that was risen again it followes Then opened hee their mindes to understand the Scriptures which were onely then those of the Old Testament Surely Justine the Martyr in many places of his dispute with Typho the Jew as truly as manifestly professes that the understanding of Christianity in the Old Testament was a grace given to the Disciples of Christ among the rest of distributions of his Spirit upon his ascension into heaven shed forth upon the Church Eph. IV. 8 which being showed the Jews their eyes were darkened as their hearts hardened that they could not understand the truth in them Now it is not my purpose to say that thereby hee challenges to himself the same miraculous grace of the Spirit and that the Prophesies that concern Christ are by that grace interpreted by him in his writings and therefore as truly as those in the writings of the Apostles It is enough that the true meaning of the Scriptures in that behalf was first revealed to the Disciples of Christ by the immediate and extraordinary operation of Gods Spirit Though Christians building on that which they received from persons so inspired may have added many things inconsequent to those principles Now I suppose it is manifest to all mens reason that those things are not clear in the Scriptures to all understandings that could not be discerned in it without a miraculous operation of Gods Spirit But nothing can be more manifâ—st than those particulars of the Law which our Lord and his Apostles in the New Testament have by way of allegory expounded to be meant of his Person and Gospel and Kingdome That the first Adam was to be the figure of the second though to a contrary effect of life by Christ in stead of death by Adam and that hee took our flesh to be the Lord of all things in it as to the effect of the Gospel which the first Adam was made as to the dominion of the creature is clearly declared by the Apostles Rom. V. 12-14 1 Cor. XV. 45-49 Ebr. II. 6-15 That Noe and what befell the world hy the deluge under him was the figure of what befalls the Church under Christ by Baptisme is no lesse manifestly the doctrine of the Apostle 1 Pet. III. 20 21 22. And not onely this particular but all the rest that befell the Fathers and Prophets and Martyrs under the Old Testament is evidently made a figure of what befalls the Disciples of Christ under the Gospel Ebr. XI As it is also evident that the pilgrimages of the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Jacob and of their posterity the Israelites from Aegypt through the Wildernesse into the land of Promise is there declared and of all Christians received for the figure of that Journey which all professe to travail from sinne wherein it findeth them to the Kingdome of heaven and happinesse How else should the argument hold which the Apostles draw from that which befell the Children of Israel travailing through the Wildernesse to the land of Canaan to the duty of Christians in their Journey toward everlasting happinesse 1 Cor. X. 1-11 Ebr. III. 7 -IV 11. But after their coming into the land of Promise as the persecutions which the Prophets indured Ebr. XI 36 37 38. Mat. XXIII 34 evidence them to be the figures of Christs Crosse as the expiation made by all High Priests is evidently expounded by the Apostle to the Ebrewes to shadow the taking away of sinne by Christ So it is no lesse evident that all the Judges and Kings and High Priests and Prophets of Gods people anointed by God were figures of our Lord both in regard of his Church and the enemies of it than it is evident that our Lord Jesus is the Christ foretold by the Prophets Which things unlesse wee say as no man in his right senses will say that they are manifest to all that reade the Old Testament though they never heard of Christianity or the New wee cannot imagine that the substance of Christianity necessary to the salvation of all Christians is clear to all understandings in the Old Testament No lesse clear is it by the sayings and doings of our Lord recorded in the Gospels that it was not his intent freely and openly at least all waies and every where to declare the truth and substance of it by the said sayings and doings Manifest indeed it is that hee did publickly and freely declare himself to be that Christ whom the Prophets had foretold and the Nation expected and of this no doubt can be made by any man that with common reason examines all that is written in the Gospels Though not all times so free in declaring even this truth As it is evident by the words of the Jewes to him John X. 24. How long holdest thou our mindes in suspense If thou be the Christ freely tell us it And wee see Mat. XII 14 20. what difference of opinions there were about it in his life time forbidding his Disciples to declare it till his death But granting this to be manifest by the Gospels neither is it manifest by them that nothing else is requisite to salvation to be believed concerning his Person and Kingdome nor that thereby hee intended to make manifest what hee knew requisite to be believed of them that should imbrace it when it was become requisite This is enough to answer the Leviathan with pretending that it is not necessary to the salvarion of a Christian to believe any more than this that our Lord Jesus is the Christ Which if it could appear by the Gospels alone then would I not dispute any further that all the truth that is necessary to salvation is clearly delivered by the Gospels I do for my part believe that the substance of Christianity necessary to salvation is contained in the badge and cognisance which our Lord hath marked it with by his Commission to his Apostles Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Go make all nations Disciples baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you But shall I say it is clearly contained in these words about the intent and effect whereof there hath been and is so much dispute The Church it is well enough known hath alwaies rejected those that acknowledge not the Holy Trinity Father Sonne and Holy Ghost subsisting in one and the same Godhead At this day Socinus and his followers will have us believe onely that wee are to professe whether wee be baptized or not that our Lord Jesus is a man that was born of a Virgin by the power of God which is the Holy Ghost And for undertaking or for doing Gods message tendring reconcilement with God to mankinde hath by Gods gift the same power with God to govern his Kingdome and is to be honored as God for it Whether or no they would have us to believe this sense of theirs positively or would not be tyed to believe positively the sense of the
because speech it self standing upon reason shews it to be the former as that whereupon it standeth But even so it maters not For though God had not yet sent forth his speech he had it no lesse within himself with and within his very reason silently thinking and disposing with himself those things which he was to utter by speech Further Cap. VI. VII Nam ut primum Deus voluit ea quae cum Sophia ratione sermone disposuerat intrase in substantias species sâ—as edere ipsum primum protulit sermonem habentem intra se individuas suas rationem sapientiam ut per ipsum â—ierent universa per quem erant cogitata disposita imo facta jam quantum in Deisensu Hoc enim eis deerat ut coram quoque in suis speciâ—bus substantiis cognoscerentur tenerentur Tunc igitur etiam ipse sâ—rmâ— speciem ornatum suum sumit sonum vocem cum dicit Deus Fiat Lux. Hâ—c est nativitas perfecta sermonis dum ex Deo procedit conditus ab â—o primum ad cogitatum in nomine Sophiae Dominus condidit me initium viarum dehinc generatus ad effectum cum pararet coelum aderam ei siâ—â—l exinde â—um patrem sibi faciens de quo procedendo filius factus est primogenitus ut ante omnia genitus unigenitus ut solus ex Deo genitus proprie de vulvâ— cordis ipsius secundum quod Pater ipse testatur Eructavit cor meum sermonem optimum Ad quem deinceps gaudens proinde gaâ—deâ—tem in persona illiâ—â— Filius meus es tu ego hodie genui te ante Luciferum genui te Sic filius ex sua persona profitetur Patrem in nomine Sophiae dominus condidit me initium viarum in opera sua For as soon as God pleased to put forth into their own substances and kinds those things which he had ordered within himself with the reason and speech of wisdom the first he brought forth was speech having in it reason and wisdom from which it is unseparable that all things might be made by that whereby they had been devised and disposed nay made aleready as to the sense of God For they wanted onely this to be known and had in their own kindes and substances Then therefore even Gods speech it self assumed his own kinde and dresse sound and voice when God said Let there be Light This is the perfect birth of speech as it proceedeth from God First made by him for a thought devised by him under the name of Wisdome the Lord made me the beginning of his wayes then ingendered to effect I was together with him when he prepared the heavens thenceforth making him his Father for I read Patrem sibi faciens not Pâ—câ—m as I find it promised by proceeding from whom he became a Sonne firstborn as born before all things and onely as alone ingendered by God from the proper womb of his heart according as the Father himself also witnesseth My heart hath uttered an excellent speech To whom rejoycing according as he rejoyceth in the Fathers person he saith Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee And before the morning starre have I ingendred thee As the Sonne also in his person professeth the Father under the name of Wisdome The Lord made me the beginning of wayes unto his works All this if it be understood as becometh God will containe nothing prejudiciall to the Faith of Gods Church whether it containe the true sense of the Scriptures or not through sound and voice and speech and thought or devise if they be understood as they signify in Gods creatures are inconsistent with his excellence But so farre it will be from Arius his heresie as to answer the very ground of it by saying That the Word or reason or Wisdome of God which incaâ—nate is our Lord Christ was from everlasting in God but not under the notion quality or attribute of Sonne till the making of the World And that as Tertulliane said in the place from whence the objection is quoted accidentis rei mentio the mention of an accessory to wit the declaration of Gods will to make the World gave him the denomination of Son which he bore not afore according to Tertulliane whether he hit the true sense of the Scripture in it or onely indeavour so to do though alwayes the same from everlasting The answer to this difficult passage of Tertulliane may serve for another contra Praxeam Cap. II. unicum Deum non alias putat credendum quam si ipsum eundemque Patrem Filium Spiritum dicat Quasi non sic quoquc unus sit omnia dum ex uno omnia per substantiâ— scilicet unitatem nihilominus custodiatur aeconomiae sacramentum quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit tres dividens Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum Tres autem not sâ—aâ—â— sed gradu non substantia sed forma nec potestate sed specie Vnius autem status unius substantiae unius potestatis quia unus Deus ex quâ— gradus isti formae species in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti deputantur He thinkes he is not otherwise to believe one God then saying that the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost are all one As if one were not all as well if all proceed from one By unity of substance forsooth preserving neverthelesse the mystery of that distribution which disposeth the Vnity into a Trinity ordering three the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost But not three for state but for rank not for substance but for forme not for power but for specialty But of one state one substance one power because one God from whom those ranks and formes and specialties are understood These words non statu sed gradu both Cardinal Bellarmine and Valentia meeting in a passage of Bullinger not naming his author have charged with Arianisme being indeed Tertuallians words manifestly expressing the Unity of the Godhead the substance state and power of it in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost by their personall properties characters or notions in the terms of gradus formae species rankes formes and specialties no other being then in use In like sort Ignatius according to the true Copies saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Goa was born Epist ad Ephes he calls him there Son of God and Son of man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God manifest as man He calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The eternall Word that came not forth from silence Epist ad Magnes Athanasius de Synodis quotes out of him We have one Physitian bodily and incorporeal ingendred and not ingendred God in man Justine calleth him the word of God indistinct from him in virtue and Power and â—â—caranate He makes him the Lord of hosts and the King of Glory He expresseth his procession by light kindled from light and fire from fire
or truly supposed to be God Therefore our Lord argues that the Father judging no man himself hath given the power of judging to the Sonne That all may honour the Son as they honour the Father Because he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father John V. 22. 23. To wit since the setling of Christianity Whereby we may see how easie it is to answer the objection that is made from the words oâ— S. Peter Act. II. 36. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made this Jesus whom ye crucified Lord and Christ As if this honour and worship were due to our Lord Christ upon the title of being raised from the dead by God And so much signified by S. Paul when he tells the Jews of Pisidia Act XIII 33. That God hath fulfilled the promise made to the Fathers to them and their children raising up Jesus as it is written in the second Psalme Thou art my sonne this day have I begotten thee For when the Apostle argues that Christ is become so much superior to the Angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name Because to whom of the Angels was it ever said Thou art my sonne this day have I begotten thee Heb. I. 4 5. It is pretended that not the title of Sonne of God which at present I speak not of but the honour and worship due to him that weares it is due by Gods raising him from the dead to the estate of sitting at his right hand Then which nothing can be more unjust For as it is truly said by our Lord after his rising againe Mat. XXVIII 18. All power is given to me in heaven and in earth So it is no lesse truly said Mat. XI 27. All things are delivered to me by my Father Neither knoweth any man the Sonne but the Father nor knoweth any man the Father but the Sonne and whomsoever the Son will reveal him to And therefore not disputing at present what the power given the Sonne by the Father is it shall be enough for my pupose that it is the same which was given him when he rose from the dead To wit that which all Christians acknowledge when they Worship him for God For how should any man understand that the man Jesus by being raised from the dead by being taken up into heaven to the Throne of God by any thing that his humane nature can be indued with should be worshipped for God had not this worship been due to him from the time of his being man as I have shewed you those who make this objection do acknowledge it to have been due For it is our Lords argument that the Son is to be honoured as the Father because his Father hath given him the Power of raising the dead to life and of judging the quick and the dead John V. 25 30. even then when he argued with the Jewes Therefore when S. Thomas being satisfied that our Lord was risen from the dead crys out my Lord and my God John XX. 28. There can be no more cause to understand any abatement in the notion of God or Lord then when David or our Saviour upon the Crosse cries out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Psal XXII 1. For if David or S. Thomas were such men as believed those to be God which were not it would be necessary to say that their God is not absolutely God But supposing them to acknowledge the true God we cannot deny him to be the true God whom they so acknowledge In the words of S. Paul Rom. IX 5. Of whom is Christ according to the flesh who is over all God blessed for evermore there is some pretense made that Erasmus finds not the word God alledged by S. Hillary and S. Cypriane And Grotius I know not upon what mistake hath said That it is not in the Syriack For he that shall read the Syriack will find it there as plain as any thing else that is there And supposing it not there he that considereth what the Jews with whom S. Paul having been bred never fell from their God understand by the Blessed will never understand him to be called any thing lesse then God that is called blessed for evermore Now when S. John saith 1 John V. 20. We are in the true God in his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternall life When S. Paul saith Titus II. 13. Expecting the blessed hope and glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ When S. Jude saith of the hereticks whom he writeth against Denying that onely Lord God and our Saviour Jesus Christ Jude 9. It is stoutly insisted upon by the Socinians that God and Christ are spoken of here as severall persons and so that these attributes belonging to God concern not Christ And examples are brought to show that it is not unusuall and therefore not unreasonable that in the words of S. John This he is the true God should have reference not to the Sonne Jesus Christ mentioned next afore but to the true God which is the Father mentioned at more distance That in the words of S. Paul and S. Jude though the article is not repeated when they say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet this does not argue the same Christ to be meant by both titles referred to him by the same article But is onely a bare want of the article in the second place of which they give us examples enowe But all this can prove no more then that these texts might be so understood if there were any thing in the words to argue that so they must be understood which here appeares not On the other â—â—de for the text of S. Jude if we compare it with S. Peter who writes the same things with S. Jude of the same Hereticks we shall find that in the beginning of the chapter in stead of the words quoted out of S. Jude he puts onely that they deny the Lord or the Master that bought them In the end of it he signifies manifestly that he speakes of Christians that fell away 2 Pet. II. 1 20 21 22. Whereby it may appear that it is our Lord Christ Jesus whom he calleth the onely Lord or Master because he redeemed us from the State of captives and therefore that it is the same whom he calleth God And truly as I shewed afore that S. John in his Epistle to the seven Churches in the Revelations writes against the same hereticks so can there no question be made that they are the same of whom he sayes 1 John II. 22 23. Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ This is the Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Sonne Whosoever denieth the Son neither hath the Father Though we suppose this Epistle to be written to the then Christian Jewes For whereas they all pretend to hold God the Father whom as Jews originally they acknowledge the Apostle argues that bringing in another
exalted Neither is it any difficulty that Christ could not be exalted to any eminence that should not be due to him as God in mans flesh and therefore that which was due to him as incarnate could not be due to his Crosse For the assumption of mans nature being a work of God and not of nature the state which our Lord Christ was to assume in our nature was not determinable any way but by the voluntary apointment of God and the Father who ordered it So that nothing hindred the effects of the holy Ghost dwelling in our Lord Christ without measure to be exercised in such measure and upon such reasons as God should appoint nor the declaration of the fullnesse of the Godhead dwelling in our flesh to depend upon his obedience and suffering in it The declaration hereof is that which S. Paul calls that name above all names at which all things bow which the giving of the holy Ghost to our Lord Christ to convince the world of it upon his exaltation is that which effecteth So saith S. Peter Acts II. 33 Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God and having received the promise of the holy Ghost of the Father he hath shâ—d forth this which ye now see and hear For it is true our Lord promised his disciples the holy Ghost John XIV 16 17 18. XVI 7 13 14 15. But this promise he received upon his advancement to the right hand of God being then and thereupon enabled to perform it And therefore it is that which our Lord signifies Mat. XXVIII 18. When he saies All power is given to me in heaven and upon earth Go ye therefore and make disciples all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost For the event shews that this power consists in sending the holy Ghost whereby the World was reduced to the obedience of the Christian Faith So that when our Lord saies Mat. XI 27. All things are delivered unto me by the Father he means the right to this power though limited in the exercise of it unto the time and state of his advancement which gave him right in it And though it be granted as I said afore that the generall terms of all power in heaven and earth and all things are to be understood of that which concerns his kingdome Yet seeing the ground thereof consisting in giving such measure oâ— the holy Ghost to his disciples as the advancement of his kingdom requires supposes the fullnesse thereof to dwell in his own flesh it imports no disparagement to the Godhead of Christ that the exercise thereof in our flesh is limited to that time and that state of his advancement which the Father appointeth S. Paul Ephes IV. 7-11 writeth thus Now to every one of us is grace given according to the measure of Gods gift To wit in which God pleased to give it Therefore he saith Going up on high he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men Now that he ascended what is it but that he descended first into the lower parts of the earth He that descended is the same who also ascended farre above all heavens that he might fill all things And he hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Doctors Where it is manifest that he sets forth the ascension of our Lord in the nature of a triumph after the victory of his Crosse as Conquerors lead captives in triumph and give largesses to their subjects and souldiers And that which S. Paul terms giving gifts to men David out of whom it is quoted Psal LXVIII 18. calls receiving gifts for men Our Lord being his Fathers Generall and by his Commission conquering in his name Receiving therefore of him who gave him Commission the gifts which he bestowes at his triumph can any man doubt that he receives them in consideration of the discharge of that Commission which he undertook And these gifts are the meanes by which the Gospel convicteth the World and taketh effect in it The same appears by the conquest of Christs Crosse and those Scriptures that speak of it Col. II. 15. Disarming principalities and powers he made an open shew of them triumphing over them through it To wit his Crosse to which he had said just afore that he nailed the decrees of the Law that were against us Heb. II. 14. Seeing then that Sonnes partake of flesh and blood he also likewise did partake of the same that by death he might destroy him that had the power of death even the devil and free as many as through fear of death were all their life long subject unto bondage 1 Cor. XV. 54-57 When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortall immortality then shall that come to passe which is written death is swallowed up in victory Death where is thy sting Hell where is thy victory The sting of death is sinne and the strength of sinne is the Law But thanks be to the Lord which giveth us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ How doth God grant victory by our Lord Jesus Christ are we not and he severall persons by nature the conflicts severall what doth this conquest contribute to ours but by inabling us to overcome How that but by the help of God granted in consideration of it How are slaves to the fear of death freed from death by Christs death but because there is no condemnation for them that live by the Spirit of life granted them in consideration of his death And what is the triumph of the Crosse over the powers of darknesse but this that by the meanes of it they are disabled to keep mankind prisoners as afore And wherein consists the condemning or the executing of sinne in the flesh which S. Paul spake of afore but in this that by the death of Christ we are inabled to put it to death The Parable of our Saviour is manifest in this that as the branches bear fruit by being in the vine that is of it so Christians by being in Christ John XV. 1-8 and that force by virtue whereof they bear it not being conveyed but by Gods appointment why God had appointed the merits and sufferings of Christ to go before this conveyance but to procure it is not reasonable Therefore our Lord John VIII 31 36. If ye abide in my word ye shall be my disciples indeed and shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free And againe Verily verily I say unto you that every man that sinneth is a slave to sinne Now the slave abideth not for ever in the house but the Sonne for ever If therefore the Sonne set you free you shall be free indeâ—d The Sonne of God sets free the slaves of sinne not as the Sonnes of men by the death of their Fathers becoming heirs and granting freedome to whom they please but by dying himself and by his death helping them to their freedome And S. Paul 1 Cor. II.
