of Truth and the way of Error the way of Godliness and the way of Iniquity the way of Life and the way of Death I most humbly and most earnestly beseech our most Gracious God for his Son Christ Iesus's sake to give you a right understanding in all things and to preserve you continually in the way of Truth Holiness Righteousness and Life Everlasting Amen THE END A SUPPLEMENT To the PRECEDING SERMONS TOGETHER WITH A TRACT concerning the Holy Sacrament OF THE Lords Supper Promised in the PREFACE By the Right Reverend Father in God HERBERT Lord Bishop of HEREFORD London Printed for Charles Harper 1679. A SUPPLEMENT To the Preceding SERMONS IN the Preceding Sermons I have proved these six things 1. That by God's special appointment all persons are to read and learn the Scriptures for their Edification in Faith and good Life and therefore 't is both foolish and impious for vain Man to take upon him to give reasons why the People should not read them 2. The reason of this because that in the Scriptures we have eternal life as our Saviour tells us which St. Paul explicates more particularly saying That they make us wise unto salvation that is they teach us all things necessary for our belief and they throughly furnish us unto all good works that is they teach us all things requisite for good life And these things the Scriptures compleatly contain in themselves without any Humane Doctrines so that if there were no other Writings nor Instructions in the World but the Scriptures alone yet we should not want any thing necessary to eternal life 3. That we are not to believe any thing with Divine Faith but what is clearly contained in Scripture for such a belief is a Duty belonging to God alone and 't is the greatest and most acceptable Duty and Sacrifice we can perform unto God to captivate our understandings in Obedience to Faith in God and therefore to give this principal Divine Service unto Man is high Idolatry and consequently to believe in the Apostles themselves had been great Idolatry had not Christ fully assured us That they should have the Holy Ghost to guide them into all Truth So that to speak properly we do not believe in the Apostles and Prophets but in God the Holy Ghost speaking in them And for this reason we find St. Paul very wary in distinguishing and declaring to the people what he delivered as from the Lord and what he delivered as from himself though he was perswaded he had the Spirit of the Lord even in that But yet no clear and full assurance that it was spoken directly by the Lord. Nay our blessed Saviour himself though God and Man yet would not have us believe in him as Man and therefore assures us That the words he spake were not his but the Father's speaking by him 4. I have proved that we have not any clear and full assurance from God That any Assembly of Men or Church since the Apostles are infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost into all Truth and therefore to believe in any Assembly of Men or Church without this full assurance of the Holy Ghost's speaking in them is Idolatry also for by such a belief you pay them the greatest Divine Worship 5. Though we should grant That some promise of Infallibility were made in Scripture to the Church yet this must include the Laity as well as the Clergy for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Church is always set in Scripture for the Congregation of the Faithful and is not once set for the Clergy distinct from the Laity But there is no such thing as Infallibility granted to any neither Priests nor People nor both together 6. Grant yet farther that the word Church in Scripture should signifie the Clergy and a promise of Infallibility made to them as Successors to the Apostles yet the same Promise being made and the same Authority given to all the Apostles alike the Successor of St. Peter and his Clergy cannot from hence challenge any more Infallibility than the Successors of the other Apostles with their Clergy and Church But the Papists deny this Infallibility to other Churches Certainly then other Churches may as well deny it to them All these things I have proved But now for a fuller conviction of the Papists and perchance for better satisfaction to some others I have a mind to grant yet farther That Christ made some particular Promise to St. Peter above the other Apostles yea and to St. Peter's Successors also 't is impossible from Scripture to prove either of these but let it pass so let us now see how the Papists can from hence fix this Infallibility to the Bishop of Rome and his Churches For I have shewed you from Scripture which doubtless is of better Authority than any Writings the Papists can bring for St. Peter that Rome was comprised in St. Paul's Jurisdiction and that he lived and preached and suffered there But we will pass over this also and yield to St. Peter's Jurisdiction over the whole World What then Then St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and setled his Successor there And how do the Papists prove this They answer that many authentick Historians tell them so is this all their Proof Humane Testimony from History is this a sufficient foundation for a prime Article of Faith on which depends the Salvation of all Christian Souls Is this a sure Rock or rather a bank of Sand to build their Infallibility upon Do not the same Historians relate that St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch and we have more reason to believe History for this because the Scripture tells us he was there but not one tittle of his ever being at Rome but strong Presumptions to the contrary St. Luke in the Acts speaking so much of St. Paul's going thither hath not one word of St. Peter's who being as the Papists believe so eminent an Apostle above all the rest seems somewhat neglected by St. Luke which makes me suspect St. Luke was not of their Opinion And shall we accuse St. Paul also for want of charity or civility never to mention St. Peter in all those his particular and numerous Salutations to and from others in his Epistles we must not think that their quarrel at Antioch where St. Paul withstood St. Peter stuck so long in his mind as to omit all Salutation to him in several Epistles We ought rather in charity to St. Paul to believe St. Peter was not at Rome And truly methinks the Papists themselves who pretend so much to honour St. Peter do him no small dishonour in affirming him to be at Rome when St. Paul answered for himself before Nero the first time St. Paul complaining that no man stood with him but all forsook him And if those Historians which the Papists rely on for St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome speak true in the circumstance of time then he was at Rome when St. Paul first answered
