an Oral Tradition which they themselves had not put in writing They do sometimes refer themselves to such things as they had delivered to particular Churches but by Tradition in the Apostles days and for some Ages after it is very clear that they meant only the conveyance of the Faith and not any unwritten Doctrines They reckoned the Faith was a sacred depositum which was committed to them and that was to be preserved pure among them But it were very easy to shew in the continued Succession of all the first Christian Writers That they still Appealed to the Scriptures That they Argued from them That they Condemned all Doctrines that were not contained in them and when at any time they brought human Authorities to justify their Opinions or Expressions they contented themselves with a very few and those very late Authorities So that their design in vouching them seems to be rather to clear themselves from the Imputation of having innovated any thing in the Doctrine or in the ways of expressing it than that they thought those Authorities were necessary to prove them by For in that case they must have taken a great deal more pains than they did to have followed up and proved the Tradition much higher than they went We do also plainly see that such Traditions as were not founded on Scripture were easily corrupted and on that account were laid aside by the succeeding Ages Such were the Opinion of Christ's Reign on Earth for a Thousand years The Saints not seeing God till the Resurrection The necessity of giving Infants the Eucharist The Divine Inspiration of the 70 Interpreters besides some more important Matters which in respect to those Times are not to be too much descanted upon It is also plain That the Gnosticks the Valentinians and other Hereticks began very early to set up a Pretension to a Tradition delivered by the Apostles to some particular persons as a Key for understanding the secret meanings that might be in Scripture in opposition to which both Irenaeus Tertullian and others Iren. I. 3. c. 1 2 3 4 5. Tertul. de presc Cap. 20 21 25 27 28. make use of Two sorts of Arguments The one is the Authority of the Scripture it self by which they confuted their Errors The other is a Point of Fact That there was no such Tradition In asserting this they appeal to those Churches which had been founded by the Apostles and in which a Succession of Bishops had been continued down They say in these we must search for Apostolical Tradition This was not said by them as if they had designed to establish Tradition as an Authority distinct from or equal to the Scriptures But only to shew the falshood of that pretence of the Hereticks and that there was no such Tradition for their Heresies as they gave out When this whole Matter is considered in all its parts such as 1 st That nothing is to be believed as an Article of Faith unless it appears to have been Revealed by God 2 dly That Oral Tradition appâ—ars both from the Nature of Man and the Experience of former Times to be an incompetent conveâ—er of Truth 3 dly That some Books were written for the conveyance of those Matters which have been in all Ages carefully preserved and esteemed sacred 4 thly That the Writers of the First Ages do always Argue from and Appeal to these Books And 5 thly That what they have said without Authority from them has been rejected in succeeding Ages the Truth of this Branch of our Article is fully made out If what is contain'd in theScripture in express words is theObject of our Faith then it will follow That whatsoever may be proved from thence by a just and lawful consequence is also to be believed Men may indeed Err in framing these Consequences and Deductions they may mistake or stretch them too far but though there is much Sophistry in the World yet there is also true Logick and a certain Thread of Reasoning And the sense of every Proposition being the same whether expressed always in the same or in different words then whatsoever appears to be clearly the sense of any place of Scripture is an Object of Faith tho it should be otherwise expressed than as it is in Scripture and every just Inference from it must be as true as the Proposition it self is Therefore it is a vain cavil to ask express words of Scripture for every Article That was the Method of all the Anciâ—nt Hereticks Christ and his Apostles Argued from the words and passages in the Old Testament to prove such things as agreed with the true sense of them and so did all the Fathers and therefore so may we do The great Objection to this is That the Scriptures are dark That the same place is capable of different Senses the Literal and the Mystical And therefore since we cannot understand the true Sense of the Scripture we must not Arguefrom it but seek for an Interpreterofit on whom we may depend All Sects Argue from thence and fancy that they find their Tenets in it And therefore this can be no sure way of finding out sacred Truth since so many do err that follow it In Answer to this it is to be considered That the Old Testament was delivered to the whole Nation of the Iews that Moses was read in the Synagogue in the hearing of the Women and Children that whole Nation was to take their Doctrine and Rules from it All Appeals wâ—re made to the Law and to the Prophets among them And though the Propâ—â—cies of the Old Testament were in their Stile and whole Contexture dark and hard to be understood yet when so great a Question as this Who was the true Messias came to be examined the proofs urged for it were Passages in the Old Testament Now the Question was How these were to be understood No Appeal was here made to Tradition or to Church-Authority but only by the Enemies of our Saviour Whereas he and his Disciples urge these passages in their true sense and in the consequences that arose out of them They did in that Appeal to the rational Faculties of those to whom they spoke The Christian Religion was at first delivered to poor and simple Multitudes who were both illiterate and weak the Epistles which are by much the hardest to be understood of the whole New Testament were Addressed to the whole Churches to all the Faithful or Saints that is to all the Christians in those Churches These were afterwards read in all thâ—ir Assemblies Upon this it may reasonably be asked Were these Writings clear in that Age or were they not If they were not it is unaccountable why they were addressed to the whole Body and how they came to be received and entertained as they were It is the End of Speech and Writing to make things to be understood and it is not supposable That Men Inspired by the Holy Ghost either could not or would
Testimony that Christ and his Apostles gave to those Books as they were then received by the Iewish Church to whom were committed the Oracles of God Now it is not so much as pretended that ever these Books were received among the Iews or were so much as known to them None of the Writers of the New Testament cite or mention them neither Philo nor Iosephus speak of them Iosephus on the contrary says they had only 22 Books that deserved belief but that those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes were not of equal credit with the rest And that in that Period they had no Prophets at all The Christian Church was for some Ages an utter Stranger to those Books Melito Bishop of Sardis being desired by Onesimus to give him a perfect Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament took a Journey on purpose to the East to examine this matter at its Source And having as he says made an exact Enquiry he sent him the Names of them just as we receive the Canon of which Eusebius says that he has preserved it Euseb. hist l. 4. c. 26. because it contained all those Books which the Church owned Origen gives us the same Catalogue according to the Tradition of the Iews who divided the Old Testament into 22 Books In Psal. 1. according to the Letters of their Alphabet Athanasius reckons them up in the same manner to be 22 and he more distinctly says that he delivered those In Synop. as they had received them by Tradition In Eppasch and as they were received by the whole Church of Christ because some presumed to mix Apocryphal Books with the Divine Scriptures And therefore he was set on it by the Orthodox Brethren in order to declare the Canonical Books delivered as such by Tradition and believed to be of Divine Inspiration It is true he adds That besides these there were other Books which were not put into the Canon but yet were appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who first come to be instructed in the way of Piety And then he reckons up most of the Apocryphal Books Here is the first mention we find of them as indeed it is very probable they were made at Alexandria by some of those Iews who lived there in great Numbers Both Hilary and Cyril of Ierusalem give us the same Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament and affirm that they delivered them thus according to the Tradition of the Ancients Cyril says That all other Books are to be put in a Second Order Catech. 4. Gregory Nazienzen reckons up the 22 Books and adds that none besides them are genuine The words that are in the Article are repeated by St. Ierom in several of his Prefaces And that which should determine this whole matter is Can. 59. and 60. That the Council of Laodicea by an express Canon delivers the Catalogue of the Canonical Books as we do decreeing that these only should be read in the Church Now the Canons of this Council were afterwards received into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church so that here we have the concurring sense of the whole Church of God in this matter It is true the Book of the Revelation not being reckoned in it this may be urged to detract from its Authority But it was already proved that that Book was received much Earlier into the Canon of the Scriptures so the design of this Canon being to establish the Authority of those Books that were to be read in the Church the darkness of the Apocalypse making it appear reasonable not to read it publickly that may be the reason why it is not mentioned in it as well as in some later Catalogues Here we have four Centuries clear for our Canon in Exclusion to all Additions It were easy to carry this much further down and to shew that these Books were never by any express definition received into the Canon till it was done at Trent And that in all the Ages of the Church even after they came to be much esteemed there were divers Writers and those generally the most learned of their time who denied them to be a part of the Canon At first many Writings were read in the Churches that were in high reputation both for the sake of the Authors and of the Contents of them though they were never lookt on as a part of the Canon Can. 47. Such were Clemens's Epistle the Books of Hermas the Acts of the Martyrs besides several other things which were read in particular Churches And among these the Apocryphal Books came also to be read as containing some valuable Books of Instruction besides several Fragments of the Iewish History which were perhaps too easily believed to be true These therefore being usually read they came to be reckoned among Canonical Scriptures For this is the reason assigned in the Third Council of Carthage for calling them Canonical because they had received them from their Fathers as Books that were to be read in Churches And the word Canonical was by some in those Ages used in a large sense in opposition to spurious so that it signified no more than that they were genuine So much depends upon this Article that it seemed necessary to dwell fully upon it and to state it clearly It remains only to observe the Diversity between the Articles now Established and those set forth by K. Edward In the latter there was not a Catalogue given of the Books of Scripture nor was there any distinction stated between the Canonical and the Apocryphal Books In those there is likewise a Paragraph or rather a Parenthesis added after the words proved thereby in these words Although sometimes it may be admitted by God's faithful People as Pious and conducing unto Order and Decency Which are now left out because the Authority of the Church as to matters of Order and Decency which was only intended to be asserted by this Period is more fully explained and stated in the 35 th Article ARTICLE VII Of the Old Testament The Old Testament is not contrary to the New For both in the Old and New Testament Everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by Christ who is the only Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the Old Fathers did look only for Transitory Promises Although the Law given from God by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian Men nor the Civil-Precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any Commonwealth yet notwithstanding no Christian Man whatsoever is free from the Obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral THIS Article is made up of the Sixth and the Nineteenth of King Edward's Articles laid together Only the Nineteenth of King Edward's has these words after Moral Wherefore they are not to be heard which teach that the Holy Scriptures were given to none but to the