of ransome Ephe I. 13. IV. 30. Unless a reason could be showed why S. Peter and S. John should travail from Jerusalem to Samaria to do that which they need not do at Jerusalem where they were Or originally why the Imposition of the Apostles hands should be requisite to procure some the Holy Ghost and not others This being that which the Scriptures record of the Apostles all men know how ancient how general the custome hath been in the Church for Bishops to confirm the baptized by praying for the effect of it which is the Holy Ghost with Imposition of hands Professing thereby that they own their Faith and Baptism and acknowledge them for part of their flock as acknowledged by them for their Pastors Which is that eminence of honour due to the Bishop in which the welfare of the Church consisteth saith S. Hierome advâ—rsus Luciferianâ—s For Tertullian also de Bapt. cap. XVII reserveth unto the Bishop the right of granting Baptism though he allow not onâ—ly Priests and Deacons but partly also Laymen to Baptize Now if from the beginning this priviledge was reserved the Apostles in signe of the truth of that Baptism which so they allowed If those who received Baptism at years of discretion hâ—â—ing theâ—â—elves made profession of their faith were neverthelesse to acknowledge thâ—ir Paâ—â—ors and the Unity of the Church wrapped up in them as that uâ—on which the effect of Baptism dependeth How much more those that are bâ—ptized Infanâ—s Who cannot otherwise according to the original constitution of the Church be secured that they profess the faith of the whole Church but by their Bishops allowance through whom they have communion with the wâ—ole Church For as I have showed that there was originally no other mean to maintain the unity of the Church but the faith of the Bishop to secure the whole Church of the faith of his flock So was the â—same the onely mean to secure the flock that they held the faith of the whole Church which owned their Bishop and his faith And howsoever the profession of faith may be limited and the Bishop in exacting the same yet is it necessarily an act of chief Power in the Church to allow the communion of the Eucharist So that when once Presbyterians share this part of the Bishops Power among their Triers allowing them to admit to the Communion those that can say the Catechism which they made themselves First they put upon us a new faith which we must own for the faith of the Church Then to debauch Partizans to themselves they authorize the malice of gross carnall Christians to domineer over their neighbours whom they may easily pick a quarel with for not answering their Catechism but are not able either to warrant or to teach them the truth of the least tittle of it which so neerly concerning their salvation how necessary is it that it be reserved to the Head of each Church Besides that by acknowledging him they visibly submit to the Laws of the Church by which he governs and to his authority in such maters as the Laws do not determine which is the very means of maintainidg Unity in the Church And truly the consideration of this point discovers unto us the onely sure ground upon which any man may resolve what offices of christianity may be ministred by the several Orders of the Church For when the power of Confirming proper to the Bishop evidenceth that he alone granteth Baptism either by particular appointment or by general Law in which his authority is involved but a Layman sometimes may minister it we see what S. Paul means when he sayes 1 Cor. I. 17. God sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel Our Lord having said Mat. XXVIII 19. Go Preach and make Disciles of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost To wit that the Power of appointing it not the ministery of doing it is proper to the Apostles and their successors Which reason will hold in sundry particulars concerning Ordination concerning Absolution and Penance concerning confirmation and others In all which this being once secured that no man act beyond the Power which he receiveth it will be no prejudice to the unity of the Church that some Orders do that by particular commission from their Superiours which their Order inables not all that are of it to do Because in such cases it is not Authority but Ministery which they contribute As for the order of Priesthood that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is equall to the Power of the Keys in which that Order hath an Interest in the inward Court of Conscience the outward Court of the Church being reserved to the Bishop with advice and assistance of his Presbyters whereas the power of Preaching and Baptizing is of ordinary Right communicable to Deacons For the proof of all this I referre my selfe to that which I have said in the Right of the Church Chap. III. and to that which must be said here in due place Let not then those of the Presbyteries or Congregations think their businesse done till they can give us some reasonable account how all the Christian world should agree to set up Bishops into a rank above their Clergy and People both if this had been forbidden nay if it had not been so ordered by the Apostles Not that I grâ—nt them to have any more appearance of evidence from the Scriptures to destroy the superiority of the Bishops and the concurrence of the Clergy to the maintenance of unity in the Church then the Socinians have to destroy the faith of the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction of Christ But because I do grant these as I granted the other that there is that appearance of evidence which every one that is concerned to be subject to Bishops cannot evidenly resolve as every one that is bound to believe the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction is not bound to be able evidently to resolve all objections which the Socinians can make against it out of the Scriptures For it is granted that S. Hierome hath alleged many texts of Scriptures to show that Bishops and Priests were both the same thing under the Apostles and that therefore the difference between them is but of positive humane right by custome of the Church and hath many followers in this opinion among Church Writers Though with this difference that it can never be pretended that S. Jerome or any Ecclesiastical Writer after or before S. Jerome ever alleged the words of S. Paul 1. Tim. V. 17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour specially those that labour in the word and doctrine or any other syllâ—ble of the whole Scripture to show that any of those that S. Paul pronounces worthy of double honour were Laymen that is of the rank of the people Which is now an essential ingredient of the design both of our Presbyteries and also so farre as I know of the
CHAP. IX The Keyes of the Church given to the Apostles and exercised by excommunication under the Apostles The ground thereof is that profession which all that are baptized are to make That Penance and abatâ—ment of Penance hath been in force ever since and under the Apostles In particular of excluding Hereticks CHAP. X. Evidence of the Apostles act from the effect of it in preserving the Vnity of the Church Of the businesse of Marcion and Montanus That about keeping Easter That of the Novatians of rebaptizing Hereticks of Paulus Samosatenus of Dionysius Alexandrinus and Arius Of communicatory leters and the intercourse of the Church under and after the Apostles CHAP. XI Upon what grounds the first book de Synedriis holds that the Church cannot excommunicate Before the law there was no such Power nor by it Christians went for Jewes under the Apostles His sense of some Scriptures What the Leviathan saith in generall concerning the Power of the Church Both suppose that Ecclesiasticall Power includeth Temporall which is not true Of the Oxford Doctors Paraenesis CHAP. XII That the Law expresly covenanted for the Land of Promise A great Objection against this from the Great precept of the Law The hope of the world to come under the Law and the obedience which it required was grounded upon reason from the true God the tradition of the Fathers and the Doctrine of the Prophets The Love of God above all by the Law extendeth no further than he precepts of the Law the lâ—ve of our Neighbor onely to Jews Of the Ceremonial Judicial and Moral Law CHAP. XIII That the Law tendereth no other promise but that of the Land of Canaan How the Resurrection is signified by the Prophets Expresse texts of the Apostles Their Arguments and the Arguments of our Lord do suppose the mystical sense of the Scriptures That this sense is to be made good throughout the Scripture wheresoever the ground of it takes place Christianity well grounded supposing this What parts of Scripture may be questionable whether they have a mysticall sense or not The sayings and doings of our Lord have it As also those passages of the Old Testament which are fulfilled by the same The sense of the Fathers CHAP. XIV The Leviathans opinion that Christ came to restore that Kingdome of God which the Jewes cast off when they rejected Sâ—muel It overthroweth the foundation of Christianity The true Government of Gods ancient people The name of the Church in the New Testament cannot signifie the Synagogue Nor any Christian State CHAP. XV. How the Power of the Church is founded upon the Law The Power of the Kingdome Priesthood Prophets and Rulers of that people all of divine right How farre these qualities and the powers of them are to continue in the Church The sense of the Fathers in this point That the acts of S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were nâ—t of force by virtue of the Law What Ecclesiastical Power should have been among the Jewes in case they had received the Gospel and so the state had stood CHAP. XVI The Church founded upon the Power given the Apostles What is the subject mater of Church Lawes The Right of the Church to Tythes and Oblations is not grounded upon the Law though evidenced by it and by practice of the Patriarchs Evidence of the Apostles Order in the Scriptures The Church of Jerusalem held not community of Goods The original practice of the Church CHAP. XVII The Power of Excommunication in the Church is not founded in the Law What argument there is of it in the Old Testament The allegorical sense thereof is argumentative It was not necessary that the Christians should incurre persecution for using the Power of the Keyes and not by virtue of the Law CHAP. XVIII The difference between S. Pauls anathema and that of the Jews It is not necessary that the Christians anathema should signifie cursing That the incestuous person at Corinth was Excommunicated by S. Paul Jurisdiction of the Church Telling the Church binding and loosing holding him that is bound for a Heathen or a Publicanâ— signifie the same The coherence of our Lords discourse Of Excommunication and Indulgence by private persons in the Ancient Church That Excommunication and the Power of the Church could not come in force by the voluntary consent of the first Christians How it may be said to be voluntary Of the confederacy of the primitive Christians CHAP XIX That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Soveraign The dâ—fference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard The interest of Seculâ—r Power in determining maters of faith presuppâ—seâ—h the Socieâ—y of the Church and the act of it No man can be bound to profâ—sse tâ—e contrary of that which he believeth Every man is bound to professe thâ—t Christianity which hee believeth The Church is the chiefe Teacher of Christianity through Christendom as the Soveraign of Civil Peace thorough his Dominions Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather then the State neither being infallible 146 CHAP. XX. The rest of the Oxford Doctors pretense The Power of binding and loosing supposeth not onely the Preaching of the Gospel but the outward act of Faith Christians are not at liberty to cast themselves in what formes of Churches the Law of Nature alloweth They are Judges in chief for themselvss in mater of Religion supposing the Catholick Church not otherwise Secular Power cannâ—t punish for Relâ—gion but supposing the act of the Church nor do any act to inforce Religion unlâ—sse the Church determine the mater of it 151 CHAP. XXI How the Tradition of the Church limits the interpretation of Scriptures How the declaration of the Church becomes a reasonable marke of Heresie That which is not found in the Scriptures may have been delivered by the Apostles Some things delivered by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures may not oblige S. Austines Rule of Apostolical Traditions 159 CHAP. XXII The Authority of the Fathers is not grounded upon any presumption of their Learning or Holinesse How farr they challenge the credit of Historical truth The pre-eminence of the Primitive The presumption that is grounded upon their ranks and qualities in the Church Of Arnobius Lactantius Tertulliâ—n Origen Clemens and the approbation of Posterity 165 CHAP. XXIII Two iâ—stances against the premises besides the obâ—ection concerning the beginning of Antichrist under the Apostles The General answer to it The seven Trumpeâ—s in the Apocalypse fore-tell the destruction of the Jewes The seven Vials the plagues inflicted upon the Empire for the ten persecutions The correspondence of Daniels Prophesie inferreth the same Neither S. Pauls Prophesie nor S. Johns concerneth any Christian Neither the opinion of the Chiliasts nor the the giving of the Eucharist to Infants new Baptized Catholick 169 CHAP. XXIV Two sorts of means to resolve whatsoever is resolvable conceâ—rning the Scripture Vpon what terms the Church may or
Imperial Lawes could never be of force to void the Power of the Church Evidence for it 125 CHAP. XV. Another opinion admiâ—ting the ground of Lawfull Impediments What Impediments arise upon the Constitution of the Church generally as a Society or particularly as of Christians By what Law some degrees are prohibited Christians And of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs Mariage with the deceased wives Sister and with a Cousin Germane by what Law prohibited Of the Profession of Continence and the validity of clandestine Mariages The bound of Ecclesiastical Power in Mariage upon these grounds 134 CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Governours and Ministers of the Church Vpon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standath in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence for the Hierarchy which it yeeldeth Of those Scriptures which seem â—o speake of Presbyteries or Congregations 145 CHAP. XVII The power given the XII under the Title of Apostles and the LXX Disciples That the VII were Deacons Of the first Presbyters at Jerusalem and the interest of the People Presbyters appropriated to Churches under the Apostles S. Pauls Deacons no Presbyters No ground for Lay Elders 152 CHAP. XVIII The Apostlet all of equall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-eminence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it 161 CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The business of Pope Victor about keeping Easter a peremptory instance The businesse of the Novatians evidenceth the same Of the businesses concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks Dionysius of Alexandria Paulus Samosatenus S. Cypriane and of the Donatists under Constantine 168 CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminence of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Niâ—aea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the Superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth 175 CHAP. XXI Of the times of Gods service By what Title of his Law the first day of the week is kept Holy How the Sabbath is to be sanctified by Moses Law The fourth Commandment the ground upon which the Apostles inacted it Vpon what ground the Church limiteth the times of Gods service Of Easter and the Lent Fast afore it Of the difference of mâ—ats and measure of Fasting Of keeping of our Lords Birth-day and other Festivals and the regular hours of the day for Gods service 190 CHAP. XXII The people of God tied to build Synâ—gogues though not by the leter of the Law The Church to provide Churches though the Scripture command it not Prescribing the form of Gods publick service is not quenching the Spirit The Psalter is prescribed the Church for Gods Praises The Scriptures prescribed to be read in the Church The order of reading them to be prescribed by the Church 203 CHAP. XXIII The consecration of the Eucharist prescribed by Tradition for the mater of it The Lords Prayer prescribed in all Services The mater of Prayers for all estates prescribed The form of Baptism necessary to be prescribed The same reason holdeth in the formes of other Offices 211 CHAP. XXIV The service of God prescribed to be in a known Language No pretense that the Latine is now understood The means to preserve Unity in the Church notwithstanding The true reason of a Sacrifice inforceth Communion in the Eucharist What occasions may dispense in it Communion in both kinds commanded the People Objections answered Who is chargeable with the abuse 217 CHAP. XXV Prayer the more principall Office of Gods service then Preaching Preaching neither Gods word nor the meanes of salvation unlesse limited to the Faith of Gods Church What the edification of the Church by preaching further requires The Order for divine service according to the course of the Church of England According to the custome of the universal Church 273 CHAP. XXV Idolatry presupposeth an imâ—gination that there is more Gods then one Objections out of the Scripture that it is the worship of the true God under an Image the Original of worshipping the elements of the world The Devill And Images Of the Idolatry of Magicians and of the Gnosticks What Idolatry the cases of Aaron and Jeroboam involve Of the Idolatries practised under the Kings and Judges in answer to objections 282 CHAP. XXVI The place or rather the State of happy and miserable Soules otherwise understood by Gods people before Christs ascension then after it What the Apocalypse what the rest of the Apostles declare Onely Martyrs before Gods Throne Of the sight of God 302 CHAP. XXVII The Souls of the Fathers were not in the Devils Power till Christ Though the Old Testament declare not their estate Of Samuels soul The soul of our Lord Christ parting from his body went with the Thiefe to Paradise Of his triumph over the powers of darknesse Prayer for the dead signifieth â—o delivering of souls out of Purgatory The Covenant of Grace requires imperfect happinesse before the generall judgement Of forgivenesse in the world to come and paying the utmost farthing 310 CHAP. XXVIII Ancient opinions in the Church of the place of souls before the day of judgement No Tradition that the Fathers were in the Vâ—rge of Hell under the Earth The reason of the difference in the expressions of the Fathers of the Church What Tradition of the Church for the place of Christs soul during his death The Saints soules in secret mansions according to the Tradition of the Church Prayer for the dead supposeth the same No Purgatory according to the Tradition of the Church 325 CHAP. XXIX The ground upon which Ceremonies are to be used in the service of the Church Instances out of the Scriptures and Tradition of the Apostles Of the equivocation of the word Sacrament in the Fathers The reason of a Sacrament in Baptism and the Eucharist In extream Unction In Mariage In Confirmation Ordination and Penance 340 CHAP. XXX To worship Christ in the Eucharist though believing transubstantiation is not Idolatry Ground for the honour of Saints and Martyrs The Saints and the Angels pray for us Three sorts of Prayers to Saints The first agreeable with Christianity The last may be Idolatry The second a step to it Of the Reliques of the Saints Bodies What the second Commandment prohibiteth or alloweth The second Council of Nicaea doth not decree Idolatry And yet there is no decree in the Church for the worshipping of Images 350 CHAP. XXXI The ground for Monastical life in the Scriptures And in the practice of the primitive Church The Church getteth no peculiar interest in them who professe it by their professing of it
States Kingdoms and Commonwealths that professe Christianity First because several States Kingdomes and Commonwealths are not apt to constitute one visible Body signified by the name of the Church absolutely put for the Body of all Chrâ—stiâ—â—s For it is most truly said by Plate that all States are naturally enemies to all States but especially those that are borderers And how should so many enemies be signified as constituting one Body Secondly and most evidently because many parts which belong to the unity of the whole Church and help to make up the whole are not now governed by Christian Powers any more than the whole was from the beginning In fine whether the Leviathan had reason so confidently to affirm that the Church can do no act I report my self to that which hath been said of the excluding of Hereticks and Schismaticks out of the Church Seeing it cannot be denied to be the act of the whole Body that is to say of those tha are able to act in behalf of the whole Body which the whole Body is ruled by and obeyes For whether wee have record extant of any Council at which they were condemned or whether they were condemned in that Church where they appeared In as much as upon information of the proceedings by daily intercourse and correspondence the rest of the Church sentenced the same as finding the Rule of Faith and the Unity of the Church so to do the excluding of them becomes the act of the whole Church For how else are so many Heresies and Schismes come to an end with their Fathers Nay I will boldly say that whosoever died excommunicate because being excluded by his own Church hee could not be admitted by another Church whosoever for fear of this either submitted to that which any Council ever decreed in mater of Faith or reconciled himself to his own Church that hee might not be disowned by the whole whatever instances hereof the records of the Church afford so many witnesses wee have of the acts which the whole Church either did or was able to do CHAP. XV. How the Power of the Church is founded upon the Law The Power of the Kingdome Priesthood Prophets and Rulers of that people all of divine right How farre these qualities and the powers of them are to continue in the Church The sense of the Fathers in this point That the acts of S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not of force by virtue of the Law What Ecclesiastical Power should have been among the Jewes in case they had received the Gospel and so the State had stood ANd now it will not be difficult to answer that though the Power of Excommunicating did not belong to the Synagogue by Gods Law but by humane constitution providing for the maintenance of Gods Law and that of secular Power yet is it of the Churches right by Gods Law distinguishing the Society thereof from the Commonwealth But this will not be effectually nor sufficiently done unlesse I make the discourse general and show how the reason holds in other points of that right upon which the Church is founded I say then that if it be true that S. Paul sayes Rom. III. 21. Now the righteousnesse of God and so his Gospel which proclaimeth that righteousnesse is manifested without the Law being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets then are wee not to think that either the Church or any part of that right upon which it subsisteth can stand by the Law or be derived from it otherwise than as Christianity it self which destroyeth the Law may be derived from it because as S. Paul sayes it is witnessed by it For the Law will not fail to yield us such arguments of those rights as the correspondence thereof with the Gospel that is to say of the Synagogue with the Church requireth Consider wee then that by the Law God became King of his people but under God Moses his Vicegerent With this provision for succession that hee whom God should raise up in Moses stead should be obeyed as Moses Deut. XVIII 15 Besides wee know there were XII Princes of the XII Tribes from Moses to David Num. I. 4-16 II III VII 1 Chron. XXVII 16. XXVIII 1. And under these Princes it seems the Tribes were divided into Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens the Captains whereof were made Judges under Moses during the march through the Wildernesse Exod. XVIII 21 Deut. I. 15. And it should seem that the people continued to be divided by these Thousands and Hundreds in the Land because wee finde that in Davids time the whole Land and not onely the Souldiery were divided so 1 Chron. XIII 1 2 5. where David advising with the Captains of Thousands and Hundreds is said to advise with the whole Assembly of the People But as for the office of Judges there is no question but another course is taken by the Law of Deut. XVI 18. when they should be planted in the Land For when order is taken that Courts be set up in their Cities it is intimated that they were to come in stead of those Captains which had the ministring of Justice in their hands in the Wilderness And whereas besides the assistance of these Captains Mâ—ses is allowed LXX more of the Elders of Israel upon whom his Spirit is departed to help him in bearing the burthen of that people Num. XI 15 16 17 Provision is made for succession by the Law of Deut. XVII 8-13 That there be alwaies a standing Court at the place where the Ark should rest to which the more difficult causes should resort from the Courts of inferior Cities there to be finally decided Which being to be the seat of Moses successors Judges or Kings it is not onely the constant Tradition of the Jews but of it self evident that this Court did exercise and was to exercise that Power which was first committed to them that were chosen for the assistance of Moses Though nothing oblige us to believe that while the seat of the Ark was either not declared or nâ—â— constantly used it was alwaies in force according to the intent of this Law Beside these Powers established by the Law for the Government of that People wee have the Priesthood tied by the Law to the Tribe of Levi with divers privileges or pety jurisdictions in that quality annexed to it For when God commandeth Aaron that hee and his sons drink no wine or strong drink when they come into the Tabernacle that they may distinguish between holy and common between clean and unclean and teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord had commanded them by Moses Levit. X. 8-11 it is manifest that by this Law the people is referred to them for resolution in the cases here intended though what the cases are that are hereby intended and what rule their resolution should be tied to nothing hinders by other Lawes to be declared and limited And those ancient Doctors of the Jewes seem to
