 Joh. 3. 4. the Law and Rule as St. John doth and that conformity as is justly required by the Law certainly that Original depravation and corruption found generally in our natures at our first entrance into the World may truly be called sin because it makes us to differ so much from that God made us and intended us to be Thirdly Original sin hath this likewise denominating it sin that it is the cause of sin that original inclination to sin being that which moves us all unto the actual commission of sin which St. Paul surely aimeth at where he saith Now then it is no more I that do Rom. 7. 17. it but sin that dwelleth in
example sinned Infants dying prove the contrary Yet I cannot deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have another signification than is given by some who would have it as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom and not as our Translation hath it faithfully In as much This the Apostles doctrine is confirmed by what follows For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no v. 13. 14. Law Nevertheless sin reigning from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression These words as by very many and in diverse manners so by the same hand are thus hal'd to this erroneous construction St. Paul does not speak of all mankind as if the Evil occasioned by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account but it had a limited effect and reached only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses But the more exact and literal enquiry into the Apostles meaning will quite overthrow this presumptuous conjecture which is occasioned from a mis-translation or mis-understanding of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which signifying the same thing i. e. Until are thought to be intended exclusively of the time to come when they as the like do but intend such a tearm signally as a most considerable Period and not as the ultimate they drive at As 't is commonly understood of Josephs not Matth. 1. ult knowing Mary until she had brought forth her first-born And this will be evident to him that compareth the use of those words in the thirteenth and fourteenth verses and the drift of the Apostle which plainly to discover will satisfie any doubter and answer all objections and other glosses It is this here as generally to lay before the Jewes to whom St. Paul principally designs his discourse the imperfection of that Law which was by Moses delivered unto them and upon which they so confidently rest that neither the Law of God written in mens hearts before Moses nor the Law then lately delivered by Christ was of any account with them but Moses his Law must carry it from all Justification must be by that and the Vertue of the Messias himself depended on that So that in effect they thought nothing sin but what transgressed the Law of Moses St. Paul argues against this saying For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no Law which is as much as to have said Ye ought not so much to stand upon your Mosaical Law For that is not the only judge or tryal of sin seeing sin was in the world until the Law that is all the time from Adam to your Law but sin is not imputed when there is no Law but sin was imputed and punished too For v. 14. death reigned from Adam to Moses Now if there was such punishment as death then surely there must be a Transgression and if there be such a Transgression there must be also a Law which is so transgressed And therefore if such a Law then surely Moses his Law was not that only Law nor most ancient Now to draw nearer to our present Case on whom fell this punishment of death the Apostle answers On all without exception Even on them which could only be doubted of that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression What is meant by this That is saith our Authour Who sinned not so capitally For to sin like Adam is used as a tragical and high expression Hos 6. 7. They like men have sinned in the Hebrew it is Like Adam Of this I grant thus much That Adams sin was the greatest that ever was committed since all things duly weighed and therefore it may well stand for a most heinous sin and therefore Job likewise saith by way of abhorrence and purgation If I covered my sin as Adam Job 31 33. One main circumstance aggravating Adams sin was that he would have hid it as himself out of Gods eyes and defended himself when he was convinced but how he repented the Scripture is silent But that the degree of sin cannot be the ground of comparison but the very nature of sin and kind is plain from the subject thus punished by death For had they been only men of years who could choose the good and refuse the evil then indeed less might have been objected against that interpretation but it being manifest that death reigned over Infants also who committed no sin as did Adam therefore another sense must be found which answers the full intent of the Apostles argument and it can be no other than this That by similitude here he means the like in nature and not only in degree For Infants who are punished with death have not sinned as did Adam Adams sin was a sin properly so called and Actual but Children who dye sin not so but are subject to that we call Original sin which being such a corruption as defaceth the Image of God and as it were clips his Royal Coyn and allayes it with baser mettal than he ordained man to consist of may cause him justly to be rejected Nay which is much more and granted surely unadvisedly as inconsistently with the principles of this Authour the guilt of Adams Actual sin as in himself was such that it discended to the sons of him before the Floud For sayes he They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam they who sinned not so bad and had not been so severely and expresly threatened had not suffered so severely This is more than what the strictest defenders of Original sin dare affirm viz. That God should take an occasion of punishing one man for anothers fault when he did in no manner partake of the sin Surely if nothing of the Offence had descended to the Posterity of Adam nothing of the punishment should have touched them Next to the comparison here made by the Apostle between acts of Adam and the acts of Christ and the effects and events of one and the other is the comparison between the persons to whom these on both sides extended and sheweth that the remedy by Christ was proportionable altogether to the mischief occasioned by Adam For saith the Apostle As by the offense of One judgment came upon All men to condemnation even so by the Righteousness of One the free gift came upon All men unto justification Rom. 5. 18 19. of life For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous There seems in these two verses to be some contrariety in that first it is said that Judgment came upon all and the Free gift upon all and yet afterward there is a restriction unto many and not all concerned in the sin Therefore it is to be observed That in the first place the
Apostle speaks of the state of Evil or Condemnation in the next of the state of Restitution and Justification For as all persons were included in the Condemnation of Adam so were all included in the Justification of Christ But as of all them only some many were through his disobedience made Sinners that is became such sinners as not to return to actual Righteousness and Salvation so by the obedience of Christ not all who were called and chosen came to Life and Holiness but many only were made Righteous actually and not all Or if we take the word Sin as he of whom we speak doth not so much for the real inward vitiousness of the soul but for any outward defect and which is yet more for the Punishment of Sin in which sense the Sacrifice for sin was called Sin in the Old Law and Christ in the New Testament is said to be made Sin for us that is a Sacrifice for Sin so that to be made sinners should import as much as to be made lyable to the punishment of sin the matter is the same But because this Authour not only inclines to the Opinion of Pelagius and of Socinus after him making the corruption of nature nothing and therefore exempting Infants from any such natural infection as we here suppose but uses the same evasion of Imitation of Adams sin and not propagation as the original of all Evil to us therefore let us hear what St. Austins argument was against that Opinion If saies he the Apostle spake Aug. Epist 87. of Sin by imitation and not propagation entring into the world he could not have said that by one Man Sin entred into the world but rather by the Devil for he sinned before man and as the Wiseman saith Through envie Wisd 2. 24. of the Devil came death into the world And Christ tells us how aptly the Devil may be said to propagate sin by imitation as well as Adam thus reprehending the Jews Ye are of your Father the Devil and the Lusts of John 8. 44. your Father ye will do he was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him when he speaketh a lye he speaketh it of his own for he is a lyar and the Father of it And when St. Paul saith We were by nature the children of wrath as well Ephes 2. 3. Psalm 51. 5. as others And the Psalmist Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in Sin did my mother conceive me that these places must be accounted hyperbolical and not to have a proper sense is the special evasion of Modern Wits not comparable to Ancienter Judgments more simply understanding them I know a more colourable interpretation is made by others who interpret Conceiving in sin as relating to the Parents and not to the Children But this is less probable than the ordinary and obvious sense applying it to David For though it may be probable enough that Parents may offend in acts of Procreation and so the child may be said to be conceived by them in sin yet David being at the speaking of these words in deepest repentance for his own sins cannot be said to leave off that subject and to confess the sins of others and charge his parents with that which concerned him not Again when he says He was shapen in iniquity nothing could he say more intimately to signifie his proper state at the time of his first conception But the Scriptures do not only barely say we are originally thus infected and sinful but by the effects and certain other indications declare the same The first and chiefest of which may be Death and punishments sticking close to infants at their birth and even before they come into the world Now the Law of God being unalterable that punishment should follow and not go before sin it must be that somewhat of the nature of sin must prepare the way for such sufferings Secondly That all men come to years of discretion are effected with Actual sin few of the opposers of Original sin deny But according to Reason and Scripture both the fountain being so infected and corrupted whatever flows from it must of necessity partake of the same evil For Job 14. 4. Jam. 3 11 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Anâ—ae Gazaei Thâ—â—â—hrastus Biblioth P P. pag. 392. To. 8. Non eniâ— es ex â—â—lis qui modo nova quaedam gannire câ—perunt dicentes nullum reatum esse ex Adam tractum qui per baptisâ—um in infante sâ—lvatur Aug. Epist 28. Hieronymo Ad neminem ante bona mens â—enit quam mala Omnes prâ—â—ccupati sumus Sen. Ep. 50. Nemo difficulter ad naturam reducitur nisi qui ab â—a defecit ibid. who saith Job can bring a clean thing out of an unclean not one And St. James Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter Can a fig-tree my brethren bear olive-berries either a vine figs so can no fountain yield both salt water and fresh From whence it follows by way of just Analogy That the Fountain being corrupt there must be derived to the Rivolets the like unsoundness And thirdly we see this by experience that both bodily and mental infirmities and disorders are traduced from Father to Son in actual Evils as the Gout Stone and Leprosie are transinitted to posterity from the Father and Anger and other passions in like manner It may as well be said That the Son hath the Gout and halts by imitation and not by propagation as that such other affections which are common to Father and Son so proceed Fourthly The Argument which St. Augustine could never by the Pelagians be answered taken from Baptism For this they could not deny but the Church universally practised Paeda-baptism that is held an opinion manifested in practise that Children were capable of that Sacrament and received the benefit of it however some particular persons deferred the same and held it of use unto them for the entring into the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore surely there must be some impediment and that impediment could be nothing but what hath the nature of sin in it therefore they bring sin with them into the World Pelagius had a good mind indeed as Austin observed to have denyed the use of Baptism but as bold as he and his great second Julian of Capua was the general Judgment of the Church declared in the practise of it put a stop to his inclinations but Socinus bolder than any Heretick before him sticks at no such thing but flatly denyes the use of it to all but such as are converted newly to the Christian Faith as in the times of the Apostles This was freely and roundly invented and uttered and which suffices alone to convince us of the former errour denying Original Sin which was alwayes held a principal cause of Baptism Lastly Thus much may be observed by natural Reason to the confirmation of Original Sin
non esse peccatum mortale Thom. ib. But Thomas speaks soundly and plainly It is therefore an Heresie to say simple Fornication is no mortal sin And if simple Fornication be as certainly it is a mortal sin then surely it is much more grievous when it hath the aggravations of Constupration or Deflouring of a Virgin her Virginity being her natural grace and glory And much more Ravishing or invading violently the chastity of others And so Incest committed against the Laws of Nature of God or the Religion we profess concerning consanguinity and affinity And there is another Degree of Lust which is called Sacriledge extending the word a little of the farthest to express the great wickedness of abusing those who have dedicated themselves in a state of Virginity to Gods Service For as we have shown before as it is not only lawful but very commendable in any good Christian upon sober and mature consideration of the probability of being able to make good such holy resolutions to devote himself or her self to such excellent means of serving God and that by a Vow so can it not be but a notorious offence against God to mock him either with committing fornication or entring into marriage otherwayes lawful If indeed Marriage were such a Law as some grosly conceive of it that not to comply with it were to offend God then were it not lawful to design any such life as Virginity nor yet widowhood being in ordinary capacity and then were most of their arguments good urged against the state of Virginity chosen by way of Vow But it being a Jus or Right rather that every man hath of God then a Lex or Law that he should marry their reasons prove very fallacious and vain And they who shall go about to seduce to marriage and much more other more scandalous and vitious acts them that have so decreed in their heart to live to God do very wickedly notwithstanding so great a President as Luther may be alledged to the contrary and the judgment of Perkins and others Lastly To these may be reduced all outward acts and signs of Lightness and Lasciviousness tending to Wantonness and Lust Evil Dalliances and Speeches and Gestures and Attire and Ornaments to insinuate evil to others or to tempt them as likewise Intemperance fomenting the Law of the Members as St. Paul speaks against the Law of the mind The Eighth Commandment is Thou shalt not steal In the Second Table §. VIII Gods principal intention it was to preserve one man from offering violence or injury to another Injury is done to man two wayes in General To his Person or To his Goods and Possessions The Injury done to a mans Person is either committed against him simply and this is forbidden under the Commandment Thou shalt do no murder or against him joyntly as he is one with another For so God saith They two shall be one flesh man and wife making in several senses but one Person and therefore to offend against the Person of one is to wrong both And therefore it is said Thou shalt not commit Adultery For hereby notorious injustice is done to the person so united to the Party suffering evil Neither can it be alledged what too often happens that there is consent on one part and so no injury because first Neither God nor the other Party to both which the will of the Offender is to be no less subject than to himself doth consent A Second Injury is done to the Goods of a man by sustaining loss or detriment and against this evil doth God here provide by saying Thou shalt not steal Concerning which we are to consider briefly The Ground The Extent or Kinds and lastly The Evil of Thefts The Original and Cause of this Commandment is certainly Justice and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Equity to be observed between man and man in all Common-wealths and without which no humane and much less Divine or Religious Society can long continue Justice is or may be taken two wayes Abstractly as it may be considered in it self as a Divine Rule and Law propounded by God according to which he requireth all men to conform their Actions And therefore Plutarch speaketh divinely God not only hath Justice sitting by him but is himself Justice and Right and the ancientest and perfectest of all Laws In which yet he seems to be prevented by more Divine David saying of God Psal 9. 4. Thou satest or sittest in the throne judging right God is Justice and so is his Will revealed as a Rule of humane affairs And Justice is in man too concretely as they speak and so is defined A perpetual and constant will of giving every man his due though Gerson would have Gerson de Vita Spirituali Lect. 3. this to relate principally to God And that of Fact it doth is most true it being impossible God should do or desire to do injury to any man but as of Form and Right it concerneth man no less because he is perpetually and immutably obliged to do justly though actually he doth it not For Aug. Civ Dei c. 4. without this what are Kingdoms or Common-wealths saith Austin but Slaughter-houses And much more may we say What is Religion without Justice but extreamest Villany there being nothing so ridiculous to all men or blasphemous to Christ as to imagine a man can be a good Christian before he is an honest and just man This Justice hath two parts as Lactantius writeth Piety to God and Equity Lactan. l. 5. cap. 14. to man For Justice as we have showed in the beginning of this Work it is to be Religious towards God and to worship him and greatest Injustice to deny him such his due Equity towards Man is that we even now described and which is in this Law commanded But because Justice or Equity are said to be Vertues whereby a Man gives every one his due or own they must be grounded upon Dominion and Dominion is nothing else but a Propriety a man hath to use a thing which he possesseth as he pleaseth The principal act of Injustice then is to violate this Propriety or withdraw or withhold any thing from another which of right belongs to him not observing our Saviours rule in his Sermon on the Mount Whatsoever Matth. 7. 12. ye would that men should do to you do you also unto them for this is the Law and the Prophets The Law and the Prophets both contained and here signifie the whole substance of Religion of the Church under the Law and therefore such moral honesty and justice as this being the chief subject of these Books is likewise the substance of Religion it self improved by Christ to some higher perfections Now the Extent of this sin of stealing or injustice is First to open violence in Robbery and spoiling of others of that which they are rightly possessed of without colour of Justice which is indeed the most notorious of all because
either mediately or immediately The Gift was Faith of Miracles The Faith was grounded upon the Revelation and the Revelation was that God would work such and such a Miracle when they prayed commanded or imposed hands This was invented still to drown all Christian Gifts and Graces in Faith 4. Fourthly The two Testaments the Law and the Gospel Id. ib. c. 1. P. 347. are two in nature substance and kind This I know is Calvins Doctrine and his Followers but not the Fathers nor theirs who follow them For thus writeth Lactantius The Jews use the Old Judaei veteri utuntur nos novo sed tamen diversa non sunt quia novum veteris a dimpletio esâ— in utreque Idem Testator chrisius est Lactant. l. 4. Instit c. 20. Chrysost Tom. 7. Ser. 1. p. 16. Iren. l. 4. c. 26. dem Fraeceptum timentitus Lex est amaâ—tibus gratia Aug. ad Simpl. l. 1. qu. 1. Testament we the New but yet they are not diverse because the New is the fulfilling of the Old and Christ is the same Testator in both And Chrysostom thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the New and old Testaments be divided as to time yet they are united as to their scope And before both these Irenaeus speaketh thus The Precepts of perfect life are the same in both Testaments and being the same declare the same God who urged particular Precepts agreeing with each but the most eminent and chief without which we cannot be saved are the same in both And after all these and many more Austin in sundry places affirmeth the same thing as doth our Church * Articles of Church of Eng. art 7. Voet. Select Disp part 4. de lege Evang qâ—â—aest 4. It matters therefore not much with me that Voetius wou'd rather disgrace this opinion then disprove it by saying The Socinians and such as are much of the same mind with them as the Remonstrants and Papists so hold but his Party deny it absolutely Fifthly St. James cap. 2. v. 26. understands a pretended Faith or the profession of Faith as appears v. 14 18. This doth not appear any more than it appears that such is that Faith whereby they hold they are justified Why have they why can they not to this very day assign and describe plainly either that special Act or that special Proposition or Article of Faith whereby they are justified without any works of Faith in Co-ordination to Faith or other Graces Sixthly There is no offence to say He Christ suffered the Ib. pag. 277. Also on the Creed p. 215. pains of Hell so far forth as this suffering might consist with the purity of his Manhood and with the truth of his personal union This is right Calvin Seventhly The Sacraments administred by the Second sort Id. Cases of Conscience l. 2. c 8. i. e. Private Persons having no authority ordinary is a mere nullity If this be true what becomes of the Acts of divers eminent Reformers in case it be proved they never had any Ordinary Authority or Ordination Why do not they rebaptize those who are baptized by Independents whom they must confess to have no Ordinary Authority or Ordination or have renounced it as some of them have professed to my self Eighthly Baptism is appointed of God to be no more but a seal Ib. p. 74. annexed unto and depending upon the Covenant Afterwards he repeats the same in a far worse manner As also on the Galatians In Gal. p. 235. Ninthly If any man binds himself by Oath to live in single Perkins Cases of Cons p. 109 110. life without marriage and after finds that God hath not given him the gift of Continence in this case his Oath becomes impossible to be kept and therefore being reversed by God and becoming unlawful it may be broken without impiety This is a device to excuse we know whom principally and leaves men at liberty to break such lawful vows under pretence that God hath denyed his sufficient Grace to keep them and they are impossible to be kept who shall determine when God denyes that Gift Every man that is tempted to break his Vow Tenthly The Vow of Regular obedience is against the word of God 1 Cor. 7. 7. ye are bought with a price be not the servants of men And why is this so rather then for subjects to vow obedience to their Governors and children to their Parents If you say because God commandeth the latter and not the former you imply that God could command contrary things for this is to be subject to man as well as that St. Paul is quite mistaken by such Scholiasts as thus interpret him Eleventhly Whatsoever wanteth conformity to the Law of God Ib. p. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nyssen Catech. O rat c 7. is sin whether it be with consent of will or no. This supposes what is false viz. that any thing can be morally evil the will altogether dissenting both as to cause in general and effect 12. Zipporah's act of circumcising her child was a sin of Toleration Ib. p. 8. So is murder divers times and is this no other 13. Second grace is nothing else but the continuance of the first grace This I wonder at as much as any thing in him who advances Quid enim debet esse incundius vel infirmis gratid qud sanantur vel pigris gratid qud excitantur vel volentibus gratrà qud adjuventur Aug. in Bonifacio Epist 106. Cases of Conscience p. 66. Grace so highly It is contrary to Austin in many places as to name no more in his Epistle to Boniface in these words distinguishing a threefold grace For what is more comfortable to the weak then grace whereby they are healed or to the sloathful then grace whereby they are quickned or to the willing then grace whereby they are helped 14. Christ knew not that the fig-tree had no figs on it till he came to it He might better have said he knows not the day of judgment till it comes The Fathers Answer to the Arrians objecting this will serve for both 15. The fourth Commandment is Moral and hath nothing Ib. l. 2. c. â—4 Ceremonial in it 16. In regard of Conscience Holiness and Religion all places Ib. p 78. are equal and alike in the New Testament since the coming of Christ The House or Field is as holy as the Church And if we pray in either of them our prayer is as acceptable to God as that which is made in the Church The contrary will appear afterward 17. All virtues that are not joyn'd with renovation and Ib. p. 335. Item Gal. 1. 5. change of Affection are no better then sins This point the Philosophers never knew No I warrant them For had they they should have known more then any good Christian as it is thus crudely delivered Austin vulgarly quoted favors it not 18. Infidels do steal and usurp the blessings of God
of Christ and his Members The Church of Christ taken specially for the Elect who shall infallibly be saved never visible But taken for true Professours of the Faith must alwayes be visible though not conspicuous in comparison of other Religions or Heresies Chap. XXVIII Of the outward and visible Form of Christs Church Christ ordained One particularly What that was in the Apostles dayes and immediately after The vanity of such places of Scripture as are pretended against the Paternal Government of the Church Chap. XXIX Of the necessity of holding visible communion with Christs Church Knowledge of that visible Church necessary to that communion Of the Notes to discern the true Church how far necessary Of the nature or condition of such Notes in general Chap. XXX Of the Notes of the true Church in particular Of Antiquity Succession Unity Universality Sanctity How far they are Notes of the true Church Chap. XXXI Of the Power and Acts of the Church Where they are properly posited Of the fountain of the Power derived to the Church Neither Prince nor People Author of the Churches Power But Christ the true Head of the Church The manner how Christs Church was founded Four Conclusions upon the Premisses 1. That there was alwayes distinction of persons in the Church of Christ 2. The Church was alwayes administer'd principally by the Clergy 3. The Rites generally received in the Church necessary to the conferring Clerical power and office 4. All are Usurpers of Ecclesiastical power who have not thus received it In what sense Kings may be said to be Heads of the Church Chap. XXXII Of the exercise of political power of the Church in Excommunication The Grounds and Reasons of Excommunication More things than what is of Faith matter sufficient of Excommunication Two Objections answered Obedience due to commands not concerning Faith immediately Lay-men though Princes cannot Excommunicate Mr. Selden refuted Chap. XXXIII Of the second branch of Ecclesiastical Power which is Mystical or Sacramental Hence of the Nature of Sacraments in general Of the vertue of the Sacraments Of the sign and thing signified That they are alwayes necessarily distinct Intention how necessary to a Sacrament Sacraments effectual to Grace Chap. XXXIV Of the distinction of Sacraments into Legal and Evangelical Of the Covenants necessary to Sacraments The true difference between the Old and New Covenant The Agreement between Christ and Moses The Agreements and Differences between the Law and the Gospel Chap. XXXV Considerations on the Sacraments of the Law of Moses Of Circumcision Of the Reason Nature and Ends of it Of the Passover the Reason why it was instituted It s use Chap. XXXVI Of the Evangelical Sacraments Of the various application of the name Sacrament Two Sacraments univocally so called under the Gospel only The others equivocally Five conditions of a Sacrament Of the reputed Sacraments of Orders Matrimony and Extream Unction in particular Chap. XXXVII Of Confirmation What it is The Reasons of it The proper Minister of it Of Unction threefold in Confirmation Of Sacramental Repentance and Penance The effects thereof Chap. XXXVIII Of the proper Affections of Repentance Compunction Attrition and Contrition Attrition is an Evangelical Grace as well as Contrition Of Confession its Nature Grounds and Uses How it is abused The Reasons against it answered Chap. XXXIX Of Satisfaction an act of Repentance Several kinds of Satisfaction How Satisfaction upon Repentance agrees with Christs Satisfaction for us How Satisfaction of injuries necessary Against Indulgences and Purgatory Chap. XL. Of Baptism The Authour Form Matter and Manner of Administration of it The general necessity of it The efficacie in five things Of Rebaptization that it is a prophanation but no evacuation of the former Of the Character in Baptism Chap. XLI Of the second principal Sacrament of the Gospel the Eucharist Its names Its parts Internal and External It s Matter Eread and Wine and the necessity of them Of Leavened and Unleavened Bread Of breaking the Bread in the Sacrament Chap. XLII Of the things signified in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ How they are present in the Eucharist How they are received by Communicants Sacramentally present a vain invention All Presence either Corporal or Spiritual Of the real Presence of the signs and things signified The real Presence of the signs necessarily infer the Presence of the Substance of Bread and Wine Signs and things signified alwayes distinct Chap. XLIII The principal Reasons for Transubstantiation answered Chap. XLIV Of the Sacrifice of the Altar What is a Sacrifice Conditions necessary to a Sacrament How and in what sense there is a Sacrifice in the Eucharist Chap. XLV Of the form of consecrating the Elements Wherein it consisteth Whether only Recitative or Supplicatory Chap. XLVI Of the participation of this Sacrament in both kinds The vanity of Papists allegations to the contrary No Sacramental receiving of Christ in one kind only How Antiquity is to be understood mentioning the receiving of one Element only The pretended inconveniences of partaking in both kinds insufficient Of adoration of the Eucharist Chap. XLVII The Conclusion of the Treatise of the subject of Christian Faith the Church by the treating of Schism contrary to the visible Church Departure from the Faith real Schism not formally as to the outward Form Of the state of Separation or Schism Of Separation of Persons Co-ordinate and Subordinate Of Formal and Virtual Schism All Heresie virtually Schism not formally Separation from an Heretical Society no Schism From Societies not heretical Schism Heretical Doctrine or Discipline justifie Separation How Separation from a true Church is Schism and how not In what sense we call the Roman Church a true Church Some Instances of heretical Errors in the Roman Church Of the guilt of Schism Of the notorious guilt of English Sectaries The folly of their vindications That th Case of them and us is altogether different from that of us and the Church of Rome Not lawful to separate from the Universal Church The Contents of the Second Book of the First Part. Chap. 1. OF the formal Object of Christian Faith Christ An Entrance to the treating of the Objects of Faith in particular Chap. II. Of the special consideration of God as the object of Christian Faith in the Unity of the Divine Nature and Trinity of Persons in that Chap. III. Of the Unity of the Divine Nature as to the simplicity of it And how the Attributes of God are consistent with that simplicity Chap. IV. Of the Unity of the Divine Nature as to number and how the Trinity of Persons may consist with the Unity and Simplicity of the Deity Of the proper notions pertaining to the Mystery of the Trinity viz. Essence Substance Nature Person The distinction of the Persons in the Trinity Four enquiries moved How far the Gentiles and Jews understood the Trinity The Proof of the Doctrine of the Trinity from the New Testament and the explication of
of it And first of Prayer the chiefest act of Gods worship contrary to Sectaries who are enemies to it in three respects And first by their vain conceit of Preaching wherein consisteth not the proper worship of God as in Prayer Chap. VIII A second Corruption of the worship of God not especially in Prayer by opposing Setforms of publick worship Reasons against extemporary Prayers in publick The places of Scripture and Reasons and Antiquity for Extemporary Prayers answered Chap. IX A third abuse of the worship of God by Sectaries in neglecting publick Prayers without Sermons censured That Prayer in a publick place appointed for Gods worship ought at all times to be offered to God Scripture and Universal Tradition require it above that in private places The frivolousness of such reasons as are used against it The Reasons for it Chap. X. A fourth Corruption of the worship of God by confining it to an unknown Tongue Scripture and Tradition against that custom A fifth abuse of Prayer in denying the People their Suffrage contrary to the ancient practise of the Church Chap. XI Of the Circumstances of Divine worship and first of the proper place of Divine worship called the Church the manner of worshipping there Of the Dedication of Churches to God their Consecration and the effects of the same That no man can convert any part of the Church to his private use without profanation of it and Sacriledge Against the abuse of Churches in the burial of dead bodies erecting Tombs and enclosing them in Churches or Chancels Rich men have no more Right to any part of the Church than the Poor The Common Law can give no Right in such Cases Chap. XII Of the second Circumstance of Gods worship Appointed times Of the Sabbath or Seventh-day how it was appointed of God to the Jews but not by the same Law appointed to Christians Nor that one day in Seven should be observed The Decalogue contains not all moral duties directly Gentiles observed not a Seventh day The New Testament no where commands a Seventh day to be kept holy Chap. XIII Of the Institution of the Lords Day That it was in part of Apostolical and partly Ecclesiastical Tradition Festival dayes and Fasting derived unto us from the same fountain and accordingly to be observed upon the like grounds Private Prayers in Families to the neglect of the publick worship unacceptable to God Of the Obligation all Priests have to pray daily according to their Office Of the abuse of Holy-dayes in the Number and unjustifiable occasions of them Of the seven Hours of Prayer approved by the Ancient Church and our first Reformers Mr. Prins Cavils against Canonical Hours refuted Chap. XIV The third thing to be considered in the worship of God viz. The true object which is God only That it is Idolatry to misapply this Divine worship What is Divine worship properly called Of the multitude and mischiefs of New distinctions of worship Dulia and Latria though distinct of no use in this Controversie What is an Idol Origen s criticism of an Idol vainly rested on What an Image What Idolatry The distinction of Formal and Material Idolatry upon divers reasons rejected The Papists really Idolatrous notwithstanding their good Intentions pretended Intention and Resolution to worship the true God excuses not from Idolatry Spalato Forbes and others excusing the Romanists from thence disproved That Idolatry is not always joyned with Polytheism or worshipping more Gods than one How the Roman Church may be a true Church and yet Idolatrous Chap. XV. Of Idolatry in the Romish Church particularly viz. In worshipping Saints Angels Reliques and especially the supposed Bloud of Christ No good foundation in Antiquity or the Scriptures for the said worship Chap. XVI Of the fourth thing wherein the worship of God consisteth viz. Preaching How far it is necessary to the Service of God What is true Preaching Of the Preaching of Christ wherein it consisteth Of painful Preaching That the Ministery according to the Church of England is much more painful then that of Sectaries The negligence of some in their duty contrary to the rule and mind of the Church not to be imputed to the Church but to particular Persons in Authority Chap. XVII The fifth general Head wherein the exercise of the worship of God doth consist Obedience That Obedience is the end of the Law and Gospel both That the Service of God principally consisteth therein Of Obedience to God and the Church The Reasons and Necessity of Obedience to our Spiritual as well as Civil Governours The frivolous cavils of Sectaries noted The severity of the Ancient and Latter Greek Church in requiring obedience The folly of Pretenders to obedience to the Church and wilfully slight her Canons and Laws more material than are Ceremonies Chap. XVIII Of Obedience to the Church in particular in the five Precepts of the Church common to all viz. 1. Observation of Festival dayes 2. Observation of the Fasts of the Church Of the Times Manner and Grounds of them Exceptions against them answered 3. Of the Customs and Ceremonies of the Church 4. Frequentation of the publick worship 5. Frequent Communicating and the due preparation thereunto Chap. XIX A Preparation to the Explication of the Decalogue by treating of Laws in General What is a Law Several kinds of Laws Of the obligation of Laws from Justice not Force only Three Conditions required to obliging Of the Ten Commandments in special Their Authour Nature and Use Chap. XX. Of the Ten Commandments in Particular and their several sense and importance Chap. XXI Of Superstition contrary to the true Worship of God and Christian Obedience AN INTRODUCTION TO THE Knowledge of the true Catholick Religion Part the First Book the First CHAP. 1. Of the Nature and Grounds of Religion in general Which are not so much Power as the Goodness of God and Justice in the Creature And that Nature it self teaches to be Religious RELIGION is the supream act of the Rational Creature springing from the natural and necessary Relation it beareth to the Creatour of all things God Almighty Or a due Recognition of the Cause of all Causes and Retribution of service and worship made to the same as the fountain of all Goodness derived to inferiour Creatures For there being a most excellent order or rather subordination of Causes in the Universe there is a necessary and constant dependance one upon another not by choice but natural inclination And the Perfection of all Creatures doth consist in observing that station and serving those ends and acting according to those Laws imposed by God on all things Thus the Heavenly Bodies moving in a perpetual and regular order and Psal 148. the Earth being fruitful in its seasons and the course of the Waters observing the Laws given them by God may be said to worship and obey him Which worship being performed according to that more perfect state of the Rational Creature and the prescriptions given to it may
to us Such are lastly the many Predictions and Revelations of closest and deepest secrets of men not possible to be known but by a preternatural subtilty All which are so frequently reported in Histories of all sorts Divine and Humane that who ever will call in question must be judged purposely to have taken on him such incredulity that he might deny this thing seeing there are infinite other things which upon no greater evidence he firmly believeth And what greater absurdity need a man be forced to than this singularity of judging in this cause For can they who resolve to doubt of this matter alledge any sense or demonstration contrary to this If they can Why have they kept it from the World all this while If they cannot Why should they not yield to better grounds for it than they have any against it Viz. the concurrent testimony of so many and sober persons affirming the same from their experience But if this be admitted then by due gradations may we easily ascend unto the most supream Being of all which is God No man being able to determine any point which may not be exceeded until we come to infinity it self And this present visible World being but a draught of that superâ—â—â— God was pleased to ordain Man to bear his Image in a Supremacy over all earthly Creatures that from hence we may learn that as one Creature serves another and all Man so Man is subordinate to Spirits and created Spirits to God as their onely absolute Lord. And therefore in Scripture it is said of them They are all Ministring Spirits i. e. under Hebr. 1. 9. Hebr. 12. 9. God to them that believe And that he is the Father of Spirits Which necessary and harmonious dependence of all things on One is so consonant to the common reason of Man that the contrary introducing a Deity or independence doth withal bring in a manifest Anarchy and confusion in the Universe repugnant as well to nature as reason Furthermore the several Arts and Sciences minister several proofs of this as might be shewn in particular would it not be too long and were it not to be found performed by divers already That taken from the course of Nature may here suffice Nature it self and common observation tell us that there is diversity in Cause and Effect and that there is Generation and Corruption and that nothing in the World can produce it self And for instance he that lived many thousand years ago could no more make himself then he that lived but yesterday or was born this morning So that either Man and if Man other creatures also for there is the same reason made himself or was from eternity or was made by another The first is disproved The second is false First because nothing hath been esteemed more absurd in reason than for to arise to an Infinity of Causes one above another Secondly then certainly would the same man yea all men be eternal consequently as well as antecedently but the contrary to this we daily see and therefore may conclude the contrary to the other Thirdly The very nature of Creatures constituted of divers and contrary natures which are opposite and avers to all union as Fire and Water Wet and Dry Heat and Cold cannot move of themselves to that which is contrary to them but every thing naturally covers to be of it self and in it self Fire making towards Fire and Water to Water and Earth to Earth so that there must be a superiour power as well to bring them and joyn them together in one as to contain and continue them there Which must be the first Cause and that first Cause is God Fourthly That common ground of all Societies humane Justice which is an immoveable and indelible principle in the mind of Man approved of by all doth evince this For Justice supposes and infers a Deity For all Justice doth suppose a Rule according to which it is said to be just and a Law to contradict and oppose which is to be unjust and injurious For otherwise it would be at the pleasure and arbitrement of every man to make a Rule to himself and for another according to which all that pleased should be reputed just But this would be one of the most absurd ridiculous and unjust things in the world Therefore must there of necessity be a common Rule of Right and Just which can proceed from none but the Author of all Beings and humane Society it self without which Meo judiciâ— Pietas est sumdamentum omnium virtutum Cicero pro Plancio it would be as reasonable if it were profitable and safe for any man to murder his Prince or his Father as to kill a Nitt or Flea that troubled him For the Civil Sanction of Laws to the contrary doth not make the foresaid impieties sins neither are they simply evil because they are forbidden thereby But they are forbidden by Man and fenced by humane Laws because they are evil and evil they were absolutely because God had so decreed them And as the Laws of all Soveraigns receive their Original vigour from God so were it not that Gods Law fortified confirmed and secured Kings they and their Laws both would be no better then trifles impertinencies and impostures which every wise man might shake off and confound when ever it lay in his power For where obedience and subjection is due it is for some reason which reason is form'd into a Law But no man can make a Law whereby he of no King should become a King for before he can make any Law he must be a King or Supream And therefore this reason or Law must be Antecedent and being so must have an Author And who can that be but God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Fifthly Add hereunto that argument which is commonly taken from the common consent and agreement of all Men esteemed most rational all People all Nations concurring hereunto Which must needs be the effect of a Divine power and influence so inclining mens minds so that one saith It is so apparent that there is a God that I can scarce think him to Cicero be in his right mind who denies it And when we speak of Nature and a Law of Nature we would not be so understood as some would needs take them to help them out here for such a necessary and inevitable principle and impulse as none should be able to dissent from for there is no such Law to be found but so natural we make it to all indifferently and equally disposed that the thing once fairly and duly propounded shall not find contradiction without violence offered at first to the mind of man bent to such a truth Sixthly It is no weak argument of an over-ruling and supream Power which may be taken from the contrary attempts the vanity and infelicity of them For it was just now granted that great Wits as they would be called may nay have disowned this truth