to be great impiety to be of another mind which I shall shew you by a familiar example Put the case an authentic Book of the Laws of England confirmed by Act of Parliament tells us There is one King of England namely Charles the Second and that we must all obey him who would not from hence undoubtedly conclude there is but one King Charles the Second whom we ought to obey But now come two or three esteemed great Doctors of the Law and tells us we are quite mistaken in the meaning of the Law which though it tells us there is one King yet from hence it doth not follow but that there may be more than one and we assure you there are a hundred Kings whom we ought to obey Were not this very absurd and contrary to all reason that the Law should formally declare unto us there is one King if there were a hundred or twenty or two yet forsooth we must quit our reason and believe these Lawyers there are a hundred Were not this directly to believe these Lawyers rather than the Law Just so the Scripture the Word of God tells us There is one Mediator between God and man the man Christ Iesus and that we ought to present our supplications to God by him from whence we undoubtedly conclude according to reason that there is but one Mediator But we meet with some great Doctors of the Church who tell us we are quite mistaken for though the Scripture name one yet notwithstanding there are a thousand Mediators Saints and Angels by whom we ought to present our supplications but shew us no other Scripture to make this good yet require us to believe it meerly because they tell us so were not this to forsake Gods Word and believe in man rather than in God which I say is downright Idolatry For the better understanding this my assertion I must shew you what Faith is Divine and Human. Divine faith is the gift of God saith St. Paul Eph. ii 8. a grace infused into our minds by God whereby we believe his holy Word to be so true as that 't is impossible it should be otherwise and though it seem contrary to our reason yet it captivates our understanding in obedience to the faith and makes us believe it meerly because God said it Human faith is when we believe upon the Authority of another man who tells us such a thing because we believe him an understanding and honest man he will not easily be mistaken or deluded nor will he tell a lie Yet we know the wisest may be deceived and the truest may tell a lie So that all Human belief still supposes a possibility at least that it may not be true Herein then lies the difference between Divine faith and Humane That there is no possibility of untruth in Divine faith Therefore we say that we believe in God we entirely submit and captivate our understanding to Gods Word he is truth it self But when we speak of man we say that we believe man not that we believe in man for this implies an impossibility of untruth in that man and we undoubtedly believe the thing meerly because he spake it Such a belief is due only unto God and is called Divine Faith and is a supernatural gift of God unto us There is no such thing in nature the natural man receiveth not the things of God neither can be know them because they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. ii 14. Having thus informed you what Divine and Humane Faith is I come now to the business of Idolatry I say then To believe in man that is to believe any thing to be infallibly true meerly because such a man said it and to venture your Salvation on it is directly Idolatry yea though an Angel said it For in so believing in man or Angel you make him God I mean you worship him as God Yea it is the greatest Idolatry you can perform for you give him the principal and greatest worship of God To offer incense to sacrifice Rams and Bulls is nothing to this Idolatry nay to sacrifice your own body to man is much inferior to it for 't is but sacrificing so much dirt One Soul is worth a hundred bodies of beasts or men and therefore to sacrifice your Soul and your reason the principal highest faculty of your Soul to captivate your understanding in obedience to faith in man is the highest act of Divine Worship and consequently to give this to man is most abominable Idolatry And contrariwise to worship God with our Soul and captivate our understanding in obedience to faith in him is the most acceptable service we can possibly perform this is the justifying act the saving grace this alone acquires Heaven and without this the whole world cannot purchase it Without this faith 't is impossible to please God Heb. xi 6. and with this Abraham so pleased God as that God thereupon promised to multiply his seed as the stars of Heaven and as the sand which is upon the sea shore and that all the nations of the world should be blessed in him Gen. xxii 17 18. I hope you are now fully satisfied that to believe in any man ever so learned ever so holy is great Idolatry for therein you make him God God hath three peculiar Attributes Unus Verus Bonus God is one God is true God is good Our Saviour questioned that man that called him good Why callest thou me good there is none good but one that is God Mark x. 17 18. As if he had said Why callest thou me good dost thou believe me to be God otherwise thou oughtest not to call me good So we may say Why call you this man true Do you believe him God for there is none true but God no man perfectly true so true but he may be deceived or false And therefore the Psalmist saith All men are liars that is all men have by nature the vice of falshood in them as well as other vices and so 't is not only possible but probable also that any man may tell a lie if God give him not the grace of truth Much more is it possible and probable for any man to be deceived and speak a falshood though he intend it not God only is perfectly true he can neither deceive nor be deceived But now perchance you think to wave this Idolatry which I have laid to your charge by answering that you do not believe in the Fathers of the Church as you believe in God you do not worship them with Divine faith Say you so what then with Humane faith only Why then I am sure your Humane faith shall never save you you were as good lay it by we are saved only by Divine faith not of our selves it is the gift of God But what if your Saints in whom you believe work miracles then you will say you believe in them with a Divine and saving faith their miracles being wrought by the power
the-flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him What can be more plainly exprest even to the meanest capacity of men Good Reader I suppose you conceive that here we are hard beset for these words certainly carry far more appearance for their transubstantiating the Bread into real Flesh than the bare saying This is my Body which as I shewed you is a common figurative way of speaking in Scripture But yet as our Saviour saith If ye have faith ye may say unto this mountain be thou removed and it shall be done So you shall see this their mountain of Objection presently removed Come then my Papist Doctors Will you have these words in St. Iohn literal down right literal without any figure I beseeeh you then tell me What becomes of all the Laity in your Church Will you send them into Hell Body and Soul for ever to make good this new-found Transubstantiation Doth not our Saviour here expresly declare That Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you Eat and Drink mark and Drink And do the Laity eat and drink literally no certainly How then shall they enter into life Must none but the Priests be saved Poor miserable Laity I am sure you must literally be damned for ever to save Transubstantiation a sad doctrine for you whatever becomes of your Priests I fear they will fare little better that thus blindly lead