determined to any one Province or Nation is very groundless and injurious to the whole design Christ had in propagating the Faith For the said commission of Christ given to his Apostles was not Lex but Jus a Right to Act not a Precept indispensably enjoyning the execution according to the full extent of the Letter Again It was not said to each singly Go and teach all nations but to all conjoyntly So that to all it was a direct Precept which was fulfilled if all Nations were by all the Apostles not all by each of them instructed in Christ But the interpretation which taks All nations to be rather understood negatively in opposition to the Jewish Church which enviously denyed the like Priviledges of salvation to the Gentiles which they claimed proper to themselves rather then positively as if by virtue of Christs injunction they were necessitated to pass all the world over which it is certain that neither any one nor all ever did the intention of Christ being to open a wide door of Grace to all Nations so far as humane ability could ordinarily promote the work quite disables that argument As it was lawful therefore for all the Apostles and every one of them to pass into any Part of the world so was it not unlawful to make choise of some one considerable portion wherein to move and officiate according to his Place For otherwise how should it be lawful for them to continue in some one City two three or seven years as 't is as certain as any thing in History can be that some of them did taking a peculiar and pastoral care thereof and its Appendages Now because as their Presence was finite in reference to place so their lives were to time therefore when in any one large Province they could not manage immediately themselves every City of note and command they assigned certain Substitutes to continue and promote what they had begun even during their lives in many Countries And departing this life left them to succeed in a perpetual line to all ages not by intrusion and spontaneous invasion possessing themselves of Rule and Authority over others but according to the same form that themselves were sent by Christ For Christ not only sent his Apostles but enabled them to send others in the like Pastoral charge And these Apostolical Pastours together with that personal Power given them to be exercised by them had also a real paternal Power to constitute others of the like or inferiour order as necessary emergencies required upon the increase of the Professours of Christian Religion as may in due place be more cleerly proved From hence a reason may be rendred of the Opinion of some very sober Bilson and learned Defenders of Episcopal Government who seeing neither the Apostles alone to govern the Church nor Bishops alone have said It is very hard to determine what was the Discipline of the Church in the very Primitive times of all For surely while the Apostles lived the Government of the Church was Apostolical and not properly Episcopal because those Elders otherwise called Bishops said in Scripture to be set over Cities were themselves wholly at the beck and disposal of the Apostles ordaining them and governed and taught under them no otherwise than a Priest may be under a Bishop in all subjection But the Apostles dying and their intire power also with them part of it devolved unto that Person who before in their Right presided over such a Church the Apostolicalness excepted which consisted in an immediate Ordination to that Office by Christ and illimitedness as to the exercise thereof with other signal gifâ—s and graces not here to be insisted on and was properly Episcopal which consisted in an Authority derived from the Apostles and consequently from Christ to govern the Church and not only present for their dayes but because it was to continue to all Ages which it could not without Governours and Teachers to ordain such who should ordain others without interruption for ever And these not only such who should succeed them in the like Pastoral care but who might together with them though under them by their counsel and labours as the common Fathers of the Church take part of his charge upon them in teaching and governing such a portion of that Church as was allotted them And these were called Priests or Presbyters And as the Bishop was constrained Christians multiplying to ordain an assistent Presbyter to him so when the People under that Presbyter increased so far that it was too difficult for him to discharge all Offices of publick and private ministration it was found expedient to ordain an inferiour Officer in the Church to him for his assistance called a Deacon or Minister Not that these two last Orders themselves were of humane or moderner Institution than the Apostles dayes but that they might be likewise undetermined in the place of their Function to any particular Person until the consummation of the Apostolical age But in truth it is hard to determine what the Scripture intends speaking of Deacons and therefore I offer this mean opinion as not inconsistent with theirs who hold them of Apostolical Institution nor with theirs who make them much later For the first may be true as to the Office which was a degree Ecclesiastical as St. Paul intimateth and the other as to the manner of exercise in reference to one place and one presiding there And the like seems most probable concerning the Evangelists who were persons commissioned by the Apostles to preach the Gospel under them without any determination to a certain place or people and saving this large Licence were in no higher degree than simple Presbyters the Apostles themselves presiding in all such places as Pastours But when they were by their farther Authority fixt to one City and Country with a power to create Successours or Co-adjutors in the Government of that Church then they became formal and proper Bishops For the allegation of them is most frivolous who would elude the express testimonies of Scripture affirming that Timothy and Titus were Bishops by saysaying they were Evangelists For by the same reason they may deny they were Presbyters because probably they were Evangelists and so make them of no order in the Church or of another which is yet unknown to the world which whatever it may please men to call it certainly it must be founded on Priestly Power or else they could not have regularly acted as they did Neither was it as some may phansie to degrade such Evangelists whose faculty extended to all places to be confined to one afterward as Bishop First because such power was more truly indetermined to one than extending actually to all For it depended on the pleasure of the Apostles to send them to what place they thought fit Secondly this fixing of them to one place was not without the accession of power of Government as well as preaching which is no where found to
it implies as much as to say Give us but our demands and then we will be quiet by which Rule no man should defend his own right in lesser matters which to part with perhaps would not utterly undo him but he must be lookt on as accessary to and guilty of his own destruction if the Invader shall have power enough to bring it upon him because he will not peaceably satisfie his unjust desires A man may be and our Saviour in the Gospel saith expresly Luk. 16. 10. is unjust in the least as well as in much And so undoubtedly are they who having no Autority but what they frame to themselves shall by violence and aggressions attempt to extort the least thing belonging of right to another though haply better spar'd than kept For it is a Case of Justice rather than Christianity In justice and common equity the inferiour members of a Church and state owe obedience to their Superiours in all things not contrary to the Law of God the Church or the Nation but at most they can claim such things that are as they say indifferent to be granted them out of Courtesie or Charity only And whoever was so wilfully stupid as not to perceive that Injustice is much more a sin than Uncharitableness and so whatever mischief or guilt shall fall out in such contentions must necessarily light upon the heads of the unjust Aggressour and not indiscreet Resister were it indiscretion to withstand to deny such bold and insolent demanders or uncharitableness both which are denied in the present Case For there can be nothing more unjust on the one side and unwise on the other than so rudely and unrighteously to require of another all that may be granted or to grant all such things as are so demanded And if they urge still The peace of the Church to require such concessions I shall answer Let them first as all good Christians ought to do observe the Peace of Nature and the Peace of Nations which is not to offer violence nor to be unjust nor to go out of their Rank and Order but with good Autority and then take care for the Peace of the Church But what can be more absurd than that men should break the Peace of Nations and Nature it self yea the Law of God and Scriptures which require to obey all that are in autority over us as well Ecclesiastically as Civilly and then so much as to mention