but as it was revealed to them by the said Angels from whom Tertulliane saith they pretended to have received those doctrines which they imposed upon the Collossians though according to the Law of Moses And this is the ground of those things which S. Paul discourses as well against legall observations as against the worship of angels Col. II. 16. which if you will survay what Crotius hath noted upon that place and upon 1 Tim. IV. 1-5 you shall finde to be directly opposed to the doctrines of those Heresies which had their beginning even during the Apostles times So that the reason why he saith that They hold not the head from whom the whole body furnished and compacted by joints and bands groweth the growth of God Col. II. 19. is because they would not have the Angels and the World to be his work which therefore S. Paul must be understood to oppose And truly when they grant the passage of the Psalme noted by the Apostle and repeated before Heb. I. 10. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth to belong to Christ where it speaketh of changing the world but to God where it speakes of making the world there being no difference imaginable between the making and the changing of it what reason can be imagined why all and the proper name of God with all should not be said of Christ Thus much at least our Lord not onely sayes but argues John V. 19 That God hath given him such workes to do as himself doth to raise the dead for example and to judge both quick and dead that all men might honour him as they do the Father which is neither more nor lesse then to esteem him neither more nor lesse And in the place afore named resuming and reinferring his claime of being equall to God which to divert the fury of the Jewes he had seemed a little to wave John X. 37 38. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not but if I do them though ye believe not me believe the workes That you may know that my Father is in me and I in him Where you may see that by the miracles which our Saviour shewed them having obliged them to believe that he was a Prophet come from God and by consequence that whatsoever he came to teach them is true By the works which he foretold of his sitting down at the right hand of God sending the H. Ghost calling the Gentiles raising the dead and judging both quick and dead he obligeth those that believe him to be Christ to believe him to be God being such things as none but God can do Now when S. John saies further And the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us And we saw his glory as the glory of the only begotten son of God full of grace and truth It is not to be denied that the name of flesh intimateh the weaknesse of that meane estate in the which it pleased Christ to come But that implying this it should not expresse his being man is a thing which the bare name of flesh will not indure The people of God onely being acquainted with spirituall and invisible substances in opposition to which man being called flesh or flesh and blood the weaknesse of his nature must by consequence be implied the nature it self being directly understood and expressed Wherefore when the Apostle saith John IV. 2 3. Every Spirit that acknowledgeth Jesus who is come in the flesh to be Christ is of God And every spirit that acknowledgeth not Jesus Christ that is come in the flesh to be Christ is not of God It is manifest that he speakes of those heresies which would have the Christ to be something else then the man Jesus belonging to the fullnesse of the Godhead whether it came upon the man Jesus to leave him againe according to Cerinthus during the time of the Apostles and Valentine and others afterwards or whether it never appeared in the person of a man in the World For I have made it manifest before that these were the Doctrines of those Haeresies wherof he gives them warning Besides we must here recall all the reasons that have been used to shew that S. John in the premises speaks of the state of the Word before the birth of our Lord and not before his appearing to Preach By which it will appear that we shall not need to dispute with Socinus about the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it may at any time or whether here it may or must signifie was or became The consequence of the Text necessarily inferring that when S. John sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning is not that this Word was a mean man but that the Word became man which it was not afore And therefore for S. Johns meaning we must look to the opposition between the Flesh and the Spirit so often expressed and signified to be in our Lord Christ by the Apostles S. Paul speaking of the Fathers Rom. IX 5. Of whom sayth he is Christ according to the flesh who is God blessed for evermore Intimating that he is another way according to the Spirit That way he expresseth Rom. I. 3. saying that Christ who came of the Seed of David according to the flesh is declaâ—ed or as the Syriack translates it known to he the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holinesse by rising from the dead Whereupon another Apostle sayes 1 Pet. III. 18. that he was put to death in the flesh but quickned in or by the Spirit Or as S Paul again 2 Cor. XIII 4. Crucified out of weakness but alive out of the power of God For in all these speeches as the flesh and the weakness thereof signifies the manhood so the Spirit the Godhead For in the Gospells sometimes he professeth to do miracles and cast out Devils by the power of God sometimes by the Holy Ghost Mar. VI. 5. IX 39. Luke IV. 36. V. 17. VI. 19. Where we hear what the Sinne against the Holy Ghost in the Gospell is Namely for those that stood so plentifully convict that these works were done by the power of God in him to say that they were done by the Prince of Devils For vvhen the Baptist sayth John III. 34. He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God For God giveth him not the Spirit by measure He maketh the difference plain enough between the fulness of the Spirit dwelling in Christ vvhich is the Godhead of the Word incarnate never to be parted from the Manhood of Christ and that measure of it by vvhich the Prophets spake for the time that they vvere inspired As S. Paul sayes of the Church that grace is given it according to the measure of Christs gift Ephes IV. 7. Wherefore the Apostle having observed afore that Melchisedeck is called a Priest not according to the commandment of a carnall Law but according to the virtue of indissoluble Life Heb. VII 16.
it must be upon the terms of my position the practice of the Church giving bounds to the sense of the Scripture I can therefore safely agree with the Constitutions of the Apostles with S. Cyprian and Leo and whosoever else teaches that it is not safe for the people to assure their consciences upon the credit of their Pastors But it is because I suppose the Unity of the Church provided by God for a ground upon which the people may reasonably presume when they are to adhere to their Pastors when not To wit when they are owned not when they are disowned by the Unity of the Church For though this provision becomes uneffectual when this Unity is dissolved yet ought not that to be an argument that the goodnesse of God never made that provision which the malice of man may defeat But that whosoever concurrs to maintain the division concurrs to defeat that provision which God hath made As safely do I agree with all them who agree that whatsoever is taught in Christianity is to be proved by the Scriptures For if it belong to the Rule of Faith it is intended by the Scriptures though that intent is evidenced by the Tradition of the Church If to the Lawes of the Church the authority of it comes from the Scriptures though the evidence of it may depend upon common sense which the practice of the Church may convince If over and above both it is not receivable if not contained in the Scriptures And in this regard whosoever maintains the whole Scripture to be the Rule of Faith is throughly justified by all those testimonies that have been alleged to that purpose For though it be not necessary to the salvation of all Christians to understand the meaning of all the Scriptures yet what Scripture soever a man attains to understand is as much a Rule to his Faith as that which a man cannot be saved if hee understand not the sense of it whether in and by the Scripture or without it And though a man may be obliged to believe that which is not in the Scripture to have been instituted by the Apostles yet is he not obliged to observe it but upon that reason which the Scripture delivereth And upon these terms is the whole Scripture a Rule of Faith from which as nothing is to be taken away so is nothing to be added to it as the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. II. Hom. XII requireth And the saying of S. Basil in Esa II. and Ascet Reg. I. condemning all that is done without Scripture takes place upon no other terms than these Not as Cartwright and our Puritanes after him imagine that a man is to have a text of Scripture specifying every thing which hee doth for his warrant For as it is in it self ridiculous to imagine that all cases which fall out can be ruled by expresse text of Scripture our Christianity being concerned infinite wayes of which it is evident that the Scripture had no occasion to speak So if the words of the Scripture be lodged in a heart where the work of them dwelleth not a thing which wee see too possible to come to passe it is the ready way to make the Word of God a color for all unrighteousnesse not onely to others but to the very heart of him who hath that cloke for it It is therefore enough that the reason of every thing which a Christian doth is to be derived from that doctrine which the Scripture declaeth And where a man proceedeth to do that for which hee hath not such a reason so grounded as reasonable men use to go by then cometh that to passe which S. Basil chargeth Ascet Reg. LXXX That What is not of faith is sin It is true according to that sense which hitherto I have used after many Church Writers the Rule of Faith extendeth not to all the Scriptures but onely to that which it is necessary to salvation to believe and to know Which every man knowes that all the Scripture is not For though it be necessary to salvation to believe that all the Scripture is true yet is it not necessary to salvation to know all that the Scripture containeth And the reason why I use it in this sense is to distinguish those things contained in the Scriptures which Tradition extendeth to from those to which it extendeth not For upon these terms is the sense of them limitable to the common Faith But I quarel not therefore the opinion of them that maintaine the whole Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith acknowledging that whatsoever it containeth is necessarily to be believed by all that come to understand it And whatsoever it containeth not though the Scripture alone obligeth not to believe the truth of it is not necessarily to be observed for any other reason but that which the Scripture declareth As for S. Basil making it apostasy to bring that which is not written into the Faith It is a thing well known that the Arians were charged by the Church for bringing in words that were not in the Scriptures saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was a time when Christ was not And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That hee was made of nothing On the other side after the Council of Nicaea the Arians charged the Church for bringing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance Where then lay the difference between the Inndelity of the Arians and the Faith of the Church Theodoret showes it Hist Eccles I. 8. out of Athanasius de Actis Concil Niceni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee They were condemned by written words piously understood But how appears this piety For I suppose the Arians would not have granted it Hee addeth that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been used by the Fathers which had it been inconsistent with the sense of the Church could not have been indured in a mater concerning the Rule of Faith whereas their terms were contrary to that which is found in the Scriptures Now S. Basil acknowledgeth that hee had elsewhere dealing with Hereticks used terms not found in the Scriptures to exclude their sense contrary to the Scriptures as you shall finde by the Authors alleged that the Council of Nicaea had done but to those who desired information with a single heart hee resolves to rest content with the Scriptures The terms whereof his meaning is that the Hereticks did not rest content with because they had a minde to depart from the Faith Upon the same terms Tertullian pronounces the Wo that belongs to them which adde to Gods Word upon Hermogenes because his error concerned the Article of our Creed that God made heaven and earth And S. Austine presumes the reason why there is no clear Scripture for the original of the soul to be because hee presumes that it concerns not the substance of Faith Besides these Observations some of those passages which are alleged may concern Christianity rather than the Scriptures
supposeth that there is no means but the Gospel to save us But if wee be saved by believing the Gospel wee may be saved not believing that which the Church teacheth without it For that which the Gospel obligeth us to believe unto salvation it is agreed already that wee cannot be saved without believing it Suppose now the Church to continue till the last day not as one visible Body but broken into pieces as wee see it so that alwaies there remain a number of good Christians for whether or no they that communicate not with the Church of Rome may be good Christians is the thing in question not to be taken for truth without proving shall the gates of hell be said to prevail against the Church all that while Besides Grotius expounds those words to signifie no more but this That death and the grave which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hell in the stile of the Old Testament signifies shall never prevail over Christians That is that they shall rise again And I suppose it is not so evident that this exposition is false as that the Gospel is true As for the Keyes of Christs Kingdom let him that saith they argue Infallibility say also that they cannot be abused But hee will have more shame if not more sense than to say it The Thessalonians received the Gospel as the Word of God because they supposed it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word which God sent them newes of Would they therefore have received the decrees of the Church with the same reverence not supposing them the Word of God till some body prove it But suppose the promises made S. Peter to import as much as the power of the Apostles is it as evident that the present Pope succeeds S. Peter as that Christianity is from God That hee succeeds him in the full right of that Power which is given the Apostles Certainly wheresoever two or three are assembled in the name of Christ there is not the Infallibility of the Church Therefore it cannot be founded upon the promises made to all Assemblies of Christians as Christians It is very probable that the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem had a revelation upon the place signifying how they should order the mater in question because there are many instances in the Scriptures of inspirations at the very Assemblies of Gods people as I have showed in the Right of the Church Therefore it is not evident that all Councils may say the like Therefore they cannot presume that the Holy Ghost will lead them into all truth whatsoever they take a humor to determine because it was promised that hee should lead the Apostles into all truth concerning our common Christianity But if the Church be the pillar and foundation that upholdeth the truth then must that truth first be evidenced for truth before the effect of the Churches office in upholding it as pillars uphold an house can appear The exhortations of the Apostles 1 Thess V. 14 15. Hebr. XIII 7 17. to yield obedience to the Rulers of the Church are certainly pertinent to this purpose But it is evident that this obedience is limitable by the grounds and substance of Christianity delivered afore as it is evident that all Power of the present Church presupposeth our common Christianity As for the obedience required in the Old Testament to the Governors of the Synagogue and Priests confirmed by our Lord Mat. XXIII 2. I am very willing to grant the Church all Power in decreeing for truth that can appear to have belonged to the Rulers of the Synagogue because I am secure that those who could put malefactors to death as they could were not therefore able to tye men to believe that which they say to be true But the great subtilty is the Prophesie of Caiaphas John XI 48-52 who because High Priest could not but truly determine that our Lord must die least the people should perish even in resolving to crucifie him Indeed at the beginning God was wont to conduct his people by Oracles of Urim and Tummim in the High Priests brest-plate And though this was ceased under the second Temple as wee have reason to believe the Jewes yet was it no marvail that God should use the High Priests tongue to declare that secret which himself understood not being the Person by whom hee had used to direct his people in former ages But hee that from hence concludes the Church infallible must first maintain that Caiaphas erred not in crucifying our Lord Christ Now if it be said that the consent of all Christians though not as members of the Church because as yet it appeareth not that the Church is a Corporation and hath members determines the sense of these Scriptures to signifie Infallibility which they may but do not necessarily signifie Let him consider the disputes that succeeded in the Church upon the decree of the Great Council at Nicaea the breaches that have succeeded upon the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon the division between the Greek and the Latine Church between the Reformation and the Church of Rome For is it imaginable that all Christians holding as firmly as their Christianity that the acts of the Pope and a Council that is the greater part of the present Church is to be believed as much as the Scriptures not onely the decree of Nicaea should be disputed again but breaches should succeed rather than admit their decrees retaining the common profession of Christianity What disputes there have been betwixt the Court of Rome and the Paris Doctors whether it be the act of the Pope or of a General Council that obligeth the belief of the Church is as notorious to the world as that they are not yet decided And yet the whole question is disputed onely concerning the Western Church The East which acknowledgeth not the Pope appeareth not in the claim of this Infallibility were both East and West joyned in one and the same Council Now among them that maintain the Pope it is not agreed what acts of the Pope they must be that shall oblige the Church to believe as it believes the Scriptures For it is argued that Popes have decreed Heresie Liberius Honorius Vigilius and perhaps others And though I stand not to prove I may presume that the contrary is not so evident as our common Christianity or the Scriptures And that some of them have held Heresie seems granted without dispute Is it then as evident as our common Christianity what act of the Pope obliges us to believe That hee cannot decree that error to be held by others which it is granted himself holdeth Besides how many things are requisite to make a true Pope whose Power unlesse it be conveyed by the 〈◊〉 act of those that are able to give it the acts thereof will be void which it does not appear that the present Pope is qualified with as it appeareth that the Scriptures are true And may not the same question be
disputed by degrees that they are not true There would be nothing in my way to hinder the resolution of a positive Rule to distinguish between true and false in all things concerning the Christian Faith Notwithstanding because by that which already wee have said and that which appears to all men in the Scriptures there is sufficient means to conclude so much as I have proposed and that the proof of it will be an advantage to that which shall follow I shall undertake it supposing no more than I have said I do remember the Argument made against Tradition by Marinaro the Carmelite at the Council of Trent Which as it was thought so considerable there that order was taken that hee should appeare no more in the Council so seemed to mee when I reade it not easie to answer Now upon further consideration I make it my ground to prove the conclusion which I have advanced Hee argued That it was not possible to give a reason why God should provide that some of those truths which are necessary to salvation should be recorded in Scripture others equally obliging not For if you interpose the terme clearly and argue That there is no reason why God should deliver some things clearly by writing others not the argument will be the same To mee it seems manifest that hee who once holds that all things necessary to the salvation of all are clearly contained in the Scriptures adding onely clearly to his terms to all understandings ties himself by giving the reason why they ought to be clear because necessary to maintain that all truths are delivered by Scripture in the same degree of clearnesse to all understandings as they are in degree of necessity to the salvation of all souls For that every cause every reason should inferre the consequence produce the effect answerable in degree to that degree which the reason or cause is supposed to hold is a thing that all reason inforces every understanding justifies But that all things are not clear by the Scriptures in the same degree as they are necessary to salvation is clear to all in point of fâ—ct Inasmuch as there are infinite truths which Christians diffâ—r not about in the Scriptures because they think not their salvation concerned in the mater of them those which are thought to concern it remaining in dispute because not so clear Neither is it for a Christian to prescribe a reason why it ought to be otherwise because that were to prescribe unto Almighty God a rule not depending upon his will declared otherwise This is the issue upon which I demonstrate my intent Neither Gods act in general of declâ—ring his will in writing not his particular acts of declaring his will in such several maters as the several writings of the Prophets and Apostles which make the Body of the Scriptures contain do any way import the declaring of an intent in God thereby to manifest all things necessary to the salvation of all clearly to all understandings therefore that any thing is necessary to salvation is no presumption that it is clearly declared in Scripture to all understandings Inasmuch as it is manifest that no man can give Law to God what hee ought to declare but all men may presume that and that onely to be declared which by dealing with mâ—n under such or such a profession hee hath of his free goodnesse tied himself to declare For it being in the free choice of God whether to declare any will concerning mans salvation or none and that choice being made it remaining yet in his choice whether hee would declare his will by writing or not as it was in his power for so many years before Moses to save men without Scripture it cannot be said that either before declaring an intent to save men hee was bound to declare all that was necessary unto it by writing or by declaring it And this I hold enough to demonstrate to all understandings that the declaring of an intent to deliver us by writing things concerning our salvation imports not in God an intent to declare thereby all things necessary to the salvation of all clearly to all understandings Which will yet be cleâ—rer by proving the other part of my proposition that by the intent of writing the several Books whereof the Scripture consists clearly declared God hath not clearly declared the intent so often said The proof of this by the particulars I hold the sufficientest satisfaction that can be tendred here where the pretense is to proceed onely upon that which all Christians receive The particulars consist in the writings of the Prophets the sayings and doings of our Lord recorded in the four Gospels and the writings of the Apostles For the Gospels pretending to contain the doings and sayings of our Lord but to be written by his disciples It followes by the nature of the busâ—nesse that they must contain some thing as from the person of the Writer and of his sense over and above what they pretend to record Which properly will belong to the writings of the Apostles though contained in the Gospels And thus farre to avoid cavil I have thought fit here to distinguish Now that all mater of salvation is not clearly contained in the writings of the Prophets that is in the Old Testament written by Moses and his Scholars the Prophets I prescribe upon that which all Christians suppose as the ground upon which Christianity is justified against Judaisme That the Old Testament delivereth but the figure and shadow of the New For unlesse a man will have the figure and shadow to be all one with the body and substance hee must confesse that the substance of Christianity which is shadowed in the Old Testament is not clearly declared by the same unless he will have to be shadowed and unshadowed that is clear to be all one Let mee demand if Christianity be clearly declared by the Law to be that profession which God would have all to be saved by that should be saved from the time of prescribing it what need the miracles of our Lord and his Apostles what need the Resurrection and so his Sufferings as to the account of evidencing the truth of his Doctrine For the Law being once received upon necessary reasons it is impossible to say why any new reasons should be requiâ—ite to inforce the truth or the obligation of the Gospel if it were clearly declared by it Again it is manifest that our Lord being risen again and giving the Holy Ghost unto his Disciples by breathing on them John XX. 22. gave them also a spiritual grace of understanding the Scriptures as you finde Luke XXIV 32 45. Where first the Disciples that went to Emmaus confesse with admiration Did not our hearts burn within us when hee talked with us on the way and opened us the Scriptures declaring unto them how hee was foretold in the Old Testament as you have it afore Then having perswaded them all that it was even hee
Church in time perhaps they may declare I have not hitherto understood Shall I say there is not sufficient argument for the sense of the Church in the Gospels It is no part of my meaning Shall I therefore say it is clear of it selfe in the Gospels that is to say by the sayings and doings of our Lord recorded in the Gospels Doth not our Lord plainly make himself equal to the Father John V. 17-23 Doth hee not answer again being questioned for this John X. 33 34 35. by the words of David spoken of meer men Psal LXXXIII 6. I have said yee are Gods Doth hee not say plainly again My Father is greater than I John XIV 28 Which things as it is plain by argument that they may stand with the sense of the Church so that those arguments are plain of themselves to all understandings is as much as to say That a seeming contradiction argues an intent in our Lord that all men should see the resolution of it Again that all that will be saved by our Lord Christ must take up his Crosse and professe him to the death is plaine by the Gospels But so long as the Disciples might and did believe that they should raigne with our Lord in his Kingdome over that people which should destroy their enemies was the intent of suffering death for Christ to raign with him in heaven plaine by the Gospels That the Law should stand for ever is it not plainly delivered by our Lord in the Gospel and is it not as plainly of the necessity of salvation to believe that wee are saved by the Gospel and not by the Law I appeal to S. Pauls Epistles Though I dispute not whether this be abrogating the Law as Divines commonly speak or derogating from it Certainly though I know not whether the Socinians would be content with the Leviathan that no thing be thought necessary to salvation to be believed but that our Lord is the Christ Yet I know they would be astonished to hear that hee who believes that and lives according to the Lawes of his Soveraign hath done the duty of a Christian and may challenge his share in the kingdome of heaven for it But this I must not dispute further in this place Onely here I must answer his reasons out of the Scripture and show you upon what a weak pinne hee hath hung all this waight Christ is the foundation 1 Cor. III. 11. Mat. XVI 18. which all the Gospels pretend to induce us to believe John XX. 31. as also the exhortations of the Apostles Acts XVII 2 3 6. by this the good thief was saved believing onely our Lord anointed by God to his Kingdome Luke XXIII 42. Everlasting life is to be had by believing this and the Scripture because it witnesseth this John V. 39. and XVII 3. XI 26 27. Which is all blown away with this breath That hee that admits our Lord to be the Christ cannot refuse any part of his doctrine And therefore salvation is justly imputed to that which whoso receiveth shall be bound to admit and undergo whatsoever his salvation requireth This is eternal life to know thee the onely God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ John XVII 3. These things are written that yee may believe that Jesus is the Christ and that believing yee may have life John XX. 31. How have life believing Because hee that believes will be baptized and hee that is baptized must undertake to live as Christ teacheth professing to believe in the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost which believing in Christ coming from the Father to send the Holy Ghost implieth And therefore the Eunuch Acts VIII 36 37. is baptized upon this Faith as others into it Acts II. 38. VIII 16. XIX 5. The belief of the Creation of the world of Providence the Resurrection and Judgment to come not being introduced by Christianity but found in force among the Jewes when our Lord came So that limitation by which the Leviathan inlargeth his sense of that which the believing of our Lord to be the Christ implieth is not worth a straw It is not onely necessary to salvation to believe all that the Messias was to be or to do to be verified and to have been done by our Lord Jesus Unlesse we believe that wee are to believe and to do whatsoever hee taught us to believe and to do And that as I have showed is not determinable by any means but that which Christ by himself or by his Apostles hath provided us neither whether so or not and much lesse whether necessary to salvation or not That which hath been alleged to show That the substance of Christianity necessary to the salvation of all under the Gospel is not clearly contained in the Old Testament nor in the sayings and doings of our Lord related by the Evangelists Holds not in the writings of the Apostles For being directed to Christians already reduced into Churches constituted upon supposition of the knowledge and profession of Christianity there is no reason why they should be sparing in declaring the truth of it to those to whom they write True it is and evident by their writings that they used great reservation in declaring to those that were of Jewes become Christians the discharge of their obligation to Moses Law But whatsoever their proceeding was in that case not onely the reason of the truth but also the reason of that proceeding is clearly declared by their writings But if all their writings suppose in them to whom they write knowledge sufficient for the salvation of all Christians and none of them pretend to lay down the summe and substance of that whereof the salvation of all Christians requireth the knowledge evident it is that the perfection of none of them nor the whole Scriptures consisting of them and those which wee have spoken of hitherto requireth that they clearly contain all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians For the Perfection of every writing consisteth in the sufficience of it for the purpose to which it is intended If therefore the occasions of the Apostles writings and so the purpose of them evidently express not an intent to lay down clearly to all understandings the whole substance of that which is sufficient to render all Christians capable of salvation as evidently neither any nor all of them do then neither doth the perfection not sufficience nor clearnesse of the Apostles writings require that all things necessary to the salvation of all be clear in them to all understandings For let no man object That they were all of them necessary to the salvation of all or most of them to whom they were sent Unless it could be said That whatsoever was necessary to the salvation of those to whom the Apostles writ is necessary to the salvation of all Christians Which so long as there is a difference between necessity of means and necessity of precept That is between that which is necessary to the common
the visibility of the Church and the assurance that every particular Christian might have during this intelligence and correspondence that holding communion with his own Pastor hee held the true Faith together with the Unity of the Catholick Church Neither putting trust in man which God curseth nor in his own understanding for the sense of the Scriptures but trusting his own common sense as well for the means of conveying to him the mater as the motives of Christianity For why is it enough for Irenaeus and Tertullian for S. Augustine and Optatus to allege the Church of Rome and the succession from the Apostles for evidence that the Faith of those Hereticks was contrived by themselves that the Donatists were out of communion with the Church Because supposing that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord all communicated in the same Faith which they taught the Churches of their own founding other Churches founded and the Pastors of them constituted by the authority of those Churches must needs be founded and settled upon condition of maintaining and professing the same Faith So that if any Christian or Pastor should attempt the unsettling of any part thereof the people to stand bound rather to follow the original consent of the whole from whence they received their Christianity than any man that should forfeit his ingagement to the whole in the judgment of the whole This being the true ground for the authority of Councils might and did take effect without assembling of Councils S. Cyprian directs his leters to Steven Bishop of Rome to write to the Churches of Gaule to ordain a new Bishop in stead of Marcianus in the Church of Arles because hee had joyned with the Novatians To the Spanish Bishops owning the Deposing of Basilides and Martialis and the Ordaining of those whom they had put in their places notwithstanding that upon false suggestions they had gained Steven Bishop of Rome to maintain them Epist LXV LXVI Could any man in his right senses have attempted this had it not been received among Christians which hee alleges that the people of particular Churches are bound not to acknowledge those for their Pastors whom the communion of the Church disowneth whether assembled in Council or not The acts of Councils themselves such are the creation of a Bishop of Arles in stead of Marcianus of Spanish Bishops in stead of Basilides and Martialis depending upon the authority of the Churches of Rome and Carthage that concurred not to them in presence If this be imputed to any mistake of Gods appointment in the ancient Church it will be easie for mee to allege Tertullians reason to as good purpose against our Independent Congregations as hee used it against the Hereticks of his time For if the chief Power of the Church be vested in those that assemble to serve God at once without any obligation to the resolution of other Congregations then is the trust that a Christian can repose in the Church resolved into that confidence which hee hath of those seven with whom hee joyneth to make a Congregation that the ruling part of them cannot faile Or rathâ—r into that which hee hath of himself and of the Spirit of God guiding his choice to those that shall not faile They presuming themselves to have the Spirit of God without declaring what Christianity they professe for the condition upon which they obtain it need no provision of a Catholick Church to preserve that Faith which the Gift of the Holy Ghost supposeth God who requireth the profession of a true Faith in them upon whom hee bestoweth his Spirit hath provided the communion of his Church for a means to assure us of that which it preserveth That it is presumption in them to oversee this no imposture in the Church to challenge it Tertullians reason determines The Hereticks pleaded that the Churches had departed from the Faith which the Apostles had left them To this after other allegations hee sets his rest up on this one that error is infinite truth one and the same That no common sense will allow that to be a mistake in which all Christians agree They all agreed in the same Faith against those Hereticks because they all agreed in acknowledging the Catholick Church provided by God to preserve and propagate it against our Independent Congregations Thus Tertullian de Praescript XXVIII There have been some Disputers of Controversies that have claimed the benefit of Tertullians exception against the Hereticks of his time in behalf of the Church of Rome Hee pleadeth not that the Catholicks ought not but that they are not bound to admit them to dispute upon the Scriptures being able to condemne them without the Scriptures And they plead that the Reformation not standing to those Pastors whom they acknowledge to possesse the place of those that derived their authority by succession from the Apostles may be condemned without Scripture as not holding the truth who hold not that which is taught by the said Pastors Which is to demand of those of the Reformation for an end of all debates first to acknowledge those Pastors and that which they teach then to take that for the true meaning of the Scripture which that which they reach alloweth or requireth But this supposes the sentence of the Church to be an infallible ground for the truth of that which it determineth And therefore to be accepted with the same Faith as our common Christianity or the Scriptures Which I showed you already to be false It shall therefore suffice mee to say that those men consider not the difference between the plea of the Reformation and that of those Hereticks For they acknowledging our Lord Christ and his Apostles no otherwise than the Alcoran and Mahomet doth where they served their turn made no scruple to say when it was for their purpose that they knew not the depth of Gods minde which themselves by some secret way having attained to know were therefore called Gnosticks That they imparted not the utmost of their knowledge to all alike when that served their turne That therefore the Scriptures were unperfect and revealed not that secret whereby they promised their salvation but by incklings These things you shall finde in Tertullian de Praescript XXII and Irenaeus III. 1. as well as that plea which I mentioned afore that the Churches were fallen from that which they had received of the Apostles Whereas those of the Reformation allege against the Church of Rome that those Hereticks pretended Tradition as they do Without cause indeed For what is Tradition pretended to be delivered in secret to them and by them who tender no evidence for it to that which the visibility of Christianity and the grounds upon which it is settled justifieth But so as to make it appear that they no way disown the Apostles or their writings nor can expect salvation by any other meanes And therefore are manifestly to be tryed by the Scriptures acknowledged on both sides provided the trial
is Soveraign inact it By consequence must needs deny that any Act of the Apostles could be Law to the Church whose office was onely to publish the newes of the coming and rising again of Christ and to induce men to submit themselves to his kingdome of the world to come Much lesse can there be any Power to give Lawes to the Church but that which is in the Soveraigne of each State which therefore when it is Christian is called the Church of such a Kingdome Though hee acknowledge also that before the Empire was Christian the Body of Christians in every City is called in the Scriptures the Church of such or such a City pag. 275 But denying that there can be upon earth any such universal Church as all Christians are tied to obey because they are lyable to other Powers of this world according to the States of which they are pag. 248. and before pag. 206. As for the Power of bunding and loosing very properly hee understands it to be a consequence of the Apostles commission to baptize unto forgivenesse of sins But so that supposing they have nothing to do either to loose them that repent not or to binde them that do and that no mans repentance is visible but by our outward signes there must be some Power to judge of the truth of those fignes because they may be counterfeit And this Power as it is expresly given by our Lord to the Church Mat. XVIII 16. when hee saith Tell the Church So doth S. Paul 1 Cor. V. 11 12 and 3 4 5. acknowledge the power of casting out the incestuous persons and other finners to be in the Congregation reserving to himself onely the pronouncing of the sentence Supposing this Church to be now the Soveraign Power that representeth the people but when S. Paul writ the Body of Christians in such or such a City pag. 275. In like maner the appointing of Persons either to officiate the Service of God or to wait upon the necessities of the Church hee also gives unto the Church that is then to the respective Bodies of Christians but now to the Soveraign Power into which all Rights of the People resolve by the establishment of it But the consecrating of them by Imposition of hands as to the Apostles for their time so to the worlds end to their Successors For thus were Maâ—thias Paul and Barnabas made Apostles Act. I. 15 23. XIV 1 2 3. XIV 14. Thus the seven Deacons thus the Elders of Churches were constituted Acts VI. 3. XIV 23. the Congregation chusing the Apostles declaring the choice as in binding and loosing As for the maintenance of Persons thus appointed it is no marvail if hee make it meer almes and benevolence without any Law of God to make the purses of Christians lyable to it who acknowledgeth not Christianity to be any Law For how shall hee be bound to contribute towards the maintenance of such persons that is not bound to be a Christian But that Tithes under the Law were due onely by the Civil Power which God had upon the people having made God their Soveraign by their Covenant with him in which right Moses and Aaeron and the High Priests that succeeded him were but his Lieutenants so that when this Power was translated and settled upon their Kings it held meerly by their sufferance this is an imagination that no mans brain ever teemed with till now And truly in the point of giving Law to the Church by determining Controversies of Faith and by interpreting difficulties of Scripture call it what you please as also by deciding that which becomes questionable in any thing that concerns the community of Christians It had been a necessary consequence of this opinion that as hee owneth the Soveraign Powers right to decree so hee should assign the Persons thereby appointed for the Church a Right to declare publish or pronounce the same as in Excommunicating and Ordaining hee doth For which hee hath found no ground no pretense in the Scriptures Besides whereas by the Act of the Apostles laying a burden upon believers Acts XV. 28. and by the practice of their successors practising the holding of Councils which common sense would make ridiculous if they had no effect upon the Church hee is convinced to acknowledge that they were able to binde themselves though not the Church It will be impossible for him to render a reason either why this power should cease or how it should continue when the Soveraign Power becomes Christian and all right in the Church is resolved into it I must not leave this point before I have taken notice of one presumption wherein both these Authors seem to agree For the Leviathan in several places pag. 285 286 282 205 206 322. taketh for granted that there is no Law in the world but the Law of Nature and the Civil Lawes of Commonwealths And therefore that hee which makes Ecclesiastical Power not to depend upon the Civil must indow it both with right and means to constrain men to obey it and thereupon inferrs all the inconvenience which hee so much aggravates That then all Civil Power must of necessity be swallowed up and resolved into the Power of the Church in as much as all Christians even Soveraignes are members of it Which to avoid it is necessary to grant that the Church is nothing else but a Christian Commonwealth and the Clergy ministers of the Soveraign Power deriving all their authority from it pag. 209 249 296. In like maner the first book de Synedriis Ebraeorum in defining Excommunication pag. 105. takes it for granted that those who challenge the power of it in behalf of the Church would have the Civil estate and condition of him that is excommunicate in regard of his reputation of freedom changed and abated by it Which must needs inferre the Church to be indowed with such a power as is able by outward force to constrain obedience For otherwise the estate of no man that is protected in all right by the Civil Power could be changed or abated by it Accordingly in several places hee presumes that those who maintain the Power of the Church and the right of Excommunicating which is a prime part of it to stand by Gods Law are obliged by consequence to maintain the Power of the Church in maters of the world in Ordine ad spiritualia And hereupon follow the reasons whereby these Authors have disputed the one à priori that this constitution of the Church is destructive to the peace and safety of all States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes in as much as a Power not depending upon them may lawfully be used against them by giving the people a title of executing the commands of it by force The other à posteriori from the practice of all Christian States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes Who by limiting the exercise and effect of all kindes of acts which the Church hath done or pretended to inforce by Excommunication have
