freely to conclude with them But until this be better evinced what make they with so many zealous professions of their believing of Christ or protestations against others that herein they believe not Christ It becomes then the principal doubt of all not what were Christs words but what was the drift and purpose of them And surely they must needs grant this to be worthily doubted of when they consider how sundry of their eminent Doctors do yield such an Indifferency in the words as that they are capable of both senses as might easily be made apparent But saying that We ought to take the Scriptures always literally where it will consist with the analogy of Faith they say no more than we But if it happens as here it doth that our Analogy of Faith differs from theirs what are we the neerer For our Faith tells us Christs words were spiritual as well here as in St. John where he expresly testifies so much saying Joh. 6. 63. The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life that is spiritually and not properly to be understood And Literal sense we understand two ways First as being the same as the prime signification of the words according to common use And this Literal sense we deny of these words But affirm them literally to be taken taking Literal for that which by the same words was immediately and primarily intended by the speaker in which way all Metaphorical speeches are Literally to be taken For he that says of a vicious man He is a Beast doth literally mean that he is of beastly qualities and not the very nature of a Beast So that Metaphorical and Literal are not opposite but Metaphorical and Natural and Natural and Spiritual We say then That this Proposition as in the Eucharist is Metaphorical and yet Literal But it is a weak and spiteful slander to say That because we say this therefore we hold that Christs Body is only Metaphorically and Figuratively in the Eucharist For we profess it to be really and properly and really and properly received in the Sacrament and not as they would fain perswade the World of us imaginarily only But the figurativeness is not so much in the Presence of Christ as the Predication of Christ of the visible Elements We say plainly the Elements are Christ only Figuratively and improperly and as St. Ambrose hath Ambros de Sacrament Lib. 4. C. 4. it or rather had it before a false Cause here as elswhere constrained men to foul practises After Consecration that which was remains and yet is changed into another It retains its nature it is changed to its name to its use and ends and effects and these are sufficient The Fathers who are alledged to prove Christ spake here properly do speak of many changes made in the Elements but then they do as often deny the substance to be changed sometimes they say The Nature is changed but we know Nature is somtimes used more largely than to imply the very Being and Essence it self We say commonly Such a man is quite of another nature from what he was We do not mean his very Essence or Being is changed but his condition It is said in the first Book of Samuel 1 Sam. 10. v. 9. that after his anointing to the Kingdom God gave Saul another heart I hope not in substance but in disposition But it is neerer to our Case what St. Paul saith of Christ and us in his Epistle to the Ephesians We Eph. 5. 30. are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Can any thing be more expresly affirmed than this to signifie a corporeal unity and identity with Christ if the Verb Copulative Are must here be taken Substantively as they say Is must in these words This Is my Body As they profess with much ardour and zeal they will believe Christ say he what he please and be the thing never so contrary to our common sense and reason so do we And no less do we believe St. Paul speaking by the same spirit This he hath said and therefore we must not dispute but believe He hath said as plainly as words can make it that we are the very flesh of Christ and the bones of Christ and that he cannot be understood of the same in Kind but number is manifest from his argument when he saith No man ever hated his own flesh but as his flesh is anothers in nature we know there is nothing more common Now the like if not same interpretation will satisfy the Scripture in one place and other And not only so but the Fathers who are urged for the literal signification of the words rather than Literal sense of the Author of them speak diverse times of a Real change of the foresaid Elements but saying the same in other cases as in the holy Chrysm after Benediction and specially the water of Baptism we would have one give meaning to the other And the Modern Greeks who are arrived at higher expressions and sense than their forefathers yet when occasion serves can affirm the substance of Bread and wine to remain and would never fully receive the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation as the Latins do which declare how much they suspect an Evil sense in the Roman Church Again as they are defective in their characterizing this change to that degree so are they excessive according to the Latins opinions in ascribing too great a change upon Consecration For they make no such distinction as the other between Nature or substance and the Accidents And they deny as much there remains any Accidents as any substance of Bread wherein they seem to take Christ more Literally than the Papists For if as they give out we must take Christ at his word and hold him hard to the Letter we must and ought to do it no less in reference to the Accidents than the Substance For Christ made no distinction and then why should we By vertue therefore of his words the Accidents must be changed as well as the Substance And so in truth we believe and to make our meaning clear will allow no effect of Christs words upon the one which we will not upon the other And if they oppose sense to discriminate the Cases saying that we see and feel that the Specieses and Accidents are the same We must tell them in their own words and that without fraud or dissimulation that we believe Christ rather than our own senses And were it not so yet we cannot teil that they are the same individual Accidents which were before consecration though like them and appearing so to be And I could never as yet meet their reason worth the noting 〈◊〉 remembring which should move them to be lead by their senses to interpret Christs words when he saith Positively and with the same Verb Suâ—â—â—an â—â—ve This Cup IS the New Testament in my blood and commands them to drink the Cup
sides we are obliged by conscience to our proper Fathers in Christ For to do otherwise is to provoke God to deliver such over as light and gadding Huswifes to the impure embraces of any seducer to Schism and Heresie But when such a conviction shall be wrought in us of the errors and unsafety of that communion in which we were educated That we must either forsake that or Christ then must the advice and sentence of our Saviour prevail with us in St. Luke If any Luâ— 14. 26. man comes to me and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and Brethren and Sisters yea and his own Life also he cannot be my Disciple And as we should go against common prudence and humanity it self out of an opinion That our Parents natural may err and set us upon unwarrantable Acts to turn them off and deny all obedience unto them least they should lead us into errors so should we do very unchristianly and against apparent precepts of Scripture contemptuously and proudly to deny submission both of Judgement and practise unto our spiritual Parents because forsooth they are men and may err the Spirit of disobedience tacitly insinuating unto us a much more pestilent opinion That while we do as best liketh our selves we shall be much more safe if not infallible as if we might not err But of this as we have already spoken in part so may there offer it self a more proper place more fully to speak afterward A second general means to attain the true sense of Scripture is indeed the Spirits assistance by which it was at first composed There is certainly none like to that For as St. Paul hath it What man knoweth the 1 Cor. 2. 11. things of a man save the Spirit of a man which is in him Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God The only hazard we here run is and that no small one That we presume not lightly upon such a peculiar guidance of the Spirit which we have not The general remedie therefore of this evil is that prescribed by our Lord Christ viz. Prayer For Thus he speaketh by St. Mathew All things whatsoever ye ask in prayer believing ye shall receive And more Mat. 21. 22. Luk. 11. 13. particularly by St. Luke If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask them And a Third means is when being soundly and well instructed in the general Augustin de Doct. christ Lib. 3. cap. 2. drift and design of Faith or Gods holy word we by the Analogy which one part of Faith must bear with another do judge of the truth or error of any thing contained in Scripture And To this belongs a Fourth as it is commonly reckoned viz. due and Id. 16. cap. 3. prudent comparing of several places of Scripture knowing that no sense can be admitted of Scripture which disagreeth with any part of Scripture Skill or knowledg of the original tongues in which they were wrot may be accounted a Fifth meanes and herein a special observation of the several Idioms of both Old and New Testament Lastly Consideration of the Histories of Countries Persons and Customes to which Holy writ do relate To these several others of inferior Order might be named but I here pass them to come to a more exact and seasonable treatise of Tradition so much conducing to the abovesaid ends CHAP. XII Of Tradition as a Means of Vnderstanding the Scriptures Of the Certainty of unwritten Traditions that it is inferior to Scripture or Written Tradition No Tradition equal to Sense or Scripture in Evidence Of the proper use of Tradition TO this place is due the Treating of Tradition as well for the better compleating of what may yet seem wanting in directions for the attaining the proper sense of the Rule of Faith the Scripture as because of the pretensions in its behalf made by some to an equal share in the Rule it self by laying down this fundamental Division of the Word of God into Written commonly called Scripture and Unwritten called Tradition And That the Word of God may be left unwritten as well as written is Moreman said the Church was before the Scriptures Philpoâ— shewed that his argument was fallacious For he took the Scriptures only to be that which is written by men in letters whereas in very deed all Prophesy uttered by the Spirit of God was counted to be Scripture Fox Martyr Vol. 3. pag. 29. undeniable nay That actually it was delivered by word of mouth before it was committed to writing is evident from the infinite Sermons of the Apostles Evangelists and Evangelical Preachers who declared the same For To them who were contemporary to the immediate Disciples of Christ the word of God was delivered by speech to the end it might be written so far as it seemed expedient to Divine Providence for the perpetual benefit of succeeding generations but to us The word of God is preached vocally or orally because it is written And so we read our Saviour himself used it against the Devil and incredulous Jews not quoting the uncertain and unecessary Traditions remaining with the Jews but the written Word saying by St. Mathew * Mat. 4. V. 4. 7. 10. Joh. 8. 17. It is written man shall not live by bread alone And verse the seventh It is written again And the third time It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God c. And so by St. John and innumerable other places It is written in your Law Christ in all his disputes against his Jewish adversaries seldome or never arguing from their Traditions which were many but from the written word of God only And notwithstanding speaking Philosophically it is not repugnant to reason That things delivered from Father to Son through many ages should persevere in their pristine integrity and be preserved incorrupt in the main yet is it inconsistent with the Fallibility of humane nature to secure them in all Points from violation either without writing or with All the world concurring in this That the Invention of Letters was a special gift of God towards Mankind for the more safe and profitable continuance of things passed to following times Such an intollerable Paradox Cresies Exomologesis is that which modern Wits their scarce tollerable Tenets urging them thereunto have of late vented and to their best defended That Tradition taken in contradistinction to Writing is more safe than writing as if writing had not all the priviledges belonging to oral Tradition with great advantage or because written monuments may suffer by tract of time and passing so many hands unwritten traditions might pass so many ages and mouths inviolate When while we see too great variety in the reading or letter of books we could be so blind as not to behold infinite more of the same nature in