you into this fatal ditch of damnation Consider I beseech you how they delude and gull you They press these words of St. Iohn upon the ignorant Laity My flesh is meat indeed to perswade them 't is real flesh in the Sacrament but when we press them with those words Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you thereby shewing That 't is necessary for all to drink the blood as well as eat the flesh then they say all here is to be taken in a spiritual sence of eating and drinking by Faith Wherein they say truly but yet shew they deal falsly with you making you believe all here is to be taken literally whereas in truth all is to be taken spiritually and they compelled to acknowledge it so by their unlucky Decree of taking the Cup from the Laity Had it not been for this good God how would they have dunn'd our ears with this Chapter of St. Iohn there would have been no enduring their lowd clamors for their literal sence But now I beseech you calmly to consider this passage in St. Iohn Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day These words carry far more appearance of Christ's real Flesh in the Sacrament than those in St. Matthew This is my Body which as I said before is a figurative way of speaking very frequent in Scripture and no body startled at it but when our Saviour pronounced those words in St. Iohn most that heard them were very much startled and disordered at them yea many Disciples left following our Saviour upon them crying This is an hard saying who can bear it for really it sounds very hard if you take the bare words in themselves without our Saviour's Comment upon them whereof we shall speak by and by This then is the thing I pray you to consider if these words in St. Iohn which carry so much a greater appearance of real flesh in the Sacrament yet may and ought to be taken and are taken by the Papists themselves in a Spiritual sence Is it not a most unreasonable and senceless thing in the Papists to cry out upon us for taking those words in St. Matthew This is my Body in a spiritual sence It is just the same as for a man that refuses to take a guilded shilling for pure Gold 〈◊〉 out on me because I will not accept of a piece of plain brass for pure gold But setting aside the Papists who take all Scriptures right or wrong as they serve most for their turn and as they blasphemously call the Scripture a nose of wax so use it and shape all to their own â—ancy let us now see our Saviour's own Comment on his own words that is the sure way to have the right sence of them I pray you then observe how our Saviour in this Chapter v. 47. just before he began this discourse prepares his Disciples for the spiritual understanding of what follows by saving Verily verily I say unto you He that believeth on me hath everlasting life Which plainly shews that the words he was going to speak were to be apprehended by Faith and not in a carnal way for as he saith in this 47 Verse with a double asseveration Verily verily I say unto you He that believeth on me hath everlasting life So Verse 53. Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you Here he affirms the very same of eating his flesh as before of believing in him shewing that our eating must be by Faith and not carnally And then again after our Saviour saw that many were offended at those words of Eating his flesh to take them off from any gross carnal apprehension he tells them The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life After that our Saviour had thus instructed his Disciples in the true spiritual sence of his words we find it so rectified their Understandings as that when he administred to them this holy Sacrament and gave them that which figuratively he called his Body to eat not one of them in the least scrupled at it which doubtless some one or other would have done had they imagined our Saviour had given his real Flesh. They who startled at hearing it would much more at acting it for their Faith was not yet so strong as to believe such a miraculous Transubstantiation as the Papists fancy and that his whole Body should enter in at the narrow circle of their mouthes For we see how weakly they staggered at our Saviour's Resurrection though forewarned of it several times by him and they had seen him also raise several others from the dead yet would not believe his Resurrection till they saw him and scarce then All which plainly shews they took the Bread as real Bread according to Christ's Institution in remembrance of his Passion and Death and not as his very Body entring in at their mouthes into their breasts which doubtless some of them
for St. Paul to declare to the Corinthians this great and hidden mystery if there were any But he declares the contrary telling them it was Bread which they did eat 1 Cor. xi 26 As often as ye eat this bread and the Bread is eaten after the words of Consecration If then it be Bread when we eat there is no change at all And I pray you let us observe also St. Paul's manner of Consecration First he tells them that he delivered unto them what he had received of the Lord to shew his fidelity in the business then proceeds to the form of consecrating the Bread And when he comes to the Cup he saith This Cup is the new Testament in my blood Mark I pray you He doth not say This Wine but This Cup. I here ask the Papists is this a literal or a figurative Speech If literal then the Cup is changed into the Blood so saith the letter Wine is not here mentioned And if you talk of God's Power God can as easily change the Cup into his Blood as the Wine The Papists then will needs have a figure in this Consecration so we in that of the Bread for it were absurd to take one literally and the other figuratively And I presume the Papists will not dare to say that St. Paul here prevaricated in delivering what he received from the Lord yet St. Paul's words differ somewhat from Christ's but if we take them figuratively they are in effect the same which plainly shews all here is figurative The Papists then having no Scripture expressing any substantial change of the Bread and we having a Scripture clearly expressing that it remains Bread after Consecration I suppose their figment of Transubstantiation is sufficiently confuted For had we ten Scriptures declaring the same they were of no more force than one In Humane Evidences many are of more weight than one because Man may erre God cannot Yet there want not other Scriptures strongly implying a denial of Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament First Our Saviour at the Institution of this blessed Sacrament commands his Disciples to celebrate it in Remembrance of him and it seems very incongruous to desire men to remember that person who is present before them Secondly Acts iii. 21. St. Peter tells us That the heavens must receive Christ until the times of restitution of all things And therefore we see Acts vii 56. when he was pleased to shew himself unto that blessed Martyr St. Stephen he did not descend from Heaven but opened the Heavens and strengthened the eyes of Stephen to behold him at that great distance Thirdly Ioh. xvi Where our blessed Saviour discourses largely to his Disciples of going â—rom them and their great Sorrow caused thereby he uses several