be said that God granteth the Secular Power any right to punish him for that choice for which hee maketh him unaccountable The ground of my reason lies in that which hath been said against the Infallibility of the Church For if the sentence of the Church be not of force to oblige any man to believe the truth of it much lesse can the sentence of any Christian though never so Soveraign oblige the meanest of his Subjects to believe that Religion to be true which hee commandeth because hee commandeth it And whatsoever penalty the Soveraign inflicteth upon those that concurre not to the exercise of that Religion which hee holdeth forth as when hee denieth them protection in the exercise of their own which as I have showed is no mean one implieth a command of exercising his and is inflicted in consideration of obeying Gods command which the Subject is inabled by God to judge that hee hath against all the world to the contrary So that upon these terms the Secular Power which is inabled to judge for it self upon the same account with the meanest Subject thereof cannot have power to punish any Subject for exercising any Religion which it alloweth not For all Power as I said afore is a moral quality consisting in a Right of obliging another mans will by the act of his will that hath it Therefore if a Subject cannot be obliged by the will of his Soveraign to professe and to exercise that Religion which his Soveraign prescribeth then cannot the Soveraign have power to impose any penalty upon his Subject for professing or exercising that Christianity which hee believeth All Christianity obliging a man to the utmost of his ability to professe and to exercise that Religion which hee believeth to be true And the reason is manifest For Christianity is from God and the Secular Power is from God though by several means Christianity by the coming of Christ and the preaching of his Apostles Secular Power by what means I will not here dispute nor yet suppose any thing that is questionable That which serves my turn is evident to the common reason of all men That by another act of God than that upon which Christianity standeth That Christianity dependeth not upon it That as I argued against the Leviathan by a Law which no Secular Power can abate If therefore God oblige a Christian by his Christianity to serve God otherwise than his Soveraign commandeth hee is bound by the same bond to disobey his Soveraign to obey God which obliged the primitive Christians to suffer death rather than renounce the Faith But I intend not to say that absolutely which I say upon supposition of this Doctors sense Nor do I intend here to dispute that which I have resolved in another place what kind of penalties Secular Power is able to inact that Christianity with which it self professeth The question is now how the Secular Power is able or becomes able to impose penalties in maters of Religion which as a Christian it is not able to oblige the Subject to acknowledge not how far these penalties may extend A question which cannot be answered not supposing the Church A question which is no question supposing it For supposing that God sending Christianity founds for part of it the visible society and corporation of a Church assuring the common sense of all people thereby what is the condition upon which Salvation is to be had by communicating with it What will remain but to conform to the communion of this Church labouring to work out every man his own Salvation by the means which the communion thereof furnisheth Which whoso doth not but pretends to disturbe it will remain punishable by the Secular Power for I have said already that the Church is not inabled to inflict temporal penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that it maintaineth the true Church The acts whereof as Excommunication by the original constitution thereof inforceth So did not the Secular Power inforce that Excommunication it must of necessity become ineffectual when the world is come into the Church and Christianity professed by the State And this is the resolution that I have given in another place that the acts of the Church for the mater of them are limited by the Church that is to say by persons qualified by the Church and in behalf of it but the force that executes them must come from the State For supposing the Church to be founded by God and the power of it resolved into that act wherein this foundation consisteth Whatsoever the Church is by this power inabled to do will belong to the Church by Gods Law to do though the mater of that which it doth be not limited by Gods Law but by the act of men inabled by Gods Law to do it S. Cyprian and others of the Fathers have reason when they argue that the acts of the Church are the acts of God For no man capable of common reason can doubt that what is done by commission from superiour Power is the act of that Power which granted the commission so far as it ownes the execution of it And I have sufficiently limited the Power granted the Church heretofore by the mater of that communion for which it subsisteth and the supposition of the Christianity upon which it subsisteth What is therefore done by virtue of this commission though perhaps ill done for the inward intent with which men do it yet being within the bounds of the Power established by God is to be accepted as his own act without contesting whose act of founding the Church it cannot be infringed Which if it be true so far is the Secular Power from being able to create or constitute a Church by creating that difference of qualities in which the difference between several Members thereof consisteth that it is not able of it self to do any of these acts which the Church that is those who are qualified by and for the Church are thereby qualified to do without committing the sinne of Sacrilege in seizing the Powers which by Gods act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own service into its own hands not supposing the free act of the Church without fraud and violence to the doing of it CHAP. XXI How the Tradition of the Church limits the interpretation of Scriptures How the declaration of the Church becomes a reasonable mark of Heresie That which is not found in the Scriptures may have been delivered by the Apostles Some things delivered by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures may not oblige S. Austines Rule of Apostolical Traditions ANd by this means I make account I have gained another principle towards the interpretation of Scripture and resolution of things questioned in Christianity either concerning the Rule of Faith or such Laws and Customs determining the circumstances of Ecclesiastical Communion as I showed afore are understood by the name of Apostolical Traditions Which principle that no
upon the world to be worshipped for gods the doctrines of devils must needs be those which men guided by devils do advance I must here suppose further that which I reade in Epiphanius that Marcion and Tatianus with his Scholars the Encratites who enjoyned their disciples to abstain from women and certain kindes of meats as not of Gods making had their beginning from Saturninus he from Simon Magus as Iraeneus I. 30. affirmeth Whereby it cannot seem strange that their doctrine should be in vogue during the time of the Apostles I demand then what reason can be given why they who taught the worshipping of angels should also injoyne abstinence from women and meates were there not in the case an opinion that marriage and those creatures come not from God but by some failleur of his as Simon Magus said from the beginning from the Angels To which purpose we must observe that S. Paul gives them warning of Philosophy Col. II. 8. because it is certaine that these sects took their rise from the writitings of Plato and Pythagoras and their followers whom Tertâ—llianâ— therfore stileth the Patriarchs of Hereticks But the words of Irenaeus deserve here to be considered Having promised to refute Marcion in due place Nunc autem necessario meminimus ejus ut scires quoniam omnes qui quoquo modo adulterant veritatem praeconium Ecclelaedunt Simonis Samaritani Magi discipuli successores sunt Quamvis non conâ—iâ—eantur nomen magistri sui ad seductionem reliquorum attamen illius sententiam docent Christi quidem Jesu nomen tanquam irritamentum praeferentes Simonis autem impâ—etatem varie introducentes But it was necessary that we should remember him now that thou mightest know that all those who any way adulterate the truth and wrong that which the Church preacheth are the Scholars and successours of Simon the Magician of Samaria Though to deceive others they professe not their masters name yet they teach hâ—s sense Pretending indeed for a Stale the name of Christ Jesus but divers wayes introducing Simons impious doctrines And by and by Vt exempli gratia dicamus a Saturnino Marciâ—ne qui vocantur Continentes abstinentiam a nuptiiâ— annuâ—ciaverunt frustrantes antiquam plasmationem Dei oblique accusantes eum qui masculum foeminam ad generationem hominum fecit â—orum quae dicuntur apud eos animalium abstinentiam induxerunt ingrati existentes ei qui omnia fecit Deo To speak for example from Saturninus and Marcion those that are called Encratites preach abstinence from marriage frustrating that which God framed of old and indirectly blaming him that made male and female for the procreation of mankind and introduce abstinence from those which they call living creatures being ungratefull to God that made all things If Marcion and Saturninus had this doctrine from Simon Magus of necessity it must have been on foot during the time of the Apostles Onely here will ly a difficult objection from that which I shewed a little afore that Simon Magus baited his doctrine with the pleasures of sensuall concupiscence as the meanes to gaine followers if in stead of the hardship of Christs Crosse he could perswade them that believing the secret knowledge which he taught the free use of them was the meanes to attain the world to come And of Cerinthus in particular he that shall peruse what Eusebius hath related out of Caiâ—s and Dionysius of Alexandria Ecclesiast Hist III. 28. shall easily perceive the whole aime of his Sect to have been the injoying of sensuall pleasure So that the saying of those whom Saint Paul writes against 1 Cor. XV. 32. Let us eate and drink for to morrow we shall dy exactly fits his followers And so doth the pretense of those who seduced the Galatians to observe the Law though themselves kept not the Law that they might not be persecuted with the Crosse of Christ Gal. VI. 12 13. That is that would have them comply with the Jewes in keeping the Law so farre as might save them from being persecuted by the Jews as well as with the Gentiles in their Idolatries to save them from persecution at their hand According to the common principle of the Gnosticks that it was a folly to suffer for professing the Faith To this it is easie to answer That the devil might have severall baits for severall qualities of persons even in the same common principles of Simon Magus whereof if we see some sects imbrace some others those that seem inconsistent with them being certified that both spring from the same source it is no wayes incredible that the seeds of all of them were sowen in his common doctrine That Carpocrates that Prodicus and the Gnosticks that followed Nicolas according to Epiphanius should be remarkable for unnaturall uncleannesse having the way plained for them by Simon how can it be strange that refined spirits should be taken with such grosse pretenses as brutish people are apt to be seduced with would be strange on the other side And that Magick which Simon and Menander with the Basilidians and Carpocratians frequently practised whatsoever the rest did had alwayes pretenses of austerity in discipline not onely as a meanes to obtaine influence from powers above but to seduce the simple with a colour of severity and abstinence Seeing then that Saturninus upon Irenaeus his credit derived this discipline from the doctrine of Simon Magus how can it seeme improbable that during S. Pauls time some branch of the same doctrine should spread over the parts of Asia concerned in S. Pauls Epistles to Timothy and to the Colossians Whether by Cerinthus or by whom besides him I need not dispute There is no doubt indeed but according to Epiphanius his Heresie had vogue in these parts As in Galatia besides Epiphanius Sirmondus his Praedestinatus saith that it is condemned there by S. Paules Epistle And Gaius in Eusebius III. 28. testifieth that Cerinthus pretended revelations by Angels and Tertulliane contra Marc. V. that those who seduced the Colossians did the like But whether Cerinthus or some other branch of Simon Magus the source of his doctrine is plainly from the same principle with Marcion and the Eucratites afterwards Now if any man demand what all this may conduce to the understanding of those Scriptures which speak of our Lord Christ let it be but considered that Simon Magus pretending to be the Christ and to seduce Christians from our Lord Jesus to himself and withall and to be worshipped with honours due to God doth hereby effectually suppose that our Lord was effectually so worshiped by Christians from the beginning Irenaeus saith further of the doctrine of Simon Magus I. 20. That he was glorified of many as God and taught that he was the man who had appeared among the Jewes as the Sonne that is the Messias had come in Samaria as the Father but to the rest of the Gentiles as the holy Ghost So that being indeed the soveraigne
power of all that is the Father he was content neverthelesse to be whatsoever they called him Hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorifi catus est saith Irenaeus docuit semetipsum esse qui inter Judaeos quidem quasi filius apparâ—erit in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus sanctus adventaverit Esse autem se sublimissimam virtutem hoc est eum qui sit super omnia Pater sustinere vocari sâ— quodcunque â—um vocant homines Where pretending first to be both Father and Sonne and holy Ghost Secondly to be worshipped for God it is manifest that setting up himself in stead of our Lord Jesus for the Messias whom the Samaritanes expected as well as the Jews he had no other reason to pretend to be also the Father and the holy Ghost but because he knew our Lord whom he counterfeited had taught that he is one and the same with the Father and the holy Ghost And so by what the counterfeit would be it appeareth what the truth is and taught himself to be To wit the Sonne of God to be worshipded as one God with the Father and the holy Ghost For we are not to think that Epiphanius contradicts his Master Jrenaeus when he saies that Simon who praetended to be the Father among the Samaritanes as the Son among the Jewes made his concubine Selena to be the holy Ghost whom he called also the Ennaea or Conceit of him the Father whereby he made the angels that made the world and mankind But rather to understand that intending to adulterate the Christiane Faith by bringing in a counterfeit imitation of it on purpose he pretended himself and his Conceit to be both one because he knew that according to the Christian faith both Father and Sonne both which he pretended to be as you have heard are one and the same God with the holy Ghost which he pretended his Conceite to be according to Fpiphanius but himself among the Gentiles according to Irenaeus The Heresie of his Scholar Menander is thus described by Irenaeus L. 21. Qui primam quidem virtutem inâ—ognitam ait omnibus se autem â—um esse qui missus sit ab invisibilibus salvatorem pro salâ—te hominum Mundum autem factum ab Angelis quos ipse similiter ut Simon ab Ennâ—a emissos dicit Who saith that the first Power is unknown to all and that himself was the Saviour that was sent by the invisible Powers for the salvation of men But that the world was made by the Angels whom he also like as Simon sayes were put forth by the Fathers Conceit Where you see above the Angels whom he maketh Creator of the world the unknown Father whom he pretendeth to make known his Conceit from whence the Angels came and the invisible Powers that sent him for the Saviour of the world Both these then pretending to be that which our Lord Christ indeed and in truth is did make themselves one ingredient or parcel of that unknown and invisible Godhead from whence they so made the angels to proceed that neverthelesse banding a faction against the same they make the coming of a Saviour necessary for this end to deliver mankind from the servitude of these Angels that made the world As for Saturninus pretending the father of all to be unknown otherwise then as he pretended to make him known it appears why he is among the Gnosticks But he pretends that two sorts of men were made by the Angels One by the good beeing an Image of the Power which is above which being infinitely taken with they said Let us make man after our image because it was instantly with drawn from their sight But so that it had not come to life had not the power above struck a sparke of light into it The other by the devils which the Saviour who is indeed unknown onely seemed a man came to subdue So Irenaeus l. 22. But Basilides Vt altius aliquid veriâ—imilius adinvenisse vidâ—atur in immensum extendit sententiam doctrinae suae ostendens Nun primo ab iâ—noto natum Patre ab hoc autem natum Logon deinde a Logo Phronesin a Phâ—onesi autem natas Sophian Dynamin a Dynami autem Sophia Virtutes Principes Angelos quos Primos vocat saith Irenaeus l. 23. He that he may seem to have added some higher thing and more likely to their invention extending the meaning of his position beyond all bounds shews that Nus or Meaning was first born of the Father who was not born Of him Logos Reason or the Word of him Prudence of it Wisdom and Power of them Virtues Princes and Angels whom he calls the prime onâ—s Where you see manifestly the fullnesse of the Godhead is made to consist of the Titles and Attributes of our Lord Christ Which Valentinus after these makes to consist in XXX Aeones or intelligible worlds which he derives from the unknown Father and silence or his conceit and Grace Bythos or the bottome and Charis Ennaea or Siâ—â— in whom he placed the first source of this Fulnesse And it hath been observed already that his number of XXX is the same that the heathen Gods are contrived into by Heâ—iodâ— Theogonia Much to my purpose For S. Cyril Catech. V. calls Valentine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Preacher of the XXX Gods This fullnesse of the Godhead which they taught being the deity which they worshipped As did also not onely Ptolemaeus and Secundus who followed Valentine and changed what they thought fit in his designe or the Gnosticks which followed Nicolas as you may see by Epiphanius But the rest from Simon Magus whose followers worshipped him and his Trull Selene under the images of Jupiter and Minerva saith Irenaeus expresly For Menanders first Power and the Ennaea or Conceit thereof and the invisible Powers by whom and from whom he pretended to be sent for the Saviour of mankind shew that this was that fullnesse of the Godhead in which he taught his followers to believe And when Epâ—pâ—â—nius confuting Saturninus saith that according to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theâ—e shall be found no fullnesse in the Power above It is manifest that he taught his followers to worship that fullnesse which Epiphanius refuseth Simon Magus himself meant the like when he said according to Epiphanius that the Angels though they proceeded from his Ennaea or Conceit yet were without the Fullnesse that is not comprehended within it As for Câ—â—inthus whom all agree to have made our Lord Jesus the Sonne of Joseph and Mary born as other men are Epiphanius saies further of his sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that after Jesus was growne a man who was borne of the seede of Joseph and Mary the Christ came downe upon him from the God that is above that is the Holy Ghost in the shape of a dove at Jordane and revealed to him the Father that
not believe him when he tells them heavenly things Because none of them have been in heaven as the Sonne of man who being come from heaven notwithstanding remaines in heaven Whether he mean onely That having been there in heaven and learnt the effect of his commission and being still there in heart as all Christians are he can tell them things from heaven which they will not believe Or that having been in heaven and not having forsaken it for his coming into the World he knowes the truth of all that he witnesses here by seeing the counsailes of God there even while he is here And that these are those things which he hath seen in his Fathers house to wit those counsailes which the Father out of his love to him had made him acquainted with and taught him to execute even as they had learnt in the devils shop their Father to execute his designes For can any man imagine that his being onely born of the Virgine by the power of God which is they say the holy Ghost is a sufficient reason why God should not onely shew him what he meant to do for our salvation but joyne him with himself in the work and that honour for it whereof no Angel that is the highest creature is capeable Or that all this is such an expression as manhood can bear of that participation of Gods counsailes which the Word having been acquainted with from everlasting was no stranger to while being in the World he was executing the same Surely when our Lord sayes that he is to leave the world to go back to the Father he declares an intent to abide in heaven for everlasting Therefore when he saies he came forth from the Father to come into the world To understand onely that he left the private life he had lived afore he began to preach to appear publickly to the World in his Office might justly be accounted a piece of frenzy if there were not haeresy in it The opposition between heaven where the Father is and the world being so manifest in the words that nothing but the vaine glory of maintaining a party could cause it to be overseen If these things be true we shall not need to go farre for the sense of our Lords words John XVII 5. And now glorify thou me O Father with that glory which I had with thee before the foundation of the World Because we see how many times in this Gospel by being with the Father our Saviour expresseth not his being in heaven when the Baptist began to preach but his being in heaven from the beginning of the World till he was born upon earth For can any doubt be made that the glory which he had with the Father from the beginning is that which he was to be exalted to at his rising againe As for that answer of his to the Jews that demanded of him having said Abraham your Father desired to see my day and saw it and rejoyced Thou art not yet fifty years old and hast thou seen Abraham To which Jesus answered and said Verily verily I say unto you before Abraham was I am John VIII 56 57 58. I perceive the World is ashamed to hear what Socinus is not ashamed to answer That the sense of the words is and so they ought to be translated Before Abraham become Abraham Or before he become Abraham I am Meaning that here you see me before the calling of the Gentiles whereby the Prophesie of Abrahams name Father of a great people is fulfilled For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make both the name of Abraham to go before the Verbe in sense and the verb to signifie the time past So that there must have been another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as this that goes afore and if there had been so it must have been translated before Abraham was Abraham or before he was Abraham not before he become Abraham But for our Lord to say before Abraham was I am to wit in the purpose of God is no lesse impertinent to their question then to say I am here before the calling of the Gentiles And to imagine that our Lord would give an answer utterly impertinent to their question I know not how it can stand with his profession though not to declare all that truth which for the present they were not able to beare may well stand with it CHAP. XIV The Name of God not ascribed to Christ for the like reason as to creatures The reasons why the Socinians worship Christ as God do confute their limitations Christ not God by virtue of his rising againe He is the Great God with S. Paul the true God with S. John the onely Lord with S. Jude Other Scriptures Of the forme of God and of a servant in S. Paul BUT the Apostle adds still more and goes forwards saying And the Word was God Though here the Socinians thinke they have enough to plead when they can say that the name of God which is here used is not proper to signify God himself which the name of four letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so signifyeth in the Old Testament that it is never attributed to any creature but by abuse That is to say as imployed to expresse the sense of such men as believe not in the true God alone but attribute his honour to some of his creatures For it is very well known and granted on all hands that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here translateth is attributed first to Gods Angels then to Gods ministers in governing his People The reason whereof I take to be this that having entred into covenant with God to have him for their soveraigne and to live by his Lawes they must needs be bound to acknowledge and to honour those who had commission from him whether immediately or mediately to govern his people by the said Lawes in stead of God himself as deputies Commissioners or Ambassadors represent the persons of those Soveraigns from whom they come This I suppose is a generall reason why this name of God in the Old Testament is communicated to the Governours of Gods people which the Socinians cannot with any reason refuse Neither can I imagine how it should be more evidently justified then by that of God to Moses Exod. VII 1. Behold I have made thee Pharaohs God and Aaron thy brother shall be thy Prophet For Aaron is made Moses his Prophet to publish his Orders to Pharaâ—h because he was a man of a ready tongue which Moses was not Exod. IV. 14 15 16. Prophet being no more then Interpreter or Truchman as Onkelâ—s translates it And therefore Moses is called also here Aarons God because he was to give the Orders which Aaron was to publish But Pharaohs God as Ruler and Prince over Pharaoh who was Ruler and Prinâ—â— of all Egypt as to those things which God should by him command Pharaoh to
God moved So it is often said that the Spirit of God came upon passed upon invested either Judges or Prophets Judg. III. 10. XI 29. XIV 6 19. 1 Sam. X. 6 10. Judg. VI. 34. 1 Chron. XII 18. XXIV 20. whereupon it is to be acknowledged that those Judges were also Prophets from Joshua the successor of Moses to whom that promise of God Deut. XVIII 18. seems to belong in the first place Nor is it therefore requisite that I dispute here by what meanes these Prophets were all assured that it was Gods Spirit not an evil Spirit which moved them either to act or speak Much lesse how they were inabled to assure others of it Thus much we see in the case of Balaam who by sacrifices to devils hoped to obtaine of them a commission to curse Gods people that when he went to meet his familiars to that purpose and was met with by God he knew God so well and his message that he durst not but do it I shewed you afore that those Angels by whom God spake to the Prophets in the Old Testament did not alwaies speak in the person of God and that in the New Testament the Word of God having once assumed the flesh of Christ though we read of divers apparitions of Angels yet we never read that the Angel who speakes in Gods Name is called God or honoured as God As for those Prophets which we read of in the Churches under the Apostles 1 Cor. XII 10 28 29. XIV 29 32 37. Ephes III. 5. IV. 11. as it is necessary to understand that their Graces were inferior to the Graces of the Apostles that it may be true which S. Paul saith 1 Cor. XIV 32. The Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets So can there be no reason to doubt that they were of that inferior sort of Prophets that spake by the meer inspiration of Gods Spirit without aparition of any Angel speaking to them either asleep or awake either in the name onely or further in the person also of God When therefore the Angel Gabriel appeared to the blessed Virgine saying Luke II. 35. The holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the most high shall overshadow thee And therefore the holy thing that is born shall be called the Sonne of God We are to understand that the holy Ghost who upon the Word of God delivered to a Prophet possessed his soul for a time till he had delivered Gods Word to them to whom it was sent upon this message possessing the flesh of the blessed Virgine made it a tabernacle for the Word of God alwayes to dwell in in which Word the Spirit of God alwaies dwelt For so the difference holds between our Lord Christ in whom dwells the fullnesse of his Spirit and his servants that have each of them his measure of it If we understand the word incarnate to have in it resident the power of Gods Spirit by which our Lord Christ proved himself the sonne of God in particular as S. Paul saith by rising from the dead by the Spirit of holynesse But the servants of God to whom this word came to be possessed and acted by the same Spirit onely while they were charged with the Word of God that is with their message Neither seems it more difficult to understand how Christians are possessed of Gods Spirit by the generall Promise of the Covenant of Grace when the assistance of God is by Gods appointment assured them to all such purposes as the common profession of Christianity requires This is the reason of the alliance which the Scriptures expresse between the Word and Spirit of God in our Lord Christ in regard whereof I have thought requisite to referre those Scriptures which speak of the Spirit of God in our Lord Christ to the grace of union rather then to the grace of unction as the Schoole distinguisheth that is to say rather to the Godhead of the Word dwelling in the flesh of Christ containing alwayes and implying the Spirit then to those graces parted out upon his soule which I neither doubt of nor that they are expressed in diverse passages of the Scriptures And this is the reason why the very name of the Spirit is attributed to the word incarnate in divers passages of the most ancient Church-Writers which Grotius hath carefully collected upon the foresaid text of Marke II. 8. And the position of Cerinthus is very remarkable that our Lord Jesus Christ being born as other men of Joseph and Mary at his baptisme the holy Ghost that is Christ saith he came down upon him in the shape of a dove revealing the unknown Father to him and to his followers and that by this his Power coming upon him from above he did miracles And that when he had suffered that which came from above flew up againe from Jesus So that Jesus suffered and rose againe but Christ that came upon him from above which is that which came down in the shape of a dove flew up againe without suffering So that Jesus is not Christ For hereby as it is manifest that they hold with the Church that Christ is God assuring us thereby that it was the originall faith of the Church so they shew that the overshadowing of the blessed Virgine by the holy Ghost imports the incarnation of the Godhead to them who believe it as the coming down of the holy Ghost at the Baptisme imports the dwelling of Gods Spirit in Christ till his suffering to Cerinthus And the same Epiphanius telling us of the Ebionites that sometimes they contradict themselves Otherwhiles saith he they say otherwise that the Spirit of God which is Christ came upon and invested the man that is called Jesus I will give you here if you please that which goes before in Epiphanius Some of them say saith he that Christ is that Adam that was framed first and inspired with the breath of God Others of them say that he is from above and was made before all things being a Spirit or the Spirit and above the Angels and ruleth all things and that he is called Christ and hath inherited that world and cometh hither when he pleaseth As he came in Adam and appeared to the Patriarchs putting on a body coming to Abraham Isaac and Jacob. The same say he came these last dayes putting on the same body of Adam and appeared a man and was crucified and rose and ascended againe Here you see that borrowing from the Scriptures the correspondence between the first and the second Adam they force upon it their own fable that both was one You see also by the same reason that their relation of Christs appearing to the Patriarches as in our flesh afterwards though corrupted by them is neverthelesse borrowed from the Tradition the Church In fine you see that the rule of all things the inheritance of the world and the principality of Angels and the Spirit that is called Christ here mentioned argues that the faith of the
