the visibility of the Church and the assurance that every particular Christian might have during this intelligence and correspondence that holding communion with his own Pastor hee held the true Faith together with the Unity of the Catholick Church Neither putting trust in man which God curseth nor in his own understanding for the sense of the Scriptures but trusting his own common sense as well for the means of conveying to him the mater as the motives of Christianity For why is it enough for Irenaeus and Tertullian for S. Augustine and Optatus to allege the Church of Rome and the succession from the Apostles for evidence that the Faith of those Hereticks was contrived by themselves that the Donatists were out of communion with the Church Because supposing that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord all communicated in the same Faith which they taught the Churches of their own founding other Churches founded and the Pastors of them constituted by the authority of those Churches must needs be founded and settled upon condition of maintaining and professing the same Faith So that if any Christian or Pastor should attempt the unsettling of any part thereof the people to stand bound rather to follow the original consent of the whole from whence they received their Christianity than any man that should forfeit his ingagement to the whole in the judgment of the whole This being the true ground for the authority of Councils might and did take effect without assembling of Councils S. Cyprian directs his leters to Steven Bishop of Rome to write to the Churches of Gaule to ordain a new Bishop in stead of Marcianus in the Church of Arles because hee had joyned with the Novatians To the Spanish Bishops owning the Deposing of Basilides and Martialis and the Ordaining of those whom they had put in their places notwithstanding that upon false suggestions they had gained Steven Bishop of Rome to maintain them Epist LXV LXVI Could any man in his right senses have attempted this had it not been received among Christians which hee alleges that the people of particular Churches are bound not to acknowledge those for their Pastors whom the communion of the Church disowneth whether assembled in Council or not The acts of Councils themselves such are the creation of a Bishop of Arles in stead of Marcianus of Spanish Bishops in stead of Basilides and Martialis depending upon the authority of the Churches of Rome and Carthage that concurred not to them in presence If this be imputed to any mistake of Gods appointment in the ancient Church it will be easie for mee to allege Tertullians reason to as good purpose against our Independent Congregations as hee used it against the Hereticks of his time For if the chief Power of the Church be vested in those that assemble to serve God at once without any obligation to the resolution of other Congregations then is the trust that a Christian can repose in the Church resolved into that confidence which hee hath of those seven with whom hee joyneth to make a Congregation that the ruling part of them cannot faile Or rathâ—r into that which hee hath of himself and of the Spirit of God guiding his choice to those that shall not faile They presuming themselves to have the Spirit of God without declaring what Christianity they professe for the condition upon which they obtain it need no provision of a Catholick Church to preserve that Faith which the Gift of the Holy Ghost supposeth God who requireth the profession of a true Faith in them upon whom hee bestoweth his Spirit hath provided the communion of his Church for a means to assure us of that which it preserveth That it is presumption in them to oversee this no imposture in the Church to challenge it Tertullians reason determines The Hereticks pleaded that the Churches had departed from the Faith which the Apostles had left them To this after other allegations hee sets his rest up on this one that error is infinite truth one and the same That no common sense will allow that to be a mistake in which all Christians agree They all agreed in the same Faith against those Hereticks because they all agreed in acknowledging the Catholick Church provided by God to preserve and propagate it against our Independent Congregations Thus Tertullian de Praescript XXVIII There have been some Disputers of Controversies that have claimed the benefit of Tertullians exception against the Hereticks of his time in behalf of the Church of Rome Hee pleadeth not that the Catholicks ought not but that they are not bound to admit them to dispute upon the Scriptures being able to condemne them without the Scriptures And they plead that the Reformation not standing to those Pastors whom they acknowledge to possesse the place of those that derived their authority by succession from the Apostles may be condemned without Scripture as not holding the truth who hold not that which is taught by the said Pastors Which is to demand of those of the Reformation for an end of all debates first to acknowledge those Pastors and that which they teach then to take that for the true meaning of the Scripture which that which they reach alloweth or requireth But this supposes the sentence of the Church to be an infallible ground for the truth of that which it determineth And therefore to be accepted with the same Faith as our common Christianity or the Scriptures Which I showed you already to be false It shall therefore suffice mee to say that those men consider not the difference between the plea of the Reformation and that of those Hereticks For they acknowledging our Lord Christ and his Apostles no otherwise than the Alcoran and Mahomet doth where they served their turn made no scruple to say when it was for their purpose that they knew not the depth of Gods minde which themselves by some secret way having attained to know were therefore called Gnosticks That they imparted not the utmost of their knowledge to all alike when that served their turne That therefore the Scriptures were unperfect and revealed not that secret whereby they promised their salvation but by incklings These things you shall finde in Tertullian de Praescript XXII and Irenaeus III. 1. as well as that plea which I mentioned afore that the Churches were fallen from that which they had received of the Apostles Whereas those of the Reformation allege against the Church of Rome that those Hereticks pretended Tradition as they do Without cause indeed For what is Tradition pretended to be delivered in secret to them and by them who tender no evidence for it to that which the visibility of Christianity and the grounds upon which it is settled justifieth But so as to make it appear that they no way disown the Apostles or their writings nor can expect salvation by any other meanes And therefore are manifestly to be tryed by the Scriptures acknowledged on both sides provided the trial
may have an issue which I pretend requires the Tradition of the Church and that the communion and Corporation of the Church as the onely meanes to maintain and propagate Tradition in it This our Independent Congregations cannot allow but must stand upon the other plea of those Hereticks that it came in beside if not against Gods appointment which the Donatists questioned not And therefore you shall finde S. Austine in the place aforenamed allege against them the Scriptures fore-telling the calling of all Nations which hee supposeth fulfilled in the Catholick Church then visible and therefore supposeth the communion to be ordained by God wherein the visibility thereof consisteth Otherwise it had been strange to tell the Donatists that they communicating with the Catholick Bishop of Rome communicated with all the Church that acknowledged him but the Donatists acknowledging the Donatist Bishop whom they had set up at Rome were therefore disowned by all the Church beside I do not deny that those of the Reformation are to give account of those things which the Donatists are charged with Nor do I imagine that their account cannot be sufficient because that of the Donatists was not But I say that the trial must be by the Scriptures which both parts acknowledge And I say further that the rest of the Reformation may and ought to admit the Unity of the Church in visible communion as the Donatists did because otherwise they cannot pretend that others are bound to bâ— what they are But our Independent Congregations cannot because if all were as they there could be no one Church obliged to that communion which makes it visible Now I must here caution that I intend not here to inferre that these Rulers succeeded the Apostles by a title of Divine Right as if it were Gods Law that this succession should alwaies continue For I demand for the present upon the exception of those of the Reformation that succession of Faith and doctrine is of more consequence than succession of persons And therefore that there can be no Law of God whereby the right which men hold by personal succession can or ought to hinder the Reformation of Faith and doctrine of Christianity if it may appear that the succession of persons hath not been effectual to preserve the succession of Faith That which I demand from the premises is this That no man in his right senses can imagine that all Christendome should agree in acknowledging those for lawfull Rulers of the Church in the times next the Apostles that had usurped their places contrary to the will of the Apostles and those Disciples which concurred to the work of the Apostles and those who derived their authority from either of both during the time of the Scriptures which I spoke of afore For those of the Reformation that make this exception by making it do acknowledge that there was such a visible succession of Pastors the correspondence of whom as here I argue maintained the unity of a visible Corporation in the Catholick Church And how many records of historical truth undeniable of all that would not be thought to renounce their common sense do testifie unto us visible acts of the Apostles giving power to them whom they left behinde them as those whom they gave it to have transmitted the like power to their successors But when it once appeares that they were owned by the consent of all Christians communicating with them in that quality which they held in their own Churches it can no more be imagined that they could attain those qualities by deceit or violence contrary to the will of their predecessors than it can be imagined that the common Christianity which wee all acknowledge could prevail over all by imposing upon their belief such motives to believe as never were seen because never done And therefore whatsoever change may have succeeded in those qualities from that which the Apostles instituted from the beginning or by abuse of the same in the Faith which they were trusted to propagate without adding or taking away which changes may be the subject of Reformation in the Church and the belief of it yet that this point is not of that nature That all lawfull authority in the Church is derived from that which was in the Apostles propagated by some visible act of theirs I will presume upon as proved by the premises CHAP. IX The Keyes of the Church given the Apostles and exercised by Excommunication under the Apostles The ground thereof is that profession which all that are baptized are to make That Penance and abatemeut of Penance hath been in force ever since and under the Apostles In particular of excluding Hereticks IN the last place the right of Excommunication consists in the power of remitting and retaining sins given by our Lord to his Church with the Keyes of it First to S. Peter alone our Lord saith Mat. XVI 19. I will give thee the Keyes of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed there But afterwards to the Body of his Disciples Mat. XVIII 17 18. If hee heare thee not tell the Church If he hear not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publicane Verily I say unto you Whatsoever yet binde as afore And to the XII breathing upon them John XX. 22 23. Receive yee the Holy Ghost Whose sins soever yee remit they are remitted and whose sins soever yee retaine they are retained By virtue of this Commission S. Peter saith to Simon Magus discovered a counterfeit Christian Acts VIII 20-24 Thy money perish with thee because thou hast thought to purchase the gift of God with money Thou hast neither part nor lot in this Word for thy heart is not right before God Repent thorefore of this thy malice and pray God that if possible this device of thine heart may be forgiven thee For I see thou art in the gall of bitternesse and the bond of unrighteousnesse And Simon answering said Pray you to the Lord for mee that nothing come upon mee of that which you have said Where having excluded him from the benefit of Christianity what hee is to expect hee leaves to the trial of future time But most manifestly S. Paul 1 Cor. V. commandeth them to deliver the incestuous person to Satan adding directions and reasons why they are to abstaine from the conversation of such Christians And pursueth this discourse with a charge of ending the sutes of their Christians within the Church 1 Cor. VI. which either signifies nothing or inforces the power of Excommunication to oblige the parties to stand to the sentence But the case of the incestuous person is made still more manifest by the reason of the sentence in joyned upon his repentance and the sorrow testified by the Church 2 Cor. II. 4-11 VII 8-11 In the Epistle to the Ebrewes VI. 4-8 X. 26-29 the Apostle declaring that they