without blame before him in love And it hath been shewed before how that when in the New Testament we read of Gods Calling and choosing and electing we are not so much to understand the eternal purpose or decree of God but the execution thereof in Gods actual calling and electing certain persons to the profession and belief of the Faith of Christ which he effected by the fulfilling of the Prophesie made by Christ in St. Matthews Gospel relating to the Matth. 24. 31. destruction of the Jewish Polity and Church and erecting of the Christian instead thereof viz. And he shall send his Angels that is his Messengers and Ministers with a great sound of a trumpet i. e. the Gospel preached and published and they shall gather together his elect i. e. such as he shall make choice of from the four winds i. e. from all quarters of the world from one end of heaven to the other Now these persons by Gods word and good-will called from such vanities ignorances and vices are in the Scripture called Saints not so much because they were all so throughly or absolutely sanctified from their former natural or moral impieties contracted in their state of Nature and Gentilism as that they should retain no sin and none of them should fail of heaven hereafter But first either from the better part the whole was denominated actually holy which is not unusual in all speech Or because having made renunciation of the World and Flesh and Devil in Baptism they were called and consecrated to Holiness Or lastly because they made open and solemn profession thereof however some so called might be and did appear to be reprobates And names and appellations are given not from any inward affection or quality which sense cannot judge of but from such things as are visible and apparent And thus in the Old Testament as well as New it is used As in the Psalmes Gather my Saints Psalm 50. 5. together unto me those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice which imply the whole body of the people of Israel as the words going immediately before do also declare And wherever in the Book of Psalms which is in divers places we find the Congregation of the Saints is meant the Israelites in general And in Daniel Chap. 7. v. 8. 21 22 25 27. is the word necessary taken Now it being most customary with the Penmen of the New Testament to borrow the phrase of the Old this tearm Saints was translated from the Jewish Synagogue to the Christian Church by St. Paul expresly to the Romans saying To all that be in Rome beloved of Rom. 1 7. God called Saints so the original better then the insertion of to be made in the translation As likewise in his first Epistle to the Corinthians To the Church of God which is at Corinth to them that are sanctified in Christ 1 Cor. 1. v. 2. Jesus called to be Saints withall that in every place call upon the name Jesus Christ their Lord and ours And the like salutation we shall find in most of St. Pauls Epistles as also most frequently in the body of them as may be obvious to any reader though I deny not but sometimes in the New Testament it is taken in a more restrained sense signifying especially the victorious and triumphant not Militant Saints From all which it doth sufficiently appear in what sense the Church may and ought to be described a Society or Collection of Saints And withal how miserably and mischievously they err who giving that title to a Party hold themselves bound to gather a certain select number out of Christians not accusable of any notorious errour from the Faith of Christ as the Apostles of Christ did out of Heathens and Jews and to constitute and call them Saints Another thing requisite to the constitution of a Church is That it be a Communion of Saints it sufficing not that persons elected or selected as above-said be many in number but holy by nature or institution as God ordained of old in the forming of the Jewish Church Deut. 7. 6. Thou art Deut. 7. 6. 26 19. 18 9. an holy people unto the Lord thy God The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself above all the people that are upon the face of Earth Which words are with advantage applyed unto the Christian Church by St. Peter Whence it is that the same St. Peter maketh it an 1 Pet. 2. 9 10. 2 Pet. 1. 4. end of calling this company together That they may be partakers of the Divine Nature or as it is otherwise more plainly render'd Of a Divine Nature Holiness drawing us near unto the Nature of God himself As the Wiseman also writeth The giving heed unto her Laws is the assurance Wisdom 6. 18 19. of Incorruption and Incorruption maketh us near unto God And not only must they be holy but to that end must of necessity hold a twofold communion The one Invisible with one Head Christ The other Visible and external with one another For the Apostle tells us speaking of Christians The head of every man is Christ And to the Ephesians The 1 Cor. 11. 3. Ephes 5. 23. husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the Church and and he is the Saviour of the world There can therefore no question be made but it is most essential as well to the Church in general as every particular Christian or Member of the same that Christ be the Head of his Church as St. Paul yet more clearly expresseth it to the Colossians excepting against such Professors of Christian Religion as held not the Head from which all the Body by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit 2 Col. 2. 19. together encreaseth with the increase of God Therefore leaving that as on all hands granted we come to the external communion of the Church CHAP. XXIV A Preparation to the knowledge of Ecclesiastical Society or of the Church from the consideration of humane Societies What is Society What Order What Government Of the Original of Government Reasons against the Peoples being the Original of Power and their Right to frame Governments Power not Revocable by the People IN the outward Communion of the Church two things are to be enquired into First the Nature of it wherein it consisteth Secondly the Adjuncts or Affections thereof First we shall treat Civitas à conversatione multorum dicta est pro eo quod plurimorum in unum constituat contineat vitas Origin Homil. 5. in Genesim briefly of the Nature of this Communion To understand which clearly it will be expedient to begin with the definition of Communion in General or Society humane For Communion is nothing else but Humane Society And Humane Society is nothing else but a conversation of men out of natural reason inclining and moving them thereunto for the mutual supply of the
on him It was a sign likewise that his Seed were specially chosen to Gods favour to inherit that promised Land and many other temporal blessings which no wayes concerned other Nations It might have likewise many other moral purposes which are ingeniously sought out and largely prosecuted by others and especially Postillers 'T is true that many Nations observed this Rite of Circumcision but not by the appointment of God nor by their own invention but as transmitted to them from such who either descended from Abraham or received it from him Neither was it to such of the Nature of a Sacrament because not given them of God and having no promises annext to that Act in them but only as in Abraham For the Covenant that God made with mankind which we have call'd the Covenant of Works in opposition to that of Faith in Christ made after the Fall was made to Adam and all his for ever though all the Posterity of Adam reaped not the like visible benefit from it And this second Covenant received several additions according to the several Revelations it pleased God to make unto some part of mankind above others and that with Abraham and his Seed The first eminent Act of God was to Abraham himself when he gave him the Promise that the Messias should descend from him and gave him the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Rom. 4. 11. Faith which he had being uncircumcised c. Now what Faith was that which Abraham had before he was circumcised Not that which moved him to offer his Son Isaac to God and yet believe that he should inherit the blessings promised to him but it was that Faith which he had in the more ancient and general promise with Adam concerning the Messias For otherwise the Apostles argument to prove that we are justified by Faith and not by works of the Law would not hold good which in effect is this The same way that the Patriarchs and particularly your Father Abraham was justified the same way must ye be justifid too but Abraham was not justified by the works of the Law but by Faith in Christ v. 10 11 12 13. And this appeareth plainly For if Abraham were justified before the Law and before Circumcision then surely Circumcision and the works of the Law could not avail to his Justification For how was Faith reckoned to Abraham for righteousness In circumcision or in uncircumcision not in circumcision but in uncircumcision And he received the sign of Circumcision as a seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had being yet uncircumcised From whence it appeareth That what Covenant was made with Abraham by Circumcision was not absolutely a new Covenant but a special Priviledge and Interest given to him in that long before made with Adam after his breaking the first Covenant of Obedience and Works And thus we see the nature and end of the first Sacrament given to the Jews before Christ Circumcision And the second Sacrament of Note was much of the same nature as not being given to make an absolute generally new Covenant with Mankind but only to signifie the peculiar Right that People had to the general Covenants above others that as Gods First-born sons of all Nations they should have a double portion of that Grace which was common otherwise to all And farther an addition of Temporal blessings was made sure to them by it upon the due observation of those Rites and Laws given them And this blessing was twofold hereby signified First that passed in delivering them so eminently and miraculously from