among themselves one to another but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death Insomuch that to such as rightly worthily and with faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation or the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be Proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up and Worshipped In the Edition of these Articles in Edward the VIth's Reign there was another long Paragraph against Transubstantiation added in these words Forasmuch as the Truth of Man's Nature requireth that the Body of one and the self-same Man cannot be at one time in divers places but must needs be in one certain place therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places And because as Holy Scripture doth teach Christ was taken up into Heaven and there shall continue unto the end of the World a Faithful Man ought not either to Believe or openly Confess the Real and Bodily Presence as they term it of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper WHEN these Articles were at first prepared by the Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign this Paragraph was made a part of them for the Original Subscription by both Houses of Convocation yet extant shews this But the design of the Government was at that time much turned to the drawing over the Body of the Nation to the Reformation in whom the old Leven had gone deep and no part of it deeper than the belief of the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so particular a Definition in this matter in which the very word Real Presence was rejected It might perhaps be also suggested that here a Definition was made that went too much upon the Principles of Natural Philosophy which how true soever they might not be the proper subject of an Article of Religion Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this Paragraph though it was a part of the Article that was Subscribed yet it was not published but the Paragraph that follows The Body of Christ c. was put in its stead and was received and published by the next Convocation which upon the matter was a full Explanation of the way of Christ's Presence in this Sacrament that he is present in a heavenly and spiritual Manner and that Faith is the mean by which he is received This seemed to be more Theological and it does indeed amount to the same thing But howsoever we see what was the Sense of the first Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign it differed in nothing from that in King Edward's Time And therefore though this Paragraph is now no Part of our Articles yet we are certain that the Clergy at that time did not at all doubt of the Truth of it we are sure it was their Opinion Since they subscribed it though they did not think fit to publish it at first and though it was afterwards changed for another that was the same in Sense In the treating of this Article I shall first lay down the Doctrine of this Church with the Grounds of it and then I shall examine the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which must be done copiously For next to the Doctrine of Infallibility this is the most valued of all their other Tenets this is the most Important in it self since it is the main Part of their Worship and the chief Subject of all their Devotions There is not any one thing in which both Clergy and Laity are more concerned which is more generally studied and for which they pretend they have more plausible Colours both from Scripture and the Fathers and if Sense and Reason seem to press hard upon it they reckon that as they understand the Words of St. Paul every thought must be captivated into the obedience of Faith 2 Cor. 10.5 In order to the expounding our Doctrine we must consider the Occasion and the Institution of this Sacrament The Iews were required once a Year to meet at Ierusalem in remembrance of the deliverance of their Fathers out of Egypt Exod. 12.11 Moses appointed that every Family should kill a Lamb whose Blood was to be sprinkled on their Door-posts and Lintels and whose Flesh they were to eat at the sight of which Blood thus sprinkled the destroying Angel that was to be sent out to kill the First-born of every Family in Egypt was to pass over all the Houses that were so marked And from that passing by or over the Israelites the Lamb was called the Lord's passover as being then the Sacrifice and afterwards the Memorial of that Passover The People of Israel were required to keep up the Memorial of that Transaction by slaying a Lamb before the Place where God should set his Name and by eating it up that Night They were also to eat with it a Sallet of bitter Herbs and unleavened Bread and when they went to eat of the Lamb they repeated these Words of Moses That it was the Lord's Passover Now tho' the first Lamb that was killed in Egypt was indeed the Sacrifice upon which God promised to pass over their Houses yet the Lambs that were afterwards offered were only the Memorials of it though they still carried that Name which was given to the First And were called the Lord's Passover So that the Iews were in the Paschal-Supper accustomed to call the Memorial of a thing by the Name of that of which it was the Memorial And as the Deliverance out of Egypt was a Type and Representation of that greater Deliverance that we were to have by the Messias the first Lamb being the Sacrifice of that Deliverance 1 Cor. 5.7 John 1.29 Compare Matt. 26.26 Mark 14.22 and the succeeding Lambs the Memorials of it so in order to this new and greater Deliverance Christ himself was our Passover that was sacrificed for us He was the Lamb of God that was both to take away the Sins of the World and was to lead Captivity Captive To bring us out of the Bondage of Sin and Satan into the Obedience of his Gospel He therefore chose the time of the Passover that he might be then offered up for us And did Institute this Memorial of it while he was celebrating the Iewish Pascha with his Disciples who were so much accustomed to the Forms and Phrases of that Supper in which every Master of a
Magistratibus REgia Majesâ—as in hoc Angliae regno ac caeteris ejus dominiis summam habet potestatem ad quam omnium statuum hujus regni sive illi Ecclesiastici sint sive civiles in omnibus causis suprema gubernatio pertinet nulli externae jurisdictioni est subjecta nec esse debet Cum Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam calumniatorum offendi non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut Sacramentorum administrationem quod etiam Injunctiones ab Elizabetha Regina nostra nuper editae apertissime testantur Sed eam tantum praerogativam quam in sacris Scripturis a Deo ipso omnibus piis Principibus videmus semper fuisse attributam hoc est ut omnes status atque ordines fidei suae a Deo commissos sive illi Ecclesiastici sint sive civiles in officio contineant conâ—umaces ac delinquentes gladio civili coerceant Romanus pontifex nullam habet jurisdictionem in hoc regno Angliae Leges Regni possunt Christianos propter capitalia gravia crimina morte punire Christianis licet ex mandato Magisâ—ratus arma portare justa bella administrare De illicita bonorum communicatione FAcultates bona Christianorum non sunt communia quoad jus possessionem ut quidam Anabaptisâ—ae falso jactant debet tamen quisque de his quae possidet pro facultatum ratione pauperibus eleemosynas benigne distribuere De jure jurando QUemadmodum juramentum vanum temerarium a Domino nostro Jesu Christo Apostolo ejus Jacobo Christianis hominibus interdictum esse faâ—emur 〈◊〉 â—hrisâ—ianorum Religionem minime prohibere censemus quin jubente magistratu in causa fidei charitatis jurare liceat modo id fiat juxta Prophetae doctrinam in justitia in judicio veritate Confirmatio Articulorum HIC liber antedictorum Articulorum jam denuo approbatus est per assensum consensum Serenissimae Reginae Elizabethae Dominae nostrae Dei gratia Angliae â—raâ—ciae Hiberniae Reginae defensoris fidel c. retinendus per totum Regnum Angliae exequendus Qui Articuli lecti sunt denuo confirmati subscriptione D. Archiepiscopi Episcoporum superioris domus totius Cleri inferioris domus in Convocatione Anno Domini 1571. THE TABLE of the Contents INâ—roduction Page 1 Hâ—resies gave the Rise to larger Articles Ibid. A Form of Doctrine settled by the Apostles 2 Bâ—shops sent râ—und them a Declaration of their Faith Ibid. These were afterwards enlarged 3 This dâ—ne at the Council of Nice Ibid. Mâ—ny wild Sects at the beginning of the Reformation 4 And many complying-Papists put them on framing this Collection Ibid. The Articles set out at first by the King's Authority 5 A Question whether they are only Articles of Peace or of Dâ—ctrine 6 They bind the Consciences of the Clergy Ibid. The Laity only bound to Peace by them 7 The Subscription to them imports an Assent to them and not only an acquiescing in them 8 But the Articles may have different Senses and if the Words will bear them there is no Prevâ—rication in subscribing them so Ibid. This illustrated in the Third Article 9 The various Readings of the Articles collated with the MSS. Ibid. An Account of those various Readings 16 ARTICLE I. 17 THat there is a God proved by the Consent of Mankind Ibid. Oâ—j 1. Some Nations do not believe a Deity This is answered 18 Obj. 2. It is not the same Belief among them alâ— This is answered Ibid. The Visible World proves a Deity 19 Time nor Number cannot be Eternal nor Infinite Ibid. Moral Arguments to prove that the World had a Beginning 20 Such a Regular Frame could not be fortuitâ—us Ibid. Objection from the Production of Insects answered 21 Argument from Miracles well attested 22 Argument from the Idea of God examined Ibid. God is Eternal and necâ—ssarily exists 23 The Vnity of the Deity Ibid. God is without Body 24 Outward Manifâ—stations only to declare his Presence and Authority 25 No successive Acts in God 26 Question concerning God's immanent Acts Ibid. God has no Pâ—ssions 27 Phrases in Scripture of these explained Ibid. Some Thoughts concerning the Power and Wisdom of God 28 True Ideas of the Goodness of God Ibid. Of Creation and Annihilation 30 Of the Providence of God 31 Objections against it answered 32 Whether God does immediately produce all things 33 Thought and Liberty not proper to Matter 34 Whether Beasts think or are only Machines Ibid. How Bodies and Spirits are united 35 The Doctrine of the Trinity 36 Whether revealed in the Old Testament or not 37 The Doctrine stated Ibid. Argument from the Form of Baptism 38 Other Arguments for it 39 This was received in the First Ages of Christianity 40 Some Attempt to the stating true Ideas of God 41 ARTICLE II. 43 CHrist how the Son of God Ibid. Argument from the Beginning of St. John's Gospel 44 Reflections on the state of the World at that time 45 Arguments from the Epistle to the Philippians Ibid. Other Arguments complicated 46 Argument from Adoration due to him 47 The Silence of the Jews proves this was not then thought to be Idolatry by them 49 Argument from the Epistle to the Hebrews 50 God and Man in Christ made one Person 51 An Account of Nestorius's Doctrine 52 The Truth of Christ's Resurrection Ibid. Christ was to us an Expiatory Sacrifice 53 An Account of Expiatory Sacrifiâ—eâ— 54 The Agonies of Christ explained 55 ARTICLE III. 56 RUffin first published this in the Creed Ibid. Several Senses put on this Article 57 A Local Descent into Hell Ibid. What may be the true sense of the Article 58 ARTICLE IV. 59 THE Proof of Christ's Resurrection Ibid. The Jews in that Time did not disprove it 60 Several Proofs of the Incredibility of a Forgery in this matter 61 The Nature and Proof of a Miracle 62 What must be ascribed to good or evil Spirits 63 The Apostles could not be imposed on Ibid. Nor could they have imposed on the World 64 Of Christ's Ascension 65 Curiosity in these matters taxed Ibid. The Authority with which Christ is now vested 66 ARTICLE V. 68 THE senses of the word Holy Ghost Ibid. It stands oft for a Person 69 Curiosities to be avoided about Procession Ibid. The Holy Ghost is truly God 70 ARTICLE VI. 71 THE Controversy about Oral Tradition 72 That was soon corrupted Ibid. Guarded against by Revelation 73 Tradition corrupted among the Jews 74 The Scripture appealed to by Christ and the Apostles 75 What is well proved from Scripture 76 Objections from the darkness of Scripture answered 77 No sure guard against Error nor against Sin 78 The Proof of the Canon of the Scripture 79 Particularly of the New Testament 80 These Books were early received 81 The Canon of the Old Testament proved 82 Concerning the Pentateuch 83 Objections against the Old