them obliged If there were no more in question but the uniting of seven persons into one of our Independent Congregations or as many more as may all hear any man preach at once I should grant that such Bodies might subsist for such a time as the cōmon batred of the Church restrains the peevishnesse of particular persons from breaking that Communion which no tye of conscience obliges them to maintain But if the experience of divers years hath not brought forth any union betwixt any two such Congregations in England so farr as I can learn what was it that united all Christians from East to West into that one Communion visibly distinguished from all Heresies and Schisms which till about the Council of Chalcedon remained inviolable supposing no obligation of our common Christianity delivered by the Apostles to maintain it Is it possible for any man to imagine that with one consent they would have cast themselves into such a form of observation and practice as all to acknowledge the direction of the same persons in several parts to acknowledge those Rules which Generally were the same though in maters of lesse moment differing in several parts to intertain or refuse communion with them that were intertained or refused by the Church where they dwelt for a common cause had there been nothing but their own fansy to tell them not onely what was requisite to intertain such communion but whether it were requisite to intertain such communion or not If such a thing should be said the processe of my discourse were never a whit the more satisfied unlesse some body could show mee how the truth of Christianity can be well grounded upon those motives the evidence whereof resolves into the consent of all Christians And yet that which all Christians have visibly made a Law to their conversation from the beginning to wit the communion of one Catholick Church not belong at all to the mater of our common Christianity And therefore this plea is no lesse ruinous to our common Christianity the ground whereof it undermineth than to common sense For that in such difference of judgments as mankinde is liable to the whole Church should be swayed to unanimity herein by the Prerogative as it were of the Synagogue uniting themselves by imbracing the Ordinances thereof the evident state of the times whereof wee speak will not admit to any pretense of probability The division between Jews and Christians being then advanced to such a hatred on the Jews part that it would have been a very implausible cause to say that Christians ought to follow the Jewes whose curses they heard every day whose persecutions they felt in the tortures which at their instance were inflicted by the Gentiles A thing so evident both by the Writings of the Apostles and the ancientest records of the Church that I will not wrong the Readers patience to prove it True it is that at times and in places great compliance was used by Christians to gain them who elsewhere were so ready to persecute their fellow Christians As at Jerusalem under and after S. James at Ephesus and in Asia under S. John there is great appearance to believe In the mean time hee that can make a question whether the separation between Jewes and Christians and the hatred ensuing upon it were formed under the Apostles must make a question of the truth of S. Pauls Epistles to the Galatians to the Colossians to the Philippians to Titus and especially that to the Hebrews Besides that during the time whereof Irenaeus speaks Christianity was extended so farr beyond Judaisme that a great part of the Church could not be acquainted with the conversation of the Jewes much lesse learn and imbrace their orders And therefore as I do admit and imbrace the diligence of those learned men who bestow their paines to show how the Rules and Customes of the Church are derived from those of the Synagogue So I prescribe one general prejudice concerning all orders that may appear to be so derived that they are all to the Church Traditions of the Apostles and by their act came in force in it And that upon the premises that neither they had any force from the Law of Moses not could be admitted by common consent of Christians after the separation was formed that is after the Apostles time And therefore by their authority were introduced into the Church Having excepted thus much it will notwithstanding be time to distinguish that the orders and customes and observations of the Church may be said to be voluntary as nothing is more voluntary than Christianity it self though there be nothing to which a man is so much obliged For though the will of God and our salvation and whatsoever God hath done to show that salvation depends upon Christianity oblige us to it yet they oblige us also to imbrace it voluntarily so that whatsoever should be done in respect of it without an inward inward inclination of the will would be abominable In which regard whatsoever our Christianity obliges us to is no lesse voluntary than it is And in this sense I grant that the confederation of common Discipline which prevailed in the primitive Church was by the free and voluntary consent of Christians who be freely and voluntary consenting to the profession of Christianity consented freely to maintain the Communion of the Church which they knew to belong to that profession as a part of it But then this consent which is voluntary in regard that the choice of Christianity is free becomes necessary upon the obligation of making good the Christianity which once wee have professed the Communion of the Church professed by all obliging every one for his part to maintain it So when Pliny reports to Trajan of the Christians Ep. X. Solitos Sacramento se obstringere ne Furta ne Latrocinia ne Adulteria committerent nè fidem fallerent ne depositum negarent That they were wont to tye themselves by a Sacrament to commit no Thefts Robberies or Adulteries not to fail of their faith or deny that which was deposited in their trust being demanded It is manifest that all this is the profession of all Christians and that the Sacrament of Baptisme is properly the Vow of observing it And though I dispute not here that the Eucharist is called a Sacrament and Sacramentum in Latine signifies an Oath yet in as much as it is the meaning of the Sacrament of Baptisme I conceive I understood not Pliny amisse when I conceived that hee speaks in this place of the Eucharist when hee reports that they were wont before day to sing Psalms in praise of Christ as God and to tye themselves to the particulars hee names by a Sacrament And the same Tertullian understood by Pliny when hee saith hee reports to Trajan Apolog. II. Praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi nihil aliud se de Sacramentis as Heraldus truly reads it eorum comperisse quà m coetus antelucanos ad canendum
that wee are at a distance from the Church of Rome and all who communicate with it upon a just cause of refusing the Reformation as all that professe the Reformation suppose And therefore that there remains no visible presumption what is true the ground of visibility being destroyed by the division of the Church I shall be far enough from extenuating the force of this objection or the effect of this division acknowledging that according to my opinion holding both the Reformation and the Catholick Church the Church should be visible but is indeed invisible Not absolutely but as that which is hardly visible may truly be called invisible because every one whom it concerns cannot attain to discern it upon clear grounds For my intent is to aggravate the mischiefs of division to the highest which they who believe not the Catholick Church do not take for any inconvenience And therefore I grant all and do acknowledge that division in the Church necessarily destroyeth that provision which God hath made for the unlearned as well as the learned equally concerned in the common Salvation of Christians to discern by their common sense where to resort for that which is necessary to the Salvation of all and how to improve and husband the same as their proficience in Christianity calls for more at their hands then the Salvation of all requires Whereby it comes to pass that they are put to make their choice in maters whereof it is not possible for ordinary capacities to comprehend the grounds And so must chuse out of fansy education prejudice faction or which is the vilest of all interest of this world which is in one word profit But this being a choice that must be made and though difficult yet possible to be well made hee that without supposing Infallibility on the one side or Reformation on the other side would discern between true and false supposing the Original unity of the Catholick Church must be a madman if hee advise not with the Records of the Catholick Church though out of date as to force of Law on both sides to tell him wherein Reformation infallibly consisteth For by that means though hee shall not be able to restore that unity which is once violated the duty of all but obliging to an effect that cannot take place without the consent of parties yet hee shall be able so to behave himself and that Church which goes by this Rule be it greater or be it lesse shall be so constituted as not to make but to suffer the division which it is charged with But hee who preaches original liberty to all Christians to cast themselves into Presbyteries or into Congregations at their choice bids them sail the main Sea without Ballast and besides departing from the Unity of the Church by becoming Members of arbitrary Societies not parts of the whole by the visible act of visible power in it expose themselves to the shelves and quick sands of positions destructive to the Faith of the Church And I am to demand of this Doctor if the Presbyteries be Churches by association of Congregations and the Congregations Churches without it and those which are neither Presbyteries nor Congregations that is in effect all the Parish Churches of the land be Churches no lesse than either of both because they have one whom the Triers call a godly man sent them to preach whatsoever he can make of the Bible I say I must demand of him what it is that qualifies a man a Member of a Church or a Church a Church and how a man by being such a one becomes a Member of the whole Church which hitherto hath been thought necessary to the Salvation of every Christian For who knoweth not the dispute that remains between the Reformation and the Church of Rome which shall be the true Church Which if every man be at liberty to become a Member of a Congregation with any six more that hee likes who by that means shall be a Church is plainly about nothing And therefore wee are plainly invited to a new Christianity part whereof hath hitherto been to think our selves Members of the Catholick Church by being Members of some particular Church part of the Catholick So certain it is that had not the Creed been first banished out of mens hearts it had not been banished out of the Church But when this Doctor maintaineth further that all men having power in chief to chuse for themselves in mater of Religion the Soveraign hath Power not onely to chuse for it self but to impose penalties upon those which owe no man any account of their choice if they chuse not that which the Soveraign chuseth I confesse I find this toucheth mee and the remnant of the Church of England to the quick edifying the Soveraign to deny protection in the exercise of Religion to them who find themselves bound never to communicate in the change that is made and in making in Religion amongst us But I find withal so much inconsequence and contradiction to his own sense and the sense of all Christians in it that I hope no Secular Power will be so prodigal of a good conscience as to make it self the executioner of a doctrine tending to so unchristian injustice For if as hee saith no man is answerable for the Religion hee chuseth to any but God how shall hee be liable to be punished by man for that wherein hee offendeth him not Or how can any man offend him to whom hee is not countable Nor will it serve the turn to say That by denying protection in the exercise of Religion the Secular Power punisheth no man for the judgement of his conscience For all Christians of what profession soever do generally believe that they are bound to exercise the Religion which they are bound to professe That Baptisme wherein by the positive will of God under the Gospel the profession of Christianity consisteth truly obliging true Christians to assemble themselves for the service of God with his Church according to the Rules of it It cannot therefore be said that it is no penalty no persecution for Religion to deny protection in the exercise of Religion to them who are not punished for the judgment of their conscience For whosoever can be supposed to be a good Christian not onely had rather but surely had better lose his life much more any comfort of it than lose the exercise of his Christianity in the service of God whereupon his Salvation so neerly dependeth Nor will it serve the turn to say as this Doctor saith that in persecuting the Christian Faith much more in denying protection to the exercise of any profession which it inforceth the Heathen Emperors exceeded not their Power but onely abused it having granted afore that a man is free to chuse for himself that is not countable for his Religion to his Soveraign For if it once be said that God granteth all men all freedom in the choice of their Religion it cannot