infinite reasons First from the Object of their worship generally directed to a multitude of Gods and patching up a plenitude of power out of the shreds of innumerable Demi-gods or pieces of Gods whereof one should have power and vertue in one thing and another in another but this is to deny God in effect who if he be not absolute is not at all and indeed all the arguments before used to prove there can be but one God do prove that to be a false and foolish Religion which alloweth and worshippeth more than one Neither can it suffice to excuse them to say that the wiser of the Heathens acknowledged but one God because it availeth nothing at all but to add to their condemnation for any persons to have a right sense and meaning reserved to themselves and to proceed directly contrary to such found judgment in their practice and worship it self And therefore the most absurd and abominable manner of worshipping their pretended Deities is sufficient conviction of the Religion it self For whereas modesty sobriety temperance chastity truth justice and the like moral vertues were such as the Light of Nature did commend to all men and all consented to be excellent and laudable All these were contemned by the admirers of these Gods yea the very Religion it self tempted and incited many to offend against all these and that which is most intolerable from the examples of the pretended gods so chusing to be worshipped from whence must needs follow what St. Paul affirmeth of the Gentiles Religion and gods The things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and not to God They were impure and wicked 1 Cor. 10. 20. spirits delighting in absurd and vitious practises And therefore upon this subject no more need be spoken at present The Neat pretender to true worship may be the Mahometan who worshipping the True God so far as may be discerned yet faileth egregiously in the manner of exhibiting the same the very grounds and end also being false and unreasonable For first that the Author and Coiner of that worship was an impostor and made pretences of Sanctity in the midst of impurities and infirmities he was subject unto is apparent out of Histories of those times and places where he by the assistance of a Fugitive Nestorian Monk laid the plot and whole design of his Religion and that among a people altogether rude ignorant barbarous easie to be deceived and cheated into a credulity of pretended Revelations Again the many absurdities and contradictions of their Law most sacred as misnaming of persons mistiming of Facts mistaking of Histories in the gross impossible prophane blasphemous opinions concerning the nature the will the Actions of God contrary to common philosophy and reason Ridiculous and foolish imaginations of Angels utterly false opinions of the nature of things and such like being duly and soberly weighed and examined do convince the whole Fabrick of that superstition of Idleness and foolish fictions And not to multiply more arguments here The way of propagating this Erroneous Fashion of serving God discovereth the Errour of the thing it self For it is a general and most rational Principle deserving admission and belief of all That Religion being the most excellent act of humane Creatures ought to have the most high and noble Faculty of the soul for its proper seat and fountain from whence it should proceed such as is the intellectual faculty of Man But this superstition is carried on by the ministery of the Senses chiefly And moreover It ought to have for its end the most sublime and divine of all But the Mahometan constituteth the low pleasures of the Senses as the sufficient and proper end of all their service making the beatitude of Heaven to consist in perpetual Licentiousness and fresh delights of senses And therefore no need of insisting on this subject here What is here spoken being for method sake rather then necessity or a formal confutation of those Errours CHAP. V. Of the Jewish Religion The Pretence of the Antiquity of it mulled Their several Erroneous grounds of the Jewish Religion discovered DUT the Religion of the Jew requireth more diligent examination as well because of a notable presumption from ancient Tradition and a certain preoccupation of divine truths and auctority of divine Constitution as because the consideration thereof is an introduction to Christian Religion and the disproof of that a proof of the Christian And if according to Christians own concessions and the eminentest Apostle St. Paul they were once the people and true Church of God To Rom. 3. 2. cap. 9. 4. them were committed the Oracles of God To them pertained the Adoption and the glorie and the Covenant and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the Promises Why not alwayes a Church If once Gods people Why not alwayes so If once confessed to be pure and Faithfull When did they cease to be so When first entred corruptions into their Church Under what High Priest And who brought such errours first in This is the sum of what they can say either for themselves or against the Christians of whose Religion which undoubtedly they do and will call Heresie they can give the time and place when and where it sprang up and the person who first founded and advanced the same And if any Church or Society of men in the world can lay claim to the Promises of perpetuity and infallibility surely the Jewish will pretend much more from the Prerogatives peculiar to them as do witness every where the Law and the Prophets To all this a sufficient answer shall be comprehended in the prosecution of the contrary Grounds which here follows which I reduce to these two whereof One concerns their Errour about their Law and the Other about their Messias The first general Errour concerning their Law is first that they suppose that the word of God given to Moses for their proper use was equally to oblige all Nations saving where certain priviledges were pretended to Jews by birth which they suppose no people were worthy or capable of except the stock of Abraham But that all nations could not be included in that Covenant which was made with Abraham nor were all obliged to the Rites and Ceremonies thereof appears from the ordinary impossibility of being observed by all People For how could people of the remotest parts of the earth appear thrice a year at Jerusalem as was commanded the Israelites by God who dwelt in the Land of Canaan How Levit. 12. 6. could all Nations at any time bring their Sacrifices to the door of the House of the Lord to be there received and offered by the Priests Another Errour concerning their Law received by Moses is that they say It was it whereby men should be justified Which is false and that First because the most ancient holy and renowned Patriarchs of the Jewish Line were not so Justified They were not justified by the
that none can without another extraordinary confirmation rest satisfied that so it is really with him Lastly for our clearer proceeding We are herein to distinguish between the attaining to the true sense of Scripture and the decision or determination of Controversies according to the Scripture And that the most important Query is not so much Whether a man hath the Spirit or not or whether he hath the truest and most genuine meaning of the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures or not but how this should be made known and manifested so far unto others as that they should rationally and soberly rest satisfied in the opinions of the said pretenders to such truths For it s well and smartly said in this doubt The Question is not Whether the Spirit in a Man or Church or the Scripture though this last way is very improperly expressed be the best Judge of the Sense of Scripture but where it resides to such purposes And what a great stir is made to little purpose while the former is so easily granted on all sides and there is nothing done at all to convince a sober man or Christian That such or such persons are they we ought expect the dictates of Gods Spirit from For Judgement properly so called can never be separated from Autority or lawful presiding over others joyned with power to oblige to such sentence as shall be passed but how this should be competible to single or many Persons agreeing in the same thing in their private capacity yea though enabled with the spirit more than ordinary cannot well be understood So that at most they can be judges of controversies only for themselves and that at their own peril and can do no more than perswade advise and exhort not oblige others to think as they do But Judges must and ought to do more or they had as good do nothing So that that which hath found great acceptance and applause by too many doth upon examination prove very insignificant and impertinent to the resolution of the difficultie in hand viz. That things that are necessary are obvious in Scripture and Every man is Judge to himself granting I say This which is yet really untrue yet scarce any thing is said to the purpose which enquired not so much How a man might perswade himself but how and with what influence he may proceed to the conviction and reducing of others so that the essential to a Church be not destroyed as it certainly must be where no communion is and there will infallibly cease all communion where it is meerly arbitrary for Christians to believe and judge and walk and worship as they please For this it is for every man to judge for himself Will it be yet farther said That we should bear with one another and live peaceably and charitably one with another and not molest each other for his Judgement If it be as I know it is I reply first That this plausibility without possibility is not true according to the opinions of them who use it For they certainly hold That Heresie and Schism are not to be endured or born withal Christ and God must not be blasphemed by unsound opinions or prophane or superstitious actions and this diversity yea contrariety of judging must needs find these faults in one another very often and consequently be of opinion That they are not to be suffered and Charity must not be so far mistaken or abused as to licentiate such enormities But What if after all this contention for the Spirit it be not judge at all as in truth it is not in any proper sense For the Spirit is only the due qualification of the Person or Persons not simply to judge for that descends upon them by being ordinarily and orderly constituted over the Church of Christ but to judge aright and to give faithful and unerring sentence in matters under debate and question And the same may be in proportion affirmed of Reason termed by some who would seem to excell others in reason most improperly as well as unreasonably Judge of Controversies For all judgement disquisition and expositions are made by Persons not by things Reason indeed is the Instrument whereby a Person is enabled to judge or find out the truth unto which unless there be a due accession of Autority and Power such reason though very exquisite and happy must keep within its own doors and judge at home for it self and not for others nor contrary to more publick and autoritative determinations without the peril of being taxed of Arrogance and it self justly condemned if not for the Inward errours of the mind for the outward errors in ill managing truths If it were so That Reason in men were infallible we ought not to stand upon nicities of terms or improper language But for men to deny others the Seat and Power of Judicature because they may err and to take it to themselves as if the spirit of Error had no power over them is at the same time a grievous though pleasing error both against Reason and common justice too And if it be said That every man is bound by the Law of nature being indued with reason to use that reason and not bruitishly to suffer himself he knows not or cares not whether to becarried by others Reasons and not his own I retort And every man is obliged by the Law of Nations which is a more refined principle than that of gross Nature properly taken to contain himself in the order of Community he is placed and to submit to the reason of common Judgement no less than his own For undoubtedly until every man in private and particular be unerrable which is not to be expected on this side heaven there will diverse inconsistent judgements prevail and divide one from another and cause such a breach as the society whether divine or humane will soon perish and come to nothing But granting what was before demanded That every man must act according to his reason above the nature of beasts this doth not conclude That therefore he must be let alone and not brought even by force to submit to others against such reason First Because it is not resolved by any but a mans own deceitful opinion That it is really reason which is so presumed to be Secondly Because he that is so constrained to submit his reason is not thereby denyed either the nature or use of his but still much transcendeth the capacity of beasts For He discusses he discourses he judges rationally after the manner of men even when the effect of all these Acts are contrary to reason And lastly In wise men and good humble Christians there is a superior principal of reasonableness to that of meer direct nature For That he that has most reason on his side and when that it self is controverted he that according to appearance of Circumstances may lay the fairest claim to that is to be followed no rational man can deny Therefore should a Mans
decision I wish with all my heart so far am I from an evil eye or niggardly affection towards Scripture they could make their words good when they tell us all things are contained in Scripture It is a perfect Rule of all emergent doubts and acts in the Church It is Judge and Law both of Controversies but alas they cannot For they take away from it more then by this rank kindness they give to it Gods word is Perfect as a Law and so far as he intended it but it must cease to be a Law and take another nature upon it if it were a Judge too in any proper sense And the Canon of Scripture must be it self variable and mutable if it could particularly accommodate it self to all occasions and exigencies of Christians But this is not only absurd but needless For God when he made men Christians did not take away from them what they before had as Men but required and ordained that humane judgement and reason should be occupied and sanctified by his divine Revelations He in brief gave them another and far better Method Aid and Rule to judge by and did not destroy or render altogether useless their Judgement even in matters sacred To the Law and Esay 8. 20. to the Testimonie saies the holy Prophet if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them This indeed plainly declares the Rule by which we are to walk and Judge but it doth not tell us that the Law it self doth speak but men according to it And this is to Judge Now because no one man no one age no one Church should judge for all no nor for it self contrary to all doth the necessity and expediencie of Tradition not to affront or violate but secure the written word of God and that in two special respects appear First as giving great light and directions unto the Rulers of the Church and limiting the uncertain and loose wit of man which probably would otherwise according to its natural pronitie flie out into new and strange senses dayly of holy Scripture The Records of the Church like so many Presidents and Reports in our Common Law giving us to understand Low Consuetudo etiam in Civilibus rebus pro Lege suscipitur cùm deficit Lex nec differt Scripturd an ratione consistat quando Legem ratio commendet Tertul. de coron mil. cap. 4. such places of Scripture were formerly understood and on which side the case controverted passed And why this course in divine matters should not be approved I see not unless unquiet and guilty persons shall seek under colour of a more absolute appeal to Scripture which is here supposed to be sincerely appealed unto before to wind themselves into the seat of Judicature and at length not only as fallibly but also usurpingly decree for themselves and others too This event hath so manifestly appeared that there is no denying of it or defending it They therefore who professedly introduce Tradition to the defeating and nulling of Scripture deal indeed more broadly and in some sense more honestly as being what they seem than they who give all and more then all due to it in language but in practise overthrow it But we making Tradition absolutely subordinate and subservient to Scripture and in a word of the nature of a Comment and not of the Text it self we are yet to seek not what deceitfully and passionately for we know enough of that already but soberly can be objected against it For if it be said Tradition is it self uncertain it is obscure it is perished it contradicts it self and so can be of little use we readily joyn with them so far as to acknowledge that such traditions and to them to whom they so appear can with no good reason be appealed to But we deny that there are none but such and that such as prove themselves to be true and honest men upon due trial and examination ought to be hang'd out of the way because they were found in company with thieves and Cheats Supposing then That such honest Traditions are to be found in the Church another great benefit redoundeth to the Church from thence in that it doth in some cases supply the defects of the Law it self the Scripture But here I must first get clear of this reputed Scandal given in that I suppose the Scriptures defective or imperfect I have already and do again profess its plenitude and sufficiency as far as a Rule or Law is well capable of Now what God by his infinite wisdom and power might have done I cannot question in contriving such an ample Law as should comprehend all future and possible contingencies in humane affairs but this I say That he disposing things by another Rule viz. to act according to humane capacity and condition never did or so much as intended to deliver such an infinite Law Is not Moses and Gods dealing to him and his ministry to God and the people frequently alledged as a notable argument to convince us of the amplitude of the New Testament Moses say they was faithful in all his house And therefore much Heb. 3. 2. more was Christ Very good and what of all this As much as comes to nothing For wherein did the faithfulness of Moses consist In powring out unmeasurably all that might be said touching divine matters Or rather in delivering faithfully and exactly all that God commanded him This truly did Moses and therefore was very true and faithful to him that sent him and gave him his charge This did Christ and this did the Apostles of Christ and his inspired servants and therefore were all no less faithful to God than Moses But did not Moses leave more cases untouched in the Administration of the Jewish Policie then were litterally expressed Yes surely judging it sufficient that he had laid down general Rules and Precepts according to which Emergencies which might be infinite should by humane prudence be reduced and accordingly determined And so choose they or refuse they must they grant did Christ and his Instruments leave the Law of the Gospel which yet not wanting all that can be expected from a Law cannot modestly be pronounced imperfect notwithstanding as is said manifold particulars are not there treated of Now those are they we say Tradition doth in some measure supply unto us and the defect of Tradition it self which hath not considered all things is made good by the constant power of the Church given by the Scriptures themselves in such cases which require determination of circumstances of time place order and manner of Gods service according to the Edification of the Church of Christ CHAP. XIII Of the nature of Faith What is Faith Of the two general grounds of Faith Faith divine in a twofold sense Revelation the Formal reason of Faith Divine Of the several senses and acceptations of Faith That Historical Temperance and Miraculous Faith are not in nature
Passive preparedness we speak of doth not so much as either open the eye to discover the use or benefit of Grace nor in the least incline the Will to desire it Now because the holy Fathers and especially St. Augustine and moderner Divines do speak of the Works of the Unregenerate as not only insufficient and imperfect but sinful yea sin it is very requisite to take their true meaning which cannot possibly be as if they were simply evil for then were they simply to be forborn and omitted but Synecdochically they intend alwayes to intimate a sinfulness in defect of what was due to such Actions compared with the divine Rule Or they called them Sin not so much from the nature of the Actions themselves as the inseparable evil of Commission alwayes accompanying them as was Pride and presumption upon their such laudable works as sufficing of themselves without a Saviour or Sanctifier Extraordinarie which they were either wholly ignorant of or contemptuously rejected to intitle them to exact Philosâ—phers and observers of the law of Nature wheâ—ein the blessedness of a man in this life consisted according to them and afterward to open the door of a Paradise framed to themselves Of these Good works thus mischievously attended as constantly they were in Natural men truly might be said by St. Austine on the Psalms Good works without Faith do but help Aug. in Psal 31. men to go faster out of the way And by Chrysostom sometimes speaking more than enough of the use of works preparatory Nothing without Faith is Good and that I may use such a Similitude as this they seem to me who flourish with good works and are ignorant of Gods worship to be like the Reliques of dead persons finely adorned And the voice of Scripture is so clear that there is no need to alleadg the same against the inefficacie of the best natural Acts to spiritual ends and purposes The more principal and useful enquiry then is concerning the works of the Regenerate done upon the grounds by the vertue and to the proper ends of Faith what they may avail a true Believer For that they are beneficial and that most of all to the benefactor himself Man is in a manner consented to unanimously or if it be not we shall make no great scruple plainly and stoutly to affirm so much after the holy Scriptures have so clearly and positively delivered the same as amongst many in these places Finally brethren whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest Phil. 4. 8. whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are pure whatsoever things are lovely whatsoever things are of good report if there be any vertue if there be any praise think on these things Those things which ye have both received 9. and learned and heard and seen in me do and the God of peace shall be with you And Heb. 6. 8. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh Heb. 6. 7. oft upon it and bringeth forth Herbs meet for them for whom it is dressed receiveth blessing from God But that which beareth Thorns and Briars is rejected 8. and is nigh unto cursing whose end is to be burned Who sees not here that a good Christian fruitful in good works is compared to good ground which is blessed of God and evil Christians barren and unfruitful compared to ill ground next to cursing And elsewhere This 2 Cor. 9. 6. I say he that soweth the seed of good works sparingly shall reap sparingly but he that soweth bountifully shall reap bountifully And the Psalmist Psalm 62. 12. agreeable hereunto saith Unto thee O Lord belongeth mercy for thou renderest to every man according to his works And Jeremie rendereth it as a Jerem. 32. 19. reason of Gods greatness which is an inseparable and essential attribute of God that he is so equal in this case saying Great in Counsel mighty in work For thine eyes are open upon all the wayes of the Sons of men to give every man according to his wayes and according to the fruit of his doings And yet more plainly St. Paul to the Romans speaking of God Who will Rom. 2. 6 7 8 9. render every man according to his deeds to them who by patient continuing in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality eternal life But unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness indignation and wrath tribulation and anguish to every soul of man that doth evil of the Jew first and also of the Gentile But glory honour and peace to every man that worketh good to the Jew first and also to the Gentile I shall add but one more Text and that found in the Epistle to Titus which not only in sense but almost in terms proves what I laid down concerning the beneficialness of good works This is a faithful saying and these things Tit. 3. 8. I will that thou affirm constantly That they which have believed in God might be careful to maintein good Works these things are good and profitable unto men And so far as we now urge good Works the answer is very sufficient to that place alledged against the Effect of good Works in general Luk. 17. 10. where our Saviour saith in St. Luke And when ye shall have done all things which are commanded you say We are unprofitable servants We have done that which was duty to do To this I say it is fully answered though more might be said We are unprofitable to God our Master who commanded us to work for so saith David likewise My Goodness extendeth Psal 16. 3. not to thee but it is not said We are unprofitable unto our selves or that no good accreweth unto our selves thereby And I would to God that though no good Christian can deny the usefulness of Good works in general that do not denie the Scriptures or common sense yet they would be more firmly setled in the belief hereof than too many are and suffer this Faith to have its proper influence upon their lives which might be safely admitted and that without any offense or prejudice to the freeness of Gods grace as will yet further appear For the Effect of Good works doth not only confine it self to certain temporal blessings of this world and outward prosperties which in truth was the proper portion and promise made by God to the Jew under the Old Law so far as it was Ritual and Mosaical upon their obedience but it extendeth it self plainly to the spiritual blessings upon earth and immortal in heaven as our blessed Lord expresly teaches us in his Sermon on the mount saying Not every one that saith unto me Lord Lord shall enter Mat. 7. 21. into the Kingdom of heaven but he doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven that he shall is to make no criminal addition to Scripture the sense being so plain And so St. Paul to Timothy teaches It is a
many and divers in kind as they are may all be reduced unto the Efficient causes so often mistaken for the formal And truly to proceed herein regularly and clearly we must begin with the Cause of all Causes God himself For though Christ be the Cause of all Causes visible and in the actual administration and execution yet he is not the first but subordinate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Hom. 27. in Joan. Cause of Mans reconciliation to God his Justification and Salvation For as holy Chrysostom divinely and sublimely enquiring into the reason that might incline God to restore Man being fallen and lost by his Apostasy from God unto a state of bliss again to admit of any terms of Reconciliation with him determines it it is nothing but the divine Philanthropie of God his free undeserved unscrutable love towards man springing as it were from his own breast beginning within himself and of himself absolutely irrespectively to any outward motives but to show as St. Paul saith He would have mercie on whom he would have mercie and he Rom. 9. 15. would have compassion on whom he would have compassion and because as the Psalmist hath it Whatsoever the Lord pleased that did he in heaven Psal 135. 6. and in earth in the seas and in all deep places He pleased to leave the fallen Angels and he pleased to restore fallen man and that because it so pleased him For not so much as any consideration of Christ could dispose him to decree so favourably on the behalf of man but first this decree passed and then followed the determination of the means most convenient thereunto which was to send his son to give him to be Incarnate and to be the great and powerful Mediator between God and Man mighty to save Christ then was that which in general moved God Externaly to the Justification of Man after he had conceived of himself a purpose to reconcile man to himself as S. Paul clearly asserteth in his second Epistle to the Corinthians All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself 2 Cor. 5. 18. by Jesus Christ and hath given to us the ministery of reconciliation To wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing 19. their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation And more particularly elsewhere he describeth unto us the several parts of our reconciliation to God saying But of him are ye in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 1. 30. who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness Sanctification and redemption Therefore it is that so often in Scripture Christ is called a Gal. 3. 20. Heb. 8. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 15. Heb. 12. 24. Mediator between God and man for the bringing to pass and causing to take effect the General decree of God for the redemption of Mankind For through Christ we were by God predestinated as is taught us by St. Paul to the Ephesians Having predestinated us unto the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ unto himself according to the good pleasure of his will Where Eph. 1. 5. we see plainly that Christ was not the Cause that we were predestinated in Christ but the Good pleasure of his Absolute will Again we were called in Christ as St. Jude implieth saying To them that are sanctified Jud. 1. by God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ and called And as we are called and sanctified so certainly are we justified freely by Christ And there is nothing more requisite for us to be fully justified in the presence of God then to be made partakers of Christ and as St. Paul saith To be found in Christ not having our own righteousness which is of the Law Phil. 3. 9. whether of Nature or Moses but that which is through the Faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by Faith From whence and several other texts of Holy Scripture testifying the absolute necessity of Christ to the Justifying and saving of us it appeareth that nothing can be more contrary to the Eternal purpose of saving man through Christ yea nothing indeed more tidiculous then to but imagine that there can be any Act in man contradistinct from Christ and not receiving all its worth and vertue from Christ which can avail any thing towards the salvation or Justification of him Or that a man being grafted into Christ and partaking of his graces and merits can fail of being accepted of God unto Justification and salvation For as St. Paul saith to the Romans All have sinned and come short Rom. 3. 23 24 25. of the glory of God Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his Righteousness for the Remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God c. Now there are three things in General which truly denominate us to be in Christ and partakers of him To be partakers of the benefit of his Passion satisfying for us To be partakers of his spirit and graces thereof renewing and sanctifying us and thirdly to be partakers of his Intercession before God on our behalf For as the Scripture tells us He ever liveth to make intercession for us And this Heb. 7. 25. his intercession an Act of his Sacerdotal office is it whereby Christ properly meriteth for us For the Passion of Christ doth sufficiently discharge us of our former Obligations and obnoxiousness to the Law of God and the punishments therein denounced against the contemners and violaters thereof and so may be said having fully satisfied all the Law justly demanded of us to have merited pardon and remission of what is passed doth not thereupon entitle us to any graces or blessings from God but yet putteth us into a capacity of them but the actual collation of them is rather owing unto the uncessant mediation of him before God in behalf of us And this the Scripture intends when it saith We have a great high Priest Heb. 4. 14. that is passed into the Heavens Jesus the son of God And thus we have made a second step towards the clearing our Justification in its Efficient Causes viz That it is wholly effected by Christ made righteousness sanctification and Redemption unto us But a third thing and that of no mean necessity and difficulty both is behind how we come to be so entirely partakers of Christ how Christ so becomes ours as that God should upon the intuition hereof freely Justifie us For as St. Austin hath observed of the giving of the Holy spirit of God to those that ask aright whereas none can ask aright but by the Holy spirit herein is a great mysterie that a man can be said to be capable of the Spirit before he hath the Spirit In like manner can no man be said to be capable of Christ and
particular defects and exigencies each man is subject unto in a separate condition And this Society thus combining or concurring together is commonly called a Republick the word signifying The common good it being the design and end of all Republicks or Common-wealths for men first in order to seek the common interest and good of the whole Society and so through that to derive particular and private benefit to each member thereof and not as some blindly and brutishly addicted to their private personal profits to begin at home and not to secure the Publick stock These are no better than such Pilferers and Thieves who being in partnership with others pocket up in the first place all that they can lay hold on and contribute no more to the common stock than they are by force constrained unto Now this Society may be divided into three sorts Natural Civil Divine or Ecclesiastical Natural is that Order and Regiment constituted Ordâ— est parium disparium rerum sua cuique loco triâ—uens dispositio Aug. Civ Dei 19. 13. Bernardus Gerson entitiloquio Gubernare est movere aliquos indebitum finem sicut nanta gubernat navem emendo eam ad portum Thomas 22. Q. 102. 2. co by God in every mans soul which consisteth of the Superiority of the Rational faculties and the Subjection and Obedience of the Inferiour or Sensitive Affections For Order as several of the Ancient have described it is nothing else but The Disposition or placing of equal and inequal things into their proper places which Order is the foundation of Government And Government according to Thomas is the moving of men to their due end There being therefore a twofold end of man secular and spiritual Government likewise must be answerable And both agree in this viz. to be the Administration of the Weal Publick to ends agreeable unto them In which we are yet farther to consider these things 1. The Original of Government 2. The Form of Government 3. The Rule and Reasons of Government 4. The Obligation upon Men under Government And of these briefly as a necessary Introduction to the Doctrine of the Church And concerning the first the Cause and Fountain of all Government Some pretending to fetch the Fountain head of all humane Rule from its first rise have quite forgot what they went about and inverting the order of nature have begun at the end which is rather the effect then cause For now we do not enquire why or to what end it is but who made it and whose hand it was that framed this Tool to bring to pass such a work as humane safety and tranquility That this must be the same cause with that of man himself seems reasonable to me to conclude from the necessity of the same and the wisdom of Divine Providence which having given generally such instinct and common prudence unto Creatures to do nothing which shall serve for nothing nor to erect any thing but with competent provision to conserve and continue the same in that being so far as the Supream Wisdom shall not oppose the same How is it credible that God should make that Master-piece of his Man upon earth and not at the same time provide for that subsistance and continuance Sevorum bestiarum inquit Aristoteles Polit. 3. cap. 6 non est Civitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are necessary But it is plain that man though as brutish and a sensible creature he may wear out possibly an unhappy ignoble life yet without society and community and unity through the bands and ligaments of sound and reasonable Laws cannot subsist as civil or rational or as easily improvable to perfection of natural state upon earth but must necessarily degenerate into the rank of Brutes Therefore sure Divine Wisdome left him not destitute of such helps as were proper to this end but together with his very nature instills into him an inclination to Society and by his own Act and Ordinance whereby he ordained that man should propagate and multiply prescribed the best and only manner of civil Regiment investing some with a natural right of dominion over others As the man over the woman and the parents over the children from whence it is ready and easie to approach to a community and that with a subordination This is so plain that the perspicuity and simplicity doth rather then any thing else offend the unsatisfied acuteness of rarer wits and move them to pry farther to confound themselves others and the Order God hath set in the world beginning at the feet and ending in the head and putting counsel into the tail to teach the head how it should rule the body and empowring children to enact Laws for Parents how they ought to govern which they certainly do who affirm that the grosser body of the people did first of all agree upon Government and constitute their Ruler which dogmes have no fewer nor higher arguments to confute and oppress them than these First they are Ridiculous Secondly Sacrilegious and Impious Thirdly Impossible Fourthly Pestilential and Pernicious to all Government It is first ridiculous as that opinion which inverts all order and contrary to a much more sound and sober Rule in Politicks viz. That no man can create one greater than himself And if it be said that therefore no single one can confer greater power than he himself is possessed of on another but Many who are greater than one may I answer This is true where the supposition which is here false and taken for true is granted viz. That many men have in such cases as these any more power then one For I wholly deny that any are or altogether have any right whatsoever power they may usurp to create such Powers And it still remains absurd to suppose that any or all whose only place and capacity it is to serve should more then command For 't is a true saying It is more to make a King than to be a King For still I hold this which I have not found shaken by the many attempts of innovating Wits that there is a real Paternal Power in lawful Princes And though we should suppose that which was rarely if ever done that a man should adopt any man into the place of a Father as men usually did some as their sons yet can we not suppose that hereby any paternal Power is really conferred on such an one but only imaginary and impediments removed whereby Paternal power which hath an acknowledged common right to Rule take place over such a person as hath so submitted unto it So in like manner it cannot be denyed against innumerable instances to be given that the People in certain exigencies and faileurs have as it were adopted one man specially as their civil Parent whom we call commonly a King and hereupon absurdly and proudly conclude they have made a King but we know this to be nothing so For 't is not choice but Power that makes a King and