hated you before me And that endless dispute among Chronologers about the words of S. Luke II. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive cannot be so well composed as by translating it This inrolling was made before Quirinius was Governour of Syria That is to say before that which was made under Quirinius who was imployed divers years after to inroll all the Jews and their Goods when Archelaus was confiscated For Tertullian with whom Josephus fully agreeth sayth expresly That the taxation at which Christ was inrolled was made under Sentius Saturninus Governour of Syria and that the Records of it were then in Rome extant when he writ Let then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him that was brought forth before all creatures Or let it signifie by way of metonymy the Heire of all things as the Apostle calls our Lord Christ Heb. I. 2. because the first born is heire by Law and we shall not need to feare that our Lord Christ shall become a Creature by being the first born of the whole creature For my part I should not think I had granted any such thing should I grant that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here may be taken in a generall sense to signifie as well the production of Gods Word as the production of his Creature I know how much dispute there hath been with the Arians about the sense of Solomons Prov. VIII 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor do I believe it can be computed by reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the same seems to require First because it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is not true that God got wisdome when he made the World but was possessed of it Secondly because Wisdome Eccles XXIV 14. having spoke of her dwelling with God as in Solomon and his appointing her to dwell in Israel addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before the World from the beginning he made man and I faile not for everlasting And further in the beginning of the Chapter according to the Latine Copy Ego ex â—re Altissimi prodivi primogenita ante omnem creaturam I came cut of the mouth of the most High the first born before any Creature So â—it to the words of S. Paul that without doubt he had them in mind when he writ And again Eccles I. 4 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wisdome was made before all things and the understanding of prudence from everlasting After which there follows in most Greek Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which the Vulgar Latine rendreth Fons â—apientiâ— Verbum Dei in excelsis ingressus illius mandata aeterna As if he should say that the fountaine of Wisdome is that Word which was with God in the highest and whereby God hath made Heaven and Earth as the Psalmist sayth By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Hosts of them by the breath of his mouth Psal XXX 6. and the proceedings of Wisdome are the everlasting Commandements To wit of the Law whereby he instructed his people But this by consequence supposing the Old Testament to be a Tigure of the New must be understood of all those waies vvhereby God conversed vvith mankind to preserve it from falling quite away from his truth from the beginning as I have shewed afore Being nothing else but forerunners and prefaces to the coming of our Lord in the flesh vvhich therefore supposeth the being of this Wisdome before the World by virtue of that vvhich vvent before vvhere he sayth that Wisdome was made afore all things And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord himself made her and saw and numbred her Which though it may be understood of the wisdome which he poured out upon his works as straight it followeth yet when it is sayd to have been brought forth before the world and before all things more is sayd and more must be understood Now S. Athanasius against the Arians I know embraceth another sense of Solomon as speaking of Christs taking flesh to be the beginning of Gods waies w th man redeemed But I say also that he produceth this other sense that I speak of that the VVisdome of God was brought forth by him before he made the VVorld by his wisdome and that this production may be signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it commonly signifie the production of a Creature which was not afore but beginneth to be in him The passage of Athanasius is remarkable though upon occasion of that of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. XIII 2. Who was faithfull to him that made him which he handleth Orat. II. contra Arrian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For words extinguish not the nature of things But rather their nature draws to it self and changes the words For words are not before things but things are first and after them words Therefore when the beeing signified is a thing made or created then made and became and created are properly sayd of them for I read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a thing made But when the beeing is a thing ingendred and a Son then made and became and created is not properly put upon it nor signifies a thing made but a man uses the word made for ingendred without difference VVhich proceeding to declare by instances in the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or made he sheweth that it may as vvell be sayd of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 created which he equalleth unto it by the premises For a little after he saith vve may understand the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he say of himself The Lord created me vvhich are the vvords of Solomon here questioned And by and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though Parents say the Sons that spring from them are made and created and come of them neverthelesse they deny not their Offspring And again Orat. III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is the same thing to say that he is not made and to speak of his not being a Creature VVhich makes me confident that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul may so be understood vvithout prejudice to the Faith And surely when he sayth Gen. IV. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have got a man with God As the word is the same with that which Wisdome useth in the Hebrew Prov. VIII 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the sense is the same with the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for she got a Son by bringing him forth which is called creare liberos in Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and to make Children in other Languages And this is equivocation is very happy in our Mother English when by getting of Children vvhich formally and properly signifieth the purchasing of them into the Fathers Power as his own vvhich is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifieth by vvay of metonomy the act of Generation vvhereby they are brought forth
in the stream then it was in the fountaine And therefore though the terms of the Scripture agreeing with those which the most ancient Fathers of the Church use may justly authorize and bring into use those expressions which have not been usuall upon a due understanding of the intent to which they are used yet is there no power in the Church to render those terms which have passed for Christian and Catholick in the Primitive times of the Church suspected of Heresie in these times Origen is strongly charged by the ancient times in particular by Epiphanius as the Seminary of the Arians And that the Arians might not have advantage by many of his sayings were too much to undertake and that which my businesse no way requires The Socinians have made their advantages of Erasmus his writings And is any man so silly as to imagine that Erasmus was therefore of Socinus his Faith Have they not made the like use of Maldonate and his Commentaries upon the Gospels And is there any appearance that his meaning should be that of Socinus I will not therefore deny that the Cardinall du Perron in his answer to King James pag. 633. does acknowledge that Arius were able to maintaine himself within compasse of Tradition were he to be tried by the Fathers before the Council of Nicaea But I give the Reader notice that this is the consequence and the interest of that position which deriveth Tradition of Faith from an expresse act of the present Church supposing the matter of it not to have been of force and effectually acknowledged in all ages of the Church Which if it were true in this case then could no man be obliged to believe the Trinity as matter of Faith Though it might remaine questionable whether or no a man may be obliged to conform to it as consistent with the Faith and not to scandalize the unity of the Church by rejecting the act and decree of it according to the Position setled in the first book I will further acknowledge that I have seen an answer to Crellius the Socinians book de Deo by one Botsaccus now of Danzick I take it in the end whereof I find a number of exceptions made by the Socinians in their writings which I have not seen against the Faith of all that writ before Constantine in particular as inconsistent with that of Nicaea the particulars whereof because I have not seen the books and therefore cannot presume to answer particularly I could not here repeate would the model of my book give leave In general whosoever will take the paines to peruse that which is there alledged shall perceive First that those who alledge them fall out among themselves perpetually sometimes and for some sayings challenging Tertulliane for example or Clement or Origen for one of them that believe not the Trinity otherwise disowning them as those that helped to introduce the Faith of it But no where remembring themselves concerned to make good that which they maintaine out of the words of Hegesippus in Eusebius that the Faith of the whole Church was defloured presently upon the death of the Apostles and to shew that such a change did indeed come to passe in the Faith of the holy Trinity Secondly that there is no more difficulty in reducing the sense of their sayings there questioned to the sense of the Church after the Councile of Nicaea then in reducing the sense of Athanasius when he alloweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the proceeding of the Sonne from the Father of everlasting Or the sense of all these Fathers that understood the Father is greater then I of the priviledge of the originall and author which the Father of necessity hath personally above the Sonne and the holy Ghost the Godhead being one and the same to the same sense One passage of Tertulliane I have thought worth the clearing because it seems to containe a remarkable conceit of his in expounding the words of Solomon in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the sense of the Church so many years before Arius built his heresie in a manner upon it The words are in his book contra Hermogenem Cap. III. Quia pater Deus est judex deus est non tamen ideo Pater semper judex semper quia Deus semper Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante Flium nec judex ante delictum Fuit autem tempus cum delictum filius non fuit quod judicem qui patrem Dominuâ— facâ—reâ— For God also is Father and God is judge and yet not alwayes Father and judge because alwayes God For neither could he be Father before a Sonne nor judge before sinne But there was a time when neither sinne was to make God a judge nor Sonne to make God a Father He that reads this onely would think at a blush that it is the very marke of Arius his haerâ—sie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was a time when the Son was not But the answer is in his book contra Praxeam Cap. V. Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus ipse sibi mundus locus omnia Solus autem quia nihil aliud extrinsecus prâ—ter illum Caeterum ne tunc quideâ— solus Habebat enim secum quam habebat in semetipso Rationem suam scilicet Rationalis enim Deus ratio in ipso prius ita in ipso omnia Quâ— ratio sensus ipsius est Hanc Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt quâ— vocabulâ— sermonem etiam appellamus Ideâ—que in usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse cum magis rationem competat antiquiorem â—aberi quia non sermonalis a principio sed rationalis Dâ—us etiam ante principium Et quia ipse quoque sermo ratione consistens priorem eam ut substantiam suâ—m â—stendat Tamen sic nihil interest Nam â—tsi Deus nondum sermonem suum miserat proinde â—um cum ipsa in ipsa ratione intra semetipsum habebat â—acite cogitando disputandâ— secum quae per sermonem mox erat dicturus Cum ratione enim sua cogitans atque disponens sermonem eam efficiebat quâ—m sermone tractabat For before all things God was alone to himself both World and place and all But alone because without there was nothing besides him otherwise even then not alone For he had with him that which he had in him his reason forsooth For God is reasonable and reason was in him before and so all things This reason is his sense This the Greek calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which name also we call speech Therefore our people use for one translation to say that speech was in the beginning with God Whereas it is more pertinent that reason should be counted more ancient because God spokâ— it from the beginning but had reason even before the beginning And
for his discharge But I will say thaâ— as in the case of the Nicene Creed and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it appeareth that the Church may be necessitated to use such expressions as have not been in use afore and not onely to allow particular persons as Doctors of the Church to use them but to give them pasport and authority in the publick service of the Church And that people or Doctors of the Church should stick at them when they are first frequented is no more to be marvailed at then that the Socinians should marvaile that the Son of God who acknowledges to come from the Father and to receive all from him should by any man be acknowledged God from everlasting Unlesse it be marvailed that all that allow it not are not Socinians For neither is it any marvaile that men should marvaile at the due consequences of those things which themselves admit Nor that marvailing at them some should be Socinians others continue Christians All this would be good in case it did appear that S. Hilary had any where put any doubt whether the holy Ghost may be called God or not But the observation of Erasmus bears no more then this That S. Hilary is no where found to call the H. Ghost God which who will not laugh at unlesse it could be said that S Hilary no way saies as much as that is For shall the Faith of the Church or shall the Faith of S. Hilary depend upon the use of that word Shall it not serve his turne that he useth words signiâ—ying the same Which had Erasmus been so diligent to collect as the Socinians have been forward to make advantage of his negligence they had never drawn that observation into consequence He that would be satisfied of S. Hilaries Faith as well as of the Faith of the Church before S. Hilary in this point Let him peruse what Petavius hath collected Dogâ—atum Theol. 3. de Trinitate VII 7-15 I am now before I leave this point to consider what the light of reason argues against the mystery of the Trinity which I acknowledge to seem so strong that it seems to forbid all use of reason in them that admit the Christian Faith For seeing all use of reason supposes this principle that those things which agree or disagree in a third agree or disagree one with the other And that the mystery of the Trinity inferres Though the Father is God and the Sonne God yet that the Sonne is not the Father It seems it cannot be maintained without disowning the use of reasonable discourse This difficulty may be and is branched out into many difficulties It is argued If so Then shall there be three Gods the Father one the Sonne another and the Holy Ghost a third Or three substancâ—s of one Godhead every person being God which is the substance of the Godhead Or that the same thing the Godhead shall subsist thrice to wit in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost It is argued If so Then shall every person be three persons Because every person is God that is Father Sonne and holy Ghost That the persons of the Godhead shall be both really the same and really diverse or not the same Being the same God yet severall persons It is argued further If so Then shall the Sonne of God be his own Sonne Because Sonne of that God which the Sonne is Then may there as well be more Sonnes and then infinite Then shall he be from everlasting because God and not from everlasting because Sonne Then should the Father and the holy Ghost have been incarnate because one with the Sonne who is in carnate Then cannot the Sonne of God be man because God before But all these consequences containe but one and the same difficulty from which thy proceed as the same souldiers are showed in severall armes and the same meats served with severall sauses For when the Father Sonne and holy Ghost persons subsisting before they are distinguished by our understanding are said to be one God the ordinary discourse of reason and the language that men use inferres three substances each subsisting of it self that is three Gods that is persons of the Godhead every one of them Father Sonne and holy Ghost as God is the same with themselves supposing one God not the same supposing three persons Againe the Sonne being God as the Father and the holy Ghost are and Sonne of God it is no more then that he should be his own Sonne That he should be from everlasting and yet Sonne and no more Sonnes then he no more then that he is God and the Sonne of God both That he onely incarnate never a whit difficult then that being the same God he is neither Father nor holy Ghost To answer then this one though great difficulty First I insist that the Socinians who object it which may be said of Arius or Aetius or whosoever may be found to have objected the like cannot avoid as great inconveniences if they mean to be Christians For the Socinians pretending to honour the Sonne as the Father the Arians the Sonne and the holy Ghost both I demand what greater inconvenience there can be objected to one that pretends to be a Christian then to give the honour due to God alone to his creature Then that the Sonne of God should be God and a creature both Then that he should create himself as both God and creature Then that being made a man he should be exalted to the power and glory of God whereupon the honour of God becomes due If reason and Faith agree both together to assure us that there is a God that made all things It is not possible that any thing should be imagined more impossible then that one and the same subject should be truly qualified God and creature He that can imagine a greater contradiction a greater inconvenience a greater inconsistence then that the same thing should necessarily be what it is and yet that of it self it may be and may not be what it is Alwayes actually the same and yet capable of being what it was not sometimes The cause of all things and yet depending on that cause which it self is and so before and after it self Well may he imagine some greater inconvenience then this that our Lord Christ made a man as other men are onely conceived by the holy Ghost without man of a Virgine should be made God and indued with power and glory to which the worship and honour of the onely true God is due But let them that hope hereby to remove the stumbling block of the Trinity in Unity from before the Jews consider with themselves what satisfaction they can hope to give them or any reasonable creature by inviting them to give the honour of God to a creature called God because of that power and Glory which God hath given it above other creatures For seeing the same power and glory which God hath given it he might have
not did so order the meanes by which this obedience was effected or not that he might know that it would or would not come to passe And this preaching of the Gospel and the meanes and consequence of it being granted in consideration of Christ that the reason why such meanes was requisite is to be drawn from the fall of Adam and the corruption of mans nature by it And to this sense seeme the words of our Lord to belong John X. 28 29. I give my sheep eternal life nor shall they ever perish nor any man snatch them out of my hand My Father who gave me them is greatest of all nor can any man snatch them out of my Fathers hand Although it seems that he inlargeth the same sense to another effect John XVII 6 -12 I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world Thine they were and me thou gavest them and they have kept thy Word Now know they that whatsoever thou gavest me is from thee For the words that thou gavest me have I given them and they have received them and know of a truth that I am come forth from thee and thou hast sent me I ask for them I ask not for the world but for those that thou hast given me for they are thine And all mine are thine and thine mine and I am glorified in them And I am no more in the world but they are in the world and I come to thee Holy Father keep them in thy Name whom thou hast given me that they may be one as we When I was with them in the World I kept them in thy name These whom â—hou gavest me I kept nor is any of them lost but the Son of perdition that the Scripture may be fulfilled For afterwards it is said that our Lord spake to those that apprehended him to let his disciples go That the word which he had said might be fulfilled I have lost none of those whom thou gavest me John XVIII 9. But all this will not serve to make us believe that his then disciples alone were the men that the Father gave to Christ he having said expresly afterwards John XVII 20. I ask not for these alone but for those that shall believe in me through their word For this showes that he prayes for his then disciples in the common quality of disciples that is of Christians having other prayers to make for the world that is for those that were not As we see by and by John XVII 21. and Luke XXIII 34. But in that he saith so often that the Father had given them him from whose appointment the sufferings of Christ the power which he is advanced to the successe of the Gospel which he publisheth dependeth In that regard I conceive the helps of Gods grace by the second Adam whereby the breach made by the first is repaired necessarily to be implied in Gods giving unto our Lord Christ his disciples And of this sense much there is expressed by S. Paul Ephes I. 3. 11. Blessed God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that hath blessed us with every spirituall blessing in the heavens through Christ As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blamelesse before him in love Having foreappointed us to adoption to himself through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of his will To the praise of his glorious grace whereby he made us acceptable in the beloved Through whom we have redemption by his blood even the remission of â—â—nnes according to the riches of his grace which hath abounded to us in all wisdome and prudence Having made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself at the dispensation of the fullnesse of times to restore all things both in heaven and in earth through Christ in whom also we have received our lots appoinâ—ed according to the purpose of him that effects all things according to the counsel of his will For not to insist upon the force of those terms and phrases which Saint Paul uses whatsoever blessings it may be said S. Paul hereby signifies to have been appointed to the Ephesians from everlasting as Christians I suppose it cannot be denied that he presupposes that they were also appointed from everlasting to be Christians to whom by so being those blessings should become due And all this so many times and so manifestly said to have been appointed in Christ or by Christ or through Christ that it cannot be questioned that not onely the Gospell by which they were brought to that estate but also the meanes that inforce it and the consequences whereby it takes effect all depend upon Christ and the consideration of his coming to destroy the works of the devil in our first parents CHAP. XIX Evidences of the same in the Old Testament Of Gods help in getting the Land of Promise and renewing the Covenant And that for Christs sake That Christianity cannot stand without acknowledging the grace of Christ The Tradition of the Church In the Baptisme of Infants In the Prayers of the Church In the decrees against Pelagius and other records of the Church IT remaineth now that I shew how the same truth is signified to us in the Old Testament whereof I will point out three sorts of passages tending to prove it and when they are put together making full evidence of it The first is of those wherein it is acknowledged that the inheritance of the Land of Promise is not to be ascribed to any merit or force of their own but to the goodnesse and assistance of God Then which nothing can be produced out of the New Testament more effectuall to shew that whatsoever tends to bring Christians to the kingdom of heaven is to be ascribed to the grace of God There being the same correspondence between the helps of spirituall Grace whereby Christians overcome their spirituall enemies and the help of God whereby the Israelites overcame the seven nations as between the kingdom of heaven and the land of Promise And therefore all those promises whereby God assures them of deliverance from their enemies and maintenance in the possession thereof all acknowledgements of Gods free gift whereby they held that inheritance argue no lesse concerning those helps whereby the children of the Church answering to the land of Canaan here are inabled to continue true spirituall members thereof and to attain the land of promise that is above I shall not need to produce many particulars of this nature whereof all the Old Testament affordeth good store That of Moses Deut. IX 3-8 I must not forget where assuring them of God to go along with them he warns them not to ascribe that favour to their one righteousnesse though he acknowledgeth that God imployes them to punish the seven nations but to his covenant with their Fathers And that God enabled them to cast