man mistake mee pretends not any general Rule for the interpretation of Scripture even in those things which concern the Rule of Faith but inferrs a prescription against any thing that can be alleged out of Scripture that if it may appear to be contrary to that which the whole Church hath received and held from the beginning it cannot be the true meaning of that Scripture which is alleged to prove it For the meaning even of those Scriptures which concern the Rule of Faith must be had by the same same means by which I shall come by and by to show that the meaning of all Scriptures whatsoever they concern is to be had and established But the being and constitution of the Society of the Catholick Church from the beginning is of force to prescribe this limitation to the Fansies of all men that take upon them to interpret the Scriptures that they neither admit nor impose upon any man any thing for the true sense of Scripture whereby the substance of Christianity which the Rule of Faith importeth may become questionable So that an evidence of such opposition ought to out-shine and supresse any appearance or supposed evidence of truth in any such sense The Rule of Faith Not to go about to determine in this place what it containes because it is the Master-piece of all the Divines of Christendome to say what is fundamental in Christianity and what is not but to give a grosse description of what men mean when they inquire for it consists partly in things to be believed partly in things to be done Hee that holds so much of Christian truth as may reasonably certifie him of all that is requisite to qualifie a Christian man for remission of sins and life everlasting which are the promises of the Gospel may well be said to hold the whole Rule of Faith in things to be believed Hee that holds so much of Christian truth as may reasonably certifie him of all that is requisie to preserve all Christians with consciences void of sin may be said to hold it in things to be done For the common Rule of Faith importeth not what is necessity for any Christian but for all Christians And that any thing contrary to the salvation of all Christians should be held and professed by all Christians is a grosse contradiction to common sense Whereupon it is no lesse evidently true that the Catholick Church of all ages and places is utterly infallible In as much as it is a grosse contradiction to suppose a number of men to attain salvation who all do hold some thing destructive to the salvation of any one So much difference there is between the whole Church which is the Catholick Church of all times and places and the present Catholick Church respectively to those ages in which the Communion of the whole was not interrupted by any breach but effectuated by actual correspondence For the act of the Catholick Church in this sense which I call the present Church if it be lawfull obligeth all that are of it But it self stands obliged to the Faith of the whole Church as that which the being privilege of a Church resupposeth to beâ— rofessed by it And of this I cannot conceive how any question should remain The difficulty that remains is how it may appear that all this is not a fine nothing how it may reasonably seem to signifie something towards the limitation which I prescribe to the interpretation of those Scriptures which may be alleged in mater concerning the Rule of Faith And the answer is that seeing it hath appeared that the Apostles of our Lord Christ established from the beginning one Catholick Church consisting of all Churches by the will of God and his appointment and that in consideration of that which was made to appear afore that all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians though evidently extant and discernable in the Scriptures are not neverthelesse evidently discernable by all them whose salvation they concern that therefore the unity and Communion of the Catholick Church was provided by God as the depository of his truth the acknowledgment whereof should be necessary to obtain life everlasting So that the effect of this trust deposited by God in the Church to be at least thus much That whatsoever was advanced in any part thereof as belonging to the Rule of Faith being condemned where first it was advanced and in consequence of that condemnation by all other parts of the Church to that effect as to render those that held it uncapable of the Communion of all the whole Church That this I say might be accounted a reasonable mark to discern such doctrine to be destructive to the Rule of Faith And thus were all Heresies marked for such by the Church and upon this ground those marks were receivable not onely before Constantine but so long as it may be visible that nothing hindred this correspondence wherein the actual unity of the Church consisted to operate and have effect For if this be the reason and ground which made these marks reasonable as grounded upon it then hee that supposes this reason either actually interrupted or impeached cannot presume upon the like effect And therefore the justifying of these marks requires the evidencing of this correspondence of the Church and no more And truly I could not but admire to finde it alleged by Crellius the Socinian in his answer to Grotius concerning the satisfaction of Christ where hee argues that no Ecclesiastical Writer ever profest that opinion I say I admired to finde him answer that Pelagius the Heretick maintained the same For sure it is not much more pertinent than if hee should allege that the Jewes professe our Lord Jesus not to be the Messias or that the Gentiles do not worship one true God In as much as though they be further from the faith of true Christians than Pelagius yet an Heretick is no lesse excluded from the Communion of the Church than a Jew or a Gentile And the whole reason for which the testiemonies of Ecclesiastical Writers is receivable to evidence maters concerning the Rule of Faith to which they can give no credit but are by acknowledging the same receivable for Christians is the Communion of the Church which make it evident that what such men professe in the Church is not against the Faith of the Church And this in the second place may be a reasonable presumption or evidence of that which belongeth to the Rule of Faith when a thing is so ordinarily and vulgarly taught by Church Writers that there can be no reasonable presumption made by the doctrine of any of them that the contrary was ever allowed by the Church So then I do not tye my self to this that if any thing be found in the writings of any of those whom wee call commonly Fathers it is therefore not contrary to Christianity or to the Rule of Faith that is either expresly or by consequence For
the Christian Faith The one forfeiteth his interest in Heaven by the inward act of his soul refusing the common faith which saveth all Christians though outwardly holding communion with the Church The other by the inward act of the soul proceeding to the outward act of dissolving the communion of the Church which the common charity of Christians in the first place is to maintain If both these crimes may come under the the common name of Heresie because inward misbelief naturally tendeth to make a sect of such as shall profess to live according to it no marvail if all divisions of the Church be commonly called both Heresies and Schisms whatsoever be the cause upon which they divide If meer schisms that is where the cause is not any thing necessary to the salvation of all to be believed be also Heresie in the Language of the Apostles Neverthelesse there being so much difference between the two crimes and the grounds of them it is necessary to understand setting aside all aequivocation of terms that there is a crime consisting in mis-believing some Article of the faith which if you please may properly be called Heresie And another consisting in dissolving the unity of the Church which is properly called Schism when there is no further pretense for it then some Law which the Church being able to make the other part will rather depart then admit There may divisions in the Church upon pretence of such doctrines as are not necessary to the salvation of all and so no part of the rule of faith but so evidently to be deduced from it and from the rest of the Scriptures that the Church may have cause to determine the same and yet others may choose rather to depart from the Church then suffer the determination thereof to take place Which divisions that memorable observation of S. Jerome seems to call Heresies which said that all Schisms naturally devise to themselves some Heresie that is some doctrine extravagant from the doctrine of the Church that they may seem not to have departed from the Church for nothing Which is very well exemplified by S. Austine in the Donatists But whether such divisions are to be counted Heresies or Schisms both names properly signifying all divisions of the Church and only that crime which consisteth in mis-believing some Articles of faith appropriating the name of Heresie because common use hath given it no peculiar name of its own I leave to him that shall please to determine it Supposing these things it will not be requisite for me to say much to that which hath been published concerning the nature of Schism of late That being to be had onely out of the Scripture it is no where there to be had but in S. Paul to the Corinthians That there was at Corinth when S. Paul writ onely one Congregation of Christians which he calleth the Church of Corinth That therefore there is no crime of schism but in breaking one Congregation into more As for any visible society of the Catholick Church acknowledging the materials men that professe Christianity which he that sees cannot believe to the form which is that unity which is visible he is as great a stranger as if he had never heard of the Creed acknowledging notwithstanding an invisible unity in the common faith and love of Christians upon perswasion whereof he challenges as great freedom from schism as ever any member of the Catholick Church could claim For having showed how a thing which God made visible for many ages may reasonably be expected to be found in the Scriptures I am not to yield to try it by any part of them knowing that whosoever evidenceth a society of the Church by Gods Law evidenceth the crime that consists in the dissolving of it And it were fit we were told how all the Christians in a City where God had much people should sit at one Table or at least sup in one room before we believe that there was then no more Christians at Corinth then could assemble at once Which if I did believe I would notwithstanding alledge Iustine the Martyrs words Apol II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the