the Peace of the Church especially calling that only the Peace of the Church which puts them into quiet possession of their desires But to this we add that it is also very false which is here supposed to be true For there is nothing more manifest than that with diverse things of indifferent nature they mix many things of indispensable use to a Church and such is that so much reproached and derided Hierarchie which all the earth sees they have made it their business to Destroy utterly And when we plainly see as we do that those things in nature indifferent are demanded chiefly as an introduction to a farther abolition of things we hold necessary we hold them no longer indifferent nor can we in common prudence or Christianity part with them to such person any more than we can in a neighbourly manner lend away an Ax or Hammer when we are assured they will be made use of to break open our houses and spoil us though we know they may possibly be made use of to other purposes The Second Obstacle rather than Objection cast in our way is the parity of their Case with the Church of England with that of the Church of England with the Roman wherein whether they show more Spite or Policy may be a question Their Policy imitates them who finding the war to lie heavy upon them at their own doors contrive by all means possible to translate it into another Country as was particularly seen in Hindersons Letter to his late Sacred Majesty who finding the ability of his pen and weight of his discourses advised him rather to turn himself against the common enemy the Papist And thus these men would needs oblige us to make our quarrel good against the Romanists that they may be the les molested in the pursuance of their most Schismatical designs against the Church in which they were educated And this being discovered we might well excuse ourselves from such a task as they would set us But this we have before resolved in good part and had we not might and shall in a very few words dispatch as somewhat out of its proper place We grant then there is a Schism between us and the Romanists And we grant that there can be no cause to be Schismaticks though for a Separation there may and that they are truly Schismaticks who have ministred just Cause of Separation Some we know out of an ancient Father have urged against us That there can be no cause to divide the Church which is true in two senses only First when that Church is not before really divided from other Churches of unquestion'd integrity Realy I say by deserting some considerable point of Faith or introducing some unchristian manner of worship though not Openly and Formally as hath been said Again it is true only in such junctures as the Father spake those words in which was an apt and orthodox agreement within itself both in Faith and manners in such Cases there can be no cause to divide the Church as did the Novatians and Donatists But it was never his purpose to say that no case could happen in which it was not lawful for one Church to leave the Communion of another when it was so often done So still the point is wholly whether cause was given or not and not whether such outward and wilful Separation was made For undoubtedly however some would mince the matter Separate we did and that wilfully from the Church of Rome and chose rather than were forced to go out And upon those very grounds we still stand out and refuse to return The gross corruptions there maintained and not lurking and the fear of the loss of our souls in there continuing and much more thither returning What those are hath been even now touched and we here add that notwithstanding 't is confessed such senses are found of their doctrine and superstitious worship in some private authors amongst them which they offer at first to them they would seduce which may put persons into a possibility of their continuing without incurring damnation yet the Publick autority of that Church which I suppose they will call their Church having evermore of late years censur'd purged and expunged such more tollerable constructions and appeared for the most harsh and uncatholick there can be no great regard had to the fairer opinions Again it is not sufficient that a Church hath a true sense of Christian Faith if it alloweth and commendeth a false and a wicked sense 'T is little to the
contrary A Third abuse noted by Mr. Perkins is That a man may say the Canonical hours of one day for another which may be an abuse or no abuse as the matter is ordered To neglect wilfully ones usual prayers is certainly ill but having so done to double his prayers the next day is no such error as may be supposed Much besides this may be said out of the Authority of the Church and more out of Scripture than may be found for some things by Puritans religiously observed Much likewise is here wont to be said about the Hours themselves the reason and number of them but I cut off all them at present and resolve all into the general reasonableness and piety of such a practice and the manifold benefit which may accrue unto the serious and devout user of them though he ties not himself to any one form strictly and so shall rest till I can hear what can be objected worthy of a Christian against them more than I have found already which may be as well objected against Morning and Evening prayer as them CHAP. XIV The Third thing to be considered in the Worship of God viz. The true Object which is God only That it is Idolatry to misapply this Divine Worship What is Divine Worship properly called Of the multitude and mischiefs of New distinctions of Worship Dulia and Latria though distinct of no use in this Controversie What is an Idol Origen's criticisme of an Idol vainly rested on What an Image What Idolatry The distinction of Formal and Material Idolatry upon divers reasons rejected The Papists really Idolatrous notwithstanding their good Intentions pretended Intention and Resolution to worship the true God excuse not from Idolatry Spalato Forbes and others excusing the Romanists from thence disproved That Idolatry is not always joyned with Polytheism or worshipping more Gods than one How the Roman Church may be a true Church and yet Idolatrous FRom the nature kinds acts circumstances of Place and Times of Prayer we pass to the object of this worship of Invocation and Adoration which is the most important of all and which as duly observed is the end complement and perfection of all Religion so mistaken is the foulest of all errors and the highest of all provocations and affronts of almighty God who Isa 42. 8. protesteth by his Prophet upon this occasion I am the Lord that is my name and my glory will I not give unto another neither my praise unto graven Images This therefore it were superfluous to prove which all Christians yea almost all the world as well Unchristian as Christian doth readily and unanimously assent to That God only is the proper object of Divine or Religious worship And they that glory that they stick firmly to this what do they more than do Infidels and Heathens who all hold that God is to be worshipped with supreamest worship and that Idolatry is a notorious errour and offence against him This I say all rational men assent to in the notion that the worship of the true God or which seems to be the very same the true worship of God is to be given only to God and yet fall flat into the Practice of that great sin For though Idolatry be so odious in its name yet in its nature it is very pleasing and ravishing of our senses and hath of late days been so fairly and neatly trimmed up by the fine wits and curious hands of men and they especially Christians and they more especially Catholiques God bless us that now there is either no such thing to be found in the world or that the least sin one of them in the world And this is brought about by the ministry and help of innumerable distinctions which I think may be reduced to these two heads viz. to those concerning the Act of worshipping and those concerning the Object of worship Concerning the Act we find such as these very common and current first Natural and Civil and Divine and Religious And these again Properly Divine or Improperly supream and Inferior Direct and Indirect Absolute and Relative Ultimate and subalternate or subordinate Mediate and Immediate For it s own sake or for anothers sake Again for its own sake which we worship as a thing in it self or as a Representation of another All these but these are not all to be found in Learned Authors books to rectifie the worlds errours in its Religion And besides these more may be found concerning the Object but this one shall I only name which is their strongest Hold and Refuge That to secure them from all assauls of Adversaries this to receive them when they shall by strong hand at any time be beaten out of their fastnesses And that is that modern but very famous distinction of Material and Formal So that some of no mean knowledge have thus defended themselves What if for instance in the Mass we should by errour worship that as God which is not God yet this would be but Material Idolatry at the most and