bound by natural equity to accept that for full satisfaction which makes up his whole intresse when civile Law obliâ—es him not Makes the tender of Christ no lesse the substitute to our payment of that debt which Gods Law requireth for how is it lesse fit to be tendred when it is not due to be accepted then when it is no lesse able to fulfill Gods desire seeing nothing can be imagined more acceptable to him then the voluntary obedience of his own sonne consisting in those sufferings wherein the greatest virtue that mans nature is capable of was seen and tending to the redemption of mankind which his love to his creature inclined him so much â—o desire as his wisdome found to comport with his native goodnesse and the exercise of his justice I shall not here as in other points stand to clear the Faith of the Catholike Church When Pelagius is alleged for one that held not the satisfaction of Christ it is plain enough that it can have no footing in or allowance from the authority of the Church which hath disclaimed Pâ—lagius Onely we may take notice how well the evidence which the witnesse and practice of the Church renders to the rule of Faith is understood by them who in stead of alledging some allowance of the Church by some person of noted credit openly professing it and nevertheless esteemed to be of the Church name us one that was cast out of the Church for holding it whether expresly or by consequence As for Lactantius who alleging the suffering of Christ for our example addes further neverthelesse pro crimine nostro for our crime Instit IV. 23 24 26. Though I might safely have said as afore that a word of his upon the by may well have past without censure because his credit was not such in the Church as to create appearance of offense Yet I shall not need to have recourse to this answer his own words having given so much advantage for a fair interpretation of his meaning in the sense of the Church As for Pâ—trus Abailardus that is thought to have said something to the same purpose I shall not need to insist what his opinion was For as I allow that he lived in such an age when something that is true might be entertained with the censure of the Church So when it is said to be in a point wherein he is pâ—rtizane with Pelagius the Church that condemned him must needs in condemning him for iâ— be partizane with the Church that condemned Pelagius I will onely allege here a doctrine which I take to be generally received by the ancient Fathers of the Church That the devil by bringing Christ to death that had not sinned forfeited that power of death which the Apostle speakes of Heb. II. 14. to wit that which he had over man that had sinned in bringing him to death And I allege it because the Socinians seem to take it for granted that the Church is now ashamed to maintaine this which I confesse I am not For if the devil be Prince of this World as our Saviour calls him John XIV 30. because he is imployed by God as his Goaler or the executioner of those judgements to which he abandons those that forsake him by giving them up to his temptations shall we not understand the justice of God to be seen towards him in limiting this imployment as under the grace of Christ we believe it is limited in consideration of his attempting upon Christ beyond his commission because without right he being without sinne And therefore the justice of God having appointed him this imployment and this justice satisfied by the obedience of Christ it is but due consequence that this imployment in which the principality of this World consisteth should become forfeit and voâ—de so farre as the Grace of Christ determineth it By virtue of which reason our Lord Christ rising from death because not having sinned he could not be â—â—ld by death drawes after him all that upon the sound of his Gospel imbrace the profession of Christianity CHAP. XXX God might have reconciled man to himself without the coming of Christ The promises of the Gospel depend as well upon his active as passive obedience Christ need not suffer â—ell paâ—nes that we might not The opinion that maketh justifying Faith to be trust in God not true Yet not prejudiciall to the Faith The decree of the Council of Trent and the doctrine of the Schoole how it is not prejudiciall to the Faith As also that of Socinus I Will not leave this point till I have inferred from that which hath been said the resolution of two or three points in question necessarily following upon it And first that though as I have said it is impossible for the wit of man to propose any course for the reconciling of men to God by which the glory of God in the exercise of his divine perfections should have been more seen then is that which it pleased God to take Yet was it not impossible for his divine wisdome to have taken other courses to effect the same his glory remaining inâ—â—re according as S. Augustine hath long since resolved Though to the great displeasure of all them who distinguish not the imagination of immediate satisfaction by the death of Christ for the sinnes of them that shall be saved from that dispensation in the Originall Law of God which the Gospel declareth to all that imbrace the terms of it To the effect whereof I have showed that God provided and accepted it For if God did not provide noâ— accept de facto the death of Christ for immediate satisfaction to his vindicative justice in behalf of their sinnes that shall be saved Then was he not tied in point of right to seek that satisfaction for the same either from Christ or from us And truly this opinion that God was tied to execute his vindicative justice either upon Christ or us seems to represent God to the fansies of Christians as taking content in the evils and torments which Christ suffered that being the onely recompense that vindicative justice seeks without consideration of that perfect obedience and zeale to Gods glory in the saving of his creature together with his justice and holinesse in regard whereof God indeed accepteth the same Now though it be necessary for the maintenance of Christianity to say that the course which God takeâ—h for the reconciling of man to himself according to it preserveth his glory intire as being agreeable to his divine perfections For to say that man cannot propose a course more for his glory then that which it advanceth is rather honourable for Christianity then necessary for the maintenance of the truth of it yet to say that Gods wisdome in designing this course according to the exigence of all his perfections is so exhausted and equalled by the work of it as it were that his own wisdome could have designed no other course to attaine tâ—e same end preserving
writeth of those Christians who he saith are seduced by the Hereticks which he speakes of 2 Pet. II. 18 22. For speaking bombast words of vanity they catch with the baite of fleshly concupiscences in uncleannesse those that had really escaped them that converse in error Promising them freedome themselves being slaves to corruption seeing a man is slave to that by which he is conquered For if having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ and being intangled in them againe they be conquered the last error is become worse to them then the first For it had beene better for them not to have knowne the way of righteousnesse than having knowne or acknowledged it to turne from the holy precept once delivered to them But it is fallen out to them according to the old Proverbe The dogge that returnes to his owne vomit And the sowe that is washed to wallow in the mire Is it possible that all this should be thought to import no more then profession as to men without any effect as to God but onely to the Church For if we suppose them all to have counterfeited Christianity not really resolving to live as Christians how comes he to say that they had really escaped those that live in error whose wayes they had not really left And if they had escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christianity had they done no more then a man by meere nature may doe Then may a man by meere nature be disintangled of the pollutions of this world But if they had conquered sinne by those helpes of grace which brought them to be Christians for otherwise how should they be conquered by the baites of sinne which those Heretickes deceive them with then had they obtained those promises which the Gospell rewardeth that conquest with In fine Can a dogge returne to the vomit or a sow to the miâ—e which they never left or can the later end be worse then the beginning to them who never were cleare of that damnation in which they were overtaken by the preaching of Christianity To that of S. John speaking of the Antichrists of the time them and their followers John II. 19. They went â—ut from among us but they were not of us For had they been of us they would have continued among us I will use no other answer then that which S. Austine hath given us de corrept gratia cap. IX that those who are qualified by attributes signifying predestination cannot fall away as long as they are described by present righteousnesse they may For saith he had they persevered they had persevered in Grace not in unrighteousnesse neither was theire righteousnesse counterfeite but not durable Therefore they were not in the number of sonnes when they were in the Faith of sonnes because those are truly sonnes that are foreknowne and predestinate and called according to purpose that they may be like the sonne For S. John and S. Paul being assured of theire owne adoption according to purpose it is no marvaile if they presume the like of those whome they comprise in the same quality with themselves in regard of theire present righteousnesse the profession whereof was visible I must not here omit the Epistle to the Seven Churches Apoc II. III. and the exhortations promises and threatninges tendred the Angels of them whether in behalfe of themselves it maters not much to this purpose or which is certaine in behalfe of the Churches In particular to that of Ephesus II. 45. But I have this against thee that thou hast left thy first love Remember therefore whence thou art â—allen and repent and doe thy first workes Otherwise I will come to thee suddenly and remove thy canâ—lesticke out of the place thereof if thou repent not How should any man be exhorted by the Spirit of God to returne to those workes that were not the workes of a true Christian How should the Judgement threatned take effect and no soule perish that had been saved otherwise To that of Thyatira II. 25. 26 28. But hold what you have untill I come He that conquereth and keepeth my workes to the end I will give him power over the Nations and he shall rule them with an iron rodde as a potters vessells are broken as I also haâ—e received of my Father And I will give him the morning starre What means this exhortation to them that are not capable of doing otherwise What means the power of Christ and the morning starre if not the reward of the world to come To that of Pergamus III. 11 Behold I come suddenly Hold what thou hast lest another take thy crowne Is it not plaine that he shall be saved if he hold what he hath That he shall not if another take his crowne Can S. Pauls severe sentences be avoided 1 Cor. VI. 9 10. Know ye not that the injurious shall not inherit the kingdome of heaven Be not deceived Neither whoremongers nor Idolaters nor adulterers nor the soft nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves nor those that defraude nor drunkards nor revilers nor robbers shall inherit the kingdome of God Gal. V. 19. 20. 21. The workes of the â—lesh are manifest which are these Adultery fornication uncleannesse wantonnesse Idolatry witchcraft enmities strifes jealousies animosities provocations divisions sects envies murders drinkings debauches and the like to these of which I told you before hand aâ— I foretold you that they who doe such thinges shall not inherit the kingdome of God Eph. V. 58. For this ye know that no whoremaster or uncleane person or that defraudeth who is an Idolatur hath inheritance in the kingdome of God and of Christ Lâ—t â—o man deceive you with vaine wordes For for these thinges cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience Be ye not therefore partners with them For ye were darknesse but are now light in the Lord. Walâ—e as children of the light They that sowe pillowes under sinners elbowes excusantes excusationes in peccatis according to the vulgare translation Psal CXL 4. and treating termes of reconcilement betweene Christ and Belial betweene the promises of the Gospell for everlasting and the pleasures of sinne for a moment will not have this to belong to the godly whome they allow to doe such thinges for a snap and away without forfeiting their interest in the world to come but to the unregenerate who live in a setled course of such sinnes without remorse And I freely allow that so soone as the godly man whome they suppose to be overtaken with any such sinne shall take such a course to turne from it as may restore in him that resolution of mind for which God accepts a true Christian he is restored to the place which he held in Gods grace not as never forfeited but as recoverd anew In the meane time if any pretense be made that being once in Gods favor he can never faile of it it is as
this cup unmorthily should be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ as not discerâ—ing it according to S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 27 28. unlesse wee suppose the same Sacramentally present by virtue of that true Christianity which the Church professing and celebrating the Sacrament tendâ—eth it for spiritual nourishment to a living faith for mater of damnation to a dead faith For if the profession of true Christianity be as of necessity it must be mater of condemnation to him that professeth it not truly that is to say who professing it doth not perform it shall not his assisting the celebration and consecration of the Eucharist produce the effect of rendring him condemned by himself eating the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament out of a profession of Christianity which spiritually hee despiseth for not fulfilling what hee professeth Or that living faith which concurreth to the same as a good Christian should do be left destitute of that grace which the tender of the Sacrament promiseth because the faith of those who joyn in the same action is undiscernable Certainly if the Sacramental presence of Christs body and bloud tendring the same spiritually be a blessing or a curse according to the faith which it meets with it can by no means seem unreasonable that it should be attributed to that profession of Christianity which makes it respectively a blessing or a curse according to the faith of them for whom it is intended As for that opinion that makes this presence to proceed from the Hypostatical Union passed so long before it stands upon those Scriptures which seem to signifie that those properties wherein the Majesty of Christs God-head consists are really communicated to this Manhood in the doing and for the effecting of those works wherein that assistance and grace and protection which hee hath promised his Church upon his Exaltation consisteth S. Paul writeth to the Colossians that It pleased that all fulnesse should dwell in Christ in whom dwelleth all the fulnesse of the God-head bodily as hee expresseth himself more at large Col. II. 9. that they by him might be filled and by him to reconcile all things tâ— himself making peace by the bloud of his Crosse by him I say whether things on earth or in the Heavens And you being once estranged and enemies in your mind through evil works yet now hath hee reconciled through the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and without spot and blamelesse before him Here it is plain enough that our Reconciliation is ascribed to the flesh of Christs body as to his bloud after in whom wee have Redemption even the remission of sins by his bloud Col. I. 14 19-92 to wit for the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in Christ When our Lord saith all things are delivered mee by my Father Mat. XI 27. in order to the revealing of his Gospel that is to the making of it effectual When hee saith All power in heaven and earth is given mee Mat. XXVIII 18. a question is made how given if a necessary conâ—equence of the Hypostatical Union I answer Because the exercise thereof was limited by the appointment of God and the purpose for which hee caused the Word to dwell in our flesh which though of force to do all things should not have had right in our flesh to execute that which God had not appointed And therefore is our Lord Christ justly said to receive that power of God which by degrees hee receiveth commission to exercise The sitting of Christ at the right hand of God I have showed that the Apostle makes an argument of divine power and authority dwelling in our flesh in the person of Christ Heb. I. 3. Acts II. 33. V. 31. Eph. I. 20-22 where S. Paul ascrbies the filling of the Church a work of God alone to it And as hee sits on Gods own Throne so he shall judge all as man saith our Lord John V. 21 22 23 26-30 and raise them up and quicken them to that purpose For the Throne of God on which Christ is set down is the Seat of his Judgement And therefore as I live saith the Lord God in the Prophet Es XLV 23. Christ in the Apostle Rom. XIV 11. to mee shall every knee â—ow and every tongue shall give glory tâ— God To the same purpose is all that you read of anointing our Lord Christ with the Holy Ghost given him by God without measure saith the Baptist John III. 34. if you understand it not of the habitual graces poured forth upon the Manhood of Christ from the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in it of the truth whereof neverthelesse there is no disputes but of the very Majesty of the God-head communicated unto it in the person of Christ as of a truth I have said that they are to be understood In fine not onely the â—erit but the applâ—cation thereof that is the effecting of the cleansing of our consciences from sin is ascribed unto the bloud of Christ Ebr. IX 14. 1 John I. 7. How or in what regard but because by the eternal Spirit hee offered up himself blamelesse to God as the Apostle saith In which regard onely it is that our nature in Christ is honoured with the worship due to God because being for ever inseparable from the God-head of the Word it is not to be appreheâ—ded or figured so much as in the imagination but as the flesh of the Word This is a brief of the Scriptures which they allege to inferre that seeing hee hath promised to feed his Church with his flesh and his bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which cannot be unlesse they be there And seeing the like works are performed and executed by the flesh that is the Manhood of Christ through the virtue of the God-head united unto it Therefore it is to be believed that by communication of the Majesty of the God-head to the flesh of Christ it becomes present wheresoever his promise and the comfort and strengthening of his Disciples which is the work of his Mediators Office whereunto by sitting down at Gods right hand heâ— is installed requires the presence of it If it be said that by this position the attributes and properties of the God-head are placed in the Manhood as their own proper Subject into which they are transferred by the operation of the God-head not devesting it self of them but communicating them to the Manhood to be thenceforth properties really residing in it and therefore truly to be attributed to it I must do them right and acknowledge that they utterly disclaim this to be their meaning Confessing thereby that if it were they could not avoid the imputation of Eutyches his Heresie condemned by the great Council of Chalcâ—don the confusion of the natures remaining unavoidable when the properties of the God-head being communicated to the Manhood in this sense can be no more said to remain the properties of it I undertake not thus much
of Christians that is of the whole Church occultae quoque conjunctiones id est non priâ—s apud Ecclesiam professae juxta maechiam fornicationem judicari perclitantur Among us even clandestine mariages that is not professed before the Church are in danger to be censured next to adultery and fornication And therefore Ad uxorem II. ult Unde sufficiamus ad senarrandam faelicitatem ejus matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat How may we be able to declare the happinesse of that mariage which the Church interposeth to joyn de Monogamiâ cap. XI Quale est id matrimonium quod eis a quibus postulas non licet hahere What maner of mariage is that saith he speaking of marying a second wife which it is not lawfull for them of whom thou desirest it to have Because it was not lawful for the Clergy who allowed the people to mary second wives themselves to do the same Ignatius Epist ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becometh men and women that mary to joyn by the consent of the Bishop that the mariage be according to the Lord and not according to lust It hath been doubted indeed whether we have the true Copy of Ignatius his Epistles or not whether this be one of them or not But that Copy being found which Eusebius S. Jerome and others of the Fathers took for Ignatius his own and hath all that the Fathers quote just as they quote it nothing of that which stood suspected afore to refuse them now is to refuse evidence because it stands not with our prejudices Not that this power of the Church stands upon the authority of two or three witnesses These were not to be neglected But the Canons of the Church and the custome and practice of the Church ancientâ—r then any Canons in writing but evidenced by written Law which could never have come in writing had it not been in force before it was written suffer it not to remain without evidence In particular the allowance of the mariages of those who were baptized when they were admitted to Baptism evidenced out of S. Austine the Constituions and Eliberitane Canons evidenceth the Power of the Church in this point unquestionable And therefore against the Imperiall Lawes I argue as against the Leviathan that is if any man suppose that they pretend to secure the conscience of a Christian in marying according to them upon divorce Either the Soveraign Power effects that as Soveraign or as Christian If as Soveraign why may not the Christians of the Turkish Empire divorce themselves according to the Alâ—oran which is the Law of the Land and be secure in point of conscience If as Christian how can the conscience of a Christian in the Eastern Empire be secured in that case wherein the conscience of a Christian in the West cannot be secured because there is no such Civil Law there the Christianity of both being the same For it cannot be said that the Imperiall Lawes alleged were in force in the West after the division of the Empire I argue again That they cannot secure the conscience but under the Law of our Lord as containing the true interpretation of fornication in his sense And can any man be so senselesse as to imagine so impudent as to affirm that the whole Church agreeing in taking the fornication of maried people to signifie adultery hath failed but every Christian Prince that alloweth and limiteth any other causes of divorce all limiting severall causes attaineth the true sense of it Will the common sense of men allow that Homicide Treason Poysoning Forgery Sacriledge Robbery Mans-stealing Cattle-driving or any of them is contained is the true meaning of Fornication in our Lords words That consent of parties that a reasonable cause when Pagans divorced per bonam gratiam without disparagement to either of the parties can be understood by that name For these you shall find to be legall cause of divorce by those acts of the Emperours Lastly I argue If these causes secure the conscience in the Empire by virtue of those Laws why shall not those causes for which divorce was allowed or practiced amongst the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes do the like For that which was done by virtue of their Lawes reported there cap. XXVI XXX is no lesse the effect of Christian power that is Soveraign He that could find in his heart to tell Baronius reproving the Law of Justine that allowed divorce upon consent that Christian Princes who knew their own power were not so easily to be ruled by the Clergy p. 611. can he find fault with the Irish marrying for a year and a day or the Welch divorcing for a stinking breath Had he not more reason to say that knowing their power they might chuse whether they would be Christians or not The dispute being What they should do supposing that they are Christians And therefore it is to be maintained that those Emperours in limiting the infinite liberty of divorces by the Romane Law to those causes upon which dowries should be recoverable or not being made for Pagans as well as for Christians did as it were rough hew their Empire to admit the strict law of Christianity in this point And that this was the intent and effect of their acts appears by the Canons which have been alleged as well in the East as in the West made during the time when those Laws were in force For shall we think the Church quite out of their senses to procure such Canons to be made knowing that they could not take place in the lives and conversations of Christians to the effect of hindring to mary again If we coulde so think it would not serve the turn unlesse we could say how S. Basil should testifie that indeed they did take place to that effect and yet the Civill Law not suffer them to take effect From our Lord Christ to that time it is clear that no Christian could mary again after divorce unlesse for adultery some not excepting adultery In the baseâ— times of that Empire it appears by the Canons of Alexius Patriarch of C P. and by Matthaeus Blastares alleged by Arcudius p. 517. that those causes which the Imperiall Lawes allowed but Gods law did not took place to the effect of marrying again But that so it was alwaies from Constantine who first taxed legall cause of divorce nothing obliges a man to suppose For though the Emperours Law being made for Pagans as well as for Christians might inable either party to hold the dowry yet the Christian law might and did oblige Christians not to mary again The Mileuitane Canon showes it which provideth that the Emperour be requested to inact that no Christian might mary after divorce For this might be done saving the Imperial Laws But when we see the Civil Law inforce the Ministers of the Church to blesse those Mariages which the Civil Law allows but Gods Law makes adulteries the party that is put away
though we question whither it contain the due bounds of this prohibition as it was first delivered to mankind after the flood And hereupon well may wee answer with them that when Moses saith that for these abominations the seven nations were driven out before the children of Israel he is to be understood respectively to those abominations which were committed against the true intent of the prohibition of uncleannesse injoyned on all mankind but not to those things which we see were in use among the Fathers before the Law nor to whatsoever was committed against the first institution of Paradise Which if it be admitted then all that is established by the Law of Levit. XVIII will oblige the whole Church without dispensation by any power of it though not because by the act of giving the Law to the Israelites the Church is obliged but because there is more reason why Christianity should restrain that which was allowed by the Law then that the Law should restrain that which was allowed by the Patriarchs And upon this principle we shall not need to runne upon any inconvenience to obtain one degree of affinity and one of consanguinity to be unlawful for Christians though not expressed in the leter of the Scripture to wit the mariage of the sister to a mans deceased wife and that of cousin Germanes The former is thought to be secured by the Text of Levit. Thou shalt not uncover the nakednesse of thy Brothers wife it is thy Brothers nakednesse For the wives sister being as neer as the Brothers wife the one being prohibited and neernesse the onely reason of the prohibition the other cannot be licensed saving the reason of the Law Therefore the provision of Dâ—ut XXV 5-10 that the next of kin though a Brother should mary the wife of the Brother deceased so that the children should be in account of Law the children of the deceased All this signifies no more but that the Law being positive this exception is made to it by him that made it So that when it follows Levit. XVIII 18. Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister to vex her to uncover her nakedness beside her in her life time It is observed that in the Ebrue to take a wife to her sister is to take a wife to another wife And therefore that this Law is a prohibition of Polygamy at least when the taking of another wife may be an occasion to vex the former wife Not that a Jew was licensed hereby to mary his wives sister after her death This indeed was the interpretation of the Sadduces and of those Jews that admit no interpretation of the Law of Tradition but onely by the leter of it for which they are reproved by the Talmudâ—sts the off-spring of the Pharisees in the Book called Pesikta Though it is to me difficult to believe that the Sadduces of old or their successors the Scriptuary Jewes did thereupon tie themselves to one wife It is indeed difficult enough to give an evident reason of difference in nearnesse of blood wherefore the brother should be prohibited his brothers wife and the sister allowed her Brothers husband But it is one thing to alledge an inconvenience an other thing to answer an argument nor are we to presume that God doth nothing by his Law without acquainting them whom he imposed it upon with the reason of it Now this interpretation cannot subsist without overthrowing all that hath been said to show that Polygamy after the flood was first prohibited by Christianity For when thy Brothers wife is generally prohibited in Leviticus and afterwards licensed or commanded in case he die childlesse it is but a particular exception to a general But if in Ex. XXI 10. a man is supposed to have power of having more wives then one and by Lev. XXIII 10. injoyned to have no more then one in Deut. XXI 11-15-18 supposed to have more then one can these be thought reconcilable Certainly the tenor of these Lawes imports no such thing as dispensing but a liberty already in use which the Law restrains not but this Law would restrain if had it been thus meant And why should the Law say in her life time if the intent of it were that a man should not have two wives at once Could there be any question whether a man might mary a second wife or not Therefore that clause must be thought to be added to signifie that after death this Law forbids not to take the wives sister to wife And so that which Jacob had done before is by this Lavv forbidden to be done for the future For Jacob vvhen first he found that he had beded his vvives sister vvas innocent for all that vvas done but had been utterly disabled to have companied vvith any other for the future vvithout dispensation in this Lavv vvhich vve must imagine either to have come betvveen Labans proposition of marrying both and Jacobs assent or else to have gone before all the actions of like nature vvhich the Scripture testifies vvhereof vvhither is the more reasonable let any man of reason chuse As for the limitation added to the right of having more vvives then one under the Lavv Exod. XXI 10. vvhereby he that hath an inferiour vvife bought vvith his silver of Gods people is bound to pay her the benevoâ—ence due to a vvife though it make the mariage void by abuse of his right for it is said He shall let her go free vvhich implies the dissolution of the marriage yet it no vvay signifies that he vvas not able to mary her afore And vvhen the Prophet Mal. 11. 14. 15. 16. blames the Jevvs for oppressing their vvives out of love to strange vvives vvhich by the Lavv they might not have be this adultery if you please because such a mariage as I have shovved vvas ipso facto void be it treachery in transgressing his covenant vvith the first vvife yet did not he that took a second vvife so as to oppresse the first violate this Lavv of Levit. XVIII 18. For hovv can a mariage that is good and valid become void by oppressing but as an Ebrue slave that one maries is made free by the Law if she be not used as a wife and so no longer his wife that reliefe being onely provided by the law in that case Therefore when the Law saith to vex her it is not limitation but a reason which the Lavv follows in sisters because in them as it is more likely to come to passe so it is more unreasonable as in Jacobs example whereas being a perpetual attendant of Polygamy as in the wives of Elkanah it was not nevertheless admitted for a reason totally to prohibite it And therefore I say that I am no waies tied to give a reason why God who prohibited two Brothers to have the same wife should allow two sisters to have the same husband after death For the Lavv being positive as it is confessed by the dispensation introduced by the Law on