day called Sunday all that dwelt in Cities or in Countries assemble themselves in one And supposing that then there were more Christians in Rome and the Territorie thereof for example for he writes to the Emperour Antoninus then could meet together in one place As Iustine means not when he saies That all in Cities or Countries meet in one that all made one Assembly but met all in common assemblies I would thereupon argue that no more does S. Paul say when he gives these rules to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 14. which serve any assembly that there was then but one Congregation at Corinth If in Iustines time if afore if after he can show me any Church of Rome or any City beside Rome that contained not all the Christians of that City and the Territory thereof I will believe that when Clemens writ the Letter lately published from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth there were no more Christians at Rome or at Corinth then could meet all at once But if in all the Scripture as well as in all the Records of the Church a Church signifie the university of Christians which one City and the Territory thereof containeth it is an affront to common sense for him to deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Church that is contained in the City and Territory of Rome or Corinth Let the learned Publisher of that Epistle take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there for Inquilinus or Peregrinus in Inmate or Pilgrim because his Greek gave him leave he that hath been showed so plentiful mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the subject in question for that which we now call a Diocese can have no reason to see with his eyes but because he is resolved not to use his own For in the very address of Polycarpus his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Church of God dwelling beside Philippi The dative case quite spoils the construction of the words to his sense If the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Christians of the Territory belonged to the Church of the City As for the visible unity of the Catholick Church it was not so easie for me to evidence that which could not be questionable till the difference between Catholick Church and true Church came to be questionable As it is not hard for any Christian to question whither the Church which was Catholick for so many ages ought now to be Catholick or not For till he have destroyed the evidence which this abridgement hath been able to advance and when that is done new evidence will not be wanting so long as the records of the Church are Historically true and men continue possest of common sense it is in vain to alledge the dictate of his own
destructive to their particular salvation within that compasse neither will their fall be imputable to the Church but to themselves if they do But neither shall this difficulty be so great an inconvenience in our common Christianity nor so insuperable as it seems to those that are loth to be too much troubled about the world to come For I never found that God pretendeth to give or that it is reason hee should give those means for attaining that truth by which wee must be saved which it should not lye within the malice of man to render difficult for them to compasse whom they concern I finde it abundantly enough for his unspeakable goodness and exactly agreeable with those means whereby hee convicteth the world of the truth of Christianity that hee give those whom it concerns such means to discern the truth of things in debate as being duly applyed are of themselves sufficient to create a resolution as certain as the weight of the mater in debate shall require And such I maintain the Scripture to be containing the sense of it within those bounds which the Rule of Faith and the Lawes given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles do limit For what is more obvious than to discern what the whole Body of the Church hath agreed in what not what is manifestly consequent to the same what not what is agreeable to the ground and end of those Lawes which the Church first received from our Lord and his Apostles what not Let prejudice cast what mists of difficulties it can before the light which God hath given his Church to discover the truth hee that stands out of their way shall discern much more art used to obscure than to discern it Neither is there any reason why it is so hard to make it discernable to all that are concerned but the unreasonable prejudices either of the force of humane authority in mater of Faith and the extent of Tradition beyond the Rule of Faith or that the consent of the whole Church may as well come from Antichrist as from the Apostles If the records of the Church were handled without these prejudices lesse learning than this age shows in other maters might serve to evidence the consent of â— Church in more controversies than wee have to those that would be content to rest in the Scripture expounded according to the same But if the Church that is those that uave right in behalf of the Church being perswaded of a sacrilegious privilege of Infallibility shall take upon them to determine truths in debate to limit Lawes to the Church without respect to this Rule which if they respect they manifestly renounce the privilege of their Infallibility I mervail not that God suffers his people to be tried with such difficulties whose sins I doubt deserve this tryal But then I say further that it is not the providence of God that is the means which hee hath provided to resolve men in debates of Christianity but it is the malice of man that makes that means uneffectual which God hath made sufficient I must now answer an envious objection that this resolution is not according to the positions of those that professe the Reformation with us To which I will speak as freely as to the rest having profess'd my self utterly assoiled of all faction and respect of mens persons to way against the means of finding the truth and for that reason devested even the Fathers of the Church of all authority which their merits from Christianity have purchased to hear what their testimonies argue in point of Historical truth I say then first that may saying no way prejudices the intent and interest of the Reformation whatsoever insufficience it may charge the expressions of Reformers with I know the worst that can be alleged in this point is that Luther in appealing from the Pope and Council called by him to a Council that should judg meerly by the Scriptures first framed this Controversie between the Scriptures and the Church which since hath been alwaies in debate so that hee which will not be tried by the Scriptures alone plainly seems to quit the party and give up the game Who has this imagination though never to apparent let mee desire him to go a little higher to the first commencing of the plea about Indulgences For there can be nothing more manifest than this That when those that undertook that cause against Luther found that the present practice of the Church could not be derived from any thing recorded in the Scripture they were forced to betake themselves to the authority of the Church not that which consisteth in testifying the faith once delivered but in creating that which never was of force untill the exercice of it Here let all the world judg for I am confident the case is so plain that all the world may judg in it whether Luther had any Interest to demand that the Scripture alone should be heard in opposition to the Tradition received from the beginning by the Church tending as I have said to nothing but to limit the meaning of the Scripture Or that his Interest required him to protest that the truth for which hee stood was not to be liable to the Sentence of the present Church And therefore when afterwards hee appealed to a Council which should pronounce by the Scriptures alone if this tend to exclude those means which are subordinate to the attaining of the meaning of the Scriptures I do utterly deny that it can be understood so to be meant by any man that would not defeat his own enterprize And therefore that it must be understood to exclude onely the authority of the present Church so farre as it proceeds not upon supposition of those grounds whereupon the Church is to pronounce For what hinders the sentence of the Church to be infallible not of it self alone but as it proceeds upon those means which duely applied produce a sentence that is infallible And truly were not his plea so to be understood all his Followers Melancthan Chemnitius and others who have written Volumes to show how their profession agrees with that of the Catholick Church should have taken pains to commit a very great inconsequence For as I have argued that those who maintain the Infallibility of the present Church do contradict themselves whensoever they have recourse either to the Scripture or to any Records of the Church to evidence the sense of the Scripture in that which otherwise they professe the authority of the Church alone infallibly to determine So those that will have the Scripture alone to determine all Controversies of Faith and yet take the pains to bring evidence of the meaning thereof from that which hath been received in the Church may very well be said to take pains to contradict themselves Some of our Scottish Presbyterians have observed that the Church of England was reformed by those that had more esteem of Melancthon than of Calvin and
man for Communion with the Church by Baptisme but of that which the Church professeth to have received from our Lord and his Apostles And this is the true ground of the foundation of the Church and the Society thereof whereof so much hath been said To wit that God giving his Gospel for the salvation of mankind did think fit to trust the guard and exercise of it to men once instructed by those to whom at the first he had given immediate Commission to publish and establish Christianity Rather then leave them to expect at his hands every day new revelations and miracles for introducing that which had once been sufficiently declared And also rather then leave every man to his own head to make what he can of the Scriptures and think he hath salvation by living according to it For supposing that Christianity which is delivered by the Scriptures once subject to be misunderstood and corrupted of which we have but too much experience an effectual course to preserve it will be to found a Corporation or Society of the Church the members whereof each in his owne ranck should remaine intrusted by God but by the meanes of their predecessors from whom they received Christianity to preserve both the profession of Christian truth and the exercise of Gods service inviolable Nor is it effectuall to say that the unity of the Church may fail being divided by Heresies and Schismes insomuch that that Baptisme which is visibly valide and good shall be void of that invisible effect which it pretendeth For it is not requisite that God should provide such meanes of salvation as may be undefeisible It is enough that they are reasonable He that is Baptized into a profession destructive to that which all Christians are bound upon their salvation to believe perishes for want of Faith setting aside the unity of the Church which his Herisie violates over and above But if the unity of the Church be of such advantage to the maintenance of our common Christianity as it was before the dissolving of it it is no marvaile if the Baptisme of Schismaticks though valide and good for the visible forme become voide of effect to them who by receiving it make themselves parties to the breach of the unity of the Church We agree that the Power of the Church of Rome is the occasion of many abuses in the Church What they are it is my present businesse to enquire He that bounds the interpretation of the Scriptures within the sense of the Catholike Church shall not transgresse the Law of Gods truth in that inquiry He that accepts the bounds of his own fansy in stead of them is it not just with God if he die If once common Christianity and the maintenance thereof depend so much upon the unity of the Church is it not reason that the benefit of it should depend upon the same he who having attained the true Faith and according to the same seeking the unity of the Church faileth of it without any fault of his owne if he who so seeketh it can be supposed to faile of it hath the difficulty of overcoming his own ignorance to pleade for his excuse But for them who have the consent of all Christians from the beginning to oblige them to undertake the