not Formal seeing we believe that to be very God which we so adore and Material Idolatry with such circumstances we must suppose is one of the least sins that we can be subject to Thus have some discoursed to me though 't is well known some others of them as Costerus do acknowledge that if Costerus Enchirid Catholicks miss their mark and that be not really God which they with divine worship adore in the Sacrament they are gross Idolaters Of this we shall speak more by and by Now are we to consider first of the first sort of distinctions to pass over all which by a particular examination would be too tedious a task for my self and Reader too I shall therefore only examine the most reasonable and comprehensive of them and them I take to be that of Worship Civil and Divine and of Absolute and Relative not omitting altogether others And to understand clearly what is meant by Divine Worship we are to enquire whether the Act makes the Worship or the Object For all worship as other Acts moral takes it specification from the Object as Philosophers say then unless the Object be Divine or God himself cannot the Worship be Divine and so by consequence a man cannot give Divine Worship though he would never so fain unto an object not Divine and so cannot though he would commit Idolatry because the worship it self is not Divine but much inferior because the object is such which constitutes not Divine Worship being some Creature But if the Act in its own nature be intrinsecally Divine it would be known what is that which makes it so For they say all acts external are equivocal and dubious in themselves and indifferent to Civil Religious Inseriour or Supream worship and that nothing can be concluded from thence Idolatrous For we bow the head we bend the knee we fall down at the feet of men many times whom we give no Idolatrous worship unto
consent and sentence is the same in effect with Excommunication and therefore breeders of separation and divisions are no less subject to excommunications than are Hereticks though they hold nothing directly contrary to the Faith But if men will say that What St. Paul did we may do and no more because he did no more this is invented only to destroy but will not hold strong enough because the examples of the Governours of the Church our Rules are not to be restrained to the very same Cases only but to them of like general nature St. Paul justifyes by his practice the excluding out of the communion of the Church such as bred causeless contentions and divisions and from hence the succeeding Governors are justified in doing the like For nothing can be said less to the question in hand than to recite many places out of St. Paul commanding to bear one anothers burdens and that we should not judge one another and that the strong should bear with the weak and such like For all these Texts speak either of Churches not Formed or constituted but rather breeding or of single persons amongst themselves coming to Christian Religion with the strong prepossessions of the Excellency of certain Rites before Religiously observed wherein all Reason Justice and Religion require that no man should impose his conceit upon another without autority But do we find in any place of the Holy Scriptures that St. Paul denied this Right of Judging censuring and commanding to the whole Church Nothing less yea nothing more than the contrary as may more fully appear when we are to speak of Rites and Ceremonies But it is commonly and as they think accutely said that they are the Authors of divisions and Schisms who will not do what they may to prevent them And therefore if Governours impose more then is necessary to salvation or Faith upon others they must answer for the divisions arising from this I may marvel who before late years I may say rather dayes ever understood the Scriptures in this manner but they will wonder perhaps again I should think they are no better interpreters and appliers of Scriptures than are to be found in times and societies of old Let that pass But so must not their mistake either of the power of the Church or the nature of Charity and common Justice The power of the Church being meerly ministerial and servile as to Christ and the Rule of all Christianity the Scripture but Magisterial in relation to inferiour members extendeth only to things of Christian Prudence and extrinsecal to Faith and the things uncommanded in Scripture properly For in other things it is determined without any power to vary from thence this done utterly destroyes all Right and Autority as to outward matters which they can never themselves approve of in the practise nor have done But this is not all for we say that those Governors are not the cause of Divisions and Schisms who do not suspend and withdraw all Injunctions extrinsecal to Faith or good life but they rather who do not receive and obey such as are not contrary to either This is the state of the controversie then between us supposing there is Order and Legitimate autority constituted amongst us whether this is more or so much bound for peace and unity sake to gratifie such as are in their rank subject in the Lord to them in all things possible according to the Scripture or these on the contrary are obliged to receive and observe all such decrees and constitutions which are indeed much accused and traduced but cannot be proved to be any wayes contrary to the word of God or any Analogy of Faith which is not devised by themselves And granting there were somewhat of Charity in reluxing of the rigour of Orders to be observed is there not much more of Charity to be expected from them in obeying How can they so vehemently urge that upon others which they are much more bound to keep and practise themselves but never reguard it Does not Charity much more bind them to obey their Superiours then their Superiours them Nay can they lay any claim to a thing upon the account of Charity who deny the same thing upon the account of Justice Justice and a debt of obedience flowing from subjection requires no less than Charity a compliance of the Wills of the Inferiour with that of the Superiour But only Charity can be pretended and that only pretended where there seems to be an indifference in the thing commanded For if they betake themselves to the inward temper and bent of particular consciences opposing or approving things they must needs come off Loosers by such trials For there will soon be found consciences on the contrary that will be as stiff and resolute for the defense as theirs are for the abrogations of such indifferent things No reason is possible to be given why one conscience may not think as well of them finding them not forbidden as another doth evil finding them not commanded For the too vulgar doctrine which teacheth That what is not commanded is forbidden in Scripture is as notorious a falsity as any thing can be pretended upon the Scripture But farther we absolutely declare against all such tryals of Publick Laws and Customes as Particular and especially private consciences as unjust and unreasonable and in trut intollerable in all Churches This is the Rule we maintain and hold to That nothing ought to be ordained or imposed which may justly offend the conscience and that is only evil If therefore the thing it self be acknowledged or may reasonably be proved to contain nothing sinfull which only may offend the conscience it is one of those evils which cannot be avoided and such of which Christ speaketh in the Gospel of St. Luk. 17. â—1 Luke It is impossible but that offences will come For either the dissenting or Assenting conscience must suffer and which should in such cases suffer who should determine but Autority Was ever that chosen for a Rule which is infinite in uncertainties So are mens consciences in particular But still they are Instant and say We grant such things may be left undone without prejudice to the Faith And to the same argument we return the same answer in effect as before viz And they grant they may be done without prejudice to the Faith But their Case is little less than ridiculous if it be truly considered what they lay down and what they crave at our hands For Peace sake say they we ought to yield what is not unlawful and all indifferent things As if they much more were not so bound to do But that we now add is That there being two Parties diversly constituted yet as 't is supposed differing only in things of a middle nature between Good and Evil. If the one Partie should come unto the other promising to have peace and be at unity with it on condition that it would yield all things that they