in this case no power at all is given or can be given nor in truth ought to be taken away as the manner is from Princes entring through the populacie into the Throne For God only is the proper and immediate Author of Right and Power which he hath inserted into Parents over their Children and hath proportionably prescribed to Kings and Princes without ever advising with the People or expecting their consent or confirmation This the Scripture it self calls Jus Imperii or 1 Sam. 8. 9. lefs significantly with us The Manner of the King Reason calls the same Justice which never takes its measure from earth originally but from heaven not from the People but from God And that Similitude found in the works of a very judicious and learned man to shew the Prophets right to institute at first Kings from their right to restore Kingly Power lapsed by reason of the visible Heir to it ceasing viz. That as the Lord of a Mannour resuming the estate of a Tenant whose legal Heirs are unknown to himself doth argue that it first proceeded from him so the right of the People to constitute a Prince over them upon a total cessation of legal Pretenders do imply an original right to be in the People of founding Monarchs doth to my apprehension infer the contrary being better stated For it sheweth no more than this That in truth God being the true and proper Lord of the Mannour this dominion is devolved unto him and not to the People And that even in such cases a tacit hand of God is seen by many eminent Instances in Histories designing the Person receiving that Rule the People being but so many Stewards of Gods Court in admitting a new Tenant to Kingly Power For by me saith the Prov. 8. 15. Dan. 2. 23 â—â—testas 〈◊〉 est apud Electores ergo nec ab ipsis datur sed ab ipsis tamen certae personae applicatur Grotius De Imperio Summarum Potestat cap. 10. §. 2. Idem de Jure Bel. Pa. lib. 3. c. 3. § 8. 1. Simpliciter esse verum negat Populum creare Magistratus Scripture Kings reign and Princes decree Justice And the like doth Daniel assert to God He changeth the times and seasons he removeth Kings and setteth up Kings he giveth wisdome unto the wise and knowledge c. The most therefore that the People do when they act most in creating Kings is under God to apply the Person to the Place or Office of Governing And therefore in the second place it is no better than Sacrilegiously done by them to mutilate that Power which God hath given by the necessary and common Laws of Natural Justice to Supream Rulers and transfer of it to themselves as it would be for a Guardian to an Orphans estate to pare and pill it and bestow it on himself although perhaps out of terrour the consent of the party so defrauded be obtained lest he should loose all Yet doth not all this contradict the general practise of Subjects who having long continued under equal and reasonable Laws explaining and particularly applying the common Supream Law of Justice to a State or People do present such Rules of Regiment to their future Prince for his confirmation unless they be so far urged on him who hath a Personal Right by Birth to succeed in the Throne as to deny absolutely to submit to him without such conditions yielded unto Indeed could they prove the Right of Choice of the Person to be the same with the Power belonging to the Place they might mangle alterate and adulterate it as they pleased For 't is a Law that a man free from Rulers as these are supposed now to be may do what he will with his own and choose whether he will part with any of it or not and what and how much he will give away but it not being so and a duty lying upon him of being Just He that as our Saviour saith is unjust in the Luke 16. 10. least is unjust also in much But thirdly to shew that there can neither be Divine nor Natural Right in the People to choose or create Governours and much less Government the impossibility of the real and just execution of this power abundantly sufficeth For if men as some have been so blind and bold to affirm were naturally free untill they brought this subjection upon themselves Then first this were general and without exceptions or but partial and with exceptions If this latter be true and some were naturally subject This will destroy the principal dogme it self and open a way to the unanswerable reasons against natural freedom For that which we have by nature we have in common and without exception of the thing it self though peradventure with some discrimination in the degree and measure But if the first be granted That all are free then must cease of necessity subjection natural of children to their parents which hath been with better advice and reason received then it hath by some been well-nigh quite disowned to the making way for Novel Politicks And again Grant that all men were once but no body could never tell when and in a certain place but no body could ever tell where equally free or at least all of years of discretion which is most uncertain It would be known first How men dare to be so presumptuous as to make such a breach of the Law of Nature as this must be viz. To part with their birth-right and to imbezel that which God had given them concomitantly with their own lives I say what a notorious ingratitude and an offense against God to alter nature it self who we may well suppose doth all things most consonantly to Divine reason If therefore men had this Liberty naturally in them I hold it no less a sin to give it away than for one to cut off a member of his body or to destroy ones reason if it lay in his power And to say that the People in such cases do not absolutely devest themselves of power nor part with what God and Nature hath placed in them because they commit only to such the Administration of such power as is resident in them radically it being neither commodious nor possible for the universal Body to manage it self to the due ends of civil Society but reserve unto themselves a right of Revocation upon the Male-administration or abuse of Power so delegated This is to traduce Divince Providence and Wisdom notoriously For what can be a greater reproach to a wise man or the most wise God than to admit such a gross errour as to so constitute and frame a thing to such ends and purposes which it can never attain and to endow a people or person with such a faculty which can never avail nor succeed to the intention of it and never be executed as certainly Supream in the People cannot but must be delivered over to another more capable subject Thus it seemeth to
hath instituted Government in General but not limited it to any one kind but left it to the wisdom and choice of men to pitch upon what Government best agrees with a Nation But to what mens wisdom to some few or to many or to all men of that Nation All or the major part have no wisdom nor possibility to choose Few or many choosing doth manifest injustice to the others But what needs repetition of what is said quite opposite to all this This therefore is only here to be added That the supposition here made is utterly false and incongruous to the nature of all things else constituted by God and contrary to the course of nature and Gods manner of working which apparently is not to begin with Generals and so to proceed to Particulars but first he makes Particulars â—nd creates only Individuums single beings and by a necessary consequence whatever existence the General Nature hath it borroweth from thence As God did not at first make man in General and then left some body else as they thought to make Adam and Eve and the rest nor did he irst and only make a living Creature in General and then left the Angels or some other unknown Creatures to us to make what special Animals they pleased out of that but he first made Adam and so mans nature was made He first made the Sun and Moon so far as we read and upon that followed that he made great Lights And the like method must of necessity be acknowledg'd in Gods Institutions Moral and Civil and he must inevitably so far as humane wit can reach first ordain some one Government in particular before he could be said to be the Author of Government generally taken Now if it doth not at all appear That God had any more than a common hand whereby evil as well as good doth spring up in the World in the institution of any more than one sort of Government and that he did particularly pitch upon one and gave instances and intimation of his choice of one and nothing can be alleadged in behalf of the opposite to that as proceeding in any direct special manner from him then will the form of Government we now seek after commend it self unto us And this we shall do by giving the Divine Prerogatives which Monarchical Government hath above others invented by man to stand in competition with it And this not by wading deep or wandring far into an uncertain and tedious Disputation of finding out reasons on both sides which may seem to commend and prefer one above another and so consequently to conclude a divineness in one especially but by certain visible indications and motives evidencing this to every imprejudic'd mind And they are these First Consider we that simple and imperfect Regiment which is Natura enim commenta est Regeâ—â— quod ex aliis animalibus licet cognoscere ex apibus quarum regi amplissimum cubile est medióque ac tutissimo loco Seneca de Clement lib. 1. cap. 9. Vide etiam Hieron Epist 4. Isidorum Pelusiat Epist lib. 2. ep 216. Origen cont Cels lib. 4. pag. 217. Basil Ma. Hom. 8. in Hexaem Chrysost in Rom. Serm. 23. pag. 189. found in Animals and there will appear a resemblance of this Monarchical power only as in herds of Deer and Cattle and Bees in which is observed the Superiority of one over all so far as there is any subjection at all Yea St. Cyprian and divers other Fathers writing against Gentile Idolatry do prove the Monarchy of God over all the World from the Unity of Inanimate things as the Sun in the firmament raigning as it were over all the other Celestial Bodies Secondly The more proper and refined Law of Nature written in mens heart and inclining them to this kind of Government only do not a little argue the hand of God in its institution That being received for a Law of God natural to which all people without syncretizing consulting or combining mutually do consent and practise Now it is evident so far as any History doth inform us That all Nations were at first governed by a single person And whereas Nimrod is reported by some first to have usurped Regal Power over men because the Scriptures tell us how he was a mighty hunter before the Lord it hath more of phansie thaâ— substance in it Yet possibly he might be the first that collected many petty Princes of Families together constraining them to lay aside their Domestick Monarchy and to be subject unto him Or that he brought his neighbour Princes all to his Dominion and so became a Tyrant overthem And at this day if we advise with those People in both Indies discovered we shall find that they scarce ever heard of any other Government but that of Monarchy and that almost Paternal being extended to very few Persons compared with the multitude of which Kingdoms or Governments generally consist And in truth it may give some repuâ—e to the Government of many that Christian Religion favoureth it but it can give no credit to Christian Religion That it only practises and acknowledges a different way of Ruling people from all the known world besides For it will be hard to find any other but Regal Power out of Europe and in Europe not the tenth part owning Antimonarchical Government And of those that do differ from Monarchical Power not two agreeâ—ng in the same form but only negatively against a single Persons Suprenacy So that we may see they have no general Rule to go by but every Nation are a Rule to themselves Thirdly the Paternal Power being acknowledged to be natural and of Divine institution and differing from Monarchical and Regal but as Magis and Minus the lesser degree doth from the greater the thing is in a manner yielded But fourthly Divine Presidents and Examples do further confirm this and that taken from the Word of God in all which there is no mention at all made of any Government but Regal though not alwayes under that name For before the children of Israel went into Egypt the Father or Patriarch of them had this power without competitor In the the Captivity and Servitude of Egypt they had no publick Government besides that of the Kings of Egypt unless peradventure every Tribe had a Chief by succession over them without any Civil Autority From their departure out of Egypt to the death of Joshuah the Supremacie was in one notwithstanding subordinate Councels and Rulers constituted by Moses After Joshuah arose Judges by Gods special appointment not many at once thereby framing an Aristocracie but one Eminent person giving Law to all others And these differed from that of more formal Regal Persons instituted by God at the desire of the discontented people in that before Saul God kept the choice of their Governours more immediately in his own hand and ordained them Deliverers and Judges according to his pleasure and occasions offered which was the
reason together with their rejecting of so eminent a Servant of God as was Samuel that God 1 Sam. 8. 10. said of the People they had rejected him rather than Samuel From Saul to the Captivity it is manifest what their Government was and from thence it matters not as to our present purpose how they governed themselves seeing they were ruled by the Regal Power of Foreign Princes until shaking off that yoke they were brought under that form by their own Deliverers which was again extorted from them by usurping Tyrants So that when Philo-Judeus and Josephus seem to write of an Aristocratical Government instituted by Moses they can no otherwise be understood to write faithfully but in reference to Ecclesiastical Courts and Cases of Religion purely wherein the Counsel of many was to take place but not to the administration of Civil Justice unless as is above-said when they were themselves subject to Forrain Princes The Objections against this Form thus asserted I leave to be answered from the positive grounds thus laid down And commend the Reader to the learned Disputations of others which are many concerning the excellencie and benefits of one Form above another But as to Hereditary and Elective Governments what is convenient may be gathered from the general discourse now made Now we proceed to the Third thing in Government the mutual Obligation of Governour and Governed CHAP. XXVI Of the mutual Relations and Obligations of Soveraigns and Subjects No Right in Subjects to resist their Soveraigns tyrannizing over them What Tyranny is Of Tyrants with a Title and Tyrants without Title Of Magistrates Inferiour and Supream the vanity and mischief of that distinction The Confusion of Co-ordinate Governments in one State Possession or Invasion giveth no Right to Rulers The Reasons why THAT we read not in the New Testament of any Rules or Advice given to Kings and Princes how to govern the people under them the reason is plain viz. Because in those dayes there were none Christian and St. Paul says What 1 Cor. 5. 12. have I to do to judge them that are without the Church For doubtless had any been of the Society of Christians they had fallen under the Christian Discipline and Precepts of the Apostles But that occasion of instructing Kings in the due administration of their power failing we are to seek for satisfaction from the old Testament where not much is found besides general moral Precepts of Sobriety Temperance Justice and the like enjoyned Solomon by David his Father and left by Solomon in his Book of Proverbs for Rules to succeeding Princes Moses likewise not without Gods appointment hath drawn up some special Precepts for Kings to follow in the real and cordial embracing of Gods word and worship and taking the defense and protection thereof Of which to speak it little behoves us at present Neither purpose we out of Humane Arguments and Autority to prescribe to Supreams what they ought to do or how to govern any farther than the known Rules of Justice in common do require For no doubt there is a mutual Obligation between Soveraign and Subject and that he is tyed and circumscribed in the exercise of his power by God as really as this is in his Obedience to him and that upon the common duties expressed by St. Paul of Masters to Servants and Husbands to Wives and Parents to Children For it doth not at all follow That because Princes are not subject to their Subjects therefore they are free from all subjection Ephes 6. 8. No St. Paul's Rule holds good to Kings as well as to Masters viz. That they should know that their King and Master is in heaven and that Kings are to be subject as well to the Laws of God as their Subjects are to the Laws of Man And though Children ought to obey their Parents in all things yet there is tacitly understood certain Laws of Limitation restraining the boundless tyranny of both civil and natural Parents For Subjects and Children are to know that they have a higher Lord and a more powerful Father to whom in the first place obedience must be paid And we must withdraw our selves from the commands of our Earthly Soveraign when our Heavenly who is his Soveraign doth require it as all rational Kings do grant as well as People But neither ought we to restrain the will of Princes to the literal and express will of God only but even to the most just and reasonable Laws of Humane Authority but only we must distinguish the vast difference between the obligation of Subjects to the just and equal Laws prescribed and imposed on them and that of Princes in relation to those Laws concerning their governing For all Laws contain two special causalities in them The one Exemplary whereby a Form and Rule is prescribed directing such as are to be guided thereby to the observation of Justice Equity and Reason as well to the publick as private good And to this so far as it is reasonable Kings are no less bound than Subjects they ought to observe entirely and religiously these sound and profitable Laws and that under pain of Gods displeasure The other causality which Laws have is Efficient and Compulsive whereby a Civil penalty being denounced and impending over the head of the infringers thereof they are better guarded from transgressions by either loss of outward good or life it self according to the merit of the Offense It cannot either consist with the Law of God or Nations to inflict punishments on Princes Soveraign Not but that for instnace murder adultery unjust spoil and robbery of the Subjects may no less considering the nature of the Crime deserve such punishment of Princes as they do of People but because there is none in such cases that can or ought duly and regularly to execute such Laws because there can be no such execution without the power of the Sword and there can be but one proper subject of that power in any one Republick Every man must not put to death him that is a notorious offender no not though he be justly and legally condemned to dye but he or they only who are thereunto rightly impowred and authorized by the Supream And though every man may in his own mind and judgment sentence a malefactour whose crime is high and apparent to death yet cannot he in civil judicature render him obnoxious to it And the reason hereof is plain because Justice must be done justly or else there is incurred no less guilt than is sought and intended to be revenged And of all guilt I know not whether any be greater than the assuming of such a power which no wayes belongs to a man For better it were to take away ones horse or to ravish another mans wife or to extort unjustly anothers estate than to devest a Prince of his Right of Rule and usurp it to himself and that first because no mans estate or any thing that is his doth descend
to be for certain reasons they draw at their pleasure out of Scripture and the necessity of our knowledge of it which is as solid a way of proceeding as if I finding my self by natural sense cold another should attempt to demonstrate the contrary because it is Midsommer But this use we may yet make of Universality to jude of Catholickness of Faith taking it for the most constant for time place and persons according as all humane account requires to ascribe that to the more numerous and eminent which is strictly proper only to the whole entire Body as a Councel or Senate is said to decree a thing when the chiefest do so some dissenting surely this is a very probable argument of the Catholickness of that Faith and consequently that Church so believing But what we before observed must not be forgotten here viz. That in all such enquiries as these the Estimate must be taken from the whole Church passed as well as Present and that there is as well an Eminency of Ages as Persons to preponderate in this Case Lastly the advantage Negative from Universality is very considerable to discern the true Faith and Church from false because it is most certain if any Doctrine or Discipline shall be obtruded on the Church which cannot be made evident to have been actually received in the Church and not by colourable and probable conjectures and new senses of Scripture invented to that purpose in some former Age that is Heretical and Schismatical and in no good sense Catholick The last Note which we shall mention is Sanctity which we hold very proper to this end taken abstractedly from all Persons as considered in Doctrine and Principles For if any Church doth teach contrary to the Law of nature of moral vertues of Justice or the like we may well conclude that to be a false Church though it keeps it self never so strictly to the Rule of Scriptures in many or most other things For it is in the power of mans wit and may be in the power of his hands to devise certain Religious Acts and impose them on others which shall carry a greater shew of severity and sanctity than there is any grounds for in Scripture or Presidents in the best approved Churches and yet this is not true Holiness of Believers For to this is principally required that it be regulated and warranted by Gods holy Word Yet neither so directly and expresly as if it were unlawful to act any thing in order to Holiness without special precept from thence For I see no cause at all to reject the ancient distinction found frequently with the Fathers of the Church of duties of Precept and duties of Councel For there ever was and ought to be in Christs Church several ranks of Professours of Christs Religion whereof for instance some live more contemplative some more active lives But if all commendable and profitable States were under Precept then should all sin that do not observe the same but God hath taken a mean course in not commanding some things of singular use to the promoting of Piety in true Believers but commending the same unto us Such are Virginal chastity Monastick life Travelling painfully not only towards the salvatian of a mans own soul but of others likewise and certain degrees uncommanded of Duties commanded as of charity towards our Christian neighbours Watchings unto Prayer and spiritual Devotion which being prescribed no man can determine to what degree they are by God required of us precisely some therefore are left to the Freewill-offerings of devouter persons who thereby endeavour either to assure themselves more fully of their salvation or increase of the glory afterward to be received For as Christ tells us in the Gospel Much was forgiven to Mary because she loved much so shall much be given upon the same reason They therefore that teach contrary to such wholesome and useful means of Holiness as these or the like under perhaps vain suspicion of too great opinion may be had of their worthiness incur at least with me the censure of being enemies to the holiness of Christs Church and render their Churches more suspected for the opposing of them than others for approving or practising them The Holiness then of the Church commending it to the eye and admiration of the World doth consist in the divineness and spiritualness of its Doctrine and Ecclesiastical discipline in use in it exceeding moral civility For it may be that such a severe hand of civil Justice may be held over a people that they may live more orderly and inoffensively to the world than some true Christian Churches but if this be done as often it is out of civil Prudence natural Gravity or a disposition inclined rather to get an estate than riotously and vainly to spend on which brings such scandal to Religion then is not this a sign of a true Church or Christian because it proceedeth not from principles proper to Christian Religion but secular interest how specious soever it may appear to the World CHAP. XXXI Of the Power and Acts of the Church Where they are properly posited Of the Fountain of the Power denyed to the Church Neither Prince nor People Authour of the Churches Power But Christ the true Head of the Church The manner how Christs Church was founded Four Conclusions upon the Premisses 1. That there was alwayes distinction of Persons in the Church of Christ 2. The Church was alwayes administred principally by the Clergy 3. The Rites generally received in the Church necessary to the conferring Clerical Power and Office 4. All are Vsurpers of Ecclesiastical Power who have not thus received it In what sense Kings may be said to be Heads of the Church AFter the Church found and founded as abovesaid the special Acts thereof claim due consideration and the Power or Right of so acting And this Power we make two-fold in General Political and Mystical or Sacramental Of both which we must first enquire after the proper Subject before we treat of the proper Acts thereof That all Power which is given by Christ doth reside in the Church as its subject no man can or doth question But because the Church it self being as is said a Society united in one Faith and administred outwardly by Christian Discipline according to Christs mind admitteth of several senses and acceptations therefore it must be first understood which and in what sense is according to Christs intention the proper seat of this power And before we come to Scriptural grounds we take no small help in this Enquiry from the common state of all Government which we have already shown to be such as is not ascending but descending It cometh not originally nor can from the multitude or people who are the object of this power i. e. the Persons properly to be governed and not governing all the Examples of former Ages confirming not only the unnaturalness and unreasonableness but impossibility of the People governing
From all which we may gather both the Efficient and Exemplary cause of the several orders in Christ For first we read how he called unto himself twelve Apostles as well to minister under him during his abode upon earth as to Preside and inform his Church after his departure out of this World which according to St. Hierome were prefigured by the twelve fountains the twelve Patriarchs the twelve Tribes the twelve Princes of Exod. 15. 27. Mark 3. 14. the Tribes There he not only elected but ordained also as St. Mark testifieth that they should be with him and that he might send them out to preach naming them Apostles as St. Luke writeth After the choice and Luk. 6. 13. Mat. 10. 1. Luk. 9. 2. Math. 10. 1. Math. 10. 10. Ordination of them he gave them actual Mission as it appeareth by St. Mathew and Commission to preach and to work miracles to the confirmation of his Doctrine and to receive a reward for their pains And when the Harvest was too great for so few Labourers as twelve St. Luke tells us he added Adjutants to them seventy Disciples answerable to Luk. 10. 1. Numb 11. 10 the seventy Elders by Gods appointment set over the children of Israel and the seventy Souls that went with Jacob into Egypt These two orders Gen. 46. Eph. 3. 5. are thought to be intended by St. Paul to the Ephesians where he maketh mention of Apostles and Prophets by Prophets meaning such who bare that part of the Prophetical office which consisted in ordinary instruction of the People of which in other places likewise he speaketh Now adding to these the common sort of Christians or Disciples which were if not at the time of Christs abode upon earth yet afterward Christians as St. Paul intimateth where he affirmeth Christ was seen after his resurrection of 1 Cor. 15. 6. above five hundred brethren at once We have three distinct orders of Christians First Apostles secondly Evangelists or the seventy Thirdly simple Believers or Christians And it is most certain that as the Apostles did not so much as choose their Lord nor the Evangelists the Apostles so the Common sort did not then constitute or choose their Preachers or Evangelists but while Christ continued on earth he kept the power of Ordination of whom he pleased in his own hands and never is it so much as insinuated that upon his departure he left any power in their hands to dispose Ecclesiastical Affairs or Persons therein but that with his Apostles as succeeding him in visible Administration he deposited this power many arguments are offer'd us out of Scripture For in the Person of St. Peter he gave power to all the Apostles saying Feed my sheep And that this same power Joh. 21. 15 resting in them was by them transmitted unto others the very same form of words almost used by St. Peter himself to be the Governours of the 1 Pet. 5. 2. Church do prove where he saith Feed the Flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly And St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles likewise And that the whole Ecclesiastical Acts. 20. 28. Jurisdiction was entirely in the Apostles and Apostolical Persons doth appear from the enumeration of the most principal parts of which such Jurisdiction doth consist which may be these as we find them in Scripture recorded 1. Power of determining Controversies of Religion as appeareth from the Question agitated about keeping the Law of Moses Acts. 15. and concluded by the Apostles and Elders which were of the second Order after the Apostles And in the eleventh of the Acts the same resolved Acts. 11. the doubt concerning the Conversing with Gentiles 2. Of imposing Laws and orders for the due and sober conversation in matters of Moral nature as may be gathered from St. Paul to the Thessalonians where he adviseth That Christians study to be quiet and to do their own business and to work with 1 Thes 4. 11. their own hands as we commanded you And so in the second Epistle he thus writeth Now we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ 2 Thes 3. 6. that ye withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us And so verse the twelfth of the same Chapter Thirdly Censurings and Punishments of the refractory and disorderly and that of two sorts First of suspension and interdicting as did the Disciples of Christ suspected Preachers of him in St. Luke John answered Luk. 9. 49. and said Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy name and we forbade him because he followeth not with us And so others they restrain who preached without their command or exceeded their commission as may be read in the acts of the Apostles by vertue of the same censuring Power St. Paul Acts. 15. 24 25. 1 Tim. 2. 12. interdicts women from preaching in the Church Secondly the Censure of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separation of 〈◊〉 and notorious offendors in the Church from communion in the Church For St. Paul writing to the Corinthians in this manner What will ye shall I come unto you with a rod or in Love and in the spirit of meekness doth evidently distinguish a twofold 1 Cor. 4. 21. power resident in him of severity to chastise and meekness to comfort and support And this power is more plainly expressed in the exercise thereof upon the scandalous offendor in incestuous marriage As also 1 Cor. 5. 3 4 5. in the formidabâ—e proceedings against Hymeneus and Alexauder whom St. Paul delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme and several other things more proper for some other place A Fourth instance of Jurisdiction is seen in the power of Ordination pertaining to the Apostles by imposition of hands For they did ordain those Deacons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles And St. Paul to Timothy exhorting Acts. 6. 5 6. 2 Tim. 1. 6. him to Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of his hands doth declare the Act of Ordination used by himself From alâ— which these four conclusions do necessarily follow First that by Christ and his Apostles intention there were alwayes in their dayes distinction of persons in the Church some having the power of Rule and some being subject according to the Comparison of St. Paul to the Corinthians of the natural order and superiority of and subjection of the 1 Cor. 12. Members in a natural Body to one another and coming to application v 28. be saith And God hath set some in the Church First Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles And by demanding and Questioning v. 29 30. doth vehemenâ—ly deny a Parity in the Church And this distinction of Persons was no otherwise known at first but by the common name of Brethren given to
Eucharist and especially going upon the grounds of Luther Calvin Perkins and some others of Great note that all Sacerdotal they may call them if they please Ministerial Acts done by him who is no true Minister are really null and void Fourthly we conclude that seeing all Ecclesiastical power as Ecclesiastical doth proceed from Christ and his Successors and that by Ordinary and visible means they who have not received the same by such Ordinary Methods are usurpers of the same whether Political or Mystical And that to deny this to the Church is to deny that which Christ hath given them and such a Principle of the Churches well Being without which it cannot subsist and it not subsisting neither can the Faith it self And to the reason above given we may add Prescription beyond all memory For from Christs time to this day a perpetual and peculiar power hath ever been in the Clergy which hath constantly likewise born the name of the Church to assemble define and dispose matters of Religion And why should not Prescription under Unchristian as well as Christian Governours for so many Ages together be as valid sacred and binding to acknowledgment in the Case of Religion as Civil Matters will ever remain a question in Conscience and common Equity even after irresistible Power hath forced a Resolution otherwise It is true such is the more natural and Ancient Right Civil Power hath over the outward Persons of men than that which Religion hath over the Inward man that it may claim a dominion and disposal of the Persons of even Christian subjects contrary to the soft and infirm Laws of the Church because as hath been said Men are Men before they are Christians and Nature goeth before Grace And Civil society is the Basis and support to Ecclesiastical Yet the grounds of Christianity being once received for good and divine and that Religion cannot subsist nor the Church consist without being a Society and no Society without a Right of counsel and consultation and no consultation without a Right to assemble together the Right of assembling must needs be in trinsique to the Church it self Now if no man that is a Christian can take away the essential ingredient to the Church how can any deny this of Assembling For the practise of it constantly and confidently by the Apostles and brethren contrary to the express will of the Lawful Powers of the Jews and Romans and the reason given in the Acts of the Apostles of obeying God rather then man do imply certainly a Law and Charter from God so to do and if this be granted as it must who can deny by the same Rule necessity of Cause and constant Prescription that they may as well provide for the safety of the Faith by securing the state of the Church as for the truth and stability of the Church by securing the true Faith by doctrine and determination The Great question hath ever been Whether the Church should suffer loss of power and priviledges upon the Supream Powers becomming Christian Or the Supream power it self loose that dominion which it had before it became of the Church For if Christianity subjected Kings necessarily to the Laws of others not deriving from them then were not Kings in so good a Condition after they were Christians as before when they had no such pretences or restraints upon them and so should Christs Law destroy or maim at least the Law of God by which Kings reign But there may be somewhatsaid weakning this absurdity For Granting this That there is a God and that he is to be worshipped and that as he appointeth all which we must by nature believe it seems no less natural to have these observed than the Laws of natural Dominion Now granting that at present which if we be true to our Religion we must not deny viz. That Christian Religion is the true Religion and that God will be worshipped in such sort as is therein contained For any Prince absolute to submit to the essentials of that Religion is not to loose any thing of his Pristine Rights which he had before being an Heathen for he never had any Right to go against the Law of God more then to go against the Law of Nature but it doth restrain his Acts and the exercise of his Power And if the Supream after he hath embraced Christianity shall proceed to exert the same Authority over the Church as before yet the Church hath no power to resist or restrain him Civilly any more than when he was an Alien to it Now it being apparent that Christian Faith and Churches had their Forms of believing and Communion before Soveraign powers were converted and that he who is truly converted to a Religion doth embrace it upon the terms which he there finds not such as he brings with him or devises therefore there lies an Obligation upon such powers to preserve the same as they found it inviolate And truly for any secular Power to become Christian with a condition of inverting the orders of the Church and deluting the Faith is to take away much more than ordinary accrues unto it by such a change It is true the distinction is considerable between the Power of a Christian and unchristian King exerted in this manner because taking the Church in the Largest sense in which all Christians in Communion are of it what Christian Kings act with the Church may in some sense bear the name of the Church as it doth in the State acting according to their secular capacity but much more improperly there than here because there are no inferiour Officers or Magistrates in such a Commonwealth which are not of his founding and institution whatsoever they do referr to him and whatsoever almost he doth is executed by them But Christ as we have shewed having ordained special Officers of his own which derive not their Spiritual Power at all from the Civil and to this end that his Church might be duly taught and governed what is done without the concurrence of these can in no proper sense bear the name of the Church But many say the King is a Mixt person consisting partly of Ecclesiastical and partly Civil Authority but this taken in the ordinary latitude is to begg the Question and more a great deal than at first was demanded For who knows how far this Mixture extends and that it comprehends not the Mystical Power of the Church as well as the Political And how have they proved one more than the other by such a title It were reasonable therefore first to declare his Rights in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil and thence conclude he is a Mixt Person and not to affirm barely he is a Mixt Person and from thence inferr they know not what Ecclesiastical power themselves And if he hath such power whether it is immediately of God annexed to his Natural Right or by consent of the Church is attributed unto him For by taking this course we
with Christians denying them all outward conversation as well as spiritual in matters of Religion Now this seems to be a branch of the Old Greater Excommunication and not in all places disusâ—d And sometimes is unlawful and otherwhile lawful according to the extent and application of them For to inflict the same to the dissolving of ties of nature is not agreeable to the simplicity of the Gospel And Natural Ties we call such as are between Subjects and Soveraign Parents and Children Husband and Wife which by no Ecclesiastical Excommunication can be broken or nulled The reason whereof besides the monstrous effects ensuing upon their evacuation not here to be treated of is this That Ecclesiastical Power can take away no more than it gave nor Christianity destroy what it never builded But Christianity did never simply confer such Rights on men but the Law of Nature only it regulated and directed the same therefore can it not null it It is therefore unchristian for any pretending Ecclesiastical Power to absolve subjects from obedience Civil or Children from natural and the like But every Christian in that he is adopted of God by baptism and admitted into the Society of Christians doth receive thereby certain Rights and power to communicate with it in all things which power may be forfeited and lost by breach of Covenant as well with the Body of the Church to live and believe according to the Received Faith and practice thereof as with the Head Christ And this being so judged by those who are over the Church in the Lord it is very consonant to Christian Religion to deny such of what order or rank soever they be the signs of outward communion Prayer and Communication of the Holy Sacraments of Christ The Church hath power to declare even soveraign Princes uncapable of such Communion and deny it them which we call the Lesser Excommunication Yet because as we said No natural Right can be extinguished upon unchristian misdemeanours If a Supream Prince of a Place should disdain to be denied or opposed in such cases and would make his entrance into the Church by vertue of his Civil Right to all places under his Dominion the most that the Church could do justly in such cases were to diswade him but by any force to resist his entrance into any Church were unlawful as it would be also to minister in a Christian manner in his presence for this cannot be commanded by him but in such cases suffering must be put in practice as for the Faith it self sought to be destroyed Some there are yet who call in question the peculiar and incommunicable Right of decreeing this Censure of Excommunication to those called the Clergy which is very strange seeing this Power is part of that of the Keys delivered by Christ himself to such only as he constituted Governors of the Church and that in Christs days their was a distinction between the Members of his Body as to Inferiority and Superiority Obedience and Command Teacher and Learner and much more in the Apostles days after Christs Assention and much more yet after their days according as the matter of the Church Christians encreasing and improving became more capable of a more convenient form and fashion For as it is in the production of natural things though the Form be certain and constant and the very same at the first production as in its perfection yet it doth not appear so fully and perfectly as afterward So was it with the Body of Christs Church It is certain therefore that from the beginning this Act of Excluding from the Communion was never executed but by the Rulers and Presidents of Congregations though the people might concurr thereto Now that these Rulers whom we may call Bishops or Presbyters were not created by the People nor by the Prince we have shewed already and therefore did nothing in their Right but in the Power of Christ whose Ministers alone they properly were And this being essential to right Administration of the Church how can it be supposed either to be separable from the Church in General or from those persons who are the proper Administrators of it For to say with some It is needless Selden de Jure Gentium apud Bibliander apud Erastum wholly where Christian Magistrates rule whose proper office it is to rebuke and punish vice and scandalous misdemeanors which say they can only be just cause of Excommunication is to destroy the subject of the question which supposes it needful and upon this enquires after the Persons which should Execute the same And spitefully to defeat the Church of all Authority from Christ doth indeed translate this Power to the Civil Magistrate And is not the absurdity the very same which endowes the Christian Governor with Civil Power and which endows the Civil Magistrate with Christian If it be not absurd for a King to be a Philosopher it is not absurd for a Philosopher to be a King If it be not absurd for a Civil Magistrate to have Priestly power it is not absurd for him that hath Priestly power to be a Magistrate There is certainly no inconsistency on either side For things of a far different nature and intention may easily meet in the same person though the things themselves can never be the same Here therefore the things differing so egregiously it is no more than nacessary that a different cause be acknowledged necessary which not appearing the Effect must be denied Now the Cause of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as Ecclesiastical must needs come from him from whom the Church it self hath its Original and being And it is a certain Rule that a man is born to nothing that comes from Christ as Head of his Church but is made and instituted Which whoever is not cannot lay any just claim to any Office under him I know it is objected that Preaching being an Ecclesiastical Act hath without contradiction been practised by diverse and to this day may be no ordination preceeding To which I thus answer by distinguishing first between doing a thing Ex Charitate and Ex Officio out of Charity and out of duty Preaching was ever permittedin the Church especially taken in the larger sense wherein it signifies all declaration of the Gospel out of Charity But the office of Preaching was never suffered but upon antecedent qualifications And these two differ yet farther For he that doth a thing out of Office doth it so that it is not lawful for him absolutely to omit it but he that doth it out of Charity and only by connivance not by commission may cease at his pleasure and as he made may suspend himself when he will Again he that teaches without Autority upon bare permission nay be silenced without any other cause renderd but the will of him that hath the Jurisdiction or if a reason be given because He hath no autority is sufficient But he that is orderly instituted to that end cannot without