the destroying Angel who killed the First-born of the Aegyptians and brought them from that tedious and grievous bondage by which they were oppressed And therefore it was called the Passover The second consisted in an Assurance of the promised Possessions in the Land of Canaan Now besides these litteral significations and ends there were two other Spiritually intimated by them relating to the Gospel and its Services And they were the remission of sins in Baptism and the right to heaven and bliss after death by the participation of the means of Salvation the Mannah of his Word and the Sacraments of his Promises Baptism and the Holy Eucharist CHAP. XXXVI Of the Evangelical Sacraments Of the various application of the name Sacrament Two Sacraments Vnivocally so called under the Gospel only The others Equivocally Five conditions of a Sacrament Of the reputed Sacraments of Orders Matrimony and Extream Vnction in particular AS under the Old Testament There were some special Sacraments and properly so called besides many others which by mens interpretation rather than Gods Institution were so called as the Tree of Life in Paradise Noahs Ark Passing through the Red Sea the Brasen Serpent and the like so also under the Gospel as St. Paul saith There are Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God So are there Sacraments many and many Sacramental things but to us there are but two Sacraments properly so called Baptism and the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord. Therefore purposing to speak of all the reputed as well as real Sacraments of the Gospel because though not Sacraments yet very Sacred and deserving well to be understood we shall divide them into equivocal or improper and univocal or proper Sacraments Of the former rank we make Orders sacred Matrimony Penitence or Repentance Confirmation and extream Unction Of the latter sort are Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Now to understand the just reason of this discrimination between Sacraments it is necessary that we pitch upon some general Definition of a true Sacrament by which as a Light and Rule the False are to be examined and judged And therefore shall resume our Definition before laid down of a Sacrament A Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by God to produce an invisible grace in the soul of man which we have already defended But if men will religiously contend about words it cannot be denyed That many of the Ancient and Holy Fathers and the perpetual language of the Church have accustomed themselves to call many more things than Two or Seven or perhaps Seven times seven Sacraments because they do contain something sacred and mysterious in them but yet amount not to the perfection either of our received two Sacraments or perhaps of the other five And so long as men hold to the true and real Sacraments and have the due use of them it matters not much if they give the Name Praelect de Sacram. Qu. 6. c. 1. Sacrament unto those things which are not worthy of it as Whitaker hath well said But the Reasons against more than two Sacraments in the proper sense may be these First That we read not of the institution of any more than two by God or Christ in the New Testament and of these two clear evidence there is found as may more fully be seen when we come to treat of them Nay
defines it 1. Qu. 8. Ar. 1. 2. The communication of one thing with another so many waies as a Body imparts it self to another so many may it be said to be Present to it And these ways are commonly resolved to be two First by immediate contact and conjunction Secondly by a Virtual or Effectual communication with it the Substance it self continuing remote So that though Christs body should be determined to one certain place in Heaven yet may it by its vertue communicate it self to us in the Sacrament and be said to be Present really though not Corporally after the manner of bodies in their natural state by contiguity And what we now say of the Subject of this Sacrament will hold no less in the Case of Participation of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist For as Christs Body may be said to be really though not Corporally Present and immediately So may it be said to be received Really and not Phantastically only though not Corporally after the manner that other bodies are received For they that affirm that Christs body is Corporally Sacramentally received do say if not what they know not themselves yet what no body but themselves can apprehend For either these terms are really distinct or Not. If they be not then are they either superfluous or at most explicatory one of another but this latter cannot be said because Sacramentally is more obscure than Corporally and Corporally signifies a much grosser degree of Presence than the Framers of this distinction will admit to agree with these Divine Mysteries If they be distinct whence shall we fetch the nature of this Sacramental Presence whenas there is nothing to be found in Nature to resemble or explain it but it must be described by it self And Sacramentally Present is no more than to be present in the Sacrament But what it is to be present in the Sacrament or how a thing may be said to be present in the Sacrament otherwise than in other Cases we shall ever be to seek and consequently never learn Therefore we must be constrained at length to reduce this large and unintelligible Presence Sacramental to one of the two old sorts of the Presence of Influence only or Presence of Substance it self or Suppositum So that either the Influence only of Christs Body and Blood should be found in the Eucharist and the vertue of them be therein communicated unto us or the very natural Substance also We have hitherto spoken of the Presence it self precisely taken from its Causes and manner external For according to Philosophers there is a Modus Essentialis and a Modus Accidentalis The Essential manner is simply to be after the intrinsique natureof a thing as the intrinsique nature and manner of a Body is to be Corporally and of a Spirit to be Spiritually that is As a Body and as a Spirit But as a Body ordinarily and naturally palpable and visible may remain a true real Body and yet not be seen or felt so may a Spirit remain a Spirit in substance and yet appear as a Body So that it is possible Christs Body may be present corporally in the essentials and formal nature of a Body and yet not appear in the accidental or separable formalities of a Body which are actually to be seen and felt at a competent distance These I call accidental because they may be wanting as well by reason of the defect of the senses which should perceive them as of the sensiblenes of such objects For a Divine power may take away the one as well as the other by impeding the sense though seeing the very nature and essence of a Body consisteth in being extended and quantitative it cannot be conceived how a Divine Power can divide them which mutually constitute one another though it may render them imperceptible to outward sense And so Christs Body may be in the Eucharist so far corporally as to have all real and essential modifications of a Body but not so Corporally as to appear in the proper forms of a Body But granting or supposing rather that Christs Body were in this Latter sense present in the Sacrament there appears no great reason why this should be called a Sacramental Presence more than that presence when he was with his Disciples at Supper and as the Scripture saith Vanished out of their sight Luk. 24. 31. that is as the word and sense import not translating his Body suddainly to another place but disappearing in that place or ceasing to be seen by them answerable to the contrary power shewn in his sudden appearing without any previous Act and standing in the midst of them before they V. 36. could be aware of it or suppose any such thing which was occasion of their great Affrightment and amazement supposing him to be a Spirit 37. But it is one thing to be Possibly and another Actually so to be And yet farther Actually for Christs Body and Blood so to be present and to be so Present as there should remain nothing substantial or material besides them and the Signs to be changed into the things signified by them absolutely and totally the shew or Accident only excepted So that the Question is double First Whether those Substances of Bread and Wine remain after consecration really the same they were before or be totally abolished Secondly It is inquired not so much whether Christs Body and Blood be really present in the Sacrament but whether it be really the Sacrament it self as it must necessarily be if so be that they be in such manner really present as there remains no other substance besides them For the former of these the knowledge of the Real Presence of Signs Bread and Wine do exceedingly conduce to the understanding of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ under or through those Signs And it should seem that the Roman Advocates of the New sense of a Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood proceed not in the proper and natural method rightly to found their Doctrine For as according to them there must be in order of nature though not of time a Desition or abolition of the Elemental substances before there can succeed those Divine substances so should they have first by sound and sufficient arguments proved the destruction of the preceeding Bodies and then have inferred the succeeding But on the contrary They first presume on the Second upon what grounds we shall hereafter see viz That Christs Body is so really subsisting there and then conclude that the Elements are not there subsistent For he that holds that the Sacramental Signs do not exclude the Body and Blood of Christ doth likewise hold that the Body and Blood of Christ are not inconsistent with the Real Presence of the Elements It must not be denied that those texts of Scripture which are commonly alleadged to Parallel Christs words and consequently to give a more favourable sense than that of Transubstantiation do not exactly