Ecclesiastical may be from God though limitable by the Secular hitherto this is evidence As for the holding of Councils I mervail to see this Doctor so securely to dream that the calling of them all belongs onely to the State and that it were an usurpation in the Church to hold any but by commission from it For hee is not ignorant how many Synods were held by the Church afore Constantine and that upon the same right as those meetings of the Apostles which I have showed had the power and force of General Councils without asking leave either of Jewes or Romanes Which is enough for the present purpose to infringe the argument made by this Doctor in the former part of his book Not that there is no Church but that there can be none where there is a State Wherein hee out-vieth the first book de Synedriis his Master who having granted that the Excommunications of Christians were taken up by the voluntary consent of Churches hath by consequenâ—e granted that the Church was a Church that is a Corporation before Constantine And therefore I referr the consideration of the time after Constantine till I speak of the bounds of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power in Church maters Where it will as easily appear as it is easie to look into any record of the Church that the holding of Synods was a mater of course and Canon and custome allowed indeed by the Empire but constituted and limited by the Church Not because the State might not have forbid them Had they gone beyond the bounds of that right which the constitution of the Church establisheth justly unjustly if they had not So that the power of forbidding to be just the use of it unjust But that the Church was yet unacquainted with the motives of transgressing those bounds and so the State had no just cause to interpose Of General Councils I say not the same Not as if the Church afore Constantine had usurped a right not due had it assembled by representatives in a General Council But whether such assemblies were forborn as mater of more jealousie to the State than either ordinary meetings for the service of God or Synods Or of more charge to the Church It must be acknowledged that the first General Council of Nicaea could not have been assembled without the command as well as the charge of Constantine That other General Councils were never assembled without the concurrence of the chief Powers of Christendome That every Soveraign hath a Power to command the presence of every subject where and when hee shall please And that Constantius when hee constrained the Council of Ariminum to sit against their will to the prejudice of the respective Churches on purpose by this duresse and the opportunities of time to bring them to his will abused his Power indeed but usurped it not For if the constitution of the Church be no ground for any temporal Right then can no quality in the Church exempt any man from the service which as a member of the Common-wealth hee owes his Soveraign But whether they acted by commission from Constantius or by the quality they held in the Church the successe of his designe witnesseth For as I have showed you that without being assembled they had both right obliging them and means inabling them to maintaine the Faith by mutual intelligence and correspondence So being assembled alters nothing in the case saving the opportunity it giveth to imploy their right to that end which their quality pretendeth Their assembling upon his command signifying no trust which they undertook to him prejudicial to that which their quality in the Church importeth Having said this in general to that general Argnment upon which this Doctor pretends to build his opinion I am content to turn my Reader loose to him provided hee be content to consider also that which shall be found requisite to be said when I have done with his two predecessors CHAP. XII That the Law expersly 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 requireth 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 the precepts of the Law the love of our Neighbor onely to Jewes Of the Ceremonial Judicial and Moral Law SO much difference as there is between these two or these three opinions and the reasons upon which they proceed it is manifest that the issue and pretense of all is the same That there is no such thing as a Church Understanding by that name a Visible Society or Corporation of all Christian people subsisting or that ought to subsist by a Charter from God one and the same from the first to the second coming of Christ Which therefore remaines distinct from all States and Soveraignties that professe Christianity by the Rights upon which it subsists though the persons of which both consist may be the same if it so fall out that Christianity be professed by all the Soveraign Powers under which there are Christians But that is the reason why I am forced to quote both Authors and Opinions by name which in other points I shall avoid Not onely because I would be as short in this abridgment as my designe will bear But because nothing seemes to mee more odious or further from the profession of a Christian than the affectation of contradicting the opinions of men in repute for Learning which therefore I would have avoided by silencing the names of these had I not found so much difference in the means from which they would inferre the same consequence And truly the Leviathan hath done like a Philosopher in making the question general that is general indeed and giving that resolution of all the branches of it without which whatsoever is said to some parts of it leaves the whole unresolved while any part so remaines Those that onely dispute the power of Excommunication are neverthelesse to give account what Right the Secular Power can have to appoint the Persons that shall either determine or execute maters of Religion to decide Controversies of Faith to minister the Sacraments which they may do themselves by much better Title than by their Deputies than if they resolved and maintained all this as expresly as the Leviathan hath done It may be indeed hee hath made his resolution more subject to be contradicted by so freely and generously declaring it But whosoever shall undertake the same pretense will stand no lesse obliged to God and to his Church to give account how every part of that Power which as well before as since Constantine hath been exercised by the Church should henceforth be exercised by Secular Powers without prejudice to Christianity before hee go about to void it Though hee give not the truth so much advantage against
as the Evangelist and our Lord both affirm that these things were prophesied concerning the cures which our Lord did upon their bodies so can it not be doubted that the cure of our soules is spiritually signified by the same whether you consider the promises whereby the ground of this correspondence is settled or the expresse words of the Apostle 1 Pet. II. 24. where that which S. Matthew expoundeth of the cures which our Lord did upon their bodies is referred to the taking away of sâ—nne by the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Which if it cannot be denied I shall make no difficulty to inferre that the words of the Prophet Esay VII 14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and yee shall call his name Emmanuel which the Evangelists referreth to our Lord Mat. I. 22. and by the premises were fulfilled when they were first said as in the figure are still accomplished in the children which by Gods grace are still â—orn of the holy faith of his Church by grace Nor that the words of the Prophet Osee XI 1. Out of Egypt have I called my Son which being manifestly said of the Israelites coming out of Egypt the same Evangelist II. 15. affirmeth to be fulfilled in our Lords coming back out of Egypt are still accomplished in those which out of the darknesse of this world are brought to Gods Church which is spiritually the Land of Promise Nor that the words of the Prophet Jeremy XXXI 15. which the same Evangelist expoundeth of the Innocents which were slaine by Herod at Bethlehem but the correspondence hitherto established requireth us to understand of the captive Jewes at Ramah in that Prophets time are still fulfilled in all that suffer persecution and death for Christianity Nor lasâ—ly that the words of the Psalmes XXII 8 18. Hee trusted in God that hee would deliver him let him save him seeing hee loveth him They pierced my hands and my feet And They part my garments among them and cast lots upon my vesture XLI 9. Hee which did eat of my bread hath lift up the heel against mee XLIX 9 21. The zeale of thine house hath eaten mee up And They gave mee gall to eat and in my thirst they gave mee vineger to drink VIII 2. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise CIX 8. His Office let another take XVI 10. Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell nor suffer thine holy One to see corruption which the New Testament will have to be fulfilled in those things that befell our Lord Christ in the flesh in his crucifying Maâ— XXVIII 18 35 43. Mark XV. 22 23 24. John XIX 17 29. in Judas betraying him John XIII 18. in his purging the Temple John II. 17. in the children that praised him Mat. XXI 16. in Matthias chosen in Judas stead Acts I. 20. in the resurrection of Christ Acts II. 31. XIII 35. But the correspondence premised and the reason of it require us first to understand of those things which befell David and Gods ancient people are still spiritually verified and accomplished in those things which befall the children of God and his Church under the state of Grace Neither shall I make any question that the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel which wee have settled being supposed it will not follow neverthelesse that all the Old Testament ought by virtue thereof to be so fulfilled in the life of our Lord Christ But that the Spirit of God in the Evangelists showeth that the Spirit in the Prophets so directed their words that they were intended to be farre more properly fulfilled in our Lord Christ than in those whom they were spoke of in the literal sense For wee do not finde that the Text that is to say that which went before and that which followes after those words which the Gospels say were fulfilled in our Lord Christ is answered by any thing which wee reade to have befallen him in the flesh And the general correspondence between Israel according to the flesh in the Old Testament and Israel according to the Spirit in the New being sufficient to justifie our Lord to be the Christ whom they expected and by consequence that twofold sense of the Old Testament which here wee maintaine there is no cause why they should be said to be impertinently alleged though by ordinary reason supposing this correspondence that could not be proved from those Texts which the Gospels say that they signifie Indeed such of them as are used by our Lord and his Apostles to prove him to be the Christ must be said and well may be maintainâ—d to do it by the perpectual correspondence of Gods earthly promises made good to his carnal people through the meanes of their Kings Priests and Prophets with the promises of the world to come made good by the means of our Lord Christ to the Church Therâ— is yet another kinde of our Lord Christs sayings and of things that befell him in the flesh in which there appears at the first view that difference of literal and mystical sense which hath been settled between the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments The Parable of the Prodigal childe for example seems not onely to contain a plain song of Gods earnest desire to be reconciled with penitent sinnerâ— but also a descant of the rejection of the Jewes and the calling of the Gentiles figured by it In like maner the Parable of him that fell among theeves as hee went down to Jericho Luke XI seemeth not onely to instruct who is the neighbor that wee are to love as our selves but also to figure the fall of man and the sending of our Lord for the restoring of him intimated as the ground of it So the acclamations of them that went afore and them that came after our Lord at his entrance into Jerusalem Mat. XXI agreeing in the same note of Hosanna to the Son of David I cannot tell whether any Christian could be so moroâ—e as to doubt but that it fell out on purpose to signifie the agreement of the Old and New Testament concentring in our Lord Christ But as it cannot be reasonably denied that these Parables and the like are mystical significations of the purpose of God in sending Christ or the event of it in the rejection of the Jewes and calling of the Gentiles So is all this nothing to the two senses of the Old Testament in which it is twice fulfilled once according to the Leter and again according to the Spirit I have thus farre inlarged this point concerning the correspondence and difference between the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament between the Ancient and New people of God to show how I conceive the scruples are to be resolved which may be made against an assumption of more efficacy and consequence than any other wheresoever any point of Christianity is to be showed from the Old Testament Yet so much more protection I owe the
easily finde that people were not governed from the beginning by written Lawes but reasonable and lawfull consent in some person or quality of persons whether of Gods designing or mans chusing to govern in chief was a first a Law sufficient to constitute any Commonwealth as being sufficient to produce all other Lawes which dissatisfaction should make requisite for determining cōmon differences either in writing or by silent custome Thus was the Commonwealth of Israel constituted under Moses so soon as that People had received God for their King and referred themselves to Moses for the man by whom they should understand his will and pleasure Neverthelesse because the wisedom of God easily foresaw how lightly those who presently received him for their King would be moved to fall away from him to other Gods that which was as easie for his wisedom to do hee gave them presently such Lawes in writing both for the Ceremonies wherewith hee would be worshipped as held the most particular difference from those which the Nations worshipped their Gods with and for their civil conversation as might best distinguish them from all other Nations that were fallen away to the worship of Idols And all this besides the secret intent of scretelling and figuring the Gospel in and by the same This was the intent of the Decalogue first then of those Lawes which Moses received in the Mount to be delivered to the people Exod. XXII XXIII XXIV and lastly of the ref which Moses received in the Tabernacle from Gods mouth speaking with him as God faith face to face When God the Father had sent our Lord Christ to publicsh his Gospel and to declare the intent of founding his Church upon it when our Lord Christ had declared his intent of leaving the world and the prosecution of his Gospel and gathering of his Church to his Apostles and Disciples then was the Society of the Church founded in as full force of authority as ever can have been in it since Though not yet actually a Church because the materials of it are not men but Christians that is such as by receiving Christianity should come into the communion of it Besides God intending one communion of all that should become Christians out of all Nations And therefore pretending to maintains the State of this World and all the Commonwealths in which the Church standeth on the same termes which it findeth dischargeth the Church of all that power to force men to obedience by harm of this world by which all States maintaine themselves Therefore the Church can pretend no more than to communicate in some certain particulars for which the Society thereof is erected and in the communion whereof it consisteth Suppose wee then the Law of Moses to be ceased as to the outward force of governing the People to whom once it was Law though not as to the inward intent of introducing the Gospel to which it was the Preface Suppose wee the Society of the Church to be ordained in the communion of those things which Christianity introduceth I say those Rules without which the Unity of the Church cannot be maintained whatfoever they be called have no lesse the force of Lawes than any that Secular States either inact or inforce Because as hee that once hath undertaken to take God for his God under a promise of being a free Israelite cannot so long as that prosession stands make question of undergoing the rest of Moses Laws howsoever troublesome they seem So hee that once hath imbraced the communion of the Church in hope of life everlasting is by the fame reason obliged to observe such Rules according to which the communion of the Church is in force and use But the communion of the Church not consisting in anything of this world onely in the Offices of Gods service for invisible communion in the faith and love of Christ and all for Christs take as Christianity requires is presupposed to the visible communion of the Church no reason can require that they should be many at least at the beginning Our Lord Christ having preached and declared unto his Disciples that Prosession of Christianity into which hee appointeth all Chrissians to be Baptized may well be said to have ordained the Sacrament of Baptisme for a Law to all Christians distinguishing the Ceremony by which the Prosession of Christianity is solemnized from the Prosession it self of Christianity which hee that comes to be baptized must have taken upon him for a Law afore As little question there can be that our Lord Christ at his last Supper instituted not his last Supper for what sense can there be in saying that our Lord at his last Supper instituted his last Supper but the Sacrament of his last Supper which is the Sacrament of the Eucharist for a perpetual Law to the Church Here then wee have for Lawes to the Church First the Rule of Faith containing the prosession upon supposition whereof the Corporation of the Church is founded Secondly the Sacraments of Baptisme and of the Eucharist Thirdly other offices of common Prayers and Praises of God together with the Hearing of his Word common to the Church with the Synagogue which God is to be served with And therefore thus farre I have proved that there is a Society of one Catholick Church founded by God upon the precept or the privilege of communicating in the service of God by there offices of Christianity equally charged upon all Christians And consisting in the obligation of maintaining unity in serving God by the said Offices Supposing then a visible authority settled in the persons of our Lords Apostles and Disciples in behalf of the community of Christians Supposing this community efected into a Society visible Body or Corporation of the Church whatsoever can become questionable not concerning mine and thine which Civil Government pretendeth to decide but concerning communion in those Offices which God is to be served with by Christians is virtually and potentially already decided by the right of doing such acts as being done oblige the Church for whom they are done Which therefore are the Laws of the Church Wee see that the intent and meaning of Christianity is many times quessionable in maters of that weight or taken to be of that weight that Christians are not to communicate with those who pretending to be Chistians do believe otherwise Here wee have none but the Apostles themselves to have recourse to None but they have convinced Christendom to believe that their word is Gods word For though Moses and the Prophets and our Lord Christ all spake by the same Spirit in as much as they all intended a secret which was not to be published till the Apostles preached the recourse wee have to them is with intent to argue and discover by their writings the truth of that which may become questionable in the preaching of the Apostles What then may appear to be deter-mined by the act of the Apostles as the writings of the
should follow that under the Gospel there should be no such Power in the Church For had it been never so clear never â—o much granted that such a Power was in force under the Law yet could it not be derived upon the Church mediately or immediately from some act of our Lord Christ founding his Church it would not have served the turne The Law of Moses continuing Scripture to the worlds end but Law to none but to those whom it was given to oblige That is the people that subsisted by receiving it and that for that time when it was intended to be in force But if it may appear that the Church is made one Society and Communion by the act of them that founded it and that such it cannot be without a Profession limiting or uniting the right of that Communion to him that makes it nor stand such without power of denying the same to him that visibly makes that Profession and visibly failes of it Whether any such thing were in force under the Law or not under the Gospel it shall not therefore fail to be in force True it is that this cannot be true unlesse a competent reason may be made to appear of something answerable to it under the Law in the same proportion as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel between the Synagogue and the Church holds But such a one will not be wanting in this case They that argue from the excluding of Adam out of Paradise to the putting of sinners out of the Church if they argue no more than a figure discernâ—ble by the truth when competent evidence of that truth is made conclude not amisse For though this be before the Law yet not before the purpose of God in figuring Chriâ—â—ianity was set on foot And that Paradise as it is a figure of heaven and the joyes thereof so likewise is a figure of the Church upon earth is necessarily conâ—equent to the reason upon which the mystical sense of the Old Testament is grounded So likewise under the Law the shutting of Lepers out of the camp of Israel answerable in the Jewes Law to the City of Jerusalem and supposing the truth of the Gosâ—el a figure of the visible Church neither signified any cause nor produced any effect but of a legal incapacity of conversing with Gods people But supposing a spiritual people of God intitled by their profession to remission of sins and life everlasting a visible failleure of this profession is the cause which producing inviâ—ble separation from God is competent to produce a visible separation from the Church which is visibly that people The penalty allotted to the neglect of circumcision is The childe to be cut off from his people Which penalty beginning there is afterward much frequented by the Law in many cases the penalty whereof is to be cut off from Gods people Signifying as hee hath learnedly showed and saved mee the pains of doing it again that such a forfeiture should make him that incurred it lyable to be suddenly out off by Gods hand from the land of his people And because it was an evident inconvenience that a civil Law should leaye such faults to Gods punishment who never tied himself to execute the punishment though hee made the transgressor lyable to it therefore the Antiens of Gods people according to Gods Law have allotted to such faults the punishment of scourging as next in degree to capital for grievous But there are several other crimes mentioned in the Law which who incurres is by the same Law cut off from Gods people by being put to death I demand now what correspondence can be more exact supposing the Law that tenders the happinesse of this life in the Land of Promise to them that undertake and observe it to be the fore-runner of the New Covenant that tenders remission of sins and life everlasting upon the same terms than is seen betwixt the invisible and visible forfeiture of the privileges of Gods people in the Land of Promise and the invisible and visible forfeiture of the Communion of Gods people as the sin is notorious or not Nor will it serve his turn to scorn S. Cyprian urging as you may see by my book of the Right of the Church that Origen and S. Austin do pag. 27. that Excommunication in the Church is the same as putting to death under the Law As proving that by a meer allusion which if it have not other grounds is not like to be received For S. Paul saith well that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus 2 Tim. III. 15. speaking of the Scriptures of the Old Testament Because without faith in Christ upon the motives which his coming hath brought forth to the world they are not able to do it but supposing those motives received do inable a Christian to give a reason of that different dispensation whereby it pleased God to govern things under the Law and so not onely to attain salvation but with wisedom to direct others in it and take away stumbling blocks oâ—t of their way to it And in this case should a man go about to perswade Christians to admit such a Power over them by no other argument than this well might the motion be scorned by them to whom it were tendred But there being no pretense in this allegation but of rendring a reason for a Power of the Church from that of the Synagogue and the Fathers so well stated in the difference between the Law and the Gospel as not easily chargeable of the indiscretion to use ridiculous arguments it is to be maintained that they have given such a reason from the Old Testament as is to be required by such as would be wise to salvation by it Indeed I could not but observe in the late History of Henry the Eight p. 157. where the Writer imagines what reasons Cardinal Woolsey gave the Pope for his consent to the dissolving of some little Monasteries for the erection of his Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich that hee alleges among others That the Clergy should rather fly to Tropes and Allegories if not to Cabbala it self than permit that all the parts of Religious worship though so obvious as to fall easily within common understandings should be without their explication The intent whereof may justly seem to charge the Clergy to have advanced the mystical sense of the Scripture as a means to make the Religion they maintaine more considerable for the difficulty of it But I would there were not too much cause to suspect from other writings of the same Author a compliance with Porphyry Celsus Julian and other enemies of Christianity that have not spared to charge our Lord Christ and his Apostles with abuse and imposture in alleging the Scriptures of the Old Testament impertinently to their purpose though here hee charge onely the Clergy for that wherein they follow his and their steps To mee I confesse
it smelled so ranck that I conceived my self bound to cry out upon the venene that may be so closely couched under the words But to those that believe the truth of Christianity arguments from the mystical sense of the Old Testament must not seem contemptible those of our Lord Christ and his Apostles being such provided that the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel be preserved upon the right ground and in the right grain Provided also that no more waight be laid upon them than they are able to bear To wit no more than wee can lay upon the Law of Moses in proving the truth of Christianity Which if wee premise not the miracles of our Lord Christ and his Apostles done to witnesse their commission from God together with the excellence of Christianity above Judaisme even in the ballance of reason If wee make not good and constant correspondence between both wheresoever the ground of that correspondence takes place wee allege a reason that needs a reason to defend it But if wee do that wee imprest all the miracles done by Moses to introduce the Law to depose for the truth of the Gospel Wee furnish our selves of a magazine of argument in all points of Christianity to convince those who have received it what the conâ—â—itution of Gods ancient people and the truth then on foot will inferre upon the correspondence which they are supposed to hold with Christianity and with the Church I do then freely grant that Excommunication stood not immediately by Gods Law among Gods ancient people though by that Power which Gods Law had vested on them that first introduced it Were it Esdras by commission from the King of Persia as to the Power that inforced it with means to constraine though by the Law as to his Title before and against other men by the Law or whosoever it were besides But I will allege evidence for it after the return from Captivity which to my knowledge hath not hitherto been alleged Namely that which is called in the Greek Bible the third Book of Maccabees where it is râ—lated that when some of the Jewes at Alexandria had obeyed the Edict of Ptolomee Philometor commanâ—ing to worship an Idol which hee had set up the rest of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abhorred those of them that had turned Aposâ—â—â—es and condeâ—ned â—â—em as enemies to the Nation depriving them of mutual conversation and the henefit of it III. 25. Upon the consideration of which passage I easâ—ly conclude that of 1 Macc. XIV 38. not to be well understood nâ—â— translâ—ted where it is said that Razias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying indeed that in the â—orâ—er times under Antiochus Epiphanes when so many Jewes departed from their Law hee had brought in the decree of not mixing Judaisme That is to say that hee had been the means of passing a decree that those who stuck to their profession should not commâ—nicate with the Apoâ—â—ates These things were done by virtue of the Law against the will of their Soveraignes and therefore Philometor complaines of them for it 3 Macc. III. 16. but it is by virtue of his decree being his subjects that they put them to death aftâ—rwards VII 8 9 10. I do also grant that the putting of a man out of the Synagogue which I admit to have come in by the act of those men who nâ—verthâ—lesse had their authority originally from that act of God which made them a people under those Lawes imported a great abatement of the temporal privilege of each Jewes estate in as much as it is evident that whosoever was banished the conversation of Jewes in whole or in part was at the same rate abated the privilege of a Jew which they held by the declaration of their Soveraignes to maintain them in the use of their own Lawes For the privilege which a man holdeth among his people whereof hee is a native will appeare of what consequence it is when hee comes to live among strangers But I do not therefore yield that to be excommunicate out of the Church by the original constitution thereof and the Law of God imports the abatement of any secular privilege Because of the difference between the Synagogue and the Church which God appointed to be gathered out of all Nations under the condition of bearing Christs Crosse For such a company refusing their Communion to such as they exclude can neither prejudice their persons goods nor fame which being doubtfull to the world so long as they professe the Religion which the world owns not returns by consequence when they quit that Religion to return to the Religion of the State Rather as the Leviathan truly sayes they make themselves liable to all the persecution that may be brought upon them by such as think they have had ill measure by being put out of the Church Now to that which is argued That because the Christians went for Jewes among the Gentiles at the beginning of Christianity injoying Jewes privileges and thereby the exercise of their Religion therefore the Excommunications used by them must needs be such as were in force among the Jewes according to Moses Law that is by the Power which it establisheth The answer is by denying the consequence The reason this The Christians at the beginning communicated with the Jewes in that service of God which they used as well in the Temple as in the Synagogue How should they have opportunity to make them acquainted with the Gospel otherwise But as sometimes they assembled secretly among themselves for fear of the Jewes Acts XII 12. John XIX 38. so also besides those Offices which they served God with among the Jewes in the Temple or in the Synagogue they acknowledged others which they held themselves bound to and for which they retired themselves from the Jewes Acts I. 13. II. 42 46. III. 23. V. 42. VI. 2. The ground of their Communion with the Jewes Christians know to have been the hope of winning them to be Christians lasting while that hope should continue the ground of serving God in their own Assemblies the obligation of Christianity for ever to continue In regard of the conversation and communion which they held with the Jewes whether Civil or Religious they were subject to be excommunicated by the Jewes That is part of our Lords Prophesie John XVI 2. They shall put you out of their Synagogues Nay the time cometh that whoso killeth you shall think that hee doth God service But whatsoever the effect of these Excommunications might be being driven and confined in a maner to the Communion of the Church by being excluded or at least abridged the Communion of the Synagogue must they not needs forfeit their Communion by not fulfilling the condition by which they held it Or could they forfeit it upon other gronnds or to other effect than those upon which and to which they held it Indeed I will not undertake to give you many Scripture examples of Excommunications
probable and have still much reason to believe that the Christians at Rome lived at first divided into two Bodies one of Jewes under S. Peter the other of Gentiles under S. Paul For the Jewes as in the Land of Promise they were bound by the Law to protect strangers such as renouncing Idols should professe to serve the true God but not to suffer Idolaters to live in it So in their dispersions they must needs finde themselves bound proportionably to cherish those that should make the like profession whom they called the Godly of the Nations But the Empire and the Ministers thereof whether they intended to comprise them in the right and privilege of Jewes because joyned to their Religion or of Gentiles because uncircumcised the text of that Scripture decides not I confesse considering the words of Suetonius Claud. XXV Judaeos impulsore Chresto assiduè tumultuantes Roma expulit The Jewes raising continual tumults at the moving of Chrestus hee drove out of Rome I cannot give a better reason for the tumults which hee saith occasioned the Edict than the difference between them and the Christians part of whom were Jewes others adheered to them as Gentiles converted to the true God Whether his meaning be to lay the fault upon the Christians supposing that it is our Lord Christ whom hee calls Chrestus no difference in found being discernable Or whether hee meant to say that one Chrestus a Jew in Rome was author of those tumults as some would have it no reason can be given for those tumults so probable But whether so or not to our purpose it will be of no consequence For as well Gentilish as Jewish Christians being forced from Rome and seeking shelter among Christians elswhere would easily accomodate themselves with the Jewes of other parts upon the same terms as Christians did otherwise and yet continue to preserve themselves Christians and thereby members of the Church upon such terms as all Christians understood It should seem by the Epistle to the Ephesians I. 11 12 13. II. 2 3. 11-20 III. 1-6 that the first foundation of that Church was meerly of Gentiles the Jewes that may have been converted being so few that S. Paul held them not considerable to be taken notice of in his Epistle A thing that agrees punctually with that which S. Luke relates Acts XIX 8 9 10. that S. Paul perceiving hee could not prevail with the Jewes by his discourses in the Synagogue departed and separated the Disciples that is the Christians from them disputing dayly in the School of one Tyrannus And this for two years till the Gospel was known to all Asia Jewes and Gentiles This Tyrannus neverthelesse holding a School seems to have been a Doctor of the Jewes Law so that all Jewes refused not the Faith These I suppose no man will argue that they used Excommunication as the Jewes did because they had departed from the Jewes And yet it is agreeable to the case under Gallio to conceive that they were looked upon by the Romanes as a sort of men that had broke from the Jewes whose Religion they had professed afore and indifferently protected by them as not concerned in the difference while no Law was made against Christianity The coming indeed of S. John into Asia seems to have inned a very great harvest of Jews into the Church by that compliance which his successors at Ephesus and in the rest of Asia held with the Jewes for the winning of them to Christianity But this was afterwards In fine before the separation of Christians from the Jewes the Church seems to have been as it were a childe unborn in the mothers womb which though it draw the means of subsistence from the mother yet is it complete in all the same faculties of life which it shall exercise afterwards So whatsoever it was fit for the Church to do while it held communion with the Synagogue it was able then by the Power of conducting as well as founding it in the Apostles to do whatsoever it did afterwards onely the Body was strangely changed which it was to govern CHAP. XVIII The difference between S. Pauls anathema and that of the Jewes 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 Publicane signisie 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 ANd here I cannot chuse but mervail that the Anathema which S. Pauls Epistles mention sometimes should be made an argument that the Excommunication which hee means by it is the same which the Jews used because theirs was called by the same name For the answer is the same that I said afore of the name of the Church but there is more particular evidence for the reason here in the words of the Apostle I do for my part believe them that conceive the name by which the Jewes call anathema that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the same that S. Paul means by maranatha For the Jewes use to call God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Name And this I conceive they compound with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to come and to make of both the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying maledixit or execravit hee cursed by the coming of God Though they use it to signifie the least degree of Excommunication whereas to curse a man by the coming of God seems to leave him to God to take vengeance of as incurable and desperate For every man knows how much difference there is between the original and use of words Now it is evident by the writings of the Prophets every where that they use to describe the appearance of God to punish sin in the stile of Gods coming And in that stile the passage which S. Jude referreth to proceedeth Jude 14 15. Behold the Lord cometh with his holy myriads to execute vengeance on all and to reprove all their wickednesse for all the wicked works that they have done and for all the hard words which they have stoken against him as wicked sinners For these are the words which Enoch the seventh from Adam is brought in speaking in that place to the old world whom hee preached to to recall them from that wickednesse which in the end was punished by the deluge Now when S. Paul saith 1 Cor. XVI 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be anathema maranatha It is plain that Maranatha signifies our Lord comes And so referrs to the second coming of our Lord Christ which the Gospel preaches For this learned person
is evident that hee allowes them that which the Apostles had forbidden because it is evident that this is one of those differences which Jews by the Law were bound to make If therefore there be this difference in the Scriptures it is manifest that the leter of them doth not determine what obliges So again the same Apostle 1 Cor. XI 1-16 disputeth at large that men ought not but women ought to cover their heads at praying or prophesying in the Church For the intent whereof though it hath been the subject of whole books in this age I conceive I need go no further than Tertullians book de Velandis Virginibus who living so much nearer the Apostles knew better the custoÌ„ms of their Churches than all the Criticks of this time Hee disputes the case in question then whether Virgins had a privilege not to vail their faces at Divine Service by arguing that they cannot be excepted from S. Pauls words and alleging the example of the Church of Corinth where at that very time the Virgins vailed their faces at Divine Service as other women did Which whether it tye the Church or not at this time it will scarce be granted by those who now practice it not And in another place 1 Tim. V. 3-6 hee showeth that there was then an Order of Widowes whose maintenance hee ordereth to come from the stock of the Church as likewise how they are to be qualified and how imployed Of which Order there is no where any step remaining in the Church at â—resent though nothing be more imperative than the Order concerning it So the precept of the Apostle serves not to oblige the Church at present though by Scripture And if I may use the argument ad hominem upon the supposition of those that I dispute with who intend not to take any thing for true which I prove not as debating the principles of Christian truth it is manifest that the Apostle James V. 14. appointeth that the sick be anointed with oil together with prayers as well for the recovery of their health as for the forgivenesse of their sins Which it is manifest that it cannot appear not to oblige the Church at this time by virtue of that Scripture which injoyneth it And therefore to say nothing at present whether it do indeed oblige the now Church or not those that believe it doth not oblige cannot be able to give a reason why it obligeth not by the Scripture alone And this is the argument whereby I prove that the interpretation of Scripture as concerning mater of Law to the Church or the means to be used in determining what obligeth what not cannot transgresse the tradition and practice of the Church Because that which is propounded in the Scriptures as meer mater of fact may oblige and that which is propounded as mater of precept creating right may not oblige the Scripture not determining whether it intend that obligation to be universal or not For having showed afore that the Church is a Society instituted by God to which these Rules are given as Laws to govern it in the exercise of those Offices wherein the Communion therâ—of consisteth all reasonable men must grant that as the intent and meaning of all Laws is to be gathered from the primitive and original practice of that Society for which they were made so is the reason of all Orders delivered to the Church by the Apostles and by consequence their intent how farr they were to oblige to be measured by the first and most ancient practice of the Church which first had them to use Whereunto let us adde these considerations That the Orders delivered the Church by the Apostles were of necessity in force before mention can be made of them in their writings That the writing of them is neither the reason why they oblige nor a thing thereunto requisite but meerly supervenient to the force of them And that there is sufficient evidence that those motives to believe which the Scripture recordeth but cannot evidence are neverthelesse true and that the truth of those motives cannot be evident but by the Society of the Church which the said Laws do maintain For upon these conâ—â—derations it will appear necessarily consequent that as there be Apostolical Traditions which the Scripture evidently witnesseth so evidence may be made of them without Scripture The Rule of S. Austine how to discern what Traditions do indeed come from the Apostles is well enough known to be this To wit that which is observed over all the Church though it cannot be discerned when where or by whom it came first in force that is in his times by the authority of what Synod it was settled that must be deemed and taken to come from the authority of the Apostles themselves I will not use the terms of Synod or Synods because I conceive the Church was from the beginning by virtue of the perpetual intelligence and correspondence settled and used between the parts of it a standing Synod even when there was no Assembly of persons authorized to consent in behalf of their respective Churches Such things as became requisite to be determined in any Church being thereby so communicated to the rest as the order taken in one either to be accepted by them or redressed Neither will I say that the Rule is so effectual as it is true For I cannot warrant how general the practice of every thing that may come in question can appear to have been over the whole Church nor whether it may appear to have begun from some act of the Church to be designed by some place or persons or not which in S. Austines time I doubt not might be made to appear and being made to appear would maintain the Rule to be true Nor have I need of any such Rule as may serve to discern whatsoever may become questionable whether it come from the Apostles themselves or not It shall suffice mee here to presume thus much that no man can prescribe against any Rule of the Church that it comes not from the Apostles because it is not recorded in the holy Scriptures And therefore that nothing hindereth competent evidence to be made of the authority of the Apostles in some Orders of the Church of which there is no mention in the Scriptures Correspondently to that which was settled afore concerning the Rule of Faith that no man can prescribe against any thing questionable that it is no part of it because it is not evident in Scripture or because such arguments may be made against it out of the Scriptures which every one whose salvation it concerns is not able evidently to assoile And all this being determined I intend neverthelesse that it still shall remain questionable how farr these Orders of the Apostles oblige the Church Because I intend not to prescribe from all this that those Orders which shall appear to have been brought in by the Apostles may not become uselesse to the Church CHAP.
