the Jewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in case of moment as all Points belonging to divine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successively upon several occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently known to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide Controversies in Religion That sometime Churches had one Judge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or years as new Canonical Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in God's Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibility either to write new Canonical Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent Heresies or Infallibility to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soul is h De test aniâ— cap. 5. before the letter and speech before Books and sense before style Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or substraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church would have brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost than gained by holy Scripture which ought to be farr from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies Infallibility setled in a living Judge is incomparably more useful and fit than if it were conceived as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility of the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giving to her Children the milk of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived from an inexhausted Fountain If Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Judge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himself teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in Points Fundamental and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Salvation I would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the coming of Scripture was deprived of Infallibility in some Points and not in others He affirmeth that the Jewish Synagogue retained infallibility in herself notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the Church of Christ of Infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially if we consider that in the Old Testament Laws Ceremonies Rites Punishments Judgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jews than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue D. Potter i Pag. 24. against this argument drawn from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue objects That we might as well inserr that Christians must have one Soveraign Prince over all because the Jews had one chief Judge But the disparity is very clear The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their civil Government of Christian Common-wealths or Kingdoms The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Jewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a house or k Heb. 13. family to an l Cant. 2. Army to a m 1 Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a n Mat. 12. kingdom c. all which require one Master one General one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fict Unum ovile o Joan. c. 10. joyned Unus Pastor One Sheepsold One Pastour But all distinct Kingdoms or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to Salvation that all have recourse to one Church but for temporal weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporal Prince Kingdom or Common-wealth and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas Kingdoms have their several Laws different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Jews there was one Power and Judge to end debates and resolve difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controversies in Religion 24. This Discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus p Lib. 5. c. 4. in these words What if the Apostles had not lest Scriptures ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who believe in Christ having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God without letters or lake and diligent keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receive the truth from God's Church seeing the Apostles have most fully deposited in her as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question 25. Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it self For either they have certain and infallible means not to err in interpreting Scripture or they have not If not then the Scripâ—ure to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible Faith nor a meet Judge of Controversies If they have certain infallible means and so cannot err in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to hear examine and determine all Controversies of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrin they constitute another Judge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I ask D. Potter Whether â—his Assertion Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith be a fundamental Point of Faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a Fundamental Point For he will have against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it
is impossible to know what Books be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chief Point of all other D. Covell expresly saith Doubtless q In his Defence of Mr. Hookers books art 4. p. 31. it is a tolera le opinion in the Church of Rome if they go no further as some of them do not he should have said as none of them do to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himself to those his Brethren who grant that Controversies cannot be ended without some external living Authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in us a fundamental Error to say the Scripture alone is not Judge of Controversies seeing notwithstanding this our belief we use for interpreting of Scripture all the means which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c. and to these add the Instruction and Authority of God's Church which even by his confession cannot err damnably and may afford us more help than can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any private person and finally D. Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamental error against Faith and consequently he cannot affirm that our doctrin in this present Controversie is damnable If he answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Judge of Controversies is not a Fundamental Point of Faith then as he teacheth that the universal Church may err in Points Fundamental so I hope he will not deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to error in such Points and in particular in this that Scripture alone is Judge of Controversies And so the very Principle upon which their whole Faith is grounded remains to them uncertain and on the other side for the self-same season they are not certain but that the Church is Judge of Controversies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in general deny her this Authority and in particular Controversies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the year 1633. to the questions Whether the Church have Authority to determine Controversies in Faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answer to both is Affirmative 27. Since then the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Means whereby the revealed truths of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himself which blessed St. Augustine plainly affirmeth when speaking of the Controversie about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith This r De unit Eccles c. 2◠is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to perform what he should say lest we might seem to gain-say not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witness to his Church And a little after Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therefore with this argument Whosoever resisteth that means which infallibly proposeth to us God's Word or Revelation commits a sin which unrepented excludes Salvation But whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church doth resist that means which infallibly proposeth God's Word or Revelation to us Therefore whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church commits a sin which unrepented excludes Salvation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church and whether he and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church which was spread over the World before and in Luther's time is easie to be determined and importeth every one most seriously to ponder as a thing whereon eternal salvation dependeth And because our Adversaries do here most