Saviour's words Ibid. The discourse Joh. 6. explained 312 It can only be understood spiritually 313 Bold Figures much used in the East Ibid. A plain thing needs no great proof 314 Of unworthy Receivers and the effect of that sin 315 Of the effects of worthy receiving Ibid. Of Foederal Symbols 316 Of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ Ibid. Of the like Phrases in Scripture 317 Of our Sense of the Phrase Real Presence Ib. Transubstantiation explained 318 Of the words of Consecration 319 Of the Consequences of Transubstantiation Ibid. The grounds upon which it was believed 320 This is contrary to the Testimony of all our Faculties both Sense and Reason Ibid. We can be sure of nothing if our Senses do deceive us 321 The Objection from believing Mysteries answered 322 The end of all Miracles considered Ibid. Our Doctrine of a Mystical Presence is confessed by those of the Church of Rome 323 St. Austin's Rule about Figures Ibid. Presumptions concerning the belief of the Ancients in this matter 324 They had not that Philosophy which this Doctrine has forced on the Church of Rome 325 This was not objected by Heathens 326 No Heresies or Disputes arose upon this as they did on all other Points 327 Many new Rituals unknown to them have sprung out of this Doctrine Ibid. In particular the adoring the Sacrament 328 Prayers in the Masses of the Saints inconsistent with it Ibid. They believed the Elements were Bread and Wine after Consecration Ibid. Many Authorities brought for this 329 Eutychians said Christ's Humanity was swallowed of his Divinity 330 The Fathers argue against this from the Doctrine of the Eucharist Ibid. The Force of that Argument explained 331 The Fathers say our Bodies are nourished by the Sacrament Ibid. They call it the Type Sign and Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ 332 The Prayer of Consecration calls it so 333 That compared with the Prayer in the Missal Ibid. The progress of the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence 334 Reflection on the Ages in which it grew 335 The occasion on which it was advanced in the Eastern Church 336 Paschase Radbert taught it first 337 But many wrote against him Ibid. Afterwards Berengarius opposed it 338 The Schoolmen descanted on it Ibid. Philosophy was corrupted to support it 339 Concerning Consubstantiation Ibid. It is an Opinion that may be born with 340 The Adoration of the Eucharist is Idolatry Ibid. The Plea against that considered Ibid. Christ is not to be worshipped though present 341 Concerning reserving the Sacrament Ibid. Concerning the Elevation of it 342 ARTICLE XXIX 343 THE wicked do not receive Christ Ibid. The Doctrine of the Fathers in this Point Ibid. More particularly St. Austin's 344 ARTICLE XXX 345 THE Chalice was given to all Ibid. Not to the Disciples as Priests Ibid. The breaking of Bread explained 346 Sacraments must be given according to the Institution Ibid. Nâ— Arguments from ill consequences to be admitted unless in cases of necessity 347 Concomitance a new Notion Ibid. Vniversal practice for giving the Chalice Ibid. The case of the Agrarii 348 The first beginning of taking away the Cup Ibid. The Decree of the Council of Constance 349 ARTICLE XXXI 350 THE term Sacrifice of a large signification Ibid. The Primitive Christians denied that they had any Sacrifices Ibid. The Eucharist has no virtue but as it is a Communion 351 Strictly speaking there is only one Priest and one Sacrifice in the Christian Religion 352 The Fathers did not think the Eucharist was a Propitiatory Sacrifice 353 But call it a Sacrafice in a larger sense Ibid. Mâ—sses without a Communion not known then 354 None might be at Mass who did not communicate Ibid. The Importance of the Controversies concerning the Eucharist 355 ARTICLE XXXII 356 NO Divine Law against a Married Clergy Ibid. Neither in the Old or New Testament but the contrary 357 The Church has not Power to make a perpetual Law against it Ibid. The ill consequences of such a Law 358 No such Law in the first Ages Ibid. When the Laws for the Celibate began 359 The practice of the Church not uniform in it Ibid. The progress of these Laws in England 360 The good and the bad of Celibate balanced Ibid. It is not lawful to make Vows in this matter 361 Nor do they bind when made Ibid. Oaths ill made are worse to be kept 362 ARTICLE XXXIII 363 A Temper to be observed in Church Discipline Ibid. The necessity of keeping it up Ibid. Extremes in this to be avoided 364 Concerning the delivering any to Satan Ibid. The Importance of an Anathemea 365 Of the effect of Church-Censures Ibid. What it is when they are wrong applied 366 The causless jealousy of Church-Power Ibid. How the Laity was once taken into the exercise of it 367 The Pastors of the Church have Authority Ibid. Defects in this no just cause of Separation 368 All these brought in by Popery Ibid. A Correction of them intended at the Reformation 369 ARTICLE XXXIV 370 THE Obligation to obey Canons and Laws Ibid. The great Sin of Schism and Disobedience 371 The true Notion of Scandal Ibid. The fear of giving Scandal no warrant to break established Laws 372 Human Laws are not unalterable Ibid. The Respect due to Ancient Canons 373 The Corruptions of the Canon Law Ibid. Great Varieties in Rituals Ibid. Every Church is a compleat Body 374 ARTICLE XXXV 375 THE occasion of compiling the Homilies Ibid. We are not bound to every thing in them Ibid. But only to the Doctrine 376 This illustrated in the Charge of Idolatry Ib. What is meant by their being necessary for those times Ibid. ARTICLE XXXVI 377 THE occasion of this Article Ibid. An Explanation of the words Receive ye the Holy Ghost 378 ARTICLE XXXVII 379 QVeen Elizabeth's Injunction concerning the Supremacy Ibid. The Popes Vniversal Iurisdiction not warranted by any of the Laws of Christ 380 Nor acknowledged in the first Ages 381 Begun on the occasion of the Arian Controversy Ibid. Contested in many places 382 The Progress that it made Ibid. The Patriarchal Authority founded on the division of the Roman Empire sunk with it 383 The Power exercised by the Kings of Judah in Religious Matters Ibid. That is founded on Scriptures 384 Practised in all Ages Ibid. And particularly in England 385 Methods used by Popish Princes to keep the Ecclesiastical Authority under the Civil Ibid. The Temporal Power is over all persons 386 And in all causes Ibid. The Importance of the Term Head 387 The Necâ—ssity of Capital Punishments Ibid. The measure of these 388 The Lawfulness of War Ibid. Our Saviour's words explained Ibid. In what cases War is juâ—t 389 Warranted by the Laws of God 390 How a Subject may serve in an unlawful War Ibid. ARTICLE XXXVIII 391 COncerning Property and Charity Ibid. The Proportion of Charity to the Poor 392 ARTICLE XXXIX 393 THE Lawfulness of Oaths proved Ibid. From Natural Religion and
some of every sort of men Yet they declared openly against the other and said that if men were Circumcised or were willing to come under such a Yoke Christ profited them nothing and upon that supposition he had died in vain From this plain Precedent we see what a difference we ought to make between the holding Errors in Doctrinal Matters 5. Gal. 3. 2. Gal. 21. and the Imposing them as Articles of Faith We may live in Communion with those who hold Errors of the one sort but must not with those of the other This also shews the Tyranny of that Church which has imposed the belief of every one of her Doctrines on the Consciences of her Votaries under the highest pains of Anathema's and as Articles of Faith But whatever those at Trent did This Church very carefully avoided the laying that weight upon even those Doctrines which she received as true and therefore though she drew up a large Form of Doctrine yet to all her Lay-Sons this is only a Standard of what she teaches and the Articles are to them only Articles of Church-Communion The Citations that are brought from those two great Primates Laud and Bramhall go no further than this They do not seem to relate to the Clergy that subscribe them but to the Laity and Body of the People The People who do only join in Communion with us may well continue to do so though they may not be fully satisfied with every Proposition in them Unless they should think that they struck against any of the Articles or Foundations of Faith and as those Great men truly observe there is a great difference to be observed in this particular between the Imperious Spirit of the Church of Rome and the modest freedom which ours allows But I come in the next place to consider what the Clergy is bound to by their Subscriptions The meaning of every Subscription is to be taken from the design of the Imposer and from the words of the Subscription it self The Title of the Articles bears That they were agreed upon in Convocation For the avoiding of diversities of Opinions and for the stablishing consent touching true Religion Where it is evident that a Consent in Opinion is designed If we in the next place consider the Declaration that the Church has made in the Canons we shall find that though by the Fifth Canon which relates to the whole Body of the People such are only declared to be Excommunicated ipso facto who shall affirm any of the Articles to be Erroneous or such as he may not with a good Conscience Subscribe to yet the 36 th Canon is express for the Clergy requiring them to Subscribe willingly and ex animo and acknowledge all and every Article to be agreeable to the word of God Upon which Canon it is that the Form of the Subscription runs in these words which seem expresly to declare a man's own Opinion and not a bare consent to an Article of Peace or an Engagement to silence and submission The Statute of the 13 th of Queen Elizabeth cap. 12. which gives the Legal Authority to our requiring Subscriptions in order to a man's being capable of a Benefice requires that every Clergyman should read the Articles in the Church where he is to serve with a Declaration of his Unfeigned Assent to them These things make it very plain that the Subscriptions of the Clergy must be considered as a Declaration of their own Opinion and not as a bare Obligation to silence There arose in K. Iames the First 's Reign great and warm Disputes concerning the Decrees of God and those other Points that were setled in Holland by the Synod of Dort against the Remonstrants Divines of both sides among us appealed to the Articles and pretended they were favourable to them For though the first appearance of them seems to favour the Doctrine of Absolute Decrees and the Irresistibility of Grace yet there are many expressions that have another face and so those of the other Persuasion pleaded for themselves from these Upon this a Royal Declarations was set forth in which after that mention is made of those Disputes and that the men of all sides did take the Articles to be for them order is given for stopping those Disputes for the future and for shutting them in God's promises as they be generally set forth in the Holy Scriptures and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England according to them and that no man thereafter should put his own Sense or Comment to be the meaning of the Article but should take it in the Literal and Grammatical Sense In this there has been such a general acquiescing that the fierceness of these Disputes has gone off while men have been left to Subscribe the Articles according to their Literal and Grammatical Sense From which two Things are to be inferred The one is that the Subscription does import an Assent to the Article and the other is that an Article being conceived in such general words that it can admit of different Literal and Grammatical Senses even when the Senses given are plainly contrary one to another both sides may Subscribe the Article with a good Conscience and without any Equivocation To make this more sensible I shall give an instance of it in an Article concerning which there is no Dispute at present The Third Article concerning Christ's descent into Hell is capable of Three different Senses and all the Three are both Literal and Grammatical The First is that Christ descended locally into Hell and preached to the Spirits there in prison and this has one great advantage on its side that those who first prepared the Articles in K. Edward's Time were of this Opinion for they made it a part of it by adding in the Article those words of St. Peter as the Proof or Explanation of it Now though that period was left out in Q. Elizabeth's Time yet no Declaration was made against it so that this Sense was once in possession and was never expresly rejected Besides that it has great support from the Authority of many Fathers who understood the descent into Hell according to this Explanation A Second Sense of which that Article is capable is That by Hell is meant the Grave according to the Signification of the Original Word in the Hebrew and this is supported by the words of Christ's descending into the lower parts of the Earth as also by this That several Creeds that have this Article have not that or Christ's being buried and some that mention his Burial have not this of his Descent into Hell A Third Sense is That by Hell according to the Signification of the Greek Word is to be meant the Place or Region of Spirits separated from their Bodies So that by Christ's descent into Hell is only to be meant that his Soul was really and entirely disunited from his Body not lying dead in it as in an Apoplectical Fit nor