Christ shed for reâ—â—ission of sins the life of the Kingdom of heaven See the unbaptized deprived also of the bread and cup of life is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven where Christ the well of life remains So it appears that the African Church had this custome but held it not necessary to salvation as Baptism But by Gennadius de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis Cap. LII It appears to have been a custome of the Church when Hereticks were reconciled to the Church by confirmation to give their little ones the Eucharist presently upon it And Ordo Romanus de Baptismo prescribes it after the solemn Baptism before Easter which the French Capitulary I. 161. and Alcuinus also de divinis officiis provideth for And in the Eastern Church Dionysius in the end of the booke de Hierarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ In the mean time it is to be considered that there being no order that all should be baptized Infants nor at what age Whereupon St. Gregory Nazianzene Orat. XLII in Sanctum Bapt. advises at three or four years of age it cannot be said to have been a generall custome of the Church Nor that it could be originall from the Apostles because the solemn times of Baptisme at Easter and Whitsontide cannot be thought to have been settled till Christianity was grown very vulgar For as for those that were baptized upon particular occasions or in danger of death it cannot be thought that the Eucharist was celebrated for their purpose nor doth any example appear that it was ever brought them from the Church On the contrary when the times of Baptisme came to be disused because it was found to be for the best that all should be baptized Infants upon this occasion the receiving of the Eucharist came to be deferred as much longer then was fitting in my opinion then it was given too soon in S. Cyprians time according to the example related by him in his Book de Lapsis where the Child whom the Pagans had given bread dipped in the wine that had been consecrated to their Idols because too young to eat of the flesh of their sacrifices receives the Eucharist in the Church CHAP. XXIV Two sorts of means to resolve whatsoever is resolvable concerning the Scripture Upon what terms the Church may or is to determine controversies of Faith And what obligation that determination produceth Traditions of the Apostles oblige the present Church as the reasons of them continue or not Instances in our Lords Passeover and Eucharist Penance under the Apostles and afterwards S. Pauls vail eating blood and things offered to Idols The power of the Church in limiting these Traditions I May now proceed I conceive to resolve generally upon what principles any thing questionable in Christianity is determinable and as franckly as briefly do affirm that there are but two sorts of means to resolve us in any thing of that nature Tradition and Argument Authority and Reason History and Logick For whatsoever any Artist or Divine hath said of the great use of the languages in discovering the true meaning of the Original Scriptures by the ancient Translations as well as the Originalls which I allow as much as they demand they must give me leave to observe that seeing all languages are certain Lawes of speaking which have the force of signifying by being delivered to posterity upon agreement of their Predeoessors all that helpe is duly ascribed to Tradition which we have from the Languages Indeed this is no Tradition of the Church no more then all History and Historicall truth concerning the times the places the persons mentioned in the Scripture concerning the Lawes the Customes the Fashions and orders practised by persons mentioned in the Scriptures in all particulars whereof the Scripture speaks which whether it be delivered by Christians or not Christians as far as the common reason of men alloweth or warranteth it for Historical truth is to be admitted into consequence in inquiring the meaning of the Scriptures and without it all pretense of Languages is pedantick and contemptible as that which gives the true reason to the Language of the Scripture whatsoever it import in vulgar use This helpe being applied to the Text of the Scripture it will be of consequence to confider the process of the discourse pursuing that which may appear to be intended not by any mans fancy but by those marks which cleared by the helps premised may appear to signifie it Which is the work of reason supposing the truth of the Scriptures And whereas other passages of Scripture either are clearer of themselves or being made clearer by using the same helps may seem to argue the meaning of that which is questioned whereas other parts of Christianity resolved afore may serve as principles to inferre by consequence of reason the truth of that which remains in doubt not to be impured therefore to reason but to the truth from which reason argues as believed and not seen this also is no lesss the work of reason supposing the truth of the Scriptures But whereas there be two sorts of things questionable in Christianity and all that is questionable meerly in point of truth hath relation to and dependance upon the rule of faith as consequent to it or consistent with it if we will have it true or otherwise if false I acknowledge in the first place that nothing of this nature can be questionable further then as some Scripture the meaning whereof is not evident createth the doubt And therefore that the determination of the meaning of that Scripture is the determination of the truth questionable For seeing the truth of Gods nature and counsails which Christianity revealeth are things which no Christian can pretend to have known otherwise then by revelation from God and that we have evidence that whatsoever we have by Scripture is revealed but by the Tradition of the Church no further then all the Church agreeth in it all that wherein it agreeeth being supposed to be in the Scripture and much more then that It followeth that nothing can be affirmed as consequent to or consistent with that which the tradition of the Church containeth but by the Scripture and from the Scripture So that I willingly admit whatsoever is alleadged from divers sayings of the Fathers that whatsoever is not proved out of the Scriptures is as easily rejected as it is affirmed limiting the meaning of it as I have said But whatsoever there is Scripture produced to prove seeing we have prescribed that nothing can be admitted for the true meaning of any Scripture that is against the Catholick Tradition of the Church it behoveth that evidence be made that what is pretended to be true hath been taught in the Church so expresly as may inferre the allowance of it and therefore is not against the rule of Faith But this being cleared so manifest as it is that the Church hath not the priviledge of infallibility in any express act which is not justifiable from the universall
originall practice of the Church whither in prescribing what is to be believed what is to be professed or what is to be done So manifest must it remain that nothing can be resolved by plurality of votes of Ecclesiasticall Writers as to the point of truth For then were the priviledge of infallibility in the votes of those Writers which themselves disclaim from the substance of what they write And it is to say that what had no such priviledge when it was written if it have more Authors survive that hold it shall be and must be held infallible Which consequences being ridiculous it followeth that for the tryal of truth within the bounds aforesaid recourse must be had to the means premised And the effect of those means every dayes experience witnesseth For the obligation which all men think they have firmly to hold that which by these means they have all concluded from the Scriptures is the consequence of these principles in expounding the same Which obligation though sometimes imaginary in regard that between contradictory reasons the consequence may be equally firm on both sides yet that it cannot be otherwise he that believes the truth of Christianity must needs imagine For true principles truly used necessarily produce nothing but true consequences Which if it be so why should any question be made that the Church may and sometimes ought to proceed in determining the truth of things questionable upon occasion of the Scriptures concerning the rule of Christian faith or which is all one that the exercise of this power by the Church produceth in those that are of the Church an obligation of submitting to the same Indeed here be two obligations which sometimes may contradict one another and therefore whatsoever the matter of them be the effects of them cannot be contraries The use of the means to determine the meaning of the Scriptures produceth an obligation of holding that which followeth from it which obligation no man can have or ought to imagine he hath before the due use of such meanes whither his estate in the Church oblige him to use them or not But the visible determination of the Church obliges all that are of the Church not to scandalize the unity thereof by professing contrary to the same And to both these obligations the same man may be subject as the matter may be to wit as one that hath resolved the question upon true principles not to believe the contrary and as one of the Church that believes the Church faileth in that for which he is bound not to break the unity thereof not to professe against what the Church determineth For I am bold to say again that there is no society no communion in the world whether Civill Ecclesiasticall Military or whatsoever it be that can subsist unlesse we grant that the Act of superiour Power obligeth sometimes when it is ill used In the mean time I say not that this holds alwaies and in matters of whatsoever concernment nor do take upon me generally to resolve this no more then what is the mater of the rule of Faith which he that believes may be saved he that positively believes it not all cannot It shall be enough for me if I may give an opinion whether that which we complain of be of value to disoblige us to our superiours or not As concerning what is questioned amongst us whither it be of the rule of Faith or not But this I shall say that to justifie the use of this power towards God requireth not onely a perswasion of the truth competent to the weight of the point in question in those that determine for the Church but also a probable judgement that the determination which they shall make will be the meanes to reduce contrary opinions to that sense which they see so great Authority profess and injoyn For without doubt there can be no such means to dissolve the unity of the Church as a precipitate and immature determination of something that is become questionable For effectually to proceed to exercise Ecclesiasticall Communion upon terms contrary to that which hath been received afore is actually to dissolve the unity of the Church The ingagement to make good that which men shall have once done being the most powerful Witcheraft and Ligature in the world to blind them from seeing that which all men see besides themselves or at least from confessing to see that which they cannot but see But if we speak of things which concern the communion of the Church in those offices which God is to be served with by Christians or that tend to maintain the same besides the meaning and truth of the Scriptures there remains a further question what is or ought to be law to the Church and oblige them that are of the Church seeing that whatsoever is in the Scripture obligeth not the Church for Law though obliged to beleeve it for truth the resolution whereof will require evidence of the reason for which every thing was done by the Apostles for as it holds or not so the constitution grounded upon it is to hold either alwaies or onely as it holds And this reason must be evidenced by the Authority of the Church admitting that reason into force whither by express act or by silent practice When the Israelites are commanded to eat the Passeover in haste with their loins girt and their staves in their hands there is appearance enough that the intent of it was onely concerning that Passeover which first they celebrated in Egypt not for an order alwaies to continue because then the case required haste and because then the Angell passed over their houses upon the door-posts whereof the blood was commandded to be sprinkled that by that marke he might passe over them to smite the Egyptians For though Philo would have the Passeover to be celebrated at home and not at Jerusalem though perhaps onely by those of the dispersions those that dwelt in the Land of promise being all tied to resort to Jerusalem yet all that acknowledge the Talmud think it not lawfull to celebrate it but at Jerusalem contenting themselves with the Supper and abatng the Lambe as one of those sacrifices which the Law forbiddeth every where but before the Ark. But had not the practice of the Nation and the Authority of the Elders trusted by the Law to determine such matters appeared in the businesse our Lord who according to his own doctrine was subject to their constitutions had not had a rule for his proceeding So in the infancy of Christianity it is no marvail if the Christians at Jerusalem entertained daily communion even at board also among themselves and that they gave their estates to the maintenance of it not by any law of communion of goods but as the common necessity required For what could make more towards the advancement of Christianity And when at Corinth and in other Churches the communion was in use though not so frequent nor giving up their
the Christian Faith The one forfeiteth his interest in Heaven by the inward act of his soul refusing the common faith which saveth all Christians though outwardly holding communion with the Church The other by the inward act of the soul proceeding to the outward act of dissolving the communion of the Church which the common charity of Christians in the first place is to maintain If both these crimes may come under the the common name of Heresie because inward misbelief naturally tendeth to make a sect of such as shall profess to live according to it no marvail if all divisions of the Church be commonly called both Heresies and Schisms whatsoever be the cause upon which they divide If meer schisms that is where the cause is not any thing necessary to the salvation of all to be believed be also Heresie in the Language of the Apostles Neverthelesse there being so much difference between the two crimes and the grounds of them it is necessary to understand setting aside all aequivocation of terms that there is a crime consisting in mis-believing some Article of the faith which if you please may properly be called Heresie And another consisting in dissolving the unity of the Church which is properly called Schism when there is no further pretense for it then some Law which the Church being able to make the other part will rather depart then admit There may divisions in the Church upon pretence of such doctrines as are not necessary to the salvation of all and so no part of the rule of faith but so evidently to be deduced from it and from the rest of the Scriptures that the Church may have cause to determine the same and yet others may choose rather to depart from the Church then suffer the determination thereof to take place Which divisions that memorable observation of S. Jerome seems to call Heresies which said that all Schisms naturally devise to themselves some Heresie that is some doctrine extravagant from the doctrine of the Church that they may seem not to have departed from the Church for nothing Which is very well exemplified by S. Austine in the Donatists But whether such divisions are to be counted Heresies or Schisms both names properly signifying all divisions of the Church and only that crime which consisteth in mis-believing some Articles of faith appropriating the name of Heresie because common use hath given it no peculiar name of its own I leave to him that shall please to determine it Supposing these things it will not be requisite for me to say much to that which hath been published concerning the nature of Schism of late That being to be had onely out of the Scripture it is no where there to be had but in S. Paul to the Corinthians That there was at Corinth when S. Paul writ onely one Congregation of Christians which he calleth the Church of Corinth That therefore there is no crime of schism but in breaking one Congregation into more As for any visible society of the Catholick Church acknowledging the materials men that professe Christianity which he that sees cannot believe to the form which is that unity which is visible he is as great a stranger as if he had never heard of the Creed acknowledging notwithstanding an invisible unity in the common faith and love of Christians upon perswasion whereof he challenges as great freedom from schism as ever any member of the Catholick Church could claim For having showed how a thing which God made visible for many ages may reasonably be expected to be found in the Scriptures I am not to yield to try it by any part of them knowing that whosoever evidenceth a society of the Church by Gods Law evidenceth the crime that consists in the dissolving of it And it were fit we were told how all the Christians in a City where God had much people should sit at one Table or at least sup in one room before we believe that there was then no more Christians at Corinth then could assemble at once Which if I did believe I would notwithstanding alledge Iustine the Martyrs words Apol II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the day called Sunday all that dwelt in Cities or in Countries assemble themselves in one And supposing that then there were more Christians in Rome and the Territorie thereof for example for he writes to the Emperour Antoninus then could meet together in one place As Iustine means not when he saies That all in Cities or Countries meet in one that all made one Assembly but met all in common assemblies I would thereupon argue that no more does S. Paul say when he gives these rules to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 14. which serve any assembly that there was then but one Congregation at Corinth If in Iustines time if afore if after he can show me any Church of Rome or any City beside Rome that contained not all the Christians of that City and the Territory thereof I will believe that when Clemens writ the Letter lately published from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth there were no more Christians at Rome or at Corinth then could meet all at once But if in all the Scripture as well as in all the Records of the Church a Church signifie the university of Christians which one City and the Territory thereof containeth it is an affront to common sense for him to deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Church that is contained in the City and Territory of Rome or Corinth Let the learned Publisher of that Epistle take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there for Inquilinus or Peregrinus in Inmate or Pilgrim because his Greek gave him leave he that hath been showed so plentiful mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the subject in question for that which we now call a Diocese can have no reason to see with his eyes but because he is resolved not to use his own For in the very address of Polycarpus his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Church of God dwelling beside Philippi The dative case quite spoils the construction of the words to his sense If the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Christians of the Territory belonged to the Church of the City As for the visible unity of the Catholick Church it was not so easie for me to evidence that which could not be questionable till the difference between Catholick Church and true Church came to be questionable As it is not hard for any Christian to question whither the Church which was Catholick for so many ages ought now to be Catholick or not For till he have destroyed the evidence which this abridgement hath been able to advance and when that is done new evidence will not be wanting so long as the records of the Church are Historically true and men continue possest of common sense it is in vain to alledge the dictate of his own
clearly all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians it will not hurt my opinion to inferre That because it is unlawful to adde any thing to Moses Law by saying that it is and ought to be part of it when it is not nor ought to be therefore it is unlawfull to adde any thing to the Bible by saying that it is necessary to the salvation of all Christians though not written there For this my opinion sayes not And truly I must here alledge that Gods Law Deut. XVII 8 -12 provideth a power in that people to resolve and determine all things which the peace and unity of that people requireth to be determined And that for the effect of this power we have to show all the constitutions and determinations whereby the precepts of Moses Law are limited how they are to be observed which we find recorded in the Jews Talmud and all the disputes and debates that have ended in those determinations In as much as we have to allegde that our Lord in the Gospell hath commanded to hear the Scribes and Pharisees as those that sit in Moses Chair For those constitutions derive their Pedigree from those that were in force in our Lords time by the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees as it appears to all that compare them with the particulars mentioned in the Scriptures in Philo and Iosephus For though the particulars be not alwaies the same because time produces continual charge in particular custome yet there is agreement enough to show that it was successively the same authority that made such orderly and moderate changes as the state of the time might require or mens fancies imagine in the practise of their Law Whereby it is evident that the power of so interpreting the Law being established by the Law cannot be against the Law as forbidden by it And this abundantly enough for the justifying of that which I have said For the interpretation and limitation of the Precepts of the Law by the tradition left with Moses and by the Authority setled in the Synagogue being established by the Law cannot be counted an addition to the Law Therefore the interpretation of the Scriptures by Tradition left the Church by the Apostles and the limitation of the circumstances which the service of God is to be regulated with by the Authority setled in the Church cannot be counted an addition to Gods new Law or to the Scriptures of the New Testament But because the satisfaction of the Reader in the true intent of these precepts of the Law requires more I shall say further That I conceive that God providing a power requisite to determine all circumstances which the practice of the Law should require repeats neverthelesse a caution of adding to or taking from the Law that it might not be thought that this Power extended to alter any thing in the worship of the one true God which all the precepts of the Law tended to limite Surely in the Text of Deut. XII 32. this caution followes immediately upon warning given not to worship God by any of those Ceremonies with which the Gentiles honoured their false Gods the reason whereof is plain least by using the like ceremonies the honour of those false Gods to whom they were tendred by those that believed in them might be admitted Whereupon when it is inferred that nothing be added to or taken from those precepts by which the Law commandeth to serve the true God it is manifest how well the limitation of circumstances questionable in the practice of the Law stands with this caution so soon as it appears that the precepts thereof cannot be practised till so limited And upon the same caution Deut. IV. 2. he inferres immediately Thine eyes have seen what the Lord did to those that served Baal-peor now they are dead and thou alive this day As supposing this consequence That if they stuck close to their own the true God nothing should seduce them from his Laws Not this That if they stuck close to their own the true God nothing should perswade them to practice the precepts of his worship in that sorm which the power appointed by him should determine So that both Texts prepress upon them the precepts of the Law as those whereby the worship of the true God is distinguished not as if of themselves they contained mater to oblige that people or to procure them happiness And surely the determinations of their Elders as they concur to the same ends so are they inforced by the same obligation which the precepts themselves produce And therefore it will not be amiss to take notice how far the Jews who acknowledge all that I say of limiting the Law are from thinking it to be contradicted by these Scriptures Solomon Jarchi upon Deut. VI. 2. Thou stalt not adde As for example to the five Sections in the Phylacteries to the five kinds in the banquet which we cary at the feast of Tabernacles to the five Thrummes in the Fringes And so when he sayes Thou shalt not take away They are commanded by the Law to wear frontlets upon them to put them in remembrance of the precepts thereof Ex. XIII 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI 18. to carry in their hands and to walk with a Bush made up of the branches of severall trees at the feast of Tabernacles Levit. XXIII 40. to put a fringe to the corners of their Garments made of a thred of Hyacinth among others Numb V. 38. 39. But that those frontlets should contain five Sections of the Law no more that those fringes should consist of four kinds besides the Hyacinth which are the determinations of their Elders these according to his opinion they are as much forbidden to adde to as to take from that which is determined by the leter of the Law Abenezra seems to be more sober upon the same place Thou shalt not adde saith he Of your own conceit as thinking the worship of God to consist in it For believing that they vow to worship one God alone and that no passive acts which the light of nature injoyneth not can be esteemed the worship of God of themselves but in the doing of them is the keeping of that Law which appoints them it is one thing to worship God as the precepts of the Law determined by that Power which it appoints do injoyn another thing to introduce rules of worshipping God not by virtue of his Law but upon a mans own conceit And therefore it is forbidden them to inquire after the fashions by which the Gentiles worshipped their Gods Deut. XII 30. as a presumption that he which should say that he would worship God as they did their Idols had a mind to worship their Idols in stead of God otherwise he would rest content with that way of worshipping God which the Law had prescribed Whereupon the Jews determine that there are four Ceremonies which who so does to any thing but to God alone must be understood to worship it
as they pretended to do thence calling themselves Gnosticks may be convinced by that evidence which the consent of all Churches in the same Faith tenders common sense for the Tradition of the Apostles Which saith hee wee must have stuck to had they left us nought in writing as those Christians then did which had not the use of leters Epiphanius Haer. LXI 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All Gods words do not need allegory but are to be understood as they are But they need consideration to know the force of each mater Tradition also is to be used For all is not to be had from Gods Sriptures For the Holy Apostles delivered some things in writing others by Tradition as the Apostle saith So Haer. LV. LXXV S. Jerome advers Lucif Multa quae per Traditionem in Ecclesiis observantur auctoritatem sibi scriptae Legis usurpà runt Orthod Non quidem abnuo hanc esse Ecclesiasticam consuetudinem Sed quale est ut Leges Ecclesiae ad haeresim transferas Many things that are observed in the Churches by Tradition have usurped to themselves the authority of written Law The Orthodox party answers I deny not the custome of the Church to be such But what a business is it that you transform the Lawes of the Church into Heresie S. Austine Epist CXVIII Illa autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quae quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur dantur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel plenariis Conciliis quorum est in Ecclesiâ saluberrima auctoritas commendata atque statuta retineri But those things which wee observe though not written but delivered being observed all over the world wee are given to understand that they are held as recommended and setled either by the Apostles themselves or by General Councils the authority whereof is very wholesom in the Church To the same purpose de Bapt. contra Donat. II 7. IV. 6 24. V. 23. de Vnitate Ecclesiae XIX contra Cresconiam I. 31 32 33. The supposed Dionysius the Areopagite Eccles Hierarchiae cap. I. mentioneth that instruction which the Apostles delivered without writing as a witnesse of the Church though not as a Scholar of the Apostles And Eusebius de demonstr Evang. I. 8. acknowledgeth written Lawes of the Apostles Concilium Gangrense in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And wee desire in summe that all things delivered by the Scriptures of God and the Traditions of the Apostles be observed in the Church And Greg. Nazianzene Orat. I. advers Jul. referrs those Ordinances which I quoted out of him afore to the Apostles as Authors of them Some sayings of the Fathers are also alleged to show that they held the Scriptures obscure Origen in Levit. Hom. V. allegorizeth the Law of burning some part of the peace-offerings to signifie that some things in the Scriptures are reserved to Gods knowledg least wee understand them otherwise than truth requires The same saith Irenaeus II. 47. even in the world to come that man may alwayes learn but God alwayes teach the maters of God S. Chrysostome in Joan. Hom. XL. observes that our Lord bids Search the Scriptures By digging as for mines or treasure So if they may be understood with searching yet it followeth not that every one is able to take that course in searching them that is requisite And Opus imperfectum in Mat. Hom. XLIV Ergò non sunt Scriptnrae clausae Sed obscurae quidem ut cum labore inveniantur non autem clausae ut nullo modo inveniantur Therefore the Scriptures are not shut Dark indeed they are so that they are found with pains But not shut so as by no means to be found Adding that as it is for the praise of them that finde them that they sought so for the condemnation of them that seek not that they understand them not S. Jerome ad Algasiam Quaest VIII Omnis Epistola ad Romanos miris obscuritatibus involuta est The whole Epistle to the Romanes is involved with marvellous darkness Epist ad Paulinum Hoc autem velamen non solùm in facie Moysi sed in Evangelistis Apostolis positum est This vail is not onely in Moses face but upon the Evangelists and Apostles And Nisi aperta fuerint universa quae scripta sunt ab eo qui habet clavem David qui aperit nemo claudit qui claudit nemo aperit nullo alio reserante pandentur Unless all things that are written be opened by him who hath the Key of David who opens and no man shuts who shuts and no man opens no man else will unlock and lay them forth Before him Origen in Exodum Hom. XII is afraid that the Evangelists and Apostles as well as the Prophets will prove not onely vailed but sealed to us as the Prophet saith unlesse wee both study and pray that the Lamb of the Tribe of Juda may open us the Seals of it Here I will advise the parties to consider how they can advantage themselves by those sayings of the Fathers which contain not the terms of that position which they do nothing unlesse they inforce Allege they what they can allege out of the Fathers to show that they acknowledg the Scriptures both sufficient and perspicuous I shall not be troubled at it but shall willingly concurr to acknowledg the same I acknowledg the Scriptures to be an Instrument of God though a Moral Instrument And I shall have a care not to acknowledg that God ever provided or used au Instrument that would not serve his turn Instrumentum Vetus Novum is a term in every mans mouth to signifie the Old and New Testament But there are Natural Instruments and there are Moral Instruments I say not that there is no third kind of Instruments for it may be there are Artificial Instruments of a several nature from both but my present purâ—ose obliges mee not to consider that difference When the substance or frame of the Instrument inables it to serve him that imployes it well may it be called a Natural Instrument as the parts of mans body or other creatures which execute the operations of the soul When neither the substance nor frame of the thing which that substance produces concurrs to the work to the which it is Instrumental but it is done meerly by the consent of mans will the reason is the same of Gods will if it be an Instrument between man and God then is it great reason why it should be called a Moral Instrument because the force of it lyes in the maners of those who use it to testifie those acts which they do not mean to transgresse Such as all civil records are in regard of the effect of those contracts or deeds which they come to witnesse The Old and New Testament are the records of two several Treaties or Contracts if you please that have passed between God and Man And therefore authentick because the writings of those who contracted those Treaties But does
redierunt de Babyloniâ post Malachiam Aggaeum Zachariam qui tunc prophetaeverunt Esdram non habuerunt Prophetas usque ad Salvatoris adventum All that time from their return from Babylonia after Haggai Zachary and Malachy who then prophesied and Esdras they had no Prophets till the Saviors coming Excepting those whom wee finde mentioned in the Gospels And truly it is manifest by historical truth that there was a part of that Nation that gave themselves to use the Greek Language in there dispersions whereas those that returned into the Land of Promise as well as those that remained in Babylonia had learned the language of that Countrey being very near their own which was retained onely amongst the book-learned Seeing then that it is manifest that these books were committed to writing in the Greek for the most part at least it cannot in reason be imagined that the whole Nation acknowledged them as Scriptures inspired by God must have been acknowledged which no man can say that ever they came generally to be used by the whole Nation or could come to be used being onely in Greek Wee shall not finde much of them translated for the use of them that conversed in the Ebrew unlesse it be Tobit For Ecclesiasticus it is true was first written in Ebrew and but translated into Greek When the Old Testament was translated into Greek then and among them that used it were they added to the writings of the Prophets and so received by the Church that received those Scriptures from them in Greek in the same nature and upon the like credit as it was visible they held them from the time that first they were received It is now no mervail to see some men upon the truth of these reasons quite renounce all the advantage which Christianity hath by the witnesse which these writings being impartial as uttered before it came into the world do render it because they are unduely advanced by others to the rank of those that are inspired by God For the spirit of contradiction naturally carries weak men to oversee to destroy their own Interest so they may be farr enough from those whom they desire to bear down So wee are content to yield the Socinians all the advantage which the consent of the Church gives us against them upon condition that the differences wee have with the Church of Rome may be decided by Scripture alone And so are wee content to betray the Church to fight without the armes that are to be had out of these books that wee may be free of them when they seem to crosse some prejudice wherein wee have ingaged our selves But if that which hath been said of the fulfilling of the Prophets in the literal sense at this time between the return from Captivity and the coming of our Lord be not premised amisse Without doubt all the world could not recompense the losse of the books of Maccabees and the use of them to the understanding of the Prophets so inestimable is the benefit of them to that purpose And truly I should not stick to the reasons which I have premised if I should not observe here that when that people began to be persecuted for their Religion by the Gentiles it pleased God so to order the mater that for their comfort and resolution in adhering to it the truth of the Resurrection and Judgment and the World to come should be openly and clearly received and professed which though never questioned yet had been sparingly and darkly preached by the Prophets themselves Wee see it in the exhortations of the mother of the Maccabees to her children 2 Mac. VII 23. 29. and in their own protestations according to the words of the Apostle Heb. XI 35 36. that they suffered in consideration of the world to come And it is as well to be seen in those visions whereby the Resurrection is figured out to the Prophets Daniel and Ezekiel for in their time began the persecution of Gods people And as in their time those revelations were granted so by their doctrine and the doctrine of the Prophets their successors were the people of God fortified against Apostasy by the assurance of the resurrection and the world to come And by this means also and upon this ground that inward and spiritual obedience which the mystical intent of the Law requireth in order to everlasting life is so clearly and so plentifully expressed in those moral writings of the Wisedom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus that it is a great mervail to see those who are so eager to perswade Christian poople to be informed in the Law of Moses and the Prophets though many times not knowing the reason upon which the obligation of the Law ceaseth they are not onely scandalized thereby with Jewish opinions but lost and seduced to be circumcised so violent to prohibite them the information which from hence they may have in their Christianity For so sure as the Apostle in the eleventh to the Ebrews shows that all the Fathers were saved upon the same terms as Christians are so sure as the Fathers of the Church as I have elsewhere alleged convince the Jews that the Fathers before the Law were saved as Christians and not as Jews so sure an advaatage hath Christianity fro◠all that is written before it came in force Whether because it could not have been received by the Synagogue had it contained things contrary to that rule of piety and means of salvation which in the Synagogue within which it is acknowledged on all sides that means of salvation was found was in force Or whether because being written by the immediate successors of the Prophets they had as it were the sound of that doctrine still in their ears which they had received from them by word of mouth For hee that would make a question that the doctrine of the world to come is more plentifully and clearly delivered in these writings than in the Scriptures of the Old Testament inspired by God And by consequence that inward and spiritual obedience which becomes due in order to the same more plentifully here described hath no more to do but to turn over the books and compare them which will not fail to justifie what I affirm As for the book of Judith though perhaps ignorant people may scandalize themselves at it yet I shall professe to think it no disparagement to the credit or to the right and due use thereof if the conceit which Grotius hath published and confirmed by several circumstances observed in the tenor of the book should hold both in it and in the book of Tobit To wit that it was not written for a history nor requireth historical faith that such a thing was ever done but as an allegory or figure described by way of Romance to expresse the malice of Satan under the shadow of Nebuchadnesar against Jewry signified by Judith a widow and fair exercised by his Deputy Holofernes in the person of Antiochus
though first penned in Ebrew yet was translated into Greek in Aegypt as the Prefice witnesses Supposing then the interest of Christianity against Judaism to consist in that which the Fathers of the Church do plead That the same Word and Wisedom of God which first dealt with the Patriarchs which gave the Law to Moses and afterwards spoke by the Prophets in after time dwelt in our Lord Christ Jesus and delivered the Gospel I demand what could have been said more to the purpose of Christianity against Judaism by those that lived under Moses Law There is a question whether the Apostles S. Paul and whosoever it was that writ the Epistle to the Ebrews do allege these Books and allow them for their Authors when they call our Lord Christ the Image of God 2 Cor. II. 4. the Image of the invisible God Col. I. 15. the resplendence of the glory of God and the express image of his substance Ebr. I. 3. the Power of God and the Wisedom of God 1 Cor. I. 24. When they say that all things in heaven and earth were created by him and to him and subsist through him as the first-born of the whole creature Col. I. 16 17. that the world was made by him and that hee sustaineth and moveth all things by his powerfull word Ebr. I. 2 3. For how like are these things to those which wee reade in Ecclesiasticus I. 1 4. All wisedom cometh from the Lord and is with him for everlasting Wisedom was made before all things and the understanding of prudence from everlasting And XXIV 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before the world from the beginning hee made mee and for ever I fail not Having said in the beginning of the Chapter according to the Latine Copy Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi primogenita ante omnem creaturam I came forth of the mouth of the most High the first born before every creature And again Ecclesiasticus I. 9 10. The Lord himself made her and saw and numbred her and poured her upon all his works With all flesh shee is according to his gift and hee furnisheth her to them that love him And XXIV 5-9 I came out of the most High and covered the earth like a mist I dwell in the highest and my throne is in the pilar of cloud I alone compass the circumference of heaven and walk in the bottom of the deep In the waves of the sea and in all the earth in every people and nation is my inheritance Adding that seeking rest among men shee found it no where but in Israel And in the book of Wisedom VII 22 -27 For there is in Wisedom an understanding spirit holy onely begotten manifold subtile thinn nimble perspicuous undefiled plain to be understood inviolable loving goodness quick not to be hindred beneficent loving to men firm sure not solicitous that can do any thing that survayeth all things and passeth through the purest and finest understanding spirits For Wisedom is nimbler than all motions and attaineth and passith through all things because of her pureness For it is a vapor of the power of God and a sincere effluence of the glory of the Almighty therefore no pollution can happen to it For it is the resplendence of the everlasting light the unspotted mirror of Gods working and the image of his goodness Which being one can do all things and remaining in her self reneweth all things and passing into pious souls in all ages makes them friends of God and Prophets And IX 9 10 11. And with thee is Wisedom that knoweth thy works and was present when thou madest the world and knoweth what is pleasing in thine eyes and right in thy commands Send her from thy holy heavens and from the throne of thy glory that shee may assist and labor with mee and I may know what is pleasing before thee For shee knoweth and understandeth all things and will guide mee wisely in my doings and keep mee in her glory Can any man reade these things and not remember the beginning of S. Johns Gospel In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by it and without it was nothing made that was made Can any man conceive that the Apostles should call our Lord Christ the Word the Power and the Wisedom of God that made all things in heaven and in earth it self being brought forth before all creatures supporting and moving all things which was with God from everlasting that hee is the image of God the shine of his glory the character of his substance That the successors of the Prophets should describe the Wisedom of God to be the Word of God that dwelt in the Prophets and the Power of God that made all things being it self brought forth before all things that sustaineth and governeth all things to dwell by the throne of God as the shine of his light the miror of his works the breath and vapor of his power and glory and from thence to come and take possession of the souls of Prophets and not acknowledg all this to come from the same fountain Especially being perswaded afore as all that are not Jews must be perswaded that the same Spirit and Word of God qualified as Wisedom describeth it which possessing the souls of righteous men in that measure whereof each of them was capable made them Gods Prophets dwelt in Christ without measure according to the fulnesse of the Godhead as the Apostles have told and said John I. 14 16. III. 34. Col. II. 9 10. Truly if any man say as I know it is said that the same sense may be derived by the Apostles from the glory of God in Ezek. I. 28. from the attributes of the Messias Psal II. 7. 2 Sam. VII 14. Esa IX 6. from the making of the world by Gods wisedom recorded Psal XXXIII 5. CXXXVI 5. Jeremy LI. 15. X. 12. especially from that which Solomon hath written of Wisedom being present with God from everlasting and doing all his works Prov. VIII 11-31 I will not contend with him about it Though in my own judgment seeing it cannot reasonably be denied that these writings being extant long afore went then with the rest of the Greek Bible And seeing the texts that are alleged do not direct us to understand how the Word and Spirit and Wisedom of God by which the Law and the Prophets spoke dwelleth for ever in our Lord Christ as these passages of their Successors do I do firmly believe that they signifie their allowance of them whose doctrine they use But it is enough that it may hereby appear as it must needs appear that they give us good and sound commentaries upon so high a point of the Prophets doctrine their predecessors when the Apostles that follow them hold such correspondence with them in it Onely hereupon I will from hence draw the reason why the inward obedience to