who talk of Aquaquula a Little water as if for want of that God should suffer a soul to perish or for want of a Little morsel of bread and a drop or two of wine men should perish everlastingly As if it were not a mercy of God to save some and that by the contemptiblest things in the world and such as his illuminable power and wisdom should choose rather than rigour in binding us to them or to be authours of our own ruin But to protract a disputation to prove that the efficacy of the Sacraments can arise from the Work it self thinking thereby that it must follow that they are not at all efficacious as some very learned men have done is rather to be pitied than persecuted For no otherwise do we ascribe vertue to them Ex opere Operato but as it is opposit to Opus operantis meaning that the instrumental things the Sacraments have not their sufficiencie or efficiencie from the Instrumental Persons the Ministers of them but that these doing the work required of them by the Ordainer the efficacie follows and yet not absolutely from the work but from the will of God CHAP. XXXIV Of the distinction of Sacraments into Legal and Evangelical Of the Covenants necessary to Sacraments The true difference between the Old and New Covenant The Agreement between Christ and Moses The Agreements and differences between the Law and the Gospel MORE contention hath afflicted the Church of God in the disquisition of the number than nature of the Sacraments First then for methods sake We shall divide them into Legal and Evangelical Legal Sacraments were those outward Signs and Rites which God ordained to Abraham and his Seed as Instances and Notices of the Covenant made between him and them And therefore it will not be improper nor unseasonable to interrupt a little the immediate prosecution of the Sacraments and treat of the Covenants God hath made with man as well New as Old seeing all the Sacraments as well Jewish as Christian relate to those Covenants A Covenant is nothing else but an Agreement solemnly made between two distinct Parties with Conditions mutually to be observed as in that between Laban and Jacob That the one should not pass over that leap to the Gen. 31. 52. other for harm So likewise between God and Man a Stipulation and Restipulation is made that the one should perform the part of a Patron and Lord and the other of a faithful Servant to him This Covenant is but twofold in general however it be diversified according to the several occasions of revealing the same The first was properly a Covenant of Nature the second of Grace The Covenant of Nature was first made with Adam at his creation wherein was bestowed on him not only such Faculties and Perfections of Being as necessarily tended to the natural perfection of man but super-added certain supernatural Graces which might dispose him with facility to fulfill the Law and Will of God Notwithstanding which he disobeying God forfeited those more special aids and accomplishments and so dissolved that Covenant God proceeded not upon faithless man according to the rigour of his Justice but out of his free inscrutable favour inclined to renew a Covenant with him again and that was in a third Person not with false man immediately as before And this Person through whom he thus covenant a second time with man was the Man Christ Jesus and then these three are no more Covenants really Yet because this second of sending his Son as a Mediatour between God and Man had such different Forms and Faces upon it according to the several Oeconomies or Dispensations it pleased God to make to man it is often in holy Scripture distinguished into the Old Covenant and the New As by St. Paul to the Galatians saying These Gal. 4. 24. two are the two Covenants The one from Mount Sinai the other from Mount Sion or Jerusalem And to the Hebrews If the first Covenant Hebr. 8. 7. had been faultless then should no place have been found for the second Where he spake of the Covenant of Moses and that of the Gospel But there was a more early Covenant made with Abraham when God promised to him the Land of Canaan and to his Seed But both these agree in the same in that they are tearmed Covenants of Works not that they were so made that they only required working and the second part believing which was under the Gospel For this Covenant made with Abraham and Moses peculiarly to the Israelites did suppose the first solemn Covenant of Faith in the promised Seed of the Woman which should break the Serpents head And therefore this was not another from that but as a Codicil annext in order to some special Promises and Priviledges made over to the Seed of Abraham upon tearms not common to all mankind Such as were temporal blessings and particularly the inheritance of the Land of Canaan But that which is often called the New Covenant or the Covenant of the Gospel is according to the substance of an ancienter date than that made either with Abraham or Moses being the same which was made with Adam the second time in Paradise But is called the New Covenant because it appeared but newly in respect of its dress and clearer revelation at Christs appearing And therefore St. John excellently expresses this when he seemeth to speak on both sides saying Brethren I write no new Commandment to you but an old Commandment 1 Joh. 2. 7 8. which ye had from the beginning the old Commandment is the Word which ye have heard from the beginning Again a new Commandment I write unto you which thing is true in him and in you signifying unto us in what sense the Gospel was new and in what Old It was new in comparison of the more conspicuous manifestation of it it was old in respect of its Ordination For to this end the Apostle to the Colossians speaking of the Gospel calleth it the Mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations Coloss 1. 26. but now is made manifest to his Saints c. But the nature of this Covenant and the vulgar confusions made in treating of the Old and New will more clearly appear from a short consideration of the Agreement and Differences between these two Covenants And the first Agreement is that we now have insinuated that the substance of them both was the same Secondly they agree in their Author For contrary to some ancient Hereticks the same God was the Author of the Old who was Author of the New Law Thirdly they agree in the Principal Minister and Mediatour of both which was Christ Jesus who is therefore said to be the same yesterday to day and for ever because Hebr. 13. 8. both before the Law and under the Law and after the Law of Moses Christ was the same Mediatour Fourthly they were one as to their end which next to
the ultimate of All was the glory of God was the salvation of the observers of them obedience unto Gods will being the most immediate Fifthly they agree In that neither of them was immediately given of God but both in the hand of a Mediatour between God and Man as the Apostle witnesseth of the Old Law in his Epistle to the Galatians Gal. 3. 19 20. It was ordained by Angels in the hands of a Mediatour Now this Mediatour is not a Mediatour of one And of the Gospel the same Apostle speaketh to the Hebrews that Jesus was the Mediatour of a New Covenant as was Hebr. 12. 24. prophesied in Deuteronomy by Moses saying The Lord thy God will raise Deut. 18. 15. up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren like unto me unto him ye shall hearken And Moses and Christ agreed in that First Moses came not of himself but was sent of God So also Christ glorified Hebr. 5. 5. not himself to be made an High Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son c. 2. Neither Moses nor Christ delivered their own will or sought their own glory before the glory of him that sent them For Moses was commanded to make all things according to the patern shewed Exod. 25. 40. him of God in the Mount And we find nothing in the Books of Moses more frequent than The Lord said unto Moses c. In like manner Christ saith of himself The Word which ye hear is not mine but the Fathers that John 14. 24. John 5. 43. sent me And elsewhere I am come in my Fathers name c. Thirdly they were both sent immediately of God Fourthly Both of them confirmed the Doctrine by Miracles and mighty Signs proving to the beholders a Divine Power assisting them For Moses wrought such Miracles as none of the expertest Magicians could and Christ saith of himself If I John 15. 24. had not done among them the works that no other man did they had not had sin Thus they may seem to agree But their difference is no less and that First if we consider their immediate Authors in their Persons For Moses was only Man but Christ God and Man under which one manifold other differences are comprehended as to their conception birth life and death manner of their office and administration thereof which I pass over and come to the Laws or Covenants themselves given by Moses and Christ For then the Law and Covenant in the hand of Christ was more ancient than that given by Moses as to the substance and foundation which was the Law of Nature and Reason and Justice towards God and Man and perfect Obedience to the will of God For the Promise of the Messias to come was made to Mankind immediately after Adams transgression wherein consisted the sum of the Gospel many hundred of years before Moses his dayes or Laws and therefore must be more sacred and necessary Secondly The Law as Mosaical was only a type and shadow of good things to come and not the very things themselves as the Apostle to the Hebrews argueth Hebr. 10. 1. But as it is commonly seen when a man propoundeth to himself to cast a fair Statue or to build a fair house he first makes a mold and prepares convenient tools So God out of his wisdom however he could have done otherwise first prepared the Law of Moses as a Model according to which he cast the Law of Christ and made use of the Rites and Ceremonies to prepare the way for the Gospel And hence ariseth a Third difference because the Form of Moses his Law was temporary and to cease but that of Christ was to have no end as was prophesied in the Book of the Psalms speaking of the Jewish Politie Church and Magistracy under the Metaphors of Heavens and their host as is freouent in Scripture They shall perisb but thou shalt endure yea all of them shall wax old like a psal 102. 26 27. hebr 1. 10. Jer. 32. 40. Hebr. 13. 20. Daniel 4. 3. Psal 145. 13. garment as a vesture shalt thou change them and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy years shall have no end Of Christs Kingdom there shall be no end Fourthly The Law and Covenant Mosaical had only temporal Promises of reward and punishments relating to this Life and the Land of Canaan called for this cause the Land of Promise unto Abraham and his Seed upon condition of Obedience unto those Laws delivered to Abraham and Moses As upon due examination of particular instances which may be given doth appear For they declare to us that so long as they observed Gods commands and kept to his worship they prospered and were happy in secular blessings but when they forsook them God forsook them and they soon perished in their sins But both the promises and threatnings of the Gospel and New Covenant were spiritual and perpetual leading unto everlasting Life For every one saith Christ that Matth. 19. 29. hath for saken houses or brethren or sisters or father or mother or wife or children for any names sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall inherit everlasting Life And so Luke 18. v. 30. Yet to judge more clearly of the Mosaical Law and the better to reconcile both Jewish and Christian interpreters of Moses his Law some whereof make it meerly Ceremonial and concerning in its reward only temporal blessings or curses as may be gathered from the blessings and curses ennumerated in the Book of Deuteronomie Deut. 28. chap. 18. others affirm it to have contained spiritual blessings upon obedience and the contrary therefore we are to distinguish in the Law of Moses those things which were meerly Mosaical and Levetical from those things which were Natural and Moral For the Law or Covenant made by Moses in Gods behalf with the Israelites contained in it many things of morality and Gods worship and service agreeable to the substantial part of the Gospel but this it did not as Mosaical but rather as Evangelical For from the beginning of the World to the Incarnation of Christ there was alwayes as a thorow-Base to several parts in Musick the Covenant of the Gospel in some degree running along with the various forms of Mosaical Constitutions and these often insinuated and pressed in the Old Law but the Covenant Mosaical though it was built upon these grounds was not fashioned by them but as the Author to the Hebrews saith had also Ordinances of Divine Service and a worldly Hebr. 9. 1. v. 10. Sanctuary that is for that Age. And again calleth them Carnal Ordinances imposed on them until the time of Reformation i. e. of the Gospel it self Now in all reason the end should be proportionable to the means If therefore the means be carnal so ought also the end and not spiritual speaking of the reward But the Ordinances of the Gospel being not
Moral and Natural only but Spiritual also ought to have a spiritual or heavenly end And as the reward upon Obedience doth exceed that of the Law so the severity upon disobedience contrary to the too common Errour that the Gospel is more favourable unto sinners than was the Law For though indeed the same trivial neglects or commissions as against Vide Chrys Tom. 6. Serm. 94. initio the Old Law are not now punished in a bodily sensible manner as were they yet the punishments generally of the offences against the New Covenant were greater as St. Paul expresly witnesseth to the Hebrews Hebr. 2. 2 3. He that despised Moses's Law dyed without mercy under two or Hebr. 10 28. 29. three witnesses Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall be thought worthy who hath troden under foot the Son of God and accounted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace c. For we know c. Fifthly the Administration 30 31. of the New Covenant differed from that of the Old and that 1. In the Extent comprehending all Nations without distinction Jer. 31. 34. whereas that of Moses was restrained to Abrahams Seed and that by Isaac and that Seed again of Isaac by Jacob. And secondly it extends not only to all Persons according to the promise made to Abraham that in his Gen. 22. 18. Seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed and only his own Seed blessed but to all capacities of man his spiritual as well as carnal which the Law of Moses did not as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Hebr. 9. 9. doth witness where he tells us how those Legal Rites could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience And again It is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins Hebr. 10. 4. But the Soul and Conscience are both purged by the Sacrifice of the New Testament once offered for all which was the Body of Christ Thirdly v. 10. It extends to a greater degree of Liberty from the outward servile part of Gods worship and either directs us only to the more inward and spiritual service or gives Liberty greater to the Church than anciently was allowed to accommodate it self to times and place and persons in the worship of God which Liberty was not so far granted under the Old Testament Sixthly The Law and Covenant made by Moses were according to the Letter but Christs according to the Spirit That was exacted upon outward terrours propounded or Mercies This was transacted by an inward principle of Ingenuity and Grace given of God as St. Paul is to be Rom. 6. 14. understood where he saith For sin shall not have dominion over you For ye are not under the Law but under Grace meaning That now least of all we should let sin rule over us being not under the Law that is exempted from the penalties and terrours outward which seemed to constrain obedience or whose disobedience was remitted upon certain outward Rites which have no effect upon them who are under the Law of Grace But the Grace of God so revealed outwardly and so assisting and inclining inwardly doth require more ingenuous obedience than formerly as in the next Chapter it is said But now we are delivered from the Law that being Rom. 7. 6. dead wherein we were held that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the Letter Now from this adjustment of the Law of Moses and of Christ it is evident in what sense St. Paul so oft calls one the Law of Works and the other the Law of Grace For he there takes not Law so generally as some would understand him for all Rule and Doctrine of Holy Life whereby they comprehend as well Evangelical as Natural and Mosaical but in contradistinction to the Law of the Gospel published by Christ viz. the Law as it was Mosaical according to which it could justifie no man it being it self to be done away in Christ For as the Scripture hath it if perfection were by the Levitical Priesthood for under it the People received Hebr. 7. 11. the Law what farther need that another Priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec and not be called after the order of Aaron Secondly Answer from hence may be made to the difficulty How far the Law of Moses or the Old Law binds under the Gospel For having shewed that the Gospel in substance being ancienter than the Law of Moses as well because of the moral duties common to all mankind as the Promises of the Messias contained in it whatever we sind in Moses or the Prophets or the Sacred Historians against any injustice vice or irreligion is not to be imputed so much to the Law as Mosaical but as Evangelical And therefore whatever was Levitical or Mosaical in that Law given to the Seed of Abraham as such ceased and had its full completion in Christ And though many things there found were alwayes and still are of excellent use to all men both morally and judicially taken so that they cannot be said to have no force upon us Yet their obliging power as delivered by Moses and not partaking of the nature of the Gospel ceases and is extinct but lives and is hinding as the same belonged anciently to Christs Law and by it is renewed and confirmed Thirdly The obscurity at least if not errour of those Notes of distinction found in many learned mens writings from hence is discerned such as are these First That the Law propoundeth wrath without Mercy but the Gospel Mercy and Justice For that the Law thus properly and precisely taken as distinct in matter as well as form from the Gospel propounded Mercies as well as Judgments is most apparent from the eighteenth Chapter of Deuteronomy though as we have shewed neither the Mercy not the Judgments were of the same nature as they propounded by the Gospel but chiefly temporal For whether the breach of any of Moses his Laws as such made men obnoxious to Hell and not only to bodily and temporal punishments I much question unless we consider the disobedience formal and doing presumptuously which may attend that evil act Secondly They say the Law Perkins required internal and perfect Righteousness the Gospel imputed But this is very dangerous Doctrine For first it doth not appear that the Law as such and not partaking of the nature of the Gospel doth require such internal and perfect Righteousness it being satisfied with the outwardness and formality of the Letter Secondly It must not be granted that Christs Law doth not much more require internal and perfect Righteousness than the Law and that to our Justification For it is one thing to require a thing absolutely and another necessarily and indispensibly to such an end The Gospel doth
require as absolute Righteous internal and external as man is able to attain to in this world and as the Law required though nor so as if without it there were no possibility of Salvation though for want of it there be a merit of dammation but the rigour is qualified and remitted to us upon the intuition of Christs merits who interposeth for us with God not to exempt us in any kind from any imaginable part or degree of Holiness competible to us but to mitigate and remove the displeasure of God justly conceived against us for not being perfect For it no wayes follows That because such a small proportion of Holiness shall be accepted and such a vast proportion of wickedness shall be forgiven and passed over through Gods free Grace in Christ therefore by the general tenour of the Gospel God requires no more of the one nor less of the other For if the Gospel be as sure it is a more holy Law than that of Moses Is it not so because it requires of those under it greater Holiness A third difference I find is That the Law promiseth Life upon condition of Works but the Gospel upon condition of our committing our selves to Christ by Faith This is very ambiguously spoken and inclining to a very bad sense For what Life and what works are we here to understand It is shewed above how ill-agreed wise Interpreters are Whether any life besides this present is promised by the Law as Mosaical and not Evangelical and with this imitation I profess the Negative Part. Again What works Are we not to understand Works brought in and appointed by Moses To these works are promised indeed Life answerable to thom i. e. temporal and no more But he that saith we attain Life by committing our selves to Christ by Faith doth certainly mean Life spiritual and eternal which vast diversity in the end and reward quite nulls the comparison And besides how by committing our selves to Christ by Faith So as that works of the Gospel and Faith should be laid aside Yes say they as to our Justification though not to the commendation and approbation of our Faith But the vanity of this we have already discovered where we have proved that there is no promise made to us under the Gospel of being justified by Faith that the works of Faith may not be as instrumental to our Justification and Salvation as the Act of Faith so much presumed upon and that the one is as derogatory to the fulness and freeness of Christs Grace and Gods Mercy as the other and no more A fourth difference is That the Law was written in Tables of Stone but the Gospel in the Tables of the Heart Jerem. 31. 33. 2 Corinth 3. 3. This hath a true sense and therefore may pass though lyable to just exceptions as taking the Scriptures in a sense scarce intended Fifthly They say The Law was instill'd into our Nature at our first Creation But the Gospel was above nature and given after the Fall But we are not to distinguish the part from the whole nor the inchoation of a thing from its perfection The Gospel was in more particulars of agreeing with the Law of Nature then the Law of Moses and given in substance before the Law of Moses and 't is these two whose differences are sought after at present In the sixth place it is rightly said that Moses was the Mediatour of the Old Law and Christ of the New by which they explain themselves That by Law they mean Moses his Law For Moses was not the Mediatour of the Law natural but Adam rather And truly in the seventh place it is said The Law was dedicated by the blood of Beasts but the Gospel by the blood of Christ But the conclusion to these viz. That the two Testaments the Law and the Gospel are two in nature substance and kind is so far only true as the Law is taken precisely for that introduced by Moses and not concretely and conjoyntly with that Covenant made between God and Adam after his Fall CHAP. XXXV Considerations on the Sacraments of the Law of Moses Of Circumcision Of the Reason Nature and Ends of it Of the Passover the Reason why it was Instituted Its Vse VVHAT is now said of the nature and distinction of the Covenants made between God and Man do serve much to the clearing of the Nature and Number of Sacraments here to be explained briefly For all Sacraments properly so called are of a Foederal nature between God and Man And this covenanting made by God and Man is signed sealed and confirmed by these Sacraments And therefore according to the variety of these Covenants is also the variety of the Sacraments unless we except that most ancient Covenant of all between God and Man before his Fall For while man retained those connatural Graces bestowed on him by God he needed no such outward helps as Signs and Sacraments to contain him in due obedience to him nor such signs of Gods promises to him being able to act more spiritually freely and perfectly then now But upon the disabling of his inward man by sin once committed and the hebetation of his mind it was no less than necessary that by his outward senses occasion should be offered to the increase of his knowledge fear love and faith in God which is done by the mediation of Sacraments instituted by God and these diversified according to the variety of the Oeconomie it pleased God to use to the World For under the Law of Nature before Moses or Abraham men stood obliged to serve and worship God And in this condition the Sacrifices given to God and Oblations were of the nature and force of Sacraments For whether by light of nature or by special precept men offered Sacrifice to God it is apparent that was rather a signal to testifie their revering his Majesty and duty to him than any actual absolute worship and to insinuate an absolute Dominion and Right God had to our own lives in that instead of them which were forfeited to God by sin we offered Beasts slain to him and to all things in the World in that was exhibited to him so far as might be and returned that which was received from him But to these before Abraham was added that of Circumcision and afterward that of the Passover But we must note that these two Sacraments as they were not originally or from the beginning instituted of God so neither to all men nor for all times And this will appear from the particular occasions taken and reasons rendered of their Ordination For when God commanded Abraham to circumcise his Son and himself and all the Males of his Family it was no sign at all of any thing of general concernment to mankind or of the Messias simply which was before promised but it was a sign only that the Messias should proceed out of his Loyns and Seed which was an extraordinary honour and singular priviledge conferred
according to the judgment of many of the Ancients it was Christs intention we should have but two Sacraments when he shed from his Divine side water and blood insinuating thereby Baptism and the Sacrament of his Blood And another argument intimating 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3 4. that Christ ordained but two Sacraments in the New Testament is taken from the due conformity between the Shadows and Types of the Law and the Substance of the Gospel The Law had but two Sacraments proper Circumcision and the Passover and therefore that these two should prefigure only two in the Gospel is most probable But not only the Fathers of old but Schoolmen did alwayes acknowledge a due proportion to be observed between these And it makes nothing against this That the Fathers do often call some at least of the other five Sacraments because then they spoke at large as we said before A second general Reason may be That as they have no precept so have they no promise from Christ of Grace or favour Spiritual For Ordination indeed hath an ordinary Gift of Ecclesiastical Power but no assurance of special Grace belonging to it Confirmation hath a good and laudable end but no special Promise to it Repentance hath a promise but hath no outward visible sign upon which the word is built to make it a Sacrament for this is a Third Reason of the equality of Sacraments Because all true and proper Sacraments must consist as well of outward signs to which the word and Grace are annext as of the Grace it self therein given But all these Sacraments have not these Signs and they which have an appearance of visible signs have them not by Gods institution Fourthly The Sacraments of the Gospel are of concernment to all true Christians according to their Capacities but all Christians are not by the confession of the Patrons of seven Sacraments bound to marry or to be in Holy Orders Nay some are absolutely interdicted the use of some of the reputed Sacraments as are women from Holy Orders therefore whatever may possibly be said concerning the not circumcising of Women under the Law under the Gospel there being neither Male nor Female as St. Paul affirmeth that cannot be a Sacrament equal in sacredness or necessity of which Women are not capable Fifthly The general Nature of Sacraments is such as renders the due Partakers of them more holy than they are who receive them not but no man saies that marriage faithfully observed doth make any person more holy then Virginity therefore it cannot be a Sacrament If they here say That Marriage is not a Sacrament absolutely but only as it is Christian and a representation of Christs conjunction with his Church and as it is blessed by the Priest I answer First to this latter That blessing doth not alter the kind of the thing but only sanctifies the thing it self and therefore Marriage in Heathens and Christians is the same in nature but not in the circumstances of Holiness And whenas St. Paul saith in his Epistle to the Ephesians having before treated of solemn Marriage This Eph. 5. 31 32 is a great mystery from whence commonly is drawn an argument of a Sacramentalness in Marriage of Christians the reply is easie which quite nulls the conclusion First Because it is as manifest as a thing need be that St. Paul doth speak rather of Heathens marriage than Christian as appears from his citation of the first institution of Marriage which comprehends all and therefore according to themselves could not intend to make a Sacrament of it seeing it is no Sacrament but as Christian Secondly The word being Mystery doth not properly signifie a Sacrament however the Vulgar Translation might be allowed to translate it so but not men upon that tearm given at large to draw it into the number of Sacraments St. Paul saith to the Corinthians Behold I show you a mystery 1 Cor. 15. we shall not all dye but we shall all be changed Is this a Sacrament also But many of the Fathers have so called it It may be so in the sense before spoken of in which many more things may so be called But lastly The Apostle in that Place to the Ephesians doth expresly remove that tearm Mystery from the natural or civil conjunction of Man and Woman Eph. 5. 27 29. in Matrimony and restrain it to Christ and his Church and doth not so much as say that Marriage is a mystery For having drawn an Argument for the due observation of Wedlock and its Rights that seeing Christ loved his Church man should love his Church he addeth afterward This is a great mystery but I speak of Christ and the Church which is as 32. if it had been said Here is a great Mystery but this Mystery I mean not So much of external Marriage but internal between Christ and his Church But after all this seeing we grant with many of the Ancients That the name Sacrament is communicable to more than two it is not much worth the contending whether we make more or fewer than seven while we reserve a peculiar sacredness to these two above others Let us rather touch upon them in their nature than name as best worthy to be rightly understood And first of Orders briefly as having spoken thereof in treating of the Political Power of the Church and there shown the necessity of them according to Christs intention and institution which was to make a discrimination between Persons and the several Members of that Body the Church of which he is the Head as is also sufficiently insinuated by St. Paul to the Corinthians saying But now hath Göd set the Members every one of 1 Cor. 12. 18. them in the Body as it hath pleased him where he doth not speak of moral but Political excellency and order of Inferiour and Superiour From whence the name of the Function is taken For as St. Augustine defines it Order is Civ Dei Lib. 19. 13. the disposing or ranking of equal and unequal things in their proper places And therefore sometimes the Church is divided by the Ancients into Clergy and Laity as two Orders Again The Clergy by the Ancienter into three only Bishop Priest and Deacon as Optatus Afterwards some made Isidorus Hispalens Orig. Lib. 7. c. 12. six some seven some nine as Hispalensis who likewise subdivideth the Bishop into four Orders Patriarch Metropolitane Arch-Bishop and simple Bishop So that it were not worth the labour to strive about words here and especially in distinguishing Order from Degree in the Church For though the distinction in nature be manifest between the first importing a diversity in kind and the other in condition of the same kind yet the Church cannot be though to speak so circumspectly at all times and so precisely as not to use them promiscuously divers times so that because she sometimes speaks of Degrees they should deny the Order of the same thing Neither
of it self it is the sting of the Law and the very entrance into the Pit of Hell Evangelical Contrition is when a repentant sinner is grieved for his sin not so much for fear of Hell or any other punishment as because he hath offended and displeased so good and merciful a God This Contrition is caused by the Ministry of the Gospel c. In this vulgar account of Attrition and Contrition or the two Parts of Contrition Legal and Evangelical is a twofold errour committed not to be passed lightly over The one is a rude and common misapprehension of the state of the Gospel as if it were all made up of Mercy and consisted not at all of Justice and Vengeance to be executed upon sinners breaking the Law of the Gospel but whatever we can reasonably suppose of mercy must be owing altogether to the Gospel but if any threatning and severities of Justice be feared that must be borrowed from the Law And what Law I pray do they mean The Old Law I doubt not But the Law before Christ had its moralities or perpetual Duties and its Mosaicalness which was transient and is now actually ceased as all the Obligations and Penalties belonging thereto It cannot be that then which moves to this Legal Contrition but if any thing the moral and perpetual part consisting of Justice and Equity which are no less an ingredient into the Gospel than into the Law properly so called And because there is nothing more absurd and ridiculous than to have a Law consisting of just and holy Precepts and Rules which shall not also consist of proportionable Rewards of the Observers and Breakers thereof returning as St. Paul teaches us at large in his Epistle Rom. 2. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. to the Romans to the Jew and to the Gentile doing well honour and glory and shame and wrath to the evil doer speaking of the present state of the Gospel And we have before shewed That so far is the Gospel from being made up of all mercy that the judgments and punishments therein decreed against Sinners are more grievous than they in the Law and therefore the Gospel is called a Book of Good tidings or News not because the Sinner impenitent shall sind any more favour or so much as he might under the Old Law but because the Salvation here published is of greater extent comprehending all Nations and states of men which the Law did not And also offering full and free means of Repentance and reconciliation to God through Christ and a treasure of Grace as well to assist in the performing of the condition of the Gospel as to pardon and remit what is committed against it upon humiliation and repentance So that the Gospel has a Legal part as the phrase is and Evangelical And the terrours of the Gospel or Legal Part of it have just influence upon the Consciences of men to humble and affright them though there should be O Soror nulla res sic nos ab omni peccato custodit immunes sicut timor inferni et amor Dei Bern. de modo bene vivend Serm. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrys Serm. 7. Antioc◠pag. 512. To. 6 no such thing extant as the Old Testament and therefore the Attrition of a Sinner under the guilt and sense of his sins is much more an effect of the Gospel than of the Law And therefore is not so the entrance into the Pit of Hell as if directly it lead to Hell For 't is security and presumption that lead thither rather then the sorrow of Attrition This is certainly a direct occasion of going to Heaven and is an inferiour degree of more ingenuous sorrow and true contrition For this Legal as it is called Contrition is caused by the ministry of the Gospel too and is an effect of Evangelical Faith whereby a Christian having thorowly assented to and been affected with the severe and holy Doctrine thereof becomes humbled under it and is brought to the sight and admiration and affection of the other Part of it which to the truly broken and penitent offereth Grace and Pardon That which seems to have mislead so many into a false notion of the Gospel is the term Gospel or Evangel it self which sounds nothing so much as mercy though the English or Saxon word we know signifies originally no more than Gods Speech which is indifferent Rom. 4. 15. to Mercy and Justice both And such places as this of St. Paul The Law worketh wrath as if he had meant to say thereby that the Gospel did not work wrath as did the Law but that was far from his purpose intending only to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel as they stood opposed to be in this That the Law without the Gospel which St. Paul preached wrought wrath without remedy but the Gospel though it propoundeth and threatneth wrath too to the unbelieving and disobedient yet continued in it also a sufficient and proper remedy against all those Evils And thus far of the very intrinsick nature of Repentance Attrition and Contrition which are the two proper Parts of it The two most noted acts or effects for Parts they are not are Confession and Satisfaction And first we shall explain this Confession by these degrees First Out of the Abundance of the heart it must necessarily be that the mouth should speak whether good or evil truth or falshood joy or sorrow How then can it reasonably be supposed that no outward expression should appear of so great anguish of mind as is supposed to affect the soul truly humbled and penitent No sober man much less good Christian can choose but commend such Acts as this of true Repentance For as the comparison of an ancient Father hath it well As it is with him that hath almost surfeited himself with ill digested or unwholesome meat lying heavy upon his stomach must cast it forth before he can well be eased or cured even so he whose soul is oppressed with the filth guilt and weight of his sins must vomit them up by due Confession before he can reasonably expect remedy and forgiveness Many and very pressing are the advises and precepts of Holy Scripture to confess our sins and many promises to such as do confess annexed which not intending at present so much a Paraenetical or hortatory Discourse as Dogmatical for the settlement and information of the Judgment and Consciences I shall pass over as agreed to on all hands in the general But Confession of sins being so variously taken viz. for confession to God and confession to Man for confession private and confession publick for confession to our brother whom we have offended particularly and confession to the Church to which we have given scandal none ever took the boldness on them to deny absolutely the use of Confession Nay I cannot find any seriously and positively denying the lawfulness or usefulness of private or auricular