insist upon the distinction of Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental and in particular teach that the Church may erre in Points not-Fundamental it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this evasion which shall be done in the next Chapter An ANSWER to the SECOND CHAPTER Concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion AD § 1. He that would usurp an absolute Lordship and tyranny over any people need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Laws made to maintain the common liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compass his own design as well if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases and add to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Laws if he can rule his people by his Laws and his Laws by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish her tyranny over mens consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of Copies dispersed through all places translated into almost all Languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successeful was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd Interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrin she pleased under the title of Traditions or Definitions For by this means she might both serve herself of all those clauses of Scripture which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished she could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the minds of men that unwritten doctrins if proposed by her were to be received with equal reverence to those that were writen and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seemed to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seemed it never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your Directors and Judges no farther than you please but your servants and instruments alwayes prest and in readiness to advance your designes and disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a crown on their head and a reed in their hands and to bow before them and cry Hail Ring of the Jews to pretend a great deal of esteem and respect and reverence to them as here you do But to little purpose is verbal reverence without entire submission and syncere
for this Reason neither may they speaking in their Decrees be Judges for the same Reason If the Pope's Decrees you will say be obscure he can explain himself and so the Scripture cannot But the holy Ghost that speaks in Scripture can do so if he please and when he is pleased will do so In the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leisure and to be content that those things of Scripture which are plain should be so and those which are obscure should remain obscure until he please to declare them Besides he can which you cannot warrant me of the Pope or a Councel speak at first so plainly that his words shall need no farther explanation and so in things necessary we believe he hath done And if you say The Decrees of Councels touching Controversies though they be not the Judge yet they are the Judge's sentence So I say the Scripture though not the Judge is the sentence of the Judge When therefore you conclude That to say a Judge is necessary for deciding Controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say He is necessary to decide what the holy Ghost speaks in Scripture This I grant is true but I may not grant that a Judge such an one as we dispute of is necessary either to do the one or the other For if the Scripture as it is in things necessary be plain why should it be more necessary to have a Judg to interpret them in plain places than to have a Judg to interpret the meaning of a Councel's Decrees and others to interpret their Interpretations others to interpret theirs and so on for ever And where they are not plain there if we using diligence to find the Truth do yet miss of it and fall into Errour there is no danger in it They that err and they that do not err may both be saved So that those places which contain things necessary and wherein Errour were dangerous need no infallible interpreter because they are plain and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things Necessary neither is Errour in them dangerous 13. The Law-maker speaking in the Law I grant it is no more easily understood than the Law it self for his speech is nothing else but the Law I grant it very necessary that besides the Law-maker speaking in the Law there should be other Judges to determine Civil and Criminal Controversies and to give every man that justice which the Law allows him But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessity of a Visible Judge in Controversies of Religion I say is Sophistical and that for many Reasons 14. First Because the variety of Civil cases is infinite and therefore there cannot be possibly Laws enough provided for the determination of them and therefore there must be a Judge to supply out of the Principles of Reason the interpretation of the Law where it is defective But the Scripture we say is a perfect Rule of Faith and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it 15. Secondly To execute the Leter of the Law according to rigor would be many times unjust and therefore there is need of a Judge to moderate it whereof in Religion there is no use at all 16. Thirdly In Civil and Criminal Causes the parties have for the most part so much interest and very often so little honesty that they will not submit to a Law though never so plain if it be against them or will not see it to be against them though it be so never so plainly whereas if men were honest and the Law were plain and extended to all cases there would be little need of Judges Now in matters of Religion when the Question is Whether every man be a fit Judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity And such men we conceive will think it highly concerns them to be of the true Religion but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true And then we suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this cause to be a competent Judge for himself because it concerns himself to judge right as much as eternal happiness is worth And if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it 17. Fourthly In Civil Controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not alwayes to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in Civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge But in Religion none but he that is infallible 18. Fifthly In Civil Causes there is means and power when the Judge hath decreed to compell men to obey his sentence otherwise I believe Laws alone would be to as much purpose for the ending of differences as Laws and Judges both But all the power in the world is neither fit to convince nor able to compell a man's conscience to consent to any thing Worldly terrour may prevail so far as to make men profess a Religion which they believe not such men I mean who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs and a Hell for those that dissemble such Truths as are necessary to be professed But to force either any man to believe what he believes not or any honest man to dissemble what he does believe if God commands him to profess it or to profess what he does not believe all the Powers in the World are too weak with all the Powers of Hell to assist them 19. Sixthly In Civil Controversies the case cannot be so put but there may be Judge to end it who is not a party In Controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first Whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party Sure I am the Pope in the Controversies of our time is a chief party for it highly concerns him even as much as his Popedom is worth not to yield any one point of his Religion to be erroneous And he is a man subject to like passions with other men And therefore we may justly decline his sentence for fear temporal respects should either blind his judgement or make him pronounce against it 20. Seventhly In Civil Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plaintiff must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plaintiff by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my opinion and do you no wrong and you