that they were inspired by Gods Spirit or that the authors thereof ever spoke by the same And with this resolution the testimonies of Ecclesiastical writers will agree well enough if wee consider that to prove them to have the testimony of the Church to be inspired by God it is not enough to allege either the word or the deed either of Writers or Councils alleging the authority of them or calling them Holy Divine or Canonical Scriptures Nothing but universal consent making good this testimony which the dissent of any part creates an exception against For if those to whom any thing is said to be delivered agree not in it how can it be said to be delivered to them who protest not to have received it Wherefore having settled this afore that no decree of the Church inforceth more than the reason of preserving unity in the Church can require wee must by consequence say that if the credit of divine inspiration be denied them by such authors as the Church approveth no decree of the Church can oblige to believe them for such though how farr it may oblige to use them I dispute not here It shall therefore serve my turn to name S. Jerome in this cause Not as if Athanasius in Synopsi Melito of Sardis in Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzene abundance of others both of the most ancient Writers of the Church and of others more modern who justly preferr S. Jerome in this cause did not reject all those parts or most of them which the Church of England rejecteth But because were S. Jerome alive in it there could be no Tradition of the Church for that which S. Jerome not onely a member but so received a Doctor of the Church refuseth For it will not serve the turn to say that hee writ when the Church had decreed nothing in it who had hee lived after the Council of Trent would have writ otherwise The reasons of his opinion standing for which no Council could decree otherwise Hee would therefore have obeyed the Church in using those books which it should prescribe But his belief whether inspired by God or not hee would have built upon such grounds the truth whereof the very being of the Church presupposeth Nor will I stand to scan the sayings of Ecclesiastical Writers or the acts of Councils concerning the authority of all and every one of these books any further in this place There is extant of late a Scholastical History of the Canon of the Scripture in which this is exactly done And upon that I will discharge my self in this point referring my Reader for the consent of the Church unto it And what importeth it I beseech you that they are called Sacred or Canonical Scriptures As if all such writings were not holy which serve to settle the holy Faith of Christians And though it is now received that they are called Canonical because they contain the Rule of our Faith and maners and perhaps are so called in this notion by S. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church Yet if wee go to the most ancient use of this word Canon from which the attribute of Canonical Scripture descendeth it will easily appear that it signifieth no more than the list or Catalogue of Scriptures received by the Church For who should make or settle the list of Scriptures receivable but the Church that receiveth the same it being manifest that they who writ the particulars knew not what the whole should contain And truly as I said afore that the Church of Rome it self doth not by any act of the force of Law challenge that the decrees of the Church are infallible So is it to be acknowledged that in this point of all other it doth most really use in effect that power which formally and expresly it no where challengeth Proceeding to order those books to be received with the like affection of piety as those which are agreed to be inspired by God which it is evident by expresse testimonies of Church writers were not so received from the beginning by the Church So that they who made the decree renouncing all pretense of revelation to themselves in common or to every one in particular can give no account how they came to know that which they decree to be true So great inconveniences the not duely limiting the power of the Church contrives even them into that think themselves therefore free from mistake in managing of it not because they think they know what they do but because they think they cannot do amisse It remaineth therefore that standing to the proper sense of this decree importing that wee are to believe these books as inspired by God neither can they maintain nor wee receive it But if it shall be condescended to abate the proper and native meaning of it so as to signifie onely the same affection of piety moving to receive them not the same object obliging Christian piety to the esteem of them it will remain then determinable by that which shall be said to prove how these books may or ought to be recommended or injoyned by the Church or received of and from the Church CHAP. XXXIII Onely the Original Copy can be Authentick But the truth thereof may as well be found in the translations of the Old Testament as in the Jewes Copies The Jewes have not falsified them of malice The Points come neither from Moses nor Esdras but from the Talmud Jewes AS to the other point it is by consequence manifest that the Church hath nothing to do to injoyn any Copy of the Scripture to be received as authentick but that which it self originally received because it is what it is before the Church receive it Therefore seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament was penned first and delivered in the Ebrew Tongue for I need not here except that little part of Esdras and Daniel which is in the Chaldee the same reason holding in both that of the New in the Greek there is no question to be made but those are the authentick Copies Neither can the decree of the Council of Trent bear any dispute to them who have admitted the premises if it be taken to import that the Church thereby settleth the credit of Scripture inspired by God upon the Copy which it self advanceth taking the same away from the Copy which the author penned That credit depending meerly upon the commission of God and his Spirit upon the which the very being of the Church equally dependeth But it is manifest that it cannot be said that the said decree necessarily importeth so much because it is at this day free for every one to maintain that the Original Ebrew and Greek are the Authentick Copies the Vulgar Latine onely injoyned not to be refused in act of dispute or question which hindreth no recourse to the Originals for the determining of the meaning which it importeth Hee that will see this tried need go no further than a little book of Sorbonne Doctor called
than there is between the Greek of the LXX and any of them judging of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion by the remains of them recorded by the Fathers of the Church As for the Syriack and Vulgar Latine both made by the Christians and the former justly challenging as great antiquity and therefore as great credit as the early coming of those parts to Christianity thereupon the necessity of having the Scriptures inforces it is manifest that they were translated out of Copies which were had from the Jewes and yet that the sense was not determined in those Copies as it is by the vowels determined in the Ebrew Copies wee use Whether that in S. Jeromes time the method of points was not complete and written into their books or whether they would not suffer such Copies to go out of their hands for the use of Christians I confesse I have met with a passage in the Gemara Brachoth cap. ult that seems to argue the contrary It is reported there that R. Akiba about Adrian the Emperors time decreed that they were not saving your presence to wipe the backside with the right hand because it shows the accents of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if there were then accents to be showed certainly there were vowels But the Glosse of R. Solomon Jarchi clears the meaning of the passage to be no more than this that by holding the right hand up or down they signified how the lessons of the Law were to be sung according to that whether Musick or howling which still it seems they use in their Synagogues Now to come to the resolution of the point propounded I think it not unfit to divide from the rest the Greek and Samaritane Copies because a reason is pretended why they should never be taken into consideration when there is any question of the true reading of the Old Testament whatsoever account is to be had of the rest By the Scripture of 2 Kings XVII wee understand that the Samaritanes at their first planting were Idolaters and worshipped God as the God of that Countrey not as the one true God that made heaven and earth In which worship there must needs be as much Idolatry as in the Athenians worshipping the unknown God among innumerable Idols Though that title yielded S. Paul an argument against Idols When the Temple and City came to be restored under Esdras and Nehemias they offered themselves to assist the work pretending that they they worshipped the true God onely Esdras IV. 2. And what reason can wee have to doubt that they said true in it For when in opposition to the Jews they had built themselves a Temple upon Mount Geriziâ—â— and sacrificed there as the ten Tribes did at Bethel and Dan from Jeroboams then there can no question be made but that they sacrificed to the true God though not according to the true intent of his Law at Jerusalem but as Schismaticks where they pleased themselves Whatsoever then was the reason why under Esdras and Nehemias they were not admitted to build the City and Temple with the Jews as just there might be and no doubt was though wee suppose them not to have been Idolaters from the time that they were thus rejected I make account wee may clearly say that they have been and are Schismatical Jews professing the Law but according to a Copy of their own which for a rarâ— monument of antiquity is printed in the Great Paris Bibles and so extolled by those that pretend to oblige the Christian world by publishing the same as if it were the true Copy of Moses As for the rest of the Old Testament seeing it cannot be said that ever they admitted either the writings of the Prophets or the Resurrection and world to come which under them was more and more declared I leave to those of better skill to consider whether this were not the reason why they were refused the communion of the Jews under Esdras and Nehemias This is the original credit of this Copy of Moses Law which cannot be greater than the credit of those that use it But it is alleged over and above out of an extract from Eulogâ—us Patriarch of Alexandria in Photius that this Copy was falsified by Dositheus a Doctor of such credit among the Samaritanes that Origen upon S. Mathew XXIV informs us that hee pretended to be the Messias whom the Samaritanes as Jews did expect As for the Greek of the LXX it is alleged that by comparing it with the original which is the most effectual conviction of common sense it may appear that they who made it never intended to translate the Ebrew which they had before them but to inlarge abridge and change the sense and mater of it as best pleased their own fansies though to what purpose it is hard to affirm This is alleged to be visible in the Book of Job the Proverbs Esther and I know not whether any other parts of the Old Testament Supposing these exceptions made to those two the ancientest Copies besides the Ebrew that the world has I will not enter into the dispute concerning the true Copy of the LXX which every man knows what difficulties it becomes lyable to by the diligence industry of Origen who that it might appear at one view what the difference was between the Greek and Ebrew Copies first set a mark upon every word which the Greek of the LXX had exâ—râ—ssâ—d more than the Ebrew contained then under another mark added to the same Copy that which being found in the Ebrew was not found translated in the Greek of the LXX For those marks being afterwards left out by the negligâ—nâ—e of Copyists there came into the common use of the Church a mixt Copy of the Greek according to the LXX and that which the Ebrew had more than the Greek according to Theodotion whom Origen had stuck to in that businesse Whereby and by several Copies corrected and ordered by Luciane Hesychius and others to set a period to this disorder it is become impossible to say what is the true Grâ—ek of the LXX or Alexandrian Jews in abundance of places But this dispute I conceive I shall not need to enter into having nothing to do here to say how well or how ill the Church hath been served by the multiplying of several Copies whiâ—h is a far divers point that may come to hand in due place But onâ—ly supposing things to be as they are what means we have to assure our selves of unquestionable Scripture in order to the deciding of difficulties in mater of Religion which not onely ordinarily but universally have their beginning from some uncertainty in the meaning of the same But supposing the Greek and Samaritane lyable to these exceptions supposing that wee have a very â—nâ—ient translation of the Old Testament into that language which the Jews from the Captivity used for what can be the reason why the Jews should turn it into Chaldee but for the vulgar use
to be in regard of the world to come what would he have Christians to be but Libertines and Rebels True it is God imposeth it not as upon his subjects but tendreth it as to his rebels for the condition upon which they may become his subjects instead of his rebels And that is a just reason why it is called a Covenant rather than a Law And that reason justly reproves the Leviathans imagination that it can oblige neither more nor less than the Law of Nature For being positive as tendred by the meer will of God and upon what terms he pleased as the Precepts thereof which are Gods Laws to his Church and the institution of the Church it selfe is meerly positive there is no reason at all to presume that the moral Precepts which are in force under it are bounded by the Law of Nature Though whether it be so or not I undertake not here to determine But we know what S. Paul saith Rom. III. 27. Where is boasting It is shut out By what Law Not by the Law of works but by the Law of Faith That is by the Gospel which requireth that Faith of which I am inquiring wherein it consists for the condition of obtaining the promises which it tendreth And S. James 11. 8. 12. If ye fulfill the Royall Law which saith Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self ye do well And So speak ye and so do ye as being to be judged by the Law of Libertie For the liberty of being Gods subjects and under Gods royall Law the Gospel giveth Neither is S. Paul otherwise to be understood when he saith Rom. VIII 2. The Law of the Spirit of Life which is in Christ Jesus hath freed me from the Law of sin and of death The imbracing of the Gospel being the Law that is the condition upon which we become partakers of the Holy Ghost free from sin and from death And truly I cannot but pity the blindness of error so oft as I remember that I have heard Antinomians alledge the words of the Prophet Jer. XXXI 31 -34. quoted by the Apostle to show the difference between the first and second Covenant Heb. VIII 8 -11. Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that I will settle with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new Covenant not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers when I tooke them by the hand and brought them out of the Land of Aegypt for they abode not in my Covenant and I neglested them saith the Lord For this is the Covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those dayes saith the Lord Putting my Laws into their mind I will also write them upon their hearts and I will be to them for their God and tâ—ey to me for my people Neither shall they teach every man his neighbour and every man his Brother saying Know the Lord For they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest I say I cannot but pity them that upon these words ground themselves that the Covenant of Grace is a meer free promise not onely freely made for so I say it is free for what but Gods goodness moved him to tender it but freely without condition contracted for at their hands For cannot God by his Prophet foretell the effect of the Covenant of Grace but he must be presumed to set down the terms of it And if he express them not there is he the less free to demand them when he tenders them Especially the Covenant it self being to remain a secret till Gods time to reveal it I say then that this Prophesie hath taken full effect in the lives of those who submitting themselves to the terms of Christianity have received of God the gift of the Holy Ghost to understand their profession that they might live according to it But that this gift of the Holy Ghost that is to say the habituall assistance thereof neither was due nor bestowed but upon supposition of Chnstianity professed by baptisme which God by our Lord Christ hath revealed to be the condition which he requireth of them that will injoy the same CHAP. IV. The consent of the whole Church evidenced by the custome of chatechising By the opinion thereof concerning the salvation of those that delayed their Baptism By the rites and Ceremonies of Baptism Why no penance for sins before but after Baptism The doctrine of the Church of England evident in this case BUT I am now come to the argument that is to be drawn from the practise of the universall Church to my purpose And truly he that shall consider for what reason the Apostles should require those whom they had converted to be baptized will find himselfe intangled in rendring it unless he settle the ground of it upon the obligation of professing true Christianity And the effect of it in admitting to the unity of the Church which may require the performance and maintain the exercise of it And the consequence thereof they that are or shall be imployed by the Church to preach to unbelievers will find to be such that either they must insist upon the terms which I hold with them or they shall make them but aequivocall Christians That is such as may wear the Cross of Christ to man for a cognizance but not in the obligation of their hearts to God rather to suffer death than either to profess or act against that which he hath taught The next point in the visible practice of the Catholick Church is the custome of catechizing The circumstances whereof for time and manner though no man can mantain to have been the same in all Churches yet it may be argued to have been generally a time of triall for them that had been wonne to believe the truth of Christianity how they were likely to apply themselves to live like Christians and what assurance or presumption the Church might conceive that they would not betray the profession thereof And therfore I appeal to the common sense of all men whether they that exercised this course did not admit men to Christianity and baptism upon the condition of professing and undertaking so to do Besides those things which I alledged in the first Book in the Constitutions of the Apostles in the most ancient Canons of the Church and generally in all Church writers we read of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa fidelium In English the dismission of Scholars and the dismission of Believers Because during the Psalms during the reading of the Scriptures expounding the same reason was that learners should be present as well for their instruction in Christianity as for discharge of their â—uty in the praises of God and prayers to God Though the same prayers were not to be offered to God for Learners as for believers but they were to be dismissed with peculiar prayers of the Church for their particular estate such as yet are extant in the ancient Offices of the
man for Communion with the Church by Baptisme but of that which the Church professeth to have received from our Lord and his Apostles And this is the true ground of the foundation of the Church and the Society thereof whereof so much hath been said To wit that God giving his Gospel for the salvation of mankind did think fit to trust the guard and exercise of it to men once instructed by those to whom at the first he had given immediate Commission to publish and establish Christianity Rather then leave them to expect at his hands every day new revelations and miracles for introducing that which had once been sufficiently declared And also rather then leave every man to his own head to make what he can of the Scriptures and think he hath salvation by living according to it For supposing that Christianity which is delivered by the Scriptures once subject to be misunderstood and corrupted of which we have but too much experience an effectual course to preserve it will be to found a Corporation or Society of the Church the members whereof each in his owne ranck should remaine intrusted by God but by the meanes of their predecessors from whom they received Christianity to preserve both the profession of Christian truth and the exercise of Gods service inviolable Nor is it effectuall to say that the unity of the Church may fail being divided by Heresies and Schismes insomuch that that Baptisme which is visibly valide and good shall be void of that invisible effect which it pretendeth For it is not requisite that God should provide such meanes of salvation as may be undefeisible It is enough that they are reasonable He that is Baptized into a profession destructive to that which all Christians are bound upon their salvation to believe perishes for want of Faith setting aside the unity of the Church which his Herisie violates over and above But if the unity of the Church be of such advantage to the maintenance of our common Christianity as it was before the dissolving of it it is no marvaile if the Baptisme of Schismaticks though valide and good for the visible forme become voide of effect to them who by receiving it make themselves parties to the breach of the unity of the Church We agree that the Power of the Church of Rome is the occasion of many abuses in the Church What they are it is my present businesse to enquire He that bounds the interpretation of the Scriptures within the sense of the Catholike Church shall not transgresse the Law of Gods truth in that inquiry He that accepts the bounds of his own fansy in stead of them is it not just with God if he die If once common Christianity and the maintenance thereof depend so much upon the unity of the Church is it not reason that the benefit of it should depend upon the same he who having attained the true Faith and according to the same seeking the unity of the Church faileth of it without any fault of his owne if he who so seeketh it can be supposed to faile of it hath the difficulty of overcoming his own ignorance to pleade for his excuse But for them who have the consent of all Christians from the beginning to oblige them to undertake the profession of Christianity by Baptisme but out of hatred to the present Church the abuses of it neglect baptisme upon presumption that they have the holy Ghost without it or that the reason why the Apostles Baptized is now ceased I say that for them I suppose there remaines no just plea seeing that by the unity of the Catholike Church they ought to have been guided in judging what is of the abuse of the present Church and what is not And thus that consideration which some seeme to be not without cause scandalized at when these effects of Christianity the power whereof must necessarily consist in an unfained heart are made to depend upon an outward ceremony of Baptisme which the Church gives is utterly voided by that reason which the Apostle insinuates when he sayes that Baptisme saves us not the laying down of the filth of the flesh but that profession to God which is made with a good and a sincere conscience Whereas those that distinguish that faith which alone justifieth from the profession thereof which baptisme executeth oblige themselves to make Baptisme a ceremony not whereon the promises of the Gospel depend but to signifie that they are had and obtained without it But to whom signifie not to God who giveth them Not to him that has them and by his faith knows he has them Not to the Church which can never be certified that he hath them indeed and demands onely to be certified that he wants nothing requisite to presume him to be such So that Baptisme being required onely to presume that a man is a Christian and that presumption being legally had by any act the Church or any that call themselves the Church can require as well as by being Baptized If that be all there is no reason to be given the Sociniant why Baptisme should be necessary to the salvation of Christians and therefore why it should not be in their power to use it or not to use it And truly I do much marvel to see the Socinians that have very well seen the truth concerning the twofold meaning of the Law literall and spirituall and the promise of the land of Canaan tied to the carnall observation thereof as that of everlasting life to the spirituall obedience of it I say I do marvel to see that in consequence hereunto they should not inferre that God hath appointed a spirituall people of the Christian Church answerable to Israel according to the flesh and that his spirituall promises should depend upon the visible imtiation of eveâ—â— Christian into the body of that people as the right of his temporal promises depended upon their initiation into the body of carnall Israelites not according to birth but according to promise Onely when I consider on the other side that without regard to the Article of the Catholick Church which Christians make a part of their Creed they rest in such a communion as their private perswasion of the sense of the Scriptures shall be of force to produce I do not marvail to see them not owne the consequence of their own principles when they see it not stand with other prejudices which they have imbraced I know there are two things will be objected here the one is a meer prejudice that by maintaining of free will by maintaining the Covenant of Grace to consist in an act of it we shall incurre the Heresie of Pelagius The other that if the condition of the Covenant of Grace be an expresse profession vow and promise to live as well as to believe according to what Christ hath taught and that without the use of reason no such promise can be of force or take place then infants cannot
promises whereby it should please God further to declare the purpose for which he brought him from home That faith therefore which was imputed for righteousnesse to Abraham not as the Jewes challenge righteousnesse by doing the Law but as Christians expect it by remission of sinnes includes in it an ingagement of travailing that way that God points out to the land of promise upon the account whereof that faith which was imputed to the Patriarchs for righteousnesse proceedeth Now when S. Paul proceedeth further to argue that this imputation of Abrahams faith to righteousnesse came to passe while he was yet uncircumcised and no way subject to the law and that by virtue of Gods promise which proceeded upon consideration of this righteousnesse and not of the law the title of his inheritance stood which promise he argueth further Gal. IV. 18 19. that the Law coming four hundred and thirty yeares after could nothing derogate from I challenge all the world to say how all this inferrs any more But that the righteousnesse of Abraham comes not by virtue of the Law by doing whereof the Jewes pretend righteousnesse but by Gods free promise whereby Christians expect remission of sinnes To the same effect therefore S. Paul concludes Rom. IV. 23 24. But it was not written because of him alone that it was imputed to him but because of us who believe in him that raised up our Lord Jesus from the dead to whom it is to be imputed For the example of Abrahams faith in the promise of God to give him such a posterity by Sarah and that it was imputed to him for that righteousnesse whereby he became qualified for the promises upon which he left his country is written for the instruction of Christians upon this account Because so sure as we believe that the New Testament was intended by the Old so certaine we are that the faith whereby we undertake to follow God and the way to the world to come which he by Christ points us out qualifies us for the same But he that will have S. Paul upon these reasons to inferre that Christians are justified by believing that they are predestinate or by trusting in God not supposing that trust grounded upon that obligation which our Baptisme professeth in plain terms he makes S. Paul use arguments that do not conclude For if Abraham cannot bragge of his righteousnesse before God because of Gods account not of debt If David count happiness not to stand upon any title of purchase but by remission of sins If faith were reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse before he was circumcised If the inheritance were due by virtue of Gods promise Then that righteousness which intitles Christians to the world to come stands by virtue of the Gospel which publisheth remission of sins to all whom it overtakes in unrighteousnesse and by Gods grace in acceping their undertaking of Christianity and living according to it as qualifying them for everlasting life not by doing the law without having recourse to that meanes which the Gospel tendereth for remission of sinnes and right to the world to come But it is in vaine to inferre from any of those assumptions Therefore Christians are justified by that faith in which no obligation of bearing Christs crosse or any consideration thereof is included With this which hath been said of that faith whereby Abraham was justified let us compare that which follows of the faith of Moses Heb. XI 24 25 26. By faith Moses growing great refused to be called Pharaohs daughters sonne chusing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God then to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a time counting the reproach of Christ greater riches then the treasures of Egypt Because he looked upon the reward to be rendred The faith by which Moses was justified consists in this that he renounced his quality in the Court of Egypt that he might have a share in the promises made to Gods people And this the Apostle justly calls undertaking the reproach of Christ because it was the same thing in effect to the people of God then as now is the bearing of Christs crosse which Christians at their Baptisme professe and because the promises which the Fathers looked after are fulfilled in Christ as I shewed afore And herewith let us compare the faith of Enoch Heb. XI 5 6. By faith Enoch was translated not to see death and was not found because God had translated him for before his translation he is witnessed to have pleased God But without faith it is impossible to please God For he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he rewardeth those that seek him Well may we conclude from hence that Enoch was not justified by the Law nor by the works of it but by that perswation upon which he sought God as Christians by obliging themselves so to do not by that faith which includeth not nor supposeth any resolution and obligation so to do Compare now herewith the conclusion of the whole dispute concerning the righteous men and Prophets under the Law Heb. XI 32. 37. And what shall I say more For the time will saile me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Sampson and Jephtah and David and Samuel and the Prophets Who by faith conquered kingdomes wrought righteousnesse obtained promises stopped the mouthes of Lions quenched the force of fire escaped the edge of the sword recovered of weaknesse became strong in war put to flight armies of strangers women received their dead raised to life againe others were tortured to death not expecting deliverance that they might obtaine a better resurrection others had triall of mockings and scourgings and besides of bonds and imprisonment were stoned sawne asunder tempted died slain by the sword went about in sheeps and goats skins in want afflicted distressed wandring in deserts and mountaines and caves and holes of the earth Will this conclude that all these were justified by that faith which neither includeth nor presupposeth a resolution and obligation to righteousnesse who out of the hope of Gods promises to his people acted against the enemies thereof or suffered for righteousnesse the same things in that state of Gods people which Christians now suffer and do for the profession of Christs Crosse into which they are baptized In fine the whole dispute of the Apostle here and of S. Paul in so many of his Epistles concerning faith and the righteousnesse that Christians have by it is the same with that which the Fathers of the Church maintained against the Jews that Christianity is more ancient then Judaisme That as the Fathers before the Law obtained not that right which both Christians and Jews allow them to the promises of the world to come by the works of the Law So the Prophets and righteous men under the Law had not that hope by doing it but by the assurance which under the dispensation of the Law they had conceived as of reason they ought that God would not faile
the second Adam is the meanes of our righteousnesse and therefore by that likenesse of reason which S. Pauls discourse proceeds upon the first Adam the meanes of our sinne And to this purpose speaketh that which followeth For when the Apostle argueth that whereas sinne is not imputed when there is no Law notwithstanding death raigned upon all those that had not sinned as Adam did That is by transgressing such an expresse law of God as Adam did transgresse Observing that the Fathers who walked with God whom Adam offended tasted neverthelesse of that death which Adam incurred he inferreth to us that the effect of Adams sinne remaines in the whole kind of his posterity to which death the punishment thereof belongeth And I beseech you of whom speaketh S. Paul but of all mankind when he writeth thus Rom. VII 5-13 For when we were in the flesh the passions of sinne which were by the Law were exercised in our members to bear fruit unto death But now are we voided to the Law that being dead by which we were held that we may live in the new Spirit not in the old letter What shall we say then Is the Law sinfull God forbid Nay I had not known sinne but by the Law For I had not known concupiscence had not the Law said Thou shalt not covet But sinne taking advantage by the commandment wrought in me all concupiscence For without the Law sinne was dead Now I lived somtime without the Law But the commandment coming sinne revived and I died And that commandment which was for life to me was found to death For sinne taking advantage by the commandement deceived me and slew me by it So the Law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good Did then that which was good become death to me God forbid But sinne that it might appear sinne wrought me death by that which was good that sinne by the commandment might become sinfull above measure For though S. Pauls speech here be concerning a Jew in the person of one that of a Jew was become a Christian yet seeing the proposition of the Apostle bears that the Gentile is much more involved in that condemnation to which the Jew is liable that which belongs to every Jew that comes to Christianity will be true much more a fortiori of the Gentile all mankinde being then compleatly divided into Jew and Gentile And therefore let no man think that my present purpose shall ingage me before I can make use of this Scripture to decide the question now on foot among Divines whether S. Paul here speakes in the person of an unregenerate man or regenerate which notwithstanding in another place I may be ingaged to decide For the present it is enough for my turn that an unregenerate man admitting S. Paul cannot refuse his owne case to be that which S. Paul here sets forth to be this That being in the flesh the passions of sinne were exercised in his members and so forth For I know it is said that to be in the flesh is to be in the custome of sinne But what difference makes that in the case when all to whom the Gospel first comes are in the flesh excepting those who under the Law though not by the meer Law came to that state of Grace in which the Fathers stood And therefore it is to me of no consequence whatsoever the meaning of the Apostle may be when he describes those sinfull passions which he saith were exercised in their members to be those that were through the Law I see there are two opinions of his meaning when he saith afterwards That sinne getting advantage by the comandment without which it was dead but the man alive and when it came sinne revived and he died So that the Law which tendred life became to his death because sin by advantage of the Law slew him deceitfully wrought in him all concupiscence For one opinion saies That when an unregenerate man becomes convict that the Law of God takes hold of his inward inclinations which he findes to be evil the inbred corruption of nature not submitting thereto upon this meer conviction flies out into utter defiance of God and his Law in all disobedience to it whereby the concupiscence that is opposed may be satisfied The other saith That the Law of Moses in the outward and literall sence thereof requiring onely civil obedience answerable to that temporall happinesse which it tendereth It is no marvaile that Jewes being tied to the letter of the Law as their study and businesse should think the outward and civile observation thereof to be the utmost intent of it which we see to this day to be the error that detaines them from Christianity And therefore it is properly said according to this opinion that sinne taking this advantage by the Law slew me by deceit But to me this dispute is of no consequence Or rather both opinions are to be admitted in relation to the two severall senses of the Law which I have advanced For as to the literall sense of the Law which the Gentile could have nothing to do with it is manifest this might be For it is manifest that it is become a scandale to the Jew to make him think that he stands right in Gods Court without any Gospel of Christ and thereupon to induce him to defie it But as to the spiritual sense of the law in which the Gentile also hath his interest as concerning things written in the hearts of all men whatsoever the occasion is by which it becomes revived in the heart in which at any time it may have been dead because it neither gives rule to the actions thereof nor bindes it over to judgement most certaine it is and most evident the meaning of S. Paul that when it cometh to convict a man of his duty and by consequence what he is liable to upon the faileure the Law that is for life will prove to death That is if Grace help not sinne will overcome For if the helpe of the Law convicting of one true God his providence and judgement even upon the secrets of the heart were not able to reclaime those that were bred under it to spirituall righteousnesse much lesse shal that conviction whereby the light of nature evidences the same be of force to the same purpose And this is that which S. Paul intimates Rom. VIII 3 4. For whereas the want of force in the Law was weake through the flesh God sending his sonne in the likenesse of sinfull flesh and concerning sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us that walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit For if the doctrine of Moses Law which as I have shewed giveth so really eminent advantages towards the choice of true righteousnesse was uneffectuall to the Jewes by reason of the flesh of necessity the light of nature must needs become uneffectual to the Gentiles
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
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
figures hereof and read their bringing out of Egypt into the land of Promise and the maintainance of them in the inheritance thereof notwithstanding their enemies yea notwithstanding their frequent transgressing of it imputed to the Covenant with their Fathers believing with S. Paul that all Gods promises are yea and amen in Christ they cannot consequently make doubt to believe not onely that they are spiritually made good to Christians but also were spiâ—itually made good to them who lived the life of Christians under the faith of Christ to come during the Law in consideration of his merits and sufferings And therefore it is not for nothing that I insist upon this that not onely the giving of the Law but the ambassages by which God dealt with the Fathers and Prophets of old time were performed by the same Word of God which afterwards becoming incarnate is now our Lord Christ assuming for the time the ministery of an Angel that represented and bore the person of God in the likenesse of man As prefaces and preludes to his coming in our flesh not to leave it any more For if it pleased God to use this ministery in order to that which was to purchase of him that grace which should build the Church is it marvail if in consideration of his Sonne by whom this intercourse between God and man was managed he should grant those helps at that time which by the meanes of that knowledge which that intercourse maintained were effectuall to reduce them to that spirituall obedience to God which made them friends to God at that time And therefore I marvaile not that the ancient Church according to that which I said afore should make use of those bookes which now we call Apocrypha for the instruction of those whom by the name of Catechumeni they prepared for baptisme For in as much as we have in them those expresse testimonies which I have quoted of the Wisdome of God dealing with mankâ—nd from the fall of Adam to reduce them to the knowledge of God and to maintaine them in it insomuch it affordeth a necessary instruction to informe all that desire to be Christians by what means the world was saved before and after the Law and yet no salvation but by Christianity Which they that neglect will sooner betray the cause of our common Christianity then give a good account of so great a difficulty The Socinians for certaine will want footing against the Jews either in shewing how the Fathers were saved or why they are rejected It remaineth that I give a reason why the position of Socinus or of Pelagius in denying the grace of Christ as the cure of Originall sinne is not consistent with the grounds of Christianity which is to say that the account which they are able to give for the coming of our Lord Christ is not sufficient not reasonable because they deny this grace Socinus liberally granteth the grace of God in sending Christ to publish his Gospel and to assure all mankind that he is ready to pardon the sinnes of all that receive it and to give them eternall life living here as Christians undertake to do That having provided that our Lord Christ should be born of a Virgine by the holy Ghost of his free grace he hath exalted him to the power and honour of God under himself thereby both rewarding his undertaking and performing this ambassage above merit and assuring us both of the truth of the Gospel and of the performance of it to them that live conformable to Christs Crosse who have a man of our own kind indowed with Gods own power to deliver us from all enemies of our own free will believing his Gospel so tendered and living as it requireth But in all this neither he nor Pelagius who as I said in the beginning as freely acknowledgeth that grace of God which consisteth in giving the Gospel besides that free will which we come into the world with tenders us any account at all how it comes to passe that all mankind iâ— become enemy to God and subject to his wrath Which untill it be supposed to be true there is no cause why the Apostles and the Church after them should invite the world to undertake so much hardship as Christianity importeth And therefore S. Paul hath had care to set it forth as the ground of Christianity in the beginning of his Epistle to the Romanes For it will not serve the turn to have recourse to the examples of their predecessors and the nature of man apt to imitate them as a sufficient reason hereof seeing this reason can go no higher then Adam and that there is evidence that through the grace of God good examples of his posterity such as walked with God if not of himself as the book of Wisdome affirms X. 1. and we have no cause to doubt were performed before the eyes of them who notwithstanding imitated the apostasy which he disclaimed How then shall we imagine supposing a good and an evil branch in his posterity that the bad example should so be followed that all the world should runne after strange Gods Onely a few Fathers by that entercourse which God granted them of grace and the doctrine which came from their Fathers but to their Fathers by grace being preserved intire to God How comes the same to passe after the floud in the posterity of so just a man as Noe after such a horrible warning as the deluge Had the light of reason been such in discerning the difference between good and bad as the Law of Nature and by consequence the state of mans creation requireth had mans inclination been without any bias contrary to that which the light of reason such as it is shewes how could this have been How comes it to passe that the excellence of mans nature and the reason that he is endowed with serves for a reproach to all mankind that now follows it That those who see the difference of good and bad when they are alone without witnesse when they are under publick ingagements commit those oppressions upon men whereof they have no example even from beasts Doth not all the learning all the experience of the world thus farre give testimony to Christianity and shall we think fit to advantage our selves upon this plea against those that are not Christians and straight to deny the consequence of it to Christians Especially having the fall of Adam so evident a beginning of it set forth by Moses and the comming of Christ by S. Paul for the cure of it Thus farre then we plead from the motives of our common faith But when we come to measure the grace of Christ which is the cure by the person of Christ I suppose I have right to demand for true that which I have proved that he is God and man not by grace noâ— by reward but by birth And give notice to Pelagius that Socinus in a more cunning age of disputing found it requisite for
afore in resolving whether there is any such faith to be â—ound as is not the vertue of a Christian For accordingly I will distinguish that faith is either the beliefe of the gospell and Christianity or the profession of it whether sincere or counterfeit I say then that the sincere resolution of professing of Christianity being the condition to which all the promises of the Gosple are due as I have showed is the worke of that grace which the obedience of Châ—â—ath purchased for us In order whereunto though the preaching of the Gospell contayneth sufficient motives to convince the world of the truth of it yet seeing the publishing of those motives by the Apostles of Chrâ—stâ—â—â— the purchase of his blood and seeing those motives being though sufficient yet not demonstrative are resisted by the greater part it is the worke of Gods grace wheresoever they become effectuall to move any man to believe that Christianity is true in order to the resolution of imbracing it Notwithstanding in as much as the profession of Christianity when it is proâ—ected by the powers of this world is no disadvantage but a priviledg especialy where there is difference about Christianity and a man professes what the Secular Power professes it is easy to see that there is reason enough in this world to move a man to professe Christianity for his own sake and not for Gods Much more to believe the truth of it for which he haâ—â— sufficient reason besides But this Faith not being that which is called Faith absolutely but with an addition of abatement we are absolutely to conclude with the council of Orange that to believe as a man ought is not the worke of freewill but of Gods grace The limitation of as a man ought serving to exclude such counterfeit faith as I have described Now though this reason of professing Christianity for advantage of this world be the most ordinary and visible when Christianity is protected by the Lawes and Powers of the world yet may it as well come to passe and effect otherwise or at least that which countervailes it For Aristotle observes unto us in his Morals that all men are not caried away either with the profit of this world or the pleasure or honours there are those that prefer vertue whether speculative or active Though this active vertue he describes to consist in that meane which the discretion of the world determines For he often repeats this for his principle in that work that the difference of good and bad must be taken for granted from that which the civility of the world accknowledges But how easy it is for them who have addicted themselves to the profession of that civility of that knowledg which the world pretends not to to imbrace and professe opinions which the world allowes not and having made it their businesse in the world rather part with their lives then be constrained either to beleive or not beleiving to professe otherwise How much more in the knowledge of God and the hope of happinesse which we suppose Christianity truly to promise may a man that pursuâ—s not the truth of it with that humility which it requires by the judgement of God fastning upon false principles by virtue of them be induced to imbrace those conclusions which he shall rather part with his life then refuse and yet for his owne sake not for Gods who teaches them not And upon these premises we may determine whether all the actions of the Gentiles and unregenerate are sins or not at least so far as it is requisite to determine any thing in it For on the one side it is evident that seeing it is imposible that they should by nature attaine to a resolution of doing all that they do in obedience to the will of God with an intent of his service It is not possible that their actions should have that utmost end which they ought to have On the other side seeing it appeareth that nothing hinders them to do things for the meere regard of honesty or of doing good to others without making themselves positively and expressely the end of what they doe It is manifest that the next end which they intend by them may be good and that the things which they doe are such as of their owne nature may be ordered and directed to the service of God though by them not so intended And therefore when it is said that unregenerat men doe all for themselves as their utmost end we must distinguish in themselves the seeds of virtue which the common notions of difference between good bad containe from the corâ—tion of orignall concupiscence For well may we say when they are moved with regard of honesty to doe any thing that they do it for themselves because it is the native worth of their man-hood which moves them to doe it But when it is said That adicting themselves to the riches or honours or pleaof this world fro which they addict them selves to love of themselves they make themselves their utmost end This must be understood as in Morall matters for the maine part of their doings The love of riches honour or pleasure much lesse of civil vertue not disabling them or so swallowing up all consideration of that which of it self suits with the worth of mans nature but that without any other regard they may many times chuse to do it And therefore having made good the grounds aforesaid I shall leave it to the readers owne judgement whether he will hold all their actions to be siâ—s because they are not positively directed to the utmost end of Gods honour and service or those which are don for honesties sake to be vertues because they are positively directed to that next end that is according to Gods will and might have been directed to his service Assuring my selfe that no interest of Christianiny obliges either me or him to determine this or that And now before I leave this point I inferr againe here from the reasons which I have used to prove the capacity of inâ—â—fference in the will of man excluding the actuall determination of it before he determine himselfe That all this is not to say that indifference is requisite to all freedome but to the freedome of man alone in this state of travaile and proficience For my ground is Gods â—enâ—â—r of a treaty and conditions of peace and reconcilement together with those precepts and prohibitions those promises and threats thâ—se exhortations and dehortations which it is inforced with So that it is â—â—â—â—â—ly impertinent to alleage here the freedome of God and Angels the freedome of the â—aâ—â—s in the world to come the freedome of our Lord Christs humane soule to prove that this indifference is not requisite to the freedome of man because it is not found in that freedome which they are arived to to whom no covenant is tendred no precept requisite no exhortation usefull as being either the cause of all rule of goodnesse