profession of Christianity by Baptisme but out of hatred to the present Church the abuses of it neglect baptisme upon presumption that they have the holy Ghost without it or that the reason why the Apostles Baptized is now ceased I say that for them I suppose there remaines no just plea seeing that by the unity of the Catholike Church they ought to have been guided in judging what is of the abuse of the present Church and what is not And thus that consideration which some seeme to be not without cause scandalized at when these effects of Christianity the power whereof must necessarily consist in an unfained heart are made to depend upon an outward ceremony of Baptisme which the Church gives is utterly voided by that reason which the Apostle insinuates when he sayes that Baptisme saves us not the laying down of the filth of the flesh but that profession to God which is made with a good and a sincere conscience Whereas those that distinguish that faith which alone justifieth from the profession thereof which baptisme executeth oblige themselves to make Baptisme a ceremony not whereon the promises of the Gospel depend but to signifie that they are had and obtained without it But to whom signifie not to God who giveth them Not to him that has them and by his faith knows he has them Not to the Church which can never be certified that he hath them indeed and demands onely to be certified that he wants nothing requisite to presume him to be such So that Baptisme being required onely to presume that a man is a Christian and that presumption being legally had by any act the Church or any that call themselves the Church can require as well as by being Baptized If that be all there is no reason to be given the Sociniant why Baptisme should be necessary to the salvation of Christians and therefore why it should not be in their power to use it or not to use it And truly I do much marvel to see the Socinians that have very well seen the truth concerning the twofold meaning of the Law literall and spirituall and the promise of the land of Canaan tied to the carnall observation thereof as that of everlasting life to the spirituall obedience of it I say I do marvel to see that in consequence hereunto they should not inferre that God hath appointed a spirituall people of the Christian Church answerable to Israel according to the flesh and that his spirituall promises should depend upon the visible imtiation of eveâ—â— Christian into the body of that people as the right of his temporal promises depended upon their initiation into the body of carnall Israelites not according to birth but according to promise Onely when I consider on the other side that without regard to the Article of the Catholick Church which Christians make a part of their Creed they rest in such a communion as their private perswasion of the sense of the Scriptures shall be of force to produce I do not marvail to see them not owne the consequence of their own principles when they see it not stand with other prejudices which they have imbraced I know there are two things will be objected here the one is a meer prejudice that by maintaining of free will by maintaining the Covenant of Grace to consist in an act of it we shall incurre the Heresie of Pelagius The other that if the condition of the Covenant of Grace be an expresse profession vow and promise to live as well as to believe according to what Christ hath taught and that without the use of reason no such promise can be of force or take place then infants cannot
Gregory of Nâ—oâ—aesarea may perhaps relish either it was not publickly taken notice of when it was published or passed over in silence for the present in respect of his merit toward the Church As it must be said of his opinion concerning souls flitting into new bodies As for Euseb of Caesarea and the author of the Constitutions which are both charged in this point Eusebius living in the time when the consent of the Church over-ruled the contrary rather evidenceth then interrupteth that Tradition which condemneth him if he agree not with it But the author of the Constitutions is not known at what time he lived to write in the name of Clemens the Apostles Scholar that which for his part he thought most likely to come from the Apostles Whether or no he might think it became him writing in that name to use such terms as he found the ancientest Church-Writers use before the businesse of Arius Whether or no he might mistake himself in doing so I will not dispute But being hard to believe that he writ till the heresie of Arius and Eâ—nâ—mâ—us was down As I can give my self no good reason why he should bring in Arius under the habit of the Apostles so I see the suspicion which he hath contracted in a manner as ancient as the credit of his book in the Church After all this if any man marvail that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria should think so slightly of Arius his opinion as in debating it sometimes to side with him sometimes with his adversaries according to Sozomenus Eccles Hist I. 15. Let him consider that the Ecclesiasticall Historians informe us that the difference of Arius was commenced at a Consistory That is at a meeting of the Clergy to debate the businesse Onely Sozomenus that there had been divers meetings about it In which Alexander had not declared himself but spoken sometimes on this side and sometimes on that Not because there is any appearance in the story that Arius himself could have construed his procedings as if he had been doubtfull which side to choose But because any wise man in his place would have thought it the way to preserve his authority over Arius by not declaring himself party against him till he appeared untractable by that reason which his authority must inforce when it self would not serve the turn As for the great Constantine who in his Leter to the Church of Alexandria declareth many times that the question concerned not the substance of Faith It must be said that being no Christian as yet nor catechized in the Faith his information failed either in matter of fact reporting the position of Arius in such terms as might bear a good construction in which what latitude there is it may appear by the premises or in point of right making that not to concern the substance of Faith which indeed doth For those terms in which all the Ecclesiastical Histories agree that the debate was stated are such as indeed do concern the substance of Faith Neither is there any mark in the writings of the Fathers before this time upon which it can be said that any of them thought that there was a time when the Word of God which being incarnate in our Lord Christ was not but was made by God of nothing after that time Which are the characters that distinguish the heresie of Arius Set aside then the Constitutions Eusebius Origen and his Scholar Dionysius as questionable in point of fact or as granted that the sense of their words is not reconcileable with the Faith in point of right the retraction of Dionysius makes as much more for the Faith then his misprision condemned by Gennadius de Dogm Eccl. Cap. IV. and Facundus X. 5. against it as the rejecting of Sabellius makes more for the same then the doubtfull words of Gregory of Nâ—ocaesarea against That which is to be said thereupon is that there can be therefore no reason to blame the Councill of Nicaea for adding to the Creed the terme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oblige the Arians to the sense of the Church S. Athanasius in his Treatise de Actis Conc. Nicen. hath shewed us that it was introduced to cut off those equivocations whereby they ought to cover their owne sense under those other words which were propounded as capeable of the Catholick sense He that will say that this course ought not to have been held or that having taken effect it ought not to have been retained may as well say that the faith of Christ or the Unity of Gods service in that faith is not to be preserved For being once questioned therâ— must be a Rule and a mark to discern Christians from Hereticks I observe therefoâ—e likewise that the troubles which Arius occasioned in the Church never came to an end till the word person in Latine and hypostasis in Greek was admitted in opposition to the word essence or nature included in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Council of Nicaea had introduced into the Creed that the difference between the Church and Arius might be stated upon the expresse terms of three persons and one nature For it is evident by S. Jerome Epist LVII that the terme of hypostasis for person was not then received who writes to Pope Damasus to be authorized by him whether to admit or to refuse it But as after that time we hear no further question of the term so under the Emperor Gratiane and Pope Damasus we find the dispute extinguished But I say neverthelesse that there is no cause therefore to imagine that the sense of the Church and the faith thereof hath received any change by the use of new terms which the necessity of preventing Hereticks hath obliged the Church to introduce And I say as the others said that the importance and consequence of the said new terms ought to be reduced to that force which the sense of the Church according to the Scriptures alloweth or rather prescribeth And that whosoever shall take upon him under pretense of the most unquestionable decrees that any age of the Church hath produced to prescribe against that sense which the primitive records of the Church do inforce in so doing sets up the authority of that present Church against the Tradition of the Catholick And after all this shall the Socinians be admitted to alledge that S. Hilary quittâ—th a doubt whether the holy Ghost is to be called God or not Surely the Socinians cannot be admitted to alledge this unlesse they will be content to submit to S. Hilary in the whole businesse Nay unlesse they will stand to the Church to which S. Hilary stands But for those that are not Socinians and would be satisfied I will not use that wretched answer of Erasmus in that excellent preface to S. Hilarys works That the Church hath since decreed otherwise As if there were not a reason why the Church so decreed or as if he were not bound to render that reason
the maintenance of no necessity of grace because no originall sinne to deny Christ to be God incarnate that so the grace of God which the Covenant of Grace pretendeth may consist in Gods sending it not in Christs purchasing those helps whereby it is received and observed Which had Pelagius seen how consequent it is to his saying he who held the true faith of the holy Trinity would probably never have proceeded to deny the grace of Christ For would they have the Son of God born into the world and suffer death upon the Crosse on purpose to testifie the Gospel to be Gods message As if the Law had not been received before without it being recommended by such miraculous works of God that the Jews think there cannot be the like motives to believe that it is abrogated by Christianity Be their belief false sure we are Gods arme was not shortned to have no meanes in store to verify his Gospel but the death of his Sonne that he might rise againe to witnesse it For that it should be done to assure them who are perswaded that the Gospel is Gods message of the performance thereof on Gods part is rather a blasphemy then a reason In as much as he who doubts whether God will perform what he doubts not that he hath tied himself to by Covenant believes not God to be God And that we should be better assured of Christs protection because God hath freely bestowed upon him the honour and power of God then because he brought it in time into our flesh which he had from everlasting is a reason which no man can comprehend to be reasonable For whatsoever Grace comes to us by Christ the more originally and inseparably that it belongs to him the better it is assured upon us But one thing I demand of Pelagius aswell as of Socinus For as Socinus expresly grants the habituall grace of the holy Ghost to true Christians as necessary to inable them in performing what they undertake by their Christianity so I suppose Pelagius had the question been put to him would not have refused it I demand then whether a man in reason be more able to do the office of a Christian having undertaken it or to undertake it to wit sincerely while he is free from the ingagement of it That is whether a mans will be able inwardly to resolve without any help of Gods Spirit to do that which without the help of Gods Spirit he cannot performe I suppose the inward act according to all Divines