be made apparent in how many and great things they have degenerated in their Doctrine and Worship since it pleased God to withdraw his holy Spirit from that Church upon their rejecting of the true Messias sent them and to translate it to the Church of the Gentiles And no wonder that they who observe not that now should argue against it as a thing not to be done and moreover deny that ever it was believed or practised by their Forefathers for there remains no other way to excuse themselves in their present error but to maintain that it was never otherwise held This is a common evasion of all Hereticks and Sectaries But that the Scriptures of the Old Testament contained this Doctrine in substance though the more perspicuous and glorious manifestation of the same was reserved for the New is not to be denied especially if we consider how that many of their own Doctors and Rabbies have so interpreted the same And some have admired the Hebrew Language as the holy Tongue not so much as some of moderner standing amongst them have given out because of the neat and modest expression of things of impure and obscene nature for it is very plain that the most obscene things are there as broadly and manifestly expressed as elsewhere but from the matter which it treats of generally very divine and particularly from the nature of that Tongue in every word of which being a Radix or original the Mystery of the Trinity is implied in that it consists but of three principal Letters which Letters make but one word But there are more sure words of Prophesie than they and such are these together with the Comment and approbation of the Chaldee Paraphrast Gen. 3. v. 8. it is said They heard the voice of the Gen 3. 8. Lord God walking in the Garden which words Onkelos renders thus And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God where we see that Voice and Word are distinguished the one being taken for the Word spoken the other for the Word subsisting or personal And again v. 22. where the Hebrew hath And the Lord God said c. Jonathans or as some more properly the Hierusalem Targum hath The Word of the Lord said And the same Hierusalem Targum on Deuteronomy the 33. 7. hath The Word of the voice of the Lord heard Judah where the Original and other Translations have Hear Lord or receive Lord the voice of Judah And so in other places which doth argue a Personality ascribed unto the Word of God Which doth farther appear for that the action of Creation extending the Heavens and Repenting is attributed unto the Word of God But I leave the asserting of the Mystery of the Trinity from the Scriptures of the Old Testament interpreted by the learnedst and most renowned of the Jewish Doctors to such who have made it their design to convince them from testimonies of their own Authors as Petrus Galatinus and more exactly Josephus de Voisin in his Comments on Prigro Christianae Fidei and especially de Trinitate I shall only add here that memorable passage in Bibliander out of the Jewish Rabbies upon that place in Bibliander de Paschate Israel Gen. 28. 11. Gen. 28. And he lighted upon a certain place and tarried there all night because the Sun was set and he took of the stones of the place and put them for his pillows and lay down in that place to sleep Where some Rabbies saith Bibliander do understand that he took two stones but others as Rabbi Nechemias that he took three and in this manner prayed to God If God shall write his Name upon me as he did his Name upon mine Ancestors let all these become one and he found them all one By which type of the stone they give to understand God to be the Original of all things for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Hebrew is a stone implies in a mystery the Trinity for in Aben Ab intimates the Father Ben signifies the Son and ◠or N. Neshanna or Spirit Thus they Which their interpretation whether it hath not more of wit than solid Argument I am not here to determine it sufficing our present purpose to shew that the Doctrine of the Trinity is no invention of Christians as moderner Jews vainly give out for if their forefathers mention the same though their grounds may not be of the soundest it argues they knew and received it Other Texts from the Old Testament implying this Mystery are chiefly these 2 Sam. 23. 2. Isa 48. 16 17. and chap. 61. 1. and chap. 63. 9. Psal 33. 6. compared with Joh. 11. 1 2 3. Haggai 2. 5. compared with Gen. 1. 26. Isa 6 3 c. Concerning all which it is to be observed First That it is not to be expected the testimonies of the Old Testament whose design it was to deliver all things more covertly and obscurely should be altogether so literally and expresly taken as that none other may be found as proper as that sence given by Christians but it may suffice that an apt accommodation may be made to the confirmation of our Faith and that by the chief enemies to it Secondly That the Tradition of the Jewish Church differed from the historical or literal sence Hence our Saviour Christ proves the Messias to be God out of Psalm 110. v. 1. The Lord said Psal 110. Matth. 22. 42. unto c. arguing to this effect He who was greater than David himself from whom the Messias should come must needs be God David calling him in Spirit Lord but David in Spirit calls the Messias his Lord whereas David being himself absolute Soveraign had no mortal greater than he therefore he must be God This was then generally received amongst the wisest of them That the Messias was there intended though the words might be capable of a more literal sence And the like may we judge of the Arguments of St. Paul drawn out of the Old Testament to confirm the Doctrine of the New and particularly this for it is confessed that he bringeth many proofs as do also the other sacred Pen-men out of the Books of the Old Testament which have a literal sence much differing from that purpose to which they are alledged But it is certain that the ancient Jews did maintain two sences a Literal and a Mystical and that St. Paul being educated in the prime Traditions and Mysteries of their Divinity used them according to the known sence of the learned For otherwise it had been as easie then for the Jews to have put in their exceptions against his Doctrine as now it is for Jews to cavil at them But besides the Autority of the Old Testament principally to be used against Jews the Autority of the New must be enforced against the Heresies of Christians against this great Mystery Go ye saith Christ in St. Matthew and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Matth.
Apostle speaks of the state of Evil or Condemnation in the next of the state of Restitution and Justification For as all persons were included in the Condemnation of Adam so were all included in the Justification of Christ But as of all them only some many were through his disobedience made Sinners that is became such sinners as not to return to actual Righteousness and Salvation so by the obedience of Christ not all who were called and chosen came to Life and Holiness but many only were made Righteous actually and not all Or if we take the word Sin as he of whom we speak doth not so much for the real inward vitiousness of the soul but for any outward defect and which is yet more for the Punishment of Sin in which sense the Sacrifice for sin was called Sin in the Old Law and Christ in the New Testament is said to be made Sin for us that is a Sacrifice for Sin so that to be made sinners should import as much as to be made lyable to the punishment of sin the matter is the same But because this Authour not only inclines to the Opinion of Pelagius and of Socinus after him making the corruption of nature nothing and therefore exempting Infants from any such natural infection as we here suppose but uses the same evasion of Imitation of Adams sin and not propagation as the original of all Evil to us therefore let us hear what St. Austins argument was against that Opinion If saies he the Apostle spake Aug. Epist 87. of Sin by imitation and not propagation entring into the world he could not have said that by one Man Sin entred into the world but rather by the Devil for he sinned before man and as the Wiseman saith Through envie Wisd 2. 24. of the Devil came death into the world And Christ tells us how aptly the Devil may be said to propagate sin by imitation as well as Adam thus reprehending the Jews Ye are of your Father the Devil and the Lusts of John 8. 44. your Father ye will do he was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him when he speaketh a lye he speaketh it of his own for he is a lyar and the Father of it And when St. Paul saith We were by nature the children of wrath as well Ephes 2. 3. Psalm 51. 5. as others And the Psalmist Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in Sin did my mother conceive me that these places must be accounted hyperbolical and not to have a proper sense is the special evasion of Modern Wits not comparable to Ancienter Judgments more simply understanding them I know a more colourable interpretation is made by others who interpret Conceiving in sin as relating to the Parents and not to the Children But this is less probable than the ordinary and obvious sense applying it to David For though it may be probable enough that Parents may offend in acts of Procreation and so the child may be said to be conceived by them in sin yet David being at the speaking of these words in deepest repentance for his own sins cannot be said to leave off that subject and to confess the sins of others and charge his parents with that which concerned him not Again when he says He was shapen in iniquity nothing could he say more intimately to signifie his proper state at the time of his first conception But the Scriptures do not only barely say we are originally thus infected and sinful but by the effects and certain other indications declare the same The first and chiefest of which may be Death and punishments sticking close to infants at their birth and even before they come into the world Now the Law of God being unalterable that punishment should follow and not go before sin it must be that somewhat of the nature of sin must prepare the way for such sufferings Secondly That all men come to years of discretion are effected with Actual sin few of the opposers of Original sin deny But according to Reason and Scripture both the fountain being so infected and corrupted whatever flows from it must of necessity partake of the same evil For Job 14. 4. Jam. 3 11 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Anâ—ae Gazaei Thâ—â—â—hrastus Biblioth P P. pag. 392. To. 8. Non eniâ— es ex â—â—lis qui modo nova quaedam gannire câ—perunt dicentes nullum reatum esse ex Adam tractum qui per baptisâ—um in infante sâ—lvatur Aug. Epist 28. Hieronymo Ad neminem ante bona mens â—enit quam mala Omnes prâ—â—ccupati sumus Sen. Ep. 50. Nemo difficulter ad naturam reducitur nisi qui ab â—a defecit ibid. who saith Job can bring a clean thing out of an unclean not one And St. James Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter Can a fig-tree my brethren bear olive-berries either a vine figs so can no fountain yield both salt water and fresh From whence it follows by way of just Analogy That the Fountain being corrupt there must be derived to the Rivolets the like unsoundness And thirdly we see this by experience that both bodily and mental infirmities and disorders are traduced from Father to Son in actual Evils as the Gout Stone and Leprosie are transinitted to posterity from the Father and Anger and other passions in like manner It may as well be said That the Son hath the Gout and halts by imitation and not by propagation as that such other affections which are common to Father and Son so proceed Fourthly The Argument which St. Augustine could never by the Pelagians be answered taken from Baptism For this they could not deny but the Church universally practised Paeda-baptism that is held an opinion manifested in practise that Children were capable of that Sacrament and received the benefit of it however some particular persons deferred the same and held it of use unto them for the entring into the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore surely there must be some impediment and that impediment could be nothing but what hath the nature of sin in it therefore they bring sin with them into the World Pelagius had a good mind indeed as Austin observed to have denyed the use of Baptism but as bold as he and his great second Julian of Capua was the general Judgment of the Church declared in the practise of it put a stop to his inclinations but Socinus bolder than any Heretick before him sticks at no such thing but flatly denyes the use of it to all but such as are converted newly to the Christian Faith as in the times of the Apostles This was freely and roundly invented and uttered and which suffices alone to convince us of the former errour denying Original Sin which was alwayes held a principal cause of Baptism Lastly Thus much may be observed by natural Reason to the confirmation of Original Sin