to deny this to be the intent of that paterne which the devill thereby corrupted is to offer viâ—lence to common sense Here I come to the Prophesy of Es LIII wherein being obliged liteâ—aâ—ly to expound it with Grotius of the Prophet Jeremy I shall be thought by â—oâ—â— to make it the more difficult to prove this to be the mysticall sense of it Buâ— having given my selfe a Rule to maintaine the difference betweene these two senses in the Prophesies of the Old Testament I shall forbid Socinus any advantage against the Church by it Thus then saith the Prophet Es LIII 4 But he tooke our sicknesses and bore our greifes And we thought him plagâ—â—ed smitten of God and afflicted But he was wounded for our transgrâ—ssioâ—s and beaten for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his markes we are healed We all had gone astray like sheepe every one was turned his owne way and God made all our iniquities to meete him He was oppressed and afflicted yet opened he not his mouth He was ledde as a sheepe to the slaughter and as a sheepe is dumbe before him that sheares her so opened he not his mouth He was taken from restraint and judgement and his generation who shall declare For he was cut off from the land of the living he was smitten for the transgression of any people And he made his grave with the wicked and with the rich at his death for no wickednesse that he did nor deceite in his mouth yet the Lord was pleased to afflict him with sorrowes If thou make his soule an offering for guilt he shall see a seede he shall prolong his dayes and the good pleasure of God shall come to passe by his means For the labour of his soule shall he see and be satisfied By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many and he shall beare their iniquities Therefore will I give him a share with the great ones and with the mighty shall he divide the spoile because he poured out his soule to death and was counted among transgressors and bore the sins of many and interceded for transgressors That the Prophet Jeremy should be a figure of our Lord Christ in his doings and sufferings is no more then I have showed that all the Prophets were That the Prophet Esay should foretell the same for a figure of Christ is no more then that he should prophesy of our Lord Christ under the figure of himselfe which he doth many times The reason why the Prophet Jeremy is a figure of our Lord imports no more then this That being sent by God to reduce his people to his Law that they might continue injoying the Land of promise he was by them taken for an enemy of his country and used accordingly because he foretold theire ruine in case they obayed not and so God brought on him the merit of theire sinnes which he laboured to cure But so that his doctrine and the event of his Prophesies having reduced them to God and his Law theire restitution from captivity which he had foretold came to passe by his means Upon this account the Prophet Jeremy is a sacrifice for his people though no otherwise then as S. Paule exhortes the Romanes to present their bodies living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God Rom XII 1. Or as he saith to the Philippians If I be poured forth as a drinke offering upon the service and ministery of your faith Phil. II. 16. Or as to the Colossians I. 24. he supplies the remains of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh for his body which is the Church For the proportion will be just betweene that reconcilement which the Prophet procures betweene God and his people by his intercession and doctrine as to their temporall estate as a minister of God and a figure of Christ And that which our Lord Christ procures betweene God and his Church as to the everlasting estate of it Seeing then that Socinus acknowledges all this to be meant of the redemption of the world by the sufferinges of Christ what advantageth iâ— him that it is understood literally of the Prophet Jeremy For the importance of the Prophets words in him will take place according to the pretense of his coming not according to the nature of the Prophet Jeremies office And therefore what if the Evangelist say that the words of the Prophet Esay He tooke away our infirmities and caried away our diseases were fullfilled when our Lord cured the blinde and the lame Mat. VIII 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Evangelist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confesse signify taking away as well as bearing And therefore that which the Baptist saith Mark I. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whose sâ—oe latchet I am not worthy to stoope and unty Is in S. Matth. IV. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to carry but to take away his shooes Which he that looses intends to take away Therefore Tertul. ad Marc. IV. Ipse igitur est Christus remediator valetudinum Hic inquit imbecillitates nostras aufert languores portat Therefore Christ himselfe is he that cures sicknesses He saith he takes away all infirmities and beares our diseases Portare autem Graeci pro â—o solent ponere quod est tollere Now the Greeke is wont to put bearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for taking away And indeed the cure of bodily infirmities by Christ could not be fortold by the Prophet to come to passe by taking them upon himselfe but by taking them away from the people But if we say that he was to cure our spirituall infirmities no otherwise neither will the figure of Jeremy nor the words of Esay hold so properly which as I said afore are fullfilled more properly in the mystery then in the History For it is manifest that bearing our sins serves to amplify the sufferings whether of Jeremy or of our Lord which taking them away does not and yet it is aswell understood that they are taken from them by consequence to wit because laide on him For Jeremy bare the sinnes of the people first as our Lord on the Crosse but the cure came afterwards Besides when the Prophet sayes If thou shalt make his soule a sacrifice for guilt It is manifest that God layes the guilt on him which he takes from us Thirdly when the Prophet sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where one case of the person another of the thing follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Socinus translates it God by him met with all our iniquites I say confidently he makes it no Hebrew Had the Prophet said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might have passed for Hebrew to signify that which he saies But as it lies at no rate Fourthly no man shall expound the Prophet but the Apostle 1 Pet. II. 24 25. Who himself took up our sinnes upon his body to the Crosse that being dead to sinnes we may live to righteousnesse by whose blew markes we
people without expressing any consideration in regard whereof he would doe it And likewâ—se our Lord in the Parable of the master that forgave his servant ten thousand talents Mat. XIIII 23 Seemes to expresse Gods pardon which his Gospell publisheth to be free from any consideration in which it is either proclaimed or granted But as I said to our Antinomians who will needes beleive upon the warrant of the Prophets words that their sinnes are pardoned meerely in consideration of Christ without regard to any disposition requisite to qualify them for it by the Gospell That it was neither requisite nor fit that the termes upon which the blessinges promised by the Gospell are granted should be expressed by the Propheâ—y that onely foretelleth the coming of it being to be gathered from that proportion which the Law in regard of the land of promise holds to the Gospell in regard of the world to come So say I to the Socinians who will needs have the same wordes to signify That supposing the disposition that qualifies for the promises of the Gospell they suppose no consideration of the obedience of of Christ That though the termes of the Gospell are not expressed by the Prophet foretelling the coming of it as being included in those of the Law by virtue of the proportion aforesaid it were strange to thinke that the coming and death of Christ is not sufficient since to determine the meaning of the Prophets words to it And so likewise to the Parable that if our Saviour found it not fit to expresse the consideration upon which the pardon which the Gospell publishes is passed yet his death and suffringes coming after to interpret the intent of that which he hâ—d said before that was to be declared it is strange that they should not be thought sufficient to adde that consideration which before he had neither expressed nor denyed As for the free grace of the Gospell I challenge all the reason in the world to say If Gods free act in providing the means of salvation by Christ and sending him to publish the conditions upon which he is ready to be reconciled to those that accept them tendering withall sufficient help so to doe be not a valuable reason for which the Gospell is to be called the Covenant of grace though granted in consideration of thâ—t ransome by Christ which the free grace of God provideth Whether our Antinomians have not as good reason to say that the promises of the Gospell are not free if they require the condition of Christianity as the Socinians if they suppose Christ and his obedience Here followes I confesse a very valuable reason of Socinus so long as that satisfaction of Christ which the Church teacheth is not understood which it is no mervaile if it cary them aside not understanding the faith and doctrine of the Church aright They allege that there can be no ground in reason upon which one man may be punished for another mans sinne Guilt being a morall consequence of an act that is naturally past and gone that is for the present nothing in rerum natura upon a due ground of reason which imputes the acts of reasonable creatures to their account because they are under a Law of doing thus and not otherwise But that thâ— sinnes of one man should be imputed to another who cannot be obliged for another to doe or not to doe that which redounds to the others account if done or not done is no more possible then that he should have done or not done that which the other is supposed to have done or not done If it be said that Christ voluntarily took upon him the punishment of our sinnes as a surety answeres for his freinds debt It is acknowledged that this way turnes off the Debt from him that it is payd for to the surety but extinguishes it not as the undergoing of punishment extinguishes the crime in all the Justice of the world so that he who had right to punish can exact that no more for which he hath received satisfaction once Which is to say that the sufferinges of Christ are not the punishment of our sinnes And I truely doe freely acknowledge that the instances which have been brought either out of the scriptures to show that one man hath been punished for another mans sin among civil people so that it is not to be thought against the light of nature are either insufficient or impertinent to the case For I have learned from my beginning in the Schooles that God when he visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children does not inflict upon them more punishment then their owne sinne deserues but makes their sinnes his opportunity of bringing to passe his judgements against the sinnes of their predecessors or those who in regard of other relations are reasonably taken to be punished by their punishment And this I will here prove no further but taking it for granted inferre that it comes not home to the case of our Lord Christ purchasing us by his death remission of sinnes everlasting life But my reason is because it is evident to me that one mans doings or sufferings may be understood or said to be imputed to another two wayes First immediately and personally supposing that there is a ground in reason for it And this that opinion requires which holds that faith which alone justifieth to consist in beleiving that a man is praedestinate to life meerely in consideration of Christs death suffering for the elect alone For how should we be justified by beleeving this but supposing that Christ suffered upon this ground to this purpose But having showed this opinion to be utterly false by showing that the Gospell supposes the condition of Christianity in that Faith which alone justifieth I must here presume that this sense of the imputation of Christs merits and therefore this intent of his death is meerely imaginary And the supposition whereupon it proceedes to wit that one mans doings or sufferings may be personally and immediately imputed to another mans account utterly unreasonable And therefore must and doe say that as it is sufficient so it is true that the sufferings of Christ are imputed unto us in the nature of a meritorious cause moving God to gâ—ant mankind those termes of reconcilement which the Gospell importeth This is evident by the opposition which S. Paul maketh betweene the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ Rom. V. 12. 18. 19. Where discovering the ground of our reconcilement with God whâ—ch the Gospell publisheth he imputeth it to the obedience of Christ in the rest of his discourse attributing it to his death For having said that Christ died for us being sinners and that we are justified by his bloud and reconciled by the death of his sonne being enimies he inferreth therefore as by one man sinne came into the world and death by sinne and so death passed upon all Signifying by the other part of the comparison which he rendreth not
bring all that might be alleged Because I may make this generall inference from the premises that all precepts all exhortations all promises all threats made to induce man to perseverance in that estate to which the promises of the Gospell are any way signified to be due are necessary arguments to show that those to whome they are made may faile of the perseverance to which they induce And this by virtue of the generall reason premised that they are all evidences of that free will of men which the grace of God destroyeth not but cureth And therefore as when they are used to induce men to imbrace Christianity they containe an evidence that he may doe otherwise So also when they are used to induce man to persevere in that profession which he hath once undertaken they must necessarily by the same reason containe an evidence that it is possible for any man not to persevere who is induced by them to persevere in the course of a Christian For if it be said that without the grace of God they cannot with it they cannot but be effectual Either it is supposed the grace of God here named shal become effectuall to induce them to persevere to the end supposing that God foresees that they shall soâ—persevere or something else including the fore-sight of the perseverance it selfe or not If so it is no mervaile that the said exhortations cannot but prove effectuall because God foresees they shall be effectuall and that which shall not be can never be foreseene But if not supposing this any man undertake to say that the exhortation of the Gospell with the helpe of Gods inward grace must necessarily prove effectuall he will necessarily fall into all the inconvenience which I have charged them with who maintaine that the will of man is immediately determined by the will and operation of God to doe whatsoever it doeth Which is no lesse then the destruction aswell of all civility as of Christianity But let us see what the Apostle writes Heb. VI. 4-7 For it is not possible to renew unto repentance those that being once inlightned and having tasted the heavenly gift and been partakers of the Holy Ghost and relished the good word of God and the powrs of the world to come fall a way and crucify to themselves and traduce the Sonne of God For the earth that drinkes the raine that oft comes upon it and beares herbes fit for them by whome it is tilled receives a blessing from God But that which beares thornes and thistles is reprobate and neare a curse the end whereof is to be burned Could more have been said to expresse the state of grace For if any man can undertake to have the Spirit of God without premising Christianity I say confidently there is no cause why any man should be a Christian Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here as Ebr. X. 32. signifieth neither more nor lesse then Christened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the ancient Church signifies Baptisme because of the darknesse of Hethenisme or Judaisme which it dispelleth What is then the heavenly Gift which Christian tast be it remission of sinnes or be it the Gift of the Holy Ghost that followes expressing the same thing in severall parallel termes my businesse is done if the Gift of the Holy Ghost be not granted but upon that condition which makes all other promises of the Gospell due Wherefore I am content that relishing the good word of God shall signify no more then that conditon to wit That sense of Christianity which resolveth a man to undertake it But to relish the powers of the world to come no man can be understood but he that upon supposition of the said condition becomes sensible of that peace and joy of the Holy Ghost which under Christianity onely Christianity can give And therefore though I dispute not here how he means that it is impossible to renew those that fall from Christianity to repentance yet I challenge that impossibility of renewing to contain both a former right in and a possession of that estate to which they are renewed by repentance and also the present losse of it by falling from the condition which gâ—ves it So that the comparison which followes of fruitful and barren land upon tillage as it expresses a promise of following helpes of grace to them that use those which went a fore aright contained in the promise of giving the Holy Ghost to inable them who sincerely professe Christianity to performe that which they undertake So it convinceth the fruitlesse to be liable to the curse of fire which it is said to be neare because it is called reprobate The same is the effect of the like exhortation Ebrews X. 26 -29. For if we sinne voluntarily after receiving the acknowledgement of the truth there remaines no more any sacrifice for sinne but a certaine terrible expectation of vengeance and glowing of firâ— that is to consume opposers If one set at naught the Law of Moses without mercy he dies upon two or three witnesses Of how much worse punishment think you shall he be thought worthy that treads the Sonne of God under foot and esteems the blood of the Covenant by which he is sanctified unâ—leane and doth despite to the Spirit of Grace I say this is to the same effect if it be once granted that this sinne may be committed by a true Christian which no man can deny For can a Christian be thought to doe that despite to the Spirit of Grace which the Scribes and Pharises are said in the Gospell Matt XII 28. 32. Marke III. 29. Luke XII 10. to doe in sinning that sinne against the Holy Ghost which our Lord there pronounces irremissible Is it not manifest that their sinne consisted in attributing the miracles by which our Lord sought to convert them to the uncleane spirit being in Judgment convinced that by the Holy Ghost alone they were done And is it not as manifest that a Christian having received the Spirit of Grace promised to those that are baptized out of a sincere resolution of Christianity abuses the spirit which is so given him and which he hath and which had allready wrought that worke of conviction which the scribes and Pharises sufferd not to take effect in their harts Especially when the Apostle expressely premiseth the washing of them called here sanctifying by the blood of the Covenant which is the cleansing of that vessell by remission of sinnes into which the new wine of the Holy Ghost is to be put Wherefore I will not say that the faith of these men is true faith if you meane that onely to be true faith which lasts to the end which is many times in common language that which truth signifieth But if you meane that to be true faith which effecteth remission of sinnes and qualifieth for the world to come he must set the scripture upon the rack that will make it confesse any other sense Now consider what the Apostle
ac debeant si fideliter laboraro volueriut adimplere Here also we believe according to the Catholick faith that all that are baptized having received grace by baptisme may and ought to fulfill those things which belong to their salvation if they will faithfully labour it Which is no more then to say That they have sufficient grace to preserve them from falling away Or from falling into those sinnes which forfeit the state of Grace Though I easily yeild this possibility is rather naturall than morall And that considering the many opportunities and provocations even to those sinnes which the occasions of the world present the inclinations of Concupiscence with it is in the judgement of discretion impossible that a man should not forfeit the state of grace though absolutely there is nothing to inforce that it must necessarily come to passe And truly the Prophet Davids prayer To be cleansed from secret sinnes but to be preserved from presumptuous sinnes Psal XIX 12 13. showes difference enough between the kindes But the obtaining of this prayer not to fall into any presumptuous sinne depends upon that diligent watch which even the regenerate may neglect to keep over themselves Now for him that shall have committed this forfeit though the promise of the holy Ghost and the habituall assistance thereof is thereby voide yet the knowledge of Christianity that is the obligation and matter of it and that facility of living the life of a Christian which custome leaves behind it remaining the actuall assistance of the H. Ghost which alwaies accompanieth the preaching of the Gospel cannot be wanting where so great effects of it are extant to procure the recovery of him that is fallen away Whether they shall take effect or no it is in the justice and mercy of that Providence which onely maketh them effectual The wisdome of God which shall laugh at the calamities and mock when the feares of them come that refuse when it calls and regard not when it stretcheth out hands Prov. I. 22 representeth the condition of those that forfeit the Promise exceedingly terrible in that they are fallen under Gods meer mercy though it be granted that they want not sufficient helps to restore them till they be come to the end of their race But in very deed the hardest of this point is to give account how this holds under the old Law how any man could be saved by fullfilling that Law which the Gospel declars to be taken away because no man could be saved by fulfilling it To which my answer must be according to the supposition premised concerning a twofold sense of Moses Law that is to say a twofold Law of God under the Old Testament that it is no marvaile if the civile happinesse of Gods ancient people which the Law of Moses in the litteral sense tendred for the reward of it were to be obtained by worshipping the onely true God and that civile conversation according to it which that people of their naturall freedome were able to performe True it is indeed which S. Peter saies Acts XV. 10. that â—â—ither they nor their Fathers were able to bear the burthen of Moses Law And that for that reason which not onely Origen but divers others of the ancient Fathers have alledged against the Jewes that there went so many scruples to the precise observation of it as it was not possible for any people in the world to overcome For there being such variety of cases incident to the observation of such variety of precepts as no man could further be secured in that he proceeded according to the will of God then as the determination of those whom God by the law of Deut. XVII 8-12 XVI 18. had referred it to might secure him And that alwaies new cases must needs prevent new determinations of necessity the precise observation of Moses law even outwardly and in the literal sense was in ordinary discretion thing impossible Which is effectuall indeed to convince the Jewes that God never was so in love with their Law as to accept them for precisely keeping of it even in the world to come But provided it for an outward and civile discipline to countenance the inward godlinesse and righteousnesse of the heart till he should think fit openly to inact it for the condition of the world to come In the the meane time having tendered the Law for a condition by which they might hold the land of promise it is manifest that the obtaining of it depended not upon that precise observation of all scruples which the nature of the subject rendred in humane reason impossible But that in case they worshipped God alone and observed the precepts of the Law with that dilligence which a reasonable and honest man would use in that case the promise must become due Whereby the law in this sense is a fit figure to represent both the impossibibility of Gods originall Law and the gentlenesse of that dispensation thereof which the Gospel importeth As for the inward and mysticall sense of Moses Law it is manifest that the countenance which the Law gave true righteousnesse by inforcing the worship of the onely true God together with so many acts of righteousnesse among men and temperance chastity and sobriety with temporall penalties With the faith of the world to come and the doctrine of spirituall righteousnesse of it self acceptable to God received from the Fathers and maintained by the Prophets and their disciples in all ages maintained alwayes a stocke of such men as God accepted of even to the reward of the world to come In whose condition notwithstanding we must observe a kind of limitation or exception to the temporall promises of the Law not onely at such time as the people fell away from God to the worship of Idols but in regard of hypocriticall Governors who pretending zeal to Gods lawes of sacrifices and ceremonies and the promises of God due to them in that regard under that colour took advantage sufficiently to abuse and oppresse his poor people For when these cases fell out the Prophets whose office it was to reprove such things in Gods name and their disciples and followers must needs fall under great persecution at these mens hands So that their right in the land of Promise turning to a sorry account of happiness for them who of all men were the most severe observers of Gods Law of necessity the temporal promises thereof were supplied and made good to them by the hope of the world to come Which as Origen wisely and ingeniously observes if a man well consider he shall find that flaw in the promises of the Old Testament to be as a chink or breach in a wall through which we may discern the light of the Gospel beyond it For if the matter be rightly considered it will appear that these hypocriticall Governours of Gods ancient people which thought the promises of the Law for ever entailed upon themselves and their successors upon the observing of
fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi Which oblation thou O God wee pray thee vouchsafe to make in all respects blessed imputable accountable reasonable and acceptable That it may become to us the body and bloud of thy well-beloved Son our Lord Christ Jesus Then after the Institution Jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae Majestatis tuae Ut quotquot ex hoc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpâ—erimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur Command them to be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel unto thine Altar that is above before thy divine Majesty that as many of us as shall receive the holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace These two parts of this Prayer are joyned into one in most of those Forms which I have named whether before the rehersal of the institution or after it Onely in those many Forms which the Maronites Missal containeth the rehersal of the institution comes immediately after the Peace Which was in the Apostles time that Kisse of Peace which they command going immediately before the Deacons warning to lift up hearts to the Consecrating of the Eucharist Though those words are not now found in any of these Syriack forms For after the institution is rehearsed it is easie to observe that there followes constantly though not immediately but interposing some other Prayers a Prayer to the same effect with these two But in two several formes For in all of them saving two or three which pray that the Elements may become the body and bloud of Christ to the Salvation of those that receive by the Holy Ghost coming down upon them Prayer is made that this body and this bloud of Christ may be to the Salvation of the Receivers Which may be understood to signifie the effect of both these Prayers in so few words But it may also be understood to signifie that whosoever framed them conceived the consecration to be made by the rehersal of the institution premised Which if I did believe I should not think them ancient but contrived at Rome where they are printed upon the doctrine of the School now in vogue For in all formes besides the effect of these prayers is to be found without excepting any of those which wee may have any confidence of that they are come intire to our hands I demand then whether I have reason to attribute the force of consecrating the Eucharist upon which the Sacramental presence of the body and bloud of Christ depends to the recital of what Christ said or did at his celebrating the Eucharist or instituting it for the future Or to the Prayer which all Christians have made and all either do make or should make to the expresse purpose of obtaining this Sacramental as well as spiritual presence Hear how Justine describes the action Apolog. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having done our Prayers wee salute one another with a kisse Then as I said that the Peace was next before the Consecration is offered to the cheif of the Brethren bread and a cup of water and wine mixed Which hee takes and sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and Holy Ghost Giving thanks at large that wee are vouchsafed these things at his hands To wit the means which God used to reclame Man-kind under the Law of nature and Moses and lastly the coming of Christ and his death and the institution of the Eucharist Who having finished his Thanks-giving and Prayers for the making of the Elements the body and bloud of Christ by the Holy Ghost all the people present follow with an acclamation saying Amen Afterwards hee calls the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The food which thanks hath been given for by the prayer of that word which came from him That is which our Lord Christ appointed the Eucharist to be consecrated with when hee commanded his Disciples to do that which hee had done So Origen in Mat. XV. calls the Eucharist Panem verbo Dei per obsecrationem sanctificatum Bread sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer And contra Celsum VIII Oblatos panes edimus corpus sanctum quoddam per preces factos Wee eat the bread that was offered made a kinde of holy body by prayer Not that which is grounded upon that Word of God by which his creatures are our nourishment as Justine saith afterwards that Christians blesse God by the Son and Holy Ghost for all the food they take but that Word of Christ whereby hee commanded to do that which hee had done S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag III. saith That the bread is no more common bread after the calling of the Holy Ghost upon it Because hee saith afterwards Cat. Myst V. that the Church prayes God to send the Holy Ghost upon the Elements to make them the body and bloud of Christ As I said So S. Basil calls the form of Consecration which I showed you hee affirms to come by Tradition from the Apostles as here I maintaiu it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of invocation To wit whereby wee call for the Holy Ghost to come upon the elements and consecrate them de Spiritu Sancto cap. XXVII S. Gregory Nyssene de vitâ Mosis saith the bread is sanctified by the Word of God which is his Son But to say further by what means hee adds in virtue of the blessing To wit which the Church consecrates the Eucharist with as our Lord did Optatus describes the Altars or Communion Tables which the Donatists broke For they were of wood not of stone Quo Deus omnipotens invocatus sit quo postulatus descendit Spiritus Sanctus On which almighty God was called to come down On which the Holy Ghost upon demand did come down S. Jerome describes the dignity of Priests Epist LXXXV Ad quorum preces corpus Christi sanguisque conficitur At whose prayers the Body and Bloud of Christ is made To wit by God And in Sophoniae III. Impiè agunt in legem putantes Eucharistiam imprecantis facere verba non vitam Et necessariam esse tantùm solennem Orationem non Sacerdotum merita They transgresse the Law of Christ thinking that the Eucharist is made by the words not the life of him that prayes over it And that only the customary prayer not the works of the Priest are requisite In fine as often as you reade mysticam precem or mysticam benedictionem when there is speech of the Eucharist in the Fathers be assured that which here I maintain is there understood True it is Irenaeus V. 2. affirmeth that the Bread and the Wine receiving or admitting the Word of God accipientia become the Eucharist of the Body and Bloud of Christ But what word this is hee
that God is satisfied that is to say his wrath appeased and his favour regained by the means which the Church prescribeth But requireth also that he submit not onely to use the cure which the Church prescribeth but to the judgement thereof in admitting the effect of it And upon these terms and upon no other the virtue of Baptism mortified by sinne reviveth again according to the doctrine of the School For if nothing else but the sincere resolution of living and dying as a Christian can intitle any man to the promises of the Gospel what is it that must intitle him to them that hath once forfeited his title Surely nothing but the renewing of that trust which is forfeited by failing of it And surely that trust is not so easily re-established as it is first contracted I have shewed you in the second Book what reason we have to believe that the severity of the ancient Church in readmitting those that failed of their profession at their Baptism necessarily argues the difficulty of being re-estated in the favour of God There goes more indeed to the satisfying of the Church that he who had failed of his Christianity hath sincerely renewed his resolution for it then to the renewing of it But that this resolution will as well be effectuall and durable as it is sincere it is as difficult to assure a mans selfe as to satisfie the Church The power of the Church then in binding and loosing that is in remitting or retaining sinne consists not onely in declaring a sinner either bound or loose Whether in generall by preaching the Gospel or in particular by refusing or restoring him to the communion of the Church For whom the Church bindeth for sinne known to the Church his pardon is not to be had without the act of the Church But in constraining him that will be a Christian to mortifie the love of sinne in himselfe as his sin declares it to be alive in him is the power of the Church in remitting sinne exercised And in pronouncing sentence of absolution in what form soever the power of assuring the same Let us now look over these same Scriptures again for by them having no other we must judge whether this power extends to all sins so that no sinne after Baptism can be pardoned without the ministery of the Church and the use of it Whether it extend onely to notorious sinners as an abatement of the sentence of excommunication which being liable to upon demonstration of repentance they are admitted to be reconciled by it or lastly whether there be some other reason to determine the extent of it Surely he that argues because God hath given his Disciples this Power and the Church after them therefore he hath commanded all sinners to use it denying all hope of pardon to them that do not use it by declaring their sinnes to them whom the Church trusts for it makes a lame consequence For will any reason allow him to say that otherwise this power signifies nothing when it is granted to extend to the curing of all notorious sinnes That which we learn of it from S. Paul to the Corinthians without all controversie concerns no sinnes but but such The sinne of him that had maried his Fathers wife was so well known that it had raised a party in the Church of such as pretended it to be consistent with Christianity And when S. Paul is afraid that coming to them he shall be fain to put many of them to Penance for the sinnes which having committed they would have made no demonstration of conversion from them before his coming it is evident enough that he speaks of no secret sinnes because the punishment which he pretends to inflict is for standing out against his leters in their sinnes As for that sinne which the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to exclude from reconcilement with God by the Church Apostasy from Christianity it is necessarily and essentially a manifest sinne because it consists in the visible renouncing of that profession which had been visibly made But coming to S. James we find that he commands the Priests of the Church to be sent for promising forgivenesse of sinnes upon their Prayers And therefore when he proceedeth to say Confesse your sinnes to one another and pray for one another we gather that he promiseth the pardon of those sinnes which the sick person shall have confessed to the Priests of the Church For if it be requisite for obtaining the prayers of a Brother for the pardon of our sinnes that we confesse them to him he that prescribes it must needs understand those sinnes which he promises forgivenesse upon their prayers to be declared to them afore It is therefore manifest that the Apostle here delivereth a precept of confessing sinne both to one another and to the Priests of the Church supposing the cure of sinne be known to all Christians by the Tradition of our common Christianity and the visible custome and practice of all Churches by works of humiliation and mortification of devotion and mercy whereby satisfaction is made not onely to the Church which receiveth offense by visible sinne but also to God who is offended by all sinne in that sense and to that effect which hath been justified in the second Book Namely to the appeasing of his wrath to the regaining of his grace and favour to the restoring of the Covenant of Grace contracted at our Baptism which sinne had made void And therefore in virtue of that satisfaction for all sinne which was once made by our Lord Christ upon the Cross without which that which we are able to do towards this effect would all have been to no purpose Whereupon that the Church is not satisfied in such a case but supposing that God is satisfied first and that the prayers which the Church maketh for the pardon of sinne are granted and made or ought to be granted and made upon presumption that the sinner is in a way of obtaining pardon of God by those Prayers upon his submission to the use of those means which either the Priests of the Church by the authority thereof shall injoyn or a Brother by his skill and discretion shall advise This being unavoidably the meaning of the Apostles first it is manifest that all Christians being directed by the Apostle to have recourse to the Keyes of the Church for the cure of sinne in the danger of death they may be more obliged to the same course in time of health because it may then be used whereas in danger of death though it must be prescribed yet it cannot be used but by him that surviveth Secondly it is further implyed that the sinne which a man confesseth to his Brother if he be not able to advise a meete cure for it is not onely by the party but by him also to be brought to the Church And so in both cases you have an injunction of the Apostle for the submitting of secret sinne to the Keyes
necessity of this condition will allow That is to say that it be understood to pardon sinne in as much and no otherwise then as the ministery thereof moveth to induce men to be Christians whither in profession or in performance Thus those who by that Christianity which the Church maintaineth are induced to believe that they are lost for ever unlesse they undertake the profession of Christianity being induced so to do are cleansed from sinne and made Heirs of everlasting life by the Baptism which the Church giveth Thus those who have forfeited the right which they attained by being baptized by forfeiting the profession upon which they attained it being reduced by the Church to a disposition of making it good for the future are thereby re-estated in the same right again And all the prayers which the Church can tender â—o God for remission of sinnes can no way be presumed or understood to be of force with God but upon supposition that those for whom they are made are either in the state or in the way of performing that which their Christian profession undertaketh This reason added to those circumstances of S. James his words and the originall practice of the Church afore quoted which show that he intendeth to speak of the applying of the Keyes of the Church to the sick throughly convinceth that remission of sinne is not attributed to the anointing of the sick but as an appertenance of the power of the Keyes passing upon them and upon supposition that by submitting to it the Church being inabled to warrant their pardon could with confidence pray for that bodily health which they chiefly need in that estate For if supposing this condition nothing can hinder remission of sinne if not supposing the same nothing can warrant it what reason can we imagine why the power of the Church and those persons which are intrusted on behalfe of it should be imployed in this businesse but to procure that disposition which onely qualifieth for remission of sinne And therefore I cannot allow the excuses which the School Doctors use to maintain the effect of this unction in the remission of sinne considering it precisely without that dependance which in the words of the Apostle it hath upon the Keyes of the Church They say the effect of it is to wipe away the remains of sinne whether originall or actuall consisting in that pronenesse to the injoying of the creature that faintnesse and sluggishnesse in following true virtue that weaknesse in tending to God which remain even in him that is perfectly restored to Gods grace For these if they be sinne then are they cured by the same means by which his sin is cured which how it is effected by the Church hath been oft enough said If not sinne God forbid but the prayers of the Church should prevail to weaken them in the sick But as those Prayers have their force uâ—on supposition of the condition so must they be understood to have the effect of forgivenesse ascribed them here by the Apostle in virtue of that disposition which the Ministery of the Church shall have produced And therefore I am not moved with those arguments which are produced to prove that the bodily health here promised hath no relation to the miraculous graces of the Apostles time It is said that those Graces are not given according to mens ranks in the Church but according to Gods good pleasure as S. Paul saith 1 Cor. XII 4-11 where he reckoneth up that variety of Graces which the spirit of God then stirred up in the Church without any intimation that they were given rather to publick then to private persons in the Church And therefore that it had been impertinent for S. James to name the Presbyters of the Church had he intended to speak of curing the sick by any such grace But it is easie to answer that such graces though common to private persons in the Church yet in reason were most frequently imparted to those that were most eminent in Christianity And that publick persons in the Church were made such upon presumption of their eminence above others in Christianity which presumption though it possibly may fail yet of necessity must hold good for the most part And that upon this account as the Apostles the Heads of the whole Church were most eminent in all Graces so it is in reason to be presumed that the Presbyters of the Church whatsoever were the office of Presbyters of the Church for the present were after indowed with those Graces then private Christians Whereupon it will follow for a thing which no reason can be showed why it should not come to passe though the Scripture offered no further evidence that it did come to passe that private persons injoying the Grace of healing by the Holy Ghost might restore to bodily health by anointing with oyl Not extending their function to the procuring of forgiveness for sinne which the publick ministery of the Church pretendeth to procure For on the other side notwithstanding the promise of bodily health in S. James it is no inconvenience to grant that the Prayers of the Church might fail of it though it be not granted that they fail of forgivenesse of sinne when the person is qualified The reason is because the promise of forgivenesse of sinne by the Gospel is absolute the condition being cleared that is supposing the person qualified for it But for bodily health there is no further promise by the Gospel then it shall seem to God that the condition of bearing Christs Cross in this or that man requireth It is also said that according to S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 22. Tongnes are a sign to unbelievers not Christians And therefore it is not to be supposed that the grace of healing was to be exercised to the benefit of believers but to the conversion of Infidels For S. Paul that cured Publius of a fever Acts XXVIII 8. left Trophimus at Miletum sick 2 Tim. IV. 20. and had Epaphroditus by him sick to death Phil. II. 26. 27. and cured not Timothy of his frequent infirmities 1 Tim. V. 23. But I answer again with S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit with That is to say Those â—raâ—es which do manifest that the Spirit of God is in the Church and therefore that Christianity comes from God are given neverthelesse to Christians to do good to Christians with though not to all alwaies but to such as God who hath given them the Grace shall move them to do good so with it But though I maintain that the promise of bodily health upon the Prayers of the Church belongs to those graces by which it then appeared that God is in his Church yet in that he requires the Presbyters of the Church in that he promises remission of sinne it is not to be imagined that bodily health and the exercise of that Grace which procured it is onely intended and