upon us it is evident that they are to be understood not of the ordinary Baptism by Water but the extraordinary of the Holy Ghost sometimes preventing Baptism as appears in the Acts more than once Other reasons out of Scripture Act. 10. 41. brought to this purpose do prove only that to repeat Baptism is needless but not damnable For the Ethiopians who are reported to Baptize Breerwoods Enquirit themselves once a year on the same day that Christ was Baptized do it as the History of them tells not so much implying an invalidity in one Baptism as a convenience to bring to mind the Baptism of Christ on Epiphany perhaps reckoning the precept of Christ given to Communicate in Remembrance of him might hold to the obliging them to repeat Baptism in remembrance of his Baptism CHAP. XLI Of the second Principal Sacrament of the Gospel the Eucharist Its names Its parts Internal and External It s matter Bread and Wine And the necessity of them Of Leavened and Vnleavened Bread Of Breaking the Bread in the Sacrament VVE now come to the Second most proper and necessary Sacrament known by several names as that of The Supper of the Lord in our Church Catechisms not because our Lord Christ made his Supper of it or ever intended we should but because at his Last Supper upon the Paschal Lamb and the conclusion of it he instituted this for his Apostles and all Faithful peoples spiritual benefit as a Spiritual Repast or Supper nourishing them to eternal Life In answer to which we read of the Promise of Christ in the Revelations Behold Rev. 3. 20. I stand at the door and Knock if any man hear my voice and open the door I will come into him and will Sup with him and he with me And St. Paul more expresly to the Corinthians When ye come together therefore 1 Cor. 11. 20. into one place this is not to eat the Lords Supper distinguishing hereby this Sacred Supper from the more ordinary communion which those first Christians had in their Charitable meetings to eat and drink together to their mutual edification and comfort From whence their Cavils seem to be groundless who with some scorn reject this name in use much amongst the Reformed fearing somewhat derogatory to those Sacred Mysteries And upon the same grounds likewise do they shun the name of the Lords Table lest the word Altar which seems to them more sacred should be less accounted of And yet without reason For surely where St. Paul calls those holy Mysteries The Table of the Lord he speaketh not properly but Metonymically 1 Cor. 10. 21. not of the Material Table on which they were placed but of the Adjuncts which were the Sacramental Elements Though it be plain that from this Supper of the Lord the Table furnished with it took its denomination of the Lords And that not only in Scriptures but amongst Primitive writers too And Altar of the Lord it was called only Metaphorically not properly by both no otherwise than the Lords day was called by way of Analogy The Sabbath day From the Form used at the celebration of those Mysteries it was called Eucharist which was Thanksgiving as Mathew 26. 26 27. From the Effect which was double Communion with Christ and with the Members of Christs Body the Faithful it was termed Communion 1 Cor 10. 16. From the Matter of which it consisted The Body and Blood of Christ Corin ibid. And many more less considerable appellations have been received in the Church to be passed over in this short view wherein we are rather to enquire into the Nature of it in these Particulars viz 1. The Author 2. The Matter 3. The Form 4. The Ends and Effects For the Author It is without controversy Christ himself the histories of the Gospels plainly so affirming Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. Luc. 22. 19. And St. Paul to the Corinthians 1 Epist 11. 23. It having nothing herein peculiar to it it being necessary to all Sacraments so properly called that they be Instituted of God or Christ as is above proved The Greatest contention of all is concerning the Subject-matter of this Blessed Sacrament not in a few words to be opened or composed The clearest way to proceed in this disquisition is First to consider the External Part and then the Internal The External are the Signs or Elements appointed by Christ to insinuate and represent unto us his Passion or as his own express words are to bring to remembrance his death and Passion This do in remembrance of me And what is here only recorded by the Evangelists Luk. 22. 19. to have been said of the Bread St. Paul affirmeth to have been likewise spoken of the Cup Do this as often as ye drink it in remembrance 1 Cor. 11-25 of me declaring unto us the use and end of the Institution of these Signs But before we go any further it will be necessary in our way to distinguish the twofold most principal and common acceptation of the word Sacrament here For sometimes it is taken Complexly for the whole ministration of the Lords Supper and at other times only for the Material Part of it which again is sometimes taken for the External or signifying Part the Elements and sometimes for the Internal or things by them signified which are the Body and Blood of Christ and that not simply and absolutely but as under the consideration of his Bitter death and Passion and that for our sakes The Elemental and External parts of this Sacrament are to be considered two ways First before the celebration or consecration of the same and then after First then it is generally agreed to on all sides that our Saviour Christ took natural Bread and natural Wine most commonly in use in those Countreys and therefore in all reason this ought to be a constant binding prescription to all that minister and use that Sacrament and not to vary from the very kind used by him when ever it can with any tolerable care and cost be obtained But seeing that Christ in all probability without any scrupulous choice of Wheat or Rye or Barley or any one single Grain made use of that which was in ordinary use at Meals amongst them and there being no express word which of these he took there appears no reason why any one of which Bread may be made for the service and life of Man may not be taken to this purpose And especially considering that the end of the Institution which is said to be the representing of Christs death and Passion and the affecting us thereby may no less be performed by the one sort than the other Yet where the constant practice of the Church confirmed by positive Injunctions hath determined the kind it can be no ways free or safe for any unnecessarily to vary from that It is of much greater difficulty to determine What is to be done in the cases of such both extreme Northern as
may clear our selves thus First by putting a difference between the Church so united as is here supposed to rightly denominate it the Catholick or Universal Church and the Church disunited and divided long before any Reformation came to be so much as called for in these western Parts with attempts to put such desires into practice The division or Schism between the Western and Eastern Churches happened about the years 860 and 870 under Nicholas the first of Constantinople and Adrian the Second Bishop of Rome Where the guilt was is of another subject But the Schism rested not here but infested the Greek Church also subdividing the Armenian from the Constantinopolitan Now in such Case as this which is as much different from that of the Donatists who divided from all these entirely united together as may be who can conclude a Division from the Church so divided long before a Schism ipso facto because a Division was made from one Part of it calling itself indeed the Catholick Church Had therefore Reformers so divided from the Catholick Church united as did the Donatists it were more than probable that their division might from thence be known to be Schism without any more ado but it is certain it was quite otherwise And therefore some other Conviction must be expected besides that Characteristick And what must that be The Infallibility of any one Eminent Church which like a City on a Mountain a Beacon on a Hill a Pharus or Lighttower to such as are like to shipwrack their Faith may certainly direct them to a safe Station and Haven And all this to be the Church or See of Rome But alas though this were as desirable as admirable yet we have nothing to induce us to receive it for such but certain prudent inferences that such there is because such there ought to be for the ascertaining dubious minds in the truth and therefore so say they actually it is and lest humane reason should seem too malapert to teach what divine Autority ought to do therefore must the Scripture be canvas'd and brought against the best Presidents in Antiquity to the Contrary to Patronize such necessary Dogms The matter then returns to what we at first propounded viz. the Judging of Schism from the Causes and of the Causes from the Scriptures and the more Genuine and ancient Traditions of Christs Church before such Schism distracted the same These two things therefore we leave to be made Good by Romanists in which they are very defective First that there is any One Notorious infallible Judge actually constituted whereby we may certainly discern the Schismaticalness or Hereticalness of any one Church varying from the truth and this because It were to be wish'd a Judg were somewhere extant Secondly that what ever Security or Safety of Communion is to be found in the Visible Church properly and inseparably belongs to the Roman Church because some of the Ancients tell the time when it did not actually err But if our proofs be much more strong and apparent which declare