two Tables and hanging all on one string Charity which saith St. Paul is the fulfilling of the Law as many Beads or Jewels make but one Bracelet Yet according to the several forms and distinct matter are they often distinguished Origen Hom. 10. super Exod Non ut simplicioribus videtur cuncta quae statuantur Lex dicitur c. Psal 19. 7 8. as by Origen in these words It is not as may seem to the simpler sort that all things that are constituted are the Law Lex but some truly are called Law some Testimonies some Commands some Righteousnesses some Judgments which the 18 or 19 Psalm plainly teaches us saying The Law of the Lord is a perfect Law converting the soul the Testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple The Statutes of the Lord are right rejoycing the heart the Commandment of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes Neither doth Gulielmus Parisiensis much vary from his sense who makes seven Parts of the Law of God the First whereof is Testimonies Sunt autem partes Legis hujus Dei septem quarum prima est Testimenia c. Gul. Parisiens de Legibus cap. 1. and these are of Truths and therefore to be believed The Second Commands and these are of Honest things and therefore to be fulfilled The Third Judgments and these are of Equity and therefore to be obeyed The Fourth are Examples and these are to be imitated The Sixth is Threatnings to wit of Punishments and these are to be feared The Seventh are Ceremonies and these are to be reverenced and observed Thus he But whether these do not concern rather the whole Body of the Law than the Decalogue in particular may justly be doubted but shall not here be disputed though upon this account it may seem to concern this also For if the Ten Commandments be the sum of the whole Law of Moses as is credibly taught how can it so be unless it vertually comprehends the several distinct parts thereof which will be farther cleared in the brief consideration of these three Particulars concerning the Decalogue 1. The Institution of this Law 2. The Nature or Use of it and Thirdly The Explication of it The Authour and Institutour of this Law was insallibly God himself as of all the Writings of Moses the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles received amongst us for Canonical But whether there were any more immediate act of God and as I may say personal in delivering these Commands than in communicating his will by Moses to the Israelites upon other occasions is not so well resolved The Learned of the Jewish Doctours do put a distinction between the Divineness of the Pentateuch wrote by Moses and the rest of holy Scripture of the Old Testament making that the Ground and Rule as it were of other prophetical Writings and so do many suppose the Law to be more Sacred than the other parts of Scripture and to be more Sacred because more solemnly and formidably and with greater manifestation of Gods Glory and Majesty delivered to Moses yea and because written with the finger of God himself as the Scripture witnesses which seems to speak as if God herein had not used the ministery of Angels as at other times and upon other occasions but spake and acted immediately in his own person These words saith Moses in Deuteronomy the Lord Deut. 5. 22. spake unto all your assembly in the Mount out of the midst of the fire of the cloud and of the thick darkness with a great voice and he added no more and he wrote them in two Tables of Stone and deliveted them to me And when the people in Exodus beg of Moses saying Speak thou with us and we will Exod. 20. 19. hear thee but let not God speak with us least we dye it seems to imply that God himself was the speaker Nay God saith afterward Ye have seen that v. 22. I have talked with you from heaven And to this effect the holy Scripture elsewhere as Deut. 4. 36. Nehem. 9. 13. Deut. 5. 4. Exod. 33. 11. from all which there is nothing more certain then that the voice was sensible and after humane manner audible contrary to some Jews who as Buxtorf tells us presume to say it was imaginary only And what do not the Jews superstitiously devise to magnifie this Law and by implication themselves above other people so favoured by God For they not only say that God with his own mouth spake these Ten Words but with his own hands made the two Tables as may be seen in Buxtorf and Buxtorf de Decalogo amongst others Rabbi Simeon writes That both Tables were created by God immediately and that before the world began not regarding how contradictory to Scriptures such an assertion is Exod. 34. 1 2 3 4. and Deut. 10. 1. which they would understand only of the Second Tables but without reason But if we consider first how dubiously and ambiguously the word God is used in Scripture signifying Angels often and sometimes Men of Renown and Command and the Finger of God to be the same sometimes with the Spirit of God sometimes with the Power of God Exod. 8. 19. Luke 11. 20. And secondly That then according to our apprehension and the Scriptures phrase God is said to do a thing himself when he doth it not by any humane instrument or help though he imployeth invisible Spirits therein there will be no such necessity of Consequence as may seem at first view and thus Calvin upon these words of Exod. 31. 18. interprets the matter not amiss And if we consider secondly what sense the Writers of the New Testament take them in the other opinion which holds that these Commands were delivered by the mediation of Angels will appear most probable For so saith St. Stephen expresly in the Acts to the Jews Who received the Law by Acts 7. 53. Gal. 3. 19. the disposition of Angels and have not kept it And St. Paul It was ordained by Angels in the hands of a Mediatour And in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is called The word spoken by Angels Some may say here That by Law is here to be understood not the Decalogue only but the whole Law of Moses at the least which cannot be absolutely denyed though the contrary seems most probable But if it be so does not the whole include the parts If the Law in general was so dispenced does it not follow that this Law in particular was so ordained Though if it be granted that this Law particularly was so delivered it doth not follow that the whole Law of Moses was so given by the ministery of Angels and not only by Divine inspiration without any Angels officiating towards it as in this Case we suppose And Perkins on the Galatians affirmeth directly that this Law was given by the Perkins Gal. 3. 19. ministery of Angels And to confirm this I shall adde a Scholastical Reason For if it
before all the Commandments ought to have the same influence upon all as upon the first And so that in the end of the Second For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God and visit the sins of the Fathers upon the Children unto the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me and shew mercy unto them that love me and keep my Commandments is of force upon all the other Commandments exacting obedience to each in particular under the like Promises upon obedience and Judgments upon disobedience Concerning the division or disposition of the Ten Commandments in the Decalogue because the disputation about that conduces but little to the benefit of the curious enquirer I shall not insist on it only premise a caution against superstitious adhering to any one Faith in the case For the truth is It matters not how they are numbred provided that we loose not of their number in which case the modern Romanists with great impudence offend in expurging the Decalogue it self and expunging the Second Commandment Their Apology or Excuse is no less presumptuous and pernicious and to be had in more detestation than the Fact Better a great deal they had so done and given no reason at all or their Common one That we must not enquire into the Acts of our Superiours and especially of the Infallible Church of Rome than to bring such a reason as may justifie them or any body else in taking away half a douzen more Precepts out of the Decalogue For doubtless as hath been said the vertue of those Ten Commands may be contained in a less number than they are Shall we therefore implicitly at least tax Gods Spirit of tautologie and superfluity and mend what it hath unartificially delivered unto us But it is well they can endure to leave them in their Bibles as they find them For surely they must either deny themselves or the Reasons why they leave it out of their Catechises and Books of Devotion that I mean especially which tells us It is contained in the First though the true reason perswades them otherwise viz. lest the Second Command standing inviolate as God ordained should be an offense and stumbling-block to the weak and unlearned And there is no danger in it standing where they neither must nor can come at it in the Bible But why may not weak and ignorant people understand that Commandment as well as the others which are no plainer at al then that The truest answer is Lest they stumble so as to fall into an inevitable truth And whereas they adde â—arther That it is Ceremonial First we reply That it is not ceremonial or proper to the Jews as set down there entirely with its end and qualification Bowing down or Worshipping any thing representing God whether Image or Statue and so the Eastern Churches alwayes did and still do understand it of general and immutable nature though they be too great admirers of Imagery otherwise Again if it were so peculiar to the Jews as is vainly pretended that they were to make no Images to themselves is it also so proper to them Quarto modo as Logicians speak that Christians are not capable of it or must not take it in that sense also if they please It is granted lawful to Christians in a Civil sense to use Images but is it not also lawful for them to let them alone Against what part of the Decalogue should they offend yea what any other part of Old or New Testament if they refused to make any Images at all Time certainly was and that for Two Centuries together notwithstanding some fabulous Records to the contrary when Christians scrupuled to make any Image in order to any Religious use though but to call to mind things Historically or help Devotion after many Centuries they never farther used them than for meditation And what one Precept of Gods Word would suffer by it if they should have persevered in that simplicity to this day I am sure many are violated by the iâ—limited or ill limited use of them And now what danger would the common sort run into if such words had been found in their Books of Instruction as the Second Commandment contains Would they have fallen into Idolatry the worst of all sins next Atheism as by the confession and concession of divers of the soberer sort of Romanists they do in the use of them Austin indeed comprehended the Second Commandment in the First as they pretend towards their justification but can they so much as pretend that he so reduced it to that that he contented himself with the words only of the First and left out as insignificant or dangerous the Second No surely For it is plain he joyned them entirely together which if Papists had done they had herein little offended Augustinus in Speculo ex Exodo initio us Yea so far was St. Augustine from so doing that on the contrary in that Abbreviation he gives us of the Book of Exodus he leaves out the First viz. Thou shalt have no other Gods but me and begins with this Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing c. For as I was saying we are not such superstitious admirers of Numbers or Measures in these cases that we would have contended so much as now if they had made but Two Commandments of the Ten provided they had given us the Substance of them without mutulation but to make themselves more jealous for God than he is for himself who here stileth himself a Jealous God is supream folly and much worse The Scripture seems to divide the Commandments into two Parts when it saith that they were written in two Tables as Exod. 32. 15. and 34. 1. and Deut. 4. 13. cap. 5. 22. and 10. 1 4. But this doth not prove that they were so distinguished as many have imagined that those duties which concerned the worship of God immediately should be placed distinctly in one Table and those which more immediately concern our Neighbour should have another Table for themselves as common Painters have contrived them For in all probability what was written Originally by God was connected together so closely that though there were Two Tables to contain all the Commandments there was no such chasmes or distances left as are to be seen in the more modern distinction of the Scripture into particular Verses but as it fell out so the words proceeded from one Table to another coheringly The Jews as may be seen in Philo Judaeus and Josephus divided the Law Philo Jud. p. 579. Genevâ— Joseph Antiq lib. 3 4. into two equal Parts not according to the matter respecting God and Man but the manner or number and made Five Precepts in One Table and Five in the other Austine Prosper and such as follow them make but Three Precepts in the First Table and Seven in the Second But later Ages not without the consent and concurrence of ancienter
wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power That your Faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God Signifying unto us that the power of God is no more than necessary to concur with humane reason to the heightning it to such great effects though the Grace of God be all sufficient of it self to produce such effects without yea contrary to such reasons as humane Philosophy or Eloquence can minister to a man And this I have held not unnecessary to be premised to this great difficulty of asserting and evidencing the Scriptures to be the word of God as well ingenuously to profess there appear no such convincing reasons to prove the same as some make shew of and promise as to discover the error of such who would have Christian Religion to stand upon humane Faith For if Christian Faith be built upon the Scripture as is most undeniable and the assurance we have that the Scriptures are the word of God can be absolutely wrought by outward reasons which cannot be drawn from the Scriptures being supposed at present under question certainly all our Faith must hang upon the veracity and certainty of such Reasons Therefore must this middle way be chosen to acknowledg such prerogatives even of outward reason preparing and disposing mens hearts that no other Religion or writing can lay any tolerable claim to and yet such as shall stand in need of a divine concourse to perfect the same to the nature of a truly divine and Christian assent and Faith Now the foresaid preparatory and justly inclining motives may be these following peculiar to the Scriptures The first thing then which must be supposed in this case is that which all Religions and even common Reason require that it is the will of God that some of mankind should be saved that is become blessed and happy after this Life is ended in heaven But this cannot be supposed without due obedience and worship given unto that great and bountiful Creatour and Saviour and this Obedience or worship cannot be given unto God in a manner acceptable to him unless this manner be first of all known unto man and this cannot Vid. Thomam 1. â—â— q. 1. 1 cor be known unless God teaches him that knowledg And this teaching of him must either beby inward or outward Revelation Inward Revelation is the natural endowment of the understanding given by God unto Man enabling him to judge of things and this all People equally share in not that there is a necessary equality or so much as disposition to knowledg in all men but that no order of People are denied this benefit which some persons stir up and improve to a more high and excellent degree of knowledg yet not so but we see many persons and almost people so degenerate as not to perceive those things which conduce necessarily to the ends of common humanity and civility Therefore God at first in creating of man purposely instituted him least the greatest part of his own workmanship and that by his own intention should miscarrie in the due ends of being or the defects of him originally redound on himself To determine this more accurately is the office of some other place only this may suffice here to note that man apparently being defective in this so necessary a point standeth in need of some supply to perfect him in it divine inward Revelation failing him generally even in matters of an inferiour nature to devine worship Wherefore that his will be cleared and revealed outwardly which inwardly is obscured and corrupted is necessary to the foresaid ends And therefore that the Word of God which is received by Christians as proceeding from him and a Declaration of his Will to mankind is to be made appear so far as it may be credible to an indifferent and imprejudicate mind and serve the ends for which it was ordained of God viz. Instruction of man in the mind and will of God and leading him unto eternal happiness CHAP. VIII More special proofs of the truth of Christian Religion and more particularly from the Scriptures being the Word of God which is proved by several Reasons IT coming to the same end to prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God and the Religion built upon them to be of God we shall here endeavour to give farther evidence of both together in this order First If the Scriptures and Christian Religion have been preserved and asserted by God himself it is plain that they proceed originally from God For as the Scripture telleth us not without the assent of rational men Whatsoever plant God hath not planted shall be rooted out Mat. 15. 13. But God hath specially and wonderfully owned and maintained the Doctrine of the Scriptures therefore by his appointment were they ordained For it is a Rule in Natural Philosophy which holds no less true in Supernatural We are nourished and conserved by those things of which we consist Neither is it probable that God should give any direct countenance to that as Divine which is forged and counterfeit But we see that whereas many eminent and Learned mens Works highly approved and applauded have perished the Holy Scriptures have been preserved entire And this attestation of God to them hath been more apparent in the concomitant Acts and Miracles wrought by Christ the immediate Author of them and his Apostles and Servants under him Christ saith expresly My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me This he thus proves elsewhere Joh. 7. 16. Joh. 10. 25. Joh. 14. 11. The works that I do in my Fathers name they bear witness of me And again Believe me for the very works sake And again If I do not the works of my Father believe me not From all which fair dealing it appears that Christ Joh. 10. 37. intended not to impose a groundless and reasonless Faith upon the world but to commend such an one as had such competent demonstrations as that subject was capable of or the like Moral things Now that such miracles were wrought by Christ and that not by sleight of hand after the manner of cunning Impostours the Effects themselves in himself and which is much more his Followers and Servants in his name is matter of Credit as much as any thing delivered unto us in humane Histories Besides Christs Apostles professed they delivered nothing but from God and Christ to us and this they prosecuted with many and great difficulties dangers distresses and generally with the loss of their very bloud cheerfully poured out and their lives prodigally spent in that testimonie that no men of reason or common sense would have gone through so much dry service but upon a divine impulse and assurance of the truth they delivered an expectation of an everlasting reward for it Here therefore both Jews and Gentiles enter their Caveat and affirm That what Christ did was by indirect means of Evil Spirits Some Jews specially
the several Senses and Meanings according to which the Scriptures may be understood IT being found what is the Letter of the Word of God It is necessary to know what is the true sense of it For this is only in truth the Word and not the Letters Syllables or Grammatical words To know this we must first distinguish a Sense Historical and Mystical The Historical Sense is the same as the Literal so called because it is that which is primarily signified and intended by such a form of words And this is twofold For either these words are to be taken in the proper and natural signification as I may call that which is in most vulgar use or in their borrowed and mataphorical Sense As when I call a thing hard and apply it to Iron or Stone I speak properly and according to the Natural sense but when I apply Hardness to the heart I speak improperly and Metaphorically and yet Literally too intending thereby to signifie not any natural but moral quality in the heart The Seven Ears saith Joseph in Genesis are seven years and the Seven fat Kine are Seven years And so Christ in the Gospel This is my Body and infinite others in Scripture are Metaphorical and Literal Senses both The Mystical Sense is that which is a translation not so much of words from one signification to another as of the entire Sense to a meaning not excluding the Historical or Literal Sense but built upon it and occasion'd by it And is commonly divided into the Tropological Allegorical and Anagogical which some as Origen make coordinate with the former saying The Scripture is a certain Intelligible world wherein are four Parts Origen Homil 2. In Diversos as four Elements The Earth is the Literal Sense The waters is the profound Moral Sense The Air is the Natural Sense or natural science therein found And above all the sublime sense which is Fire In another place he mentions only the Historical Moral and Mystical And generally Idem Homil. 5. in Leviticum the Fathers do acknowledg all these though with some variation not distinguishing them as we have as might be shown were it needful to enlarge here on that subject The Moral Sense is that which is drawn from the natural to signifie the manners and conditions of men The Allegorical is a sense under a continuation of tropes and figures The Anagogical a translation of the meaning of things said or done on earth to things proper to heaven The Oxe being suffered to eat while he trod out the Corn according to St. Paul in the Moral sense signified that the labourer was worthy of his hire Mount Sinah and Mount Sion as the same Gal. 2. 24 25. Apostle saith signified the two Cities of God Earthly and Heavenly Allegorically And the Church of God upon Earth the Church Triumphant in heaven It is therefore without reason and modesty both that some strickt Modern Divines have set themselves against the Antient in contracting all these senses into one so as to allow no more which is of very ill consequence to the Faith both of Jew and Christian For generally all the hopes of the Jews concerning the Messias to come and all the proofs of the Christian taken from the Old Testament That he is come would come to little or nothing seeing there is manifestly a Literal or Historical sense primarily intended upon which the Mistical is built So that the arguments of the Evangelists and St. Paul in his Epistles convincing that Christ was the true Messias must needs be invalid seeing their quotation to that purpose had certainly another Literal Sense And it is against the condition of the whole Law it self which as St. Paul Heb. 10. 