and Philosophers amounts to one and the same in esteem with the outward and the beginning most difficult of all when the proposition of Christianity is most strange For a resolution upon mature debate of reason as in such a case and an engagement upon profession thereof is a meanes powerfull enough to carry a man to undergoe as much hardship as Christianity requires in a thing neither profitable nor pleasant If therefore to the performance of Christianity the assistance of Gods Spirit is requisite then because our nature is averse then much more to resolve us to it Whereby it appears that the same gift of the holy Ghost which being purchased by the obedience of Christ inabled the Apostles to do those things and say those words by which the world stands convict of the necessity of Christianity the same it is that effects the conviction of those who imbrace it and dwelling with them inables them to live in it according to the promise of God to his ancient people Esay LVIII 20. And as for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My Spirit which is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor thy seeds mouth nor thy seeds seeds mouth from this time for evermore With the like brevity will I plead the Tradition of the Church concerning the Grace of Christ evidencing the same by three particulars The first whereof shall be of the Baptisme of Infants which as there can be no reason for uâ—lesse we believe originall sinne So I do challenge that it could not have come to be a Law to the Church had not the Faith of the Church from the Apostles time supposed originall sinne First negatively from the proceeding of Pelagius He first a Monk in Britaine and traveling thence along to Rome afterwards either by himself or by his agent Coelestius to Constantinople and Carthage through Asia the lesse and Affrick the East Egypt and Palestine and not finding in all this vast compasse any Church in which it had not been accustomed to baptize infants shall any man be now so madde as to imagine that this can be discovered to have been taken up upon misprision or abuse the custome of the Church having been otherwise afore It is time that the mindes of men that are possest of their senses should be imployed about things within the compasse of reason and not to perswade themselves that they see what cannot be because they cannot answer all arguments that may be made against that which is and is to be seen Could Pelagius have found any footing to deny it he was not such an Idiot as to suffer himself at every turn to be choked by the Catholicks objecting the baptisme of Infants every where received in the Church who might easily have put them to silence by saying it was not an originall Catholick practise of the whole Church but the mistake that of some men which had prevailed by faction in some times and parts of the Church as I pretend hereby to maintaine the Reformation against the present Church of Rome Since that ingenious and learned heretick nor any of his complices hath been found to use this plea all men that intend not to renounce their common sense will justify me if I challenge positively S. Austines Rule in a particular of such moment as this is That seeing it is manifest that it was a law to the whole Church that Infants should be Baptized and that there can be assigned no originall of it from any expresse act of the Church in Councill or otherwise it is therby evident that it comes from the order of the Apostles The reason is the unity of the Church the principle upon which all this proceeds whereby it appeares that it is utterly impossible that a point of such importance to Christianity could have been admitted over all the world where Christians were without any opposition or faction to overcome the same had it not from the beginning been acknowledged to proceed from the common principle from which all Ecclesiasticall Law is derived to wit from the authority of our Lords Apostles the founders of the Church It is not my intent hereby to say that the Apostles order was that all should be baptized Infants whose parents were Christians afore Against which I find reasons alledged in Tertullianes book de Baptismo which I cannot deny to be considerable But that no
S. Gregory saith Scholasticus composed whether hee mean a man of that name or as I conceive some Doctor that professed the Scriptures if S. Gregory should tell mee that some other form to the same effect was not in use I could not believe him believing the premises The substance and effect whereof under the name of Eucharistia or the Thanks-giving is that which the Church from the beginning consecrated the Eucharist with by the appointment of our Lord and according to the practice of his Apostles So Rabanus de Institutione Clericorum I. 32. affirms that the whole Church consecrates with Blessing and Thanksgiving the Apostles having taught them to do that which our Lord had done Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. XXII relates two several opinions concerning this businesse as it appears by his discourse Et relatio majorum est ità primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas sicut modò in Parasceve Paschae in quo die apud Romanos Missae non aguntur communicationem facere solemus Id est praemissâ— Oratione Dominicà sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepti commemoratione passionis adhibitâ eos Corpori Dominico communicâsse Sanguini quos ratio permittebat And there is a relation of our Predecessors that in the first times Masse was done as now on Good Friday on which day Masse is not said at Rome the communion is wont to be made That is that the Lords Prayer premised and the commemoration of his death applyed those whom reason allowed did communicate in the Body and Bloud of our Lord. The practice of the Church of Rome here mentioned is that which still continues not to consecrate the Eucharist either on Good Friday or the Saturday following For then Masse is said so late that it belongs to Easter day And on Maundy Thursday the Eucharist is consecrated and reserved to be received on Good Friday That any commemoration of Christs death is made at the receiving of it as Rabanus saith I finde not This is certain that no man imagines that the Eucharist is consecrated by any thing that is said or done at the receiving of it but at the Masse on the day before And this in the Greek Church is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Liturgy of the elements that were consecrated afore Which they use on other days besides Therefore this opinion that the Apostles should celebrate so would import that they celebrated the Eucharist without consecrating of it That is that they never appointed how it should be consecrated Which neither Rabanus nor any of these whose opinion he relates can maintain Nor supposing the premises is it tenable And therefore I take the true meaning of S. Gregories words to be laid down in another opinion related afore by Rabanus Quod nunc agimus multiplici orationum cantilenarum consecrationum officio totum hoc Apostoli post eos proximi ut creditur orationibus commemoratione passionis dominica faciebant simpliciter That which wee act by an Office compounded of many and divers Prayers Psalms and Consecrations all that the Apostles and the next after them did plainly with prayers and the commemoration of our Lords passion as it is thought For the consecration may well be understood to be made plainly by prayer with commemoration of our Lords passion in opposition to that solemnity of Lessons Psalms and Prayers which at the more solemn occasions of the Church it was afterwards celebrated with Though wee suppose it to conclude alwaies with the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory requires And herewith the words of S. Gregory seeâ— to agree when hee â—aith Vt ad ipsam â—solummâ—do orationem To consecrate at or with it alone not by it alone But if this opinion cannot passe having indeed no constraining evidence but that S. Gregories words will needs require that they conâ—ecrated the Eucharist by the Lords Prayer alone I will will then â—ay that the Apostles understood the petition of our dayly bread as S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer doth To wit of the breâ—d and drink of the Eucharist daily celebrated and received For supposing this intent and meaning there is nothing pretended to be done by the consecration which that Petition signifieth not Praying that God will give us this day the dayly food of our â—ouls by the elements presently provided for that purpose And all this will no way prejudice that which hath been said of the mater and form of the consecration derived by Tradition from the Apostles to be frequented at more solemn occaâ—â—ons of Christian Assemblies For that Assembly which believing that Christians are justified by undertaking to professe the Faith and to live according to it and that our Lord hath left us his body and bloud of the Eucharist to convey the Holy Ghost to our â—ouls that they may be able to perform what they undertake should pray the Lords Prayer over the Elements proposed with that intent I cannot doubt of their receiving the Body and bloud of Christ Provided that where the occasion will bear more solemnity the Order of the Church received from the Apostles be not neglected Whereas supposing Christians to believe that they are justified by believing that they are justified or predestinate in consideration onely of Christs sufferings and that the Eucharist is instituted onely for a signe to confirm this Faith Though they should regularly use that form of consecration which I maintain to come by Tradition from the Apostles I would not therefore grant that they should either consecrate the Eucharist or could receive the Body and bloud of Christ by it Sacrilege they must commit in abusing Gods ordinances to that intent for which hee never appointed it but Sacrament there would be none further then their own imagination And upon these premises I am content to go to issue as concerning the sense of the Catholick Church in this point If it can any way be showed that the Church did ever pray that the flesh and bloud might be substituted instead of the elements under the accidents of them then I am content that this be counted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist But if the Church onely pray that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements may make them the body and bloud of Christ so that they which received them may be filled with the grace of his Spirit Then is it not the sense of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance because supposing that they remain they may neverthelâ—sse become the Instrument of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it no otherwise than his flesh and bloud conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the body and bloud of Christ Sacramentally that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is not here to be denied that