That The Jewish Church retained Infallibility in her self and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of him to deprive the Church of Christ of it That the Jews had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from God in some cases of moment he doth affirm and had good warrant but that the Synagogue was absolutely infallible he no where affirms and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived but only by setling it in the High-Priest and the company adhering and subordinate unto him And whether the High-Priest was Infallible when he believed not Christ to be the Messias but condemned and excommunicated them that so professed and caused him to be crucified for saying so I leave it to Christians to judge But then suppose God had been so pleased to do as he did not to appoint the Synagogue an Infallible Guide Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him to appoint such an one to Christians also or say unto him that in wisdom he could not do otherwise Vain man that will be thus alwaystying God to your imaginations It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him but if he will do this sometime by living Guides sometime by written Rules What is that to you May not he do what he will with his own 142. And whereas you say for the further enforcing of this Argument that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible than the Synagogue because to the Synaggoue all Laws and Ceremonies c. were more particularly and minutely delivered than in the new Testament is done our Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the Church But I pray walk not thus in generality but tell us what particulars If you mean particular Rites and Ceremonies and orders for government we grant it and you know we do so Our Saviour only hath left a general injunction by S. Paul Let all things be done Decently and in Order But what Order is fittest i. e. what Time what Place what Manner c. is fittest that he hath left to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you mean that he hath only concerning matters of Faith the subject in Questistion prescribed in general that we are to hear the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to believe The Church being nothing else but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all Believers to determine what Particulars they are to believe Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content your self or think we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proof 143. As for D. Potter's Objection against this Argument That as well you might infer that Christians must have all one King because the Jews had so For ought I can perceive notwithstanding any thing answered by you it may stand still in force though the truth is it is urged by him not against the Infallibility but the Monarchy of the Church For whereas you say The disparity is very clear He that should urge this Argument for one Monarch over the whole world would say that this is to deny the Conclusion and reply unto you that there is disparity as matters are now ordered but that there should not be so For that there was no more reason to believe that the Ecclesiastical Government of the Jews was a Pattern for the Ecclesiastical Government of Christians than the Civil of the Jews for the Civil of the Christians He would tell you that the Church of Christ and all Christian Commonwealths and Kingdoms are one and the same thing and therefore he sees no reason why the Synagogue should be a Type and Figure of the Church and not of the Commonwealth He would tell you that as the Church succeeded the Jewish Synagogue so Christian Princes should succeed to Jewish Magistrates That is the Temporal Governours of the Church should be Christians He would tell you that as the Church is compared to a House a Kingdom an Army a Body so all distinct Kingdoms might and should be one Army one Family c. and that it is not so is the thing he complains of And therefore you ought not to think it enough to say It is not so but you should shew why it should not be so and why this Argument will not follow The Jews had one King therefore all Christians ought to have as well as this The Jews had one High-Priest over them all therefore all Christians also ought to have He might tell you moreover that the Church may have one Master one General one Head one King and yet he not be the Pope but Christ He might tell you that you beg the Question in saying without proof that it is necessary to salvation that all whether Christians or Churches have recourse to one Church if you mean by one Church one particular Church which is to govern and direct all others and that unless you mean so you say nothing to the purpose And besides he might tell you and that very truly that it may seem altogether as available for the Temporal good of Christians to be under one Temporal Prince or Commonwealth as for their salvation to be subordinate to one Visible Head I say as necessary both for the prevention of the effusion of the Blood of Christians by Christians and for the defence of Christendom from the hostile invasions of Turks and Pagans And from all this he might inferr that though now by the fault of men there were in several Kingdoms several Laws Governments and Powers yet that it were much more expedient that there were but one Nay not only expedient but necessary if once your ground be setled for a general Rule that what kind of government the Jews had that the Christians must have And if you limit the generality of this Proposition and frame the Argument thus What kind of Ecclesiastical government the Jews had that the Christians must have But They were governed by one High-Priest Therefore These must be so He will say that the first Proposition of this Syllogism is altogether as doubtful as the Conclusion and therefore neither fit nor sufficient to prove it until it self be proved And then besides that there is as great reason to believe this That what kind of Civil government the Jews had that the Christians must have And so D. Potter's Objection remains still unanswered That there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one King over all Christian Kingdoms from the Jews having one King as one Bishop over all Churches from their being under one High-Priest 144. Ad. § 24. Nether is this discourse confirmed by Irenaeus at all Whether by this discourse you mean that immediatly foregoing of the Analogy between the Church and the Synagogue to which this speech
Allegiance others as learned and honest as they that it is against Faith and unlawful to refuse it and allow the refusing of it Why do some of you hold that it is de Fide that the Pope is Head of the Church by divine Law others the contrary Some hold it de Fide that the blessed Virgin was free from Actual sin others that it is not so Some that the Popes Indirect power over Princes in Temporalties is de Fide Others the contrary Some that it is Universal Tradition and conséquently de Fide that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin Others the contrary 6. But what shall we say now if you be not agreed touching your pretended means of Agreement how then can you pretend to Unity either Actual or Potential more than Protestants may Some of you say the Pope alone without a Councel may determine all Controversies But others deny it Some that a general Councel without a Pope may do so Others deny this Some Both in conjunction are infallible determiners Others again deny this Lastly some among you hold the Acceptation of the Decrees of Councels by the Universal Church to be the only way to decide Controversies which others deny by denying the Church to be Infallible And indeed what way of ending Controversies can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receive not the Decree therefore the whole Church hath not received it 7. Again Means of agreeing differences are either rational and well-grounded and of Gods appointment or voluntary and taken up at the pleasure of men Means of the former nature we say you have as little as we For where hath God appointed that the Pope or a Councel or a Councel confirmed by the Pope or that Society of Christians which adhere to him shall be the Infallible Judge of Controversies I desire you to shew any one of these Assertions plainly set down in Scripture as in all reason a thing of this nature should be or at least delivered with a full consent of Fathers or at least taught in plain tearms by any one Father for four hundred yeers after Christ And if you cannot do this as I am sure you cannot and yet will still be obtruding your selves upon us for our Judges Who will not cry out perîsse frontem de rebus 8. But then for means of the other kind such as yours are we have great abundance of them For besides all the ways which you have devised which we may make use of when we please we have a great many more which you yet have never thought of for which we have as good colour out of Scripture as you have for yours For first we could if we would try it by Lots whose Doctrine is true and whose false And you know it is written (a) Pro. 16 33 The Lot is cast into the lap but the whole disposition of it is from the Lord. 2. We could referre them to the King and you know it is written (b) Pro. 16.10 A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgement (c) Prov. 21 1. The Heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord. We could referre the matter to any Assembly of Christians assemled in the Name of Christ seeing it is written (d) Mat. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst of them We may refer it to any Priest because it is written (e) Mal. 2.7 The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge (f) Mat. 25.2 The Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses chair c. To any Preacher of the Gospel to any Pastor or Doctor for to every one of them Christ hath promised (g) Mat. 28.20 He will be with them alwaies even to the end of the world and of every one of them it is said (h) Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me c. To any Bishop or Prelate for it is written (i) Heb. 13.17 Obey your Prelates and again (k) Eph. 4.11 He hath given Pastors and Doctors c lest we should be carryed about with every wind of Doctrin To any particular Church of Christians seeing it is a particular Church which is called (l) 1 Tim. 3.15 The house of God the Pillar and Ground of Truth and seeing of any particular Church it is written (m) Mat. 18.17 He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or Publican We might refer it to any man that prayes for Gods Spirit for it is written (n) Mat. 7.8 Every one that asketh receiveth and again (o) Jam. 1.5 If any man want wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not Lastly we might refer it to the Jews for without all doubt of them it is written (p) Isa 59.21 My Spirit that is in thee c. All these means of agreement whereof not any one but hath as much probability from Scripture as that which you obtrude upon us offer themselves upon a sudden to me haply many more might be thought on if we had time but these are enough to shew that would we make use of voluntary and devised means to determine differences we had them in great abundance And if you say These would fail us and contradict themselves So as we pretend have yours There have been Popes against Popes Councels against Councels Councels confirmed by Popes against Councels confirmed by Popes Lastly the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages 9. Lastly whereas you find fault That Protestants upbraided with their discords answer that they differ only in Points not Fundamental I desire you tell me Whether they do so or do not so If they do so I hope you will not find fault with the Answer If you say they do not so but in Points Fundamental also then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you And therefore why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more than to your selves their more and greater differences from you 10. But they are convinced sometimes even by their own confessions that the Ancient Fathers taught divers Points of Popery and then they reply those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved because those errors were not Fundamentall And may not you also be convinced by the confessions of your own men that the Fathers taught divers Points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome Do not your Purging Indexes clip the tongues and seal up the lips of a great many for such confessions And is not the above-cited confession of your Doway Divines plain and full to the same purpose And do not you also as freely as we charge the Fathers with errors and yet say they were saved Now what else do we understand
on our Saviour's promise to S. Peter from which a general rule and ground ought to be taken for all Ages because Heaven and Earth shall (w) Mat. 24.35 pass but the word of our Lord shall remain for ever So that I here conclude that seeing it is manifest that Luther and his followers divided themselves from the Sea of Rome they bear the inseparable Mark of Heresie 20. And though my meaning be not to treat the point of Ordination or Succession in the Protestants Church because the Fathers alleadged in the last reason assign Succession as one mark of the true Church I must not omit to say that according to the grounds of Protestants themselves they can neither pretend personal Succession of Bishops nor Succession of Doctrin For whereas Succession of Bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of Persons endued with an indelible Quality which Divines call a Character which cannot be taken away by deposition degradation or other means whatsoever and endued also with Jurisdiction and Authority to teach to preach to govern the Church by laws precepts censures c. Protestants cannot pretend Succession in either of these For besides that there was never Protestant Bishop before Luther and that there can be no continuance of Succession where there was no beginning to succeed they commonly acknowledge no Character and consequently must affirm that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are deprived of Jurisdiction or degraded they remain meer lay persons as before their Ordination fulfilling what Tertullian objects as a mark of Heresie To day a Priest to morrow (x) Praescr cap. 41. a Lay-man For if here be no immoveable Character their power of Order must consist only in Jurisdiction and authority or in a kind of moral deputation to some function which therefore may be taken away by the same power by which it was given Neither can they pretend Succession in Authority or Jurisdiction For all the Authority or Jurisdiction which they had was conferred by the Church of Rome that is by the Pope Because the whole Church collectively doth not meet to ordain Bishops or Priests or to give them Authority But according to their own doctrin they believe that the Pope neither hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm which they swear even when they are ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons How then can the Pope give Jurisdiction where they swear he neither hath or OUGHT to have any Or if yet he had how could they without Schism withdraw themselves from his obedience Besides the Roman Church never gave them Authority to oppose Her by whom it was given But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men Who gave Authority to their pretended Successours The Primate of England But from whom had he such Authority And after his decease who shall conferr Authority upon his Successors The Temporal Magistrate King Henry neither a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a Child Queen Elizabeth a Woman An Infant of one hours Age is true King in case of his Predecessor's decâ—ase But shall your Church lie fallow till that Infant-King and green Head of the Church come to years of discretion Do your Bishops your Hierarchy your Succession your Sacraments your being or not being Heretiques for want of Succession depend on this new-found Supremacy-doctrin brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shameful ends impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chief Protestants as D. Andrews Wotton c. not held for any necessary point of Faith And from whom I pray you had Bishops their Authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greek Patriarchs receive spiritual Jurisdiction from the Great Turk Did the Pope by the Baptism of Princes lose the spiritual Power he formerly had of conferring spiritual Jurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the Temporal Magistrate authority to preach to assoil from sins to inflict Excommunications and other Censures Why hath he not power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in Irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King James either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gave commission to some Bishops to do it And since they were subject to their Primate and not he to them it is clear that they had no power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as Superiour to them all and head of the Protestants Church in England If he have no such authority how can he give to others what himself hath not Your Ordination or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character can only consist in giving a Power Authority Jurisdiction or as I said before