1. saith was a Shadow of good things to come and not the very things themselves It is here replied commonly That all these are but one Literal Perkins on Galâ—â— 22. sense diversely expressed which is to grant all that is contended for but with a reservation of a peculiar way of speaking to themselves that having been so infortunate as to judge of things amiss they may in some manner solace themselves with variety of phrase too commonly found amongst such as resolve to say something new where there is no just cause at all And to that which seems a Difficultie That no Symbolical sense can be argumentative or prove any thing in Divinity we answer That it cannot indeed unless it be known first to be the true Mistical sense of the words alledged For neither is the Literal sense it self until it be known that such was the true intent of the Speaker But those things which were symbolically and Mystically delivered in the Law being well known to Christ and his Apostles as likewise to the Learnedest of the Jewish Doctors by a received current tradition amongst them were of force to the ends alledged by them But where such a Mystical sense is not received nothing can be inferred from thence which is conclusive CHAP. X. Of the true Interpretation of Holy Scriptures The true meaning not the letter properly Scripture Of the difficultie of attaining the proper sense and the Reasons thereof IT availeth a Christian as little to have the Letter of the word of God without the genuine sense as it doth a man to have the shell without the Kernel For the sense is the word of God not the Letter Wicked men yea the Devil himselfe maketh use of the Letter to contradict the truth it self as St. Hierome hath observed and other Fathers and constant experience certifieth not without the consent of the Scripture it self which saith of it self In it are some things hard to be understood which 2 Pet. 3. 16. they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do all other Scriptures to their own destruction Therefore because it is very necessarie to be informed of the difficulties and dangers in misinterpreting Scripture before we can throughly apply our selves to prevent and avoid them we will First shew briefly That many things are difficult in Scripture and the Reasons why and after proceed to the most probable means rightly to interpret the same And these obstacles in attaining the true sense of Gods word are either found in our selves or in Gods wisdome and Providence or lastly in the Word of God it self Some indeed piously but inconsiderately make all the reason of difficulties not denied by them altogether in the Scripture to be in Man supposing they hereby vindicate Gods Providence from that censure it might otherwise be liable unto if so be that God should deliver such a Law to man which could not well be understood but apt to mislead men into errour And therefore say they It is the darkness and perversness of mans understanding and will that make things in Scripture obscure and not the condition of the Scriptures themselves But this no ways doth attain its end For when did God deliver his written word unto Mankind
Divine power should be of the nature of Substance but such confusion and havock in nature to bring in an unnatural Dogm is no ways to be admitted not out of any defect in the Divine Power but an incapacity of the Creature to be so order'd against its nature And as this Condition of Species subsisting or existing separately of themselves is contrary to their nature So the significativeness of these Species is contrary to Christs Intention and Institution which were to make a representation of his death and passion by Bread and Wine and not by the Similitudes of Bread and Wine And this is to be noted That when the Ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin do affirm that Christs Body or Blood are present under the Species and Forms of Bread and Wine they do not mean such Species as the Schools of Aristotle have introduced for I find not that they took any notice of them distinct from the subject to which they relate but they took them in a more plain sense for the thing it self so affected and formed and Under the Species signified with them as much as Under the Kinds of Bread and Wine Christs Body was present And they never destroyed the Sacrament it self to give an extraordinary Being to the Body of Christ therein CHAP. XLIII The principal Reasons for Transubstantiation answered AND If this be once made good That there is a Proper Sacrament remaining after Consecration it will be much less difficulty to agree upon the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament For the doubt will not be so much about the Concomitance and co-existence of it with the Sacramental Signs as Whether that which we See with our eys and touch and taste be properly and not denominatively and Figuratively only the Body of Christ And in effect Whether it be the very Sacrament it self or whether only in the Sacrament The Doctrine of the Church of Rome determines not only that There it is but directly and expresly This it is and this we deny as that which indeed must include such a Transubstantiation as is by them affirmed and the chiefest grounds whereof we are now to examine And First from Scripture they are wont to argue and that from the Old Bellarm Lib. 1. Cap. 3. De Sacram. Eucharist Testament where are recorded many Types and Figures of Christ and particularly his Passion which were no less if not much more clear than the representations in the Eucharist if Christ himself be not there otherwise than Figuratively For the Paschal Lamb slain seems to represent Christs Passion more Lively and expresly than the Sacramental Elements Therefore if that the Sacraments of the Gospel might exceed them of the Law it is necessary that what was done there Figuratively only should be properly and really performed in our Sacraments Answ But first supposing Transubstantiation is Christ more clearly in the Sacrament than if there were no such thing Or can the Sacrament of the Gospel be said to be more clear for this when in truth it is more Mystical and abstrufe But though it be not more clear to the sense or Reason yet it is in it self more really present For otherwise the Legal Sacrament must have been only a Figure of this Figure of Christs Body and not of the Bertramus Body it self But the answer of Bertram to this about eight hundred years ago is sufficient to this purpose that both the Paschal Lamb and the Sacramental Elements both Figured and represented Christs body The former Christs Body future and its Passion and the other Instant as at the Institution or Part and compleated So that in truth a great preheminence there is in the Sacraments of the New Testament above them of the Old which is the thing contended for But Christ was really received in both The next Argument taken from Christs words in the sixth of John where he saith amongst many other things I am the Bread of Life And again Verily Joh. 6. 48. 53. 54. Verily Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you For my Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed Is answer'd two ways First from a consent on both sides by some of the Learnedest That Christ spake not of a Sacramental Eating and Drinking of him but Ordinary in receiving him by Faith preached But because as many on both sides affirm that he pointed at the Eucharist in these words therefore I think it most reasonable and equal to take in both senses and that Christ intended the receiving of him by Faith in the word preached and in the Eucharist too And though Christs Flesh be meat indeed and his Blood drink indeed it doth not follow at all that it is properly so For things Metaphorically such are really though not Properly And Christ doth not say Caro mea est verus cibus or Sanguis meus verus est potus i. e. My Flesh is true meat or Proper My Blood is true Drink but My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed that is verily and really And besides the difference before intimated between these expressions and that at the Celebration of the Eucharist when he calls the Bread his Body is very great especially with the precise stickers to the Letter For according to these Christ Transubstantiated Bread into his Body but here according to the same Rule of interpretation he should convert his Body into Bread the words being alike operative But if Christ did at no time make a Transubstantiation of his Flesh or body into bread though he affirmed his Body to be bread What reason is there we should believe upon no better grounds than he affirming bread to be his Body should thereby change it into his proper Body A Third principal Argument is taken from the words of Christ at the Celebration viz This is my Body and This is my Blood And upon the proper acceptation of these words they make no doubt to put to silence all seeming oppositions and contradictions and impossibilities in nature For be it say they how it will Christ saying it who is truth it self no doubt is to be made of it For as they teach the vulgar to speak If Christ should say that this stone were his Body we ought to believe it All which is granted But we must distinguish as all sober men do between Loquela and Sermo He that rehearses a certain number of Articulate words doth Loqui or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he only who doth deliver the word conceived in his mind which is his meaning at his mouth doth Sermocinari or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now if it can be proved by any certain Circumstance that Christ meant these words in a proper sense and not improper in which he delivered no small part of his doctrine in the Gospel we have done the Controversy is at an end we are to lay our hands on our mouths and