Arguments to allay it and in conclusion promises to send them the Holy Ghost the Comforter of whom they had then but a very obscure notion and could not receive any present comfort by it But had our Saviour promised to return again presently and be daily in the celebration of his last Supper which we find was daily celebrated by the Apostles this would doubtless have been the greatest comfort imaginable to them Who then can doubt but that our Saviour would have given them this great comfort by telling them so had he intended any such thing as the Papists groundlesly believe But of this we find not one tittle 'T is a common saying Facilè credimus quod volumus We easily believe the thing we desire Wherefore were there I do not say a clear expression but any good intimation of that the Papists would have us believe what Christian would not most gladly and readily catch at it and believe it with all his heart For sure it would be a great and daily comfort to us to go to the Altar of our blessed Saviour Jesus that died for us there corporally present as they believe and there with Mary Magdalen adore him kiss those blessed feet that were pierced for us wash them with our tears and receive them and his whole Body into our breasts If it be said All this may as well be done now by Faith I grant a lively Faith of this affords great comfort to the Soul but whil'st our Soul is united to the Body we cannot so refine and spiritualize the affections of it but that we shall still hanker after some bodily comfort And I verily believe the bodily part of the Papists Devotions to this Sacrament as also to the worshipping of Saints with their Shrines Reliques Pictures and such like is a great means to gain People to their Religion To worship God in Spirit and Truth only though it be the only true Christian Worship yet it is a sublime and difficult thing and requires the Spiritual sublimation of Hearts by Grace And this is the reason of the Jews so often and so easily falling away to the gross Idolatry of the Heathens And in a great measure operates in like manner on the Papists And could we find any warrant in Scripture to save our Souls with such bodily worship I believe very few of us would be found so spiritual as not to encline to it Wherefore Let him that standeth take heed lest he fall All this while I have said nothing of their Idolatrous adoring their consecrated Wafer which they will needs have to be Christ's real Body But if it be not then they themselves confess an evident truth without their Confession That they are as great Idolaters as any Heathens adoring a dead Wafer for the ever-living God And I desire them also to remember the Determination of their Council of Constance mentioned before in the Supplement That the intention of the Priest in Consecration of the Host is requisite to effect their supposed Transubstantiation wherein if he fail they grant that there is no substantial change in the Bread nor any Consecration at all Now considering how many careless dissolute yea and villainous Priests are amongst them 't is more than probable that many of them intend not at all this business when they are about it and some as I said before in their Hearts laugh at it as a meer Mock shew to gull the Spectators who notwithstanding with all reverence adore the unconsecrated Wafers of those villainous Priests All which makes their case so dangerous that no man of any tolerable Reason or Conscience would venture without clear Scripture-warrant for it Wherefore I beseech them to consider that we have a plain text of Scripture against Transubstantiation viz. That it is Bread which we eat in this Sacrament after the Consecration of it besides many other Scriptures intimating the same we have both Reason and Sence also on our side which two latter we are bound to follow unless forbidden by some plain text of Scripture which they can never shew bringing only one figurative speech viz. This is my body which they will needs have to be literally spoken whereas there are many more the like
send them the light of his Holy Gospel to shine amongst them Amen So much for the first part of my Text Christ's Command to search the Scriptures Now we come to the second part the reason of the Command For in them ye have Eternal Life a most weighty reason there cannot be a greater than the gaining of Eternal Life We all find by experience in our selves the truth of that saying Iob ii 4. Skin for skin yea all that a man hath will he give for his Life For which there is great reason according to nature for all that a man hath affords him no content or comfort in death which takes away the sense of all things If therefore life be so dear unto us because it gives us a capacity to enjoy these poor earthly delights that have so great and drossy an alloy of intermingled cares and troubles which alwaies attend them or if it were possible to enjoy them with more ease and tranquillity yet are they but momentary surely then Eternal Life which alwaies brings with it the enjoyment of heavenly pleasures free from all solicitous care and fear and full of all imaginable delight yea far beyond all that our narrow brain can now imagin for eye hath not seen nor ear heard neither have entred into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him And this unconceivable delight being to continue beyond Methusalem's Age or the Age of the whole world to have an eternal duration for ever and ever I pray you then consider at how high a value we should esteem the means whereby we are to attain such an excessive weight of glory For the present then my business must be to shew you that the Holy Scriptures contain in them compleatly without any additional requisite the means to attain Eternal Life and then doubtless there will need small exhortation to move you to put a high value on them Let us then fall immediately on this business Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have Eternal Life Though I doubt not to make out this matter absolutely clear unto you yet I fear some weaker persons may stagger a little at one word in my Text and may erroneously fancy that it gives great cause of doubt and that is the word Think ye think ye have Eternal Life Our Saviour doth directly say that in the Scriptures we have Eternal Life but only tells the Iews that they thought they had in them Eternal Life and perchance they thought amiss Who can tell Who can tell certainly he could tell who gave them this counsel to search the Scriptures which you may be sure he would never have done did not the Scriptures contain in them Eternal Life if not it had been a vain thing to search the Scriptures for it and our Saviours Advice had been vain which God forbid we should say or think wherefore we may assuredly conclude that our Saviour who advised the Iews to search the Scriptures he both could tell and would have told them had they thought amiss for he came down from Heaven for this very end namely to teach them and us the way to Eternal Life and therefore says of himself I am the Way and the Truth and the Life I came to teach this unto you and all the world And as St. Paul declares Acts xiii he came to teach first the Iews verse 26. To you is the word of Salvation sent And again verse 