of Rome but they must make themselves thereby Schismatiques before God though before the Church they cannot be condemned for such qualifying this hard saying with this Supposition only That the Church of Rome alwayes had and hath Salvation in it as a true Church though corrupted For that we may and do call a True Church wherein the principles of Christianity are kept intire as to the most fundamental of them but withal this hinders not but diverse things at the same time and by the same Church which are damnable may be found in it For in the same house saith St Paul there are Vessels to honour and dishonour which we may as well interpret of Tenets of faith as of the Professours of the Faith And in the same Dispensatorie are both Poisons and Cordials yea in the same dish may be found Food sufficient to nourish and destroy shall we therefore not be careful to avoid the whole because we do acknowledge the wholesomness of so many in it Who knowes not that there are monstrousnesses in Excess as well as defect And that it suffices not to keep a man in communion with a Church that all things necessary are therein contained when withal many things not only unnecessary but pernicious are shuffled together with them If we can therefore shew as we suppose we have and can that the Roman Church alloweth and propoundeth many heretical dogmes many Idololatrical practises what will it avail them to have it granted them that all truths are extant there in the Monuments of their Church It will here infallibly be replied by them That it cannot be that a Church at the same time can hold all things needful in Faith and worship and yet maintain such errours as are charged upon them To which I say and grant That 't is not possible they should hold the same things as contrary or appearing so unto them But really they may and actually doe First as Philosophers should of contraries In gradu remisso not Intenso In the remisser and lower degrees not the extremest Secondly They may hold contraries really though not formally and as contrary For instance They may hold this fundamental opinion That God alone is to be worshipped with that divine worship which is the supreamest of all And they may hold that such a thing for example the Host is very God which verily is not God and consequently may teach the worship of such a reputed God Their Churches faith if it teaches strictly that only the true God is to be worshipped is inviolate and sound in Thesis But their Perswasion that such this is is an errour in fact rather than in Faith which contradicts the former opinion really But we hold That it is necessary to salvation that we erre not in such gross facts though we abominate detest and renounce the sin never so solemnly And the like may we say in many points of difference between us and them when they hold the proposition in General sound and good but by help of infinite and unintelligible distinctions word it out and ware off the imputation but not the Guilt of Errour Of the number of which things hard to be understood is that consideration of Schism before God and Schism before the Church with an implication that Separation from a true Church makes men Schismaticks before God though not before men because for example The Church of Rome cannot oblige any body to stand to the Autority which it so abaseth namely by breaking the Canons of the Church It is true A Church or Man may be a Schismatick before God and not before the Church But it cannot possibly be imagined how a man can be a Schismatique before men and from men and not before God But if it could be were we not in a very fair way to hell if we had no more to answer for than our Schism before God Were not our whole Church Schismatical and as good as lost though men took no notice of it It doth not follow therefore neither is it confessed that all are Schismaticks who separate from a true Church unless the separation be from it As it is true For we have shown that a Church true in essentials may fail in Integrals And it is no hard matter to show that a Church Erring in doctrines constituting the body of Faith may be separated from without Schism And the reason proving this is because that such Churches are alreadie really Schismatical through the said errours and it is not only lawful but a duty to separate from Schismaticks For so saith St. Paul We command you brethern in the name of the 2 Thes 3. 6. Lord Jesus Christ that ye withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us And what Traditions do we think St Paul intendeth there Only Ecclesiastical Canons and decrees of Councils for the better Government of the Catholick Church That this he may mean I denie not but that no more I denie For he that offends against the Faith offends against the Traditions To the Church but he that breaks the Constitutions offends against the Traditions Of the Church only which are of far inferiour nature It may well be doubted whether breaking of the Canons of the Church only can justify a Separation from a Church because they are not so much the Traditions delivered To the Church by Christ and his Apostles as the Traditions Of the Church which in their nature are mutable But yet if any co-ordinate Church shall refuse to innovate but stick resolutely and firmly to the received Discipline and Lawes of the Church while others shall violate them and choose new Forms and impose new Conditions of communion with it not agreeable to the old upon which a schism followes surely the guilt of Schism is to fall only upon that Church which thus innovates For though I am apt to believe that such alterations may not be sufficient to justifie a renunciation of Communion with such an Innovating Church and much less in single persons and private members of the same Church yet doubtless it fully excuses from the guilt of Schism if it patiently and passively persists in the more ancient and conformable way to the Churches of Christ in past ages even with apparent peril of Schism provided that the said Traditional Laws and practices shall not by the more judicious and conspicious part of the Church assembled freely and Lawfully in Council be judged inconvenient and so according to the Right it hath to reverse or establish things in nature alterable declar'd void and introduce new For in such cases disowning of the Power and Autority of the Church and refusing the decrees thereof tending to the General unitie of it is of it self a Schismatical Act. But in notorious errours in Doctrine or Faith it is free for any particular Church to divide from another because such corruption is of selfe damnable And in such cases we need
otherwise in the sacred Mystery of the Persons and Nature of God for the Nature of God is numerically the same and yet is without inequality or division communicated totally and entirely to every Person Again other Persons are of a distinct subsistence that is subsist apart but the Vide Ruffinâ—â— Histor Eccles l. 1. c. 29. Persons in the Trinity subsist not distinctly because all equally have their subsistence in that Divine Nature but they may be said to exist distinctly or have a diversity of existence as they are so many Persons From the Point thus briefly opened and stated these four things are to be asserted and believed First That God is but one in Nature Secondly That there is a three-fold Personality in that Divine Nature Thirdly That these three are distinct and how Fourthly That they are the same in subsisting Of the first it hath in the beginning been sufficiently spoken and may well here be taken for granted The second is now to be explained and that in these following Enquiries First By the Grounds of Natural Reason Secondly The Grounds of the Old Testament for the same Thirdly The Opinion of the Church of the Jews concerning the Trinity Fourthly The Grounds of the Gospel founding this Doctrine The reason why the first is called in question is because God is generally affirmed both by the Histories of all Ages and People to be known to the Gentiles naturally i. e. by a connatural Instinct and that many of them did worship the true God according to that Law and State of Nature in which they lived But if God essentially and immutably consists of three Persons in one Nature Divine they that worshipped God otherwise than in the Holy Trinity worshipped him not as he is and they that worship him not as he is worship a false God and they that worship a false God worship an Idol And hence it is that divers learned men have said They who worship God out of the Trinity worship an Idol and not the true God which severe Argument concludes as well against the Jews as Gentiles if as some believe they understood not God in the Trinity but worshipped him in the simplicity of a Deity only according to the way of Nature But if this only men were taught by nature for that men were by a light of nature led to worship not only God but one God Reason and the Scriptures inform us that they should worship a God and him alone and did not intimate withal so much of the true Nature of God as was absolutely necessary to be known to the worshipping the true what benefit could it be to man to have such an imperfect knowledge of him whenas still he must worship an Idol God being the same under the Law of Nature as he is under the Gospel of Grace For as that man who acknowledgeth but one God should commit Idolatry who should strongly imagine and firmly perswade himself that God was of the fashion and foâ—m of Man and worship him as such a one sitting in a fair and glorious room in Heaven So no less in reason doth it seem that he should in like manner offend who doth believe no distinction of the Deity into the Trinity of Persons but acknowledges but one Person in the Divine Nature The reason of both is because he worships him neither way as he is and that not in relative Attributes in order to us but absolute essential manner of Being Now no man that thinks of another otherwise than he is in Essence thinks really of that but some other thing To vindicate then both Jew and Gentile from such gross error even in the Object of Worship and not only them but Nature it self from misinforming them it is said that the Gentile had some light apprehension of the Deity under this notion And that first from Tradition of the most ancient Patriarchs who undoubtedly were sufficiently instructed in that Deity And that this Tradition was so conveyed to the ears of some prime Philosophers or exposed to their view in the monuments of ancient dayes that they have committed the same to writing as divers of their Books still extant intimate unto us though obscurely Secondly The many footsteps of this great Mystery found in the course of Nature do according to many wise men suggest to an attentive mind the Nature of God as now received which others have at large pursued imitating herein St. Augustine in his Book of the Trinity wherein he endeavoureth to describe Lib. 10. 11. the manner of this Mystery from the internal senses of Understanding Will and Memory and external of Apprehension Imagination and common Sensation all which agree in one and proceed from one But in this method no sure footing can be found for more serious and solid certification of a man though we should yield some glimpses of that divine light to shine from thence for the Book of the Creature wherein God is to be read doth not deliver all things equally clear to us But first having plainly made known the thing it self leaves us to seek from what we know imperfectly of God to procure by due worship and Petition a farther insight into that mystery which being in some measure better instructed in from above things below may confirm us in the same Thirdly It seems to me that naturally not taking Nature strictly for a necessary and full assurance but tacit at least intimation there is implied somewhat of the Trinity of Persons from the too common error of acknowledging more Gods than one For as we have said it being a Doctrine of Nature no less apparent that God is one than that he is simply it could scarce become so general an error that men should contrary to such natural light worship a plurality or variety of Gods but that there was somewhat received together with that Principle which might incline and expose them to error and that was a general Notion whether by Tradition or Nature that the Divine Nature was diversified But how this could consist with the other Principle not being capable to understand they easily fell from their first and more sound Notion of the Unity of the Divine Nature and took up the opinion of many Gods distinct as well in Nature it self as Persons And do we wonder that they should forsake the truest notion of a Deity in this abstruseness when in those things that are confessedly clear to ordinary Reasons by nature they degenerated to a little less than brutish stupidity being as the Scriptures tell us of some things willingly ignorant 2 Pet. 3. 5. But it were much more absurd that the peculiar people of God the Jews should be ignorant of this so necessary a Point and yet we find that now-adaâ—s they declare against it expresly denying withal this to have been any branch of the Faith professed by their Progenitors But we need not be very anxious about their Authority now adayes it being most easie to
good argument against the opinion that holds the Soâ—l of man to be educated out of the matter of the Body as are Brutes Souls But that is not here nor there because certain it is that the way of producing the Soul at first differ'd much from what it doth in the course of Natural generation For then were there no natural Causes concurring with God in the production of the Soul but now there are God now not so absolutely creating humane souls but that there should be some pre-disposing and preparatory acts on mans part conducing thereunto For it seemeth not to be inconsistent with proper Creation that such Acts are required thereunto so that the Soul of man is never now created but by them preceding according to the order of Nature though not of time because in so concurring the Natural Agent doth not concurr with God in the very act of Creating but to the occasion rather which God hath by a Law made freely to himself decreed to work by in this matter But at the first of all God purely made the occasion it self and simply and solely acted of himself There are therefore these three errours to be avoided in the doctrine of the Soul The first is that of Epicures and Infidels that the Soul of man was no otherwise produced than the souls of Brutes but that they are in Substance the same with brutes differing only from them in the finer temperament of the body and the nobler aspect which it informeth But this cannot stand good because though we grant that the evil disposition of the humors of the Body and incommodious frame of the Parts thereof may impede the due exercise of such Acts which are proper to that Kind yet such perfection cannot at all give ability to act so and therefore another Principle must be found out whose nature it is so to act and to which such things are only Organical and subservient For it being acknowledged that the Soul is of an Active and more noble nature than the Body as Spirit is than flesh it cannot be imagined that the Soul should follow the fashion or nature of the Body but that the matter or the Body should be accommodated and suited to the nature of the soul as no man can say that the hand should be fitted to the Instrument by which it works but the Instrument to the Hand And no man can with reason affirm that an house being to be built the Inhabitant or owner is to be brought to that but that surely is to be modelled and framed according to the mind and Ranck of the Owner So no reason is there to suppose the body should give Law to the soul in the nature I mean of it and its actions though it may have some force upon the manner of its actions As the Hand makes the Pen to write and not the Pen the hand absolutely but a good and well-made Pen may be an occasion to the Hand to write well or ill And therefore it is not the body of Brutes which makes the Soul brutish nor the Body of man which makes the Soul humane but on the contrary so that as their natures are different should their original likewise differ And this difference cannot be taken from the matter because the diversity of the matrer ariseth from the Form And besides the Scripture telling us that God breathed into man the breath of Life declareth withal that the Soul of man as the Philosopher himself speaks came from without doors and not from within But this is said of no other Creature A Second mortal Errour is that imputed to Origen viz. That Human souls were created but not singly and separately according to the conception of particular persons but all at once and that together with the Angels That the Angels as all other things God excepted were created is to be received as an Article of Faith but there is neither any thing revealed unto us by the Scripture or discovered by reason when they were so created How then can any man positively say that the souls of men were then created this being then a groundless supposition light and vain must needs be the inference from thence Nay not only is the Scripture silent in that Case but expresses on the contrary the time when the Soul of man was made and that it was at his first Constitution according to the order of the Historie which first describes the manner how Man was made and then adds how God not put the soul into it which he had before made but breathed into it the breath of Life So that as the breath is not at all until it be actually breathed no more was the Soul before it was thus infused by way of breathing Again the absolute ignorance of the Soul of any such pre-existence which it is not possible if we may suppose it in one or two that all Souls shouls be subject to And I call this ignorance and stupidity rather than oblivion as some Philosophers the Authors of this opinion would have it For though a man may forget what he did at such a time and that once he was in such a place and such and such things befel him yet who did ever forget that he had a Being A man may through the strong invasion of some sickness or distemper cease to understand any thing as also in a profound sleep yet he is not properly said to forget these Some have forgot their own names but never any that they were simply And therefore some ancient defenders of this opinion seeing the incredibleness of this Forgetfulness have with infinite impudence introduced persons professing they remembred what they were and did some hundreds of years before they were in those bodies they spake of these things in Lastly How is it credible that that soul which is the fountain of Life Sense and Knowledg to the person where it is should so inform a thing distinct from it self and yet be ignorant of it self Surely it must be because there was nothing to be known of it before it inhabited the Body A Third Errour depending upon this last is that of Origen likewise who affirmed that Souls being Spirits before they were committed to the body were put into them as to so many prisons for their former disobedience and wickedness for their punishment But against this amongst other reasons Isidore of Pelusium argueth well thus How vain and absurd Isidor Pelusior Ep. â— 4. Ep. 163. would it be to suppose Providence to Chastise any sinful person or Spirit by offering greater and more occasions of Sinning than before Prisons are made chiefly for restraint but the body of man rather disposeth the soul to sin and ministreth many more occasions and temptations than it could have before to dishonour God and break his Laws Again as Parisiensis hath it That cannot be said to be a punishment to man of which he is no wayes sensible Guli l. â—eris 〈◊〉 Vniverso
God himself is his Knowledg or Omniscience which the better to judge of we may distinguish according to the Object of it into knowledg of it into knowledg of things within himself or of himself which is more Internal and things without himself external For if we should speak more Properly God knoweth nothing by an ababsolute direct knowledg but himself and all other things Relatively rather according as they bare relation to him in being or not being in being â—ike him as that which is Good or dislike him by which manner he understandeth Evil. And nothing but God himself can perfectly know God no not the highest and most divine Spirits attending him more immediately in the state of Glory because perfect knowledg doth not consist in an Apprehension that God is or that he is infinitely glorious and Perfect but in comprehension to know him as he is True St. John saith 1 Joh. 3. 2. We shall know him as he is meaning that in the state of glory we should have a much nearer and clearer access unto his divine nature than we can have here by the Organ of our Faith And that so we shall see him that there will be no more use of Faith or outward information from revealed doctrines but Inward Revelations and illuminations shall immediately flow into us from God to the fuller apprehension of him and satisfaction of the restless mind of man But to know him as he is is the Property of himself incommunicable to any Creature For to comprehend a thing saith Austin is nothing else but so to know it that nothing of it should be unknown to the Knower As a Vessel is said to contain such a quantity of liquor that nothing should be left out And thus God only and no Created being conceiveth God comprehensively The Relative knowledg of God in order to things external is to be estimated according to the Variety of things so known by him yea not only the knowledg but even the very Being of God is described unto us according to the manner of outward things All things of reality and not merely imaginary are by general consent divided into three sorts according to the three distinctions of time Into things Past Future and Present And therefore God is said to be He which is and which was and Rev. 1. 4. 8. which is to come Therefore surely the distinction of Gods knowledge most agreably to the nature of God and things known too is into that of things Past Present and to Come And there being no great difficulty or difference among Christians concerning the two former viz. Knowledge of things past and present all concurring that the knowledge of things passed never passes with God nor of things present nor of future but the Knowledge of all these being immediately and immoveably present with God so that many more warily will have all understanding in God to be rather Science than Prae-science and Knowledge rather than fore-knowledge It were needless as well as endless to enlarge thereupon The third about things to come deserves more accurate enquiry For as to the distinction of Gods knowledge into that of Vision whereby he beholds all really existent things whether in themselves past present or future And that of Intelligence it may be questioned as common as it is For we speak not of possible but actual knowledge but that which may possibly be but never shall be the object of the supposed Intelligence of God is only a possible knowledge and not a real and therefore not to be matched with real knowledge For to say God knows the possibilities is no more than to say not that he knows the things but himself in whom and to whom all things are possible Therefore confining our Discourse only to things future we are to observe such to be either necessary or contingent there being no mean between these two And here first What is that which denominates a thing necessary and what contingent or accidental and then in what respect they are so called and distinguished And here first we are to distinguish of necessity it self with the Schools For there is a simple and absolute Necessity the contrary to which is altogether impossible and so nothing but God is of Necessity For God being absolute and supream over all things as nothing can by way of anticipation lay a necessity upon him so neither can any thing afterward obstruct or necessarily impede his will For as St. Paul saith Who hath resisted his will It neither hath been at any time nor can possibly be That Gods resolute Will should be opposed so as not to obtain its designed end But there is a conditional Necessity which they call Hypothetical which hath no such simple and original certainty but dependent upon somewhat else And this Dependance or Conditionalness is either upon The first Cause which is God or some second Cause the Creature For there was no such absolute Necessity that this visible world should have a Being but this Being depended upon the Will and Pleasure of God And this world being there was no necessity that it should consist of so many parts or several kinds of things but this depended upon the wisdome and pleasure of God also The other Hypothetical Necessity was founded by the First Cause God in the Creature upon supposition that it had a Being that such should be the nature of it As that supposing the Sun it necessarily followed it should give light and supposing there be such a thing as Fire in the world there is a necessity it should heat and burn Of all which there can no other reason be render'd but that which Scotus gives Because this is this and that is that And because the Creatour of them and all things else hath imposed such a Law unalterable upon the very natures of things themselves that upon supposal they have a Being such and such it should be And this I take to be that Necessity which Philosophers call a Necessity of Consequent viz. that which is immediately consequent to the being of a Thing that of Consequence as they call it being nothing else but a rational Inference following upon some Particular supposed As the Genus is alwayes supposed to the Species and not on the contrary For example He that runs must of necessity move and he that moves must of necessity be but not on the contrary And the ground of these and all such things Necessity is taken from the immutable decree of God who hath so determined that things should be And not only is this true in things apparent and visible to us but must necessary be no less true in things invisible and to us obscure and uncertain viz. That upon supposal Nihil est adâ—o contingens quin in se aliquid necessarium habe it Thom. 1. Q. 86. art 3. co of such a peremptory Decree and Cause from God that which seems to us most contingent and casual must have a
most certain and inevitable event even not inferiour to any of those necessities we have touched and the reason is plain because here is supposed the same will and same power to effect this as them and the variety and uncertainty of the means whereby a thing is brought about makes nothing at all against this because this proceeds only form the relation such means have to our understanding and apprehension which not being able to descern any connexion natural between the Cause and the Effect do look upon the effect as meer chance For instance that a fly should kill a man by choking him is as contingent a thing as can ordinarily happen And who could believe it that should be told that such a fly moving lightly and wildly it knows not whether it self perhaps a mile off from the place where this falls out and many dayes before the fact should certainly be the death of such a man yet no man of reason and conscience can deny but Gods providence and decree may impose an inevitable necessity upon this creature so opportunely and fitly to move as that it should certainly kill him and that at such a time and in such a place And if any should hereof doubt the express asseveration of our Saviour Christ in the Gospel may satisfie him herein saying One Sparrow shall not fall on the ground without your Father If any should so Matth. 10. 29. contrive our Saviours words as to understand without Gods will to be contrary only to Gods will and not of Gods will concurring and his knowledge noting the same St. Luke will instruct him otherwise who renders Luke 12. 6. the same speech Not one is forgotten which implies Observation and Providence That therefore those things which seem to us most free irregular and contingent may have a tacit and unknown determination from God which should fix and infallibly limit them to some special ends I may presume no man can piously doubt and especially after that great Opposer of Gods Providence over humane actions hath been constrained to acknowledge so much I mean Socinus who granteth God the liberty and power so to determine Praelâ—ct car 6. the Salvation as well as the acceptation and improvement of Grace offered to Peter and to Paul that the effect should inevitably follow which being allowed all the arguments usually brought by him and others not of his rank of the inconsistency of such inevitable decrees with the freedom of Mans will will lie as heavy upon him to solve or answer in his cases as on any other who should extend the same to many more than he pleases to do For can we any more conceive that Gods good will to them should first make them brutes before it made them Saints in limiting their choice and determining the same to one side rather than others or that he should extinguish a natural humane principle in them to bring them to salvation but secure it to others I hope not Therefore if a necessity destroyed not their humane Liberty how can it be concluded that it doth it in others Oâ— that there is no possible concord between Necessity and Contingencie Indeed in the same respect it must necessarily be true whether we regard God or Man For neither to God nor to Man can the same thing be allowed to be necessary and contingent at the same time but there appears no reason why the same thing which is necessarily to follow on the part of God may not be said on the part of man to be fortuitous free and chance as it is called For we indeed vulgarly call that only necessary where there appears a necessary connexion in nature between cause and effect and according to the degree of evidence and assurance to us we hold a thing necessary or contingent in which sense we hold it necessary that an heavy body out of its natural place should left to it self descend to it and possess it And we hold it not so necessary that the Sun going down in a cleer red evening towards the West should portend the day following to be fair and cleer Our Saviour when he affirmed this spake after the observations and opinion of men which generally herein fail not So that the being of a thing reaâ—y and the appearing of it so to be being so far different in nature it follows not at all that so it is intrinsecally and of it self because we can make no other judgment of it than in such a manner and that because we perceive no natural connexion between the cause and effect necessitating it therefore there neither is nor can be any Some things God hath ordained so openly inseparable one from the other that we easily and readily infer the one from or by the other and this is all we call necessity in nature But if God more covertly and subtilty hath likewise ordained the like connexion not by a Law of constant Nature but his singular will for which we can find out no reason this we presently call Contingent though it be as certain as the other And names being given to things by man according as they are apprehended the distinction of things into Necessary and Contingent is very reasonable and serviceable to man as signifying to him such a diversity of Effects in the world that some have apparent natural necessary cause to produce them and these things we call Necessary and some things have no such natural causes but more immediately are ordered by God bringing causes by his special Providence together besides their nature to produce such an Effect and that certainly though not naturally and this we call Contingent That this manner of proceeding of the Providence of God is possible is impossible to be desired And in many things seeming to us as casual as may be that actually they are all granted For to us considering all circumstances it was a thing meerly indifferent and undetermined whether Peter should believe unto Salvation or not but considering the resolute Providence of God disposing certainly outward causes it was certain and infallible The great question must then be about the General viz. Whether God hath two immutable Laws whereby a necessity doth attend all effects as well such as we tearm free and contingent as such as are necessary with this difference only that on some things he hath laid a Law natural which ordinarily and necessarily moveth to one certain effect and end as are seen in natural generations and corruptions as that as St. Paul saith Every seed should have its own body i. e. produce it And 1 Cor. 15. that whatever is so generated should by a Law of Nature also incline to dissolution again And that by a private invisible Law which reserves to him or particular decree he certainly bringeth to pass even those things of which we can give no reason and there appears to us no connexion or order of causes but causes are by his special hand brought to
we have in good degree answered before and there shewed how that the fore-knowledge in God of mans fixed estate whether by his own will electing as they say freely or Gods will determining which fore-knowledge is yielded to God by these Objectors doth oblige them as well as me to shew what profit it would be to man to move or endeavour towards Grace and Life when he is already determined only this is the difference between them The one seems to hold That God by an antecedent act drives the nail whereby man is immoveably fastned to one thing and the other holds That by a subsequent act of knowledge he clincheth it which man himself drove so that it can never stir St. Augustine Aug. Civ Dei l. 5. c. 5. confuting Tullies opinion of Fate impending over all things doth notwithstanding confess and affirm plainly They are much more to be tolerated who hold a Sydereal Fate than he that takes from God the praescience of things future for says he it is most apparent madness for to grant there is a God and to deny he foresees things future And they that put the cuestion to this issue have mended the matter very little or reliev'd themselves all necessity and certainty being a direct enemy to their design of setting man free to do what he list and change his fortune as we say at his pleasure I find in a very grave and learned Author a distinction which I find no where else designed to ease this doubt between Inevitable and Infallible which in truth are not distinct and therefore he is constrained contrary to the agreed way of speech to make Infallible the same with Necessary whereas the distinction is between Necessity and Infallibility or Inevitability which is the very same For what is infallible but that whose act or object shall have a certain event and this event not to be avoided or declined is called Inevitable But whether the Necessity of Causes be such that this event must in nature succeéd is the question and that notwithstanding the Inevitableness or Infallibility of the event there may not be free motions in the Cause tending to that event So that for instance a man may freely choose and will to do that which he certainly shall choose and consequently be properly and truly said to be author of the same be it his damnation or salvation But you will say If Gods Preterition be such that a man is unable to move himself to saving good without it then must he infallibly fall into sin and necessarily and after this all counsels and commâ—nations and exhortations come to nothing and are in vain Nay unless there be unrighteousness with God man cannot be judged for not doing that which he cannot do is not in his power To this St. Augustines Answer is this Because the whole Mass was Aug. Epist 105 sixte damned deservedly in Adam God repays its deserved reproach and bestows an undeserved honour by Grace not by any prerogative of merit not by necessity of Fate not by the unsteadiness of fortune but by the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God which the Aposile doth not open but admires concealed crying out O the depth of the wisdom c. But if this yet doth not absolutely satisfie as I know it doth not some because say they it is to delude man to offer that and exhort to that which it is impossible to attain to so that though God by his absolute and divine Prerogative might have deserted man yet it stands not with his natural equity or simplicity towards his Creature to exhort and threaten when there is such inevitable necessity upon him and condemn him for not doing that which he knows he cannot do without him refusing effectually to assist him I answer It might very well call in question the fair dealing of God towards his Creature if so be he should make an act for him after he was disabled to observe and perform the same not assisting him to the performance of his will But God doth not so for though the Command stands in force against him yet it was not prepared for him in his destitute condition and no reason that Gods right of ruling should change with the vanity of the Creature It suffices that once it was proportionable to him and that the impotency now pleaded is owing to himself and that Gods Laws now are rather recited and propounded to him than made for him in the condition he is in But secondly Gods Commands indeed though but urged anew should be ludicrous and in vain did they totally miss of their ends in being thus repeated and inculcated if they had no success But so it is not as though the Word of God had taken no effect For they are Rom. 9. 6. not all Israel wh are of Israel as St. Paul hath it that is the case is not the same with all men For as St. Paul afterwards What then Israel Rom. 11. 7. hath not obtained that which he seeketh for but the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded It sufficiently answers the purpose of God in giving his Law and admonishing and threatning and promising thereupon that it obtaineth its ends upon the election For how many things else might we accuse God and Nature for sending us when they do no good at all that we can perceive but rather mischiefs As deluges of waters in a wet time and in droughts great showers of rain emptying themselves into the Sea or sandy deserts from whence nothing springs answerable to such divine bounty But we are taught that God and Nature made things and ordained them in their kind useful for the Universe and never by a particular purpose that every single act or part should have the same visible and proportionable effect that the whole hath And so in the dispensations of his spiritual Graces it suffices to acquit and justifie divine providence that they have their due ends though not the same that man may expect who certainly would never have it rain might he order matters and choose but at such times and in such places as he thinks fit and then alwayes Again It would go harder against this opinion if so be that the only end why God published his Word and gave his Laws weâ—e to convert men that they might be saved This is indeed a principal but not the only intent God hath but the publication of Gods holiness and justice and righteousness and mercy and the like glorious attributes in which publication God is much more known admired and glorified by wicked men and reprobates than otherwise though they oppose and dislike the same even against their own wills giving such like glory to God on earth as they shall in Hell hereafter And we know that no accession of real good being possible to be made to God the outward manifestation is of principal concernment Last of all Could there be an infallible
as of the only begotten of the Father And when St. Paul saith that God sent Rom. 8. 3. his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh he implyeth that there were two tearms considered in Christ as in all other things sent First there is the Person by whom or from whom the Party is sent and that here was God Secondly there was the Party or tearm to whom and that was either to the World in general or to that individual substance of Flesh so assumed by him and which is here intended Now it cannot be that the Act of sending should be the same with making but first a Thing is before it is sent and the rearm to which must be distinct from that which is sent Therefore Christ according to the Phrase of holy Scriptures being sent to take Flesh must have of necessity a subsistence before which subsistence must be of a Divine Nature as is also witnessed in the Epistle to the Hebrews For as much then as children Hebr. 2. 14. are partakers of flesh and bloud he also himself took part of the same That is the person of Christ took part of the mass of humane Flesh and Nature when he was formed of the substance of his Mother in her womb And in that it follows Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham v. 16. What can be more necessarily implyed than a Person prae-existing to whom according to the nature of the thing it was indifferent to have taken the nature of Angels or the Flesh of man and that it pleased God to send his Son to man and it also pleased his Son to elect humane nature to dwell in so that the manner of Christ thus consisting of two Natures is matter of difficulty rather than the thing it self i. e. how two Natures can be and how they were and are actually united in Christ Suidas observes ten sorts of unions to be found in the World of which Suidas in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Qu. 2. 1. we cannot stay here to speak Thomas reduces all unto three One union is of things that are absolute and perfect in themselves as many stones make one heap Another is when things in nature perfect are so united that they cease thereby to be perfect of themselves as when the Elements concurr to make one perfect mixt body Thirdly when diverse things being in nature imperfect not absolutely but in that they are naturally capable of greater perfection and tend thereunto as the soul and body and the several members of the body constitute one man But after none of these exactly can Christ be said to consist of two natures united Not the first way because such things are rather relatively and denominatively one than really Not the second because it were to suppose that the Divine Nature could be alterable and mutable and because if such a composition were made both the Divine and Humane nature must loose their natural being and kind and so neither of both remain but a third thing Not the last because both Divine and humane nature are perfect of themselves in their kind So that in truth speaking strictly no precedent in Nature can be found answering this Union called Hypostatical or Persâ—nal because it is the union of two intire Natures into one Person and that the Second person of the Trinity God blessed for evermore But of the former the last representeth this Mystery most clearly and is often used by the ancient Fathers to express the same and especially by Athanasius in his Creed who thus declareth this mistery sufficiently to the sober and modest and not curious mind Christ is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds and man of the substance of his mother born in the world Perfect God and perfect man of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting Equal to God as touching his God-head and inferior to his Father as touching his Manhood Who although he be God and man yet he is not two but one Christ One not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the manhood into God One altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of person For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man so God and Man is one Christ Now the ground of this great mistery is taken partly from the testimonies and descriptions of Christ the Mediator made in the Scripture where besides those already given diverse proper to God are ascribed to him and many which are proper to humane nature are attributed to him and because there can be nothing more absurd in nature or Christian Religion than to imagine that Christ is more than one Person one Son one Mediator therefore it follows necessarily that this one Person must consist of more than one nature and partly because the end of Christ being Incarnate seemed to require this most necessarily As First there was all reason that the nature which sinned and offended should suffer and satisfie but none but humane nature had so sinned Secondly that he should be a Prophet to instruct and teach his Church Thirdly that he should be a King to rule and direct his Church according to the Prophesies of old concerning him For Moses truly said unto the Fathers a Prophet shall Acts 3. 22. the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me which must be of humane condition Now according to this union of the Divine and Humane nature in one Person may Christ in some sense be said to be a Mediator Essential being a Mean Person not simply God nor simply Man but this is not the proper Mediation of Christ between God and Man but this rather consisteth in Acts performed and Offices of Christ And these acts of Christ may be distinguished into two sorts Preparatory and Consummatory The former I call preparatory because they were ordained as useful expediencies not as essential to Reconciliation between the parties at distance And the first act of this nature was after the manner of Civil Arbitrements to take the Case into serious consideration and to deliberate with himself about the most proper means of attaining an amicable composure of differences on foot And as the Scripture Heb. 2. 14. saith forasmuch then as the children of God to be redeemed are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death that is the Devil It appearing unto him that there was no such proper or convenient means to Arbitrate between God and Man as the taking upon him humane nature For by this means as Moses is said to be the Intercessour medius et sequester between God and the People of Israel and therefore the Law is said to have been given in the hand of a Mediatour Deut. 5. 5. Gal. 3. Hebr. 9. 15.