full and clear proofs of it in the New Testament And they had need be both full and clear before a Doctrine of this Nature can be pretended to be proved by them In order to the making this Mystery to be more distinctly Intelligible different Methods have been taken By one Substance many do understand a Numerical or Individual Unity of Substance and by Three Persons they understand Three distinct Subsistences in that Essence It is not pretended by these that we can give a distinct Idea of Person or Subsistence only they hold it imports a real diversity in one from another and even such a diversity from the Substance of the Deity it self that some things belong to the Person that do not belong to the Substance For the Substance neither begets nor is begotten neither breathes nor proceeds If this carries in it somewhat that is not agreeable to our Notions nor like any thing that we can apprehend to this it is said That if God has Revealed that in the Scripture which is thus expressed we are bound to believe it though we can frame no clear apprehension about it God's Eternity his being all one single Act his Creating and Preserving all things and his being every where are things that are absolute riddles to us We cannot bring our Minds to conceive them and yet we must believe that they are so because we see much greater Absurdities must follow upon our conceiving that they should be otherwise So if God has declared this inexplicable thing concerning himself to us we are bound to believe it though we cannot have any clear Idea how it truly is For there appear as strange and unanswerable difficulties in many other things which yet we know to be true so if we are once well assured that God has Revealed this Doctrine to us we must silence all Objections against it and believe it Reckoning that our not understanding it as it is in it self makes the difficulties seem to be much greater than otherwise they would appear to be if we had light enough about it or were capable of forming a more perfect Idea of it while we are in this depressed State Others give another view of this Matter that is not indeed so hard to be apprehended But that has an Objection against it that seems as great a prejudice against it as the difficulty of apprehending the other way is against that It is this They do hold That there are Three Minds That the first of these Three who is from that called the Father did from all Eternity by an Emanation of Essence beget the Son and by another Emanation that was from Eternity likewise and was as Essential to him as the former both the first and the second did jointly breathe forth the Spirit and that these are Three distinct Minds every one being God as much as the other Only the Father is the Fountain and is only self-originated All this is in a good degree Intelligible but it seems hard to reconcile it both with the Idea of Unity which seems to belong to a Being of Infinite Perfection and with the many express Declarations that are made in the Scriptures concerning the Unity of God Instead of going farther into Explanations of that which is certainly very far beyond all our apprehensions and that ought therefore to be let alone I shall now consider what Declarations are made in the Scriptures concerning this Point The First and the Chief is in that Charge and Commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles to go and make Disciples to him among all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Mat. 28.19 By Name is meant either an Authority derived to them in the virtue of which all Nations were to be Baptized Or that the Persons so Baptized are Dedicated to the Father Son and Holy Ghost Either of these Senses as it proves them all to be Persons so it sets them in an equality in a thing that can only belong to the Divine Nature Baptism is the receiving Men from a State of Sin and Wrath into a State of Favour and into the Rights of the Sons of God and the Hopes of Eternal Happiness and a calling them by the Name of God These are things that can only be offered and assured to Men in the Name of the Great and Eternal God and therefore since without any Distinction or Note of Inequality they are all Three set together as Persons in whose Name this is to be done they must be all Three the True God otherwise it looks like a just Prejudice against our Saviour and his whole Gospel That by his express Direction the first entrance to it which gives the Visible and Foederal Right to those great Blessings that are offered by it or their Initiation into it should be in the Name of Two Created Beings if the one can be called properly so much as a Being according to their Hypothesis and that even in an equality with the Supream and Increated Being The plainness of this Charge and the great occasion upon which it was given makes this an Argument of such Force and Evidence that it may justly determine the whole Matter A Second Argument is taken from this That we find St. Paul begins or ends most of his Epistles with a Salutation in the Form of a Wish Rom. 1.7 Rom. 16.20 24. 1 Cor. 16.23 1 Cor. 1.3 2 Cor. 1.3 Gal. 1.3 Gal 6.18 Eph. 1.2 Eph. 6.23 Phil. 1.2 Phil. 4.23 Col. 1.2 1 Thes. 1.1 1 Thes 5.28 2 Thes. 1.2 2 Thes. 3 18. 1 Tim. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.2 Tit. 1.4 Philem. 3.25 2 John 1.3 which is indeed a Prayer or a Benediction in the Name of those who are so Invocated in which he wishes the Churches Grace Mercy and Peace from God the Father and the Lord Iesus Christ which is an Invocation of Christ in conjunction with the Father for the greatest Blessings of Favour and Mercy That is a strange Strain if he was only a Creature which yet is delivered without any mitigation or softning in the most remarkable parts of his Epistles This is carried further in the Conclusion of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians The Grace of the Lord Iesus Christ the Love of God 2 Cor. 13.14 and the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you It is true this is expressed as a Wiâ—h and not in the nature of a Prayer as the common Salutations are But here Three great Blessings are wished to them as from Three Fountains which imports that they are Three different Persons and yet equal For though in order the Father is first and is generally put first yet here Christ is first named which seems to be a strange reversing of things if they are not equal as to their Essence or Substance It is true the Second is not named here The Father as elsewhere but only God yet since he is mentioned as distinct from Christ and the
Holy Ghost it must be understood of the Father for when the Father is named with Christ sometimes he is called God simply and sometimes God the Father This Argument from the Threefold Salutation appears yet stronger in the Words in which St. Iohn addresses himself to the Seven Churches in the beginning of the Revelations Rev. 1.4 5. Grace and Peace from him which is which was and which is to come and from the seven Spirits which are before his Throne and from Iesus Christ. By the Seven Spirits must be meant one or more Persons since he wishes or declares Grace and Peace from them Now either this must be meant of Angels or of the Holy Ghost There are no where Prayers made or Blessings given in the Name of Angels This were indeed a worshipping them against which there are express Authorities not only in the other Books of the New Testament but in this Book in particular Nor can it be imagined that Angels could have been named before Iesus Christ So then it remains that Seven being a Number that imports both Variety and Perfection and that was the Sacred Number among the Iews this is a Mystical Expression which is no extraordinary thing in a Book that is all over mysterious And it imports one Person from whom all that variety of Gifts Administrations and Operations that were then in the Church did flow And this is the Holy Ghost But as to his being put in order before Christ as upon the supposition of an Equality the going out of the common order is no great matter so since there was to come after this a full Period that concerned Christ it might be a natural way of Writing to name him last Against all this it is objected That the Designation that is given to the first of these in a Circumlocution that imports Eternity shews that the Great God and not the Person of the Father is to be meant But then how could St. Iohn writing to the Churches wish them Grace and Peace from the other Two A few Verses after this the same Description of Eternal Duration is given to Christ and is a strong Proof of his Eternity and by consequence of his Divinity So what is brought so soon after as a Character of the Eternity of the Son may be also here used to denote the Eternal Father These are the Chief Places in which the Trinity is mentioned all together I do not insist on that contested Passage of St. Iohn's Epistle There are great doubtings made about it 1 Joh. 5.7 The main ground of doubting being the Silence of the Fathers who never made use of it in the Disputes with the Arians and Macedonians There are very considerable things urged on the other hand to support the Authority of that Passage yet I think it is safer to build upon sure and undisputable grounds So I leave it to be maintained by others who are more fully persuaded of its being Authentical There is no need of it This matter is capable of a very full Proof whether that Passage is believed to be a part of the Canon or not It is no small Confirmation of the Truth of this Doctrine that we are certain it was universally received over the whole Christian Church long before there was either a Christian Prince to support it by his Authority or a Council to establish it by Consent And indeed the Council of Nice did nothing but declare what was the Faith of the Christian Church with the addition only of the Word Consubstantial For if all the other Words of the Creed settled at Nice are acknowledged to be true that of the Three Persons being of one Substance will follow from thence by a just consequence We know both by what Tertullian and Novatian writ what was the Faith both of the Roman and the African Churches From Irenaeus we gather the Faith both of the Gallican and the Asiatick Churches And the whole proceedings in the Case of Samosatenus that was the solemnest business that past while the Church was under Oppression and Persecution give us the most convincing Proof possible not only of the Faith of the Eastern Churches at that time but of their Zeal likewise in watching against every Breach that was made in so Sacred a part of their Trust and Depositum These things have been fully opened and enlarged on by others to whom the Reader is referred I shall only desire him to make this Reflection on the state of Christianity at that time The Disputes that were then to be managed with the Heathens against the Deifying or Worshipping of Men and those extravagant Fables concerning the Genealogies of their Heroes and Gods must have obliged the Christians rather to have silenced and supprest the Doctrine of the Trinity than to have owned and published it So that nothing but their being assured that it was a Necessary and Fundamental Article of their Faith could have led them to own it in so publick a manner since the Advantages that the Heathen would have taken from it must be too visible not to be soon observed The Heathens retorted upon them their Doctrine of a Man's being a God and of God's having a Son And every one who engaged in this Controversy framed such Answers to these Objections as he thought he could best maintain This as it gave the Rise to the Errors which some brought into the Church so it furnishes us with a Copious Proof of the common Sense of the Christians of those Ages who all agreed in general to the Doctrine though they had many different and some very Erroneous ways of explaining it among them I now come to the special Proofs concerning each of the Three Persons But there being other Articles relating to the Son and the Holy Ghost the Proofs of these Two will belong more properly to the Explanation of those Articles Therefore all that belongs to this Article is to prove that the Father is truly God but that needs not be much insisted on for there is no dispute about it None deny that he is God many think that he is so truly God that there is no other that can be called God besides him unless it be in a larger sense of the word And therefore I will here conclude all that seems necessary to be said on this first Article on which if I have dwelt the longer it was because the stating the Idea of God right being the Fundamental Article of all Religion and the Key into every part of it this was to be done with all the Fulness and Clearness possible In a word to recapitulate a little what has been said The liveliest way of framing an Idea of God is to consider our own Souls which are said to be made after the Image of God An attentive Reflection on what we perceive in our selves will carry us further than any other thing whatsoever to form just and true Thoughts of God We perceive what Thought is but