22-33 And this will serve also to make evidence that the Law of Christians mariage cannot be imagined to come from the Lawes of the Empire granting as the truth is that they allowed no man to have more wives then one at once For. there is nothing more evident then this that this mutuall interesse in one anothers body was never acknowledgeded by Pagans noâ— cannot be thought to have stand by their Laws It were to be wondred at otherwise that whereas not only the Romans but in Greece the Athenians and the Germans among the Barbarians as Tacitus saith contented themselves with one man one wife Gods people should be licensed to have more then one But he that reflects upon the consideration in which these Pagans restrained themselves will not find it strange that Gods people should be permitted that which they denied themselves For this mutuall Interest in one anothers bodies which God provided for the means to prevent the sad effects of mans inbred concupiscence in dishonouring their bodies with uncleanness we shall not find to have been had in consideration among them or that uncleanness seemed at all dishonourable to man but prohibited as injurious to mens beds and the successions of families The Lawes of the Empire made it no adultery for the man to lye with another woman which in the woman it was as the Christians complain Lact antius Hist VI. 23. Non enim sicut juris publici ratio est solâ— mulier adultera est quâ— habet alium maricus autem etiam si plures habeat à crimine adulterii solutus est Sed divinâ— lex ita duos in matrimonium quod est in corpus unum pari jure conjungit ut adulter habeatur si â—uis compagem corparis in diversa distraxerit For the Woman onely is not the adulteress having another man but the husband free from the crime of adultery having more women as is the course of publick Law But the Law of God joyns two in wedlock that is into one body upon so equall right that the party is to be counted an adultererer which shall part the body so compacted into more S. Hierome Ep. ad Oceanum Aliâ— sunt leges Caesarum aliae Christi aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit Apud illos viris impudicitiâ— frâ—na laxantur solo stupro atque adulterio condemnatis passim perlupanaâ—ia aâ—cillulas libido permiâ—titur quasi culpam dignitas faciat non volunt as Apud nos quod non licet uxoribus aeque non licet viris eadeâ—â— servitus pars conditione censetur Other are the Laws of the Caesars then that of Christ other is that which S. Paul then that which Papinian prescribeth Among them the rains are let loose to mens uncleannesse and rape and adultery onely prohibited â—ust walks free all over stewes and maid-slaves as if the estate not the will made the fault Among us that which Wives may not do neither may Husbands the same obligation is taxed upon equall condition S. Augustine de adult Conjug II. 8. Sedâ—isti quâ— bus displicet ut inter virum â—xorem par pudicitiae forma servetur potius eligunt maximeque in hac cavsâ mundi legibus subesse quam Christi quoniam jura forensia non eisdem fâ—minas quibus viros pudicitiae nexibus videntur astringere legant quid Imp. Antoniâ—us But those who like not that the same form of chastity should be observed between man and wife and had rather especially in this cause be under the Laws of the world then of Christ because the Court Laws doe not seem to tie women by the same bond of chastity as men Let them read what the Emperour Antoninus Who knows not the lawfulnesse of unnaturall lusts among the Pagans that reads the first Chapter to the Romanes And can we think it strange that Husbands should not be forbidden unmaried persons Wherefore where the Lawes allowed not one man more wives then one there they punished not wandring lusts but provided for mens reputation and their successions Whereas the law of Moses which gives a man leave to mary a Jewess sold him for a slave to himself or to his Sonne provides her an interess in his body for the preventing of uncleanness as you saw before And all those Idolatrous Nations which Gods people were invironed with using more wives then one it is the lesse marvail that God allowed his people something in it that the race of those that feared him might not be quite extinguished and over-run by the multitude of them that served Idols And this is the true reason why S. Paul declares those that are converted to Christianity not to stand obliged to the Wives or Husbands which they had taken before 1 Cor. VII 12-15 Supposing first that by Moses Law the mariages of Jews with Idolaters were void and unlawfull to be used as we see by Ezra IX X. Nehem. X. 30. On the other side that in the Romam Empire the wife as well as the Husband had power to divorce her selfe and to dissolve wedlock which is argument enough how farre they were from being the mariages of Christians Whereupon I say that the mariages of Pagans not being made upon the same ground as the mariages of Christians which is the mutuall interess in one anothers boâ—ies as it is no marvail on one side that S. Paul obliges them not to part as Moses did because those that were not tied by Law might for the particular love they had to their wives turned Christians tie themselves to them alone and upon those who did so the wives had great advantage to grant them to Christianity as he alledges So it is evident on the other â—â—de why he allows them to part to wit having no confidence of that faith in wedlock from them which Christians of necessity professe The reason why the mariages of Jews with Gentiles were void by the Law is thus given by S. Augustine de adult Conjug I. 18. Namque hoc dominus aliquando per Ezdrâ—m Prophetam fieri jussit factâ—m est dimiserunt Israelitâ— uxores alienigenas quiâ—unque tunc haberâ—â—â—tuerunt per quas fiebat ut ipsi ad alienâ—s seducerentur deos non ut illâ— per â—â—â—ritâ—s vero acquirerentur deo Noâ—dum enim tanta gracia salvatoris illuxerâ—â— promissis temporaleâ—us vâ—teris T. adâ—â—â— inhiabat illius populi multitudâ— Et propterea cum bâ—na terrena quâ— pro magnâ— expectaâ—aâ—â— a domino viderent etiam his abundarâ— qui multâ—s falsâ—s colebant dâ—os blanditiis uxorum prius â—â—s verebantur offendere dâ—iâ—dâ— indicebantur colere For this the Lord once commanded to be done by Ezdras the Prophet and done it was The Israelites dismissed their stranger wives as many as then had of theâ— by whose means it came to passe that even they were seduced to strange Gods For as yet so great grace of our Saviour bad not shined oâ— them and the multitude of
shall be of force to void mariage contracted afore upon wich ground the opinion which I propounded last would justifie the divorces which the Imperiall Laws make to the effect of marrying again will be a new question Seeing that if any thing bâ— to be accepted it will be in any mans power to dissolve any mariage and the law of Christ allowing no divorce but in case of adultery will be to no effect Neither will there be any cause why the same Divines should not allow the act of Justine that dissolves mariage upon consent which they are forced to disclaim allowing the rest of those causes which the Imperial Laws create Indeed whither any accident absolutely hindring the exercise of mariage and falling out after mariage may by Law become of force to dissolve it I need not here any further dispute For so the securing of any Christian mans conscience it is not the act of secular Power inacting it for Law that can avail unlesse the act of the Church go before to determine that it is not against Gods Law and therefore subject to that civil Power which is Christian The reason indeed may fall out to be the same that makes impotence of force to do it and it may fall out to be of such force that Gregory III Pope is found to have answered a consultation of Boniface of Mence in the affirmative XXXII q. VII c. Quod proposuisti But this makes no difference in the right and power of the Church but rather evidences the necessity of it For though as Cardinall Cajetane sayes the Canon Law it selfe allows that Popes may erre in determining such maters cap. IV. de divortiis c. licet de sponsa duorum which every man will allow in the decree of Deuededit Pope Epist unicâ yet the ground of both Power witnessing the Constitution of the Church as a necessary part of Christianity as it determines the true bounds of both so it allows not the conscience of a Christian to be secured by other means And were it not a strange reason of refusing the Church this Power because it may erre when it must in that case fall to the secular Powers who have no ground to pretend any probable cause of not erring For he that proceedeth in the simplicity of a Christian heart to use the means which God by Christianity hath provided for his resolution may promise himselfe grace at Gods hands even when he is seduced by that power which is not infallible But he that leans upon that warrant which God by his Christianity hath not referred him to must answer for his errors as well as the consequences of the same CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Gouernours and Ministers of the Church Upon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standeth in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence of the Hierarchy which it yieldeth Of those Scriptures which seem to speak of Presbyteries or Congregations NOw are we come to one of the greatest Powers of the Church For all Societies according as they are constituted either by the act of Superiors or by the will of members are by their constitution either inabled to give themselves Governours or tied to receive them from those by whose will they subsist The Society of the Church subsisting by the will of God is partly regulated by the will of men voluntarily professing themselves Christians If God having limimited the qualities and the Powers by which his Church is to be Governed do referre the designing of persons to bear those qualities and powers to his Church it must needs appear one of the greatest points that he hath left to their choice Therefore I have made it appear from the beginning that the originall of this Power was planted by our Lord Christ in his Apostles and Disciples to whom immediately he committed the trust of propagating it And now that I may further determine within what bounds and under what terms those his immediate Commissaries did appoint it to be propagated to the end of the world I say that by their appointment the bodies of Christians contained in each City and the territory thereof is to constitute a several Church to be governed by one cheif Ruler called a Bishop with Presbyters or Priests subordinate to him for his advice and assistance and Deacons to minister and execute their appointment The said Bishops to be designed by their Clergy that is their respective Priests and Deacons with consent of neighbour Bishops ordaining them and by the assent of the people whom they are to govern I say further That the Churches of greater Cities upon which the Government of the lesse dependeth are by the same Rule greater Churches and the greatest of all the Churches of the chiefe Cities So that the chief Cities of the Christian world at the planting of Christianity being Rome Alexandria and Antiochia by consequence those were by this Rule the chief Churches and in the first place that of Rome This position excludeth in the first place that of Independent Congregations which maketh a Church and a Congregation to be all alone so that the people of each Congregation to be able first to give themselves both Laws and Governours then to govern and manage the Power of the Keyes according to Gods word that is according to that which they shall imagine to be the intent of it For whatsoever authority they allow their Ministers or Elders seeing they are created out of the people by the meer act of the people and that the consent of the People is required to inact every thing that passeth it will be too late for them to think of any authority not subordinate to the people upon whom they have bestowed the Soveraign On the other extreme this position excludeth that of the Romanists who will have the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall Power to have been first setled upon S. Peter as sole Monarch of the Church and from him derived upon the rest of the Apostles as his Deputies or Commissaries So that the Power which other Bishops Priests and Deacons have in their respective Churches being granted by the successors of S. Peter Bishops of Rome is therefore limitable at their pleasure as no otherwise estated by divine right then because God hath setled it in S. Peter and his successors as the root and source of it Between these extremes there remain two mean opinions whereof one is the platform of the Presbyteries in which every Congregation is also a Church with a Consistory to rule it consisting of a Minister with his Lay-Elders whom now they call Triers referring to them the â—riall of those who come to communicate and Deacons Of these Congregations so many as they without Rule or Reason so farre as I know think fit to cast into one resoâ—t or division they call a Session or Class and as many of those as they please a Synod and of Synods a Province So that as the
Congregations I do indeed acknowledge that there is difficulty in expounding those texts of the Apostles which speak to this purpose so as to agree them with the Originall and universal practice of the Church And therefore it is no marvail if learned men that have handled this point among us where without affectation I may say that it hath been most curiously and ingenuously disputed have gone several wayes upon severall grounds in assigning the reason why the degree of Deacons is mentioned next to the degree of Bishops in so many texts of the Apostles having the order of Priests between both as the original and perpetual custome of the Church required For it is well enough known that there is an opinion published and maintained by many learned observations in the primitive antiquity of the Church that during the time when those texts of the Apostles were written there were but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons established in the Church though Bishops also are called Presbyters the name not being yet appropriated to the midle order while it was not introduced as afterwards it came to be And this opinion allegeth Epiphanius very fitly confuting Aerius the Heretick or Schismatick objecting the same that at the beginning the multitude of believers in less places being so small that one Governour together with some Ministers to attend upon him in executing his Orders might well serve them it is no marvail if there be no mention of any more Orders in so many texts of the Apostles And it may be said that as there were Churches founded and governed by a certain order from the beginning that we read of them in the Apostles so no Bishop Priest or Deacon was appropriated to any particular Church till after that time by degrees they came to be selled to certain Churches by Ecclesiastical Law and Custome So that during the time of the Apostles themselves and their companions whom they associated to themselves for their assistance were in common the Governours of Churches then founded according as they fell out to be present in these Churches to whom they had the most relation by planting and watering the faith planted in them either by virtue of the agreement taken by the Apostles within themselves or by the appointment of some of them if we speak of their companions and assistances But afterwards when the faith came to be setled then as those which had been Governours of Churches in common before became chief Governours of particular Churches to whom by lawful consent they became appropriated so were they provided of Priests and Deacons to assist and attend them in the execution of their office towards the body of Christians then mulplyed in severall Churches I do confess to have declared an opinion something differing from both of these sayings about the reason here demanded As not being perswaded either that the Order of Presbyters was not yet introduced into the Church during the Apostles time or that chief Governours were not appropriated and setled in some Churches during the same though I have no need to undertake that in all they were believing and maintaining that the Apostles themselves in the Churches of their own planting and watering were acknowledged chief Governours in ordering notwithstanding their extraordinary both Power not confined to any one Church and graces and abilities porportionable In which regard and under which limitation visible to the common sense of all men of their own and the next ages I do maintain Bishops to be their successors Whereupon it follows that I allow the name of Bishops in the Apostles writings to comprehend Priests also because of the mater of their function common to both though with a chief Power in the Bishop in Priests so limited as to do nothing that is to say nothing of consequence to his Power over the whole Church without his consent and allowance But this variety of opinion in expounding these Scriptures draweth after it no further consequence to prejudice the primitive Law of Goverment in the Church then this That there are more waies then one to answer the seeming probabilities pretending to make the evidence of Catholick Tradition unreconcileable with the truth of the Scriptures in the agreement whereof the demonstration of this truth consisteth I conceive therefore I might very well referre my self to the Readers free judgement to compare the reasons which I have produced with those that since have been used Notwithstanding I shall not think much briefly according to the model of this design to express the sense I have of the most native meaning of the most texts alleged in this businesse that I may have opportunity to point out again the peremptory exceptions which â—re visible in them either to the imagination of mungrill Prâ—sbyteries compounded of Clergy and People during the time of the Apostles or of the chief Power of any such Presbyteries in their resepective Churches 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 Flders FIrst then as the name of Apostle in the Originall meaning is very general to signifie any commissary Proxy delegate or Ambassador so the use of it in the Apostles writings is larger then to be confined to the twelve For when S. Paul saith That our Lord appeared to the twelve afterwards to all the Apostles 1 Cor. XV. 5. 7. He must needs understand other Apostles besides the twelve perhaps the same that he meant where he reckoned Andronicus and Junias remarkable among the Apostles Rom. XVI 7. And that in another â—ense then Paul and Barnabas are called Apostles Act. XIV 4. 14. For the name of Apostle intimating whose Apostle he is that is called an Apostle we have no reason to count Paul and Barnabas any mans Apostles but our Lord Christs though they were first sent with the blessing of such Doctors and Prophets as the Church of Antiochia then had Acts XIII 1. 2 3. whose authority cannot in any reason be thought to extend so farre as to constitute an Apostle parâ—llel to the Twelve which S. Paul so oft so expresly challenges For since we see their commission is immediately from the Holy Ghost that is from God we are not to value their right by the solemnity which it is visibly conferred upon them with Unlesse you will say that by virtue of that Imposition of Hands they were messengers and Commissaries of that Church and that they then appeared to be no more then so though afterwards God set on them marks of the same authority with the Twelve Truly those whom S. Paul calls false Apostles transferring themselves into the Apostles of Christ 1 Cor. XI 13. must neâ—ds be understood to have pretended commission from our Lord Christ himself For hereupon they stood upon it that they had
which is the whole Church These being the particulars that concern this point in the writings of the Apostles I am not solicitous for an answer to the Puritanes objections finding in them no ingredient of any of their designs but onely a number of Presbyters of the same rank in one and the same Church no wayes inconsistent with the superiority of Bishops no ways induring the Power of the Keys in the hands of Lay Elders But if the writings of the Apostles express not that form of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which it is manifest that the whole Church ever since their time hath used First neither can it be said to agree any thing so near with any of their designs And all the difference is reasonably imputable to the difference between the State of the Church in making and made the qualities of Apostles and Evangelists not being to be propagated to posterity any more then their persons but the uniformity of succeeding times not being imputable to any thing but their appointment As for the reason why the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are so promiscuously used as well in the records of the primitive Church as in the writings of the Apostles I admit that of Epiphanius that at the beginning a Bishop with his Deacons might serve some Churches I admit the ordaining of Bishops for inferiour Churches to be framed and in the Churches of mother Cities according to Clemens I admit the ordaining of Clergy to no particular Churches But I cannot reject that which I learned from an author no wayes inconsiderable the supposed S. Ambrose upon S. Pauls Epistles He not onely in the words quoted in the first Book upon 1 Cor. XI but upon Rom. XVI and 1 Cor. I. alleges that when S. Paul writ Governours were not setled in all Churches acknowledging that Presbyters were Can he then be thought to make Presbyters and the Governours of Churches all one But Amalarius de officiis Eccles II. 13. quoting things out of these his Commentaries which now appear not and out of him Rabanus upon 1 Tim. IV. 14. and Titus I. sayes that they who under the Apostles had power to ordain and are now called Bishops were then set over whole Provinces by the name of Apostles agreeing herein with Theodoret upon 1 Tim. III. IV. and S. Hierome upon Gal. I. and many others of the Fathers that extend the name of Apostles far beyond the XII as Timothy in Asia Titus in Creete The Churches of particular Cities having their own Presbyters to govern them but expecting ordinations and the setling of the more weighty causes from these their superiours These were the Presbyters that ordained Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. saith Rabanus who certainly being ordained to so high a charge could not be ordained by the Presbyters of any particular Church Now the successors of these Apostles or Presbyters finding themselves inferior to their Predecessors saith he and the same title a burthen to them appropriated themselves the name of Bishops which imports care leaving to Priests that which imports dignity to wit that of Presbyters This Amalarius allegeth out of the said Commentaries Adding that in process of time through the bounty of those who had the power of ordaining these Bishops were setled two or three in a Province untill at length not onely over all Cities but in places that needed not Bishops This being partly the importance of this Authors words partly that which Amalarius and Rabanus gather from his meaning gives a clear answer to all that S. Jerome hath objected out of the writings of the Apostles to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are by their institution both one because they are called both by the same title And therefore cannot with any judgement be alleged to his purpose In fine the same Author upon Ephes IV. affirmeth that for the propagation of Christianity all were permitted at the first to preach the Gospel to Baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the Church But when Churches were setled and Governours appointed then order was taken that no man should presume to execute that office to which he was not ordained By whom I beseech you but by the same who had formerly allowed and trusted all Christians with all offices which the propagation of the common Christianity required Even the Apostles and Disciples and their companions and assistants in whom that part of power rested which the Apostles had indowed them with until Bishops being setled over all Churches they might truly be said to succeed the Apostles in the Government of their respective Churches though no body can pretend to succeed them in that power over all Churches that belonged to their care which the agreements passed between the Apostles must needs allow each one Nor need I deny that which sometimes the Fathers affirm that even Presbyters succeed the Apostles For in the Churches of Barnabas and Sauls founding Act. XIV 28. while they had no Governours but Aposâ—les and Presbyters it is manifest that the Presbyters did whatsoever they were able to do as Lieutenants of the Apostles and in their stead But shall any man inâ—â—rre thereupon that they who say this allow Presbyters to do whatsoever the Apostles could do seeing them limited as I have said by the Authors which I allege For what if my Author say upon Ephes IV. that at the first the Elders of the Presbyters succeeded upon the Bishops decease Shall thâ— rule of succession make any difference in the power to which he succeeds Or both acknowledge the Laws which they that order both shall have appointed even the Apostles Let S. Hierome then and whosoever prefers S. Hieroms arguments before that evidence which the practice of the Church creates have leave to dispute out of the Scriptures the beginning of Bishops from the authority of the Church which neither S. Hierome nor any man else could ever have brought the whole Church to agree in had not the Apostles order gone afore for the ground of it provided that the love of his opinion carry him not from the unity of the Church as it did Aerius For he that saith that this ought to be a Law to the Church need not say that every Christian is bound upon his salvation to believe that it ought to be a Law to the Church so long as the succession of the Apostles is upon record in the Church in the persons of single Bishops by whom the Tradition of faith was preserved according to Irenaeus and Tertullian the unity of the Church according to Optaâ—us and S. Austine What wilfullnesse can serve to make all Presbyters equal in that power which all the acts whereby the unity of the Church hath been really maintained evidently challenge to the preheminence of their Bishops above them in their respective Churches The constitution of the whole Church out of all Churches as members of the whole will necessarily argue a pre-eminence of Power in the
course that Constantius had done in the mater of Arius to reconcile Egypt to the Church by waiving the Council of Chalcedon for an expedient of his of his own for Constantius sought no more than to reconcile all by waiving of the Council of Nicaea and Acacius by communicating with Hereticks did necessarily as all offenders do make them their Superiors who maintain the Laws for the good of the whole In fine that whatsoever the Popes did by virtue of the Canon can be no ground for any irregular Power in themselves the Canon as justly maintaining the poor Britaines against the Pope as the Pope against Zeno and Acacius But the first General Council makes full recompence for all the Church of Rome may pretend to have gained by the business of Acacius Pope Vigilius being in Constantinople and refusing at the summons of the Emperor and Council to sit it proceeds and condemns three Articles which hee had declared for and so prevails that he himself thought best at length to concurr to the Act And all this being done is disowned by the Bishops of Africk Facundus by name whom hee had set on work to write for the three Articles and Istria till all was reconciled I question not the point of Heresie either in this case or that of Honorius whose constitution whereby hee thought to silence the dispute concerning the two wills in our Lord Christ made him to be condemned for an Heretick in the sixth General Council Onely I count it a pitifull excuse to imagine that the Synod is falsified in this point the VIIth Synod in the last session bidding anathema to Honorius and so many records testifying the same And where it is said that the Synod might err in point of fact that Honorius held Heresie though not in point of right in condemning that for Heresie which is not as the Jansenists at this day admitting the condemnation of five propositions by the late Pope admit not that they are contained in Jansenius his book not to dispute of that it will appear that the Pope may be judged by the Church in other cases besides that of Heresie if Honorius being no Heretick is by the Council condemned for an Heretick Indeed there is no cause that concerns the whole Church but the whole Church may judg it Nor can any cause lightly concern a Pope that concerns not the whole Church The reason why Popes have been so seldom judged is not for want of right but for fear of division in the Church which makes it not expedient to use that right There are many particulars of less consequence pleaded for the Popes Power which I will not examine admitting a regular pre-eminence for him above all other Bishops which is seen in the recourse had to him before others in maters concerning the whole Church but denying that infinite Power which nothing can be alleged to prove I acknowledg indeed that this regular pre-eminence not onely might but supposing the Church to continue in Unity must needs be further and further determined by Canon or by custom whether inlarging or restraining it as by the Canons of Sardica allowing appeals to him in the causes of Bishops For the causes of Bishops do not all necessarily concern the whole Church unless the subject of them be mater of Faith or otherwise that which calleth in question the Unity of the Church and then Lay-mens causes are no less So an appeal to Rome so constituted is properly an appeal there to be sentenced in the last resort But when recourse is had to the Pope in the first place that is no appeal but a course to bring the cause to the sentence of the whole Church whereof his sentence is the first part and a great prejudice to that which follows because of the respect which all that depend upon that Church owe his sentence And this increase of the Popes power I do think to be always a just cause of excluding from the Unity of the Church for refusing obedience to it For the Unity of the Church being of Gods Law and so inâ—bling to limit the terms upon which the Power of the Church is held and exercised by Canonical right it cannot be in the power of any part to cast off those Laws by which it is bounded within the compass of Gods Law at pleasure because they are the conditions upon which the Unity of the whole stands which no part can say they will renounce unless they may hold it upon such terms as they please But whether these limitations may not be so excessively abusive to the liberty of the whole so prejudicial to the service of God in the truth of Christianity for which they and the whole Church stands that parts of the Church may and ought to provide for themselves and their Christianity against the oppression of them that I referr to the last consideration when I shall have showed how maters in difference are to be valued by the principles that are setled In the mean time I must observe that from the time that the Pope was re-imbursed of his loss of Jurisdiction and possessions in those Provinces which upon his rebellion the Emperor with-drew from his obedience by the liberality of Pepin and Charlemaine bestovving upon him the Exarchate vvhich vvith the Kingdom of the Lombards they had taken from the Greekish Empire Though I cannot say that from that time regular proceedings were laid aside in the Western Churches Yet I must say that from thence the Popes had a ground to reduce the regular proceedings of Councils to their own will interest to introduce their own rescripts in stead of all Canons for Law to the Western Church And this though I must not prove here yet here I may allege why I go no further here in this dispute It remains that I gather up some fragments of instances that have been produced to show that Episcopacy is not of divine right because from the beginning either all or some Churches have had none Of the authors whereof I must first demand whether the Unity of the Church be of divine right or not For unless they will put the whole cause upon a new issue that there is no Law of God that the Church should be one I demand of them how this Unity could have been preserved by the equality of all Presbyters which by the Hierarchy I have showed was maintained Till they show mee this I think my self secure of all their litle objections For if the Hierarchy cannot be imputed to chance or to the voluntary agreement of all Christians as uncertain as chance certainly Episcopacy the first ingredient of it can be imputed to nothing but the provision of the Apostles And therefore I must here renew my answer to the question that is made Supposing the superiority of Bishops to consist in the Power of doing some act which a Priest cannot do what act is it that a Bishop by his Order can do a Priest cannot
to limite the extent of the leter so as not to destroy duties of greater consequence And it seems they pitched upon a reasonable ground for a reasonable measure when they made a Sabbath dayes journey so much as the distance of the utmost camp from the Tabernacle in the wildernesse But he that was not within that distance of a Synagogue by going to a Synagogue must violate the Law that saith Thou shalt not stirre out of thy place on the Sabbath It was therefore holinesse to sit still otherwise the service of God must not have been omitted for it Therefore the service of God by those offices which Christians serve him with is no otherwise intimated rather then provided for by the Law then as the Gospel is witnessed rather then inacted by it And it is truly said that God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it in that he appointed his rest in the world to come for those who had rested from their own works here But consequently in that he appointed the rest of the seventh day in the Land of promise to be a figure of it For I take not upon me to say That God hallowed not the seventh day till he gave the Law understanding that which is said at the creation that he blessed and sanctified it by a Prolepsis because he did it when he gave the Law because I need not The designing of the thing signified by it which is more properly the rest of God then not working reflecting the attribute of holinesse upon the day which he designed for the sign of it For in that God rested the seventh day from making all his works he signified that he appointed rest for them that do his work here in the world to come In that delivering his people out of Egypt he appointed them to rest from bodily labour upon the seventh day he signified that he appointed them whom he had given the rest of the promised Land a shadow of resting from their own works to do his the substance whereof is the conversation of Christians in the Church which the Land of promise â—igureth as well here as in the world to come The former appointment is that which the blessing and hallowing of the seventh day at the creation the second that which the hallowing of the same at giving the Law signifieth Nor do I make it my business that the Fathers before the Law did ever keep or not keep the seventh day for Gods service because I neither see evidence for this nor for that For though the remembrance of the seven days of the week is so ancient and so general among all Nations as you may see by that very learned Work de Jure naturae Gentium secundum Ebraeos that you may well conclude it to be a mark and impress of the creation in seven days yet will this argue no observation of it under the Patriarches Because the appropriating of them to the seven Planets though conâ—rived by the Devill to divert that truth to superstition which is the ground of Religion according to the Scripture disables us to argue the creation it selfe from it to those that know it not otherwise much more any rule of Gods service grounded upon it But he that should say that the Sabbath was kept under the law of Nature as it was to be kept under the law of Moses must first answer Tertullian cont Jud. cap. IV. and Justine from whom he hath it and all Fathers that have used it after them and understood the interess of Christianity better then we do Quis legit Abrahamum Sabbatizantem For why should he think to perswade us to such a ridiculous imagination if he have no Scripture for it And therefore though I agree not with Philo that the Jews had forgot which was the seventh day till God recalled the remembrance of it by sending down Manna and therefore said Remember to keep holy the Sabbath yet I do not allow this to be said because they had forgot it by their Apostasy in Egypt where it is plain they forgot their God as I shewed you afore But because they forgot Gods first command at the giving of Manna therefore it is reason they should be charged to remember it for the future As little do I esteem of that meere voluntary presumption that being part of the Decalogue the precept of the Sabbath must needs be part of Gods perpetual Law whither naturall and morall or positive For is it not the Decalogue that saith That thy dayes may belong in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee Or doth the Land of promise in the leter belong to any but Israelites Again the tenth Commandment forbiddeth to covet another mans wise adultery being forbidden afore And therefore to covet another mans wife in the tenth Commandement is to compasse another mans wife which might be done where the Law alloweth divorces as Moses his Law doth If therefore the first and last Commandment of the second Table are by the terms of them appropriated to Gods ancient people is it strange that the precept of the Sabbath should not be thought perpetual to oblige all mankind but Ceremonial to oblige onely the same That there should be a Ceremoniall precept in the first Table of the Decalogue Nay seeing to all mankind it can import no more then a circumstance of time for the publick service of God what reason can be imagined why a precept of that consequence should make one in the first Table of the Decalogue whereas importing to that people the creation of all things by the true God and their deliverance out of Aegypt and by consequence the obligation of his whole Law it is worthily reckoned by the Jews Doctors among the very principall precepts of it As for Christians the literal sense of it is no lesse unlawful for them to observe then it is for them to be circumcised or to undertake the Law of Moses to the which the Sabbath next to circumcision obligeth And by consequence the spirituall sense of it importeth no lesse then the whole duty of a Christian which all ceremonies do figure that is to say resting from our works of sinne and consequently busying our selves about the works of Gods service And therefore I do marvel that those who so obstinately promote this Doctrine are not sensible of the scandall they give to them who have visibly been seduced to keep the Saturday by grounding themselves upon it And may by the same reason be seduced to be circumcised and turn Jewes If yet it be a thing to do and that divers English in these unstable times not distinguishing between that which did and that which doth oblige when they find both in the Scriptures have not hereby been moved to make that change For when they are told that by the leter of the fourth Commandment they are obliged to keep the first day of the week And by common sense discovering a great part of the premises discern that
if the fourth Commandment be in force they cannot be obliged to keep the Lords day Is it not an even wager that not doubting the fourth Commandment to be in force as they are told they shall keep the Saturday which if it be in force they ought to keep rather then the Lords day which finding no reason for it because they are told none they will presently imagine to be a Popish custome I know there is one argument which is very plausible to induce well meaning Christians into that zeal which we see they have for the strict keeping of the Lords day which they call the Sabbath Because this opinion will oblige the world to exercise more works of godlinesse and to abstain from more of those debauches which Festivals occasion in vulgar people then otherwse To which for the present I will say onely this That having showed the truth to be as it is I can oblige all Christians to believe that Gods glory and the advancement of his service cannot be grounded well but upon the truth And therefore I may well demand their patience till I come by and by to show the ground of the mistake which they are carried away with to think that Gods glory and service is not more plentifully provided for by the Laws and customes of the Catholick Church then by strict keeping the Sabbath upon a false ground which hindring the effect of those Laws by consequence hinders Gods service But now all this being setled what is there remaining to alledge why Christians should be bound to keep the Lords day but the act of the Apostles by virtue whereof it came into force among all Christians in all Churches For it would be too ridiculous to allege that it is grounded upon those Scriptures whereby it appeareth that it was kept under the Apostles either as a reason sufficient or as distinct from the authority of the Apostles For these Scriptures being the Scriptures of the Apostles we can derive no authority from them but that which we first suppose in the Apostles I suppose here that no man will say that our Lords appearing to his Disciples after his resurrection upon that day was enough to make it a Law or evidence that it was so made unlesse his Apostles could testifie that he appeared to that purpose As for the rest if it may by circumstance appear that under the Apostles they did assemble to the service of God upon the Lords day will it therefore follow that all Chistians are bound to do the same Or can any more then this appear by that which I alledged out of the Apostles writings If there could the writings of the Apostles being their act as much as any act whereby they could declare an intent to oblige the Church there will be nothing to bind it to keep the Lords day but the authority of the Apostles But he that will give his own common reason leave to speak shall hear it say that it is not their words that oblige us to it but the originall and universall custome of the Church evidencing that they used to celebrate that day with an intent to introduce the obligation of it into the Church For of this original and universal custome having as yet found no question made on any side I hold it superfluous to take pains to make evidence of that which no man questions When Justine the Martyr presenting to the Empire an Apology for all Christans declareth that their custome was to assemble on the Lords day to serve God with the offices of Christianity which there he describeth had it not been to abuse himself and the Empire to declare that for the custome of all Christians which was indeed the custom of some but of others not Whither Easter was to be kept upon the fifteenth day of the first Moon upon which our Lord suffered or upon the next Lords day upon which he rose again was a dispute in the Church as ancient as the Apostles The former custome having been delivered to the Churches of Asia by S. John the later to the West by S. Peter and S. Paul But what ground could there be for this dispute had not the first day of the week been honoured and observed above the rest in regard of our Lords rising again Certainly the Eâ—ionites were one of the ancientest sects thar rose up against the Church and they as Eusebius Eccles Hist III. 27. keeping the Sabbath as the Jews and because the Jews kept it observing also the Lords day because the Christians kept it It is true that among the Eastern Christians the Saturday was observed for the service of God many ages after condescension to the Jews in regard whereof the observation of Moses law was in use after Christ in some parts of the Church more in some lesse was quite out of date But that is no argument that the Lords day was not kept when the Sabbath was kept to them who see S. Paul keep the Lords day Act. XX. 7. within the time of compliance with the Jewes For the offices which God is served with by the Church are pleasing to him at all times as well as in all places whereas the keeping of the Sabbath upon any day but a Saturday would have been a breach of his Law For when the other Festivals of the Jews are called Sabbaths in the Law that is not to say that the Sabbath was kept upon them for I have showed you two severall measures of rest due upon them by the Law but that they participated much of the nature of the Sabbath and therefore may be called with an addition such or such Sabbaths but not absolutely the Sabbath Therefore when Christians afterwards continued the custome of serving God upon the Sabbath that is the Saturday it is to be understood that they served God with the offices of Christianity not with the rest of the Jews Sabbath If it be further demanded whither the obligation of the Lords day do not depend upon the precepâ— of the Sabbath so that it may be called with an addition the Sabbath of Christians though not absolutely the Sabbath because that nâ—me is possessed already by the Saturday in the language of all Christians as well as Jews till men affected an abuse in the name to bring their mistake into mens minds To this I answer that if the Lords day had no dependance upon the precept of the Sabbath we could not give a reason why one day of seven is observed For the choice of the number could not come by chance And I cautioned afore that the Resurrection of Christ was as sufficient a reason why the Church should serve God on the Sunday as the creation of the world was why the Synagogue should serve God on the Saturday But this dependance was not immediate because I showed also that this was not enough to introduce the obligation upon us The act of the Apostles intervening was the means to make the obligation necessary
which they hear from those that do not profess to Preach within those bounds who can deny that they are guilty to their own death What those bounds are I shall say by and by In the mean time let them take heed whose neglect of the written word or whose zeal to preaching shuts the Scriptures out the Church that they contribute not to the bringing in of the secret and invisible Word of the Enthusiasts It is now no dainty to hear that the word which we have written in our Bibles is not the Word that saveth but that which is secretly and invisibly spoken to us within by Gods Spirit And whosoever attributeth the reverence due to Gods word to any such dictate without dependence upon the Scriptures that is deriving the same from the Scripture by those means which God hath allowed us for the understanding of them according to the premises what shall hinder him to preferre the dictate of his own Spirit under pretense of Gods before that which he admitteth to come from Gods Spirit For he who admitteth the greater contradiction of two parallel Soveraigns why should he not admit a less that the written word is not Gods word in competition with the dictate of his own Spirit when there is so easie a cloke of expounding the written word though against all reason and rule of expounding it yet so as to submit even the substance of Christianty to the dictate of a private spirit We have an example for it in the impostures of Mahomet For doth not the Alcoran acknowledge both our Lord Christ and Moses true Prophets of God besides all other attributes yet in as much as it pretendeth the Spirit given to Mahomet in such a degree as to controle them both it smoothes the way to the renouncing of Christianity when the power of the sword fell out on the side of it Simon Magus and his followers the Gnosticks might have done the like had the like power been on their side as the Manichees did in part if those things be true that we read in Cedronus of a party of them possessed of the Power of the Sword about the parts of Armenia all upon pretense of higher revelations then were granted to the Apostles The same is alleged against the Paraclete of Montanus and perhaps his followers being disowned by the Church might fall to such extremities but at the beginning it doth not appear that he pretended any more then to introduce certain strict orders into the Church as injoyned by his Spirit and those of his fellow Prophets which it was not expedient for the Church to undertake and being so it was requisite for him to conform unto the Church any pretense of the Spirit notwithstanding but otherwise were no way destructive to Christianity Suppose then the reading of the Scriptures to be one of those offices for the which the Church is to assemble the order of reading them which is that which remains is a thing to subject so common reason that there need not much dispute about it If we look upon Tertullianes or before him Justin Martyrs Apologies for the Christians there will appear no more then this that every Church that is every Body of Christians under one Bishop did prescribe themselves that order for reading the Scriptures in the Church which they found requisite And if that primitive simplicity which the Christianity under persecution was managed with had continued what fault could have been found with it But when the World was come into the Church which he that injoyes his right senses will not believe did come into it all with the like affections to the professions which they undertook it was in vain to hope that differences would not rise or might not rise about this as well as other points in which the exercise of Christianity consisted Differences arising the greater authority is that to which the ending of them obliges all men to have recourse The greater authority you have seen is that of the greatest Churches whither in Synods or not requiring Synods to oblige the less by reason of the exigence or reasonableness of the case The order of reading the Scriptures and of singing or saying the Psalms and Hymns of Gods praises being grounded upon no other reason nor tending to any other end then that of exercising and improving the Christianity of Gods people I need noâ— dispute that the Order which the power of the Church of Rome hâ—d introduced here as well in the rest of the West was such as made the Assemblies of the Church fruitlesse to that purpose For what could those shreds of Psalms and Lessonâ— which that order prescribeth contribute that might be considerable to that purpose Nor need I argue how considerable the order of the Church of England is to the same For to finish the Psalter once a year the New Testament thrice a year the Old once besides for reverence to the ancient Ordinance of the Church another Order for beginning the Prophet Esay at Advent and Genesis at Septuagesima to be prosecuted on Festival days is an Order from which the Church hath reason to expect a good effect in the instruction of Gods people And the interweaving of the Lessons with Hymns as it is agreeable to the rules and the practice of the ancient Church so it is in reason a fit mean to preserve attention and quicken devotion in them who use it In the mean time supposing there were considerable objections to be made against this or that order yet Order in generall being a thing so requisite to the preservation of Unity in the Body of the Church there is no reason to be given why any body should be admitted to dispute any Order received that cannot advance another Order which he can pretend to be more effectual to the purpose in which the parties must needs agree I am here to answer that part of the question concerning the Canon of Scripture which I said in the first book concerneth the Law not the faith of the Church whither the reading of those Scriptures which S. Jerome calls Apocryphall Ruffinus upon the Creed Ecclesiasticall for part of the Church office be for the ediâ—ication of the Church or not And a few words shall serve me to answer it with The very name of Ecclesiastical serves him that admits the Church to be one Body the unity whereof requires some uniformity in the order of those offices the communion whereof is one part of the end for which it subsisteth For it is manifest that the whole Church hath frequented the reading of them and that they are called Ecclesiastical for no other reason but because the reading of them hath been frequented by the Church in the Church And whosoever makes this any title of separation from the Church of Rome will make his Title Schismatical separating for that which is common to the present Church of Rome with the whole Church But because the repute of the Church is so slight