And it is very wonderful if any thing can be strange which we find comming from that monstrous wit that Socinus should profess Christianity and yet deny that which common humanity taught others as great wits as himself For denying that Religion or Worship of God is natural to man as in divers places he doth what account can he give of many Heathen who never heard of or received any such revelations as he holds necessary to make God known in the world And why because there are certain people in the Indies saith he which have no reverence of a Deity But doth he think that nature teacheth us just so much as we actually know and no more It should seem so indeed by his reasonings and conclusions But that was his folly and mistake as much as it would be to hold an opinion that the Preacher of the Gospel doth not instruct or advise men in Religion the knowledge and service of God because they profit not by him but live profanely and vitiously For that we say is natural to us and that we have by the Law and light of Nature which we have so within us as that by the help of them we may arrive to the knowledge of the truth not that whether we will or no we shall necessarily attain it And surely it is but as the opening of the eyes of the body in a drowfie person to discern the light of the day for a man to perceive such notices as these by vertue of that natural light in him and those legible Characters writ by Gods finger in the heart of man He is franck enough to man and more than enough more then any good Christian in magnifying mans natural reason and natural freedom of will and his power in choosing good and refusing evil and living regularly without those Divine aids judged necessary by all good Christians But how can this be done without the acknowledgment of a Deity and the worship of it But it seems he must give place to Tully in Christianity Cicero pro Plancio whose words are these In my judgment Piety is the Foundation of all Vertues which if true as true it is how can he hold that a man can have any one moral vertue without devotion towards God And can devotion to God be separated from the knowledge of God There are it may be some Nations which are so inhumane and barbarous as to regard neither truth nor justice Doth it therefore follow they have no such seeds of both these sown in their hearts as are naturally apt if not violently choaked to increase to vertuous and laudable actions and habits Many men we see lay violent hands on themselves and take away their own lives should any wise man then conclude from hence Nature never taught him to preserve it It may further be argued for a naturalness in man to be Religious and to agnize and worship a Deity from the absolute necessity of it to the subsistance of humane society Man is naturally sociable saith the Philosopher but without Religion no Civil society can long or well hold together and therefore if Nature hath disposed man to the one and this cannot be attain'd without the other it will follow that the necessary means must in some manner be provided to that end by the author of that first design unless we will grant that too as commonly one absurdity tumbles in upon the neck of another as Aristotle observes that nature designs things in vain Of this natural necessity of Religion diverse have treated whom I might imitate but that I study compendiousness and upon that reason instance no more than in the Original of the Roman Monarchy begun rudely and barbarously by Romulus and so in all likelyhood to have suddenly vanished and expired had not Numa stay'd and secur'd it by Religion and the fear of the Gods as is observed by Florus He brought a fierce people Florus Lib. 1. C. 2. Id. C. 8. to that pass that what they had by force and injustice possess'd themselves of they should manage by Justice and Religion And afterward What was more Religious than Numa So the case required that a fierce people should be softened by the fear of the God We shall therefore take it for granted that Religion is and ought to be in all persons and amongst all people and leaving the common Criticisms about the name Religion whether it proceeds from Religando as Hierome Hier. in Amâ—s C. ult thinks which implies a double obligation upon man towards God natural and Moral or of Election very commodiously Or whether as St. Augustine it comes from Religendo Recognizing a Deity not unfitly Aug. Civit. de Lib. 10. 4. Enchirid. c. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Salvian ad Cath. Eccl. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pan. c. 3. Paris C. 3. we pass in a word to the Nature and proper Offices of Religion as taken here for the worship of God For so necessary and natural are these two general Parts of Religion we have laid down Knowledg of God and Worship of God that some both Heathen as well as Christian Philosophers define it by each of them Epictetus declares it the primest thing in Religion to have a Right Judgment of the Gods And Mercurius that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knowledg which Salvian literally translates and uses as his definition On the other side the Scholiast on Aristophenes saith He that is religious does those things that are pleasing unto God And Tully where we above quoted him describes it to be The worship of God And Guilielmus Parisiensis describes it thus The sum of Religion is to persevere immoveably against all the provocatious of temptations and to ascend upward towards God and inseparably to cleave to him And surely that Question moved in the Schools Whether Theology or Religion be a speculative or Practical vertue is never like to be decided until the different Parties agree to compound the matter by taking in both and making it both Speculative and Practical as we do For undoubtedly as it delivers rules and Articles of Faith it is speculative as it delivers Rules and preceps of Holy and divine Life it is Practical and both these it doth as we have shew'd But it is the practical part of it or worship we are at present concerned in and of which no small doubt may be made whether it consists more in the Fear or Love of God but I suppose it may be as be before disided It being an Affection of the Inward man consisting of Reverence and love of God and demonstrating the same in Acts proper and proportionable thereunto And this is all the definition needful to be given of Serving God so essential that the word of God doth nothing more frequently than put the fear of God simply for the Service of God Abraham saith in Genesis The Fear of God is not in this Gen. 20. 11. Psal 36. 6. 2 Cor.
and state than Religion in common so yet in Christian Religion it self are there more large and free and more strait and determined wayes of serving God which when they are not moveable or mutable in themselves may be aptly called states of Religion subordinate to the general Profession We are therefore first to consider the formal cause of this stating a mans self in Religion and then the principal matters wherein this state doth consist which may be reduced to these three Holy Orders Celebacy or Singleness of Life Monastick Life with its appendages of Poverty and Obedience That which gives the formality to all these and makes them a proper state is the bond of a Vow under which a man binds himself duly to observe the same And a Vow is a solemn and sacred promise made to God by a Person free to that thing of performing somewhat above his ordinary obligation For by the common covenant and obligation every Christian hath upon him as a Christian and baptized he hath bound himself to observe all things directly commanded by God and which are necessary to salvation But because these things necessary to salvation are not so easily determinable by every man but varying according to the talents of Grace and Nature according to outward means and according to opportunities put into the hands of Man by God it hath been ever both prudently and piously practised by devout and faithful persons to secure the necessary duties by taking upon them some things that are not of themselves or generally necessary to the pleasing God and saving themselves These extraordinary Services are commonly known by Counsels Evangelical or Perfections because they tend to a more perfect and devout walking with God in Mortifications Self-denyals of the pleasures and unnecessary Comforts of this world and more pure immediate and spiritual communion with God in the exercise of acts of Religion There are many amongst the eminent Reformers who oppose such Evangelical Counsels it is to be feared because they would carry away the credit from others of being Religious and cannot endure to have any thing more eminent in that Religion condemned by them than is to be found in their Reformation and therefore they say there is no such thing to be allowed or received as Evangelical that is in plain tearms Christian Perfection but all states of Christianity are alike For surely had it not been self-defense and self-love not to venture flesh and bloud farther than is absolutely necessary but that they might enjoy the world in all its benefits and accommodations not inconsistent with future bliss they would never have dar'd to have contradicted the common voice of all Christians one or two perhaps excepted who were manifestly reprehended by the general sentence of the age wherein they lived and not only Christians but Jews and not only Jews but Heathens too pretending to Religion And for my part as I reverence that as a Law of Nature in which all men generally conspire and concur so do I esteem that as a Law of Religion which all Religious People have in some manner used But all People as well Christian as Unchristian have ever allowed as very laudable the use of Vows in Chastity and secludedness from the common course of the world And this is of greater force to me than any arguments by the adversaries brought to the contrary They want not indeed certain pretty colours to perswade rather than prove their modern singularities Some of which and the principal are these First that we are commanded to love and serve God with all our hearts with all our souls with all our strength and therefore there can be no place for such perfection seeing it is no more than we are bound to do To which I answer That to love and serve God with all our might is in the general a direct Precept and not barely an advice or counsel given to us But the special duties wherein this universal and absolute service of God consist are not so determined For we may love God with all our hearts according to the intent of the Command in any one state of life that is so far as to prefer God and his service before and above all and this may suffice to carry us to Heaven But this All may be taken Intensively or Extensively Extensively when we subject all things really to our esteem of God not idolizing any worldly thing or equalling it to him But still Intensively a man so long as he continues in this world may proceed to higher degrees of the Love of God And these more perfect degrees are acquired by more constant attendance on Gods worship and this attendance is caused by sequestring our selves from those many worldly cumbrances incident to us in this world which though not absolutely unlawful for were it that Marriage or Monastick life were simply and generally necessary no question but they would have been commanded or forbidden directly yet upon common consent more hazardous than the severer part of Christian life may be And neither wedded life or a political life are of themselves evil but expose a man to more temptations and leave him less at liberty to attend on the Lord without distraction Yet all this will admit of exceptions some men undoubtedly whether Laical or Clerical living much chaster in wedlock than others do in Celebacy and singleness of life and some men living more divinely and holily in the midst of much business and tumultuous Cities than others in Cloysters or Desarts remote from the worlds contagion and vanity For might not this be Precepts would certainly have been delivered in Scripture to bind us to one way But no judgment or conclusion of a Case is wont to be made by wise men from the variety and uncertainty of particular persons but in reference to the thing it self whether such ways of serving God which are vulgarly called Evangelical Counsels are not in themselves with the like concurrence of Gods Grace and other due circumstances which may be supposed common to other states more probable and apt means to attain heaven and serve God more devoutly than the other and whether this state of separation and dedication of our time and actions unto God are not more susceptible of the Grace of God than common conversations The Affirmative we maintain and see not how the foresaid reason opposes it to any purpose A second main reason is That though it is lawful and may be expedient to choose such a kind of life yet it is not so fit to bind our selves to it by a Vow For we must vow to do nothing which is not in our power to perform But such kind of Chastity suck kind of Separation and Sequestration of our selves from the World and civil Society is not in our power to fulfil And that because they are the special Gifts of God as the Scripture telleth us when it saith Every man hath his proper gift of God 1 Cor. 7. 7.
danger not much less as hath been shewed And the Devil most busily and eagerly seeks to impel to those sins which are most notorious How many have with little wit and great impudence professed they could love their own Wives above all women were it not for the reason that God and Nature requires they should prefer them so that they are their wives and that they are tyed to them their liberty is destroyed thereby And may not as good an argument be made from hence against all Votal Ties in marriage as from marriage And whereas it is said a Vow casts a man divers times into a greater temptation it is meerly accidental and personal according to the particular humour of some men who knowing their disease of contradiction and renitencie to what is imposed on them may with prudence avoid such a snare as they call it But we all know things are not to be estimated or concluded from such contingencies and personal irregularities but from the nature of the things themselves And none can deny but the nature of a Vow is to bind and not to loose and to prevent and not to lead into temptations or snares and withal he that Vows the thing or the effect doth implicitly vow the means conducing thereunto and against the occasions and temptations tending to the contrary It is farther objected against a Vow that it is taken to be part of the worship of God And this Being made part of the worship of God is a general Battering Ram whereby most ill Reforming Divines endeavour to beat down all things they like not For first they religiously hold that nothing must be part of Gods worship which he hath not commanded in his word which is not altogether true nor false no more then the contrary That every thing commanded in his Word is part of his worship And again they hold that every thing that is done in the worship of God is part of the worship of God and from hence set themselves with great animosity against all forms and actions and Ceremonies in order to the service of God as so many parts of the worship of God of humane invention and therefore to be utterly rejected And such say they are Vows Bellarm. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 16. To. 2. The Popish writers do grant and go about to prove that they are Acts of Gods worship but very unluckily to themselves holding that they are Counsels and not Precepts The Puritan Writers that they are so far from that that they are unlawful but in those things that are commanded of God and therefore in the Instances before given of single and separate life unlawful But Peter Martyr it should seem goes by himself denying the use of all Vows under the New Testament but approving of them under the Old as commanded many times and being uncommanded worship under the New Testament And that with men of such principles is bad enough But I suppose a mean way is best in this case which holdeth Vows lawful even in uncommanded worship and Secondly that of themselves they are no part nor so much as act of Gods service but the manner only of his service And Thirdly that it is no less lawful and expedient to Vow under the state of the Gospel than under the Law And to begin with the last That which deceived Peter Martyr and divers others seems to be an erroneous supposition made by them that Vows were under precept and command under the Law in certain cases but it is not so For though many Rules and Precepts are found in Moses his Law about governing and regulating them that had freely made Vows there is no precept given that men should vow but that was left free Secondly those Precepts of paying Vows found in Scriptures do not at all concern the taking of Vows simply So David Vow and pay unto the Lord Psalm 76. 11. meaneth no more than Vowing pay unto the Lord which is the meaning of the Prophet Esay also saying The Egyptians shall vow a vow unto the Lord Esaiah 19. 21. and perform it And in no place of Scripture is there any injunction simply to vow And therefore the case being alike as to the Vow it self though different as to the matter if it were lawful for the Jews to do this uncommanded act as they call it it is also lawful for Christians whom they acknowledge to be no more but rather less bound up from uncommanded worship than the Jews And from hence are easily and better answered Peter Martyrs arguments against Vows of Christians then by Bellarmine For we deny that Vows were instituted Ceremonies under the Law which Martyr supposeth for they were not instituted at all And that he saith That we have no mention of Vows in the New Testament as there is in the Old is not altogether true as shall be seen afterward but if it were true as hath been said those things which we know by the light and law of nature the Scriptures are not so solicitous simply to institute as to prescribe Rules concerning the due execution of them But common reason hath instructed Gentile Jew and Christian upon occasion to vow to God and therefore whatever is peculiar to Christians is provided for by the New Testament in determining the matter consistent with Christian Faith and common equity and the manner First that it be made by a Person who hath power over himself For no man can make a lawful Vow to do any thing to the prejudice of the right of another And therefore children under the power of their Parents cannot bind themselves firmly in any such Vow which tendeth to the disobliging them from their known duty to their Parents neither can Subjects vow any thing to the disservice of their Soveraign or Country Nor can Clergy-men vow any thing contrary to the subjection and obedience of their Superiours or detriment of the Church in general unless it be ratified by them but all is void or may be made void by them in lawful power over them And the Arguments of Peter Martyr taken from Christian Liberty have been answered already Now to return to the first That Vows are lawful to Christians is shewed already from the natural reason of Vows And that it was not an invention of Moses or introduced by God first under him appears from the general consent of all religious persons who never knew any thing of the Law of Moses or if as in later times some nations did yet regarded it not And from the practise of Jacob long before Moses who we read vowed unto the Lord a vow It appears likewise from the many moral precepts in Genes 28. 20. the Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes which concern themselves very little in the Law of Moses And the Predictions in the Prophets of Vows to be made at the time of the Gospel are not well put off by saying the Prophets spake figuratively But it may be here noted as a
wonderful dangerous abuse of the Old Testaments Autority not to be content to admit an invalidity of proofs drawn from thence to confirm Evangelical Duties but to make it no small presumption against the Evangelicalness of any duty that it is first found in the Old Testament which is a gross abuse of Scripture especially by them who would be held enemies to Antimonians They ought therefore first of all to show that such things are purely Legal that is as the Law it self is Mosaical and Typical and Ceremonial before they can damn them there for no better reason but there they find them Add to this when we challenge them to the most ancient and manifold Presedents of the Christian Church who constantly made Vows of various natures to God they presently betake themselves to their common subterfuge pretence of appeal to the Word of God as a Rule and that without any respect to any not truly divine Guides otherwise directing And this they do as confidently as if it had been concluded out of Scripture to the contrary For in such cases indeed their appeal would be most just and reasonable but until that little better then ridiculous especially Scripture being before advised about and appearing not definitive in the case Antiquity and Holy precedents consulted with the better to know the mind of Scripture For instance that text of St. Paul to Timothy saith of young Widows They have damnation in themselves because 1 Tim. 5. 12. they have cast off their first Faith Many of late dayes interpret the Apostle to mean only the Faith of Christ in general Others understand him to speak of a Faith particularly made to Christ by the Order of Widows vowing singleness of life and in all reason this seems to be most favoured by the context But besides this appeal is made by the one party to the judgment of the ancient and holy Christians interpreting this both by their writings and practise as relating specially to the dedication of Widowhood to God After this fair dealing for men to declare they will be tryed by none but that which they know is the main thing in question is very vain and somewhat more They having no special text so interdicting such Vows as this is to commend them But the worst of it is this that if there were any way more perfect then that they have pitched on they should be sufferers in the good opinion of the world but that must by no means be endured And this at the end of all is the great absurdity they bring us to but surely not so great but both the Cause and Defenders of it may well show their face after all this granted and owned The second thing now in the third place to be touched is concerning the Nature of a Vow in it self viz. That so it is no proper act nor any proper part of Gods Service but the manner of it For to vow to God is an indifferent thing to Good or Evil. A man may as well vow to Gods dishonour as his glory It is therefore good or evil in relation to the matter about which the Vow is made For to vow Sacrifices under the Law and to vow Alms under the Gospel or Virginity or such like is no farther part of the Service of God then the thing it self tends to the worship of God and its nature and office is to bind to the true and due performance of a thing but not absolutely a duty in its self The principle doubt on the contrary may be that which is taken from that which a man devotes to God as an ingredient to all vows For when a man vows he of a free man makes himself servile and limited to one of those things to which formerly he was free And this we have shewed is an argument of some against vowing because it takes away the liberty God had given On the other side the contrary party may in my judgment turn it against them and make it an argument of worth and excellencie because it gives to God that which is to us most precious For when St. Paul saith If you may be free use it rather and stand fast in the liberty where with Christ hath made you free he undoubtedly means only in reference to man and then only when we really have and not presume only that we have such a liberty and when this liberty is that which pertaineth to the substance of the Gospel as most of those places alledged to found a liberty do aim at But do they think as it should seem that either Natural Civil or Evangelical Liberty is such a thing and so given unto us of God that we may not render it to him nor part with it again to him Is it too good or sacred to give him it from whom we received it Nay the more dear and precious it is to us the more acceptable it should be to him When we deny our selves the liberty he hath given us the better to serve him surely it is no less pleasing to God than to part with meat drink money and the time which he hath given us dedicating the same to him It is strange therefore next to monstrous that Christians should stumble so at the Scriptures and they especially who will scarce allow any man to be cunning in the Scriptures besides themselves or to be governed by them as they pretend to be as to make such fond conclusions from them the contrary to which is much the truer To give away our liberty to God is an excellent Sacrifice to him and they would prove out of Scripture we ought not to give it him at all For if they prove not this they prove nothing when they say we ought not to make vows to him because it takes away our liberty And therefore to the argument viz. that by this it should follow that vowing is in it self an act or part of Gods worship I answer That if any thing here be an act of worshipping God it is the giving up it self of our liberty and not the vowing to give it up for this is but the means and manner so to serve and worship God and not the worship it self And thus much Perkins Perkins Cases of Conscience Chap. 14. Lib. 2. acknowledges in vows about bodily exercises such as Fasting Prayers and Alms but likes not it so to be in other matters Indeed as he confusedly and crudely touches the point passing from the nature of a Vow in it self which was his question unto the matter he might very well write against some vows and prove them unlawful when the thing it self is unlawful to be done whether with or without a vow such as are ceremonial acts of the Law of Moses and moral evils against truth justice or piety it self And thus much of the form of vowing the lawfulness and uses in general CHAP. IV. Of the Matter of Vows in particular And first of the Virginal state that it is
and for ought doth appear accepted well the said Commemorations of his signal mercies and deliverances at the Jews hands until the coming of Christ when the case was wholly altered as that Service but not so as to all future For an invincible argument it is to the contrary that one day of the week is still continued to serve God in a peculiar manner notwithstanding after the strong attempts made especially of late and never before later days either by Eastern or Western Christians or by Reformed or Unreformed to make the Lords day a Sabbath and obliging Christians by vertue of the fourth Commandment in the Decalogue nothing to that end is effected Indeed if men will tenture and extend Gods word to that extream as thereby to draw every thing out of any thing they may reduce all moral duties unto the Ten Commandments according to the custom of expounding them viz. That where the Effect is commanded or forbidden there the Cause likewise and where the Outward act the Inward and where the Genus there the Species and where the Thing there the Circumstances and where one kind there all of like kinds are forbidden or commanded then were there some colour for what they say of all moral duties to be found in the Decalogue and sins interdicted But there is no more ground for the expounding of this so than any other part of Scriptures And if there were this would make Eight of the Ten Commandments superfluous all sins and all duties being reducible at this rate to those two our Saviour in the Gospel refers to viz. Love of God and Love of our Neighbours And surely most essential to all actions are the circumstances of time and place and nothing can be done by Man in Religion or out of it without them therefore it should seem superfluous expresly to enjoyn a time to serve God in and distinctly from the act which unavoidably implyes it And if it be said that not so much a time simply as a time precisely so determined viz. to a Seventh Day and that in such and such manner to be observed is instituted of God then do fall to the ground the supposed naturalness and morality of the time there commanded and that by natural light or law no more is commanded then time or at most a day but not a Seventh Day Now if we are being Christians under the Law no farther than in these two respects First as some of it is repeated and enforced by the Law of the Gospel given us by Christ Secondly as it is consonant to the Law of Reason or Nature And that a seventh part of our time should be dedicated constantly to God is no where so positively delivered in the New Testament as it was in the Old nor doth the light of Nations or Nature suggest any such determinate time for that only and not of time in general is all the question How can a Seventh Day be commanded of God It is not to be denyed but some of the ancient heathen Philosophers and Poets did talk of somewhat of sacredness in the Seventh Day But first whence had they such opinions from the thing it self No surely it was a superstitious and blind admiration of the number Seven of which we find so much in their writings and especially the consideration of the Seven Planets in the Heavens which made them think better of the Seventh Day or cause the week to consist of so many days and no more But what real opinion they had of that above other days doth appear in their practise Philo In Decalog pag. 585. Id. De Opificio Mundi pag. 15 16. 21. Genevae which no monuments declare to have been in more sacred or solemn esteem than any other And the reputed sacredness of the number seven is that which Philo Judaeus playeth upon so handsomly in his commendation of the Jewish seventh day as may be seen in his works And Chrysostome from thence takes a better argument to prove that a Seventh day is not moral from whence several have endeavoured to prove that it is and that in a more sacred manner than any other of the Commandments For to perswade to a precise observation of it these say that God hath set a Memento a Remember upon it such as upon no other Commandment Therefore there should be somewhat extraordinary in it And so there is indeed For saith Chrysostome whereas all other Commandments are very agreeable to the Reason of man and are in some degree known to him by natural light and so need not the like intimation and advice this of a Seventh Day to be kept holy to God cannot be discerned by Natures light at all and therefore needeth such a Memento and Remembrancer as this to bring that to his mind which is so apt to slip out 'T is granted moderner Jews in despight of Christ and Christians have asserted a naturalness and immutability of this Command and an extent of it to all Nations but this concludes not Christians knowing from whence such Antichristian Dogmes proceed Now here lyes the labour to infer a Seventh Day from the Law obliging Christians I say from the letter of the Law and not from the reasonableness of the thing it self to which they flee who find their other proofs too weak and here I will not contend much with them But all their Old Testament testimonies being more easily evaded and nulled then they are alledged by this one answer That they speak only of Jewish Sabbaths and so have no force at all upon us or the same in all respects that they have upon the Jews they must be constrained to repair only to Gospel for the Confirmation of any day separate from civil affairs and dedicate to God And here they are altogether to seek for any one direct or positive Precept not one in all the New Testament can be found for any either Seventh or First Day of the week Whereupon they are compelled to betake themselves to the uncertain way of arguing from Example to a Rule viz. That because they read several instances in the New Testament of things done on the first Day of the week in reference to Religion and the Service of God therefore that day ought specially and religiously to be observed they will perhaps say That the infinite blessing of our Redemption by Christ and his Resurrection is the ground of our observation as the Creation was of theirs This I grant to be a just and sufficient cause but it doth not from thence follow that therefore actually it was so constituted upon that ground We now are in quest of the Constitution it self and not of the Reason why it should be so ordained For many things that seem to us very reasonable are not certainly actually ordained And many things for which in the New Testament we may find presidents of the Apostles or Apostolical persons do not necessarily infer a Rule or Precept But in the New Testament there
a good while after So that the same difficulty is in reference to the Sabbath and it and is thus solved by Calvin himself That there were certain previous injunctions given Calvin Harmon in Pent. particularly and more rudely by God concerning the observation of certain Rites before that more exact delivery of them by God to Moses on Mount Sinai And as alwayes a day or time was allotted so likewise some special place separated from common uses as that called here the Tabernacle to the service of God For had there been any proper weakly day appointed by God before Moses surely we should have found some little mention thereof in the History of Moses from the Creation to his days but not a word of any such thing do we find to that purpose CHAP. XIII Of the Institution of the Lords Day That it was in part of Apostolical and partly Ecclesiastical Tradition Festival Days and Fasting derived unto us from the same Fountain and accordingly to be observed upon the like grounds Private Prayers in Families to the neglect of the Publique Worship unacceptable to God Of the Obligation all Priests have to pray daily according to their Office Of the Abuse of Holy days in the Number and unjustifiable occasions of them Of the Seven Hours of Prayer approved by the Ancient Church and our First Reformers Mr. Prinne's Cavils against Canonical Hours refuted THAT the Institution of the Lords day hath no known foundation from the Command of God or Christ may be collected from what is said But that the Apostles and Church Apostolical did by their example and practice commend it to following generations of Christians I acknowledge most true But still there remains a knot to be untied about the force of that Constitution whether it was only of Custom or Precept or all the Obligation proceeded from the decrees of the Church after the Apostles For direct Precept we find little or no Grounds in Scripture For Practice Apostolical and Custom upon that descending to posterity also the accession of the Laws Ecclesiastical and Imperial we make no scruple to acknowledge them to be very solemn and obligatory upon all good Christians But seeing all things practis'd by the Apostles are not Obligatory it will be worth the enquiry under what Capacity they so acted whether as Apostles or as Governors of the Church in such a large sense as might be communicable to their successours That it was not meerly and precisely an Apostolical Act to establish such a Festival seems to appear from the grounds found in the Law of Nature moving men to celebrate a day to God again that the first day of the week being the day of our Lord and Saviours Resurrection seems to be no other than Common Ecclesiastical Prudence as that which agreeth most with the End it self viz. The due commemoration of Christs resurrection on that day but that Christ should be so Commemorated and God so glorified seems to me to be specially Apostolical and so Divine that it is not alterable by the Counsel or Decrees of the Church any time after from whence may conveniently be reconciled the opposite opinions of both School-men and Canonists some of whom have asserted the divine Right of the Lords day and others the Ecclesiastical or Canonical only For that a day be Festivally observed to God is Natural that on such a Festival or Thanksgiving day Christ should be magnified and God praised is Apostolical but that on the First day of the week Christian Prudence and the necessary power of the Church may seem to suffice Which appeareth from the manner of celebrating the Christian Sabbath which hath been always left to the Authority and wisdom of the Church varying according to occasions given For that Christians very anciently met to treat of divine matters to communicate to celebrate the Eucharist and to sing Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs Justine Justin Apol. 2. Tertul. Apologer Martyr and Tertullian and the famous Epistle of Pliny witness And to this end they had a vacation from all worldly servile matters as many proofs of Antiquity demonstrate And for the dignity of this day it was that on it and none other Bishops were to be consecrated by the constitution of Leo 1. And what are the Prerogatives of this First Leo 1. Distinct 75. c. 1. Quod die c. day of the week are explained at large by the Ancient Fathers and Councils here not to be rehearsed From this Fountain of Ecclesiastical power resident in the Church springeth the Act of instituting other days to the Glory and Praise of God of two sorts viz. days of Humiliation and Exultation or joy For it is certain that after it was agreed upon that Christs Resurrection should be weekly celebrated it was consented to also that a Yearly Thanksgiving should be kept for the same which was the Christians Passover and our Easter day is immemorially practised and without interruption derived to this present age And therefore as well because it is the greatest matter of joy that at any time befell the Church of Christ as because it regulateth other principal Feasts and Fasts of the Church as lastly because thence is plainly inferred a power in the Church of ordaining Feasts and Fasts to the worship of God it is called by the Ancient The Mother of Feasts And surely upon this the Fathers of the Church produced many other Daughter-Feasts not all in a year nor an age but according to their power to maintain and defend them which was very difficult for them to do as becomed under Gentile persecution who were most severe against such Celebrities instituted by Christians to the overthrow and contempt of Gentile worship which according to the Light of nature consisted much in this as Seneca Legum Conditores Festùm instruerunt dies ut ad hilaritatem homines cogerent c. Seneca de Tranquil Aninai c. 15. hath said in these words The Founders of Laws ordained Festival days to the end that men might meet publiquely in Jollity puting some moderation to Labours as necessary for them These Gentile Institutions prevailing not only to Idololatrical service but corruption of manners contrary to nature it self The Ancient Fathers of the Church knew no better Antidote against such poison than to introduce Christian Festivals whereby all the natural and Civil benefit of Vacation from Labours friendly conversation and such like might be enjoyed and due worship and praise be given unto God in Christ Jesus And therefore Theodoret. Serm. 7. de Sacrificiis Theodoret with other Fathers is not ashamed to profess as a very laudable and religious occasion of Christian Feasts That they succeeded the Idolatrous and lewd Feasts of the Gentiles which some but in vain would turn against the use of them But they stand upon surer foundations than to be blown down with the wind of vain doctrines blustering against them For First as is said Nature it self directs to them