My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me It is not easy for us to apprehend in what that Agony consisted For we understand only the Agonies of Pain or of Conscience which last arise out of the Horror of Guilt or the Apprehension of the Wrath of God It is indeed certain That he who had no Sin could have no such horror in him and yet it is as certain That he could not be put into such an Agony only through the Apprehension and Fear of that violent Death which he was to suffer next day Therefore we ought to conclude That there was an inward Suffering in his Mind as well as an outward visible one in his Body We cannot distinctly apprehend what that was since he was sure both of his own spotless Innocence and of his Father's unchangeable love to him We can only imagine a vast sense of the heinousness of Sin and a deep Indignation at the Dishonour done to God by it a melting Apprehension of the Corruption and Miseries of Mankind by reason of Sin together with a never-before-felt withdrawing of those Consolations that had always filled his Soul But what might be further in his Agony and in his last Dereliction we cannot distinctly apprehend only this we perceive That our Minds are capable of great pain as well as our Bodies are Deep horror with an inconsolable sharpness of Thought is a very intolerable thing Notwithstanding the Bodily or Substantial Indwelling of the fulness of the Godhead in him yet he was capable of feeling vast pain in his Body So that he might become a compleat Sacrifice and that we might have from his Sufferings a very full and amazing apprehension of the Guilt of Sin all those Emanations of joy with which the Indwelling of the Eternal Word had ever till then filled his Soul might then when he needed them most be quite withdrawn and he be left merely to the firmness of his Faith to his patient Resignation to the Will of his heavenly Fâ—ther and to his willing readiness of drinking up that Cup which his Father had put in his hand to drink There remains but one thing to be remembred here though it will come to be more specially Explained when other Articles are to be opened which is That this Reconciliation which is made by the Death of Christ between God and Man is not absolute and without conditions He has Established the Covenant and has performed all that was Incumbent on him as both the Priest and the Sacrifice to do and to suffer and he offers this to the World that it may be closed with by them on the terms on which it is proposed and if they do not accept of it upon these conditions and perform what is enjoined them they can have no share in it ARTICLE III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell As Christ died for us and was buried so also is it to be believed that he went down into Hell THIS was much fuller when the Articles were at first prepared and published in King Edward's Reign For these words were added to it That the body of Christ lay in the Grave untill his Resurrection but his Spirit which he gave up was with the Spirits which were detained in Prison or in Hell and preached to them as the place in St. Peter testifieth Thus a determined sense was put upon this Article which is now left more at large and is conceived in words of a more general Signification In order to the explaining this it is to be premised That the Article in the Creed of Christ's descent into Hell is mentioned by no Writer before Ruffin who in the beginning of the Fifth Century does indeed speak of it But he tells us That it was neither in the Symbol of the Roman nor of the Oriental Churches and that he found it in the Symbol of his own Church at Aquileia But as there was no other Article in that Symbol that related to Christ's Burial so the words which he gives us descendit ad Inferna he descended to the lower parts do very naturally signify Burial according to these words of St. Paul Eph. 4.9 He ascended what is it but that he also descended first to the lower parts of the Earth and Ruffin himself understood these words in that sense None of the Fathers in the first Ages neither Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens nor Origen in the short Abstracts that they give us of the Christian Faith mention any thing like this And in all that great variety of Creeds that was proposed by the many Councils that met in the Fourth Century this is not in any one of them except in that which was agreed to at Arimini and was pretended though falsly to have been made at Sirmium In that it is set down in a Greek word that does exactly answer Ruffin's Inferna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it stood there instead of Buried When it was put in the Creed that carries Athanasius's Name tho' made in the Sixth or Seventh Century the word was changed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hell But yet it seems to have been understood to signify Christ's Burial there being no other word put for it in that Creed Afterwards it was put into the Symbol of the Western Church That was done at first in the words in which Ruffin had expressed it as appears by some Ancient Copies of Creeds which were published the Great Primate Usher We are next to consider what the Importance of these words in themselves is for it is plain that the use of them in the Creed is not very Ancient nor Universal We have a most unquestionable Authority for this that our Saviour's Soul was in Hell In the Acts oâ— the Apostles St. Peter in the first Sermon that was preached after the wonderful Effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost applies these words of David concerning God's not leaving his Soul in Hell nor suffering his Holy one to see corruption to the Resurrection of Christ. Now since in the composition of a Man there is a Body and a Spirit and since it is plain that the raising of Christ on the Third day was before that his Body in the course of Nature was corrupted The other Branch seems to relate to his Soul though it is not to be denied but that in the Old Testament Soul in some places stands for a dead Body But if that were the sense of the word there will be no opposition in the two Parts of this period The one will be only a redundant repetition of the other Therefore it is much more natural to think that this other Branch concerning Christ's Soul's being left in Hell must relate to that which we commonly understand by Soul if then his Soul was not to be left in Hell then from thence it plainly follows that once it was in Hell and by consequence that Christ's Soul descended into Hell Some very Modern Writers have thought that this is to be understood
Figuratively of the Wrath of God due for Sin which Christ bore in his Soul besides the Torments that he suffered in his Body And they think that these are here mentioned by themselves after the Enumeration of the several steps of his bodily Sufferings And this being equal to the Torments of Hell as it is that which delivers us from them might in a large way of Expression be called a descending into Hell But as neither the word descend nor Hell are to be found in any other place of Scripture in this sense nor in any of the Ancients among whom the Signification of this Phrase is more likely to be found than among Moderns So this being put after Buried it plainly shews that it belongs to a period subsequent to his Burial There is therefore no regard to be had to this Notion Othets have thought That by Christ's descent into Hell is to be understood his continuing in the State of the Dead for some time But there is no Ground for this conceit neither these words being to be found in no Author in that Signification Many of the Fathers thought That Christ's Soul went locally into Hell and preached to some of the Spirits there in Prison 1 Pet. 3.19 that there he triumphed over Satan and spoiled him and carried some Souls with him into Glory But the account that the Scriptures give us of the Exaltation of Christ begins it always at his Resurrection Nor can it be imagined That so memorable a Transaction as this would have been passed over by the Three first Evangelists and least of all by St. Iohn who coming after the rest and designing to supply what was wanting in them and intending particularly to magnify the Glory of Christ could not have passed over so wonderâ—ul an Instance of it We have no reason to think that such a matter would have been only insinuated in general words and not have been plainly related The Triumph of Christ over Principalities and Powers is ascribed by St. Paul to his Cross and was the Effect and Result of his Death The place of St. Peter seems to relate to the Preaching to the Gentile World by virtue of that Inspiration that was derived from Christ which was therefore called his Spirit and the Spirits in Prison were the Gentiles who were shut up in Idolatry as in Prison Eph. 2.2 2 Cor. 4.4 Isa. 61.2 and so were under the Power of the Prince of the Power of the Air who is called the God of this World that is of the Gentile World It being one of the ends for which Christ was Anointed of his Father to open the prisons to them that were bound So then though there is no harm in this Opinion yet it not being Founded on any part of the History of the Gospel and it being supported only by passages that may well bear another sense we may lay it aside notwithstanding the Reverence we bear to those that asserted it and that the rather because the first Fathers that were next the Source say nothing of it Another Counceit has had a great course among some of the latest Fathers and the Schoolmen They have fancied that there was a place to which they have given a peculiar name Limbus Patrum a sort of a Partition in Hell where all the Good Men of the Old Dispensation that had died before Christ were detained and they hold that our Saviour went thither and emptied that Place carrying all the Souls that were in it with him to Heaven Of this the Scriptures say nothing not a word either of the Patriarchs going thither or of Christ's delivering them out of it And though there are not in the Old Testament express Declarations and Promises made concerning a Future State Christ having brought life and immortality to light through his Gospel yet all the Hints given of it shew that they looked for an Immediate Admission to Blessedness after death So David Thou wilt shew me the path of life Psal. 16.11 Acts 2.31 Psal. 73.27 Isa. 37.2 in thy presence is fulness of joy and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore Thou shalt guide me here by thy counsel and afterwards receive me to glory Isaiah says That the righteous when they dye enter into peace In the New Testament there is not a Hint given of this for though some Passages may seem to favour Christ's delivering some Souls out of Hell yet there is nothing that by any management can be brought to look this way There is another Sense of which these words descended into Hell are capable See Bishop Person on the Creed by Hell may be meant the Invisible Place to which departed Souls are carried after their death For though the Greek word so rendred does now commonly stand for the Place of the Damned and for many Ages has been so understood yet at the time of writing the New Testament it was among Greek Authors used indifferently for the place of all departed Souls whether good or bad and by it were meant the Invisible Regions where those Spirits were lodged So if these words are taken in this large sense we have in them a clear and literal account of our Saviour's Soul descending into Hell it imports that he was not only dead in a more common acceptation as it is usual to say a man is dead when there appear no signs of life in him and that he was not as in a deep Extasy or Fit that seemed Death but that he was truly dead that his Soul was neither in his Body noâ— hovering about it ascending and descending upon it as some of the Iews fancied Souls did for some time after death but that his Soul was really removed out of his Body and carried to those unseen Regions of departed Spirits among whom it continued till his Resurrection That the Regions of the Blessed were known then to the Iews by the name of Paradise as Hell was known by the name of Gehenna is very clear from Christ's last Words To day thou shalt be with me in Paradise â—uke 23 4â— â—6 and into thy hands do I commend my spirit This is a plain and full account of a good Sense that may be well put on the Words though after all it is still to be remembred That in the first Creeds that have this Article that of Christ's Burial not being mentioned in them it follows from thence as well as from Ruffin's own Sense of it that they understood this only of Christ's Burial ARTICLE IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ. Christ did truly rise again from Death and took again his Body with Flesh Bones and all things appertaining to the Perfection of Man's Nature wherewith he ascended into Heaven and there sitteth until he return to judge all Men at the Last Day THere are Four Branches of this Article The First is concerning the Truth of Christ's Resurrection The Second concerning the Compleatness of it That he took to him again his whole