46. It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you And our Saviour himself preached only to the Iews and in their sight he wrought all his Miracles All which makes it most evident that he used all means possible to inform them aright in the way to Eternal Life who then can doubt but that if the Iews had been mistaken in their opinion of the Scriptures our Saviour would most readily have corrected their error So that this manner of speaking in our Saviour In them ye think ye have Eternal Life is far from intimating any doubt in this matter 't is rather a fuller conviction of the Iews 't is a way of arguing which the School-men call Argumentum ad hominem which is the shortest and plainest way to confute another You think you your selves confess that the Scriptures contain Eternal Life in them this is a truth you cannot deny And our Saviour Luk. x. 25 26 27 28. fully declares this to be his sence likewise where being asked by a Lawyer of the Iews Master what shall I do to inherit Eternal Life He said unto him What is written in the Law how readest thou And he answering said Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbour as thy self And he said unto him Thou hast answered right this do and thou shalt live Here you see our Saviour directs him for the gaining of Eternal Life to look into the Law and when the Lawyer had declared what was written in the Law our Saviour presently concludes This do and thou shalt live thou hast no need to be instructed farther the Law fully declares what thou art to do for the gaining of Eternal Life And this Evangelist St. Iohn who wrote my Text tells us toward the end of his Gospel that he omitted to write many things of our Saviour But these were written that we might believe and believing that we might have Life Now if we can have life by believing these things it follows most evidently that there is no necessity of believing other things If you answer That the belief of other things may prove great helps to Eternal Life and who would not be glad to have all the helps he can to obtain Eternal Life To this I reply That the belief of other things may prove hinderances for ought we know and not helps Were it not then most desperate folly for me to venture upon other things which may prove hinderances to my Salvation when God tells me that he hath revealed unto me by his holy Prophets Apostles and by his own Son all things necessary to Salvation Was not this the business for which our Saviour came into the world as I said before to teach us the way to Eternal Life And when our Saviour went out of the world he left his Apostles to finish the work he had begun promising them that he would send them the Holy Ghost who should lead them into all truth And as the Apostles received the knowledg of all truth so they faithfully delivered it to others for so St. Paul Acts xx assures the Elders of Ephesus whom he sent for to Miletus That he had declared unto them the whole counsel of God and that he had not kept back any thing that was profitable to them vers 20. Mark I beseech you he declares not only necessary things but all things profitable all kept nothing
passages which otherwise we could not well understand Thirdly Where a passage of Scripture may have several significations and thereby make it doubtful what is the more proper meaning of it there those Primitive Fathers can best tell us in what sence it was received in the Primitive Church And surely in doubtful places every modest man will think it fit to incline to those Primitive Godly men whose nearness to the Apostles gave them great opportunities of knowing the true sence and whose godly lives give us great assurance of their fidelity in delivering unto us what they received from their godly Fore-fathers some the very Disciples of the Apostles Several other reasons might be added for our regard and reverence to these Primitive Fathers in their Expositions of the dark or doubtful places of Scripture Yet I humbly conceive nothing of all this is necessary to understand those matters of faith which are necessary to Salvation as that God created and governs the world or the incarnation death and resurrection of Christ. These and such necessary things are so plainly set down in Scripture as that men of ordinary capacity may understand them without any Comment of the Fathers But what if any one or more very learned and very godly Fathers even such as laid down their lives for the faith what if they teach me a Doctrine in which the Scripture is wholly silent Ought I not to believe in them To this I small give you an answer from Tertullian one of the first Christian Writers who lived in the second Century about a hundred and fifty years after Christs Ascension He tells us in his Prescriptions against Heresies that this was the rule among Christians That they were not to believe any thing but that which Christ and his Apostles had delivered unto them in the Scripture Hoc priùs credimus non ess◠quod ultra credere debemus And a little after sets down a Creed which very little varies from that which we have amongst us called the Apostles Creed This saith he is our rule of faith and we believe Nihil esse ultra quod credere debemus That there is nothing more for us to believe for this rule here set down is a compendium of all I do not cite this out of Tertullian as if I would prescribe unto you from him what you are to believe by his Authority for he doth not tell us this as his own opinion but only relates what was the belief and practice of the Church in his Primitive days who was so near after Christ. And this Tertullian is generally believed by the Learned to be as faithful a relater as any antient Writer whatsoever And he was of so great a credit with that learned and godly Father and Martyr of the Church St. Cyprian who lived not many years after Tertullian that he always called him Master and daily read his Works calling to his Servant Da Magistrum Give me my Masters Book to read Which shews he was of great credit But Tertullian after the discourse I now mentioned out of him confirms what he had said by Scripture Authority which is of far more weight than Tertullian and St. Cyprian both citing that place of St. Paul to the Galatians Chap. i. vers 8. Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached let him be accursed Now you must know that the Original Greek from whence our Gospel is translated hath this more effectual to our purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which more exactly in English is rendred thus If any man preach unto you any thing besides what we have preached he doth not say contrary to what we have preached but besides which is the same in effect as to say any thing more And Arius Montanus a learned Papist in the University of Sevil in Spain who translated the Greek new Testament word for word sets it down just as I have done unto you Praeter quod evangelizavimus Besides what we have preached St. Paul means If they shall preach any more as necessary to Salvation for this is to make the Word of God of no effect he having in his Holy Word given us a rule of Faith for our Salvation and then for any one to say you must believe more is in effect to say Gods Word is not sufficient This is an accursed saying according to St. Paul Now if neither St. Paul nor an Angel from Heaven had any Commission to preach any thing besides what is already set down in the Scripture certainly we may shut up our ears to any one or to all the Doctors of the Church preaching unto us any thing more than what is there contained As for Example If they shall preach 't is necessary to obey the Pope to believe Purgatory or the like things which are not expressed in Scriptures let them be accursed as St. Paul saith A second Question may be what you are to do when any Father or Fathers expound a place of Scripture contrary to what you believe is the plain meaning of that place Must you quit your own judgment and believe in them This is just like the Prophet whom God sent to Bethel with an express command not to eat bread there he hearkened afterward to the old lying Prophet who pretending to have received a contrary message from God dissuaded him from what God had commanded for which he was slain by a Lion in his return And surely all men have great reason to expect the like recompence for their disobedience who forsake that which they verily believe is Gods Command and hearken to the Doctrins of men To this my Answer I shall give you another from a person of great Authority St. Austin a most eminent Doctor of the Church In one of his Epistles to St. Ierome he gives a clear judgment in this case First He tells us that when he reads the Holy Scriptures he entirely submits his own judgment to them and absolutely believes every thing there to be true meerly because it is contained there Gods Word is truth it cannot be otherwise therefore whether he understands it or no yet still he believes it truth But as for all other Writers he saith Alios autem ita lego ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrináque praepolleant non ideo verum putem quia ita ipsi senserint sed quia mihi vel per illos autores canonicos vel probabili ratione quod à vero non abhorreant persuadere potuerint Other Writers I so read as that be they ever so Holy ever so Learned I do not therefore believe their opinion to be true because they thought so but so far only as they prove it true by Canonical Scripture or by such reasons as seem not to be contrary to the truth And then tells St. Ierome that he doubts not but he is of the same mind And as for my part I am fully of Saint Austins mind and farther think it
as the Iews people and Priests also erred and so grosly erred as to become Idolaters yet the Oracles they bare never erred so we may too truly say to the proud boasting Papists their whole Church Pope Princes People have and do all err and so grosly err as to be guilty of great Idolatry worshipping and praying and thereby giving Gods glory to Saints and Angels to Pictures and Images This is most rationally and learnedly proved by Dr. Stillingfleet now the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls and most practically and palpably shewed in a small Book Intitled A Letter to a Friend concerning Popish Idolatry which in one hours reading fully declares it Of which Letter I will say only this That I am sure all there set down is truth for with my own eyes I have seen all having lived many years abroad amongst them But I grant they are not all practised here in England for two reasons First They would be ashamed to set up Pictures and Images here publickly to worship in the face of the Gospel-Sunshine where very Children would deride them And Secondly the Laws and Government would not suffer them Wherefore to conclude this point whoever reads the Gospel and by that examines the Doctrines of the Romish Church shall see that she is not the infallible Church she is pretended to be as plainly as you see the Moon is not the Sun you will discover such foul black spots in her face as may assure you she is not that beautiful beloved Spouse set forth in the Canticles for she hath so foully erred against the truth of the Gospel in several things which I have formerly laid before you as makes it most evident that she is neither truth nor so much as the pillar of truth but the pillar of error stifly mainteining several errors and doth not so much as hold forth the Gospel of truth to teach the people the way to Heaven but shuts it up from the people that she may lead them blindfold into error And so much be spoken concerning this Text The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth If any man can give a better exposition of this Text I shall be glad to learn it of him but I am sure the Papists have not yet by all that ever I saw or heard of They bring us another Text much like this Matth. the last Chapter where Christ sends forth his Disciples to teach all Nations promising to be with them in teaching unto the end of the world This Text I fully answered in my last Sermon Moreover these words being spoken by our Saviour to all the Apostles in general and their Successors of necessity gives equal Commission to them all and therefore makes more against the superiority of the Romish Church than for it for by this all Churches planted by other Apostles have the same promise The Papists therefore have one Scripture more which they urge particularly for their Church but it hath been so oft disputed and so fully confuted by whole Volumes of our Writers as a man would wonder to see them like Cats knockt down and quite dead in all appearance yet rise up again with this Text in their mouths It is this Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it Matt. xvi 18. As to this I shall give you the heads only of several answers as plainly and briefly as may be for your more easie remembrance But I pray you still remember what we are searching Scripture for and that is a plain easie rule to determine all doubts that may arise in matters of faith And certainly this Text is not such but as far or farther from that than the former for 't is a figurative speech all along it speaks of building on a rock and the gates of Hell of binding and loosing almost every word a figure and the greatest Doctors and Fathers of the Church have disputed very variously about it the Papists cannot deny it and therefore this cannot be a plain easie rule to clear doubtful matters it being so doubtful in it self Let us now hear what the Text it self saith Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it Is here any one word that the Church shall be infallible and cannot err The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church therefore say they she cannot err The veriest dunce in the University would be ashamed to make such ridiculous consequences Put the case God had promised the King of England that the French King should not prevail against him must it therefore follow that 't is impossible the French King should set foot upon English ground or kill any one of our Kings Subjects or take any of his Ships Rare nonsence Many Princes after several battels lost much of their Country invaded yet have prevailed and driven out the Enemy many a man after several wounds received hath prevailed and killed his Adversary Let then the Papists go and learn what that means The seed of the woman shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel Gen. iii. 15. The seed of the Woman crushed the Head of Satan