the opinion of Tertullian They who tranâ—gress the Rule of Discipline cease to be reckoned among Christians And as Clemens Alexandrinus saith As it behoveth a person of Equity to falsifie in nothing and to go back from Qui excedunt dâ— Reculâ— disciplinâ— dâ—sinunt hâ—berâ— Christiani Tertul. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. p. 753 764. nothing that he hath promised although others should break Covenants so it becometh us to transgress the Ecclesiastical Canon in no manner And to convince any man of conscience or fear of God of this Balsamon's reasons may suffice demonstrating a greater reverence and respect to be due to the Constitutions of the Church than to the Laws of the State For saith he the Canons being explained and confirmed by Kings and Holy Fathers are received as the Scriptures But the Laws of the State were received and established by Kings alone and therefore do not prevail against See Photius's Nomocanon Tit. 1. c. 2. cum Palsamone p. 817 818. the Scriptures nor the Canons And this I rather instance in from the Greek than Latin Church because the ignorant and loud clamors of Sectaries have had nothing more to alledg against the Sacredness of Ecclesiastical Constitutions than that which serves their turns in all things Popishness of Canonical Obedience But may they judg what they please according as design and interest sway them this we constantly and confidently affirm that whoever despises the Rules of of Obedience and Laws of the Church cannot rise higher in that Part of Christian Religion which we call Worship of God than may meer Moral men Because that which chiefly distinguishes good Christians from good honest Heathens next to the doctrine of Faith is proportionable Obedience as well to those God hath substituted under him to ordain things omitted in the Scriptures for the security of the Faith regulating devotion and worship and peace of the Church none of which can long subsist without such a Power acknowledged and obeyed in the Governors of the Church And this â—pparently is at the bottom of the deceitful pretences of Christian Liberty and Conscience for disobedience of them who are designed thereby to ruine and overthrow as matter of fact hath demonstrated But it is not only the Puritans intollerable dogms against obedience but the contrary practise of no small persons of place and esteem in the Church who can heartily and with zeal even to indignation prosecute Sectaries inconformity to the Discipline and Rites of the Church glorying and boasting that they are Sons of the Church and yet do more mischief to the Church by their ill govern'd persons as to common honesty sobriety and gravity and more advance and bring into credit and reputation the enemies of the Church than all their fair and fallacious pretences could otherwise possibly do If such persons who have not attained to common Moral prudence or Philosophy bear such kindness as they flourish with to the Church let them shew it as that lewd Fellow in the Athenian Senate was advised who notwithstanding his vitious life had somewhat very beneficial to the Common-wealth to propound in the Senate and commend it by the mouth of another For what can be more absurd and ridiculous than for any such person to profess esteem to that Church which condemns him more than any other Society And whereas it supposes as a foundation natural justice continence and temperance and the like moral vertues to the divine Precepts and Institutions of Perfection what may turn the stomach and raise laughter more at a man then for such an one to discover his offense at an unceremonious Puritane the matter of whose Crime is nothing comparable to his If thou beest a Christian saith a holy Father either speak as thou livest or live as thou speakest What evil spirit hath set thee on first to abuse thy self with scandalous practises and then the Church by taking Sanctuary in it Can stupidity so far accompany vice as first to break the known and common Laws and Rules of good conversation which is affront enough to the Church and then to add to that affront by professing a special duty to that which thereby is destroyed There is no Sect or Schism whose Orders and Laws of Christian walking with God can be compared with those of the Church of England there being nothing amongst them besides Faith which an Heathen may not do that never heard of Christian Perfection accounting nothing needful to be done nothing unlawful to them which is not punishable by the Law of man or against the light of nature Christ they say hath purchased for them a liberty to do what they please in eating drinking sleepping and other matters so that they wrong not their own bodies nor injure their Neighbors And shall there be that protect themselves under this Churches shelter in such light loose foolish and vitious courses to the degrading of it beneath her inferiors Is this to be sons of the Church and not only so but to brag that such they are in open hostility to it I confess notwithstanding all this in comparing the enemies to the true Faith together we are to distinguish between the doers of evil simply and the teachers of men so to do And that though drunkenness and uncleaness be greater sins by far in their nature than is dissent from a ceremony or Rite not necessary in its nature Yet for any man with a spirit of opposition and contention to take upon him to declare against such an unnecessary order and teach men against the unity and peace of the Church otherwise than becomes him is no less criminal in the consequence before God yea probably much more than those other more scandalous before men and will more endanger his Soul But concerning such persons as are in profession really Sons and perhaps Fathers of the Church and yet wilfully and studiously violate the Laws Constitutions Rubricks or Canons of it no necessity compelling them no reason being to be alledged defending them but what is taken from their ease which otherwise would be much interrupted or their benefit and profit which would be much hindred I leave their own hearts and Consciences to condemn them until God himself doth which certainly without repentance he will and that out of their own consciences and mouths their consciences which witness that these are the true causes of their negligence and contempt of their Duty in their proper stations and their mouths and professions in that they pretend obedience and are much offended at the disobedience of Puritans as if God and the Church would be sufficiently satisfied with their Anger against them while they themselves regard it no farther than is for their turn Two vulgar apologies I shall here take notice of only For as for that which is also commonly said that evil times hinder them from their duty I shall say no more but humbly advise them to deal sincerely with God and their own consciences in such cases
Thanksgiving to God do For first it seems to be so far natural to man as Religion it self is All people that worship a God having generally their vicissitudes of Feasting and Fasting according to occasions justly offered or the prudence of the first Founders and Administratours of that Religion Again By the Precepts and Precedents contained in the Scriptures is Fasting required so that no instances are needful to confirm the same And the true reason why the Precepts positive in the Old Testament are but few is because it was agreeable to the Law of Nature that it was not so needful to add multitude of positive Injunctions to confirm the same The most express if not only Law given concerning this in the Scriptures is that of Leviticus the 16th vers 29. where God ordains that on the Seventh Moneth they should afflict their souls for ever by a perpetual statute but in what manner is not expressed whether by abstaining from all meat or their ordinary dyet is not mentioned but the Tradition and Custom of the Jewish Church interpret it to be total Abstinence until the Evening that is the Sun going down And the reason why no express Precept is given in the Gospel to Fast where many Directions and Rules are given to Fast is because To Fast was a setled practise of old in the Church of God and needed nothing more then the accommodation thereof to the future state of the Gospel which was done partly by the said Advices and Instructions how to Fast and partly by the power and prudence of the Governours of the Church extending to such ends But they say against this That Fasting must be voluntary and not of constraint and necessity and therefore must not Authority impose such duties upon Christians but they must take them up freely or omit them according to their Christian Liberty But this miserable and contentious exception they are forced to recal again though they would not be seen in it to save themselves who being in Power however acquired propose and impose both Fasts and Feasts at their pleasures so that they plainly mean That such Fasts are only to be enjoyned by themselves who cannot as all others commanding contrary to them possibly injure Christians in their Liberty For so saith Thomas Cartwright mocking St. Paul We cannot do any thing against the truth but for the truth But farther we say Not only all Fastings but Prayer and Hearing of the Word of God yea all Moral Vertues as Justice and Temperance ought to be freely taken up of every good Christian but doth it therefore follow they may not be enjoyned Or lastly doth it follow that what is commanded and conditionally necessary may not be freely chosen if not according to the utmost extent of liberty of will according to Philosophy yet according to the Divine and Scriptural sense in which whatsoever is done readily chearfully and willingly in the Service of God is accepted of God who loveth a chearful giver as the 2 Cor. 9. 7. Scripture affirms not taking notice whether there be any incumbent necessity or not upon the person And may not what St. Peter advises and exhorts the Elders and Governours of the Church to viz. To feed the Flock of Christ among them taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly concern the governed equally May not there be a 1 Pet. 5. 2. constraint upon these as well as on them in their Ranks consisting with a laudable willingness Nay more than so and quite contrary to the Divinity of factious Pastours and Flocks should the laudableness of the thing it self fortified and enforced with the Commands of Superiours make men that have any just pretences to Christianity more willing and chearful in the performance of those duties This was ever wont to be so until pestilent tongues had corrupted the minds and hearts of simpler Christians to make them suspect hate and oppose whatever their Governours ordained and then to argue They can by no mean do so because they do not like it and this dislikes their Consciences St. Paul saith Do all things without murmuring or disputings these modern Doctours say Phil. 2. 14. Do nothing without murmurings and disputings Let therefore this be one motive and qualification to Fasting that it be done willingly and the rather because it is required A second reason is to excite to humiliation and to quicken our Devotions in Prayers and Repentance while we judge our selves unworthy of Gods common benefits otherwise appointed But not to excurr here on this subject as I might Let it suffice to relate here both the Description and Grounds of Fasting as we find them in our Churches Homilies Homilies Church of England 2. Part. p. 85. 78. Fasting is a witholding of meat and drink and all natural food from the body for the determinate time of Fasting Again There are three ends of Fasting 1. Chastizing the Flesh 2. Fervencie of Spirit 3. Sign of Humiliation But idle and ignorant persons give the same definition to Fasting as they do to Repentance For to abstain from sin is both Fasting and Repentance not considering as we have before shewed how that things when the end and effect of them is highly commended and magnified are vulgarly described by them yet remain in nature altogether distinct as in that remarkable place of Syracides He that keepeth the Law bringeth Eccles 35 1 2 offerings enough he that taketh heed to the commandment offereth a Peace-offering He that requiteth a good turn offereth fine flour and he that giveth alms sacrificeth praise Were not he think we an excellent Interpreter that should take these expressions in the strictest sense they are delivered And is not he the very same that shall define either Repentance or Fasting by abstinence from sin in a proper sense as all definition Hom. 84. To. 5. Tom. 1. Hom. 8. ought to be framed in St. Chrysostome who in a certain Sermon speaks as much as any in behalf of abstinence from sin as a Fast truly acceptable to God was never so mad or silly as to exclude thereupon outward and bodily Fasting but in very many Sermons of his upon Genesis which were delivered in the time of Lent as were St. Basils also upon the Six days work of God nothing occurs more frequently then that literal and outward Fasting commended to his hearers Infinite might be the citations to prove the Judgment of the holy Fathers and Martyrs and Monks in this particular but it is confessed by dissenters who know any thing above the Divinity of Ursin and Calvin and such like unhappy masters of Errours in this point And what are the other principal reasons against such Fastings as our Church by vertue of Canonical obedience injoyns Why A superstitious discrimination of Meats as if some were cleaner than other under the Gospel This they would needs bring it to because they can do nothing without this which is just nothing For they
the Church before they departed this life but not so far as to remit the offences against God or that without actual demonstrations of their hearty sorrow for their sins and steadfast purposes and professions of future amendment they should have pronounced over them the Absolution of all their sins and that perhaps when they could no more desire than deserve such a Sentence CHAP. XIX A Preparation to the Explication of the Decalogue by treating of Laws in General What is a Law Several kinds of Laws Of the obligation of Laws from Justice not Force only Three Conditions required to obliging Of the Ten Commandments in special Their Authour Nature and Use BUT because a general Opinion as well amongst Christians as Exod. 34. 28. Deut. 4. 13. according to the Hebr. and Septuag And Josephus Antiquit l. 4. c. 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellat Jews hath prevailed that those Ten Commandments or as they are otherwise called Ten Words which God spake to the Children of Israel by Moses on Mount Sinai are an absolute Compendium and Rule of Obedience to God as well in our immediate Service towards him as our mediate in our duty towards our Neighbour a brief inquiry into the Decalogue will neither be unseasonable nor impertinent and the better to accomplish this first to speak of Laws in General before we treat of these more signal and eminent Laws of God A Law then to begin with the Definition seems to be nothing else but The rational and just will of a Soveraign Power declared and manifested to its Subjects for the better informing directing and regulating them according to truth and justice This Description though I find not entirely and absolutely in others yet is found in its several parts of which it consisteth in divers Authours and comprehends not only Humane but Divine Laws equally and not only written but unwritten also For it were a very fond and weak imagination in a man to conceive that the Writing Printing or Graving in Stone as the Ten Commandments are said to be can contribute any thing toward the force and due vigour of a Law any further than that thereby it becomes better known to all therein concerned Promulgation indeed is essential to all Laws but the Promulgation or Publication by the foresaid means is not so but any other notice given thereof may suffice But while a thing lyes hid in the mind and breast only of the proper Legislatours or Governours it cannot in reason obtain the nature or force of a Law but then only it doth when it either is known or might and ought to be known according to the manner of publication And this declared will must not be the act of any inferiour or subordinate person who of himself hath no right to will or require the observation of his Dictates or Orders but of the Supream originally at least though not immediately The universal and absolute Soveraign of all things is God alone and his Power alone and right of Dominion of which we have spoken in the beginning abundantly suffices to justifie all demands of service and obedience from his Creatures and that according to his absolute will without any exception or limitation it being intrinsecally good whatever shall appear to be the Will of God even because it is the Will of God who is nothing but Goodness in the most absolute sense And hence it is that notwithstanding Laws are divided into Divine Humane and Ecclesiastical yet in truth and upon due search it will be found that they all are Divine really though not formally and mediately though not immediately as Tully excellently and little less than divinely hath defined Lex est nihil aliud nise recta à numine deorum tracta ratio imperans honesta prchibens contraria Cicero Philipp 11. Clem. Alex Strom. l. 1. p. 350. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles in Carm. Pyth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demosthen in Anst The Law of Man which sometimes is called the Law Positive is derived by reason as a thing which is necessarily and probably following of the Law of Reason and of the Law of God And therefore in every Law Positive well made is somewhat of the Law of Reason and of the Law of God and to discern the Law of God and the Law of Reason from the Law Positive is very hard Dâ—ctâ—ur and Student cap 4. saying A Law is nothing else but right Reason drawn from the Gods themselves commanding honest things and forbidding the contrary And to the same effect writeth Clemens Alexandrinus and Hierocles saying Law is that Operative mind and Divine will which perpetually advances and preserves all things So that whatever Law be it Civil or Ecclesiastical which can not draw in some remote manner at least its descent from Heaven and God Almighty is not just or reasonable and by consequence not properly a Law but the private Lust of Tyrants But then in deducing Laws of Humane birth from God there must not be such a rigorous course taken as that whatever is not contained expresly in his revealed Word or obvious to the eye of Nature should be condemned as spurious and illegitimate and having no right to oblige men to observance and submission thereunto For some things are more clearly and some more obscurely some things more nearly and some more remotely deducible from their first fountain some Laws natural and the like may be said of Divinely revealed and Ecclesiastical are sufficiently apparent to all or most intelligent men as just and reasonable others as Thomas hath observed are evident so to be to the more understanding and searching Wits this being to be received as a plain and undoubted Rule in doubtful Cases that the professed Authours and Interpreters of Laws are generally better seen into the Natural Divine and Moral reason and obligation of a Law and the common benefit and expediencie thereof than inferiour and ignorant persons who are prone to judge of the reasonableness and usefulness of it as it best agrees with their own private judgments none of the certainest or Interests none of the justest many times not considering which is most necessary the common good claiming prerogative above particular So that there can be no more unnatural Rule than that which would have every man a Law and Rule and Reason to himself or definitively and finally to judge for and of himself in all things what is just and reasonable This is altogether lawâ—ess and repugnant to the revealed Will of God which hath ordained several orders and ranks of men whereof some are to be in Power and Authority others in subjection and obedience And from hence it proceedeth that Magistrates who are the only Law-givers and true Interpreters of Laws given have had somewhat more of the Image of God ascribed to them than other common men because as it is Gods primary power and prerogative to give Laws to all the world as his Subjects so is it the
undoubted Right of lawful Governours under God to propound and impose Laws serviceable to the common ends of such a Society as thereby is disposed and regulated And there are three things principally requisite to make a Law obligatory upon men The first is taken from the Person Giving or propounding this Law and that is Authority without which the best Laws that can be invented are directly tyrannical and unjust as well in respect of the Person whose Right is thereby invaded and usurped so that Conscience is so far from being obliged by it that rather it is bound to oppose and resist such Laws though in themselves very profitable and reasonable because they imply a wrong to another to whom only pertaineth the Legislative Power as of the persons to whom such goodly Laws are given because thereby is an unjust service and bondage brought upon them But no man can be bound to this double injury though peradventure such a Case may be put in which to decline a greater evil and mischief a man may be patient and passive under such usurpers A second thing is taken from the matter and nature of the Law it self which if it be not just and reasonable bindeth not the Conscience though enacted by Authority altogether lawful and unquestionable The reason whereof is that so often abused place of holy Writ which adviseth to obey God rather then men Gods eternal and indispensable Law Acts 5. 29. exacteth of man due observation and that chiefly upon account of his absolute Soveraignty and Dominion which no inferiour Power ought to controul or can make void But should any mortal man command contrary of God it could signifie nothing more then the folly of his own heart and the distemper of his mind and a foul revolt and defection in him that should suffer himself to be so abused But is there no difference think we between the Powers on earth acting quite contrary to God and such as only want special warrant for what they sometimes expect from their Subjects The ignorance or wilful negligence of this distinction or notion is it which hath hurried men into so many unchristian acts and made such havock especially in Religion A third principal ingredient into a Law is that taken from the Persons to whom it is made not that they must owe obedience unto the Lawgiver thought that be true for this is the very same with the first For wherever there is the first part of the Relation there must also of necessity be the second and so wherever there is Power and just Authority to command and rule there must necessarily be a duty of obedience in others but knowledge and manifestation of a Law before touched is absolutely requisite to bind people to the observation of it And yet I mean not actual and inevitable knowledge but possible and ordinarily attainable it being most certain that the same persons who stand generally obliged to observe a Law made and propounded are likewise bound to take notice of its promulgation and this neglecting subject themselves to the like penalties as the wilful Violators of it There may well be added unto these three a Fourth Condition to the validity of a Law and that is Power How Power and Authority differ is not unknown viz. that the first consists in sufficient strength and force to constrain obedience or inflict the punishment denounced against disobedience not necessarily inferring Right so to do And this is not intrinsecal to a Law because it is only to be exercised as a necessary instrument subservient to the ends of Right and Justice preceeding which is Authority properly so called which duly exercised doth oblige without force to submission and that out of Duty and Conscience as appeareth from what we have said already in the First Book of the First Part of this Treatise Now though this Power be not intrinsecal to the Obligation of a Law as some unnatural Philosophers have of late days imagined and boldly and basely endeavoured to maintain yet may it be essential to the Execution of the same Men being generally so unreasonable and averse to Order and Government and the publick Good when no special and immediate advantage accrues to their particular person that without the iron rod to constrain the Majesty of the Scepter will not sway them And but that I have found such prodigious tenets in the writings of late Politicians denying all Justice and Conscience and destroying them as far as their blind and pestilent wits will enable them which certainly they never shall any more than to destroy God himself and extinguish the notion of a Deity out of the minds of men I should have thought that for want of such a distinction between the Obligation and Execution of a Law they fell into such flat and portentous errours For what doth argue greater stupidity than to conclude there is no necessity of violence this should be done therefore it ought not to be done Or because that man is impious who because he is strong enough to be successful scruples not at all to invade and prey on another and he may become ridiculous that commandeth without any ability or probability of effecting what he requireth therefore no obligation lyes on the persons to whom he directs himself to obey Aristotle indeed Arist Politic. l. 3. c. 4. §. 78. tells us of a Law that the Hares should make in their solemn Assemblies that all beasts should share alike in the earth but at this said Antisthenes the Lyons laughed and well they might when such Laws proceeded from them who had neither Right to make nor Power to enforce them but where there is Right without Might the matter is more to be abhorred on the one side than decided on the other True it is that Marsilius Patavinus does make Coaction an ingredient into Lex propriè sumpta Praeceptum coactivum est de fiendis aut omittendis humanis actibus sub poena transgressoribus infligenda Marsilius Patavinus de Jurisdictione Matrimoniali the definition of a Law and that not amiss if we consider that definitions of things are to be made according to the Habitude of things rather than Actualness and so this his definition is very good A Law properly taken is a Coactive Precept of doing or omitting humane acts under punishment to be inflicted on transgressours For though a Prince deprived of Power makes Laws which he is not able to enforce or the Church yet while indelible Right to Power resides with him as an Habitude the Law is of force and is of a Coactive nature though not actuated And this being not unduly as we hope premised we now proceed to the explication of that particular Law of God called the Decalogue which though it branches it self into ten parts yet according to the Jews not amiss conceiving is but One Law as proceeding from one Fountain pronounced in one breath say they engraven or written as one Line or Word on
two Tables and hanging all on one string Charity which saith St. Paul is the fulfilling of the Law as many Beads or Jewels make but one Bracelet Yet according to the several forms and distinct matter are they often distinguished Origen Hom. 10. super Exod Non ut simplicioribus videtur cuncta quae statuantur Lex dicitur c. Psal 19. 7 8. as by Origen in these words It is not as may seem to the simpler sort that all things that are constituted are the Law Lex but some truly are called Law some Testimonies some Commands some Righteousnesses some Judgments which the 18 or 19 Psalm plainly teaches us saying The Law of the Lord is a perfect Law converting the soul the Testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple The Statutes of the Lord are right rejoycing the heart the Commandment of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes Neither doth Gulielmus Parisiensis much vary from his sense who makes seven Parts of the Law of God the First whereof is Testimonies Sunt autem partes Legis hujus Dei septem quarum prima est Testimenia c. Gul. Parisiens de Legibus cap. 1. and these are of Truths and therefore to be believed The Second Commands and these are of Honest things and therefore to be fulfilled The Third Judgments and these are of Equity and therefore to be obeyed The Fourth are Examples and these are to be imitated The Sixth is Threatnings to wit of Punishments and these are to be feared The Seventh are Ceremonies and these are to be reverenced and observed Thus he But whether these do not concern rather the whole Body of the Law than the Decalogue in particular may justly be doubted but shall not here be disputed though upon this account it may seem to concern this also For if the Ten Commandments be the sum of the whole Law of Moses as is credibly taught how can it so be unless it vertually comprehends the several distinct parts thereof which will be farther cleared in the brief consideration of these three Particulars concerning the Decalogue 1. The Institution of this Law 2. The Nature or Use of it and Thirdly The Explication of it The Authour and Institutour of this Law was insallibly God himself as of all the Writings of Moses the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles received amongst us for Canonical But whether there were any more immediate act of God and as I may say personal in delivering these Commands than in communicating his will by Moses to the Israelites upon other occasions is not so well resolved The Learned of the Jewish Doctours do put a distinction between the Divineness of the Pentateuch wrote by Moses and the rest of holy Scripture of the Old Testament making that the Ground and Rule as it were of other prophetical Writings and so do many suppose the Law to be more Sacred than the other parts of Scripture and to be more Sacred because more solemnly and formidably and with greater manifestation of Gods Glory and Majesty delivered to Moses yea and because written with the finger of God himself as the Scripture witnesses which seems to speak as if God herein had not used the ministery of Angels as at other times and upon other occasions but spake and acted immediately in his own person These words saith Moses in Deuteronomy the Lord Deut. 5. 22. spake unto all your assembly in the Mount out of the midst of the fire of the cloud and of the thick darkness with a great voice and he added no more and he wrote them in two Tables of Stone and deliveted them to me And when the people in Exodus beg of Moses saying Speak thou with us and we will Exod. 20. 19. hear thee but let not God speak with us least we dye it seems to imply that God himself was the speaker Nay God saith afterward Ye have seen that v. 22. I have talked with you from heaven And to this effect the holy Scripture elsewhere as Deut. 4. 36. Nehem. 9. 13. Deut. 5. 4. Exod. 33. 11. from all which there is nothing more certain then that the voice was sensible and after humane manner audible contrary to some Jews who as Buxtorf tells us presume to say it was imaginary only And what do not the Jews superstitiously devise to magnifie this Law and by implication themselves above other people so favoured by God For they not only say that God with his own mouth spake these Ten Words but with his own hands made the two Tables as may be seen in Buxtorf and Buxtorf de Decalogo amongst others Rabbi Simeon writes That both Tables were created by God immediately and that before the world began not regarding how contradictory to Scriptures such an assertion is Exod. 34. 1 2 3 4. and Deut. 10. 1. which they would understand only of the Second Tables but without reason But if we consider first how dubiously and ambiguously the word God is used in Scripture signifying Angels often and sometimes Men of Renown and Command and the Finger of God to be the same sometimes with the Spirit of God sometimes with the Power of God Exod. 8. 19. Luke 11. 20. And secondly That then according to our apprehension and the Scriptures phrase God is said to do a thing himself when he doth it not by any humane instrument or help though he imployeth invisible Spirits therein there will be no such necessity of Consequence as may seem at first view and thus Calvin upon these words of Exod. 31. 18. interprets the matter not amiss And if we consider secondly what sense the Writers of the New Testament take them in the other opinion which holds that these Commands were delivered by the mediation of Angels will appear most probable For so saith St. Stephen expresly in the Acts to the Jews Who received the Law by Acts 7. 53. Gal. 3. 19. the disposition of Angels and have not kept it And St. Paul It was ordained by Angels in the hands of a Mediatour And in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is called The word spoken by Angels Some may say here That by Law is here to be understood not the Decalogue only but the whole Law of Moses at the least which cannot be absolutely denyed though the contrary seems most probable But if it be so does not the whole include the parts If the Law in general was so dispenced does it not follow that this Law in particular was so ordained Though if it be granted that this Law particularly was so delivered it doth not follow that the whole Law of Moses was so given by the ministery of Angels and not only by Divine inspiration without any Angels officiating towards it as in this Case we suppose And Perkins on the Galatians affirmeth directly that this Law was given by the Perkins Gal. 3. 19. ministery of Angels And to confirm this I shall adde a Scholastical Reason For if it
ventantia ad hoec decem redigant Capitalium peccatorum species quae septem numerantur in aliquod horum referum sed sedulâ diligentiâ magis quam serid Erasm Cateches 6. in Decal Thom 22. qu. 148. 2. ad 1. Contrivers of them may as well as many other things be refused at pleasure as an humane Invention For mine own particular I think Erasmus has spoken judiciously and truly in the Case Here I see some labouring hard to reduce all Precepts whether commanding or forbidding to these Ten and to refer the seven deadly sins to some of these but with diligence more sedulous than serious And no other instance needs be given of an incapacity in the Decalogue of Regular reduction of this nature than what Thomas has given us whose Logical head was able to do as much in this kind as any mans Framing an Objection to himself that Gluttony was no mortal sin because it was not contrary to any of the Ten Commandments answers thus Gluttony is a mortal sin in as much as it averts us from the Ultimate end and according to this by a Certain Reduction by which every thing may be reduced to every thing is opposed to the Command of Sanctifying the Sabbath in which is required our rest in the Ultimate End If this be fair and allowable what needed we any more Commandments than that of keeping holy the Sabbath day For surely all sin as well as Gluttony turns us away from our Last End which is God and our resting in him and therefore by this reason all sin should be Sabbath-breaking St. James James 2. 10. indeed saith Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point he is guilty of all that is a breaker of all But he very well explains himself immediately after that he meant not so much in respect of the matter of the Law that a man could not sin against it in one case but he must sin against it in another but in respect of the Manner For saith he He that said unto thee do not commit adultery said also do not kill c. implying thus much that the same evil mind that disposes a man to disobey God in one point of the Law will incline him to the like in others and the Cords of Fear and Love of God being broken to offend God in one sin leave him at liberty to offend him in any other whatever Not that a man doth directly or actually commit sin against the whole Law As in the case of Moral Vertues according to Philosophers all are so connected and dependent upon one another in Prudence that whoever wants that lies open to all vices But our enquiry is concerning the connexion of vertues and vices in the matter of them whether the offender in one sin is guilty of all whether the Drunkard be a Thief or the Sabbath-breaker an Adulterer For according to the large extent of Rules commonly given either of these may be made good and without such a latitude drunkenness will hardly find a proper place in any of the Ten Commandments unless we say as some more wittily than solidly Drunkenness slaggers through all the Commands And in the like sense What sin doth not And therefore Thom. ibid. Thomas is constrained to acknowledge that Not all Mortal sins are directly contrary to the Precepts of the Decalogue but those only which contain injustice because the Precepts of the Decalogue in especial manner pertain to Justice and the parts thereof That so many Ancient as well as Modern Doctors of Christs Church have endeavoured to bring all Sins and Graces and Duties to the Ten Commandments I take to proceed from this three-fold cause First in Imitation of the Jews who agreed with Christians in the Use of the Decalogue Novatianus Epistâ—de Judaicis apud Tertul cap. 3. Deniqu dâ—eem sermones â—lh in tabulis nibil novum dacent c. Grot. in Decalogum as being no more than a restoring the decayed Law of Nature in man and reprinting it in his mind as well hath Novatianus observed thus Lastly those ten sayings in Tables teach no new thing but what was blurred they admonish that Justice contained in them as fire buried might as it were by the breath of the Law be re-enkindled And Philo testifieth of the Jews not only of his Times but ancienter that they were wont to reduce All the Precepts of Moses his Law to these Ten not that they did believe that they were all contained in them as Grotius hath observed but that those things we have here belong to such general heads of Actions unto which for memory sake others may be reduced in like manner as Philosophers are wont to Sixt. Sen. Bib. l. 4. reduce all things to Aristotles Ten Categories or Predicaments though by the way it is observed by Sixtus Senensis out of ancient Authors that Aristotle was not the true Author of the Ten Predicaments but rather Architas Tarentinus And this Christians did more accurately as being better endowed with the Holy Spirit and obliged to higher vertues A second reason might be for that the Decalogue as we have already said though it be not such an exquisite and ample Rule as to contain all things without great straining and force yet it being the most significant is any where extant in Scripture Christians chose that for their Compendium to which other duties might relate And this Thirdly because of the expediency of advancing some one Form of Words to be a Rule of Practise as were the Creed and Lords Prayer instituted as Forms of Faith and all Prayers and that chiefly for help to the Memory of men in their compleat duty towards God and Man The first that I have observed who brought this way of Reduction of all things to the Commandments was St. Hieromne who hath delivered such General Rules for this purpose as have been much improved and multiplied by many Catechises and Commentators upon them To which I shall refer the Reader at present passing or rather posting from the Use in General to the Particular Use of it in the Third thing viz. The Explication CHAP. XX. Of the Ten Commandments in Particular and their several sense and importance IN all Laws three things are to be considered saith a late excellent Die â—mâ—bi Hâ—los-phasier Oretzere si non tres Leâ—uâ— partes dâ—â—mmâ—â— Philosophis Platone Possidonio Cicerone alits consittuantur nempe Preoemium Lex ipsa Epilogus sive sanctio Goldastus Replicat ad Gretz c. 11. person in the Civil Law The Preface the Law it self and the Epilogue or Conclusion to it or Sanction And these are all found in the Decalogue And where some have no special Preface there the General Prologue is to be current and applyed unto them And so where other particular precepts want the enforcement of them in the conclusion they may well borrow it from some other as for Example I am the Lord thy God set