Grace and Spirit descending on his Church He does also intercede for us at his Father's Right-hand where he is preparing a place for us The meaning of all which is this That as he is vested with an unccnceivable high degree of Glory even as Man so the Merit of his Death is still fresh and entire and in the virtue of that the Sins of all that come to God throâ—gh him claiming to his Death as to their Sacrifice and obeying his Gospel are pardoned and they are sealed by his Spirit until the day of Redemption In conclusion when all God's design with this World is accomplished it shall be set on Fire and all the great Parts of which it is composed as of Elements shall be melted and burnt down and then when by that Fire probably the Portions of Matter which was in the Bodies of all who have lived upon Earth shall be so far refined and fixed as to become both Incorruptible and Immortal then they shall be made meet for the Souls that formerly animated them to re-enter every one into his own Body which shall be then so moulded as to be a Habitation fit to give it everlasting Joy or everlasting Torment Then shall Christ appear visibly in some very conspicuous Place in the Clouds of Heaven where every Eye shall see him He shall appear in his own glory that is in his Human glorified Body Luk. 9.26 He shall appear in the glory of his angels having vast Numbers of these about him attending on him But which is above all he shall appear in his Father's glory that is there shall be then a most wonderful Manifestation of the Eternal Godhead dwelling in him and then shall he pass a final Sentence upon all that ever lived upon Earth according to all that they have done in the Body whether it be good or bad The Righteous shall ascend as he did and shall meet him in the Clouds and be for ever with him and the Wicked shall sink into a state of Darkness and Misery of unspeakable Horror of Mind and everlasting Pain and Torment ARTICLE V. Of the Holy Ghost The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is of one Substance Majesty and Glory with the Fathei and the Son very and Eternal God IN order to the explaining this Article we must consider First The Importance of the Term Spirit or Holy Spirit Secondly His Procession from the Father and the Son And Thirdly That he is truly God of the same Substance with the Father and the Son Spirit signifies Wind or Breath and in the Old Testament it stands frequently in that Sense The Spirit of God or Wind of God stands sometimes for a high and strong Wind but more frequently it signifies a secret Impression made by God on the Mind of a Prophet So that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Prophecy are set in opposition to the vain Imaginations the false Pretences or the Diabolical Illusions of those who assumed to themselves the Name and the Authority of a Prophet without a true Mission from God But when God made Representations either in a Dream or in an Extasy to any Person or imprinted a sense of his Will on their Minds together with such necessary Characters as gave it Proof and Authority this was an Illapse from God as a Breathing from him on the Soul of the Prophet In the New Testament this word Holy Ghost stands most commonly for that wonderful Effusion of those Miraculous Virtues that was poured out at Pentecost on the Apostles by which their Spirits were not only exalted with extraordinary degrees of Zeal and Courage of Authority and Uâ—terance but they were furnished with the Gifts of Tongues and of Miracles And besides that first and great Effusion several Christians received particular Talents and Inspirations which are most commonly expressed by the word Spirit or Inspiration Those inward Assistances by which the Frame and Temper of Mens Minds are changed and renewed are likewise called the Spirit or the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost So Christ said to Nicodemus John 3.3 5 6 Lu. 11.18 That except a man was born of water and of the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God and that his heavenly Father would give the Holy Spirit to every one that asked him By these it is plain that extraordinary or miraculous Inspirations are not meant for these are not every Christian's Portion there is no question made of all this The main question is Whether by Spirit or Holy Spirit we are to understand one Person that is the Fountain of all those Gifts and Operations or whether by One Spirit is only to be meant the Power of God flowing out and shewing it self in many wonderful Operations The Adversaries of the Trinity will have the Spirit or Holy Spirit to signify no Person but only the Divine Gifts or Operations But in opposition to this it is plain that in our Saviour's last and long Discourse to his Disciples John 14.16 26. in which he promised to send them his Spirit he calls him another Comforter to be sent in his stead or to supply his Absence and the whole Tenor of the Discourse runs on him as a Person John 16. â— 13. He shall abide with you He shall guide you into all truth and shew you things to come He shall bring all things into your remembrance He shall convince the world of sin of righteousness and of judgment In all those places he is so plainly spoken of not as a Quality or Operation but as a Person and that without any Key or Rule to understand the Words otherwise that this alone may serve to determine the matter now in dispute Christ's Commission to Preach and Baptize in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost does plainly make him a Person since it cannot be said that we are to be called by the Name of a Virtue or Operation St. Paul does also in a long Discourse upon the Diversity of Gifts 1 Cor. 12.4 8 9 11 13. Administrations and Operations ascribe them all to one Spirit as their Authoâ— and Fountain of whom he speaks as of a Person distributing these in order to several Ends and in different Measures 1 Cor. 2.10 Rom. 8.26 Eph. 4.30 He speaks of the Spirit 's searching all things of his interceeding for us of our grieving the Spirit by which we are sealed This is the Language used concerning a Person not a Quality All these says he worketh that one and the self-same Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will Now it is not to be conceived how that both our Saviour and his Apostles should use the Phrase of a Person so constantly in speaking of the Spirit and should so critically and in the way of Argument pursue that Strain if he is not a Person They not only insist on it and repeat it frequently but they draw an Argument from it for Union and Love and
for mutual Condescension and Sympathy Upon all these grounds it is evident that the Holy Spirit is in the Scripture proposed to us as a Person under whose Oeconomy all the various Gifts Administrations and Operations that are in the Church are put The Second Particular relating to this Article is the Procession of this Spirit from the Father and the Son The Word Procession or as the Schoolmen term it Spiration is only made use of in order to the naming this Relation of the Spirit to the Father and Son in such a manner as may best answer the sense of the word Spirit For it must be confessed that we can frame no explicite Idea of this matter and therefore we must speak of it either strictly in Scripture-Words or in such Words as arise out of them and that have the same Signification with them It is therefore a vain Attempt of the Schoolmen to undertake to give a reason why the Second Person is said to be generated and so is called Son and the Third to proceed and so is called Spirit All these Subtilties can have no Foundation and signify nothing towards the clearing this matter which is rather darkned than cleared by a pretended Illustration In a word as we should never have believed this Mystery if the Scripture had not revealed it to us so we understand nothing concerning it besides what is contained in the Scriptures And therefore if in any thing we must think soberly upon those Subjects The Scriptures call the Second Son and the Third Spirit so Generation and Procession are words that may well be used but they are words concerning which we can form no distinct Conception We only use them because they belong to the words Son and Spirit The Spirit in things that we do understand is somewhat that proceeds and the Son is a Person begotten we therefore believing that the Holy Ghost is a Person apply the word Procession to the manner of his Emanation from the Father though at the same time we must acknowledge that we have no distinct Thought concerning it So much in general concerning Procession It has been much controverted whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from the Father and the Son In the first Disputes concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost with the Macedonians who denied it there was no other Contest but whether he was truly God or not When that was settled by the Council of Constantinople it was made a part of the Creed but it was only said that he Proceeded from the Father And the Council of Ephesus soon after that fixed on that Creed decreeing that no Additions should be made to it Yet about the end of the Sixth Century in the Western Church an Addition was made to the Article by which the Holy Ghost was affirmed to proceed from the Son as well as from the Father And when the Eastern and Western Churches in the Ninth Century fell into an humour of quarrelling upon the account of Jurisdiction after some time of Anger in which they seem to be searching for matter to reproach one another with they found out this difference The Greeks reproached the Latins for thus adding to the Faith and corrupting the Ancient Symbol and that contrary to the Decree of a General Council The Latins on the other hand charged them for detracting from the Dignity of the Son And this became the chief Point in Controversy between them Here was certainly a very unhappy Dispute inconsiderable in its Original but fatal in its Consequences We of this Church though we abhor the Cruelty of condemning the Eastern Churches for such a difference yet do receive the Creed according to the usage of the Western Churches And therefore though we do not pretend to explain what Procession is we believe according to the Article That the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son Because in that Discourse of our Saviour's that contains the Promise of the Spirit and that long Description of him as a Person Christ not only says That the Father will send the Spirit in his name but adds That he will send the Spirit Joh. 14.26 and though he says next who proceedeth from the Father yet since he sends him Joh. 15.26 and that he was to supply his room and to act in his Name this implies a Relation and a sort of Subordination in the Spirit to the Son This may serve to justify our adhering to the Creeds as they had been for many Ages received in the Western Church But we are far from thinking that this Proof is so full and explicite as to justify our Separating from any Church or condemning it that should stick exactly to the first Creeds and reject this Addition The Third Branch of the Article is That this Holy Ghost or Person thus proceeding is truly God of the same Substance with the Father and the Son That he is God was formerly proved by those Passages in which the whole Trinity in all the Three Persons is affirm'd But besides that the lying to the Holy Ghost by Ananias and Saphira is said to be a lying not unto men Act. 5.34 but to God His being called another Comforter his teaching all things his guiding into all truth his telling things to come his searching all things even the deep things of God his being called the Spirit of the Lord in opposition to the spirit of a man his making intercession for us his changing us into the same image with Christ are all such plain Characters of his being God that those who deny that are well aware of this That if it is once proved that he is a Person it will follow that he must be God therefore all that was said to prove him a Person is here to be remembred as a Proof that he is truly God So that though there is not such a variety of Proofs for this as there was for the Divinity of the Son yet the Proof of it is plain and clear And from what was said upon the First Article concerning the Unity of God it is also certain that if he is God he must be of one Substance Majesty and Glory with the Father and the Son ARTICLE VI. Of the Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for Salvation Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoevet is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation In the Name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books Genesis The First Book of Samuel The Book of Hester Exodus The Second Book of Samuel The Book of Iob Leviticus The First Book of Kings The Psalms Numbers The Second Book of Kings The Proverbs