in the judgement of many that think themselves the most refined Christians that they allow it not that common sense in managing the businesse of Christianity which they must needs allow Jews Pagans Mahometans in faithfully serving their own faithlesse suppositions and which all experience shows us that it serves all mankind to what purpose soever it is imployed and that notwithstanding so great a triall of it as the governing of so great a Body as the Church is in unity so farre and so long as this Unity hath prevailed it is therefore necessary to give a reason why the Church so used them Which supposing the premises it will be as easie as it is necessary for me to give and that more sufficient if I mistake not then can possibly be given not supposing the same For if the secret of the resurrection the general judgement and the World to come if the mystery of the Holy Triniâ—y consisting in the Word or Wisdome and Spirit of God if the inward and spiritual service of God in truth of heart be more clearly opened in them by the work of Providence dispensing the effect of Canonicall Scripture by the occurrences of time then in the Law and the Prophets themselves which I have showed both that so it is and why so it is from the ground of the difference between the Old and the New Testament then I suppose there is sufficient reason why those who admit the Old Testament to be made for common edification in the Church should not put any question concerning those Scriptures Those new lights among us who do not allow the Psalter to be pertinently and reasonably imployed for the publick service of God upon all occasions as the Church hath alwaies imployed it may assure us that they understand not why the Scriptures of the Old Testament are read in the Church because they understand not the correspondence between the Old and the New Testament in the understanding whereof the edification of the Church by the Scriptures of the Old Testament consisteth There may be offence taken at divers things in these Scriptures I deny not But there may be offence taken in like maner at divers things in the Canonicall Scriptures of the Old Testament The humility of Christians requires them edifying themselves in that which they understand in the Scriptures according to our common Christianity in the rest which they understand not to refer themselves to their Superiours The Church understood well enough this difference and this correspondence to be discovered by these writings as the time required when it appointed Learners to read them And though I stand not upon terms yet I conceive they are more properly called Ecclesiastical because the Church hath imployed them to be read in the Church then Apocryphal according to the use of that word in the Church to signifie such writings as the Church suspecteth and therefore alloweth not to be read whither in publick or in private Whereupon I conceive also that the term of Canonical Scripture hath and ought to have two senses one when we speak of the Jews Canon in the Old Testament another when we speak of the Canon of the Church For seeing the Tradition of the Synagogue is perfect evidence what Scriptures of the old Testament are to be received as inspired by God the word Canon in that case may well signifie the Rule of our Faith or maners But because the Church cannot pretend to create that evidence originally but onely to transmit what she receiveth from the Synagogue Pretending neverthelesse to give a Rule what shall be read for the edification of the Church the word Canon therefore in that case will signifie onely the list or Catalogue of Scriptures which the Church appoints to be read in the Church which seems to reconcile the diverse accounts extant in severall Records of the Church CHAP. XXIII The consideration of the Eucharist prescribed by Tradition for the mater of it 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 forms of other Offices IN the next place I do maintain that the Order of celebrating the Eucharist and the Prayer which it was was from the beginning solemnized with were from the beginning prescribed the Church by unwritten custome that is by Tradition from the Apoâ—â—les containing though not so many words that it was not lawful to use more or lesse for these were always occasions for celebrating the Eucharist emergent which must be intimated in fewer or more words in the celebrating of it yet the mater and substance of the Consecration of it together with the mater and substance of the necessities of the Church for which it was offered that is to say for which the Church was and is to pray at the celebration of it as hoping to obtain them by the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross which it representeth as received from the beginning was every were known to be the same This I inferr from that which I have said in the Book afore quoted of those Texts of S. Paul where those Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is consecrated with are called Eucharistia or Thanksgiving if not rather the thanksgiving because it was a certain form of Thanksgiving well known to all Christians by that name from whence the Sacrament â—o consecrated was also so called from the time that our Lord hâ—ing blessed or given thanks to the Father over the Elements had said This is my body this is my blood and order is given that at the celebration thereof Prayers be made for the necessities of the Church and of all people 1 Cor. XIV 25. 26. 1 Tiâ—â— II. 1-8 Together with those passages of primitive antiquity from whence it appeareth there that the form of consecrating the Eucharist used and known generally in the Church is called Eucharistia and that the custome of interceding for all the necessities of the Church and for the reducing of unbelievers to the same is and hath been taken up and ever frequented by the Church in obedience to and prosecution of the said precept of the Apostles This observation might perhaps be thought too obscure evidence â—o bring to light a point of this consequence were it not justified by all that I produced afore to show that the Eucharist is consecrated by the Prayers of the Church which celebrateth it upon the faith of our Lords institution and promise For the mater of these Prayers tending to a certain purpose that the Elements may become the Body and Blood of Christ and convay his Spirit to those who receive them with living faith the Consecration which is the effect of them requires that the form of them be prescript and certain though not in number of words yet in sense in tent and substance And this by the evidence there produced may appear to have been maintained from the beginning by Tradition in
the Church according to the affirmation of S. Basil that this Prayer is a Tradition of the whole Church Many are the Lâ—â—urgies that is the formes of celebrating the Eucharist in the Eastern Churches under Constantinople Alexandria and Antiochia yet extant which show the substance of it after the Deacon had said Lift up your hearts the People answering Wee life them up to the Lord which evidently pointeth ouâ— that which S. Paul calls the Thanksgiving or Blessing wherein the Consecration of the Sacrament consisteth beginning there and ending with the Lords Prayer in all of them to be this Repeating the creation of all things and the fall of man to praise God that hee left him not helpless but called first the Fathers then gave the Law and when it appeared that all this would not serve to reclaim him to God sent his onely Son to redeem him by his Cross who instituted this remembrance of it Praising God therefore for all this but especially for the death and resurrection of Christ and praying that the Spirit promised may come upon the elements presently set forth and make them the Body and Bloud of Christ that they who receive them with living Faith may be filled with the Grace of it I acknowledg that the repetition of the creation and fall of man the calling of the Patriarchs and giving the Law is all silenced or left out in the Latine Canon that is that Canonical Prayer which this Sacrament is consecrated and communicated with neither can I say that it is extant in the Ambrosian or any form besides that may appear to have been anciently in use in any part of the Western Church Though I have reason enough to conceive that it was used from the beginning and afterwards cut off for the shortning of the service because of the great consent that is found among forms used in the Eastern parts and because wee see how the Psalms and Lessons retained in them are abridged of that length which by the Constitutions of the Apostles and other ancienter records of the Church may appear to have been used in former ages But there can be no reason to say that the leaving out of all this being so remote a ground of the present action makes any difference in the substance and effect of that prayer which it is done and performed with And the rest being the same in all forms that remain extant inables mee to conclude that the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is to be consecrated with were from the beginning prescribed not for so many words but for the substance of them not in writing but by silent custom and Tradition received by the Church from the Apostles and ought to continue the same to the end of the world in all Churches There is a little objection to be made against this from that which Walafridus Strabo and other Latine Writers concerning the Offices of the Church have reported from some passages of S. Jerome and S. Gregory the Great That S. Peter at the first did consecrate the Eucharist with the Lords Prayer onely Which if it all this falls to the ground and the form of consecrating the Eucharist hath proved so uniform meerly by the consent of after ages and will remain subject to be changed again seeing that the Lords Prayer may for the substance of it be rendred into other terms and conceptions as many wayes as a man pleases But there is I have showed you a mistake in the meaning of these passages intended onely in opposition to that variety of Psalms and Lessons and Hymns and Prayers which afterwards were brought in to make the celebration of the Sacrament more solemn in regard whereof they say that S. Peter consecrated onely with the Lords Prayer not with any of those additions for solemnities sake when hee consecrated by that Thanksgiving or Blessing which our Lord consecrated the Sacrament at his last Supper with adding onely in stead of all other solemnities the Lords Prayer which the Consecration is still concluded with in all ancient forms For when the Order and occasions of Assemblies were not setled but the Offices of Christianity were to be ministred upon such opportunities as they could finde out for themselves it is no mervail if S. Peter himself might be obliged to abare all but meerly what was requisite And truly I may here seasonably say that I conceive the Lords Prayer is justly called by Tertullian Oratio legitima or the Prayer which the Law that is the precept of our Lord in the Gospel When yee pray say thus prescribeth not as if hee would have them serve him with no other prayer but this But that they should alwayes use this as a set prayer whatever other occasions they might have of addressing themselves to God with other prayers For accordingly I do observe that in all prescribed forms upon what occasion soever not onely of celebrating the Eucharist which assemblies have therefore been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Missae in Latine from the dismission of them as in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the gathering of them whereas the Latine word Collectae which answers it is extended to other assemblies but other more dayly and hourly occasions according to the premises concerning Five hours of Prayer in the day in S. Cyprians time which since have come to seven that there is alwayes a room for the Lords Prayer as if the service of God were not lawfull according to the precept When yee pray say thus unless it be used Which is that which I shall advise them of who either exclude it as unlawfull or forbear it as offensive that they may consider how they count themselves members of Christs Church waiving that which the whole Church hath practiced in obedience to his precept for conformity with the enemies of his Church There is yet another sort of Prayers which are offered to God at the celebration of the Eucharist according to S. Pauls command for all estates and orders of men whether in the world or in the Church and for all their necessities in regard whereof I showed you afore that the Eucharist is counted a Sacrifice for the Church or rather for all mankinde As the High Priest when hee went into the Holy of Holies according to Philo prayed for the whole world representing the intercession of Christ for the same now at the right hand of God which the Church in his name by celebrating this Sacrament executeth and commemorateth upon earth And the form hereof I can easily say by the same reason is for mater and substance though not for so many words and for the conceptions it is expressed with prescribed according to S. Pauls command by the custom of the Church received by Tradition from the Apostles For when I have once named the necessities of all Orders and Estates without or within the Church in general supposing what Christianity requires Christians to pray for as well in behalf of
cause can be alleged why there should be a Church that is a Body and an authority to Order that Body if there be no Office for which it should assemble because that which it understandeth not is no such Office For I have laid this for a ground that the Society of the Church subsisteth for the Service of God at the common Assemblies of the Church in the Unity of the same Christianity So that though it may be alleged that the Unity of Christianity may be preserved by the Society of the Church though the Service of God be not understood yet the end for which it is preserved is not compassed when the Service of God is not performed by those who understand it not is Christianity requireth Certainly it is a question to be demanded of those of the Church of Rome why they do not preach to the people in Latine as well as they celebrate the rest of Gods Service in that Language if they be content to submit themselves to S. Pauls doctrine For whatsoever reason they can allege why that in the Vulgar and the rest in Latine will rather serve to demonstrate that it would be more visibly ridiculous than that it is any more against S. Pauls doctrine But is it any more to the benefit of Gods people toward the obtaining of their necessities of God that they should assemble to offer him the devotions which they understand not than not to assemble or offer none For whatsoever may be said that the devotions of those who do understand what they do are available to the benefit of those who do not will hold nevertheless though they were not present nor pretended to do that which the Congregation doth provided that they have as good a heart to do that which the Congregation doth as they have being present at it Unless wee suppose that God values their hearts because they are there more than hee would value them being elswhere Nor can I possibly imagine what can be said to all this but onely in abatement of that ignorance in the Latine of the Church service which the Nations of the Western Church may be supposed to attain to whether by custome of being used alwayes to the same form or because the Vulgar languages of Italy Spain and France being derived from the Latine may inable even unletered people to understand that or the most part of that which is said in Latine at the Church service which is the reason why the Jews after their return from Captivity having changed their Mother Hebrew into the vulgar tongue of the Babylonians and Châ—ldeans being indeed derived from it with lesse change then the Italian from the Latine maintained notwithstanding the service of God in their originall Hebrew so farr as we are able to understand by the circumstances produced elsewhere And though at this present some parts of it are rather Chaldeâ— then Hebrew yet they are now in such a condition that a great many of them are not able to attain either that language or the Hebrew but speak and understand onely that language where they are bred the service which they use in their Synagogues remaining in the Hebrew And the Greeks at this day having got a vulgar language as much differing from the ancient learned Greek as the Italian from the Latine notwithstanding cease not to exercise the serviceâ— of God in the learned Greek which they understand not Which the Western Nations and Nothern may continue to do with as little burthen as they voluntarily undergo least they should give the minds of rude people cause to make more doubt then they see upon a change which they see And truly I do think this consideration of preserving unity in the Church of such weight that I do not think it was requisite when the Latine tongue began to be worn out of use by litle and litle through the breaches made by the Germane Nations upon the Western Empire that the service of the Church should straight-way be put into the Languages of those Nations who were every day changing their languages and learning the Latine or rather framing new languages by mixing their own with the Latine Neither will I undertake to determine the time the state in which the Church first becomes or became obliged to provide this change for the same reason For it is evident that it had not been possible to preserve correspondence and intercourse between all these Nations with the maintenance of unity in that Christianity which while this change was making they had received had not the knowledge of the Latine among them made it reasonable to continue the use of it in the Church service But as the case is now that a totall change of the Latine into new languages hath been accomplished and that the greatest part of Christian people by many parts are by no means able to learn what is done at the service of the Church confiningit to the Latine I must needs count it strange that the example of the modern Jews in their Synagogues or those miserably oppressed Christans in Turky should be alleged as to prove that there is nothing to oblige the whole Church to provide betâ—r for all Christians then those Churches do for their people or the Jews for their Synagogues when we dispute what ought to be done We should rather look to the originall practice of Christendom which there may be reason to intitle unto the Apostles and consequently the changes that may have succeeded to a defect of succeeding ages failing and coming short of their institutions then allege the practice of the Jews which the Christians have so litle cause to envy that they may well conclude them to be a people forsaken of God by the litle appearance of Religion in the offices which they serve God with or the necessities of ignorant and persecuted Christians for a rule to Churches flourishing with knowledge and means of advancing Gods service If from he beginning when by the means of those who spoke Greek and Latine or other languages used within the Empire from whence the tidings of the Gospel came other Nations had received the service of God in those languages wherein the Churches of Rome Constantinople Alexandria or Antiochia or possibly other Churches from which their Christianity was planted did celebrate it they might with some colour of reason have argued that so it ought to continue in the Western Church But since it appeareth that the service of God hath been prescribed in the Arabick the Syriack the Ethiopick the Coptick the Sclavonian the Russe and other â—orâ—ain languages what can a man inferr from the practice of the Church of Rome not allowing the Saxons in Britain the Germanes in Almane and the North and Eastland Countries the Slavonians in Pole and Boheme and other parts the service of God in their Mother tongues towards the disputes of this time that they ought not to be allowed it but the inhansing of the Popes Power
had further to learne to make their Praises of God and prayers to God the more Christian He that understandeth this case by the Scriptures of the new Testament must conclude that all preaching is to make men Christians that the praises of God and prayers to God comprehending the Eucharist are the exercise of Christianity The one the next meanes to attaine salvation the other onely the meanes to attaine that meanes So that this dispute also resolveth into that of my second Book whether we are justified by believing that we are justified and predestinate Or by professing and living as Christians For supposing the state of salvation to be obtained by so believing and that so as not to be forfeited any more It is very reasonable to run infinitely after Sermons till a man find himselfe setled in so believing But so that then he shall believe that which he can have no reason supposing the Scriptures to believe Nor shall the frequenting of Sermons serve to show any resonable motive to believe But the very act of hearing a man speake out of the Pulpit by the glasse must be taken for the meanes appointed by God by which when he sees his time he will determine the Elect to believe leaving the Reprobate in their unbeliefe though perhaps after they have slept out more Sermons then the other have done So the opus operatum of hearing Sermons according to this opinion succeeds instead of the opus operatum of hearing Masses according to the corrupt practice of the Church of Rome And in this chang the worke of Reformation according to this opinion must consist But then it will be necessarily consequent that they who have attained this faith give over hearing sermons for the future and not onely Sermons but prayers and all other offices of Gods service and assemblies for the same according to the opinion of that Sect that now thinks themselves above ordinances Which Sect before ever it appeared I had understood by a person of integrity and knowledge that there was a difference of opinion among those who frequented and maintayned Sermons besides the order of the Ecclesiasticall Lawes in England Some thinking it a meanes of faith to confer of the sermon after it is don others laughing at so silly a mistake as thinking to attaine the state of salvation by reason and freewill not by Gods meer Grace Whereby it appeareth that whosoever as I doe makes the preaching of the Gospell that is not speaking out of a Pulpit but showing the reasons which Gods word proposeth to move men to be true Christians the meanes which Gods spirit useth to bring a man to the state of Grace is obliged to grant that it is no otherwise the meanes to maintaine a man in that state then as it is the meanes to maintaine him a good Christian And that his Christianity in the first place consisting in the publike service of God to which he becomes ingaged by being baptized into the Church The offices thereof are the immediate meanes of salvation to which as well as to the offices concerning other men and our selves all teaching of Christians immediately tendeth as all preaching to unbelievers at a distance Now let no man think that I take any pleasure in censuring the proceedings of forraine Churches which I could willingly have passed over in silence had not a pernicious affectation of being like them caryed those that liked not this order to destroy the very being of the English Church out of a desire to change the vertue of it for their oversight For now I must say whatsoever offence it may cause that when it had been well pleaded that the communion of the Eucharist ought to be restored in both kinds with the service of God in a known language And that order ought to be taken that preaching might be frequented for the instruction of the people to infer thereupon for a Law that there be no orders for holding any assembly of the Church without Preaching was to cure the abuse of Private Masses by degrading the Eucharist from the preeminence that it holdeth above all other offices that God can be served with by a Christian And that without colour from the scripture without precedent from any practice of the Church There have been indeed pretenses among us that the word which giveth efficacy to the Sacraments is the word preached Meaning thereby a sermon spoken out of the Pulpit And from hence hath proceeded the affectation of Christning Sermons as if that were the word whereof S. Austine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Nay this preaching afore meate in a long discourse instead of thanksgiving what is it but a mark of that sense which they give S. Paul when he saith that the creature is sanctified by the word of God prayer for the food of Christians 1 Tim. IV. 5 And when Sermons are so affectedly called the Meanes To wit of saving us Is it not manifest that they attribute vnto Sermons that which S. Paul Rom. X. 8-15 and the apostles elsewhere attribute to the preaching of the Gospell whereby a man becomes convict that he ought to become a Christian without which no Christian will grant any man can be saved Whereby we may see what consequence slight mistakes in the very signification of the words may and doe produce For having showed an evident difference between preaching the Gospell to those who as yet believe not and teaching those that are become Christians the further knowledg of their Christianity I may take for granted that it is a mistake when the difference is not made between preaching to an assembly of Christians and declaring the Gospell to unbelievers whom the Apostles could not deale with upon any supposition of Christianity but onely upon the force of those motives which they showed them to imbrace it to whom therefore the onely meanes of their salvation was the knowledge of those motives And though all Christians when they come among unbelievers are bound to preach Christ to them that is to declare unto them the reasons why they ought to be Christians so far as they are able to doe it without prejudice of Christianity Yet to preach it as the Apostles preached it planting with all the Church in which God should be served according to Christianity is that which no private man can doe without authority received by the Church from the Apostles From which authority all that is afterwards don in serving God by the Churches so planted must receive that warrant upon which Christians may ground themselves that it is agreeable to the will of God And upon these termes it is to be granted that sermons preached in the assemblies of Christians are the meanes of their salvation because that the allowance of the Church groundeth a presumption that they are according to Christianity But if this be wanting though it is not necessary that they should be contray to Gods word yet because there is no
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 Baptisme and the Eucharist In extreme Vnction In Marriage In Confirmation Ordination and Penance NOW to come to the reason for which Ceremonies are to be used in the publick service of God I must here rest in that which I have rendred in my Book of the service of God at the assemblies of the Church being satisfied that it pointeth at the very ground for the use of them from the beginning among Gods people Man is compounded of soule and body and the worship of God and prayer to God is an act of the soule which the body by the senses thereof may diverte the mind from but cannot help forwards it till by the motion and gesture of the body the soul be ingaged to attend on that which the mind proposeth Therefore the people of God in the Scripture pray alwaies either standing or kneeling unlesse some speciall cause move them to prostrate themselves That their ordinary posture was standing appeares by Mat. VI. 5. Mark XI 25. Luke XVIII 11. Neh. IX 5. Jerem. XV. 1. XVIII 19. Job XXX 20. And they have reason who derive the Stations of the primitive Christians and the use of not kneeling on Lords dayes and between Easter and Whitsontide from their custome But therefore they kneeled in Lent and ' Daniel kneeled when he fasted IX 20. and Moses fell prostrate before God Deut. IX 18 25. but Esdras upon his knees Esd IX 5. X. 1. as Daniel also VII 11. to what purpose but to cast down the mind by the posture of the body that being sensible of his wants a man may attend upon God with deep devotion and reverence The Publicane durst not lift up his eyes to heaven Luke XVIII 13. which showes that otherwise they did lift up their eyes and spread their hands to heaven as Lam. III. 41. 1 Kings VIII 54. 1 Tim. II. 8. But the Publicane smote upon his brest because he exacted Penance of himselfe He was a foole for his paines if that be Reformation which is pretended to claime familiarity with Almighty God by talking with him negligently to signify that we are sure of him having Faith that we are predestinate to life as of the number of those for whom Christ died exclusively to the rest of mankind Or if it be Reformation to sit and censure with how fit and pertinent conceptions in how proper and choice terms a man expresses his necessities and the necessities of his people to God But praying to God is something else than all this and not onely the ancient people of God but those who have no sense of religion but that which nature forceth them to show us by their practice that lowlinesse of the body stirreth as well as testâ—fieth reverence in the minde to God in his service All this holdeth taking a man by himselfe as a single Christiane But supposing the society of a Church and an assembly of Gods people for his service there is more to be said The people of God spoke much by visible signes not all by words Jeremy might have said to them of Jerusalem take example by the Rechabites who drink no wine upon the order of their Patriarch But that was not enough He must bringe them to the Temple and set wine before them that having formally refused it he might thereupon protest to his people The same Jeremy might have told the Jewes as Saint Paul doth the Romanes that men are as clay in the Potters hands without going down to the Potters and seeing him spoile a vessell that he was making that he might thereupon take his rise and say that God was framing evil against them whom he had made Jer. XVIII 1-5 without buying an earthen vessell and breaking it before the ancients of the People and of the Priests to tell them that God would break them likewise Jer. XIX 1 11 12. when he makes all that businesse on purpose he showes what force visible signes have to make impression upon the minde of that which words signify neverthelesse The Law would never have appointed to sit still on the Sabbath in remembrance of the creation of the world or the deliverance from Egypt to carry a bundle of branches in the hand and to dwell in booths in remembrance of the voiage through the wildernesse otherwise And is not this reason fit to be applied to the assemblies of Christians Witnesse the Prophet Joel Why must they weep and mourne with their fasting why must the children and sucklings assemble why must the joy of the bride chamber be superseded but to make impression of sorrow upon particulars from that which the publick expresseth Joel II. 13-16 The people of Niniveh and the King thereof put on sackcloth and sat in ashes nor man nor beast must tast foode or drinke water at the preaching of Jonas III. 5. 6. 7. On the contrary at the bringing of the Arke into the City of David Chron. XIII 8. XV. 28. They have seen thy goings O God even the goings of my God my King into the sanctuary The singers went before those that played on instruments followed amongst them were the damsels playing on timbrells And the solemnity which the wall of Jerusalem was dedicated with you may read in Nehem. XII 27-43 The Festival of our Lords Resurrection presupposeth the Fast of the Passion makes all the Lords dayes of the year festivall by renewing weekly that joy which it solemnizeth The Fast which goeth before it by the institution of the Apostles agreeing in it because not agreeing when it should end in Tertullians time was inlarged to those dayes on which the Bridegroome was not missing but by just use of the Churches Power is inlarged to fourty dayes Shall it be superstitious for the Church to professe solemn Penance and mourning for that time which gained the Ninivites that grace which the Gospel tendereth the Gentiles that repent according to their example If it be Reformation to abolish all ceremonies let it be Reformation for Gods people to understand any difference between an humiliation and a thanksgiving Saint Paul disputeth hard that the women of Corinth ought to be vailed the men unvailed Not for any consideration of reverence to God which the uncovering of the head did not signify in those times But to signify the humility and modesty of the sex which had he spoken of serving God in private he need not have stood upon and therefore in regard to the Church Which if it be true if consideration ought to be had of the Church in celebrating the service of God at the assemblies thereof then it is requisite that when the World is come into the Church and all assemble those ceremonies should be used which were not requisite when the numbers were small and the assemblies thereof
thinne That the Ministers of the Church should performe the service thereof in their ordinary aparrel when they ministred it in grottes and caves to a few I marvaile not but count it reasonable That when all assemble wheat and chaffe good fish and bad all should be summoned to that apprehension of the work in hand which our common Christianity inforceth by the habit in which it is ministred it seemeth to me very unreasonable that any man should marvaile Imposition of hands is necessarily an act of authority Booz may say to the reapers The Lord be with you And they answer him The Lord blesse thee Ruth IV. 4. they may blesse him as well as he them And as the Priest saith to the people the Lord be with you so may they to him and with thy Spirit where there is nothing but matter of common charity in band But if Abraham pay Melchisedeck Tithes acknowledging his superiority and Melchisedeck thereupon blesse Abraham then the saying of the Apostle Heb. VII 7. without question the lesse is blessed by the better takes place Of this kinde is Jacobs blessing his Nephews by laying his hands on their heads Moses his blessing of Joshua the Priests blessing of the people The Israelites laying hands on the Levites Numb VIII 10. seems rather to signify the charging of the sinnes of the Congregation upon them that by them they might be expiated according to the Law But our Lord layes hands on the little children whom he blesses and his Apostles lay hands on them whom they cure Mark XVI 18. as Naaman thought that Elizeus would have laid hands on him praying for him So our Lord lifts up his hands over his disciples to blesse them because he could not lay hands on them all The Apostles laying hands on the seven Acts VI. 6. and the imposing of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. IV. 14. signifieth the authority that inchargeth them with their office And it is strange that any man pretending learning can attribute the ordinations made by Paul and Barnabas Acts XIV 23. to the votes of the people signified by holding up their hands The act of constituting them being expresly ascribed to Paul and Barnabas And therefore by imposition of their hands not by holding up the peoples hands Imposition of hands therefore as it is used by the Church succeeding the Apostles in that use signifieth that authority which the Church blesseth or prayeth for blessing in behalf of those whom she presumeth to be qualified for the blessing by so blessing which she prays for at Gods hands I am not to forget the signe of the Crosse though a ceremony which I cannot say the Church hath either precept or precedent for in the Scripture having prescribed that there is no presumption that it cometh not from the Apostles because no mention of it in Scripture Justine the Martyr mentioning the use of it Tertulliane and Saint Basil testifying that it was common to all Christians all times all parts of the Church whereof there is remembrance using it Chuse whether you will have Saint Paul when he saith In whom ye were sealed by the holy spirit of promise Ephes I. 13. and againe by whom ye are sealed to the day of redemption Ephes IV. 30. to intimate that the holy Ghost was given by Baptisme which was solemnized by signing with the signe of the Crosse Or that the Church took occasion upon those words to appoint that Ceremony to be used in baptizing it will neverthelesse remaine grounded that the use of it on all occasions in all times over all parts of the Church is to be ascribed to the Apostles And certainly there are many occasions for a Christian to have recourse to God for his grace upon protestation of his Christianity which is the condition upon which all grace of God becomes due when there is neither time nor opportunity to recollect his minde unto a formall addresse by praying to God All which this ceremony fitly signifieth What then if it be used by those who bethinke not themselves at all of that Christianity by which alone we may expect any benefit of Christs Crosse Who may seem to hold their Christianity needlesse promising themselves the benefit of it by the opus operatum of making a signe of the Crosse Does this hinder any man to use it as it ought to be used does it prejudice him that so uses it I will not say that there cannot nor did not consist any Reformation in laying this ceremony aside But I will say as of Prayers for the dead We know well enough whom there was a desire to content when this ceremony in the Eucharist was laid aside under Queen Elizabeth having been prescribed under Edward VI. Which seeing it hath not served the turne but that the unity of the Church is dissolved and so much more demanded of them that would be thought Reformed if yet any man man can say what is demanded I think my self obliged to maintaine in this point as in all the rest That the Reformation of the Church consists not in abolishing but in renewing and restoring the orders of the Catholick Church and the right intent of the same He that will take the paines to adde hereto that which I have said in the place quoted afore shall comprehend the reasons upon which I remaine satisfied in this whole point seeing there is no cause why I should either recede from any part of it or repeate it here againe That which remaineth for this place is the consideration of the nature and number of the Sacraments which being essentially ceremonies of Gods service the right resolution of the controversy concerning it must needs consist in distinguishing the grounds upon which and the intents to which they are instituted the difference whereof must make some properly Sacraments the rest either no Sacraments at all or in a severall sense and so to a severall purpose And truly of all the Controversies which the Reformation hath occasioned I see not lesse reason for either side to stand upon their terms then in this which stands upon the term of a Sacrament being not found in the Scriptures attributed either to seven or to two For being taken up by the Church that is to say by those Writers whom the Church alloweth and honoureth what reason can deny the Church liberty to attribute it to any thing which the power given the Church inableth it to appoint and to use for the obtaining of Gods blessing upon Christians Why should not any action appointed by the Church to obtaine Gods sanctifying grace by virtue of any promise which the Gospel containeth be counted a Sacrament At least supposing it to consist in a ceremony fit to signify the blessing which it pretendeth to procure For it is manifest that Baptisme also and the Eucharist are ceremonies signifying visibly that invisible grace wherewith God sanctifieth Christians But there will be therefore no consequence that Baptisme and the Eucharist should
which it is ministred under such an unhallowed opinion as that In the meane time neither is the promise of Grace annexed to the solemnity thereof in which there hath succeeded so vast a change as I have signified by Gods choice of any visible creature in which it is exercised as in Baptisme and the Eucharist but by that common reason for which it is a solemnity fit for the Church to execute it with nor is the promise of grace annexed to the office of the Churth any otherwise then as it becomes the meanes to retrive the condition of baptisme qualifying for the promise by the Covenant of Grace In fine the name and notion of a Sacrament as it hath been duly used by the Church and writers allowed by the Church extendeth to all holy actions done by vertue of the Office which God hath trusted his Church with in hope of obtayning the grace which he promiseth Baptisme and the Eucharist are actions appointed by God in certaine creatures utterly impertinent to the effect of Grace setting aside his appointment But apt to signifie all the Grace which the Gospell promiseth by vertue of that correspondence which holds between things visible and sâ—nsible and things intelligible and invisible Both antecedent for their institution to the foundation of the Church the Society whereof subscribeth upon condition of the first and for communion in the second The rest are actions appointed to be solemnized in the Church by the Apostles not alwaies every where precisely with the same ceremonies but such as alwaies may reasonably serve to signifie the graces which it praies for on the behalfe of them who receive them The hope of that Grace being grounded upon Gods generall promise of hearing the prayers of his Church which the constitution thereof involveth Nor am I solicitous to make that construction which may satisfie the decrees of the Councils of Florence and Trent who have first taken upon them to decree under Anathama the conceite of the Schoole in reducing them to the number of seven But seeing the particulars so qualified by ancient writers in the Church and the number agreed upon by the Greeke Church as well as the Latines I have acknowledged that sense of their sayings which the primâ—ive order of the Chatholike Church inforceth For though I count it a great a buse to maintaine simple Christians in an opinion that the outward works of them not supposing the ground upon which the intent to which the disposition with which they are done secures the salvation of them to whom they are ministred Which opinion the formall ministring of them seemeth to maintaine Yet is it a far greater abuse to place the reformation of the Church in abolishing the solemnities rather then in reducing the right understanding of the ground and intent of those offices which they serve to solemnize 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 Commandement prohibiteth or alloweth The second Councile of Nicea doth not decree Idolatry And yet there is no decree in the Church for the worshiping of Images ANd now I come to that resolution which I have made way for by premising these conclusions for assumptions to inferr it onely by the way I have resolved against those prayers which the Church of Rome prescribeth to deliver the soules of the dead from Purgatory paines I say then first that the adoration of the Eucharist which the Church of Rome prescribeth is not necessarily Idolatry I say not what it may be accidentally by that intention which some men may conceale and may make it Idolatry as to God I speak upon supposition of that intention which the profession of the Church formeth and which alone is to my present purpose I suppose them to beleive that those creatures of God which are the elements of that sacrament are no more there after the consecration having ceased to be that there might be roome for the body and blood of our Lord to come into theire stead I suppose that the body and blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are and must be adored by a good Christian where the custome of the Church which a Christian is obliged to communicate with requires it For that which wee see is enough for to certifie us that peremptorily to refuse any custome of the Church is a step to division and the dissolution of it which is the greatest evill that can befall Christianity next to the peremptory profession of some thing contrary to that truth wherein christianity consists and which the being of the Church presupposeth But I suppose further that the body and blood of Christ is not adored nor to be adored by Christians neither for it self nor for any indowment residing in it which it may have received by being personally united with the God head of Christ But onely in consideration of the said God-head to which it remaines inseparably united wheresoever it becomes For by that meanes whosoever proposeth not to himselfe the consideration of the body and blood of Christ as it is of it selfe and in it self a meer creature which he that doth not on purpose cannot do cannot but consider it as he believs it to be being a Christian And considering it as it is honor it as it is inseperably united to the God-head in which by which it subsisteth in which therefore that honour resteth and to which it tendeth So the God-head of Christ is the thing that is honoured and the reason why it is honoured both The body and blood of Christ though it be necessarily honored because necessarily united to that which is honoured yet is it onely the thing that is honored and not the reason why it is honoured speaking of the honor proper to God alone I suppose further that it is the duty of e-every christian to honour our Lord Christ as God subsisting in humane flesh whether by professing him such or by praying to him as such or by using any bodily gesture which by the custome of them that frequent it may serve to signifie that indeed he takes him for such which gesture is outwardly that worship of the heart which inwardly commandes it This honour then being the duty of an affirmative precept which according to the received rule ties alwaies though it cannot tye a man to doe the duty alwaies because then he should doe nothing else What remaines but a just occasion to make it requisite and presently to take hold and oblige And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to expresse by the bodily act of adoration that inward honour which we alwaies cary towards our Lord Christ as