and prevailed against the gates of Hell though the Prince thereof bruised and wounded him in the heel Many errors and Heresies have bruised and wounded the Church yet have not prevailed to destroy it the vitals the fundamentals have still been preserved That profession of Peter whereon Christ built his Church was Thou art Christ the Son of the living God This saith hath still been preserved in the Church the gates of Hell never could prevail against it This is all our Saviour here promised and this he hath ever to this day made good and will assuredly make good to the end of the world But put the case these words The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church did imply some infallibility promised to the Church in general yet how come the Papists to challenge this insallibility to the Church of Rome and deprive all other Churches of it Why say they Christ here promises to build his Church on St. Peter 'T is false the Text doth not say Thou art Peter and upon thee will I build my Church but Upon this rock will I build my Church and that rock was Christ 1 Cor. x. 4. Christ the Son of the Living God whom Peter professed on this rock was the Church built But suppose yet farther that our Saviour had promised he would build his Church on Peter what then Yet not on him alone for St. Paul tells us Eph. ii 19 20. That the House of God which is the Church of God is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Christ Iesus himself being the chief corner stone built upon other Apostles and Prophets also as well as on Peter but chiefly on Christ himself And then for those words Binding and
beseech you tell me from whence sprang this mighty Headship of the Pope to be Lord of the whole World Successors as Successors can challenge no more Authority than their Predecessors had If the present Bishop of Salisbury hath no Authority over the Bishop of Lincoln certainly Salisburies Successor can have none over Lincolns Successor And so Saint Peter having no Lordship over S. Iohn nor any other Apostle Peter's Successor can have none over their Successors this is clear How then Did Christ ever come again upon Earth to establish this Headship or Did an Angel come from Heaven to do it Though I must tell you should an Angel come from Heaven and preach any other Doctrine than what is in Scripture we are fully warranted not to receive it But if neither Christ nor Angel nor any one Scripture declare this Headship is it not a most unreasonable thing to require us to believe this as a matter absolutely necessary to Salvation and to believe it with as full assurance as we believe Christ was born of the Virgin or that Christ was Crucified and that he rose from the dead Let them shew us then in such plain Scripture words that the Pope is to be Head of the Church that the Church of Rome shall be Infallible unto the worlds end that we are to receive all her Doctrines as the Oracles of God or that in the Church of Rome we have Eternal Life Let them but shew us some promise some command plain like this and we shall readily submit really we should be heartily glad to see it it would save us much trouble But beloved you all know there is nothing like this in all the Scripture How then dare any man venture the eternal salvation of his Soul and in obedience to the Church of Rome practise things so apparently contrary to Gods Commands as to worship Images pray unto Saints receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind and such like as I mentioned formerly I know there are in the writings of several Fathers many expressions which highly magnifie the Authority of the Church in general and some for the Church of Rome in particular all which signifie very little if you consider the circumstances and motives for their so speaking When the Church was infested with Heresies the Orthodox Fathers disputing with them used all the Arguments they could to reduce them to the Truth but perverse men not hearkening to their reasons their last and pressing Argument was the Authority of the Church which they set forth with great lustre to make the Argument more powerful and force their submission unto it And because the generality of the Church in those days by Gods blessing was not yet infected with errors they urged the Authority and true belief of the Universal Church to reclaim the particular Heretical Churches from their Error and the most general Language being then Greek they used the word Catholick which in that Language signifies Universal and hence arose the phrase of the Catholick Church Moreover it pleased God to preserve the Roman Church in the true Faith with great Zeal and Piety for many years their Bishops being successively Martyr'd by the Heathen Emperors and their Officers at Rome And their true Faith being celebrated also in Scripture by S. Paul it was magnified by the true believing Fathers of other Churches as Antioch Ephesus Constantinople Alexandria c. that it might the more move the Heretical Members of their Churches to conform unto it telling them how S. Peter and S. Paul the two great Pillars of the Church were Martyr'd there and therefore they ought to believe no Error could enter that Church which was so sanctified with the blood of those two great Apostles and divers other famous Martyrs All which they uttered with great zeal that they might make the unbelievers to reverence it the more and submit unto it As when two of our Lawyers differ in opinion he that hath the Lord Chief Justice Coke on his side will magnifie him as such an Oracle of the Law that could not err and say all that his wit can invent to set it forth it doth not therefore follow that he seriously thinks Coke to have been infallible no more do these sayings of the Fathers conclude the Roman Church to be infallible as I shall now shew you by one Example sufficient to satisfie any man without farther trouble S. Cyprian was a Bishop and Martyr of the true Catholick Church as famous for Learning and Sanctity as for his Faith and Martyrdom he wrote a zealous Tract for the unity of the Church wherein he uttered those sayings which the Papists have so frequently in their mouths Habere non potest Deum Patrem qui Ecclesiam non habet Matrem he cannot have God for his Father who will not have the Church for his Mother And As no man was saved out of Noah ' s Ark so no man can be saved out of the Church Which being spoken by so great a man seem to carry great Authority with them But if I might freely speak my mind I would say of them that they are fine flourishing sentences sounding handsomely to the ear but cannot much satisfie a mans reason unless he had clearly exprest what he means by the word Ecclesia Church I know full well what the Papists mean by it they mean the Bishop of Rome and his Clergy and all those that are of his Faith and Communion and believe that no man can be saved that is not in that Communion And this is with them the Mother Church and Noah's Ark. But I shall now plainly shew that S. Cyprian meant no such thing for in the beginning of this Tract he declares that St. Peter whom the Papists would needs have to be the Founder of their Church had no Authority over the rest of the Apostles and Churches founded by them but that all the Apostles were of equal honour and authority Pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Which saying he fully confirmed by his practice which is the clearest exposition of a mans meaning for a great dispute arising between him and Stephen the Bishop of Rome about Rebaptizing those which were Christned in Heretical Churches S. Cyprian declared his Judgment was for Rebaptizing Stephen declares the contrary and both parties adhering stifly to their own opinions the dispute grew so high that Cyprian held a Council of all the African Bishops and there Decreed that they ought to be Rebaptized for there being but one Baptism which was to be had only in the true Church the Heretical Baptism being done out of the true Church was no Baptism Here 't is plain S. Cyprian meant by the word Church his Church and all that were in Communion with him Stephen on the other side calls a Council at Rome and there Decrees that the Heretical Baptism being performed in due manner though the Priest Baptizing were an Heretick out of the Church yet the Baptism