that actually it doth err and wherein it doth err what an empty and bootless presumption must it needs be to invite to its communion upon her immunity from Erring or to condemn men of Schism for this only That they communicate not with it which is the bold method of Roman Champions THE Second BOOK OF THE FIRST PART CHAP. I. Of the Formal Object of Christian Faith Christ An Entrance to the treating of the Objects of Faith in Particular AND Thus far have we treated of Religion in General and specially of Christian Religion or Faith in its Rule the Scriptures Its Causes its Effects its Contraries its Subject the Church in its several Capacities Now we are briefly to treat of the Particular Object Christian Faith That as God is the true and proper Author of Christian Faith he is also the principal Object is most certain and apparent and is therefore by the Schools called the Formal Object that is either that which it immediately and most properly treats of or for whose sake other things spoken of besides God and Christ are there treated of For other Religions as well as Christian treat of God and the works of God but none treat of God or his works as consider'd in Christ his Son but the Christian For the two Greatest Acts which have any knowledge of of God being Creation and Redemption both these are described unto us in Holy Writ to be wrought by God through Christ Jesus as the Book of Proverbs and of Wisdom intimate to us when they shew how God in Wisdom made the Worlds Christ being the true Wisdom of the Father And more expresly in the entrance into the Gospel of St. John Joh. 1. 2 â— the Word of God being Christ is said to be in the beginning with God and All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made And St. Paul to the Ephesians affirmeth All things to be created by God Eph. 3. 9. Col. 1. 15 16. by Jesus Christ And to the Colossians speaking of Christ the Image of the Invisible God addeth For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in the Earth Visible and Invisible c. This therefore discriminates the treating of things natural in Christian Theologie from all other Sciences and Theologies that all is spoken of in relation to Christ Jesus Therefore having in the beginning of this Tract spoken of God in General as supposed rather than to be proved in Divinity viz. of his absolute Being his Unity being but one His Infiniteness being all things in Perfection and Power we are here to resume that matter and continue it by a more particular enquiry into the Nature Attributes Acts and Works of God here supposing what before we have spoken of the First notion of Gods Being and those immediately joined with them His Unity and Infiniteness which Infiniteness necessarily inferreth all other Attributes proper to him as of Power Prefence in all places and all times and Omniscience and therefore here we shall speak only of the Nature or Being of God in the more peculiar sense to Christians that is being distinct in Persons as well as One in Nature CHAP. II. Of the special consideration of God as the object of Christian Faith in the Vnity of the Divine Nature and Trinity of Person FROM the Unity or singularity of Gods nature as to number doth flow an Unity and Simplicity of that one Individual Nature in it self For as the Nature of God cannot be found in several and separate Persons subsisting by themselves as may the nature of man so neither ought we to imagin that there is multiplicity of natures constituting the same God For as there are not many Gods differing Generically as there are Bodies Celestial and Podies Terrestial and again of Terrestial some Bodies Elemental and uncompounded naturally Other Mixt and compounded and such are Fish Foul
wonderful dangerous abuse of the Old Testaments Autority not to be content to admit an invalidity of proofs drawn from thence to confirm Evangelical Duties but to make it no small presumption against the Evangelicalness of any duty that it is first found in the Old Testament which is a gross abuse of Scripture especially by them who would be held enemies to Antimonians They ought therefore first of all to show that such things are purely Legal that is as the Law it self is Mosaical and Typical and Ceremonial before they can damn them there for no better reason but there they find them Add to this when we challenge them to the most ancient and manifold Presedents of the Christian Church who constantly made Vows of various natures to God they presently betake themselves to their common subterfuge pretence of appeal to the Word of God as a Rule and that without any respect to any not truly divine Guides otherwise directing And this they do as confidently as if it had been concluded out of Scripture to the contrary For in such cases indeed their appeal would be most just and reasonable but until that little better then ridiculous especially Scripture being before advised about and appearing not definitive in the case Antiquity and Holy precedents consulted with the better to know the mind of Scripture For instance that text of St. Paul to Timothy saith of young Widows They have damnation in themselves because 1 Tim. 5. 12. they have cast off their first Faith Many of late dayes interpret the Apostle to mean only the Faith of Christ in general Others understand him to speak of a Faith particularly made to Christ by the Order of Widows vowing singleness of life and in all reason this seems to be most favoured by the context But besides this appeal is made by the one party to the judgment of the ancient and holy Christians interpreting this both by their writings and practise as relating specially to the dedication of Widowhood to God After this fair dealing for men to declare they will be tryed by none but that which they know is the main thing in question is very vain and somewhat more They having no special text so interdicting such Vows as this is to commend them But the worst of it is this that if there were any way more perfect then that they have pitched on they should be sufferers in the good opinion of the world but that must by no means be endured And this at the end of all is the great absurdity they bring us to but surely not so great but both the Cause and Defenders of it may well show their face after all this granted and owned The second thing now in the third place to be touched is concerning the Nature of a Vow in it self viz. That so it is no proper act nor any proper part of Gods Service but the manner of it For to vow to God is an indifferent thing to Good or Evil. A man may as well vow to Gods dishonour as his glory It is therefore good or evil in relation to the matter about which the Vow is made For to vow Sacrifices under the Law and to vow Alms under the Gospel or Virginity or such like is no farther part of the Service of God then the thing it self tends to the worship of God and its nature and office is to bind to the true and due performance of a thing but not absolutely a duty in its self The principle doubt on the contrary may be that which is taken from that which a man devotes to God as an ingredient to all vows For when a man vows he of a free man makes himself servile and limited to one of those things to which formerly he was free And this we have shewed is an argument of some against vowing because it takes away the liberty God had given On the other side the contrary party may in my judgment turn it against them and make it an argument of worth and excellencie because it gives to God that which is to us most precious For when St. Paul saith If you may be free use it rather and stand fast in the liberty where with Christ hath made you free he undoubtedly means only in reference to man and then only when we really have and not presume only that we have such a liberty and when this liberty is that which pertaineth to the substance of the Gospel as most of those places alledged to found a liberty do aim at But do they think as it should seem that either Natural Civil or Evangelical Liberty is such a thing and so given unto us of God that we may not render it to him nor part with it again to him Is it too good or sacred to give him it from whom we received it Nay the more dear and precious it is to us the more acceptable it should be to him When we deny our selves the liberty he hath given us the better to serve him surely it is no less pleasing to God than to part with meat drink money and the time which he hath given us dedicating the same to him It is strange therefore next to monstrous that Christians should stumble so at the Scriptures and they especially who will scarce allow any man to be cunning in the Scriptures besides themselves or to be governed by them as they pretend to be as to make such fond conclusions from them the contrary to which is much the truer To give away our liberty to God is an excellent Sacrifice to him and they would prove out of Scripture we ought not to give it him at all For if they prove not this they prove nothing when they say we ought not to make vows to him because it takes away our liberty And therefore to the argument viz. that by this it should follow that vowing is in it self an act or part of Gods worship I answer That if any thing here be an act of worshipping God it is the giving up it self of our liberty and not the vowing to give it up for this is but the means and manner so to serve and worship God and not the worship it self And thus much Perkins Perkins Cases of Conscience Chap. 14. Lib. 2. acknowledges in vows about bodily exercises such as Fasting Prayers and Alms but likes not it so to be in other matters Indeed as he confusedly and crudely touches the point passing from the nature of a Vow in it self which was his question unto the matter he might very well write against some vows and prove them unlawful when the thing it self is unlawful to be done whether with or without a vow such as are ceremonial acts of the Law of Moses and moral evils against truth justice or piety it self And thus much of the form of vowing the lawfulness and uses in general CHAP. IV. Of the Matter of Vows in particular And first of the Virginal state that it is