the same effect there is no cause why he should be excused of Idolatry for his paines But withall he cannot be excused of contradicting himselfe as grossely as he that maintaines those Saints or Angels to be that one true God whom he acknowledges not to be that God but his creatures If there be reason to presume that they who acknowledge Saints or Angels their Mediators Intercessors or advocates to God intend to commit Idolatry by contradicting themselves thus grossely there may be reason to thinke that they count them their Mediators Intercessors or Advocates to God to that effect to which Christ alone is our Mediator Intercessor or Advocate But if whosoever is accepted to pray for an other is necessarily by so doing his Mediator Intecessor or Advocate to him with whom he is admitted to deal on his behalfe by his prayers then will it be necessary to limite the worke of mediation to that effect which may be allowed to the intercession of the Saints or Angels for us if we will have them to be to purpose Certainely neither could Iob intercede for his friends nor Samuel for the Israelites nor Abraham for Abimelech or Pharao nor any of Gods Prophets for any that had or were to have recourse to them for that purpose but they must be by so doing Mediators intercessors and Advocates for them with God For neither can the mediation of Saints or Angels nor of any prophet or other that can be persumed to have favour with God be to any effect but that which the termes of that reconciliation which our Lord Christ hath purchased for us doe settle or allow But he that saith the Saints and Angels pray for us saith not that we are to pray to Saints or Angels nor can be say it without Idolatry intending that we are to do that to them which they do to God for us On the other side though that which we doe to them and that which they doe to God be both called praying yet it wil be very difficult for him that really and actually apprehendeth all Saints and Angels to be Gods creatures to render both the same honour though supposing not granting the same Christianity to injoyn both But to come to particulars I will distinguish three sorts of prayers to Saints wheâ—her taught or allowed to be taught in the Church of Rome The first is of those that are made to God but to desire his blessings by and through the merits and intercession of his Saints I cannot give so fit an example as out of the Canon of the Masse which all the Westerne Churches of that communion do now use There it is said communicantes memoriam venerantes omnium Sanctorum tuorum quorum meritis precibusque concedas ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio Communicating in and reverencing the memory of such and such and of all thy Saints by whose merit and prayer grant that in all things we may be guarded by thy protection and helpe There is also a short prayer for the Priest to say when he comes to the Altar as he findes opportunity Oramus te Domine per merita sanctorum tuorum quorum reliquia hic sunt omnium sanctorum ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea We pray thee Lord by the merits of the Saints whose reliques are here and all Saints that thou wouldest vouchsafe to release me all my sins And on the first Sunday in Advent mentioning the Blessed Virgin they pray Vt qui vere eam matrem Dei credimus ejus apud te intercessionibus adjuvemur That we who believe her truely the mother of God may be helped by her intercessions with thee The second is that which their Litanies containe which though I doe not undertake to know how they are used or how they ought to be used by particular Christians that is how far voluntary how far obligatory yet the forme of them is manifest that whereas you have in them sometimes Lord have mercy upon us Christ have mercy upon us Holy Trinity one God have mercy upon us You have much oftner the Blessed Virgine repeated again and againe under a number of her attributes you have also all the Saints and Angels or such as the present occasion pretends for the object of the devotion which a man tenders named and spoken to with Ora pronobis that is Pray for us The blessed virgine some saie with te rogamus audi nos We beseech thee to heare us One thing I must not forget to observe that the prayers which follow those Litanies are almost alwaies of the first kind That is to say addressed directly to God but mentioning the intercession of Saints or Angels for the meanes to obtain our prayers at his hands The third is when they desire immediately of them the same blessings spirituall and temporall which all Christians desire of God There is a Psalter to be seen with the Name of God changed every where into the Name of the blessed Virgine There is a book of devotion in French with this title Moyen de bien seruir prier adorer la Vierge Marie The way well to serve pray to and adore the blessed Virgine There are divers forms of prayer as well as excessive speeches concerning her especially and other Saints quoted in the Answer to the Jesuites Challenge pag. 330-345 Of those then the first kind seems to me utterly agreeable with Christianity importing onely the exercise of that Communion which all members of Gods Church hold with all members of it ordained by God for the meanes to obtaine for one another the Grace which the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ hath purchased for us without difference whether dead or alive Because we stand assured that they have the same affection for us dead or alive so farre as they know us and our estate and are obliged to desire and esteem their prayers for us as for all the members of Christs mysticall body Neither is it in reason conceivable that all Christians from the beginning should make them the occasion of their devotions as I said out of any consideration but this For as concerning the terme of merit perpetually frequented in these prayers it hath been alwawes maintained by those of the Reformation that it is not used by the Latine Fathers in any other sense then that which they allow Therefore the Canon of the Masse and probably other prayers which are still in use being more ancient then the greatest part of the Latine Fathers there is no reason to make any diffficulty of admitting it in that sense the ground whereof I have maintained in the second Book The third taking them at the foot of the leter and valuing the intent of those that use them by nothing but the words of them are meer Idolatries as desiring of the creature that which God onely gives which is the worship of the creature for the Creator God blessed for evermore And were we bound to make
held to be God namely the image â—t is to be granted that whosoever it was that writ the book against Imageâ— under the name of Charles the great did understand the council to injoine the worship of God to be giveâ— the image of our Lord For of any othâ—r image of God there was no question in that Councile But it is not to be denied that it was a meere mistake and that the Councile acknowledging that submission of the heart which the excellence of God onely challenges proper to the Holy Tâ—inity maintaines a signification of that esteeme to be paid to the Image of our Lord. For the words of the Councile I refer you to Estius in III. Sentent distinct IX ss II. and III. where you shall see besides the honour due to God alone and the honour due to his Saints the Council injoines a kind of honour for the images of either respectively signifying the esteeme we have for God and of his Saints I know there is much noise of Latria to signifie the honour due to God alone and Dulia that which belongs to his Saintâ— And I am satisfied that there is no ground for the difference either in the originall reason or use of the words But as nothing hinders them to be taken as words of art use to be taken to signifie peculiar conceptions in Christianity so if dulia be understood as S. Austine understandes it câ—ntra Faustum XX. 21. for that love and communion which we imbrace the saints that are alâ—ve with there is no fear of Idolatry in honouring the Saints departed with dulia But the honour we give the images is not the honour we give the principal but onely by the equivocating of terms according to the decree of the Council Therefore that honour of images which the decree maintaineth is no Idolatry But he that saies it is no idolatry which they injoine does not therefore justifie or commend them for injoyningit It were a pittifull commendation for the Church that it is not Idolatry which the decree thereof injoynes It is therefore no evidence that the decree obliges because it injoines no idolatry You saw how neere the honour of Saints in the prayers which come from this decree came to Idolatry And though those that counted Images idoles in the East stood for the honour of the Saints yet it is certaine and visible that the authors of the decree did intend to advance the honour of the Saints thereby and effect it What is that effect That the Saints are prayed to by Christians in such forme and with such termes as doe not distinguish whether they hold them Gods or creatures Grant they agree with their profession and you must construe them to the due difference suppose they understand not the common profession or the consequence of it who warants them no Idolaters It is alleged out of S. Basil de Spiritu Sancto cap. XVIII that the honour of the Image passeth to the principall He speaketh of the honour of the Sonne that it is the honour of the Father whose image the Son is And so it is indeed The honour of the Father and of the Son is both one and the same To say that the image of our Lord is to be honoured as he is is perfect idolatry But he who believes the Son to be of the fathers substance and his picture to be his picture cannot say so if he be in his wits Either he commits Idolatry or he contradicts himselfe That may and must be said It is easy to see how many Divines of the Church of Rome make images honourable with the honour of their principall The images of our Lord by consequence with latria the honour proper to God When this is said it must be cured by distinguishing though not properly yet improperly though not by it self yet accidentally reducible to that honour which the principall is worshipped with that is the image of Christ as God Yet you are not to use these termes to the people least they prove Idolaters or have cause to think their teachers such So Cardinall Bellarmine de Imaginibus II. 23 24 25. There is a cure for Idolatry in the distinction supposing him to contradict himself For what greater contradiction then that the honour that may be reduced to the honour of God should be the honour of God seeing that it is not the honour of God which is not proper to God as consisting in the esteeme of him above all things So for the adoration of the Crosse the signe of the Crosse which I spoke of before is onely a ceremony which being from the beginning frequented by Christians upon all occasions the Church had reason to make use of in the solemnizing of the greatest actions of Gods publike service particularly those whereby the authority of the Church is convayed and exercised The Crosse whereon our Lord Christ was crucified is a relique though not parte of his body yet for coming so nere to his body deserving to be honoured Other Crosses are the images of that The Schoole Doctors question what honour it is which the true Crosse of Christ demands And the head of them Thomas Aquinaâ— answers the honour proper to God by the name of latria Either as representing the figure of Christ crucified or as washed with his blood If the Crosse of Christ must be worshipped with the honour proper to God because washed with our Saviours bloud then must it have received divine vertue from his bloud Is not this construction reasonable And what made the Idoles of the Hethen idoles but an opinion of divine vertue residing in them by being set up for the exercise of their religion that supposed many Gods I grant the construction is necessary though not reasonable For I find it construed otherwise To make a difference between the true Crosse of Christ which is honoured for a relique and other Crosses which are honoured as the pictures of it and signes putting us in mind of Christ on the Crosse So the words of Thomas Aquinas may be reasonably taken to teach Idolatry If they be not necessarily so to be taken yet as he teacheth to honour it with Latria either he teacheth Idolatry or contradicteth himself for the same reason as in Images What the effect of these excessive positions hath been is easie to see They clothe their images they paint them they guild them the finest they may They think themselves holy for touching kissing and caressing them as children do their babies They touch their bodies with them and think themselves hallowed by the meanes They put a cotton on the end of a stick and touch first the images then the eyes the lips and the noses of them that come and that in their surplisses Thus are they induced to pray directly to the Saints for their carnall concupiscences as did the heathen idolaters to vow to give themselves to them to put themselves under their protection and defence to set them up in their
privacies yea in lâ—â—civious postures and the habits of their mistresses as promising themselves protection from them in their debauches In fine by this meanes they are come to make images of God not pictures of his apparitions in the Scripture but of the Father and of the holy Trinity A thing so expresly forbidden by the Law For the Arke of the Covenant had on it indeed the figures that signified Angels the Throne of God it self signifying Christ in whom God is propitious to mankind Therefore they were to worship towards the Ark. But the majesty of God was hereby understood to be like nothing visible they were onely taught where to find him propitious Now setting up their images and injoyning images to be worshipped the construction is so reasonable that they honour the image with the honour due to God alone that it is not possible to make any other reasonable construction of that which they doe Against the II. Councile of Nicaea all this and without any order of the present Church of Rome but so that were not men sensible by whom they were authorized it were as easily disowned on the one side as it were hard on the other side to perswade men to do it Here it will be said these are probable reasons such as in moral matters may alwayes be made on both sides for what is there concerning humane affairs that is not disputable But the decree of the Church being once interposed by the second Councile of Nicaea it behoveth all Sons of the Church to depart from their own reasons because the unity of the Church as a Body can by no meanes be maintained unlesse inferiours yeild to the judgement of superiours An objection which I must owne because I have acknowledged the argument of it hitherto and have no where been straightened by it But I say therefore that the Power of the Church hath never been exercised by a voluntary consent in any decree injoyning the worship of Images For the having of Images in Churches I acknowledge there is a clear and unquestionable consent of the Church visible though as I said afore there appeared dissatisfaction in some parts which appeares to be voided by the subsequent consent of the whole And I finde sufficient and clear reason for it the adorning of Churches for the solemnity of Gods service the instruction of the simple that cannot reade in any booke by the pictures of things related in the Bible and the acts and sufferings of the Saints and Martyrs the admonishing of all whether learned or unlearned of that which they knew before the stirring up of devotion towards God by being admonished whether of things related in the Scriptures or in the relations concerning the Saints and Martyrs which the Church justifieth In a matter subject to the power of the Church as I have showed this to be the light of common reason attesting these considerations more ought not to be demanded And therefore though the Homilyagainst perill of Idolatry contain a wholsome doctrine in this particular I must have leave to think it failes as it evidently doth in others But all those reasons are utterly impertinent to the worshipping of Images For suppose the Image of our Lord or his Crosse may reasonably determine the circumstance of place where a man may pray to God as I said of the holy Eucharist the worship so tendered will be manifestly the worship of God and have no further to do with the image then a furniture or instrument not which a man serves but whereby he serves God And therefore Saint Gregory supposing and as it seems taking no notice of him that prayes before the image of Christ upon the Crosse in his Epistle to Secundinus In another Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles forbiddeth all worshipping of Images as making them subjects capable of any worship that may be called religious as proceeding from or injoyned by that virtue For the honour of the image passeth not upon the principall any otherwise in this case then as the presence thereof may be a signe to shew why we worship the principall where it is Which the images of Saints are not fit to signify because their principals the Saints are not capable of it But setting aside all dispute what ought to be done because the question is what the Church hath decreed that it ought to be done I say the decree of the second Councile of Nicaea obligeth not the Church at present because it never had the force of a sentence I have said in due place that all decrees of Counciles are but prejudices no sentences The reason whereof is as necessary as evident supposing the premises For the consent of the whole is that which gives any decree the force of a decree as you saw by the instance of the Council of Sardica The consent of the representatives in a Council is a presumption of the consent of the whole but it is not the formall consent of it No Council ever was composed of representatives proportionable in number of votes to the weight of each part to the whole The ground of a presumption making the calling of Councils worth the while is because whatsoever may come in consideration is supposed to have been wayed there and the expresse consent had of the present against which the absent cannot weigh In the II. Councile of Nicaea the Popes Legates consented and I granted afore the West was wont to receive the conclusions from Rome but not tied so to do in case the matter required further examination as in this case For within a while after a Council of Charles the Greats Dominions then the farre greatest part of the Western Church assembled at Francford condemnes the Council of Nicaea allowes the having of images in Churches as S. Gregory had done and in like maner condemnes all worshipping of them Here was a fair stop to the recalling of the Church of Romes concurrence to it Which though it was not effected yet under Ludovicus Pius son of Charles the Great an Embassy â— comes from the Easterne Emperor with a leter yet extant signifying many orrible abuses which the decree had produced and desiring his concurrence and the concurrence of the Church under him to stop the current of them A Treaty being had hereupon by the Prelates of his dominion the resolution-is yet extant in the negative under the name of the Synod of Paris grounded upon consent with the Fathers By this and by divers particulars laid forth by the Archbishop of Spalate 7. de Republ. Eccles XII 59. 71. it appeares that the worship of images never came in force by virtue of this Conncile of Nicea And amongst them it is not to be forgotten that the acts thereof were not known in the West as appeareth by the extravagancies of Thomas Aquinas and the Schoole Doctors that followed him in determining that images and the true Crosse of Christ are to be worshipped with the same honour as their principals
The image of Christ therefore and his true Crosse with the honour due to God alone though in reference to God Had the Acts of the Councile been known in the West as they would have been had it been admitted these men would never have gone about to bring in an opinion so extravagant from the doctrine of the Councile Which shewes plainly that it is the See of Rome that hath imployed the whole interest thereof right or wrong to give that force to the decree which of it self it had not You have besides a work of Jonas Bishop of Orleans against Claudius Bishop of Turin you have the testimony of Walafridus Strabo allowing images but disallowing all worship of them Nay in the time of Fredrick Barbarussa Nicetas relating how he took Philippopolis notes that the Armenians stirred not for the taking of the City having confidence in the Almans as agreeing with them in religion because neither of them worshipped images De Imperio Isaaci Angeli II. Therefore in removing the force of this decree it is not the authority of the whole Church but the will of the See of Rome that is transgressed And that power of the See of Rome by which this is done is not that regular preeminence thereof over other Churches which cannot decree any thing in the matter of a generall Councile but by a generall Councile either expresly assembled or included in the consent of those Churches whereof it consists But of that nothing is or can be alledged It remaines therefore that it is come to effect by that infinite power thereof which the whole Church acknowledgeth not and therefore in effect by the meanes which it imployeth to justify such a pretense I say no more of the ceremonies of Gods service I maintaine no further effect of them then the ground for them warrants The composition of our nature makes them fit and necessary meanes to procure that attention of mind that devotion of Spirit which God is to be served with even in private much more at the publicke and solemn assemblies of the Church Whatsoever is appointed by the Church for the circumstance furniture solemnity or ceremony of Gods service by virtue of the trust reposed in it is thereby to be accounted holy and so used and respected The memories of Gods Saints and Martyrs are fit occasions to determine the time and place and other circumstances of it And the honour done them in recording their acts and sufferings with the conversation of our Lord upon earth whether out of the Scriptures or otherwise a fit meanes to render his solemne service recommendable for the reverence which it is performed with If in stead of circumstances and instruments the Saints of God or Images or any creature of God whatsoever become the object of that worship for which Churches were built or for which Christians assemble by that meanes there may be roome to let in that Idolatry at the back door which Christianity shutteth out at the great gate Whether or no it be a fault in Christians that they cannot do violence to their senses and count those things holy as instruments of Gods service because so they should be which they are convinced in common reason that they are used to his disservice I dispute not now But without dispute woe to them by whom offences come And they who prosecute offences given without measure are they by whom offences come The charge of superstition is a goodly pretense for abolishing ceremonies But when not onely the reverence of Gods service but also the offices of it are abolished withall then is there cause to say that the service of God it selfe seeems superstitious To fit and sleep out a sermon or censure a prayer is more for a mans ease then to fall down on his knees to humble his soul at Gods footstool and to withdraw his minde from the curiosity of knowledge or language to the sense of Gods majesty and his own misery It is then for our ease but not for Gods service that the ceremonies thereof should be counted superstitious CHAP. XXXI The ground for a Monasticall 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 The nature and intent of it renders it subordinate to the Clergy How farre the single life of the Clergy hath been a Law to the Church Inexecution of the Canons for it Nullity of the proceeddings of the Church of Rome in it The interest of the People in the acts of the Church And in the use of the Scriptures I Cannot make an end by distinguishing the bounds of Ecclesiasticall and Secular power in Church matters till I have resolved whether or no the body of it the materials of which it consists be sufficiently distinguished by the estates of Clergy and People Or whether there be a third estate of Monkery constituted by Gods Law intitling the Church to a right in those who professe it upon the ground of Christianity and in order to the effect of it For the resolution hereof opens the ground as well of that reverence which the people owe the Clergy as of that instruction and good example which the Clergy owe the people the neglect whereof is that which forfeiteth the very being of the Church that is the unity of it I am not now to dispute whether it be lawfull for a Christian to vow to God the vow of continence or not having proved in the second book that it is And showed in what sense the perfection of a Christian may be understood to consist in the professing and performing of it The case of Ananias and Sapphira hath been drawn into consequence not onely by Saint Basil as I showed you in the first book but also by Saint Gregory of Rome Epist I. 33. quoted by Gratiane XVII Quaest I. Cap. III. though acknowledging that community of goods was a part of the profession of the Christians then at Jerusalem it cannot be said that they who professed this community of goods did professe that which is strictly called Monkery For they letted not to continue married all Monks professing continence But I have besides made it to appear that all were not tied then at Jerusalem to give up all their goods to the stock of the Church but onely what the common Christianity should prompt every man to contribute to the subsistence of the Church and Christianity which what it required was visible But I do not therefore yield that the argument is not of force so far as the case and therefore the reason drawn from it takes place All Christians consecrate themselves to the service of God by being Baptized and made Christians By that they stand obliged to consecrate their goods to the subsistence of his Church as the necessities thereof become visible If it appear to be part of this Christianity to consecrate a mans self to God further by professing such a
vvhich is the proper signification of the Greek vvord here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense vvith the Latine create liberos as I sayd I know how much dispute there is that our Lord when he sayth The Father is greater then I is to be understood of his humane nature VVhich to me I confesse seems very hard that our Saviour should tell his Disciples for their comfort that God is greater then man and that therefore they ought to be comforted because he was going to God And having alwaies given this reason vvhy the eternall VVord of God was imployed in redeeming mankind because it came from God from everlasting I find that the priviledge of being the fountain of the Godhead vvhich is of necessity proper to the Father alone importeth that which the Sonne and the holy Ghost cannot have Not as if they had not the Godhead which is the same in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost But because they have it not from themselves and that it is necessarily more to give then to receive Whereupon it cannot be denied that the Sonne and the holy Ghost though honoured with the titles works attributes and worship of God are neverthelesse expressed and signified by the Scriptures as depending upon the Father and as something of his namely his Sonne and his Spirit though the same God also neverthelesse And this is without doubt the true answer to most of what Crellius brings in the second part of his first book De Deo that our Lord came not from himself nor to do his own will or to seek his own glory that he that believeth in him believeth not in him but in the Father that sent him John XII 4â— that he was called of God as Aaron Heb. V. 4. 5. that he received instruction from the Father that he prays to him that his words and workes are not his own but his Fathers and much more containing one and the very same difficulty which is assoiled by saying That wheresoever the weaknesse of his humane nature is not signified by the importance of what is said the rest is to be referred to the commission which he undertook to execute in our flesh which Commission supposes his coming from the Father of everlasting as the ground and reason of his undertaking of it This is that which the Prophet David signifieth Psalm XL. 7 8 9. Sacrifice and meat offering thou desirest none mine ears hast thou bored Which the Apostle Heb X. 9. quotes thus A body hast thou fitted for me The taking of our flesh being his giving up of himself for a servant to do Gods message in it as the servant that had his ear bored was to be free no more Exod. XXI 5. Burnt offering and sacrifice for sinne thou acceptest not Then said I loe I come To do thy will O God written of me in the voâ—lume of the Book is my desire yea thy Law is within my heart For his freedome in undertaking this commission as it supposeth a ground why it should be tendered so it importeth that obedience which God rewardeth And this is the cause why our Saviour tells his disciples If you loved me you would be glad that I go to my Father because the Father â—â— greater then I For if the Commission came from him then is he to performe all that the execution thereof inferreth That is to exalt our Lord to that estate which his disciples would be glad of if they knew what it were Nor let any man think that there is any danger of Arrius his heresie in all this I confesse the reasons I have advanced against Socinus do not formally destroy the pretense of the Arrians And the reason is because I find that I cannot kill those two birds with one stone Nor make the reasons that I advance to evidence the meaning of these Scriptures which are in question not to be that which Socinus would have to reach so farre as expresly and formally to destroy that sense which Arrius pretendeth I am confident that who will take the paines to consider that the Word was in the beginning when all was made shall have no ground to say that there was another beginning before the beginning of all things when that Word was made That this word was with God at the beginning as his bosome counseller Shall not sâ—y when God wanted his counsell That this Word was God Shall not say that any Christian is to count that God which is made of nothing That all things were made by it That any thing was made by that which is not God That the glory thereof in our flesh is the glory of the onely begotten Sonne of the Father shall make any difference between the honour of the Father and the honour of the Sonne And so I count it enough that the sense of the Scriptures here pleaded hath in it enough to resist the Arians with though this resistance be not here expressed But thus much is evident that as the Latine Fathers especially since S. Augustine have understood these words to be meant of our Lord Christ according to his humane nature so the Greek Fathers have understood them to be true even according to the divine nature upon that reason which I have declared And S. Hilary of the Latine Church though afore S. Augustine expresseth the reason which I have alledged ab authoritate originis because the priviledge of being Author and originall in respect of the Sonne and holy Ghost is that which they in respect of the Father can have nothing to countervail And this I say because I am perswaded that it is a consideration necessary to the maintaining and evidencing of the Tradition of the Church in this point For those that understand the state of this dispute must needs know that the most ancient writers of the Church Justine the Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Origen and the rest that were before the Council of Nicaea do speak of the Sonne of God as of the Minister and workman to execute the counsels of God in making and governing of the World And therefore are spoken of by very learned men of these times enemies enough to those Heresies as men to be suspected in the sincerity of the Christiane Faith A thing not to be marvailed at in those that believe the expresse act and decree of the present Church to be the reason and ground of believing For upon that account what hinders that to become matter of Faith being decreed by those which are enabled on behalf of the Church which was not matter of Faith an hour before But those that draw the reason why they believe from the evidence which the society communion of the church tender to common sense that nothing could be refused by the whole body thereof but that which appeared to all contrary to that which all have received from the beginning will count it a violent abuse to all reason to make the Christiane Faith larger
Gregory of Nâ—oâ—aesarea may perhaps relish either it was not publickly taken notice of when it was published or passed over in silence for the present in respect of his merit toward the Church As it must be said of his opinion concerning souls flitting into new bodies As for Euseb of Caesarea and the author of the Constitutions which are both charged in this point Eusebius living in the time when the consent of the Church over-ruled the contrary rather evidenceth then interrupteth that Tradition which condemneth him if he agree not with it But the author of the Constitutions is not known at what time he lived to write in the name of Clemens the Apostles Scholar that which for his part he thought most likely to come from the Apostles Whether or no he might think it became him writing in that name to use such terms as he found the ancientest Church-Writers use before the businesse of Arius Whether or no he might mistake himself in doing so I will not dispute But being hard to believe that he writ till the heresie of Arius and Eâ—nâ—mâ—us was down As I can give my self no good reason why he should bring in Arius under the habit of the Apostles so I see the suspicion which he hath contracted in a manner as ancient as the credit of his book in the Church After all this if any man marvail that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria should think so slightly of Arius his opinion as in debating it sometimes to side with him sometimes with his adversaries according to Sozomenus Eccles Hist I. 15. Let him consider that the Ecclesiasticall Historians informe us that the difference of Arius was commenced at a Consistory That is at a meeting of the Clergy to debate the businesse Onely Sozomenus that there had been divers meetings about it In which Alexander had not declared himself but spoken sometimes on this side and sometimes on that Not because there is any appearance in the story that Arius himself could have construed his procedings as if he had been doubtfull which side to choose But because any wise man in his place would have thought it the way to preserve his authority over Arius by not declaring himself party against him till he appeared untractable by that reason which his authority must inforce when it self would not serve the turn As for the great Constantine who in his Leter to the Church of Alexandria declareth many times that the question concerned not the substance of Faith It must be said that being no Christian as yet nor catechized in the Faith his information failed either in matter of fact reporting the position of Arius in such terms as might bear a good construction in which what latitude there is it may appear by the premises or in point of right making that not to concern the substance of Faith which indeed doth For those terms in which all the Ecclesiastical Histories agree that the debate was stated are such as indeed do concern the substance of Faith Neither is there any mark in the writings of the Fathers before this time upon which it can be said that any of them thought that there was a time when the Word of God which being incarnate in our Lord Christ was not but was made by God of nothing after that time Which are the characters that distinguish the heresie of Arius Set aside then the Constitutions Eusebius Origen and his Scholar Dionysius as questionable in point of fact or as granted that the sense of their words is not reconcileable with the Faith in point of right the retraction of Dionysius makes as much more for the Faith then his misprision condemned by Gennadius de Dogm Eccl. Cap. IV. and Facundus X. 5. against it as the rejecting of Sabellius makes more for the same then the doubtfull words of Gregory of Nâ—ocaesarea against That which is to be said thereupon is that there can be therefore no reason to blame the Councill of Nicaea for adding to the Creed the terme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oblige the Arians to the sense of the Church S. Athanasius in his Treatise de Actis Conc. Nicen. hath shewed us that it was introduced to cut off those equivocations whereby they ought to cover their owne sense under those other words which were propounded as capeable of the Catholick sense He that will say that this course ought not to have been held or that having taken effect it ought not to have been retained may as well say that the faith of Christ or the Unity of Gods service in that faith is not to be preserved For being once questioned therâ— must be a Rule and a mark to discern Christians from Hereticks I observe therefoâ—e likewise that the troubles which Arius occasioned in the Church never came to an end till the word person in Latine and hypostasis in Greek was admitted in opposition to the word essence or nature included in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Council of Nicaea had introduced into the Creed that the difference between the Church and Arius might be stated upon the expresse terms of three persons and one nature For it is evident by S. Jerome Epist LVII that the terme of hypostasis for person was not then received who writes to Pope Damasus to be authorized by him whether to admit or to refuse it But as after that time we hear no further question of the term so under the Emperor Gratiane and Pope Damasus we find the dispute extinguished But I say neverthelesse that there is no cause therefore to imagine that the sense of the Church and the faith thereof hath received any change by the use of new terms which the necessity of preventing Hereticks hath obliged the Church to introduce And I say as the others said that the importance and consequence of the said new terms ought to be reduced to that force which the sense of the Church according to the Scriptures alloweth or rather prescribeth And that whosoever shall take upon him under pretense of the most unquestionable decrees that any age of the Church hath produced to prescribe against that sense which the primitive records of the Church do inforce in so doing sets up the authority of that present Church against the Tradition of the Catholick And after all this shall the Socinians be admitted to alledge that S. Hilary quittâ—th a doubt whether the holy Ghost is to be called God or not Surely the Socinians cannot be admitted to alledge this unlesse they will be content to submit to S. Hilary in the whole businesse Nay unlesse they will stand to the Church to which S. Hilary stands But for those that are not Socinians and would be satisfied I will not use that wretched answer of Erasmus in that excellent preface to S. Hilarys works That the Church hath since decreed otherwise As if there were not a reason why the Church so decreed or as if he were not bound to render that reason
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
produceth the other freedome from bondage either to sin or righteousnesse Not that this state of proficience requires actual indifference which supposeth so great an inclination biasse as that of inbred concupiscence Not determining the will to any action or object but the acts thereof to those taints which the want of a due end right reason and therefore of just measure in a mans desire necessarily inferreth But because in passing from the bondage of sin to the love of righteousnesse it is necessary that a man go through an instance of indifference wherein his resolution shall balance betweene the love of true good and that which is counterfeit It is therefore to be acknowledged that in the state of innocence there had needed no other helpe then the knowledge of Gods will to inable men to performe whatsoever he should require Of the spheare of nature supposing Adam instituted and called onely to the uprightnesse and happinesse of this life or supernaturall supposing him instituted and called to the world to come For where no immoderate inclination of the sensuall appetite created any difficulty what should hinder the prosecution of a reason so unquestionable as the will of God is But is not therefore the knowledge of Gods will revealed by the gospell under reasons convincing man of his obligation to doe it upon the account of his utter misery or perfect happinesse the grace of Christ Knowing by the scriptures alleged before that the means of it are purchased by his crosse that where the reason is so convinced there cannot want motives sufficient to incline the will to make choice Not that I think those reasons not being necessary but onely sufficient would take place were they not managed by Gods spirit Whether for the dificulty of supernatural actions or for the contrary biasse of inbred concupiscence But because in the nature of a sufficient helpe they do actually inable a man to make choice though in regard of the difficulties which contrary inclinations create is is most certaine they would prove addle and void of effect were they not conducted by the grace of God which is called effectuall for the event of it Not that the nature of those helps which prevaile is any other then the nature of those which overcome not which I may well affirme if Jansenius though to the prejudice of his opinion can not deny it but because they are by the worke of providence presented in severall circumstances to severall dispositions and inclinations whether of Gods mere will and pleasure as he is Lord of all things or upon reason of reward or punishment in maters wherein he hath declared himself by the Covenant of Grace So that the same reasons and motives which in some prove void and frustrate coming to effect and reaching and attaining to the very doing of the work which they inable a man to doe it cannot â—e said according to this position of mine that God by the grace of Christ onely inableth to do what he requireth the will of man making the difference between him that doth it and him that doth it not but the very act as well as the ability of doing is duely ascribed to the worke of Gods Grace according to the articles agreed by the Church against Pelagius And this not onely under the Gospell but even under the Law For though I showed you in the first book that the law expressely tenders onely the promise of temporall happinesse in holding the land of Canaan for the reward of the outward and carnall observations thereof Yet I showed you also that in the meane time there was an other traffick in driving under hand between God and his people for the happinesse of the world to come upon their obedience to his Law for such reasons and to such an end and with such measures as he requireth Therefore The Law is spirituall according to S. Paul Rom VII 14. and a grace according to S. Iohn I. 16 17. When he saith Of his fulnesse wee have all received and grace for grace For the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ The grace of the Gospell instead of the grace of the Law And S. Paul againe speaketh of the things which are granted us by the Gospell not in wâ—rds taught by mans wisdome but by the Holy Ghost comparing spirituall things with spirituall things 1. Cor. II. 13. Signifying that he taught the Gospell out of the Law comparing the spirituall things of the Gospell as signified by the Law to the same spirituall things as revealed by Christ And againe when he saith Rom. I. 17. The righteousnesse of God is revealed in the Gospell from faith to faith His meaning is proceeding to the faith of Christ from that which was under the Law True iâ— is indeed and I acknowledge that this spirituall sense of the Law was not to be discovered in the Law nor was discovered under it without the revelation of Gods spirit that placed it there to his friends the Prophets and by them to their disciples and followers But the office of those Prophets being to call the people to the spirituall service of God obedience to his Law out of love which was the intent for which his spirit strove with them as with those before the floud Gen. VI. 2. Whereupon Noe is called the preacher of righteousnesse 2. Peter II. 5. it followes of necessity that there was meanes for them to learne to practice true righteousnesse seeing they are charged for resisting the spirit of God calling them to it S Steven in the seventh of the Acts insisteth not in convincing the Jewes of the truth of Christianity supposing it done by that which had passed but inferrs by all that long speech clearely this That as the Israelite refused Moses for a judge between him and the Israelite whom he wronged as the people were rebellious to him in the wildernesse and turned back in their hearts to Egypt so were they to the prophet whom Moses had foretold concluding therefore Ye stifnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and eares ye doe alwaies resisty the Holy Ghost as your fathers so you also Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute Killing those that foretold of the coming of that righteous one of whom you are now become the traytors and murtherers And our Lord when he telleth them that by honouring the memories of the Prophets and persecuting the Prophets and wise and Scribes Apostles whom he was sending them they owned themselves heires of them that killed the Prophets Mat. XXIII 29 37. showeth that the case was the same with the Prophets of old as with himselfe and his Apostles And whatsoever we read in the old Testament of the grace of God to that people in granting them his spirit or of their ungraciousnesse in resisting the same serves to prove the same purpose It is truly said indeed in rendring the reason why our Lord Christ came not till towards
the later end of the world that God meant first to show the world that all other meanes which he thought fit to use to reclaime man by the fathers and by and under the Law were not to purpose that the necessity of his coming might appeare But that this is not to be understood as if God meant to render them inexcusable by using insufficient meanes that could not take effect But that dispensing to those times such meanes of grace as he found the reasons upon which his secret counâ—ailes proceed to require proportionable to the obedience and service which he required then at their hands He reserves the full measure of them to the coming of his Son proportionable to the difficulty of beraing his Crosse which he purposed for the condition of those promises which he brought And the same is to be said of the Fathers under the law of nature Which if we understand it to be so cailed as if the light of nature then taught and inabled them to please God we contradict not onely the faith hitherto maintained against Pelagius but also the appearances in Scripture of those revelations of that cpmmerce and inâ—rcourse with God whereby they advanced to the state of his friends The book of Iob to the time whereof we see this state lusted presenting most evident instances both of Gods correspondence with the Godly of the Gentiles and of Christians piety in their conversations Now to that state of inocence wherein Adam was created it must needs be a grace oâ— God to make knowne his will because it cannot be supposed that God should imploy his creature in his service and not reward him for doing it with advantage But not as if suck knowledg could give him ability but onely determine the matteâ— of his obedience who had nothing to hinder the doing of that which commanded by God must needs be for his advantage to do Since the fall if reasons provided by God to convince the understanding to incline the will to that which he purposeth for our happinesse may and would prove ineffectuall were they not acted and managed by the holy Ghost Let us not therefore so far miâ—â—ken the counsaile of God in providing them as to imâ—gine the worke is not done by them because it is his speciall grace that makes them effectuall to purpose The indowments of Adam how great soever thâ—y were the event sheweth that they might faile and hâ—d they not failed it must have been ascribed to God for a greater grace then those indowments in as much as these made him accountable to God that would have inâ—itled him to a reward So that by this account it will be no marvaâ—le that the grace of Christ which saveth us in and through this weakenesse of iâ—bred concupâ—scence should be counted greater then that which Adam had in his inâ—â—â—ncy And the same is to be said of the Angels that fell and those that stood How great soever their indowments were had not the motive whatsoever it was that prevailed with the one part to depart from God been prevenâ—ed of taking effect with the rest it might have come to passe as well in all as in some That it did not what can it be ascribed to all being turâ—â—shed with abilities fully corespondent to that which God required at theâ— hands but some dispensation of Gods secret counsail being by no reason of his declared Justice obliged otherwise Not that the Will of Adam or of Angels was not able to doe what God required and hâ—d done it of â—â— selfe without any help added by God But because so gâ—eat is the influence of the makers providence that the events thereof how justly soevâ—â— imputable to the choice of the creature must of necessity have their springs in and from the secret dispensation thereof not concerning his justice Seeing then that as I said before the opinion of Jansenius though it gives account wherein the grace of Christ formally consisteth yet gives no account from whence effectively it proceedeth but the immâ—diate wâ—ll of God â—he question demanding upon what ground it redounds to mans accâ—uâ—t Let them either look about them for a better reason or accept of thâ—s not a destrâ—ying that which it saith but to the introducing of that which it saâ—eth not For it is agâ—eed upon both waies that it is delight in true goodness for the love of God that makes the grace of Christs Gospell effâ—ctual in mens lives and conversations How by the act of that wil which in others rejects it â—â—ndevour to say what the scriptures and faith of the Church will allow But Jansenius his opinion goes no further then that so it is to wit because love is free therefore man is freâ—ly saved howsoever love be brought to passe But the necessity of those actions to which grace determineth which is antecedent in Jansenius his opinion the cause which is Gods will being undeâ—easible iâ— in mine onely consequent upon suposition of efficacy which implyes the being of that which comes to effect grounded upon the foreknowledg of God which supposes the free motion of the reasonable creature If the advantage be such in reconciling the efficacy of grace with the free will of the creature in reconciling the same with Gods foreknowledge and effectuall providence extending to all good and bad it will appeare much more For had Jansenius done his businesse in the mater of supernaturall grace he had not obliged us much unlesse his resolution were an overture to abate the generall difficulty thâ—t remaines But if he sends us for that to the predetermination of God which is said to be requisite upon the geneâ—all account of the creature and the indifference of mans will he leaves us to seeke for a reason how God is not the author of that sin which he determineth the will to do before it determine it selfe If we avoid that as Doctor Strang whom I spoke of before hath done by maintayning against Doctor Twisse that the will is not determined by God to the actions of sin Besides that he is to give account why the same providence of God which is generall to all things should be thought to teach this sort not that all actions as appendâ—nces of Gods creatures having the same dependence upon God which the prerogative of the first cause requi eth we are leâ—t to seeke how that foreknowledge of God which directeth his providence comes informed of the truth of future contingencies For if wee maintaine that the wisdome of God comprehending the inclinations of his creatures and all those considerations which outward occurrences or inward appearances shall present or not present them with to determine their choice cannot thereby cetainely discerne what will come to passe as Doctor Strang maintaines that so there cannot be in God any certtine knowledge of future conditionalls I leave to them that shall peruse this writing what satisfaction it is possible for him to give in the possibility of foreknowing