Hist Nat. l. 2. c. 5. Gâ—eek Philosopher wrote a Book with this Title Of not killing any living thing And Pliny writes of the Amycle whose chief City was Anxur in Italy that being Pythagoreans they suffered themselves to be consumed by Serpents because they would not kill them Yet methinks the Manichaean Hereticks should not have fallen into so great superstition having the use of the Scripture where God giveth Man free liberty to convert the Beasts Exod. 9. 3. of the field to his food as well as the Hearb of the field But perhaps the Latin word occides being general may have deceived them as St. Augustine Aug. Civ Dei l. 1. c. 20. intimateth where he tells us that the Manichees grounded their opinion Of not killing any living thing upon this Commandment Thou shalt not kill which St. Augustine there refuteth from their own opinion and practise For they held also an opinion that Plants had life too and yet they destroyed them in eating Hearbs And there wanted not some conscientious and learned Christians who held it against Christian perfection and purity to kill any man though in just defense as did Ambrose who doth not absolutely deny it to be lawful yet looks upon it as a blemish to Christian Religion to shed blood So that he holds it scarce lawful in such a case as shipwrack for one man to save his own life by thrusting another man of a planck which might have carried him to land and so to return Ne dum salutem defendat Pietatem contaminet Ambr. 31 Off. cap. blows back to him again that as a Robber on the High-way shall assail him least in defending his life he corrupts or stains his Religion To this we can only say That the Church hath been so tender and pure in her Profession that though she hath not any where condemned that we call natural and lawful Resistance to the securing of a mans Fortunes and especially Life yet hath she in her Canons of Irregularities set such a value and reverence upon the bloud of man that even involuntary and much more voluntary killing any man doth by her Decrees render one in Priestly Orders uncapable of doing his Office because as St. Ambrose his words imply though the guilt before God should not be great yet the blemish and scandal before men would be so and all suspicion and appearance of evil ought to be avoided And this way of arguing which is yet the only of any colour is of much less force to make wars unlawful being denounced by just Authority as late Fanaticks would pretend at least to hold to gain esteem of men of singular consciences which yet gross experience hath certified us extends no farther than opportunity and advantage have enabled and encouraged them to violate For a man hath not power absolute over his own person but is under the command of his Superiours who are to judge of the reasonableness of the endangering his own life and destroying the life of another For if we should so far affront the Law of Nature as to grant a man might not use any Self-defence to the apparent loss of the life of another it would not from thence follow at all that he might not receive power and authority and such a command which to deny were sinful to bereave another of his life How many examples in the Old Testament justifie this In the New Testament having no instance of such Christians as had any Soveraign Political Power do we wonder that we have neither Example nor Precept directly commending this to Christian practise But by implication we have when St. Paul exhorteth thus Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he is called 1 Cor. 7. 〈◊〉 Now it was well known to the Apostle that there were continual wars in the Roman Empire and that many Christians were Souldiers and that that was their Calling wherein they were called For Cornelius was a Souldier And when the Souldiers came to St. John Baptist enquiring What shall we do He did not say Lay down your Commission Serve no longer Luke 3. 14. But Do violence to no man neither accuse any falsly and be content with your wages which is as much as Use your imployment soberly and justly neither prey upon any man upon your private account And whereas the words of Christ in his Sermon on the Mount seem to Matth. 5. 22 38 39 40 41. be pretended to the contrary Christ there exhorting patiently to bear affronts and injuries without revenging a mans self they are to be understood of violence repayed without lawful Authority either expressed or implyed but this is alwayes implyed in just defences And again these are rather Counsels than Commands peremptorily forbidding so to do but advising to forbear that out of a Spirit of meekness and patience which is not utterly unlawful to do but to the disadvantage of the Gospel in general and the diminution of that reward annexed to the humble and patient suffering of wrongs for Gods sake But though this is to be preferred before the other it follows not that the other is unlawful or that it is so much as lawful to forbear executing justice on such offenders when commanded by good Authority And so do the Jews interpret those words of Leviticus Thou shalt not stand against the bloud of thy neighbour thus as Fagius hath noted on the place Whoever See Paulus Fagius on Lev. 19. 16. is able to deliver his neighbour in any of his Members and doth it not he is in the same guilt as if he shedded blood and becomes guilty of death And it is impossible a man should be guilty of blood in doing that which he shall be in that he doth it not It being thus explained what is not meant by this Command what is by it intended may more briefly be declared and that as in other Precepts is of two sorts Negative Not to murder against which foul and crying sin so much and so plainly is denounced in holy Writ that to recount them here in this short Comment were unseasonable and superfluous It may be defined A wilful and unjust taking away the life of a Man And there are two principle Causes of this unjustness First No good or warrantable ground or demerits Secondly No good Authority so to do Now Authority is twofold Express and Implicite There is no express Law commanding the destruction of another that seeks mine but Implicite there is and so it may be just Express is that which exerciseth it self against convicted Malefactours And of both these is he destitute who executeth himself I cannot say that it is unlawful for a man required by just Authority to kill himself but of himself to do this is certainly a murderous act though he were guilty of Death For as St. Austin hath observed Aug. Civ Deâ— l. 1. c. 17. He that killeth himself doth certainly kill a man and it is not said Thou
shalt not kill thy neighbour or another man but simply Thou shalt not kill And though indeed about the earliest dayes of the Persecution of the Church of Christ some men and more especially young women to prevent the abuses of their bodies cast themselves away and this was connived at by the Church yet upon more mature discussion and consideration of the notoriousness of the Fact it was condemned expresly by the Church nay for men needlesly and voluntarily to declare and publish themselves to be Christians and so to offer themselves to the Sword of the Magistrate was judged wicked and the practisers of it denyed to be Christians any farther than in name as appears in Clemens Alexandrinus And those Noble Persons Clem. Alex. l. 4. Strom. p. 481. 504. who are recorded in Scripture to have affected such deaths can be no more presidents for to justifie this sin than others other scandalous sins unless as St. Austin inclineth to believe answering the furious Donatists who out Aug. 1. c. 26. Civ Dei of mad zeal rather against the Church than for God were wont to destroy themselves they had some special instinct so to do from God as Sampson might be thought to have in that he was divinely assisted above his ordinary strength to pull down the house And besides his intention was not out of weariness or discontent of his life principally to destroy himself but the Enemies of God of himself and the people of God And there seems no great difficulty or inconveniencie to grant that a man may run himself into apparent danger of his life to bring a most notorious dammage to the Enemies of God and his Country though not upon his own head but by just Authority So that I make no doubt but Voetius determined the Voetius Select Disp Part 4. p. 256. Case of Conscience amiss denying that a man in desperation of saving himself and his ship of War from falling into the hands of his Enemies may with a good Conscience blow it up and all in it For all his arguments prove no more than that this a man may not do of himself because no man must slay himself but they prove not that a man may not do this by command and injunction of his Superiours in whose power his life is and to whom belongs his Vessel And what is said against a mans destroying his own life or his neighbours makes also against any maiming or mutilation of the body of himself or others though not ending in death The true reason of all which Recte dicitur inquit Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Plato in Phaedone is First because it is against a Law of Nature imprinted deeply by God himself in the minds of men yea all living creatures to study and endeavour their own preservation which Law is hereby directly broken Secondly No man is absolute Master of himself but first as Plato hath noted is as it were the Goods of God and then a Servant to his Country and therefore without Gods consent or his Countries by the Soveraign power discharges him of his duty and service towards it he is an Offender against both And hereunto pertains the high Crime of causing Abortion and Miscarriages of Women to hide their former sin And as the Fact it self is forbidden so all ordinary Causes tending thereunto as all evil and provoking language All evil affections as hatred anger malice and such like All assistance by conspiring counselling or acting outwardly are certainly forbidden Lastly as the thing it self and all evil acts and offices are forbidden so because the Righteousness of Christians must exceed that of Scribes and Pharisees as our Saviour Christ saith in St. Matthew therefore Christians Matth. 5. are obliged hereby to all reasonable and charitable acts of love friendship piety as well as justice conducing to the support and preservation and comfort of their brethren especially in Christ as St. Paul advises to the Galatians As we have therefore opportunity let us do good unto all men especially Gal. 6. 10. unto them who are of the houshold of Faith And herein he followed the Precept of Christ I say unto you Love your enemies bless them that curse Matth. 5. 44 you do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you That ye may be the Children of your Father which is in 45. heaven for he maketh c. And therefore by this Commandment are requiâ—ed of us all acts of Mercy as Visiting the sick and imprisoned Feeding the hungry Clothing the naked Ministring assistance by counsel and action to the oppressed Comfort to the dejected and such like Knowing and considering that they who as Goats stand at the Left hand of Christ at the last Day of Judgment shall not be condemned only for injuries and injustices done to others but because Christ in his members was an hungred and ye gave him no meat was thirsty and ye gave him no drink Matth. 25. 42 43. Was a stranger and ye took him not in naked and ye clothed him not sick and in prison and ye visited him not The Seventh Commandment interdicteth all uncleanness in these §. VII words Thou shalt not commit Adultery Which Philo Judaeus following herein the Septuagint and having no skill in the Hebrew or Original Tongue as hath been observed by learned men and is easily to be discerned by any Reader placeth before the Commandment Thou shalt not kill though in the Fifth Chapter of Deuteronomy where the Decalogue is repeated the order of the Original is observed which implyeth some Errour happening in Exodus For neither is the reason of Philo or Grotius inclining to that opinion valid viz. because Adultery is the greatest sin a man can commit against his neighbour For undoubtedly Murder is more heinous There is some variety in the New Testament in the reciting of this Command For Mark 10. 9. and Luke the 18. 20. the order of the Septuagint in Exodus is kept Matthew 19. 18. the order of Deuteronomy is followed which teaches that the diversity was ancient and that not stood scrupulously on But the putting of Thou shalt not steal before Thou shalt not commit adultery in Exodus 20. not approved by Philo or his Followers should make that place of Exodus more suspected of alteration than that of Deuteronomie But the matter not being great and that only concerning the Greek Translation the End and Contents of this Law are more seriously to be attended which may be conveniently reduced to these following heads First unclean thoughts and inward motions and dispositions and most of all Resolutions to offend in act being not hindered For this Christ our most pure President and holy Doctour condemns for adultery in the Heart Matth. 5. I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust Matth. 5. 28. after her hath committed adultery with her in his
heart Not he that looketh on a woman but he that looketh on her to lust after her is condemned though all curious studious idle impertinent views of men or women upon which may follow ordinarily the sparks and then the flames of lust are forbidden Again not all lusting of the heart is to be compared to the acts of lusting inwardly with the act outward joyned to that Adultery of the heart our Saviour Christ doth not equal to the Adultery of act but makes it Adultery in a degree inferiour Secondly There is uncleanness of the Tongue too when it breaketh out into impure light foolish lascivious speeches tending to begetting evil thoughts and acts in others against which St. Paul declareth in his Epistle to the Ephesians Let no corrupt communication come out of your mouth but Coloss 4 29. that which is good to the use of edifying that it may minister grace to the hearers Coloss 3. 8. And to the Coâ—ossians But now ye also put off all these anger wrath malice blasphemy filthy communication out of your mouth Thirdly Actual uncleanness which is accomplished in the deeds of the flesh And â—aâ—h several degrees which may be distinguished into Unnatural and Natural Unnatural consisteth in the vile acts a man or woman may commit upon their own bodies perverting the course and end of nature instituting diversity of Sexes for sober and profitable propagation making that void in some manner at least At which St. Paul may seem to strike as Ephes 5. 12. far as modesty would permit when he says It is a shame to speak of those things which are done of them in secret meaning the impurities of Gnostick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. Haret Fabul cap. 7. and Valentinian Conventicles to the reproach of Primitive Christianity Epiphanius relating how besides those called natural lusts between Sexes distinct they dishonoured and corrupted their own bodies in the highest acts of single uncleanness and made up some of their Mysteries thereby And however single persons do not so prodigiously abuse themselves as did those impure Hereticks pretending greater Sanctity and deeper Mysteries in their Religion then the Catholicks yet must it needs be a great offense to God so to corrupt a mans self in yielding to fleshly temptations condemned by Heathen Poets though themselves were immodest for a violation of the Law of Nature it self which therefore all Christians especially of weak reason strong passions and young years are most watchfully to beware of and resolutely to avoid Another sort of acted rather then actual Uncleanness here prohibited is the foul sin of Sodomie to which the wicked Citizens of Sodom destroyed Gen. 19. 4 5. Rom. 1. 26. by fire gave denomination as may appear in the Book of Genesis And of which St. Paul to the Romans speaketh when he saith that God delivered up the Gentiles to these unnatural Lusts as a punishment of their gross Idolatry For this cause God gave them up to vile affections For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature And likewise the men leaving the natural use of the women burned in their lusts one towards another men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their errours which was meet A Third unnatural Lust is that called Bestiality or abusing or being abused Lev. 28. 23. by Beasts in lustful acts against which God hath in his Word as well as by the Light and Law of Nature declared The more natural but yet unchristian Lusts here forbidden are Adultery which is either simple viz. when a married person committeth uncleanness with an unmarried where some make two kinds the one when the man is married but the woman single which they commonly make the less and so indeed it is by reason that it brings no spurious brood to inherit or share the Goods of any other man but him that he knowingly and willingly bestows them on The other is when the woman is married and the man single which is besides the general sin subject to the foresaid mischief And therefore hereby the woman offends in these four respects Incredulity not believing or regarding the Law and Word of God to the contrary 2. Not reverencing the Laws of the Church 3. Treachery against her Faith and Troth given before God to her Husband whereby she delivered unto him 1 Cor. 7. 4. the power of her Body as St. Paul speaketh 1 Cor. 7. as likewise doth the Husband to his Wife upon the same occasion and therefore thus far the Man and Woman transgressing offend equally 4. They say the Woman in such cases is a Thief in that she spoileth her Husband of his goods and giveth them to a false Issue he would knowingly no wayes yield them to But yet saith Thomas the man sinneth no less than the woman however Thomas in decem Praecepta Opusc 3. he may flatter himself otherwise And the sum of his reason is this First Because that the man hath no more power over his Body than the woman over hers Secondly Because the man is stronger naturally than the woman and endued with more reason Thirdly Because the man is the Head of the woman and her teacher as St. Paul saith therefore as it is a greater sin for a Priest than a Layman to offend in that kind so is it for a man who is as it were Gods Minister even in spiritual matters to the woman And in truth we find little or no difference put by the Scripture between the fact James 4. 4. of the one and the other St. James joyning them thus together Ye Adulterers and Adulteresses know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with Levit. 20. 10. God Yet Moses his Law decreed the Adulteress to be put to death but not the Adulterer as offending more against the Civil capacity of Man And perhaps for the hardness of their hearts least they should do it themselves God would have it done in a more orderly and just way Some Laws of Christians at this day granting the man leave to kill his wife himself finding her in actual Adultery Fornication likewise which some calling Simple have legitimated in great measure is condemned by this Commandment St. Paul as it were foreseeing and intending to confound such modern Doctours saith Know ye not 1 Cor. 6 9 10. that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God be not deceived neither Fornicators nor Idolaters nor Adulterers nor Effeminate nor Abusers of themselves with mankind Nor Thieves nor Covetous nor Drunkards nor Revilers nor Extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God And to the Hebrews But Fornicators and Adulterers God shall judge And so likewise the Excusers or Extenuaters of them so far as to bring down the guilt of either of them to that of a venial sin only which is as much as nothing Est ergo heresis dicere Fornicationem simplicem
grasped Church possessions great usurpations of this kind serving no farther and doing no more good than a Jugg of Beer doth a good Fellow I will favour mine own Country so far as to forbear all instances might here be given and only mention that I find in Paggius Petrus de Vineis an Italian and prudent Counseller and Secretary to Frederick the Emperour called Barbarossa who had wars with Pope Alexander the Third and advanced far into Italy against him was by the calumnies of the Barbaria Faction intimate and prevalent with the Emperour turned out of office and had for his punishment both his eyes put out But the Emperour afterward being convinced of the wrong he had done him received him to favour again and being at Pisa onwards of his way against the Pope and much pressed with straits how to pay his Army took this Peter into Counsel what he should do to raise moneys Peter answered Your war being against the Church it is good policie and reason to make use of the wealth of it against it self and therefore should do well to seize on the rich plate and wealth of the Churches of Pisa and convert them to your service The Emperour liked the advice very well and accordingly spoiled the Churches of their riches and so raised an Army Which when Peter heard he came boldly to the Emperour and said Now I am revenged sufficiently of you for my two eyes You stirred up to your self the hatred of men but I have made God your enemy through your Sacriledge From this time forward all things will go worse and worse with you And so it fell out for Alexander at length brought down his pride and him to great shame and misery even to be kicked by the Pope But thirdly he that would understand the heinousness of the sin of Theft and the heinousness of all Thefts Sacriledge may for his satisfaction find infinite examples of saddest nature of Gods vengeance against it and the Scriptures thus declareth against them Ecclesiasticus 34. 11. Habakkuk 2. 6. Proverbs 10. 2. Esay 61. 8. Habakkuk 2. 9. c. There yet remains one more abomination to God under this Commandment and that is abuse and injustice in weights and measures contrary to the Law of Nature God and common Commerce which is thereby destroyed God saith in Deuteronomie Thou shalt not have in thy bagg diverse Deut. 25. 13 14 15. weights a great and a small Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures a great and a small But thou shalt have a perfect and a just weight a perfect and a just measure shalt thou have that thy days may be lengthened in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee For all that do such things and all that do unrighteously are abomination unto the Lord thy God And so in Leviticus Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment in meteyard in weight or Lev. 19. 35. in measure Just weights just balances c upon which words Paulus Fagius notes out of Jewish Doctours a fivefold iniquity committed by him that offends in weights and measures 1. He pollutes the Land 2. He abuses or prophanes the name of God 3. He causes Gods Majesty Glory and Presence to forsake the place 4. Causes Israel to fall by the Sword 5. Causes them to be driven into Exile in a strange Land Adde hereunto what Solomon saith against this wicked practise Proverbs 11. v. 1. and Prov. 20. 23. as abominable in the eyes of God above other sins This kind of cheating hath more aggravations of villany than I can stand here to enumerate It is worse then downright common filching stealing and robbing upon the High-way because it extends to innumerable persons more than they do and is seldomer a great deal repented of and consequently more damnable For as the Psalmist saith he flattereth himself in his own eyes till his iniquity Psal 36. 2. be found to be hateful And being infatuated with the stupifying charm of present gain supposeth too often that if he civilly hears Sermons and hath recourse at the last to the Doctrine of Justifying Faith all scores between him and God will be quitted But how much happier how much honester how much holier are they who loose their ears in the publick Pillory than such solemn and grave Cheats in their Shops who loose their souls customariness and commonness extenuating the sin and the course of trading and art of growing rich apace as requiring so almost justifying such abominations But no more though not enough of this We are now briefly to touch and recommend to the true Christian practise not only justice in doing right to all men but doing good to all men Gal. 6. 10. as the Apostle exhorteth and the Rule of Contraries in expounding the Commandments which is that where a Sin is forbidden expresly there implicitly is a vertue commanded as where a vertue is enjoyned there the contrary vice is much more interdicted And surely the first place is here to be given to repentance and repentance of such sin as this doth indispensably require restitution or satisfaction without which if men did not tacitly hold they might be saved by the common false notion of Justifying Faith so many would not shipwrack their Souls and Consciences in acting living and dying in such unjust wayes as are above mentioned Of Satisfaction and Restitution we have already spoken as necessary to Repentance as Repentance is necessary to Salvation and this satisfaction not as relating to God but unto Man wronged And therefore I shall more fully give Saint Augustine's judgment in the Case and so leave it In his Epistle to the Macedonians he writeth thus If what belongs to another Aug. Ep. 54. ad Macedon the ground of the sin be not restored when it may be restored Repentance is counterfeited and not real But if it be real the sin will never be forgiven unless there be a restitution of the thing ill gotten but as I said where it can be restored But besides and above this acts of Mercy and Charity are here required of all good Christians and not only to keep our hands from any open or clandestine violence to others but to extend and open our hands to the benefit and comfort of others Not only are we forbidden to take what is not our own but to keep what is our own so to our selves that the exigencies of our brother and neighbour requiring we should withhold it from him Withhold not good from them to whom it is due saith God when it is in Prov. 3. 27. the power of thine hand to do it And in case of the distress of thy brother that thou hast is in some measure due to him in the eyes of God and by his Law of Charity though not by the Law of the Land In the Ninth Commandment it is said Thou shalt not bear false witness against § IX Luâ—e 1â— thy Neighbour What is meant by Neighbour
answer by demanding Why they shorten and straiten Christian Liberty naturally stretching it self to the Positive as well as the Negative part of our Religious Acts This seems to me to be both Sacrilegious and Superstitious too And why they make it shorter then Jesus Christ hath made it But I return to a second Instance of precise Superstition by the same Author defended That it is unlawful to salute with a kiss a Matron at first meeting her or departing from her because it is the foretaste of Lust yea to kiss is a very ill custom And so after the English fashion to salute all women they meet with Thus the superstitious Precisian not distinguishing between a thing contrary to a sober mans Judgment and his Conscience Whatever is indecent or unprofitable may be against the Judgment of a sober man but it is not therefore against his Conscience for only that can be said to be against Conscience which either is or appears at least to be morally evil Doubtless a grave and sober person may abhor the endless and witless fashions refuse to follow them but not out out of conscience because they are of themselves unlawful but because vain useless indecent and perhaps incommodious and so out of judgment and if the consequents be apparently evil I shall conclude all with one instance more of the Superstition of Sectaries the great cryers out against Superstition taken from Thomas Cartwright They commonly describe Superstition to be a rigorous exacting that at the hands of Christians which is not necessary to be done which is likewise to take away Christian Liberty according to their estimation And with this Querie they suppose they come up so close to you as you shall not be able to deliver your self out of their hands Is it which you require necessary to Salvation If it be answered No then again they come upon you with another expostulation Why then do you enjoyn it Hath not God left us many and those difficult Laws and Precepts and do you make the way to heaven more strait and the yoke of Christ more heavy by multiplying Superstitious Inventions To the latter part we have already made answer in effect denying absolutely what is taken here for granted that by such moderate Ceremonies both for number and nature as are of force and in use in our Church fewer and clearer than any Church of Christ hath used for twelve hundred years before the Reformation lately made the way to heaven is not at all straitned or stopped or the Precepts of God rendred more difficult and burdensome and not rather more light and easie to be observed and the truly labouring Christian helped and defended by them in his rode to heaven but where ignorant heads and evil tongues have cast infinite snares and horrible stumbling blocks in their way and so it is not the superstitious Ceremonies but the Enemies to such Ceremonies which have no other Superstition in them but what they have with much study and art and ill will we thank them devised and traduced all things not of their own invention yet double guilt with the glorious pretexts of Gods Word and pure Spiritual Worship which if you chance to be so profane and incredulous as to call in question and bring to the Touch you spoil all presently Again farther it is as necessary to Salvation as abstaining from notorious sins can make it to obey those that are over us in the Lord in all things against which no more but general and foul language which are solid and godly proofs with the vulgar can be brought nor hath been But to come to our intended Instance Are all things not necessary to Salvation not only superstuous but superstitious What will these Objectours answer to Baptism of Infants which many of them I here aim at do hold useful indeed and profitable but not necessary to Salvation or to exempt from the pains of damnation yet they are due observers of it They say there is a special Precept of God for the same and therefore perhaps though the thing be not of it self so necessary it may become necessary by vertue of such a Precept Granting all this liberally which if we would contend with them we might put them harder to it than they will be known of But where will they find any such direct or positive Precept that these Infants ought to be brought necessarily to Church and be baptized in the publick Congregation We commend their zeal and much approve their resolution so to have Baptism administred that seeing one end of it is to enter and as it were matriculate them into Christs Visible as well as Invisible Body the Church assembled they severely require this But if nothing can be needful which is not absolutely necessary and nothing so expedient as to be commanded by Man which God hath not before required who can without trembling read their horrible Superstition who under such grievous Obligations endeavour to enforce this as Cartwright doth in these words And I will farther say that Cartwright against Whitgift page 14. though the Infants which dye without Baptism should be assuredly damned yet ought not the order which God hath set in his Church Publick Baptism be broken after this sort Now that the Order which he calls indeed Gods is but the Order of the Assemblies so decreeing is manifest from the impossibility of proving this out of Scripture and the easiness of proving the contrary out of Reason thus from his own speech For is it possible for any man to conceive that God should require any thing of any man the observing of which should damn him He therefore that supposes that the Infant or any other person to be baptized must by Gods severe command be brought to Church to be baptized if he be baptized at all cannot so much as suppose that God will damn him for not being baptized at home in private But this is here supposed by him though I know not granted that a child may be damned for want of baptism and yet this child must no where be baptized but in the solemnities of a Congregation What is Tyranny and Superstition in the height if this be not What is it to advance humane Constitutions and Orders to an equality with Divine Precepts if this be not to suffer a poor soul to be damn'd rather than the Orders of their Church should be broken and to threaten and terrifie with damnation them that shall observe conscienciously the Orders of other Churches Or how come the Orders of their Churches which have no Scripture to confirm them as this for instance hath not to be more of Gods setling than they of other Churches no less consonant thereunto than theirs Where is the Fear of God Reverence and Justice Equity and common Ingenuity wanting to Man if not here Such dealings as this do really deserve our pity and prayers for them as well as for our selves tormented by them That God of his great mercy to them and us would vouchsafe to open so their eyes and affect their hearts with such a sincere and sober fear of God that they may like lost sheep straying into wild Desarts and in untrodden paths at length be reduced to the Great Shepheard of their and our souls making one Flock and in one Fold of the Church to the Glory of God the Safety of themselves and the unspeakable joy of the Church here and the salvation of us all hereafter FINIS ERRATA PAg. io lin 33. â— next for neat p. 43. In the title of the Chapt. 1. Temporarie p. 44. 1. 36. r. supposing p. 48. l. 37. r. affectedly p. 60. l. 38. r. vulgar use p. 73. l. 14. dele not p. 74. l. 30. dele â—ere p. 82. l. 26. 1. sure p. 83. l. 33. 1. as p. 93. l. 12. r. lighter ib. l. 51. r. people p. 95. l 25. add poâ—â—er p. 104. l. 48. 1. Collatinus p. 114. l. 12. 1. Iudicrous p. 115. l. 6. straglers ib. l. 7. r. assent p. 117. l. 41. 1. we p. 130. l. 6. 1. over p. 136. l. 4. poiâ—â—â—lus after Political p. 139. l. 25. deie be p. 140. l. 2. dele of p. 147. l. 35. dele not p. 149. l. 12. r. relaxing p. 158. l. 44. r. there p. 161. l. 42. r. illimirable p. 167. l. 45. r. limitation p. 17â— l. 20. put in us after have p. 185. l. 2. r. is instead of being p. 198. l. 16. dele which sort of â—â—gnâ— are not distant from the thing signified p. 200. l. 4. dele it p. 219. l. 29. â— us p. 230. l. 14. r. leading p. 233. l. 28. r. hold ib. l. 43 r. ward ib. l. 49. r. abuseth p. 234. l. 16. make after Church p. 242. l. 5. r. or ib. l. 23. r. there ib. l. 45. r. with p. 243. l. 21. 1. worth p. 249. l. 2. add accordingly p. 253. l. 31. r. Pugio p. 265. l. 32. r. wild p. 269. l. 9. r. good p. 275. l. 39. â—â—â—nied p. 281. l. 19. r. concourse p. 296. l. 19. l. prevision p. 309 l. 19. l. Campian p. 321. l. 29. r. grieve p. 333. l. 20. r. Reformed p. 335. l. 29. r. Restriction p. 339. l. 31. r. comminations p. 341. l. 17. dele of after wills p. 343. l. 19. add intended p. 347. l. 3. r. immutable p. 352. l. 19. r. Christ for And. p. 355. l. 23. dele are p. 357. l. 30. r. â—ut â—here p. 389. l. 9. r. thou nor p. 392. l. 5. r. nothing but. p. 443. l. 40. dele not p. 446. l. 20. r. unintelligible p. 455. l. 47. dele no. p. 456. l. 16. r. that P. 485. l. 30. r. should not p. 493. l. 36. r. derided p. 503. l. 51. r. contradistinction
effect such things as in their general nature they had no tendencie unto The distinction common amongst Philosophers of Fortuna and Casus i. e. Fortune and Casualty and calling that Fortune which contingently falls out to free Intelligent Agents acting and that Casualty which besides natural intention happens to fall out may seem to clear this For if we should affirm that in natural things there were no such indifferencie really but all things were precisely and particularly determined by God in his private counsel however a wide latitude seemeth to us to be left them to move and act or not to act or to move and act thus or not thus but contrariwise no great absurdity or inconvenience would follow For what absurdity could be inferred if a man should say That the Eagle letting fall a Tortoise upon the bald head of the Philosopher of Syracuse walking in the field and so beating out his brains was determined necessarily so to do of God or that the tree that fell down in a wind and killed him that walked out to preserve himself from the fall of his house which he feared was inevitably appointed so to do These effects did not proceed from the nature of these causes themselves but a Superiour hand and yet might be no less necessary than such effects of which the common reason of man can give an ordinary and easie account And if this be granted in some things it doth lye upon them who deny it in all to render a reason of the difference and not on them who affirm a paritie by infinite instances to prove it being sufficient to say There can nothing be shown to the contrary But in things rational and endowed with a power of Election and Rejection it must be confessed that the difficulty is much greater because there seems to be a repugnancie to free will in such tacit necessity and God should seem to take away with one hand what he had given with the other And therefore of this in a more convenient place after we have spoken somewhat preparatory thereunto concerning the Decrees of God which are internal acts of the Providence of God CHAP. IX The method of enquiring into the Nature and Attributes of God Vorstius his grounds of distinguishing the Attributes of God from his Nature examined Of the Decrees of God depending on his Vnderstanding and Will Of knowledge of Intelligence Vision and the supposed Middle knowledge The Impertinencie of this Middle knowledge invented in God How Free Agents can be known by God in their uncertain choice Indifferent Actions in respect of Man not so in respect of God All Vision in God supposes certainly in the thing known IF the Holy Scriptures leaving us many precedents have thereby warranted or at least permitted us to speak of God after the manner of Mans body ascribing unto him head eyes mouth hands and feet and the better to perceive the things of God much more may we be allowed if at all to search into Gods nature to regulate our enquiry of God from the nature of mans mind and the more supream acts of his soul The first Act of which is his apprehension and knowledge with judgment following thereupon The next in order is the Act of his will and this Order we may best follow in the enquiry into Gods Providence which is constituted according as we can judge of knowledge and will whose proper act it is to decree And here first It is requisite that we take notice of the folly and gross impiety of Vorstius a late Pragmatick in Divine Mysteries who would needs distinguish God from himself and taking him at his word wherein speaking after the manner of men such diversity is mentioned concludes that God and his Attributes are really distinct in nature one from another And why did he not by the same rule conclude that Gods very Being his Essence was distinct really from it self as well as from the supposed Accidents he Epicurean-like feigns to God For God is no less affirmed to have heart hands and feet than to have Understanding and Will And if it be granted there is a figurative and no proper sense in the one case why may it not be in the other And that God is all these things Eminently but not after the formality of mankind The matter will be cleared better by examining his prime arguments taken from the Decrees of God our present subject First sayes he The decrees of God are various and many but the Essence of God is but one therefore they must be really distinct To which the answer is as obvious as the argument presumptuous That if the Decrees were really many they must of necessity be really distinct as well from themselves as God But their plurality is rather Relative than Absolute All the Acts of God being but one pure simple Act as in him but denominated divers from the event or relation they bear to the Creature This is one of the first principles in his Christian Catechise and why did he pretending to reason leap over this and not first disprove it and then proceed to his arguments It was a great piece of folly therefore in him to prove a real distinction of Gods Attributes before he had proved that the Nature of God was compounded or would admit of any such opposition For they who deny this will certainly deny that Another of his reasons is The decrees of God are free because they might have not been as well as have been But Gods nature is not so Answ There is a twofold freedom in the Decrees of God The one in respect of the Nature of God as God is precisely considered which abstracting from all Acts was indifferent to others as well as those Decrees made And the other in respect of the Creature or object which was capable of other Decrees and therefore were Gods Decrees said to be free but we all know that distinction of Instants in Order and Nature do not infer a necessary distinction in duration but that both Nature and Decrees might be coequal in eternity Now all things that are eternal are in some case necessary And the Schools have such a distinction of Decrees as they have of nature viz. Decretum Decretans and Decretum Decretatum meaning that the Decrees of God are sometimes used for the Act of God decreeing and sometimes for the thing decreed And of this latter it may be said That the Decree of God is produced and made which is a third special argument of Vorstius but of the other it cannot so be affirmed but it may flow from him by an eternal Law or Volition within himself and not at all occasioned by the Creature And it is therefore said to be free because it was not imposed upon him and therefore necessary because not accessary to him or contingent but proceeding from him as a natural and necessary yet voluntary Agent For we must not look upon God as subject to the condition of the