Images which were sacred Emblems and Hieroglyphicks that were not meant to be a true representation of the Divine being but were a combination of many Symbols intended to represent at once to the thoughts of the Worshipper many of the Perfections of God These were most particularly practised in Egypt and to them the copiousness of the Second Commandment seems to have a particular respect such having been the Images which they have lately seen and which seem the most excusable of all others when I say all this is laid together with the Commandment it self and with those other Laws that accompany and explain it nothing seems more evident than that God intended to forbid all outward Representations that should be set up as the Objects of Worship It is also very plain That the Prophets expostulated with the People of Israel for their carved and molten Images as well as for their false Gods And among the Reasons given against Images one is often repeated To whom will ye liken me Which seems to import that by these Images they represented the Living God And Isaias often Isaiah 40.18 to 27.44.9 to 21. Jer. 10. to ver 17. Hab. 2.18 19 20. as also both Ieremiah and Habakkuk when they set forth the folly of making an Image of praying to it and trusting in it bring in the Greatness and Glory of the Living God in opposition to these Images Now though it is possible enough to apprehend how that the Iews might make Images in imitation of the Heathens to represent that God whom they served yet it is no way credible that they could have fallen into such a degree of Stupidity as to fancy that a piece of Wood which they had carved into such a Figure was a real Deity They might think it a God by Representation as the Heathens thought their Idols were but more than this cannot be easily apprehended So that it is most reasonable to think that they knew the God they had thus made and prayed to was only a piece of Wood but they might well fall into that Corruption of many of the Heathen of thinking that they honoured God by serving him in such an Image If the Sin of the Iews was only their having other Gods and if the worshipping an Image was only Evil because a false Deity was honoured by it Why is Image-worship condemn'd with Reasons that will hold full as strong against the Images of the True God as of false Gods if it had not been intended to condemn simply all Image-worship Certainly if the Prophets had intended to have done it they could not have expressed themselves more clearly and more fully than they did To this it is to be added That it seems very clear from the History of the Golden Calf Exod. 32 1 4 5. that the Israelites did not intend by setting it up to cast off the true Iehovah that had brought them out of Egypt They plainly said the contrary and appointed a Feast to Iehovah It is probable they thought Moses was either burnt or starv'd on Mount Sinai so they desired some visible Representation of the Deity to go before them they intended still to serve him but since they thought they had lost their Prophet and Guide they hoped that this should have been perhaps as a Teraphim to them yet for all this Acts 7.41 Psal. 106.19 20. the Calf is called an Idol and they are said to have changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass So that here an Emblem of the Deity is called an Idol They could take the Calf for no other but as a visible Sign or Simbol in which they intended to Worship their God or Elohim 1 King 12.27 to the end and the Lord or Iehovah Such very probably were also the Calves of Dan and Bethel set up by Ieroboam who seemed to have no design to change the Object of their Worship or the Nature of their Religion but only to divert them from going up to Ierusalem 1 King 16.31 2 King 10.28 29. and to furnish them with Conveniences to Worship the Living God nearer home His design was only to establish the Kingdom to himself and in order to that we must think that he would venture on no more than was necessary for his purpose Besides we do clearly see an opposition made between the Calves set up by Ieroboam and the Worship of Baal brought from Tyrus by Ahab Those who hated that Idolatry such as Iehu and his Family yet continued in the Sin of Ieroboam and they are represented as zealous for Iehovah though they Worshipped the Calves at Dan and Bethel These are called Idols by Hosea Hosea 8.4 5. From all which it seems to be very evident that the Ten Tribes still feared and worshipped the true Iehovah This appears yet more clear from the sequel of their History when they were carried away by the Kings of Assyria and new Inhabitants were sent to People the Country who brought their Idols along with them and did not acknowledge Iehovah the true God but upon their being plagued with Lions to prevent this 2 Kings 17.28 32 41. the King of Assyria sent one of the Priests that had been carried out of the Country who taught them how they should fear the Lord out of which that mixture arose that they feared the Lord and served their own Images This proves beyond all contradiction that the Ten Tribes did still Worship Iehovah in those Calves that they had at Dan and Bethel And thus it appears very clear that through the whole Old Testament the use of all Images in Worship was expresly forbid and that the Worshipping them even when the true God was worshipped by them was called Idolatry The words in which this matter is expressed are copious and full and the reasons given for the Precept are taken from the Nature of God who could be likened to nothing and who had shewed no similitude of himself when he appeared to their Fathers and delivered the Law to them The New Dispensation does in all respects carry the Ideas of God and of true Religion much higher and raises them much above those compliances that were in the Old to Mens Senses and to sensitive natures and it would seem to contradict the whole design of it if we could imagine that such things were allowed in it which were so expresly forbid in the Old Upon this occasion it is remarkable that the two fullest passages in the New Testament concerning Images are written upon the occasion of the most refined Idolatry that was then in the World which was at Athens When St. Paul was there his Spirit was moved within him when he saw that City full of Idols He upon that charges them for thinking that the Godhead was like unto gold or silver or stone graven by art or man's device Acts 17.16 25 to 29. He argues from the Majesty of God who made the World and all things
therein and was the Lord of Heaven and Earth and therefore was not to be Worshipped by mens hands that is Images made by them who needed nothing since he gives us life breath or the continuance of Life and all things He therefore condemns that way of Worship as an effect of Ignorance and tells them of a day in which God will judge the World It is certain that the Athenians at that time did not think their Images were the proper resemblances of the Divinity Tully Cic. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. cap. 27. who knew their Theology well gives us a very different account of the notion that they had of their Images Some Images were of no Figure at all but were only Stones and Pillars that had no particular shape others were Hieroglyphicks made up of many several Emblems of which some signified one perfection of the Deity and some another and others were indeed the Figures of Men and Women but even in these the Wiser among them said they Worshipped One Eternal Mind and under him some Inferior Beings Demons and Men who they believed were subordinate to God and governed this World So it could not be said of such Worshippers that they thought that the Godhead was like unto their Images since the best Writers among them tell us plainly that they thought no such thing St. Paul therefore only argues in this against Image-Worship in it self which does naturally lead Men to these low thoughts of God and which is a very unreasonable thing in all those who do not think so of him It is contrary to the Nature and Perfections of God Few men can think God is like to those Images therefore that is a very good Argument against all Worshipping of them And we may upon very sure grounds say that the Athenians had such elevated Notions both of God and of their Images that whatsoever was a good Argument against Image-Worship among them will hold good against all Image-Worship whatsoever But as St. Paul staid long enough at Athens to understand their Opinions well and that no doubt he learned their Doctrine very particularly from his Convert Dionysius so at his coming to Corinth from thence when he had learned from Aquila and Priscilla the state of the Church in Rome and no doubt had learned among other things that the Romans admired the Greeks and made them their Patterns he in the beginning of his Epistle to them having still deep impressions upon his Spirit of what he had seen and known at Athens arraigns the whole Greek Philosophy Rom. 1.20 to the end and specially those among them who professed themselves wise but became fools who though they knew God yet glorified him not as God nor were thankful but became vain in their imaginations so that their foolish heart was darkened They had high speculations of the Unity and Simplicity of the Divine Essence but they set themselves to find such excuses for the Idolatry of the Vulgar that they not only continued to comply with them in the grossest of all their practices but they studied more laboured Defences for them than the ruder multitudes could ever have fallen upon They knew the true God for God had shewed to them that which might be known of him but they held the truth in unrighteousness and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and fourfooted beasts and to creeping things Which seems to be a description of Hieroglyphick Figures the most excusable of all those Images by which they represented the Deity This St. Paul makes to be the original of all the Corruption and Immorality that was spread over the Gentile World which came in partly as the natural consequence of Idolatry of its debasing the Ideas of God and wounding true Religion and Virtue in its source and first seeds and partly as an effect of the just Judgments of God upon those who thus dishonoured him That was to a very monstrous degree spread over both Greece and Rome Of these St. Paul gives us some very enormous Instances with a Catalogue of the Vices that sprang from those vitiated Principles These two passages the one of St. Paul's Preaching and the other of his Writing being both applied to those who had the finest Speculations among the Heathen do evidently demonstrate how contrary the Christian Doctrine is to the Worshipping of Images of all sorts how speciously soever that may be disguised If these things wanted an Explanation we find it given us very fully in all the Writings of the Fathers during their Disputes with the Heathens They do not only charge them with the false Notions that they had of God the many Deities they Worshipped the absurd Legends that they had concerning them but in particular they dwell long upon this of the Worshipping God in or by an Image with Arguments taken both from the pure and spiritual Nature of God and from the plain Revelation he made of his Will in this matter Upon this Argument many long Citations might be gathered from Iustin Martyr Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1.5 Protr Orig. Cont. Cels. l. 2.3.5.7 Tertull. Apol. Cypr. de Idol Vanitate Arnob. Lib. 5. Minut. Felix Oct. Euseb. praep Evang. l. 3. Lactan. l. 2. c. 2. Ambros Resp. ad Sym. August de Civitate Dei l. 7. c. 5. Orig. Con. Cels. l. 7. Euseb. Praep. Ev. l. 3. c. 7. Max. Tyr. diss 38. Jul. Frag. Ep. Euseb. praep Evan. l. 4. c. 1. from Clemens of Alexandria Origen Tertullian Cyprian Arnobius Minutius Felix Lactantius Eusebius Ambrose and St. Austin Their Reasonings are so clear and so full that nothing can be more evident than that they condemned all the use of Images in the Worship of God And yet both Celsus Porphiry Maximus Tyrius and Iulian told them very plainly that they did not believe that the Godhead was like their Images or was shut up within them they only used them as helps to their Imagination and Apprehension that from thence they might form suitable thoughts of the Deity This did not satisfy the Fathers who insisted on it to the last that all such Images as were made the objects of Worship were Idols so that if in any one thing we have a very full account of the sense of the whole Church for the first Four Centuries it is in this matter They do not speak of it now and then only by the way as in a Digression in which the heat of Argument or of Rhetorick may be apt to carry men too far they set themselves to treat of this Argument very nicely and they were engaged in it with Philosophers who were as good at Subtleties and Distinctions as other Men. This was one of the main parts of the Controversy so if in any Head whatsoever they writ exactly upon those Subjects They attack'd the established Religion of the Roman Empire and this was not to be done with Clamour nor
orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant corporis animae sanitatem per eundem reisque dona veniam It is expresly said in the Pontifical Cruci debetur Latria and the Prayers used in the Consecration of a Cross it is prayed That the Blessing of that Cross on which Christ hung may be in it that it may be a healthful Remedy to Mankind a Strengthner of Faith an Increaser of Good Works the Redemption of Souls and a Comfort Protection and Defence against the Cruelty of our Enemies These with all the other Acts of Adoration used among them seem to favour those who are for a Latria to be given to all those Images to the Originals of which it is due and in like the Proportion for Dulia and Hyperdulia to other Images It is needless to prosecute this Matter further It seemed necessary to say so much to justify our Church which has in her Homilies laid this Charge of Idolatry very severely on the Church of Rome and this is so high an Imputation that those who think it false as they cannot without a good Conscience Subscribe or require others to Subscribe the Article concerning the Homilies so they ought to retract their own Subscriptions and to make Solemn Reparations in Justice and Honour for laying so heavy an Imputation unjustly upon that whole Communion There is nothing that can be brought from Scripture that has a shew of an Argument for supporting Image-Worship unless it be that of the Cherubims that were in the holiest of all and that as is supposed were worshipped at least by the High Priest when he went thither once a Year if not by the whole People But first there is a great difference to be made between a Form of Worship immediately prescribed by God and another Form that not only has no warrant for it but seems to be very expresly forbidden It is plain the Cherubims were not seen by the People and so they could be no visible Object of Worship to them Heb. 9.3 7. They were scarce seen by the High Priest himself for the Holiest of all was quite dark no light coming into it but what came through the Veil from the Holy Place and even that had very little Light Nor is there a word concerning the High Priests Worshipping either the Ark or the Cherubim It is true there is a place in the Psalms that seems to favour this as it is rendred by the Vulgar worship his footstool Psal. 99.5 9. for it is holy but both the Hebrew and the Septuagint have it as it is in our Translation worship at his footstool for he is holy and all the Greek Fathers cite these Words so Many of the Latin Fathers do also cite them according to the Greek and the last Words of the Psalm in which the same words are repeated make the Sense of it evident For there it is thus varied Exalt ye the Lord our God and worship at his holy hill for the Lord our God is holy These words coming so soon after the former are a Paraphrase to them and determine their Sense No doubt the High Priest worshipped God who dwelt between the Cherubims in that Cloud of Glory in which he shewed himself visibly present in his Temple but there is no sort of reason to think that in so Majestick a Presence Adoration could be offered to any thing else or that after the High Priest had adored the Divine Essence so manifested he would have fallen to Worship the Ark and the Cherubims This agrees ill with the Figure that is so much used in this Matter of a King and his Chair of State for in the Presence of the King all Respects terminate in his Person whatsoever may be done in his Absence And thus this being not so much as a Precedent much less an Argument for the use of Images and there being nothing else brought from Scripture that with any sort of wresting can be urged for it and the Sense and Practice of the whole Church being so express against it the Progress of it having been so long and so much disputed the tendency of it to Superstition and Abuse being by their own Confession so visible the Scandal that it gives to Iews and Mahometans being so apparent and it carrying in its outward appearances such a Conformity to say at present no more to Heathenish Idolatry we think we have all possible advantages in this Argument We adhere to that Purity of Worship which is in both Testaments so much insisted on we avoid all Scandal and make no Approaches to Heathenism and follow the Pattern set us by the Primitive Church And as our simplicity of Worship needs not be defended since it proves it self so no proofs are brought for the other side but only a pretended usefulness in outward Figures to raise the Mind by the Senses to just Apprehensions of Spiritual Objects which allowing it true will only conclude for the Historical Use of Images but not for the directing our Worship towards them But the effect is quite contrary to the pretence for instead of raising the Mind by the Senses the Mind is rather sunk by them into gross Ideas The Bias of Human Nature lies to Sense and to form gross Imaginations of Incorporeal Objects and therefore instead of gratifying these we ought to wean our Minds from them and to raise them above them all we can Even Men of Speculation and Abstraction feel Nature in this grows too hard for them but the Vulgar is apt to fall so headlong into these Conceits that it looks like the laying of Snares for them to furnish them with such methods and helps for their having gross Thoughts of Spiritual Objects The fondness that the People have for Images their readiness to believe the most incredible Stories concerning them the expence they are at to Enrich and Adorn them their Prostrations before them their Confidence in them their humble and tender Embracing and Kissing of them their pompous and heathenish Processions to do them Honour the Fraternities erected for particular Images not to mention the more universal and established Practices of directing their Prayers to them of setting Lights before them and of Incensing them these I say are things too well known to such as have seen the way of that Religion that they should need to be much enlarged on and yet they are not only allowed of but encouraged Those among them who have too much good sense that they should sink into those foolish apprehensions themselves yet must not only bear with them but often comply with them to avoid the giving of Scandal as they call it not considering the much greater Scandal that they give when they encourage others by their practice to go on in these Follies The enlarging into all the corruptions occasioned by this way of Worship would carry me far but it seems not necessary the thing is so plain in it self The next Head
publickly but the Inconveniences of that appearing and particularly many of those sins being Capital instead of a publick there was a private Confession practised The Bishops either attended upon these themselves or they appointed a Penitentiary Priest to receive them All was in order to the executing the Canons and for keeping up the Discipline of the Church Bishops were warranted by the Council of Nice to excuse the severity of the Canons as the occasion should require The Penitents went through the Penance imposed which was done publickly the Separation and Penance being visible even when the sin was kept secret and when the time of the Penance was finished they received the Penitents by Prayer and Imposition of Hands into the Communion of the Church and so they were received This was all the Absolution that was known during the first Six Centuries Penitents were enjoyned to publish such of their secret Sins as the Penitentiary Priest did prescribe This happened to give great Scandal at Constantinople Socr. Hist. l. 5. c. 19. when Nectarius was Bishop there for a Woman being in a Course of Penance confessed publickly that she had been guilty of Adultery committed with a Deacon in the Church It seems by the Relation that the Historian gives of this matter that she went beyond the Injunctions given her but whether the fault was in her or in the Penitentiary Priest this gave such offence Thirteen Passages out of him cited and explained by Daille de Conf. l. 4. c. 25. that Nectarius broke that Custom And Chrysostom who came soon after him to that See speaks very fully against secret Confession and advises Christians to confess only to God yet the practice of secret Confession was kept up elsewhere but it appears by a vast number of Citations from the Fathers both in different Ages and in the different Corners of the Church that though they pressed Confession much and magnified the value of it highly yet they never urged it as necessary to the Pardon of Sin or as a Sacrament they only prest it as a mean to compleat the Repentance and to give the Sinner an Interest in the Prayers of the Church This may be positively affirmed concerning all the Quotations that are brought in this matter to prove that Auricular Confession is necessary in order to the Priest's Pardon and that it is founded on those Words of Christ Whose sins ye remit c. that they prove quite the contrary that the Fathers had not the sense of it but considered it either as a mean to help to the compleating of Repentance or as a mean to maintain the Purity of the Christian Church and the Rigour of Discipline In the Fifth Century a Practice begun which was no small step to the ruin of the Order of the Church Penitents were suffered instead of the Publick Penance that had been formerly enjoyned to do it secretly in some Monastery or in any other private place in the presence of a few good Men and that at the discretion of the Bishop or the Confessor at the end of which Absolution was given in secret This was done to draw what Professions of Repentance they could from such Persons who would not submit to settled Rules This Temper was found neither to lose them quite nor to let their Sins pass without any Censure But in the Seventh Century all Publick Penance for secret Sins was taken quite away Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury is reckoned the first of all the Bishops of the Western Church that did quite take away all publick Penance for secret Sins Another piece of the ancient Severity was also slackned for they had never allowed Penance to Men that had relapsed into any sin tho' they did not cut them off from all hope of the Mercy of God yet they never gave a second Absolution to the Relapse This the Church of Rome has still kept up in one Point which is Heresy a Relapse being delivered to the Secular Arm without admitting him to Penance The Ancients did indeed admit such to Penance but they never reconciled them Yet in the decay of Discipline Absolution came to be granted to the Relapse as well as to him that had sinned but once About the end of the Eighth Century the Commutation of Penance began and instead of the ancient Severities Vocal Prayers came to be all that was enjoyned so many Paters stood for so many Days of fasting and the rich were admitted to buy off their Penance under the decenter Name of giving Alms. The getting many Masses to be said was thought a Devotion by which God was so much honoured that the Commuting Penance for Masses was much practised Pilgrimages and Wars came on afterwards and in the Twelfth Century the Trade was set up of selling Indulgences By this it appears that Confession came by several steps into the Church that in the first Ages it was not heard of that the Apostacies in time of Persecution gave the first rise to it all which demonstrates that the Primitive Church did not consider it as a thing appointed by Christ to be the Matter of a Sacrament It may be in the Power of the Church to propose Confession as a mean to direct Men in their Repentance to humble them deeper for their Sins and to oblige them to a greater strictness But to enjoyn it as necessary to obtain the Pardon of Sin and to make it an indispensable Condition and indeed the most indispensable of all the parts of Repentance is beyond the Power of the Church for since Christ is the Mediator of this New Covenant he alone must fix the necessary Conditions of it In this more than in any thing else we must conclude that the Gospel is express and clear and therefore so hard a Condition as this is cannot be imposed by any other Authority The Obligation to Auricular Confession is a thing to which Mankind is naturally so little disposed to submit and it may have such consequences on the Peace and Order of the World that we have reason to believe that if Christ had intended to have made it a necessary part of Repentance he would have declared it in express Words and not have left it so much in the dark that those who assert it must draw it by Inferences from those Words Whose Sins ye remit c. Some things are of such a nature that we may justly conclude that either they are not at all required or that they are commanded in plain terms As for the good or evil Effects that may follow on the obliging Men to a strictness in Confession that does not belong to this matter If it is acknowledged to be only a Law of the Church other considerations are to be examined about it but if it is pretended to be a Law of God and a part of a Sacrament we must have a Divine Institution for it otherwise all the advantages that can possibly be imagined in it without that are only so many