home Thou mayest pray indeed but thy prayer not have the like efficacie as when it is made with the proper members as when the entire body of the Church sendeth up its Petition with one consent with one voice the Priests being present and offering up the prayers of the whole multitude Wouldst thou know of what great force the prayer that is made in the Church is Peter was bound in Prison c. Acts 12. 5. And is it not most strange to consider the bold ignorance of the common sort who dare to turn the words of Solomon and that even in that prayer of Dedication and signalizing the House of God above all places else for Gods worship against that and all other Houses to that holy intent and to make all places alike when there is nothing so manifest as that that place was only assigned by God with special injunctions and promises For when Acts 7. 48. c. 17. 24. 1 Kings 8. 27. they say God doth not dwell in Temples made with hands out of the Acts of the Apostles what do they say more than Solomon at the time of dedication But will God indeed dwell on the earth Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee how much less this House which I have built Doth not the argument prove that God is no where to be worshipped because he is locally no where contain'd in a place Or does it prove that he is to be worshipped in private Houses or contained in them rather then in the publick The Gentiles as St. Pauls words intimate imagined that by certain Images they could bind their Gods to be present and limit them to certain places from whence they could not well stir And this is the reason that some ancient Fathers as Arnobius and Minutius Felix denyed the Christians had any Temples then meaning such charmed Images and Shrines to hold God fast to them The Jews imagined as appears by St. Stephens words that Gods promises and blessings were so precisely determined to that One Temple amongst them that he would by no means impart himself in like manner in any other place To this fond and superstitious conceit it was very proper to quote their own Prophets against them who imply what St. Paul expresses else where Is he the God of the Jews only Is he not Rom. 3. 29. also of the Gentiles Yes of the Gentiles also c. And by vertue hereof whatsoever the Scripture may seem to ruder readers of it to speak by way of disesteem of material and visible Temples implies no more than an equal right of the Gentile Temples dedicated to God under the Gospel with the Jewish under the Law But that even the publick places of Christians should be looked upon with no greater respect or religion then that which comes next to hand is no where to be found and far from being the purpose of Christs words out of which another exception is made viz. Where two or three are gathered together Matth. 18. 20. in my Name there am I in the midst of them For what I pray is it to meet in the Name of Christ Only to take his Name into our mouths To turn over the Scriptures and to turn them this way and that way and prosess great matters out of them By no means 'T is true this is somewhat towards it But notwithstanding this men may meet in the name of the Devil rather than of Christ and do the works of the Devil rather than of Christ For to do the will and work of either is to meet in the name of either And no men who in their very meeting it self as such are enemies unto Christ can be said to meet in the Name of Christ speak they never so gracious and glorious things of Christ and Religion But they who lightly vainly and causlesly affect separation and dismember themselves from the visible I say visible Body of Christ the Society of Saints by Election and Profession are thereby direct enemies to Christ and can never meet in Christs Name according to Christs intention though as the worshippers of Baal on Baal they call on Christ with never so much zeal and earnestness from morning to evening as we have already shewed where we treated of Schism And when at length will they who under such obscure and fond pretenses separate produce any one thing which may countervail the notoriousness of the evil of separation as a reason to warrant them so to do But this either the gross insensateness of the vulgar in such points or the desperate resolution to hold their own whatever may be said against them is little or nothing look't after till it be too late CHAP. X. A fourth corruption of the Worship of God by confining it to an unknown tongue Scripture and Tradition against that custom A fifth abuse of Prayer in denying the People their Suffrage contrary to the ancient practise of the Church BUT before we leave this publick worship we are to observe somewhat of the manner how it ought to be performed and that to rescue it from two abuses principally crept into it The first of the Papist and the other of the Puritan unluckily falling into the same condemnation with the other Two things are as evident as Tradition not to say Scripture can make any thing First that all publick and private prayers were instituted in a known tongue Secondly that there was a concurrence of the vulgar Christians with the publick Minister of such Offices Both these are now quite almost worn out of use amongst the Romanists and being disused a defense framed studiously against the practise of them The latter hath been practised and maintained by Puritans though first invented by Papists The authority of Scripture for the publick prayers to be made in a known tongue seems to us and not only to us but to our more ingenuous adversaries very express in St. Pauls Epistle to the Corinthians The subject 1 Cor. 14. of the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle is to redress the vanity of certain gifted persons who presumed to teach and pray in such a forreign tongue which no man understood but themselves For whereas it is commonly replyed by the Learned Romanists that the Apostle speaks of preaching chiefly and not of praying in publick It matters not much if he doth speak of preaching as certainly he doth so it be evident that he speaketh of prayer also nor that he principally teacheth of prophesying if he omitteth not publick prayer Is there any thing need be plainer than this on our side If I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prayeth but v. 14 15. my understanding is unfruitful What is it then I pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the understanding also I will sing with the spirit I will sing with the understanding also Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned
it is That divine Adoration receives its specification from the intention which is an act principally of the will so that be the object what it will yet if I have no intention to worship any other than the true God I worship him when I direct my worship to that which we may suppose not to prove upon tryal God But this is not to be granted that intention is sufficient to denominate worship or constitute it true and Catholick though it suffices abundantly to make a worship false when it is intended for such And then may a man be said to intend false worship not only when he knows it to be false but when he might possibly know it to be so and when he intends to worship that which actually is a false object For as hath been said Idolatry consists principally in the understanding as also the Scripture intimateth when it charges the Idolatrous Israelites with ignorance 2 King 17. 26. Isa 4. 9. of God For were not the Samaritans Idolaters who knew not the manner of the God of Israel And what saith the Prophet Isaiah They that make a graven Image i. e. to worship it are all of them vanity and their delectable things shal not profit and they are their own witnesses they see not nor know that they may be ashamed Surely if any man saw and were convinced of his error he would be ashamed of it but 't is his ignorance that detains him as well as precipitates him into such errors Ephes 4. 