with virgines and once maried people And shall thy sacrifice freely ascend And among other affections of a good minde wilt thou desire chastity for thee and thy wife I dispute not here how lawfull it is to pray for the dead which Tertullian touches again de Monogamiâ X. de Animâ LVIII This Tertullian supposes that if a Christian have two wives hee must offer that the Eucharist may be celebrated and that at the celebrating of it the Priest may pray for those whom hee mentions as the occasion of celebrating it The birth-dayes of Martyrs that is the Anniversaries of their sufferings was another occasion of celebrating the Eucharist as in Tertullian so in S. Cyprian Epist XXXIV Sacrificium pro eis semper ut meminiâ—â—is offerimus quoties Martyrum passiones dies annuâ commemoratione celebâ—an us Wee alwaies offer sacrifice for them as you remember when wee celebrate the yearly commemoration of the Martyrs suffering dayes Therefore where the â—ame S. Cyprian forbids offering the names of those that had fallen away in persecution and offering for them Epist IX XI hee forbids the receiving of their offerings and by consequence praying for them at the Eucharist Epiphanius Haer. XXX speaking of the Patriarch of the Jewes baptized in private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The said Patriarâ—â—â—aâ—inâ—â—â— his hand a very considerable summ of gold streâ—ched out his hand and gave it to â—â—e Bishop saying Offer for mee S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag V. Eâ—roe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then that spiritual sacrifice that unbloudy service being done consecrâ—tâ—â— over that propitiatory sacrifice wee beseech God for the common peace of the Churches for the State of the world for the Kings their armies and allies for the sick c. adding that praying for the departed wee offer to God Christ cruciâ—â—ed â—or our sins to render him propitious to them and to us Of which effect in due place the intent hereby appears For here as hee calls it a Sacrifice upon the Consecration so hee plainly sets down wherein the propitiation which it effecteth consists according to the Catholick Church For to say truth to the purpose in hand I can produce nothing like that which I have said already in my Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church to which I remit you for the rest pag. 370-382 that in all the Liturgies there is a place where mention is to be made of all States of the Church for whom the Oblations out of which the Eucharist is consecrated are offered And likewise a place where the Eucharist being consecrated prayer is made in behalf of all States in the Church that is to say the Sacrifice of Christ his Crosse there present is offered up to move God to grant them all that is desired by the regular and continual prayers of the Church And among them there is a special place for those that offer at present If any man be moved to imagine that any part hereof is prejudicial to that Reformation which the Church of England professeth for I professe from the beginning not to be sâ—rupulous of offending those that offend it I remit him to that learned Appendix of Dr Field to his third book of the Church the purpose whereof in answer to the question where the Reformed Church was before Luther is to show that in this point as in others there handled the sense of the whole Church of Christ even to the time of Luther and to the Council of Trent was no other than that which the Church of England embraceth and cherisheth Thereby to show that the Reformation thereof never pretended to found a new Church but to preserve that which was by taking away those corruptions which time and the enemies of Christianity had sown in the Lawes and customs of it Which hee doth so evidently perform in this point that I must needs challenge any man that hath a minde to blast any thing here said with the staâ—e calumny of Popery to consider first Whether hee can prove those things which the Authors past exception there quoted declare to be the sense of the Catholick Church at that time to contain any thing prejudicial to the Gospel of Christ and that purity thereof which the Reformation pretendeth And because I know hee cannot do it I rest secure of all blasphemies or slanders that can be forged upon this occasion Openly professing that those who will not acknowledg that condition of the Gospel and the promises thereof which I have demonstrated to be essential to Christianity it is for their interest to defame the sense of the Catholick Church with the slanderous aspersions of Popery that so they might seduce miserable creatures to believe that there is a faith which inâ—itles them to the promises of the Gospel not supposing them converted to the Christianity which it rendereth For seeing that propitiation which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist pretendeth is grounded upon this condition of the Covenant of Grace as I have showed it is no mervail if they who pretend to reconcile the promises of the Gospel to the lusts of the flesh by which this world is injoyed indeavor to slander the purity of Christianity with those aspersions which they have seduced wretched people to count odious In fine it is not that consideration of a Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the sense and practice of the Catholick Church inforceth but the violent interpretations of it which are made on both sides to both extremities that can give the leass pretense for division in the Church For while on the one side the sacrificing of Christ a new is so construed as if to doubt of the virtue of it in behalf of all that assist in it whether they communicate in it or not whether their devotions concurr to it or not were to doubt of the virtue of Christs Crosse it is no mervail if this create so great offense that the receiving of the Eucharist nay the assisting of it with the devotions of Christian people comes to be a mater of indifference On the other side while the renewing of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse by that representation thereof which the Eucharist tendreth for the redressing of the Covenant of Grace between God and those which receive is construed as prejudicial to that one Sacrifice whereby our Lord for ever hath perfected those whom hee sanctifieth no mervail if the very celebrating of it come to be a mater of indifference the effect whereof by believing that a man is predestinate or justified is had before and without it The mater of the Sacrifice then being so great a subject for the diviâ—ion upon so litle cause it is time for good Christians to awake and look about them and see that the lesse cause there is the greater good will the parties have to continue at distance In the mean time it is the common interest of Christianity even the means of their salvation by the
you say something more to limit the ground upon which they may be no lesse What limitation I would adde is plain by the premises The preaching of that Word and that ministring of the Sacraments which the Tradition of the whole Church confineth the sense of the Scriptures to intend is the onely mark of the Church that can be visible For I suppose preaching twice a Sunday is not if a man be left free to preach what he will onely professing to beleeve the Bible which what Heresy disowneth and to make what he thinks good of it And yet how is the generality of people provided for otherwise unlesse it be because they have preachers that are counted godly men by those whom what warrants to be godly men themselves In the mean time is it not evident that Preachers and people are overspread with a damnable heresy of Antinomians and Enthusiasts formerly when Puritanes were not divided from the Church of England called Etonists and Grindeltons according to severall Countries These believe so to be saved by the free Grace of God by which our Lord died for the Elect that by the revelation thereof which is justifying Faith all their sinnes past present and to come are remitted So that to repent of sinne or to contend against it is the renouncing of Gods free Grace and saving Faith How much might be alledged to show how all is now overspread with it The Book called Animadversions upon a Petition out of Wales shall serve to speak the sense of them who call themselves the godly party as speaking to them in Body Thus it speaks pag. 36. Look through your vail of duties profession and ordinances and try your heart with what spirit of love obedience and truth you are in your work And whether will you stand to this judgement Or rather that God should judge you according to grace to the name and nature of Christ written upon you and in you Sure the great Judge will thus judge us at last by his great judgement or last judgement Not by the outward conversation nor inward intention but finally by his eternall Election according to the Book of Life This just afore he calleth the seed of Christ and his righteousnesse in a Christian And pag. 38. When we are inraged we let fly at mens principles being not satisfied to rebuke mens actions opinions and workes but would be avenged of their Principles too As if we would kill them at the very hart pull them up by the Rootes and leave them in an uncurable condition rotten in their Principles But Principles ly deeper then the heart and are indeed Christ who is the Principle and beginning of all things who though heart fail and flesh faile yet he abides the root of all Shall he pretend to be a Christian that professes this Shall any pretend to be a Church that spue it not out Let heaven and earth judge whether poor soules are otherwise to be secured of the Word then by two sermons a Sunday when the sense of the Godly is claimed to consist in a position so peremptorily destructive to salvation as this It will be said perhaps that now the Ministers of the Congregations have subscribed the confession of the Assembly But alas the covering is too short When a Bishop in the Catholick Church subscribed a Councile there was just presumption that no man under his authority could be seduced from the Faith subscribed Because no man communicated with the Catholick Church but by communicating with him that had subscribed it Who shall warrant that the godly who have this sense not liable to any authority in the Church shall stand to the subscriptions of those Ministers or to the authority of the Assembly pretended by the Presbyteries If they would declare themselves tied so to do who shall warrant that there is not a salvo for it in the Confession which they subscribe If there were not why should any difficulty be made to spue out that position which is the seed of it That justifying Faith consisteth in believing that a man is of the number of the Elect for whom Christ died excluding others Why that which is the fruit of it That they who transgresse the Covenant of Baptisme come not under the state of sin and damnation come not from under the state of Grace Why but because a back-door must be left for them that draw the true conclusion from their own premises reserving themselves the liberty to deny the conclusion admitting the premises It is not then a confession of faith that will make the Word that is preached a mark of the Church without some mark visible to common sense warranting that confession of Faith As for the Sacraments no Church no Sacraments If they suppose that ground upon which that intent to which the whole Church hath used them there is no further cause of division in the Church for that secures the rule of Faith If not they are no Sacraments but by equivocation of words they are sacriledges in profaning Gods Ordinances The Sacrament of Baptisme because the necessary meanes of salvation is admitted for good when ministred by those who are not of the Church but alwaies void of the effect of grace To which it reviveth so soone as the true Faith is professed in the unity of the Church If a Sacrament be a visible signe of invisible grace that baptisme is no baptisme which signifieth the grace it should effect but indeed effecteth not Such is that Baptisme which is used to seale a Covenant of Grace without the condition of Christianity a Covenant that is not the Covenant of two parties but the promise of one Whence comes the humor of rebaptizing but to be discharged of that Christianity which the baptisme of the Church of England exacteth Why do they refuse Baptisme in New England to all that refuse to enter into the Covenant of Congregations How comes it more necessary to salvation to be of a Congregation then to be Baptized and made a Christian Is it not because it is thought that salvation is to be had without that profession of Christianity which the Sacrament of Baptisme sealeth That it is not to be had without renouncing it Upon these termes those that are denied Baptisme by the Congregations because they are not of the Congregations are denied salvation as much as in them lies but not indeed and in truth For the necessity of baptisme supposing a profession of the Catholicke Church they perish not by refusing it who will not have it by renouncing the Catholicke Church that is by covenanting themselves into Congregations They that are so affected must know that they have authority of themselves to baptize to effect which no Congregation in New England is able to do If the Sacrament of the Eucharist seale that Covenant of Grace which conditioneth not for Christianity it is no sacrament but by equivocation of words Where that conditionall is doubtfull or voide there is no security