some kind of Depuration to exercise Episcopal or Priestly functions If then the Temporal Magistrate conferrs this power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but Ordain and Consecrate Bishops and Priests as often as he conferrs Authority or Jurisdiction and your Bishops assoon as they are designed and confirmed by the King must ipso facto be Ordained and Consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or Matter and Form of Ordination Which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant than well able to avoid if you will be true to your own doctrins The Pope from whom originally you must beg your Succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledge to receive any Spiritual Jurisdiction from any Temporal Prince and therefore if Jurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledge that he hath true Spiritual Jurisdiction or that your selves can receive none from him 21. Moreover this new Reformation or Reformed Church of Protestants will by them be pretended to be Catholique or Universal and not confined to England alone as the Sect of the Donatists was to Africa and therefore it must comprehend all the Reformed Churches in Germany Holland Scotland France c. In which number they of Germany Holland and France are not governed by Bishops nor regard any personal succession unless of such fat-beneficed Bishops as Nicholas Amsfordius who was consecrated by Luther though Luther himself was never Bishop as witnesseth (y) In Millenario sexto Pag. 187. Dresserus And though Scotland hath of late admitted some Bishops I much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary or of divine Institution and so their enforced admitting of them doth not so much furnish that Kingdom with personal succession of Bishops as it doth convince them to want succession of doctrin since in this their neglect of Bishops they disagree both from the milder Protestants of England and the true Catholique Church And by this want of a continued personal Succession of Bishops they retain the note of Schism and Heresie So that the Church of Protestants must either not be universal as being confined to England Or
a man may perswade himself he doth believe what he doth not believe then may you think you believe the Church of Rome and yet not believe it But if no man can err concerning what he believes then you must give me leave to assure my self that I do believe and consequently that any man may believe the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives without any dependance upon any succession that hath believed it always And as from your definition of Faith so from your definition of Heresie this phancy may be refuted For questionless no man can be an Heretique but he that holds an Heresie and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary error therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretique whether he will or no by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have But that there should have been a perpetual Succession of Believers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in our own power therefore our being or not being Heretiques depends not on it Besides What is more certain than that he may make a straight line who hath a Rule to make it by though never man in the world had made any before and why then may not he that believes the Scripture to be the word of God and the Rule of faith regulate his faith by it and consequently believe aright without much regarding what other men will do or have done It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his word believed he by his Providence must take order that either by succession of men or by some other means natural or supernatural it be preserv'd and delivered and sufficiently notified to be his word but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no error against it certainly there is no more necessity than that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sin against it For if men may preserve the Records of a Law and yet transgress it certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith and yet not follow them I doubt not but Lawyers at the Bar do find by frequent experience that many men preserve and produce evidences which being examined of times make against themselves This they do ignorantly it being in their power to suppress or perhaps to alter them And why then should any man conceive it strange that an erroncous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted when indeed for many reasons which I have formerly alledged it was impossible for them to corrupt them Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetual Succession of men otthodox in all points certainly there is no necessity at all of any such neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Heretical 39 When therefore you have produced some proof of this which was your Major in your former Syllogism That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresie you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor We shall then consider whether your indelibe Character be any reality or whether it be a creature of your own making a fancy of your own imagination And if it be a thing and not only a word whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours and whether some mens perswasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more than a mans perswasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will make him not to have taken it if he has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Layman by just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some mark upon Heretiques that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferr'd on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Pope's right or an usurpation If it were his right Whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiastical And if by Ecclesiastical only Whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to lose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to lose it those that deprived him of it had power to make it from him Or if not Whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it until good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present Government established be as unlawful to go about to restore it Whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude Because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schism a man may not withdraw obedience from an usurp'd Authority commanding unlawful things Whether the Roman Church might not give authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Judge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Trajan gave his sword to his Praefect with this Commission that If he governed well he should use it for him if ill against him Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to preach against her corruptions in manners And if so Why not against her errors in doctrin if she had any Whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole Gospel of Christ and consequently against her doctrin if it should contradict any part of the Gospel of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the Church of Rome for any Lay-man or woman that has ability to perswade others by word or by writing from errour and unto truth And why this liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other commission or vocation than that of a Christian to do a work of charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without any unnecessary disturbance of order to perswade men out a false unto a true way of eternal happiness Especially the Apostle having assur'd us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall hide a multitude of sins Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain Others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not consecrate a Metropolitan of England as