18. as St. Paul witnesses of the Gentiles Having their understanding darkened through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their heart Fifthly There is no reason to grant that simplicity and sincerity of Intention and Resolution of worshipping none but the true God may not consist and hold good in worshipping more than one God as in the Act. 17. 23. case of the Athenians worshipping the unknown God in the Acts For as Pausanias in Eliacis taking notice of this inscription hath it The Persians threatning Greece with War the Athenians sent to the Lacedemonians to beg aid of them Pan met their Embassador Philippides and expostulated with him why the Athenians had made no statue to him but left him our adding that if they received him he would stand by them Hereupon they erected this Monument To the unknown God Others say That they being miserably harrassed with the Pestilence and finding no relief from them they worshipped bethought themselves there might be a God neglected by them who might relieve them and so dedicated an Altar To the unknown God Might not all these things stand with very great sincerity of intention And yet I suppose it was Idolatry So that sincere resolution and intention of worshipping none but the true God only may be found where many are worshipped For though to us as St. Paul saith * Toletus Instruct Sacerdotum l. 4. c. 14. § 6. There is but one God and one Lord yet with all Nations it was not so they might really and stedfastly believe there were more Gods than one And therefore Tolet the Jesuit well writeth thus Therefore Idolatry is the exhibiting of a Divine worship to a false God For to worship him for true God who is not God either by praising him or invoking him or Sacrificing to him or any wayes prostrating our selves to him is to commit Idolatry False adoration which is Idolatry is never but where an Error in the understanding goeth before †De Ratione lure definiend pag. 273. Num ut Supersationis caput est Id. 〈◊〉 iâ—a emnus Dei caltus non solum extrav ritatem fidei sed etiam extra uniatem Ecclesis alterius Dei cultum in se contnet ab coquem Fides Christiarorum communis intra Ecclesiam colendum propâ—nit Omnis enim Commentitia religio talem sibi Deum colendum pâ—â—ponit qualem sibi ipsa commenta sit non qualem se ipse ostendit Quod Idololatrioe instar quoddam est And besides all this the Author of this tenet in another place acknowledges it to be a sort of Idolatry to feign or device a worship of God otherwise than was instituted of God and that not only to worship God out of the verity of Faith but out of the unity of the Church containeth in it a worship of another God than is propounded by the Christian Faith to be worshiped in the Church And again All commentitions religion propounds such a God to be worshipped as it hath feigned to it self not as he hath declared himself to be By which words I understand him to explain himself and draw nearer to the common notion of Idolatry than he is commonly taken to do For granting that it is a kind of Idolatry to offer any superstitious worship interdicted by God and that in thus doing a man doth in effect frame to himself a God distinct from the true God it may be easily granted that all Idolatry consisteth in Polytheism or plurality of Gods because in effect a man makes strange Gods though not formally as he that constituteth one of purpose to worship as the object of his Devotion And this agreeth with what othet learned men have written of Idolatry Quicunque de Deo secus sentit quam revera est c. Erasm in symbolum Catechesm 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epict. Cap. 38. Perkins Cases of Conscience l. 2. c. 11. Luther Colloq Mensalia p. 91. extending it to a false notion or judgment of the one true God For Erasmus in his Catechism on the Creed saith Whosoever thinketh otherwise of God than in truth he is or doth not believe him to be such as the Authority of the Holy Scriptures hath described him to us believeth not in God but in an Idol To the same purpose speaketh Mr. Perkins thus If adoration be given to the true God with a false and erroneous intention it makes him an Idol For example if the body be bowed with this intent to worship God out of the Trinity as the Turk doth Or if he be worshipped out of his Son with the Jews thus doing we worship not the true God but an Idol To these I add these words of Luther All manner of Religion let it have never so great a name and lustre of Holiness when people will serve God without his word and command is nothing else but plain Idolatry It may be said in behalf of Jews and Turks that they are not Idolaters because they worship God according to the true Light of Nature asserting and magnifying above all men the unity of God and directing their worship after the manner of the service of God before Christ To which answering I shall wave the question about the measure of knowledg the Jews had of the Trinity before Christ of which somewhat hath been said before and rather distinguish between the manner of their believing or disbelieving those mysteries For it is much different
be true what St. John saith that No man hath seen God at any time and what the John 1. 18. Schools teach as I believe that fleshly eyes cannot possibly discern God immediately may we not much more truly say that we cannot hear Gods voice with our fleshly ears and live any more than see God and live But God says expresly No man shall see me and live But as God maketh certain Exod. 33. 20. representations of himself to our eye which are not himself but yet bear his name in Scripture so God produceth or causeth to be produced audible sounds which are not really and properly his voice yet represent so much to the ear of man which when it comes attended with more than natural or ordinary circumstances as did the voice at the giving of the Law it is more especially and signally ascribed unto God as his Lastly It is said in Exodus that Moses wrote upon the Tables the words of Exod. 34 28. the Covenant the Ten Commandments which in the beginning of the Chapter God is said to write I will write upon these Tables the words that were Exod. 34. 1. in the first c. which moved the Fathers as Cyprian and Austin whom Lyra follows to understand them so that God wrote Autoritatively and Moses Ministerially But later Jewish and Christian Expositours have thought good rather to refer the later part of these words And he was there with the Lord fourty dayes and fourty nights he did neither eat bread nor drink water and he wrote upon the Tables the words of the Covenant the Ten Commandments to God not without some violence to the sense more current otherwise But in such variety and obscurity as is here I see no remedy but men must judge for themselves However I suppose the second thing propounded is from hence competently clear concerning the Nature of this Law That as it is undoubtedly Divine so from the Authority delivering it it hath no more force or obligation upon us than other words of God extant in holy Scripture Nor is it easily to be conceived how any thing can be said to be more or less divine which is acknowledged to come from God by vertue of any manner of delivering it whether mediately or immediately by a still and quiet inspiration or by a publick and majestick declaration but from the matter it may And Buxtorf in his forementioned Tractate on Buxtorf in Decalog num 51. Priscis temporibus c. the Decalogue hath these words In ancient times it was a custome among the Jews that the Decalogue should every day in the Morning Prayers be publickly and privately rehearsed and repeated This laudable custom in latter times they have abolished the reason whereof the Talmud renders to be lest the people should believe that the Decalogue had any â—ore divineness in it than other parts of Scripture From whence we may observe First That anciently the Jews had a constant Form of Worship Secondly That there is no such ridiculousness in Prayers publick and private to repeat the Creed and Ten Commandments as certain pretenders to giftedness have presumed Thirdly That the Jewish Doctours discerning the great inconvenience that might happen from admitting degrees of Sacredness in Divine Revelations chose to prevent such errours by taking away the presumed occasion For however some have distinguished between Divine Right and Apostolical making this a mean between humane purely and divine yet in propriety of speech all Constitutions are either divine purely or purely humane And therefore Apostolical Right can be no more than humane Right when it is distinguished from Divine This we speak of Constitutions taken in their formality not as oftentimes they are used for the things themselves so ordained For no doubt but as there are degrees of sins against Laws so these degrees are estimated from the weightiness or lightness of the matter against which offences are committed And thus we may hold that the Ten Commandments are more Sacred that is contain more important matters than generally the rest of the Scriptures do that is again in the like number words being certainly the most perfect and plain and compendious form of serving God that the Jews had any where revealed unto them if not a more absolute sum of our practical duties towards God and