and to deny Luk. 22. 20. V. 17. their senses when he saith This is my Body And as reasonles and frivolous are their Answers to St. Augustine who 1 Cor. 11. 27. affirms it to be a Prophane and blasphemous sense to understand Christ of Aug. de Doctrina Christ his proper Body and to eat it For can any thing be more Elusorie and ridiculous than to Scholie on him with a That is As meat is bought and sold in the Shambles Nam Sacramentum Alâ—ptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus et quando circumeisus est et quando baptizatus est et potest Sacramentum adoptionis Adoptio â—uncupari sicut Sacramentum coâ—poris et sanguints jus quod est in pane poculo consecrate Corpus jus sanguinem diciâ—us Non quod proprie corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguinis Sed quod in se Mysterium coâ—poris ejus et sanguinis ejus contineant Hinc ipse Dominus Benedictum panâ—m Calicem quem Discipulis tradidit corpuaae sanguinem ejus voâ—â—vit Quocirea sicut Christi fideles sacramentum Corporis sanguinis ejus accipientes Corpus et sanguinem ejus recte dicuntur accipere c. Facundus Hâ—rmianensts Pro. 3. Capitulis Lib. 10. Cap. 5. But if it be possible to express any thing more clearly Facundus Hermianensis and that as set forth by Syrmondus doth both expound St. Austins meaning and our Saviour Christs yet more irrefragably writing against the Eutichians in these words For Christ vouchsafed to take on him the Sacrament of Adoption both at his Circumcision and at his Baptism and the Sacrament of Adoption may he called Adoption as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Bread and Cup Consecrated we call his Body and Blood not that properly his body is Bread or his Blood the Cup but that they contain in then the Mystery of the Body and Blood of him Whence our Lord himself called the Blessed Bread and Cup which he delivered to his Disciples his Body and his Blood Wherefore as Christian believers taking the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of him are said truly to take the Body and Blood of Christ So Christ when he took the Sacrament of Adoption of Children might truly he said to take the Adoption of Children Thus he and Syrmondus in his notes upon this place doth confess these to be very harsh expressions like unto some of St. Austins there mentioned And to our urging the name fruit of the Vine given to the Consecrated substance and thence concluding that the real nature of Wine remains they answer that it is not unusual to give the name to a thing as a little before it was or seems to be Which we deny not And by the parity of reason return upon them to their loss For we know it is not unusual for a thing to be called by the name not which is proper to its nature but which it represents And to the eye of Faith the consecrated Elements Heb. 5. are the Body and Blood of Christ and so may not unaptly be so called by those whose senses are exercised as the Apostle speaks to discern both good and evil though in nature they be farr otherwise Some indeed as I conceive have been but too free of the Figures in this question supposing that the very word Est or Is must not be taken in its proper sense but stand for as much as Significat Signifies but this is without ground in Grammar or Divinity For he that saith as St. Paul 2 Tim. 4. 17. is interpreted to speak Nero is a Lion doth not lay the agreement upon Est or Is but upon the subject Nero For the Verb Substantive is equally indifferent to Comparative and Proper Speeches and continues so applied to any thing The Signification or Similitude lies in the two Terms Nero and a Lion and Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Christ Now there being no difference between a Similitude and a Metaphor but that the one is at large and in many words what the other is in one To say Christ is a Lamb or This which is bread is Christ is no more than to say Christ is as a Lamb and Bread is as Christs Body For the many agreements between the natural and Spiritual senses The one and that principal is that of Sacrifice which ought here to be briefly explained CHAP. XLIV Of the Sacrifice of the Altar What is a Sacrifice Conditions necessary to a Sacrament How and in what sense there is a Sacrifice in the Eucharist GREAT contentions have been about the Sacrifice of the Altar and perhaps though with just Cause yet not so great as is generally believed For these two Terms do much illustrate one the other For neither is the Altar upon which Christians offer properly an Altar any more then as is said before the Lords-Day now observed is properly a Sabbath nor is the Sacrifice thereon performed properly a Sacrifice Some will have that only truly called a Sacrifice which consisted of living Creaturs slain and offered to God Dixerunt aliqui quia Sacrificium non est nisi de Animalibus et erraverunt in hoc c. Guliel Parisien de Legib. Cap. 3. and to this sence do I most incline For there must be in all things some one thing which is as a Rule and Law and gives denomination to others according as they agree with it Now if all offerings to God as fine Flower and fruits of the Earth be called a Sacrifice in an equal sence to the most proper then have we no Rule to go by in Judging of Sacrifices And therefore Gulielmus Parisiensis who rejecteth the former acceptation because we Read in Leviticus 20. of a Sacrifice of fine Flower and Exodus 31. Sweet Smell seemeth himselfe to erre as he saith others do in the Notion of a Sacrifice For either these things and such-like were more properly called Oblations than Sacrifices or when they were called Sacrifices they were so called because of the Proper bloudy Sacrifice as the principal thing to which they were adjuncts Five things are said to be required to constitute a Sacrifice 1 A Proper Lessius de Ju. Just it Minister who is the Priest Heb. 5. Secondly the Matter must be sensible 3. The form of that matter must be changed and that after the nature of it Thirdly It must be directed and devoted to a Good end God And fiftly It must be offered in a proper place But not all these are certain and constantly true For Cain and Abel and Noah and Abraham and the rest under the Law offered proper Sacrifices but that they had peculiar Temples or Altars is not true For until that injuction of God in Deuteronomie Take heed to thy selfe that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in Deut. 12. 13. 14. every place that thou seest But in the place which the Lord shall
that as the case now stands as they speak in Acts 4. 12. sensu composito God having determined that no other name under heaven be given whereby men must be saved that there is no salvation in any other but in Christ Jesus But secluding that Decree it doth not appear why God out of the Abyss of his Counsels and Immensness of his Wisdome and absoluteness of his Free Grace might not have compassed Mans salvation some other way My Reason besides those I find used by others is that now intimated If God could entertain such favourable thoughts towards Man as to decree his Salvation without intuition of Christ surely he might have effected it without Christ For 't is neither just nor reasonable to imagine that God could decree any thing absolutely and not absolutely bring it to pass for we cannot so judge of Gods Counsels as we do of Mans who alwayes determines with supposition of means and ability to bring to pass what he determined but all causes out of himself being without exception subject to his will nay his will needing no outward means to attain its purpose or resolution it is sufficient argument that such a thing may be that God without consideration of any means decrees it and at his liberty chooses those means he pleases Neither upon this supposition is the advantage such as the Socinian Heretick expects to his cause It is one of his pernicious heresies That Christ satisfied not by his Passion he expiated not the offense of Man thereby but left him many a good lesson to direct and instruct him in the way to heaven set him an excellent and fair example to follow Makes now at last being in heaven not before intercession and mediates for man but his death was no satisfaction for the wrath of God conceived against the sinner And to make way to this opinion he says that God might without any satisfaction have freely remitted mans offence and therefore it was not absolutely and indispensably requisite that Christ should dye If we should yield all this which is here taken for granted which yet if it be not granted is not so easie to be demonstrated there appears no great advantage to their cause For if it be assured unto us out of holy Writ that God hath determined that no salvation should be attained no recovery had without the mediation of Christ and his satisfaction what availeth it them that possibly it might have been otherwise I confess the advantage to the other side would have been much greater if it could be proved that Gods justice of absolute necessity must have been satisfied by fulfilling the penal part of the Law but however there remains evidence enough from the conditional will of God which according to Scriptures admits of no other way now For so saith St. Paul to the Colossians It pleased the Father that in Col. 1. 19 20. him should all fulness dwell And having made peace through the bloud of his Cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself by him I say whether they be things in heaven or things on earth And Christ himself in St. Luke saith Luke 24 46. Thus it is written and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day And that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his Name among all Nations beginning at Jerusalem And St. Peter 2 Pet. 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead unto sin should live unto righteousness by whose stripes we were healed And what can be more plain than that of the Epistle to the Hebrews Without Heb. 9. 22 23. shedding of bloud is no remission And lest some may presume to restrain the Apostles words to the state of the Old Law it is added It was therefore necessary that the paterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these but the heavenly things themselves with better Sacrifices than these And what doth the Apostle mean by the better Sacrifices but the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross St. John declares so much exprefly where he saith If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another 1 John 1. 7. and the bloud of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin And in the fore-cited place of the Hebrews more fully and expresly making a comparison Hebr. 9. 14. between the expiations of the Law and Gospel sayes thus For if the bloud of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh how much more shall the bloud of Christ who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God If therefore God under the Mosaical Law might have passed over the errours and uncleanness of his people Israel but never would remit them without expiations and sacrifices to that end ordained how can it be imagined that the moral errours and impurities of the soul of Man by sin should be expiated or passed over without that Sacrifice and shedding of the bloud of Christ appointed to that purpose Surely therefore a sense there is wherein it is impossible God should remit sins without due punishment for the same inflicted and the least and lowest is that which we call conditional supposing that God hath so decreed that no sin should be expiated but that way A way which besides the excellent agreement it hath with the Justice of God and Mercy also is full of pregnant advices and instructions to the Offender partly informing of the foul and mortal nature of sin which cannot otherwise be pardoned than by such satisfaction of bloud partly by humbling him and moving him to cry God mercy bitterly and heartily and lastly by possesing his mind with a dread and terrour of the nature of sin so as to avoid the same for the time future CHAP. XVI Of the Nature and Person of the Mediatour between God and Man In the beginning was the Word proved to be spoken of Christ and that he had a Being before he was Incarnate The Vnion of two Natures in Christ explained Christ a Mediatour by his Person and by his Office and this by his Sacrificing himself The Scriptures proving this THUS far of the necessity and use of Mediation between God and Man for the reconciling them at this great distance Now it remains to speak more particularly of the Person or Mediatour himself whom Christian Faith acknowledges to be Christ Jesus who as the Scripture tells us came unto the world to save sinners and to save them by his Mediation 1 Tim. 1. 15. And that this is a faithful saying that is a truth to be embraced by true Faith without which there is no Salvation But of the Condition of this Mediatour we find no small differences amongst such who are called Christians