autem apud omnes unum est non est erratum sed traditum Had the Churches err'd they would have varied What therefore is one and the same amongst all came not sure by error but tradition Thus Tertullian argues very probably from the consent of the Churches of his time not long after the Apostles and that in matter of opinion much more subject to unobserv'd alteration But that in the frame and substance of the necessary Government of the Church a thing alwayes in use and practice there should be so suddain a change as presently after the Apostles times and so universal as received in all the Churches this is clearly impossible SECT VIII For What universal cause can be assigned or faigned of this universal Apostasie You will not imagine that the Apostles all or any of them made any decree for this change when they were living or left order for it in any Will or Testament when they were dying This were to grant the question to wit That the Apostles being to leave the Government of the Churches themselves and either seeing by experience or foreseeing by the Spirit of God the distractions and disorders which would arise from a multitude of equals substituted Episcopal Government instead of their own General Councels to make a Law for a general change for many ages there was none There was no Christian Emperour no coercive power over the Church to enforce it Or if there had been any we know no force was equal to the courage of the Christians of those times Their lives were then at command for they had not then learnt to fight for Christ but their obedience to any thing against his Law was not to be commanded for they had perfectly learn't to die for him Therefore there was no power then to command this change or if there had been any it had been in vain SECT IX What device then shall we study or to what fountain shall we reduce this strange pretended alteration Can it enter into our hearts to think that all the Presbyters and other Christians then being the Apostles Schollers could be generally ignorant of the Will of Christ touching the necessity of a Presbyterial Government Or dare we adventure to think them so strangely wicked all the World over as against knowledge and conscience to conspire against it Imagine the spirit of Diotrephes had entred into some or a great many of the Presbyters and possessed them with an ambitious desire of a forbidden superiority was it possible they should attempt and atchieve it once without any opposition or contradiction and besides that the contagion of this ambition should spread it self and prevail without stop or controul nay without any noise or notice taken of it through all the Churches in the World all the watchmen in the mean time being so fast asleep and all the dogs so dumb that not so much as one should open his mouth against it SECT X. But let us suppose though it be a horrible untruth that the Presbyters and people then were not so good Christians as the Presbyterians are now that they were generally so negligent to retain the government of Christ's Church commanded by Christ which we now are so zealous to restore yet certainly we must not forget nor deny that they were men as we are And if we look upon them but as meer natural men yet knowing by experience how hard a thing it is even for Policy arm'd with Power by many attempts and contrivances and in along time to gain upon the liberty of any one people undoubtedly we shall never entertain so wild an imagination as that among all the Christian Presbyteries in the World neither conscience of duty nor love of liberty nor aversness from pride and usurpation of others over them should prevail so much with any one as to oppose this pretended universal invasion of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the liberty of Christians SECT XI When I shall-see therefore all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove Stories when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the World lye down and sleep and awake into Monarchies then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government having continued in the Church during the Apostles times should presently after against the Apostles doctrine and the will of Christ be whirl'd about like a scene in a masque and transformed into Episcopacy In the mean time while these things remain thus incredible and in humane reason impossible I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an alteration And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholique must be granted also to be Apostolique Quod erat demonstrandum FINIS NINE SERMONS The First Preached before His MAJESTY King CHARLES the FIRST The other Eight upon special and eminent Occasions BY WILL. CHILLINGWORTH Master of Arts of the UNIVERSITY of OXFORD NOSCE TE IPSVM NE QUID NIMIS LONDON Printed by E. Cotes dwelling in Aldersgate-street Anno Dom. M.DC.LXIV TO THE READER Christian Reader THese Sermons were by the Godly and Learned Author of them fitted to the Congregations to which he was to speak and no doubt intended only for the benefit of Hearers not of Readers Nevertheless it was the desire of many that they might be published upon the hope of good that might be done to the Church of God by them There is need of plain Instructions to incite men to holiness of life as well as accurate Treatises in Points Controverted to discern Truth from Error For which end I dare promise these Sermons will make much where they find an honest and humble Reader It was the Author's greatest care as you may find in the reading of them To handle the Word of God by manifestation of the truth commending himself to every mans conscience in the fight of God as once St. Paul pleaded for himself 2 Cor. 4.2 And if that be the property which they say of an eloquent and good speaker Non ex ore sed ex pectore To speak from his heart rather than his tongue then surely this Author was an excellent Orator one that spake out of sound understanding with true affection How great his parts were and how well improved as may appear by these his Labours so they were fully known and the loss of them sufficiently bewailed by those among whom he lived and conversed Many excellencies there were in him for which his memory remains but this above all was his crown that he unfeignedly sought God's glory and the good of mens souls It remains that these Sermons be read by thee with a care to profit and thanks to God for the benefit thou hast by them sith they are such talents
of professours labours with great penury of true believers It were an easie matter if the time would permit to present unto you many other demonstrations of the same conclusion but to this drawn from our willing ignorance of that which is easie and necessary for us to know I will content my self to add only one more taken from our voluntary and presumptuous neglect to do those things which we know and acknowledge to be necessary If a man should say unto me That it concerns him as much as his life is worth to go presently to such a place and that he knows but one way to it and I should see him stand still or go some other way Had I any reason to believe that this man believes himself Quid Verba audiam cum facta videam saith he in the Comedy Protestatio contra factum non valet saith the Law and why should I believe that that man believes obedience to Christ the only way to present and eternal happiness whom I see wittingly and willingly and constantly and customarily to disobay him The time was that we all knew that the King could reward those that did him service and punish those that did him dis-service and then all men were ready to obey his Command and he was a rare man that durst do any thing to his face that offended him Beloved if we did but believe in God so much as most Subjects do in their King did we as verily believe that God could and would make us perfectly happy if we serve him though all the world conspire to make us miserable and that he could and would make us miserable if we serve him not though all the world should conspire to to make us happy How were it possible that to such a faith our lives should not be conformable Who was there ever so madly in love with a present penny as to run the least hazard of the loss of 10000 l. a year to gain it or not readily to part with it upon any probable hope or light perswasion much more a firm belief that by doing so he should gain 100000 l. Now beloved the happiness which the servants of Christ are promised in the Scripture we all pretend to believe that it exceeds the conjunction of all the good things of the world and much more such a portion as we may possibly enjoy infinitly more then 10000 l. a year or 100000 l. doth a penny for 100000 l. is but a penny so many times over and 10000 l. a year is worth but a certain number of pence but between heaven and earth between finite and infinite between eternity and a moment there is utterly no proportion and therefore seeing we are so apt upon trifling occasions to hazard this heaven for this earth this infinite for this finite this all for this nothing is it not much to be feared that though many of us pretend to much faith we have indeed very little or none at all The sum of all which hath been spoken concerning this point is this