not that those Imperial Laws took place which made this profession a lawful cause of dissolving mariage in being per bonam gratiam as the Romane Law called it whether the party so deserted were allowed to mary elsewhere or not And indeed we find S. Basil qq fusius explicat XII and S. Chrysostome in Mat. hom LXIX ad pop Ant. in 1 Tim. hom XIV together with Cassiane in the example of Theonas Collat. XXI 9. 10. in their zeal to monasticall life advising maried persons not to stay for the consent of their parties in making such a profession as this At such time as the West where monasticall life was not yet so originally spread S. Hierome Epist XIV and S. Augustine Epist XLV CXCIX de adult conjugiis maintain the contrary opinion Which to me I confesse seems faâ— more probable For granting single life duely ordered to be the ordinary way and means of attaining perfection in Christianity according to the promises this state of eminence necessarily supposeth that which is necessary to the being of Christianity Therefore the way to perfection must be grounded upon justice Now in justice the contract of mariage among Christians gives each party that interesse in the others body which mariage exerciseth Which interesse noting but consent seems to dissolve And therefore seeing there is no Tradition of the whole Church to inforce this right not onely particular Churches not allowing it shall not seem to me to depart from the Unity of the whole in so doing But also Soveraign Powers through their severall dominions in regard of the interesse which all States have in the mariage or single life of their subjects shall lawfully use their Power to limit the force of it But as for mariage consummate and used I cannot see how the party deserting upon such pretense is excused from the guilt of adultery which the deserted may commit either single or maried again As for the question that may be made whither the mariage of one that hath professed single life be void or valid supposing the profession of single life to be agreeable to Christianity as I conceive I have showed sufficient reason to believe there is no consideration sufficient to make mariage after it valid but the abuse of the profession it selfe amounting to such a height as may serve to satisfie a Christian that in consideration thereof it is it selfe in the first place become void Another impediment yet remains questionable whether it be of force to dissolve those mariages which are called clandestine whither for want of consent in the Parents or the solemnities of the Church Some think that want of consent of Parents not onely makes the act unlawfull which all agree in but the mariage void As if the reverence due to Parents by Gods law did make a mans contract with a thirdperson void who is no waies bound to inquire whither his free consent be lawfully exercised or not In the Scriptures we see Gods people proceed by consent of Parents and daughters especially S. Paul supposes to referre themselves to their Fathers 1 Cor. VII 36. But neither was Esaus mariage taken to be void because it was made without such consent Geâ— XXVII 45. Nor was there any particular consent of Iacobs Parents to his mariages Gen. XXIX nor were the Fathers of Iudah or of Tobias made acquainted with their mariages And as for the Romane Laws which void mariages for want of this consent in some cases it is no more an argument of the Law of nature then the power of the Father by the same Laws which neverthelesse allow the Mother none when as Gods Law alwayes as well as the Law of Moses gives them equall interesse It is therefore manifest that there is ground in Gods Law to make this impediment of force to dissolve mariage contracted without it And that either for the Church as the reverence of Parents is a part of Gods law now in being which the power of the Church pretendeth to preserve Or for the secular Power as the interesse of Parents in the mariages of their children is of consequence to the publick peace and wealth The same may be said of those mariages that are made without witness or without solemnities of the Church saving that those solemnities which contain the approbation of the Church arising upon the account of the Church it is evidently more proper for the Church to make this impediment of force to dissolve mariage For the secular power to inâ—ct the Law of the Church by force of arms and temporall penalties There remains one cause more to hinder mariage so as to dissolve it when consummate being made notwithstanding it the condition of slavery in either of the parties at such time when as the rights of bondage subsisted This cause stands now by the Canon Law and is inâ—orced and limited by the Casuists But it was not the Canon Law that first voided the mariage of a slave taken for free but the Laws of the Empire as Ivo himselfe a Collector of the Canons witnesseth Epist CCXLIII where having produced the Law of Iustiniane he thus proceedeth In tali ergo contractu quod lex damnat non homo sed iâ—stitia separat quia quod contra leges praesumitur per leges solui meretur In such a contract then that which the law oondemns it is not man but justice thâ—â— separates Because what is presumed against Law by law deserves to be dissolved Which reâ—son takes place also in legall kindred according to the Imperiall Lawes whereby an adopted Brother is disabled to mary his sister by adoption In imitation whereof an opinion of the publick honesty of Christianity so prevâ—iled in that Church afterwards that being once Gossips came to be an hindrance of mariage which opinion howsoever grounded notwithstanding introduced the same kind of burthen and no other then that of legall kindred by adoptions These reasons though not admitted by all professions in Religion that shall meet with this yet seeing they proceed upon one and the same common ground the effect and consequence whereof cannot be admitted in some and refused by the rest And seeing that some of them are admitted on all sides there being no other reason sufficient why they should be admitted may serve to evidence the interesse of the Church in Matrimoniall causes And that evidence may serve to inferre that though the secular Power hath also an interess in the same yet in regard of the trouble which concurrence may cause in civill Government Christian Princes and States have done wisely as well as in regard to the interess of the Church they have done Christianly in referring the conduct of Matrimonial causes almost wholly to the Church Especially supposing that they take good heed that the laws thereof neither trench upon the Interess of their Crown not the wealth of their subjects But whither secular Power can make laws by virtue whereof that which a man voluntarily acts afterwards
Bishop above his Presbyters not to be derived from any agreement of the Church but from the appointment of the Apostles In the mean time suppoâ—â—ng the whole Church to agree in that which God had inabled them to agree in having not tied them to the contrary but having tied them to live in viâ—â—ble unity and communion all Churches with all Churches they that depart from this Unity upon this account shall bee no less Schismaâ—â—cks then had the Superiority of Bishops been setled by the Apostles This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XVIII The Apostles all of oequall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-â—minence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it SOme consideration I must now bestow upon that Position which derives a Monarchy over the Church from S. Peters priviledges For I make no scruple to grant that he was indeed the first and chief of the Apostles as he is reckoned in the Gospels Mat. X. 2. Mar. III. 16. Luk. VI. 14. and that in likelihood because he was the first in leaving all to adhere unto our Lord as the man to whom our Lords call is directed Luk. V. 4-11 though he was first brought to our Lord by bis brother Andrew as Philip once brought Nathanael that was not of the twelve John I. 41-46 so that this first call gave them acquaintance but made them not Apostles And from this beginning we may well draw the reason why S. Peter is alwaies the forwardest to answer our Lords demands and to speak in the name of his fellows Mat. XIV 28. XV. 25. XVI 16. XVII 24. XVIII 21. XIX 27. XXVI 33. Mar. VIII 29. X. 28. XI 21. XIV 29. Luk. VIII 45. IX 20. XII 41. XVIII 28. XXII 34. Joh. VI. 68. XIII 6. Act. I. 13. 15. II. 14. 37. IV. 8. which it would not become the reverence we owe the Apostles so impute to S. Peters sorwardnesse without acknowledging the ground of it being visible But these priviledges will not serve to make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles The stress lies upon Mat. XVI 16-19 And Simon Peter answered and said Thou arâ— the Christ the Son of the living God And Jesus answered and said to him Blessed art thou Simon Son of Jonas for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee but my Father in the heavens And I say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loose in the heaven And upon John XXI 15. 16 17. where S. Peter thrice professing to love Christ receives of him thrice the command of Feeding his sheep But will this serve the turn ever a whit more It must be either by virtue of the mater which our Lord sayes of or to S. Peter or by virtue of his saying it to S. Peter and to none else Against this later consideration I conceive I have provided by the premises For seeing there is a sufficient reason to be given otherwise why S. Peter answers before the rest when our Lord demand whom they acknowledge him to be the reply of our Lord addressed to him alone will give him no more then the precedence not the Soveraignty over the Apostles Which is still more evident in S. John because S. Peter having undertaken before the rest to stand to our Lord in the utmost of all his trialls had deserted him most shamefully of them all denying udder an oath to have any knowledge of him For it is not observed for nothing that he professes the love of Christ thrice Let S. Peter then be the Prince Apostle or the chiefe Apostle let him be if you please the Prince of the Apostles there will be found a wide distance between Princeps Apostolorum in Latine as some of the Fathers have called him and Soveraign over the Apostles When Augustus seized into â—is hand the soveraign Power of the Romane Empire nomine Principis as we read the beginning of Tacitus under the title of Prince He was well aware that the Title which he assumed did not necessarily proclaim him Soveraign which he deâ—â—red not to do As for the â—aâ—er of our Lords words those that fear where there is no fear wil have our Lord say that he buildeth his Church upon the Faith of S. Peter profâ—ssing our Lord to be Christ Or to point at himselfe when he saith Upon this Rock will I build my Church But what needs it Saith he any more to S. Peter then S. Paul saith to the Ephesians II. 20. Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone Or S. John of the new Jerusalem Revel XXI 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations upon which were the names of the XII Apostles of the Lambe How then shall S. Peter be Soverâ—ign by virtue of an attribute common to him with the rest of the Apostles Some conceive that when our Lord proceeds to tell him that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church He meanâ— no more but that he will rescue his from death by raising them again But raising from death implies raising from sinne in the Old Testament expresses it in the New And the City of God which is the Church in the New Testament referrs to the City of Satan that oppugneth it And therefore The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Cannot signifie lesse then a promise that the Church shall continue till our Lords second coming to judgement notwithstanding the malice of Satan and his complices But S. Peter is not the onely foundation of it though no body else be named here Again our Lord gives S. Peter the Keyes of his Church here as in S. John he commands him to feed his flock But is the office of feeding Christs flock S. Peters peculiar Have not the Apostles the charge of it even from our Lord do they do it by virtue of S. Peters commission or by his appointment How are they Christs Apostles otherwise As for the Keyes of the Church they are given to S. Peter here they are given to the Twelve by the power of remitting and retaining sinnes as I have shewed John XX. 21. 22 23. by the power of binding and loosing they are given to the Church Mat. XVIII 18. And can any man make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles and over the Church by virtue of that which is no priviledge of his the rest of the Apostles and the Church being all indowed with it Hear we not what S. Luke saith Act. VIII 14. The Apostles
Soveraign over the Churches of these Cities For that were inconsequent to the power of the Apostles whence it proceedeth who as I have proved were equall among themselves and the authority of their companions and successors into whom it stood immediately divided But that it should have that eminence ovâ—r them and by consequence much more over the Churches of inferiour Cities as is requisite to the directing of such maters as might come to be of common interesse to the whole Church to such an agreement as might preserve the unity thereof with advantage to the common Christianity Now when I name these Churches of Antiochia and Alexandria for examples sake supposing that the Churches of the chief Cities of other Provinces of the Empire had also their eminence over the Churches of inferiour Cities within the said Provinces I suppose also that they accordingly approached to the dignity and priviledges of that at Rome the power of obliging the whole which for the State under God rested then in the Emperour alone within the Empire rosting for the Church in the successors of the Apostles according to this weight and greatnesse of their Churches For though Tertulliane de praescrip Haerct cap. XXXVI challengeth that the very Chairs which the Apostles sate in the very authentick leters which they sent to the Churches of Corinth Thessalonica Philippi and Ephesus were extant in his time in the said Churches yet doth it not therefore follow that the priviledges of those Churches should be all the same with all Churches wherein the Apostles sate which would necessarily follow if nothing were to come into consideration but that they were founded by the Apostles themselves For supposing that the Apostles themselves or their companions and successors indowed with the same Power as not confined by any act of the Apostles under whom they claimed to the contrary appointed that regard should be had to the priviledge of the Cities wherein they were planted it follows of reason that S. Peter for the Jews and S. Paul for the Gentiles at least principally should make it their businesse to plant Chistianity and to found the Church of Rome And that the eminence of these Apostles one chief by our Lords choice the other eminent for his labours may very well be alleged for the priviledges of that Church and yet the consequence not hold in other Churches for which it may be alleged that they were the seats of Apostles because the reason for which these Apostles bestowed their pains there hath a reason for it to wit the eminence of that City Here you easily see that deriving the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome not from S. Peters personall pre-eminence onely which it would be impossible to show how it comes intailed upon that Church the pre-eminence of the Apostles not resting in all their Churches but from an Order given out by the Apostles advancing the priviledges of Churches according the secular eminence of Cities I say you easily see that the concurrence of S. Paul with S. Peter to the founding of it is a confirmation of that ground whereupon the preeminence thereof standeth whereas that opinion which derives it onely from the personal eminence of S. Peter admits not the concurrence of S. Paul to the constitution of this pre-eminence Wheresoever therefore you find S. Peter and S. Paul acknowledged joynt founders thereof in the writings of the Fathers all that must be understood to setle the opinion which I here advance and to destroy that plea which derives it from the Soveraign power of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles And Epiphanius is not the onely author where you find it the disputes of these times will afford you more then this abridgement can receive But I conceive I have made a fair way to the ground for it by observing some probabilities that S. Paul should be head of those that turned Christians of Jews as S. Peter of Gentiles at Rome Which I will here confirm by expounding the inscription of Ignatius his Epistle to the Romanes according to it othâ—rwise not to be understood It addresseth to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which governeth in the place of the fields at Rome The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Act. XXVII 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain signifies the Country 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the fields as a suburbe to Rome and being the place where S. Peter was buried and where the Jews of Rome then dwelt as we learn by Philo Legatione ad Caium speaking of Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He knew that great quarter of Rome which is beyond the River Tiber to be held and inhabitated by Jews most of whom were Romanes and Libertines For being brought captives into Italy they were set free by their Masters without constraining them to adulterate any of their Countrie Laws Hereupon the Synagogue of the Libertines Act. VI. 9. is the Synagogue of the Romane Jews Now S. Peters Church we know is to this day in the Vaticane as S. Pauls in the way to Ostia as from the beginning we understand by Caius in Eusebius Hist Eccles II. 25. the places of their burials were Which circumstance points them out Heads the one of the Jewish Christians at Rome the other of those that were converted being Gentiles For that the Vaticane was then the Jewry at Rome we learn also by Tully in his Oration pro Flacco where he complains that his cause was heard in the fields of M ars prope gradus Aurelios that the Jews who were offended at Flaccus for prohibiting them to send their oblations to Jerusalem when he was Governour of Asia might come in and discountenance the cause For plainly this was hard by the Bridge that passed out of those fields into the Vaticane where the Gate called Porta Aurelia stood hard by S. Peters Church to which Gate it seems there were steps to go up which he calleth there gradus Aurelios It is also easie to see that this supposition draweth the ground and reason of the Superiority of Churches originally from the act of Temporall Power which constituteth the eminence of Cities over other Cities But neverthelesse immediately from the act of the Church or of those that have authority to oblige the Church taking the Superiority of Cities as it is for the most reasonable ground of planting in them the most eminent Churches but by their own authority providing that so it be observed Therefore it is to be considered that the Church is by Gods command howsoever by his promise to continue one and the same till the coming of our Lord unto judgement But the dominion of this World upon which the greatnesse of Cities is founded changes as Gods providence appoints Besides that
in refusing Marcion her communion because excommunicated by his own Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus in bar to the pretense of Soveraignty in the Church of Rome For if Marcions Father Bishop of Synope in Pontus if Synesius Bishop of Ptolomais in Cyrenaica could oblige the Church of Rome and all Churches not to admit unto the communion of the Church those whom they had excluded because the unity of the whole could not be preserved otherwise then is not the infinite Power of one Church but the regular Power of all the mean which the Apostles provided for the attaining of Unity in the whole Not as if the Church of Rome might not have admitted Marcion to communion with it selfe had it appeared that he had been excluded without such a cause as obliged any Church to excommunicate For in doubtful causes the concernment being general it was very regular to have recourse to the chief Churches by the authority whereof the consent of the rest might be obtained But could it have appeared that such a thing had been done without any cause then would it have been regular for any Church to have no regard to such a sentence In the next place the consideration of Montanus his businesse at Rome there alledged shall evidence some part of my intent Being condemned and refused by the Bishops and Churches of Asia he sends to Rome to sollicite a higher Church and of more consequence to the whole to own the spirit by which he pretended to speak and to admit those stricter orders which he pretended to introduce A pretense for those that would have the Pope Soveraign but not so good as they imagine unlesse they could make it appear that he made the like address to no other Church but that of Rome For my part finding in other occasions frequent and plentiful remembrance of recourse had to other Churches as well as to Rome in maters of common concernment I find it necessary to impute the silence of his other addresses to the scarcity of records left the Church Not doubting that he and the Churches of Phrygia ingaged with him would do their utmost to promote the credit of his Prophesies by perswading all Churches to admit the Orders which he pretended to introduce And how much greater the authority of the Church of Rome was then that of an ordinary Church so much more had he prevailed by gaining it That no man may imagine that all lay in it nor yet that the consent of it signified no more then the consent of every Church For consider the Church of Carthage and the choler of Tertullian expressed in the beginning of his Book de Exhortatione Castitulis against Pope Aâ—phyrine for admitting adulterers to Penance And in consequence thereunto consider what we have upon record of Historical truth from S. Jerome Catal. in Tertull. and the authorities quoted afore that Tertullian falling to the Doctrine of Montanus upon affronts received from the Clergy of Rome set up a communion of his own at Carthage which continued till S. Augustines time by whom his followers were reduced to the Catholick Church For what occasion had Tertullian to break from the Church of Carthage because of the affront received from the Church of Rome in rejecting Montanus had not the Church of Carthage followed the Church of Rome in it The same is the consequence of that which passed in that famous debate of Victor Pope about breaking with the Churches of Asia because they kept not Easter on the Lords day as most Churches did but with the Jewes observing the Passion upon the full Moon celebrated the Resurrection of third day after that For might not or ought not the Church of Rome refuse to communicate with these Churches had the cause been valuable In case of Heresy in case of any demand destructive to the unity of the Church you will say that not onely the Church of Rome but any Church whatsoever both might and ought to disclaim the Churches of Asia But I have to say again that in any such case there is a difference between that which is questioned for such and that which is such and ought to be taken for such And that nothing can lightly be presumed to be such that any Church seems to professe But that in reducing such unavoidable debates from questionable to be determined the authority the chief Churches is by the constitution of the Church requisite to go before and make way towards obtaining the consent of the whole And that it cannot be thought that Victor would have undertook such a thing had it not belonged to him in behalf of his Church to declare himself in the businesse in case there had been cause All this while I would not have any man imagine that Victor having withdrawn his communion from the Churches of Asia the rest of Christendom were necessarily to think themselves obliged to do the same It is true there were two motives that might carry Victor to do it For seeing the Council of Nicaea did afterwards decree the same that he laboured to induce the Churches of Asia to it is too late to dispute whither side was in the right For that which was for the advancement of Christianity at the time of that Council was certainly for the advancement thereof at the time of this dispute And though in S. Johns time it might be and was without doubt for the best to comply with the Jews in maters of that indifference for the gaining of opportunities to induce them to become Christians yet when the breach between the Synagogue and the Church was once complete that reason being taken away the reason of uniformity in the Church upon which the unity thereof so much nependeth was to take place And therefore a man may say with respect to those Churches that the zeal of their Predecessors credit seduced them into that contentiousnesse which humane frailty ingendreth And those that after the decree of the Council persevered in the same practice are not without cause listed among Hereticks taking that name largely to comprehend also Schismaticks So I allow that Victor had just cause to insist upon his point But it is also â—vident that it would have been an increase of authority and credit to Victor and to his Church to seeme to give law to those Churches by reducing them to his Rule For reputation and credit with the world necessarily follows those that prevail And Victor being a man as I have granted his adversaries were might be moved with this advantage as much as with the right of his cause But though I allow that Victor had reason to insist upon his opinon yet I do no way allow that he had reason to interrupt the communion of the Church because those of Asia did not yield to it The mater it self not being of consequence to produce such an effect noâ— uniformity in all things necessary though conducing to the unity of the Church And therefore I do no