Man then we find collected together in so few words in the Gospel and therefore not unworthily inserted into the Second part of the Office of our Church But whether this Decalogue was ever intended by God as such a perfect and compleat Rule of Obedience that nothing to which Jew or Christian was obliged hath escaped it may well be question'd understanding the Question not so much of ceremonial or extrinsecal Duties of Religion as moral and perpetual Many have this last age brought forth who though they look upon it little less than ridiculous to make any use of the Ten Commandments in our worship of God yet ascribe so great perfection to it as a Rule that they suppose they have convinced you of absurdity enough if they drive you to either of these straits To deny any Moral duty to be contained in the Decalogue or to affirm any Ceremonial to be therein included For then they loudly cry concerning the First you make the Law of God an Imperfect Rule And concerning the Second as by name doth Dr. Twisse in his Treatise on the Sabbath with innumerable others If for instance the Fourth Commandment be not Moral what doth it among the Ten Commands And having said this they need they think say no more to confound their adversaries To the former therefore we say that improving the Art of Reduction to the height no doubt but all Moral and Ceremonial duties too may be reduced to some of the Ten Commandments For if our Saviour Christ our Great and Infallible Master reduced these Ten to two and again all things contained in the Law and Prophets which must be all Moral duties to Love of God and Love of our Neighbour in St. Matthews Gospel saying On these two Commandements hang all the Law and the Prophets Nay and Matth. 22. 37 38 39 40. which is yet more St. Paul brings all Christian duties under one Head of Love saying Love is the fulfilling of the Law Do we wonder at or can Rom. 13. 10. we censure those who would have all Christian vertues included and vices and sins excluded by the Decalogue But surely they who contend for such a comprehension as may be useful to a man do not intend that it self should be incomprehensible and illimited which at this rate it must be reducing every thing to any thing but certain Rules have been invented for the limiting and directing of men in this matter which being not taken from the Reason of the thing it self so much as the Arbitrary wit of the Hic video quosdam in hoc elaborasse ut universa proecepta sive jubentia sive
God says he will not hold such guiltless that thus take his name in vain it is figuratively to be understood God intending surely utter ruin and confusion to such Atheistical contemners and affronters of him to his face and before the face of many others And reductively to this command doth pertain the sin of light customary and needless use of Gods name so sacred upon no sufficient grounds or occasions This is indeed to take Gods Name in vain and this will he also not suffer to go unpunished For this is in a manner to make sport with Gods Name and to make him a laughing stock to use his Name and that many times under the form of broad Oaths to make the lye or jest or srippery take the better and degrade and disgrace God Almighty to grace their speeches their tales and witless worthless shameless language For how stupid and miserable is the errour of such who move admiration and laughter by most unseasonable and uncivil as well as ungodly abusing of Gods Name while they think they are admired for their gallantry and wit when really they are ridiculous for the incongruity monstrousness and absurdness of their speeches For what is it else for a man to bring Gods magnificient and glorious Name down from Heaven to justifie a meer toy or trifle and that commonly a known lye which he shall vent at pleasure but as if a man should bring a huge Cable to tye a fly by the legg This would indeed make men laugh but at nothing so much as the folly of the Actour of it And so in prophane and beastly matters to utter the Name of God with great boldness it is very likely that as some would tremble others to whom the wit is principally designed would laugh loud enough the absurd Coxcomb apt to think it is in applause of his wit when really it is at his impudence and presumption as they would undoubtedly at him that should break wind backward in the Kings presence And what is such kind of swearing but breaking wind forward on Gods face There 's indeed all the wit and mirth too But no more of this The positive Vertues required by this Commandment are often and reverend and affectionate using of Gods Name in Prayer Praises and Instructions of our selves and others To confess God before men to the glory of God though to the disadvantage and dammage of our selves when the Case requires according to our Saviours words Whosoever shall confess Luke 12. 8. me before men him shall the son of man also confess before the Angels of God And more particularly is required by this Commandment sober and conscientious swearing upon just occasion For can any man of Religion or Reason imagine that if as some of late and not till of late suppose God would not have men swear at all he would pass that over in silence not only here but through the whole Scripture and give rules and orders how they should swear as here he doth In that therefore God here saith Thou shalt not swear in vain he certainly implyeth a permission and right to swear by his Name rightfully and no other argument ought to be brought to prove the same especially by us here aiming at brevity But we have the Examples both of Old and New Testament proving this To them of the New Testament I know not well what they can or have replyed St. Paul being frequent in it as 2 Cor. 2. 23. Gal. 1. 20. 1 Thess 2. 5. unless they say That being divinely inspired he had a particular dispensation which is as much as nothing it being not at all proved that this was from Dispensation and not known Right And to them of the Old Testament they say It was a meer legal thing but this also is only said and not shewed as it ought to be Nay the contrary may be shewed because nothing was meerly legal or determining with the Law which began not with the Law of Moses but the Examples of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who all swore were much ancienter then the Law of Moses and therefore it was a Natural Law rather than Mosaical whereby men swore anciently and that was not disgraced nor altered by the Law of the Gospel But this miserable mistake is most frequent in the argumentations of presumptuous but unskiâ—â—ul Treaters and as they would be thought admirers of Scripture that a just and righteous document shall fare the worse for being found by them in the Old Testament though not at all relating to the Mosaical Law and when they see cause be rejected and disgraced because it is there found But say they there are many places in the New Testament as of our Saviour and St. James strictly inhibiting swearing at all Matth. 5. 24. 36. and chap. 23. 16 18 20. James 5. 12. These places being urged hard by Anabaptists have driven men to a distinction never thought of till of late and then chiefly if not only by them of the Reformation and especially beyond the Seas whose Common-places generally distinguish between an Oath Publick and exacted by the Magistrates and an Oath Private offered and uttered without any such Authority That say they is lawful and not prohibited by the Scripture but this they grant is But upon tryal as current as this notion is there will be found nothing in Antiquity nothing in Scripture nothing in the nature of the thing it self warranting it or making it unlawful to swear that in private with the due conditions of an Oath mentioned by Jeremy viz. in Truth in Judgment not necessary publick but private Jer. 4. 2. and in Righteousness which a man way safely and innocently swear in publick For who was over Abraham Isaac or Jacob to require them to swear to others Who can legitimate the Oaths of Princes one towards another Who do except against the mutual stipulations of man and wife in contracts because they are not alwayes performed before a Magistrate Princes when they treat with one another are but as private men And yet all these swear solemnly and lawfully And the reason of an Oath implyed in the swear given by St. Paul doth justifie this For if an Oath be the end of all strifes how shall those controversies be ended between private men without an Oath when no Magistrate is at hand If an Oath will effect peace and satisfaction without repairing to the Magistrate what should hinder but it should have its natural effect and end without molesting the Magistrate Can the Magistrate make that part of the Worship of God as lawful swearing is said to be which in it self is not the Worship of God But it may here be questioned farther What hath not the lawful Magistrate greater influence and power over an Oath than private men To which I answer that in this the lawful Powers have a special Prerogative above others in reference to an Oath that though it be just and lawful to swear without commission or