Were we firmly perswaded that obedience to the Gospel of Christ is the true and only way to present and eternal happiness without which faith no man living can be justified then the innate desire of our own happiness could not but make us studious inquirers of the will of Christ and conscionable performers of it but there are as experience shews very few who make it their care and business to know the will of Christ and of those few again very many who make no conscience at all of doing what they know therefore though they profess and protest they have faith yet their protestations are not to be regarded against their actions but we may safely and reasonably conclude what was to be concluded That the Doctrin of Christ amongst an infinite of professors labours with great scarcity of true and serious and hearty believers and that herein also we accomplish St. Pauls prediction Having a form of godliness but denying c. But perhaps the truth and reality of our repentance may make some kind of satisfaction to God Almighty for our hypocritical dallying with him in all the rest truly I should be heartily glad it were so but I am so far from being of this faith that herein I fear we are most of all hypocritical and that the generality of professors is so far from a reall practise of true Repentance that scarce one in an hundred understands truly what it is Some satisfie themselves with a bare confession and acknowledgement either that they are sinners in general or that they have committed such and such sins in particular which acknowledgement comes not yet from the heart of a great many but only from their lips and tongues For how many are there that do rather complain and murmure that they are sinners then acknowledge and confess it and make it upon the matter rather their unhappiness and misfortune then their true fault that they are so Such are all they who impute all their commissions of evil to the unavoydable want of restraining grace and all their omission of good to the like want of effectual exciting grace All such as pretend that the Commandements of God are impossible to be kept any better then they are kept and that the World the Flesh and the Devil are even omnipotent enemies and that God neither doth nor will give sufficient strength to resist and overcome them All such as lay all their faults upon Adam and say with those rebellious Israelites whom God assures That they neither had nor should have just reason to say so That their Fathers had eaten sowr grapes and their teeth were set on edge Lastly all such as lay all their sins upon divine prescience and predestination saying with their tongues O what wretched sinners have we been but in their hearts How could we help it we were predestinate to it we could not do otherwise All such as seriously so persuade themselves and think to hide their nakedness with such fig-leaves as these can no more be said to acknowledg themselves guilty of a fault then a man that was born blind or lame with the Stone or Gout can accuse himself of any fault for being born so well may such a one complain and bemone himself and say O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from this unhappiness but such a complaint is as farr from being a true acknowledgement of any fault as a bare acknowledgement of a fault is farr from true repentance for to confess a fault is to acknowledge that freely and willingly without any constraint or unavoydable necessity we have transgressed the law of God it being in our power by God's grace to have done otherwise To aggravate this fault is to confess we have done so when we might easily have avoyded it and had no great nor violent temptation to it to pretend any great difficulty in the matter is to excuse and extenuate it but to
be it spoken do after the true one Having such advantages even above the blessed Apostles and ancient Martyrs Let us walk as becometh the children of God having our eyes fastened upon the Lord our Salvation and conforming our selves freely and unconstrainedly to whatsoever it shall please him to prescribe unto us Not admitting our own carnal reason and wordly wisdom into counsel about his Worship nor believing any thing which he has propos'd unto us in his Word but for the authority of him that spoke it not accepting the persons of men nor perswading our selves to the belief of horrible and unworthy Opinions of God because men affected by us have so delivered It was a grievous complaint that God made by the Prophet Isaiah Cap. 29. v. 13. Their fear towards me is taught by the Commandements of men Isaith 29.13 39. Again we must subdue our Affections to be ruled and squared according to the good Will of God rejoycing to see our most beloved sins discover'd and rebuk'd and even crucified by the powerful Word and Spirit of God Lastly We must be ready for Christ his sake to root out of our hearts that extravagant immoderate Love of our own selves that private affection as Basil calleth it resolving rather to undergo a shameful horrible death then to maintain any inordinate base desire or to take part with our filthy lusts against our Saviour who hath so dearly redeem'd us 40. Thus have you heard in General tearms largely and I fear tediously delivered the sum and effect of this Doctrin of Self-Denyal for the restraining of it to particular Cases I have reserved to another hour Now I will according to my promise as earnestly as I can inforce this necessary duty upon you from the two Circumstances before-mentioned viz. 1. From the greater reasonableness in the thing commanded And 2. Extream Love and Kindness of the Law-giver that hath in his own person given us a perfect example directing us how we should fulfill his command 41. For the first namely the reasonableness of the thing commanded To omit how all creatures in acknowledgment of that duty which they owe to God their Creator do willingly submit themselves to his disposition denying their own specifical private natures for the general good of the world For example The Elements are subject to alterations and deportations to be destroy'd and revived to be Instruments of Gods favour and again of his wrath Surely Man above all the World beside not excepting that glorious heavenly Host of Angels is by a more indissoluble Adamantine chain oblig'd and bound to his Maker For to which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee 42. Again when a great portion of those glorious Spirits had mutinously rebelled against God and Man following the example of their prevarication had with them plung'd himself irrecoverably into extream unavoidable destruction In that necessity God had no respect to those heavenly Spirits which were by nature much more admirable and perfect then we for he did in no wise saith the Apostle take upon him the nature of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham and therein performed the glorious work of our Redemption 43. Surely after this great Love than which I dare not say God cannot but I may well say he will never show a greater we his unworthy creatures are bound to express some greater measure of thankful obedience then we were for our Creation And yet even then the least that could be expected from us was a full perfect resignation of our selves to the disposition of that God that gave us our being Therefore now after a work that has cost God all that pains and study in inventing and contriving and so much sorrow and labour in performing Certainly after all this it is no great thing if the Lord should require our whole selves souls and bodies for a whole burnt-offering a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving If he should require from us our whole substance whole Rivers of Oyl and all the Cattel feeding on a Thousand Hills 44. Yet now he is content that less thanks shall satisfie then was due before ever he perform'd that glorious work Nay he hath after all this taken off and subducted from that debt which we ow'd him for our Creation For whereas then one actual offence against this Law did necessarily draw along with it inevitable destruction yet now our gracious God perceiving that we are but dust accepts of our imperfect sinful obedience nay sometimes of the inward desire and willingness to perform where there is not power to put it in execution Nothing then can be more reasonable then that a Christian should be commanded not to prefer the fulfilling of his own will before Gods Will nor to suffer that his carnal desires should have greater power and sway with him then the command of such a God or Lastly not