God hath allowed them to tempt mankind and to dwell in the air about them Job I. 7. II. 2. Ephes II. 2. VI. 12. whereupon they desire our Lord not to send them into the deep Luke VIII 31. it seemeth necessary to grant that he will take account of them for the malice which at present he suffereth them to exercise though sentenced to that dungeon and those bonds which they can no more escape then be converted to goodnesse from the beginning CHAP. XXVII The Soules of the Fathers were not in the Devils Power till Christ Though the Old Testament declare not their estate Of Samuels soul The soul of our Lord Christ parting from his body went with the Thiefe to Paradise Of his triumph over the powers of darknesse Prayer for the dead signifieth no delivering of soules out of Purgatory The Covenant of Grace requires imperfect happinesse before the generall judgement Of forgivenesse in the world to come and paying the utmost farthing IT is manifest then by these premises that there is appearance enough of difference in and between severall Scriptures that concern the state of souls departed before the generall judgement Neverthelesse in this it cannot be said that there is any difference but that all is agreed that the wicked are in paine the righteous at rest upon their departure As the Parable of Dives and Lazarus distinguishes And this I should here proceed further to limit but that I hope to do it more clearly and resolutely premising here the determination of two points incident For it is manifest that all parties in difference do allow the hope of salvation to those Christians that depart imperfectly turned from their evil wayes and amended in their inclinations and actions Be it but for the example of the thiefe upon the Crosse though we suppose that as there is but one example written so there are few and very few examples come to passe yet seeing that which hath come to passe may come to passe againe and that the case cannot be excepted from the hope of salvation the question will be what becomes of those soules that depart hence in the state of Gods grace but burthened with sins which they have not repented of to amendment And because all that is to be said of happinesse after death must come out of the new Testament according to the premises It will be requisite to inquire in the second place in what condition the soules of the holy Fathers before and under the Law and those who by their doctrine and example did belong to the new Testament though they lived under the old as I have said in what condition of ease or sorrow they are between their departure and the generall judgement Which drawes an other question after it concerning the place where or the company which Christs humane soul was with during the time it was departed from the body For it is manifest that there is an opinion which hath very great vogue even among the Fathers that the soule of Christ was in Hell with the soules of the Fathers during that time and brought them along from thence when he rose againe carying them up into heaven with him at his ascension where ever since the souls of the martyrs and other eminent Christians which now are properly called Saints for in the writing of the Apostles Christians who are generally called Saints as in the old Testament Israelites are received when they depart hence Those that dy not in Gods Grace being condemned to hell torments But those who have not had care to cleanse themselves of sin by repentance and amendment remaining in the Suburbs of Hell as I may well call that place which the Church of Rome calls Purgatory till by the prayers of the living or having payd the debt of temporall paine remaining due when the guilt of sinne is done away with the debt of eternall paine they are removed to heaven and to the sight of God which is the same happinesse they shall injoy after the resurrection onely that the body hath no part in it as then it shall have That which the opinion which I have mentioned saith of the state of righteous souls under the Old Testament seemeth to stand upon those descriptions of the dead which it giveth The Prophet Esay describing the ruine of the King of Babylon Esay XIV 9. Hell or the grave from beneath is moved for thee at thy coming It stirreth up the dead for thee even all the leaders of the earth To what purpose is it here to dispute whether Hell or the Grave where it is so evident that the dead must rise to meet the King of Israel To what purpose to allege a figure of Prosopopaeia unlesse it could be understood that dead corpses could meet him and receive him without their souls The dead here are in the originall the Giants of whom we read Gen. VI. 4. that for the wickednesse of their times the World was condemned to the floud For though Moses call them Nephilim and Esay Rephaim Yet it is manifest that the same word is attributed to the dead because of the violence and wickednesse which the Scripture showeth were multiplied upon the earth by the Giants before the Floud and afterwards by the Giants that inhabited the land of promise whereupon the Scripture by calling the dead by the name of Giants signifieth that the Giants were under that death which God threatned Adams sinne with And doth not the Scripture of the Old Testament describe unto us the Fathers of the Old Testament in the same estate What shall we say of the soul of Samuel which the witch of Endor raises out of the earth if the Scripture say true 1 Sam. XXVIII 12 14. when the woman saw Samuel And Saul perceived that it was Samuel And that no man may say it is a witch and that he that went to a witch says it What shal we say to the language of Jacob I will go down to my sonne into hell mourning Gen. XXXVII 35. For his grief for Joseph would not have been enough to make him dy with sorrow had he died with Saint Pauls expectation to be with Christ so soon as he was dismissed And therefore the language of David Psal LXXXIX 4 -7 entertaining the thought of death with such astonishment seemeth to give credit to that grosse opinion that souls have no sense till the resurrection but sleep out the time As also King Ezekias weeping at the news of death because the dead could not praise God Esay XXXVIII 3 18. as also Psal VI. 6. and Baruch II. 17. And Job III. 13. makes his case had he never been born the same with the dead Not because he thought the soul mortall Therefore because he thought it a light that death puts out and the resurrection kindles it againe But all this is to be imputed to nothing in the world but that dispensation of the Old Testament which I have spoke of so many times and now
in opposition to the flesh seeing the soules of the Fatherâ— which by the dispensation of the Law appeared not freed from the Devin wâ—re indeed free by the Gospel uâ—der the Law it is no marvaile that â—ur Lord Christ represents his soule as in the power oâ— those who had the power oâ— death who â—aith This is your time and the time of the powers of darkenesse Doâ—h S. Paul make any more oâ— thâ—s text Heare his words Actâ— Xâ—Iâ— 34-37 That he raised him from the dead no more to returne to corruptioâ— thus he saith I will give you the sure meâ—cies of David Wherefore he saith also in an other Psalm Thou shall no suffer thine holy one to see corruption For David having served the counsaile of God in his generation fell asleep and was added to his Fathers and saw corruption But he whom God raised â—â—w no corruption He argues the mysticall sense in our Lord Christ 〈◊〉 the literall sense in David was come to nothing by his death but how the mysticall sense in our Lord Christ By his triumphing in Hell or by rising againe Therefore S. Paul againe Rom. X 6-9 thus wrâ—steth the words of Moses out of the Jewes hands to the establishing of the Gospel upon supposition that the law is the figure of it Say not in thy heart who shall goe up into heaven as Moses Deut. XXX 12. faith The Law is not in heaven that thou shouldest say would to God some body would bring it us from heaven that we might heare and doe it So saith he of the Gospel thou needest not say would to God some body would go up into heaven To wit to bring downe Christ Or who shall goe downe into the deep as Moses addeth The Law is not beyond sea that that thou needest say would to God some body would goe beyond sea and bring it us that we might heare and doe it So thou needst not say would to God some body would goe downe into the deep To wit to bring Christ up from the dead But what saith it The Law correspondent to the Gospell The word is neere in thy mouth and in thy heart That is the word of Faith which wee preach That if thou prâ—fesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus believing with thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Here it is plaine the deepe is not named for the place of the damned but for that place or for that state out of which it was hard to recover Christ supposing him dead As it was hard to bring the law from beyond the seas The deep I deny not represents to us the place of the damned Luke VIII 31. as also the parts that are under the earth Phi. II. 10. Apoc. V. 13. may comprehend also the dead Therefore the deep signifies the place of the damned not necessarily as here but because the speech is of the region of Devils of the sealing up of the devill in the deep Just as I said of the grave the pit and the place under the earth that when the scripture speakes of the Giants of the enemieâ— of Gods people of Davids enemies in Gods people it signifies either the place or at least the state of the damned which the Old Testament must needs acknowledg acknowledging the happinesse of Gods people Psalme IX 18. Proverbs V. 8 VII 27. IX 18. And so went Corah and his complices quick into Hell Num. XVI 30 33. So Psalme LV. 24. LXIII 10. The proper place of the dâ—mned spirits seemeth to be properly called by S. Peter Tartara when he saies that God delivered them to be kept for judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in chaines of darkenesse being cast downe into Tartara or Hell 1. Peter II. 4. Now the state of death brings not Christian soules into Hell unlâ—sse wee suppose that the place of good souls under the Law which supposition I have destroyed Therefore the bringing of Christ from the deep is done by raising him again So quoting David againe Ephes IV. 8 9 10. Therefore he saith Psa LXVIII 17. Going upon high he led captivity captive and gave men gifts Now that he ascended what is it but that he first descended into the lower paâ—ts of the Earth He that descended is the same that ascended far above all things to fill or fulfill all things The Psalme speakes of the Arke going up into the Tabernacle or Temple figuring the going up of our Lord to the right hand of God as Psalme XXIV 6-10 XLVII 5. The going up of the Arke was Gods triumph over the Idolatrous nations whom he cast out of the Land of promise giving gifts to his people in it The going up of our Lord Christ S. Paul saies implies that he had come downe before into the lower pâ—rt of the Eearth Either in respect of mount Sinai upon which the Psalme describes God with that attendance which the aâ—ke the Cherubines thereof signifie his host of Angels in the words just afore Or we may well understand the lower parts of the earth to signifie by the figure of apposition the earth that is below as flumen Rheni Vrbs Patavii signifie the river Rhine and the City Padna For we have a peremptory instance in Psa CXXXIX 15 where David saith that he was fashioned in the lower parts of the earth speaking of his mothers wombe therefore meaning the earth below The ascension therefore of Christ pretending to fill rather then fulfill all with his graces of which he proceeds to speake requires no descent into hell which he pretends not to fill with his Graces If the resurrection ascension of Christ satisfie these texts so that they require no further descent then into the state of deaâ—h supposing what I said before of the soules of the fathers under the Old Testament I must needs conclude that the body of Christ being buryed his soule went with the good theifes soule into Paradise or the bosome of Abraham where the soules of the Fathers were refreshed of their travells till the first and then the second comming of our Lord. Paradise we know was the place of mans happniesse wherein he was created whence having sinned he was shut out In our Lords time Gods people it is plaine understood well enough the state of the righteous soules in the other world You have seene it out of those boâ—kes which we call Apocrypha Supposing the place unknown as indeed it is how could it be more properly signified then by the name of Paradise opening unto us the whole allegory by which the happinesse which wee seeke to recover by the covâ—nant of grâ—ce was expressed to us by God first in the Land of promise secondly in the Church after in the heavens after the redemption of our bodies The true Land of promise to which the Gospell and the Church secretly taught and built under the Law introduceth us because the Law cannot is that Paradise to which Christ restoreth Adam that was
driven out of paradise If you call the same Jerusalem it will appeare why the place of the damned is called Gehenna which was the place without Jerusalem where those that were sacrificed to the Idoles of Canaan were consumed with horrible tortures of fire The Scripture of the old Testament yeeldeth not the name but the true interpretation of it In the meane time though our Lord by carying the thiefe into Paradise show that it continues not shut yet continues it no lesse secret no better knowne then it is knowne where Adam first dwelt It is strange that the bosome of Abraham should signifie the same He is acknowledged the Father of the faithfull by Jewes as well as Christians His hospitality is recounted in the scripture The kingdome of God which his people then expected is proposed by our Lord in dâ—vers passages of the Gospell under the figure of an entertainement as an expression then familiar to his people It is no marvaile that it should be called Abrahams bosome from whom the faith that purchaseth it hath so eminent a beginning though the Fathers before Abraham be there One thing we must note A vast gap wee see between it and the flames where Dives was tormented But where the partition is fixed so little is determined by the words of the scripture that whether both within the earth or one within the earth the other in the heavens or whether both without this visible world as of the place of the damned some argue with great probability from the darkenesse that is without in the Gospell no rule of â—aith determines And therefore whether the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the parable useth Luke XVI 23. when the rich man lifts up his eyes in Hell and sees Lazarus in Abrahams bosome whether it comprehend the bosome of Abraham as well as the place of torments no Rule of faith determineth For as it manifestly signifyeth the place of the damned in the scripture which it is manifest Gods people must needs distinguish by the scripture is the place where they were sure by the scripture that God would punish his and their enemies So comprehending also the place of righteous soules nor distinguished from the other to Gods people by the ancient scriptures how should the signification of it be restrained here For as the Hethen so Josephus also manifestly extendeth it to the place of righteous as well as wicked soules after death For when he saies that de Bello Jud. II. 12. the Saduces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take away the punishments and rewards of the World to come under the one name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he comprises both estates which the rest of Gods people attributed then to good and bad The Pharises he saies Antiq. XVIII 2. maintaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punishments and honors under the earth And that as it followeth for ever which is as much as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because those things which were thought to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things under the earth Again of the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And agreeing with the Greekes they affirme that good soules are assigned a seate beyond the Ocean in a place not grieved with raine or snow or heate but alwaies refreshed with a milde West wind blowing from the Ocean But the evill ones they assigne a darke and stormy nooke full of torments without ceasing And yet in an other place he saith they assigne them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most holy place of the Heavens So little ground is there for the distinct signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense of those to whom our Lord spoke It behoveth us therefore to acknowledge the victory of our Lord Christ and his triumph over the Devill and all the damned which S. Paul as in the text quoted out of the Epâ—stle to the Ephesians he ascribeth to the Ascension of our Lord according to the Psalme which he alleageth so Col. II. 15. to the Crosse when he saith Spoiling principalities and powers he made open show of them triumphing over them in it by it or upon it to wit his Crosse to which he had said just afore that he nayled the hand writing which was against us This victory and triumph belongs to the rule of faith and the beliefe of it to the substance of Christianity because by vertue of it we have reconciliation with God and the rest of that which the Gospell promiseth But that it should be performed by the descent of Christs soule into the place of the damned being begun upon the Crosse and finished at the ascension as the necessity of our redemption requireth not so no Rule of Faith will oblige to believe There is great appearance that the devil did not understand the effect of it till our Lord rose againe as Ignatius saith that he understood not the the birth of the blessed Virgine Pilates Wives dream is a signe that doubting of the consequence he would have hindred that which by Judas he did procure He thought himself Lord of mankind because for sin they were condemned to death That by the death of Christ this condemnation was to be voided possibly he might not understand till Christ rose againe Though the soules of the Fathers were delivered out of his Power before the death of Christ yet might he not understand that by virtue of it Our Lord saith John XIV 30. The Prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me Because he found nothing of his owne that is of sinne in Christ Though he had nothing to do with Christ in justice seeing in deed he had meanes to swallow him and might not know that the swallowing of him would oblige him to render his interest in all that should escape with him is it a marvaile that he swallowed him being a murtherer from the beginning Thus farre I have owned the reason of our redemption against Socinus Which if it be true the victory of Christ was declared that is the triumph begunne at his rising againe And therefore it is no way prejudiciall to the common Faith which I know some have imagined that our Lord Christ having been in Paradise with the good thiefe or in the bosome of Abraham with Lazarus till Easter day morning when he was to rise againe went from thence in his humane soul to the place of the damned to declare to the devil that by laying violent hands on him who had not sinned he had lost not onely the Fathers but all that should believe at the preaching of the Gospel For herein the triumph of his victory upon the Crosse consisteth But the substance of this ceremony being so fully provided for by the death of his Crosse and by his riâ—ing againe in virtue of it that he who believeth it not should be thought to come short of believing all that which it is necessary to salvation to believe seemeth to me
against us This execution then is either upon refusing the termes of reconcilement or upon failing of that which we undertake by accepting them That is not upon those failleures which may consist with reconcilement as those who would have these words to signifie Purgatory imagine but which destroy it And therefore the limitation till thou hast paid the utmost farthing signifies as Mat. I. 15. He knew her not till she had brought fourth her first borne son though he never knew her That is to say his utmost farthing shall never be paid My opinion would allow me to accept of Tertullians and S. Cyprians sense of this text who do indeed acknowledge the voiding of those effects of sin which may remain upon those that depart in the state of Grace between death and the day of judgement to be the paying of this utmost farthing But I have shewed you why it agrees not with the intent of the words And if it did it were nothing to Purgatory because Tertullian expresseth it to be paid mâ—ra resurrectioniâ— by the delay of the resurrection that is not before tâ—e generall judgement whereby Purgatory is quite spoiled For pretending the expinting of veniall sin which consisteth with reconcilement together with satisfying the debt of temporall punishment reserved by God upon that sin which he remitteth it cannot be intended by him that gives warning of seeking reconcilement not of voiding the penalties which may remaine when it is obtained Where you may see by survaying the scriptures which have been debated that there is not the least pretense in them for paying this debt by induring the flames of Purgatory for that sin which is forgiven afore But that all satisfaction endeth in voiding the guilt of sin by appeasing the wrâ—th of God for it before wee goe hence There be other texts both of the old and New Testament that are usually alleaged in this dispute But because rather for show then substance I will rather presume that all reasonable men may see where the consequence failes then use so many words as it requires to show it He shall sit as a refiner that purifieth silver and â—â—all purifiâ— the Sons of Levi and purge them as Gold and silver that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in rightousnesse saith the Prophet Malachi III. 3. But manifestly speaking of the first coming of Christ and triall which the Gospel passes them through that turn Christians upon mature advice Whatsoever trial the second coming of Christ may bring with it correspondent to the first it will be nothing to Purgatory the day of judgement determining it As for thee also by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth the prisoners out of the pit where in was no water Saith the Prophet Zachary IX 11. speaking of the returne from the Captivity of Babylon and of the prince of Israel that should figure oâ—t our Lord Christ and rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth Whereby it appeareth that the spiritual sense of this Prophesy ending â—n the redemption of mankind by the death of Christ and his Kingdome by the preaching of his Gospel can by no meanes be extended to any delivering out of Purgatory and if it could must not be intended to take place before the second coming Which intent would also appear groundlesse in this Because I have showed that he did not deliver the soules of the Fathers out of the Devils hands at his first coming which this text is alleaged to prove no lesse then Purgatory For this will confine it to the delivery of mankind from sin by the death of our Lord Christ and his sufferings CHAP. XXVIII Ancient opinions in the Church of the place of soules before the day of judgement No Tradition that the Fathers were in the Verge of Hell under the Earth The reason of the difference in the expressions of the Fathers of the Church What Tradition of the Church for the place of Christs soule during his death The Saints soules in secret mansions according to the Tradition of the Church Prayer for the dead supposeth the same No Purgatory according to the Tradition of the Church LEt us now consider the Tradition of the Church in these particulars Justin the Martyr in his dispute with Trypho the Jew by the example of Samuel proveth that the soules of the Fathers and Prophets were in the hands of the Powers of darkenesse And that by the prayer of our Lord Psal XXII 21. wee are taught to pray at our departure that God would not give us up to them as he at his death commends his soule into his Fathers hands It â—s wel enough known that Clemens Alexandrinus believes that both our Lord his Apostles went into Hel to deliver from thence such soules as should admit that which he came to preach He followed in it the Apocryphall vision of Hermes then in request where this is still found libro III. similitud III. and what followers he hath in this opinion you may see by the late Lord Primate his answer to the Jesuites Challenge p. 274. S. Austine de Haer. LXXIX after Philastrius de Haer. LXXIV counts this opinion in the list of Heresies Yet doubted not that he did deliver thence whom he found fit Epist XCIX de Gen. ad Lit. XII 33 34. Nor S. Jerom that he did them good who were there though how it can not be said in Ephes IV. libro II. To the same purpose in IV. Dan. I. in III. Lament II. That this opinion had great vogue in the Church and must be counted in the number of Ecclesiasticall positions cannot be denyed That it is or ever was held as of the Rule of Faith it must Marcion was the fiâ—st that placed the Fathers soules in Hell that he might assigne heaven for the part of his Christ and his God as wee learne by Tertullian IV. 3 4. to wit to entertaine his disciples For this ingageth Tertullian to oppose the Gulfe and the rich mans lifting up his eyes in Hell for arguments that Abrahams bosome is no part of it but higher then Hell though not in heaven to refresh all believers Abr. children til the resurrection for he allowes paradise onely to Martyrs which he maketh also the place under the Alâ—ar where S. Iohn saw onely Martyrs soules though else where Apolog. cap XLVII and in his Poem de Judicio cap. VIII he assigneth it to incertaine the Saints soules without any difference alleaging a revelation to Perpetua a Montanist Virgine to that purpose de Resurr XLIII And therefore de Anima LV. makes that which he made before higher then hell but not in heaven a part of hell where our Lord visited the Fathers soules to wit the upper part of it being all contayned within the entrailes of the earth To the same purpose Iraeneus V. 31. saith it is manifest that the soules of Christians goe into an invisible place the English of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
this that the body being buryed the soule goe ad Inferos For in Psalmum II. he exemplifies in Dives and Lazarus And Lactantius VII 21. Nec tamen quisquam putet animas post mortem protinus judicari Omnes in una communique custodia detinentur dones tempus adveniat quo maximus index meritorum faciat examen Yet let no man think that soules are judged straight after death They are kept in one common guard till the time come for the Soveraigne Judge to examine theire deserts He denies them to be judged whom Novatianus acknowledgeth to be prejudged or forejudged He means our common guard but intends not to deny the gulfe which it is parted with S. Ambrose de Bono Mortis X. XI saith that those lodgings which the Apocryphichall Esdras speaketh of are the many lodgings which our Lord saith are in his fathers house Iohn XIV 2. and speaking of the Gentiles Satis fuerat dixisse illis quod liberatae animae a corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peterent id est locum qui non videtur quem locum Latine infernum dicimus It had been enough for them to have said that soules freed from their bodies goe to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to a place not seen which place wee call hell in Latine Signifying that according to Christianity all soules going to Esdras his lodgings may be said to goe to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latine makes to be under the Earth But whether Christianity so understand it or no not expressing Againe Ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis expectant anims remunerationem debitam Alias manet paena alias gloria Et tamen nec illae interim sine injuria nec istae sine fructu sunt While therefore the fulnesse of time is expected soules also expect their own reward Some punishment some glory attendes yet neither they without hardship nor these without benefit in the meane time Yet as it followes neither grieved with cares neither vexed with the remembrance of that which is past as the wicked but foreseeing their rest and glory to come injoy the quiet of their lodgings under the guard of Angels If it be excepted that there is no mention of the Fathers soules Let it be considered how many Church-writers have made the bosome of Abraham in which Lazarus rested before our Lords death a place of rest and refreshment from death till the day of judgement Their words you may find in the answer to the Jesuits Challenge named afore p. 260-267 Where those expositions of the Gospell which goe under the name of Theophilus of Antiochia Euthymius of Lions write two opinions the one placing it under the earth the other above because the rich man lifted up his eyes From whence the second of those dialogues against the Marcionists that goe under Origens name argueth that it is in heaven So far is the ancient Church from being agreed that those store-houses wherein it is agreed that all soules are kept till the generall judgement are beneath the earth And though he was a Christian that writ the Apocryphall book of Esâ—ras II. from whom S. Ambros and S. Austine receive their store-houses of Soules yet speakes it in the person of Esdras concerning the Fathers of the Old Testament In the meane time of the removing of them by the descent of Christ out of the Verge of Hell into heaven not one word in all this which certainely may serve to evidence that there never was nor is any such Tradition in the Church In fine the descent of righteous soules in to hell and the deliverance of them from thence by the descent of our Lord Christ may be understood two severall waies Either according to the literall sense of the old Testament or according ot the mysticall sense of the New For it is manifest that Adam was condemned to labor the earth first and then to returne to the earth And this being expulsed out of Paradise The secret of Christianity consisting in this that our Lord Christ should restore the posterity of Adam from those sorrowes which brought him to the earth whence he was taken to Paradise whence he was expulsed was not to be revealed though it was to take effect in all who in effect though not in forme imbraced and held the Covenant of Grace during the old Testament The land of promise and the blessings thereof were then the pledges of this hope To leave them by death was then to acknowledge themselves liable to the second death which returning to the earth signified so long as their returne to Paradise was not revealed Though to them which understood what the Land of promise signified it was to returne into paradise The new testament succeeding to reveale the mystery of the old must it not needes seeme strange that the Fathers of the old Testament should behave themselves towards death as they who had not this hope Supposing this reason not then to be declared it neede not seeme strange not supposing the same it seems to cal in question som thing of our common Christianity The Gospel opens the secret representing Dives in Hel torments Lazarus in Abrahams bosom But our Lord Christ himselfe being brought downe to the dust of the earth to deliver mankind from the second death signified by the same did our common redemption require that he should come any further under death and them who had the power of it our common Faith might seeme maimed in not believing it But the worke of redemption being accomplished upon the Crosse the effect of it was to be tryed by the disposing of his soule Which effect whether those that belonged to the new Testament under the Old understood by the scriptures of the Law they understood it as did the Devil by theire deliverance out of his hands For the reason of their deliverance he might not understand till the rising of Christ againe taught it When therefore wee see the soules of Adam and his posterity assigned by the Fathers of the Church to the powers of darkenesse let us understand it to hold according to the Old Testament and it will comprehend also the souls of the Fathers Who belonged to the New Testament When we heare them describe them in the rest of Abrahams bosome according to that which our Lord revealeth let us understand the effect of the New Testanent in them that dyed under the Old Without distinguishing thus I conceive it will be impossible to reconcile the Fathers to themselves and the common faith For pressing that which they say on either side you will not faile to make them crosse one an other as well as the Scriptures But thus distinguishing the common faith will remaine that which Macrina in Gregory Nyssens dialogue de anima resurrectione answers to the question Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is To wit that the translation of the soule from this visible world to that which is not seen is all that can be had