future contingencies For to say that they may be â—oreseen in the deceite of permitting them is to say that that which may be otherwise may be certainely foreseen by certainly knowing that there is nothing to hinder it It remaines that I say what is to be thought of that proposition which some of the School Doctors holdforth That to such as do what is in them to doe by their naturall abilities God gives grace facientâ—bus quod in se est ex vi ibu naturâ— Deus largitur gratiam Because it seems to follow upon â—upposition of that which I have maintained That the unregenerate are notwithstanding originall concupiscence able to do things that are good for a right end though not out of a resolution to doe all for the right end of all which is God and his service For hence it seemeth to be inferred that those who live in civill righteousnesse for honesties sake and not for their particular advantage inconsistent with the generall good of mankind dâ—serâ—ve that God should â—end you those helps of grace which are immediately sufficient to save them by the Covenant of grace But it is manifest that the proposition may be understood in two senses One in point of Fact the other of right Theone making the proposition universal the other particular The one importing that God may tâ—e other that God must give those helps of grace that are immediately sufficient to them that live well according to the light of nature there being a vast difference between Gods giving the helps of grace that are immediately sufficient to them whom he considers to have done such things as the light of nature justifies And his giving them because of the same as obliged so to reward them For the one leaves those sufficient helps gifts of Gods grace by Christ the other renders them rewards of mens works not subject to Gods bounty being prevented with the obligation of justice and therefore establishes that opinion of meritum de congruo which had much vogue in the Schooles and supposeth not but inferreth the Covenant of grace and therefore destroyes it as verifying the effects thereof into those works of man that oblige God to grant those helps which the Gospell pretending to be set on foot by Gods free grace in Christ tendreth Certainly admitting that which hath been proved that the preaching of the gospell is granted in consideration of the merits and sufferings of Christ it cannot by any meanes be maintayned that any works of meere nature can oblige God to send the meanes of knowing the Gospell and conviction of the truth of it without granting by consequence that the very coming of Christ whereof these meanes are the consequence must be imputed to the works of those who in the state of corrupt nature have obliged God to send them the knowledge of Christ Which they could not have had had not the coming of Christ been fiâ—st provided Which by this reason must have been in consideration of the originall merit of their works I say the originall merit of their works because in this case there could be no consideration of Gods promise made out of free grace as the ground of those blessings which God thereby ties himselfe to bestow upon condition of doing that which his Covenant requires though otherwise infinitely exceeding the value of the condition which he requireth For here it is evident that the free grace of God which tenders the promise upon the condition is the originall ground of all the claime that any that is qualified can make to the promise But supposing the workes of corrupt nature to oblige God to give his Gospell it is no more his free grace but the originall merit of those workes to which all the grace of it must be imputed Which as it directly falls into the prime article of Pelagius his heresy that grace is given according to merit and that it is not given to every act being prevented by those acts in consideration whereof this opinion supposes it to be granted So by consequence it makes the publication of the Gospell to be no grace of Christ but the reward of mans merit which is the true consequence of Pelagius his position For though being pressed with those scriptures in which the grace of Christ is so clearely preached that nothing but impudence could deny it he granted that the preaching of the Gospell is as much of Gods free grace as the light of nature by which these workes are done yet in very deed he oâ—erthrewe his owne saying that is gave the Church an undefeasible advantage against himselfe by granting it His heresy being no waies tenable without maintaining the very preaching of the Gospell to be the purchace of mans merit and Christ himselfe the subject of the Gospell by consequence And thus the heresy of Pelagius becomes that very opinion which S. Paul writes against as often as he disputes that a man is justified by grace and not by works Onely with this difference that when he writes against the Jewes arguing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by faith his meaning is that the righteousnesse of the Jewes turned Christians is not to be ascribed to the outward observation of Moses Law but to the Covenant of grace But when he wriets to the gentiles That they attained not the promises of the Gospell by the works which they had don before they heard of it but by the meere grace of God that sent our Lord Christ to bring it But if any man insist that nothing hinders him to suppose the Gospell already set on foot and thereupon to say and hold That by the use of corrupt nature God may be obliged to send the knowledg of it The insufficience of the plea will be evident enough For those works of morall honesty which corrupt nature is able to doe not serving to discharge the obligation thereof to God in those particular occasions upon which they become due because they are void of any whether habituall or actuall intent of that end which they ought to aime at It were ridiculous to tye God to grant the effects of his free grace in sending our Lord Christ to those that are lesse sinners then others And consiâ—ering that which is visible in point of fact it wil be imposible to reduce those things which appear in the propagating and maintaining of Christianity through the world to any difference of works done before the knowledg thereof as the reason of Gods dispensing of it Which may also be said of another opinion that may be and perhaps is held upon termes not prejudiciall to the faith as this seemes to be to wit That God by declaring the Covenant of Grace his inclination to save all the world by it hath tied himselfe to grant such motions and inspirations of true good to all men that if they neglect them not but do what corrupt nature so prevented is able to doe he shall
spirit to show that he is no Schismatick not acknowledging much lesse holding the unity of the Church out of which no man can be accounted otherwise But I marvail most wherein he would have the crime of Schisme acknowledged by S. Paul in that one Text which he would be tried by to consist It is the Law of Nature that inables Christians to â—oyn in a independent Congregation as our other Doctor of Oxford hath told us If a Covenant or League passe between so many Soveraigns in this point consider how difficult it is to charge a Soveraign with breach of League such contracts consisting of many Articles one whereof violated voids the contract At least to the contrary there is no Rule Now the Covenant of a Congregation must suppose all Christianity the violation whereof in any point by any member supported by the rest frees a man of his contract How then shall S. Pauls words take place 1 Cor. XI 19. There must be Heresies that the approved may become manifest among you For if one leave six the Congregation consisting of seven how shall it appear that the six are in the right But in my supposition these petty animosities at Corinth may have been fomented by secret Hereticks as in time I shall show that they were And their indeavour might be to make a party for their Heresie out of other Churches as well as out of that of Corinth and being formed to unite them by the like bond as they saw the Church tied with by the Apostles In this case division is ruinous to Christianity not when the question is whether seven shall meet together or three and four For by this means it may become difficult for particular Christians upon true principles to give sentence for themselves in the matter of differances but easie to miss the truth and to joyn with the enemies of it thinking they serve God in communicating with them by charging themselves with judging of the sense of the Scriptures either in those Laws of the Church which concern not the salvation of particular Christians or in the common faith without those bounds which God hath provided by the Church And upon these terms those that are approved may and do become manifest by the rising of Heresies in the Church That which I shall inferre is this That though there be no such virtue as implicite faith because it is no part of faith no office of that virtue to believe that any thing is true because the Church believes it with that firm adherance to it as we are resolved to stand to that by believing which we hope to be saved yet it is part of the virtue and part of the office of a faithfull man that is a Christian to conform himselfe to the beliefe of all that which the Church lawfully determineth to be believed that is to say not to professe the contrary of it and upon that profession to do any thing towards dissolving the unity of the Church so long as the determination thereof causeth not that corruption of those things which the society of the Church presupposeth as may seem to make the unity thereof uselesse whereof this is not the place to debate when it comes to pass It is sufficient for the present that whatsoever the Church hath power to determine according to the premises that the Church that is all particular Christians are obliged not to believe by the office of faith which is onely exercised in them who can make deductions of conclusions from the principles of faith who necessarily holding the conclusions in consideration meerly of the premises do necessarily believe the conclusions by that virtue of faith which holds the principles but to hold and to conform to and not to scandalize by the office of that charity which is most eminently exercised about that which concerns the common good of all Christians in generall which uothing in the world can so much concern next the common faith as the unity and communion of the Church Thus have I bounded the power of the Church and so showed the reason upon which the right use of it is to proceed I showed afore the ground of that exception which the interest of secular Power in Church matters createth to the due use of it When I shall have showed in the third book what the Law of God hath determined in matters concerding the communion of the Church and by consequence what it leaveth to the Church to determine it will be time to take in hand the same consideration again For the ground of this exception will show how farre it extendeth whereby it will appear that Christian Powers do acknowledge the Church and the power of it to stand by Gods Law even when they limit the exercise of it by virtue of that interest which the law of God alloweth them in Church matters CHAP. XXVI What it is to adde to Gods Law What to adde the Apocalypse S. Pauls Anathema The Beraeans S. Johns Gospel sufficient to make one believe and the Scriptures The man of God perfit How the Law giveth light and Christians are taught by God How Idolatry is said not to be commanded by God IN the beginning of this Book I proposed the chief Texts of Scripture which are usually drawn into consequence to prove either the infallibility of the Church or the sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures Of which I may truly say that they are and have been for these hundred and forty yeares the Theme of a dispute between the Scriptures and the Church for the right of giving Law to the consciences of Christians what communion to chuse that of the Reformation or that of the Church of Rome But with so little success that a discreet man may truly say that the parties do now stand at a bay as it is visible that they do meerly because they are not able to force one another by the arms which they are furnished with the Arguments of either side serving to maintain them against the adversary meerly because the arguments of the other side are insufficient not because either hath either the whole truth or nothing of the truth for it I showed you there that they come short of making good that which they are imployed to prove on this side as well as on that As for my present business which is here to show how the sense of them concurs to the truth which I have established I shall but desire any man of common sense to make an argument from the Text of Moses alledged in the first place and say The people of Israel are forbidden by the Law of Moses to adde any thing to the said Law and to take any thing from it Therefore the Scriptures contain clearly set down to all understandings concerned all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians then to tell me whither he will undertake to make good this consequence of not For if the Law of Moses cannot pretend to contain