to withdraw his Allegiance and Obedience due to his Redeemer and place them upon a creature but equal or may be inferiour to himself 45. Secondly Consider the wonderful love and kindness of the Law-giver that hath already tasted unto us tasted nay hath drunk the dregs of this unpleasant bitter potion He by whom all things were made even the Eternal Almighty Word He which thought it no robbery to be equal with God became his own creature and submitted himself to be trod upon reviled hated despised by the worst of all creatures cruel ungodly and perverse sinners He of whose fulness we have all received did utterly evacuate and empty himself of his Glory and Majesty denying to himself such things which he would not even to the most despised creatures For saith he The Foxes have holes and the Birds of the air have nests but the Son of Man hath not whereon to lay his head 2 Cor. 8.9 Ye know saith St. Paul 2 Cor. 8.9 the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that though he was rich he became poor that ye through his poverty might be made rich So poor he was that he was forced to borrow Tribute money of a Fish and was fain to strain himself to a Miracle to get the Fish to bring it So poor that he was forc'd to borrow a young Colt of strangers never known to him Say saith he The Lord hath need of him A strange unheard of speech The Lord that created the world and can as easily annihilate it Yet he hath need and hath need of a Colt the Foal of an Ass Time would fail me for I suppose the World it self would not contain the Books that might be written of his dangers his temptations his fastings his travels his disgraces torments and death all perform'd without any end propos'd to himself besides our good and happiness 46. It behoved him saith St. Paul to be made like his Brethren in all things Heb. 2.17 18. that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest in things pertaining
the necessity of being good holy and vertuous No by no means I am not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it The righteousness of the Law according to the substance thereof shall be as necessarily required by vertue of that New Covenant which I preach unto you and to which I exhort you all to submit your selves as ever it was by the Old Covenant only because of your weakness and infirmity I will abate the rigour of it Those who notwithstanding my offer of Grace and Pardon upon such easie conditions as I prescribe will yet continue in an habitual state of profaneness and irreligion shall be as culpable nay ten times more miserable than if they never had heard of me for their wilful neglecting so great salvation It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for one tittle of the Law to fail For God would be no looser by the annihilation of the world whereas if any part of the Moral Law should expire the very beams and rayes of Gods essential goodness should be darkened and destroy'd 33. In like manner saith St. Paul Rom. 11. ult Rom. 3. ult Do we make void the Law through Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Now if a succeeding Covenant establisheth any part of a Precedent especially if there be any alteration made in the conditions established all obligation whatsoever is taken from the Old Covenant and those conditions are in force only by vertue of the New When the Norman Conquerour was pleas'd to establish and confirm to the English some of the ancient Saxons Laws Are those Laws then become in force as they are Saxon No for the Authority of the Saxons the Authors of those Laws is supposed to be extinguished and therefore no power remains in them to look to the execution of them But by the confirmation of the Norman they are become indeed Norman Laws and are now in force not because they were first made by the Saxons but only by vertue of the succeeding power of the Norman line So likewise when the Gospel enjoyns the substance of the same duties which the old Covenant of Works required Are we Christians enforc'd to the obedience of them because they are duties of the Law By no means But only because our Saviour and only Law-maker Jesus Christ commands the same in the Law of Faith 34. Thus far the New Covenant is in some terms of agreement with the Old inasmuch as the same Moral duties are enjoyn'd in them both as parts of the conditions of both But the difference herein is That the Law commands a precise exact fulfilling of these Precepts as I told you before which the Gospel descending to our infirmities remits and qualifies much For in the Gospel he is accounted to fulfil the moral Precepts that obeys them according to that measure of Grace which God is pleas'd to allow him that obeys God though not with a perfect yet with a sincere upright heart that when he is overcome with a temptation to sin continues not in it but recovers himself to his former righteousness by Repentance and new Obedience Thus much then for the moral Precepts and with what difference they are commanded in the Old and New Covenant 35. In the second place there is another part of Evangelical Obedience which is purely Evangelical and which has no commerce nor reference at all to the Law and that is the Grace of Repentance For saith St. Paul Act. 17 30. Act. 17.30 But now that is by the Gospel God commands all men every where to repent Now Repentance implies a serious consideration and acknowledgment of that miserable estate whereunto our sins have brought us and hereupon an hearty unfeigned sorrow for them a perfect hatred and detestation of them inferring a full peremptory resolution to break them off and interrupt the course of them by new obedience This I say is an obedience purely Evangelical The Law of Works did not at all meddle with it neither indeed could it The Law condemns a man assoon as ever he is guilty of the breach thereof and makes no promise at all of Remission of sins upon Repentance but rather quite excludes it Yet from the grace of Repentance we may gather a forcible argument to make good that which before we spoke concerning the Renewing of the Moral Precepts in the New Covenant For no reasonable man can deny that Repentance is absolutely necessary before a man can be Justified Now what is that for which for example a new converted Heathen repents but the breach of the Moral Law therefore by this necessity of Repentance he acknowledgeth and so do we that by such sins he was excluded from all hope of being Justified Now it were absurd for a man to say that any thing excludes a man from being capable of receiving the promises of a Covenant but only the breaking of the conditions thereof 36. The third part of Evangelical Righteousness is Faith not Moral but Christian which is A relying upon Christ as the only meritorious cause of whatsoever benefit we obtain by the new Covenant It being for his sake both that God bestowes upon us grace whereby we are enabled to perform his will and after we have done our duty that he will freely and not as wages bestow upon us the reward thereof There is another virtue Evangelical which is Hope but of that I must speak in my last point And thus I have gone through the Conditions required on mans part in the New Covenant all which I suppose are implyed in this word Faith which being taken in so general a sense may I conceive be thus not improperly defined viz. To be a receiving and embracing of the Promises made unto us in Christ upon the terms and conditions proposed in the Gospel 37. Now follow the conditions on Gods part comprehended in these words The hope of Righteousness which are equivalent to the term of Justification the nature whereof I shall now endeavour to discover Justification I suppose imports the whole Treasure of blessings and favours which God who is rich in mercy will freely bestow on those whom he accepts as Righteous for his beloved Son our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ his sake which are first Remission of sins and an interest unto the Joyes of heaven in this life and a full consummation both of Grace and Glory in the life to come Some I know think that S. Paul when he discourses of Justification thereby intends only Remission of sins And the ground of this opinion is taken from S. Paul quoting those words of David Rom. 4.6 7 8. when he states the Doctrine of Justification Rom. 4.6 7 8. where he saith that David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works saying Blessed are they whose unrighteousness is forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord will not impute sin But if this Argument out of the