either from Hethen writers or from the Scriptures There being nothing under the earth but that which answereth this Hemispere above the earth Which clause is added to meete with one opinion of the Gentiles that the lower hemispere is the place of soules and the torments of Hell which they call Tartara as much beneath it as heaven is above this Onely here it must be provided that the gulfe be not forgotten which our Lord fixeth between Abrahams bosome and the place of torments Dionysius Eccles Hierarch Cap. II. seemeth to agree with Gregory Nyssenâ— and so doe others whom unlesse you distinguish thus you wil not find to speak things consequent to themselvs And I am much confirmed in it first by the difference of opinions among the fathers concerning Samuels soul Which we as there be enough of them that cannot indure to yeild it to have been in the devils power to raise so are they by that meanes obliged to maintaine the rest of the Fathers souls with Samuels to have gon into Abrahams bosom with Lazarus Secondly by their agreement in acknowledging that Paradise which was shut upon man for the sinne of Adam is opened by the death of Christ to receive the righteous For to conceive that they understood this of that Paradise which Adam was expulsed would be to make them too childish But understanding it of that estate which that Paradise signified you have Saint Basil assigning Paradise to Lazarus de Jejunio Hom. I. Besides another Homily intitled to Zeno Bishop of Verona Nay you have expresly in Philo Carpathius upon Cant. VI. 2. My love is gone into his garden Or his Paradise Tunc enim Paradisum triumphator ingressus est cum ad inferos penetravit Then did he enter Paradise in triumph when he pierced into hell Making the beds of spices there to be the souls of the Fathers to whom our Lord conducted the good thiefe And Olympiodorus upon Cant. III. saith that some make Paradise under the earth and that there Dives saw Lazarus Others in heaven Whereas the letter of the Scripture placeth it upon the earth But howsoever that the righteous are both in joy and peace and also in Paradise Thinges not to be reconciled not distinguishing as I do Lastly the reason of Faith setleth me upon this ground The reason of Faith I say not the rule of Faith For I do not say that any part of the dispute belongs to that which the salvation of all Christians necessarily requireth them to believe He who understandeth that himself is saved by imbracing Christianity and living according to it I do not understand why he should be damned because he understood not by what meanes the Fathers afore Christ were saved provided he deny not their salvation to the disparagement of Christianity whereof they were the forerunners And this is the case of Hermes and Justine and Clemens and if there were any others who thought that the Fathers or the Philosophers were saved by believing in Christ at his descent into hell meerly because they understood not the ground of that difference between the litterall and mysticall sense of the Old Testament which I have said Indeed in regard it is by consequence destructive to Christianity that the Fathers should have attained salvation any wayes but as Christians in that regard I answer the position is by consequence prejudiciall to Christianity But because by that consequence which the most censorious of the error do not owne and not owning necessarily incurre some other inconvenience to Christianity I say not that they destroy the common faith who hold it but that they destroy the true reason of it which subsisteth not unlesse we grant that the Fathers obtained salvation by Christ Nor that unlesse we grant that they came not under the Devils Power by death who died qualified for salvation as that time required There remaines no question what company the soul of Christ was with for the time that it remained parted from the body nor how the descent thereof to Hell is to be understood supposing the premises The Tradition of the descent of Christs soul into hell can by no meanes be parted from the Tradition of an intent to visite the soules of the Fathers That supposes that the soules of the Fathers were disposed of under the earth whether in the intrails of the earth or in the hemisphere below us as the Heathen did imagine And infers that the intent of it was to redeem them out of the devils hands to go with our Lord Christ into his kingdome Could this be maintained to be the Tradition of the Church I might be straitned by the Tradition of the Church But as I have showed it to be by consequence prejudiciall to the Faith So I have showed that there is no Tradition of the Church for the disposing of all soules before Christ under the earth whether in the devils hands or otherwise Nor for the translating of any soule from under the earth to heaven with Christ and by Christ But for the continuance of all in those unknown lodgings where they are disposed at their death till the day of judgement whether before or after Christ Though the Latine hath no name to signify them but inferi or infernum necessarily signifying as to the originall of the word the parts beneath the earth There is therefore no question to be made as to the Tradition of the Church that the soule of Christ parting with the body went to the soules of the Fathers which the Gospell represents us in Abrahams bosom whether the death of Christ removing the debt of sin which shut Paradise upon Adam make that place known to us by the name of Paradise to which our Lord inducted the good thiefe Or whether the Jewes had used that name for the place to which they believed the soules of the righteous do go But there is therefore no Tradition remaining of the descent of Christs soul into hell to rescue the soules of the Fathers out of the Verge of Hell commonly called Limbus Patrum to go with him into his kingdome True it is which Irenaeus saith and the Tradition of the Church will justify it that our Lord Christ was to undergo the condition of the dead for the redemption of mankind And therefore the separation of his humane soul from the body was really the condition in consideration whereof we are freed from the dominion of death True it is that this dominion of death is signified in the Old Test by the returning of Adam to the earth of which he was made And that the grave is an earnest of the second death in all those that belong not to the N. Test while the Old was in force Therefore that our L. Christ was to undergo the condition common to mankinde to which the first Adam was accursed is a part of our common faith Because the curse was to be voided by his undergoing of it Accordingly therefore you shall find by the
answer to the Jesuites Challenge Pag. 308-326 that the spoiling of Hell is attributed by the Fathers to the rising of our Lord Christ from the grave whereby the law of death was voided Which if it be true what Tradition can there remaine in the Church that our Lord Christs soule should harrow hell and ransacke it of the soules of the Fathers there detained or in the Verge of it Saint Basil de Sp. S. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How then do we go down to Hell aright Imitating the buriall of Christ by Baptisme For the bodies of these who are Baptized are as it were buried in the water Saint Chrysostome in 1 ad Cor. Hom XL. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be baptized and first to sink then come up againe is an Embleme of going down into Hell and coming up againe And truly if the force of Christs death in voiding the dominion of death stood by the merit of his sufferings Then was the descent of his flesh into the grave of force to that effect without any descent further of his soul into the lower parts thereof And if the death of Christ and his continuing in death for the time that God had appointed was declared by God to be accepted by him to that effect then was his rising from death his triumph over hell and death whereby the title of his rising againe being declared it must needs appear that neither death nor hell nor the devil hath any more interest in Christians Nor is it so strange that the descent of Christ into hell should be mentioned by the Apostles Creed after his buriall if it signify not the descent of his soul as it would be that it should be left out of other Creeds if it did signify that it is necessary to the salvation of all so to believe For neither is it expressed in the Creed of Nicaea or Constantinople nor was it found in that which the Church of Rome or that which the Churches of the East used saith Ruffinus upon the Creed who notwithstanding expoundeth it because the Church of Aquileia which he belonged to used it Which had the signification of it been a distinct truth necessary to the salvation of all to be believed the Churches could by no meanes have connived at one another in not delivering it And truly seeing the dominion of death intimating the second death to which those who belong not to the New Testament are accursed is signified in the Old Testament by going under the earth The signification of going down into Hell in the Creed can by no meanes be thought superfluous though our Lord neither went thither to rescue the Fathers soules nor to triumph over the Powers of darknesse For as thereby the common curse from whence we are redeemed so is also the reason and meanes of our deliverance from it intimated And seeing there is appearance from that which hath been said that the divell himself did not understand the secret of Gods intent to dissolve his interest in mankind by the death of Christ untill it appeared by what right our Lord resumed his body which he had Laid downe this being declared in the other world by his rising again and in signe thereof the soules of the saints that slept rising againe with him and resuming their bodies there is no reason why the mention of his resurrection following immediately upon the descent into Hell in the Creed should not sufficiently expresse that triumph which this declaration importeth Which triumph being effected by the Godhead though in his flesh it will be no marvaile to meet with some sayings of the Fathers that ascribe it to his Godhead Now the common doctrine of the Schoole maketh it no matter of Faith to believe the descent of Christs soule into that Hell where the damned were but onely to the Verge of it where the souls of the Fathers were It is enough with them that the effect of this Power reached to the place of the damned Cardinall Bellarmine when he published his controversies held it probable that the soul of Christ descended to the place of the damned But upon better consideration in the review of them thinks that the other opinion of Thomas and the rest of the Schoole is to be followed And yet it is not possible to distinguish between this Verge and the lowest hell by any Tradition of the Church Nay Durandus goes so farre out of their rode as to maintaine that the soul of Christ went not to hell that is to Lymbus but onely by the effect of it in making the soules of the Fathers happy Which is in my opinion declaring to them the reason of their happinesse And the opinion of Suarez the Jesuite is remarkable That taking an Article of Faith for a truth necessary for the salvation of all Christians to be known the descent of Christ into hell is no Article of Faith For that is not very necessary for single Christians to know And for that cause perhaps it is not in the Nicene Creed which whoso believeth believes enough to save him And that perhaps for this cause some Fathers expounding the Creed to the People make no mention of it In III. Disput XLIII Sect. II. and IV. I may adde for the advantage of my opinion That if it be not necessary for single Christians to believe much lesse is it necessary for the Church as a body to believe it For those things which the Church believeth as a body it imposeth to be believed upon them who are of the body But it cannot be reasonable for the Church as a body to impose upon the members thereof the beliefe of that which it is not necessary to their salvation as single Christians to believe And therefore allowing the conscientiousnesse of S. Augustine who having presumed that he who believes not the descent is no Christiane doubts not that by the descent as many were delivered as Gods secter justice thought fit Epist XCIX And of Saint Jerome in Eph. II. allowing some work of God to be managed by it which we understand no more then what good our Lords death did the good Angels I allow also the reservedness of those of the Confession of Auspurg or of Suisse who acknowledging the literall sense of this Article find not themselves bound to maintaine for what reason it was I am not offended with those in the Church of England that assigne the triumph of our Lord for the reason of it But believing with Saint Gregory Nyssene in Pascha Resurrect Christi Epist ad Eustath that our Lord by the descent of his body into the grave abolished him that had the power of death by his soul made way for the thiefe into Paradise where it self was count this enough for the salvation of all Christians to be believed And therefore that the Church cannot impose upon them as the necessary meanes of their salvation to believe any more I do not intend to say much more
much more it were to induce particular Churches and by consent of them the whole seemes to me to renounce the advice of common reason for love of his own voluntary prejudice Can it be imagined that the Sibyls verses coming from an author of doubtfull credit could perswade the whole Church to take up a custome of praying for the dead because they have perswaded divers writers to alledg them in favour of Christianity Why could not then Montanus perswade it to imbrace the pretense of his Prophesies Why But because it was more to give Law to such a Bâ—dy then to surprise a few Scholars And yet could all this be overseen would not that serve the turne The opinion of Justine that our Lord by his prayers Psalm XXII 21. and by commending his soule to God on the Crosse teacheth us to pray that our souls may not fall into the hands of those spirit which had the fathers soules in their power is the mold in which some prayers in the Church of Rome for the dead are framed Suppose this not granting it This is not the doctrine of the Sibyls verses For they place the sons of Noae in blisse not in the devils hands though under the earth as I showed you Neither could the raigne of Christ upon earth for a thowsand years come from the Sibyls verses how many soever were transported with the conceit of it For though Montanus be found as ancient as Justine he will never be found so ancient as Papias who preached it As for the quartering of righteous soules under the earth and in Paradise I have showed you how both are true according to the dispensation of the old of the new Testament If the simplicity of the primitive Châ—istians speak some times according to the one somtimes according to the other as following the language stile of the Scriptures It is not because they followed any Montanist as a disciple of Montanus whom the Church disowned It must be because they knew him not to be Montanus or any disciple of Montanus And they knew him not by these parculars because others before and after him had committed the same mistakes for supposing they understood not the secret which I spoke of in the Scriptures they were indeed mistakes and were not by the Church disowned for it But what is it that I apeale to in the prayers of the Church for the dead That they are made for the Patriarches and prophets for the Apostles and Martyrs even for the Blessed Virgin as well as for all the departed in the communion of the Church The words of the ancient Liturgies I remit you the answer quoted afore to see p. 185. Be this in regard to the resurrection and the day of judgement so it be in regard to their resurection and judgement so that the benefit which they receive by it not which their bodies receive by it which were not prayed for be acknowledged If that be acknowledged considerable for the whole Church to pray for in behalfe of those how much more in behalfe of all others that were admitted to communion with the Church I acknowledge a scruple made in S. Austines time to the assumption which I suâ—pose de verbis Apostoli Hom. XVII Ideâ—que habet Ecclesiastica disciplina quod fideles noverunt cum Martyres eo loco recitantur ad altare â—ei ubi non pâ—o ipsis â—retur pro caeteris autem commemoratis desunctis oratuâ— Iâ—juâ—ia est enim pro Martyre orare cujus nos debemus orationibus commendari And therefore the Church hath that discipline which the faithfull know When the Martyrs aâ—e reckoned at Gods altar in that place as not to pray for them but for others departed who are reckoned For it is an injury to pray for a Martyr by whoâ—e prayers we aâ—e to be commended Thus S. Austine whereas S. Cypâ—ian in his time made no question of offering for Martyrs Epistle XXXIV The same S. Austine Enchir. cap. CX Cum sacrificia sive altaris sive quarumcunque eleemosynarum pro baptizatis defunctis omnibus offeruntur Pro valde bonis gratiarum actiones sunt pro non valde malis propitiationes sunt pro valde malis et si nulla sunt adjumenta mortuorum qualescunque vivorum consolationes sunt When sacrifices either of the altar or of whatsoever alms are offered for all the dead after Baptisme for the very good they are thankâ—givings for the not very bad propitiations for the very bad though no helps to the dead yet some kind of consolations to the living Thus S. Aust avoideth an objection How the same prayer should be a petition for some for others a thanksgiving For the custom being that the St. departed were rehearsed in one place of the Service others in an other place he takes it to be the intent of the Church to give thanks for Saints and Martyrs to pray for others The forme then used in Africk we have not neither can say why this construction may not stand with it For the very Latine Masse at this day is capable of it where you have first Mementâ— Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et omnium circumstantium pro quibus tibi offâ—rimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudes communicantes memoriam venerantes inprimis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae Remember Lord thy servants such and such and all here present for whom we offer unto thee or who offer thâ—e this sacrfice of praise communicating in and reverencing first the memory of the glorious ever Virgine Mary So proceeding to the rest Whereby the wâ—y it is manifest he that made this read in S. Paule Rom. XII 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating in the memories of the Saints as S. Ambrose and other Fathers did Not as now we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the necessities But after the consideration Memmento domine famulorum samularumque tuarum qui noâ— pâ—aecesserunt cum signo fidei dormiunt in somno pacis Nâ—â—psis domâ—ne omnibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii lucis paciâ— ut indulgeas deprecamur Remember Lord thy servants such such that are gone before with the badge of faith and sleep in the rest of peace We pray thee â—ord grant them and all that rest in â—hrist a place of refreshment rest and peace This then showes that there wâ—s some ground in the maner and forme of praying for the dead in the Affrican Church for S. Austines construction That the intent of the Church was not to pray for Saints aâ—d Martyrs at all Which notwithstanding it is evident by the formes which I alleaged afore that the intent of the Church was to pray for them What account Gennadius his position would give for this difference for the prayers then used for the dead I understand not Supposing it to extend the name of St. to all that dy in the state of Grace and to intend that all such siâ—ce Christ goe
was unknowne and by him to his disciples whereby after the power came downe upon him from above he did miracles And that when he had suffered that which came from above flâ—w up againe from Jesus So that Jesus suffered and rose againe but the Christ which came upon him from above flew up againe without suffering which is that which came downe in the shape of a dove and that Jesus is not the Christ Where you see he makes the coming of Christ to be nothing else but an escape made by the Holy Ghost when he came upon our Lord out of the Fullnesse of the Godhead to return thither againe when he had suffered Now it is agreed upon that Cerinthus had spread his Heresies in Asia when Saint John writ his Gospell And though Epiphanius report that it was Ebion whom Saint John met with in the bath and refused to come in it so long as he was there calling away his Scholars with him Yet it must be resolved that it is a meere mistake of his memory because himselfe testifies as afore that the Heresy of Cerinthus flourished in Asia and in Galatia and because Eusebius after Irenaeus who conversed with Saint Johns Scholar Polycarpus reports it of Cerinthus As for the Heresy of Ebion it is manifest by Epiphanius himself in his Heresy that it sprung up first and flourished most in the parts of Palestine beyond or besides Jordane which they called Peraea what time the Church of Jerusalem had forsaken the City to remove themselves to Pella where God had provided for them at the destruction of it So that it appeareth not that Saint John saw the birth of it being probably removed into Asia before that time I shall therefore neede to say nothing of the Heresy of Ebion having Saint Jerome in Catalogo to witnesse that the Gospell of Saint John was written at the request of the Bishops of Asia in opposition to Cerinthus But the stocke of that evidence which I shall bring out of the Scripture for the state of our Lord Christ and his Godhead before his coming in the flesh lying therefore in the beginning of that Gospell which was writ on purpose to exclude it I shall referre the rest of that which I shall gather out of the New Testament to the sense and effect of it CHAP. XIII The Word was at the beginning of all things The apparitions of the Old Testament Prefaces to the Incarnation of Christ Ambassadors are not honoured with the honour due to their Masters The Word of God that was afterwards incarnate was in those Angels that spoke in Gods Name No Angel honoured as God under the New Testament The Word was with God at the beginning of all things as after his return THE Gospel of Saint John then beginneth thus In the beginning wâ—s the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God In which words the Socinians will not have the beginning to be the beginning of all things but the beginning of preaching the Gospel That is to say when John the Baptist began to preach And the Word to be the man Jesus so called because he was the man whom God had appointed to publish it So that in the beginning was the Word is in their sense When John the Baptist began to preach there was a man whom God had appointed to publish the Gospel And truly I cannot deny that the beginning here might signifie the beginning of the Gospel by the same reason as in the Scripture and in all Languages words signify more then they expresse But that reason can be no other then this because a man speakes of things mentioned afore in discourse or of that which is otherwise known to be the subject of his discourse So words signifie more then they expresse because something that is known need not be repeated at every turne What is the reason then why this addition not being expressed is to be understood Forsooth Saint Mark beginneth his Gospel thus The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Sonne of God As it is written in the Prophets Behold I send my Messenger before thy face that shall prepare thy way before thee The voice of him that cryeth in the wildernesse Prepare â—e the way of the Lord make his path plaine John was baptizing in the wildernesse Is not this a good reason Because in one Text of Saint Marke you find the beginning of the Gospel to be the preaching of John therefore wheresoever you read the beginning you are to understand by it the beginning of the Gospel At least in the beginning of S. Johns Gospel we must seek no other meaning for it But who will warrant that the word Gospel in S. Marke signifies the preaching of the Gospel as sometimes it does or this book of the Gospel which S. Mark takes in hand to write The words it is manifest may signifie either and therefore it cannot be manifest that the word beginning without any addition is put to signifie the one and not the other For if you understand the beginning of the book of the Gospel when S. John saies In the begining was the Word Their turne is not served As for the title of the Word which scarce any of the Apostles but S. John attributes to our Lord Look upon the beginning of his first Epistle That which was from the beginning which we have heard and seen and our hands have handled of the Word of Life for the Life hath been manifested and we have seen and bear witnesse and declare unto you that everlasting Life which was with the Father and hath been manifested unto us That which we have heard and seen declare we unto you Here it must be a man that S. John calls the Word when he speakes not onely of hearing but of seeing and handling the Word of Life But when he saies that the Word was with God from the beginning and since hath been made manifest to us is there nothing but the man and his office of preaching the Gospel to be considered for the reason why he is called the Word What meant then the Apostle Ebr. IV. 12 13 The Word of God is quick and active and cutteth beyond any two edged sword and cometh so farre as to divide between the soul and the spirit to the joints and marrow and judgeth the thoughts and conceits of the heart Neither is any creature obscure to it but all things naked and bare to the eyes of him whom we have to do with Where you see he begins his discourse concerning the Gospel but ends it in God And therefore attributes to the gospel under the name of the Word those things which onely God can do because to the Author of it under the Name of the Word he attributes the knowledge and governing of all things For the reason then why our Lord is called the Word we must have recourse to that which the most ancient