whatsoever Wherefore I cannot but conclude that Saint Austin was of the same Faith with the Catholick Church of his time and that the Papists are of a very different Faith from him and them I know full well that the Papists do alledge another place of Saint Austin's where he seems to speak somewhat in conformity to their Faith as in his Explication or Paraphrase on the Thirty third Psalm Where discoursing of those words Ferebatur manibus suis He was carried in his own hands He applies those words unto Christ saying That they could not be literally meant of any body else because Christ only bare himself in his own hands when he deliver'd with his own hands his Body in the Sacrament to his Disciples To this I could answer That if St. Austin doth here seem to contradict what he had proved before it follows from hence that we cannot take the authority of any Father for our Faith because this learned and eminent Father as well as many others seems to contradict himself But I will not make so injurious an answer to so worthy a Father of the Church for in truth he doth not here contradict in the least what he said before as I shall now make appear Saint Austin in his Epistle to Dardanus doth professedly discourse the point in a Doctrinal way and doth not only give his Opinion but the reasons that so enforce it as that it can't be otherwise But it is quite another thing to discourse by way of Paraphrase as Saint Austin doth on that Psalm we may well affirm that he used the common paraphrastical liberty which is very frequent among the Fathers especially the more ancient and chiefly in Origen whom I may well call the origine of such Libertin discourse that great luxuriant Wit making flourishes upon every word often used Expressions too too light for the weighty sence of Holy Scripture but his great Wit and Learning having obtain'd great reverence these things passed pardonable in him and became too much imitated by succeeding Doctors And therefore 't is no wonder that Saint Austin not much unlike him in luxuriancy of Wit was somewhat like him in the way of Allegories and Paraphrases wherein men do not so much intend the clear positive Doctrine as flourishing circumlocutions and variety of Phansies But we may the better excuse Saint Austin in this if we take in Saint Austin's rule That it is no strange thing or false thing to affirm that of the signs which belong to the thing signified as he exemplifies in our Saviour himself Non dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cùm signum daret corporis sui Our Saviour doubted not to affirm to his Disciples and say This is my body when he gave unto them the sign of his Body which was the Bread he blessed brake and gave unto them And so St. Austin doubted not to affirm and say That Christ bare his Body in his own hands when he bare Bread which was the sign of his Body And so those words He was carried in his own hands may be said to be literally verified of our Saviour secundùm quendum modum after a certain manner the Phrase St. Austin useth upon this very subject in another place not literally in the exact sence And the meaning is only this These words He was carried in his own hands cannot be so properly or so literally understood of David or any other man as of Christ for David in no sence can be said to carry himself in his own hands our Saviour may because he carried Bread the sign of his Body in his own hands And now for the clear conviction of the Papists and for the full satisfaction of every impartial man It is evident Saint Austin himself doth in this very place plainly declare He meant no otherwise than I have exprest him For after he had discoursed much of this business he concludes thus Ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret Hoc est corpus meum He bare himself in his own hands after a certain manner when he said This is my body which as I said plainly shews he meant not our Saviour did really carry himself in his hands but as he saith Quodammodo after a certain manner which Quodammodo had been very improper had our Saviour really carried himself in his own hands But put the case Saint Austin had not here added this word Quodammodo after a certain manner yet any man that is the least verst in matters of Learning will certainly be far more moved in his Opinion by what Saint Austin Doctrinally and Demonstratively affirms than by what he Paraphrastically discourses which is the slightest way of discoursing in the world I will not here urge against the Papists that place of Saint Austin I mentioned but now That Christ doubted not to say to his Disciples This is my body when he gave them the sign of his Body because he doth not there purposely dispute this business but brings in that occasionally to prove somewhat else Yet from hence it is apparent enough that Saint Austin understood the Bread in the Lord's Supper to be only a sign of Christ's Body and not his real Body as the Papists believe But I return to the business in hand There is a passage in Scripture usually objected against this Argument of St. Austin's That our Saviour came into the Room where his Disciples were the doors being shut Which seems to imply That a glorified Body doth not require such spaces and dimensions of place as mortal Bodies because our Saviour's Body entred the Room passing through the material Body of Stone Wood or the like as they would have it This Objection is easily answered That no Man is able to affirm How our Saviour's Body entred the Room it being not expressed in Scripture but this is clear That our Saviour might divide the Walls or Doors or Roof or Floor and so make way for his Body to enter and yet his Disciples not perceive it As our Saviour passed through the midst of the Iews and they perceived it not when they carried him to the brow of the Hill to cast him down head long no Man supposes from hence That our Saviour passed through the Bodies of the Iews but by them unseen Wherefore it not being declared in Scripture how he entred how can any Argument be drawn from hence of our Saviour's Body passing through other Bodies and consequently how doth this confute or weaken St. Austin's Argument Certainly not at all I will set down one passage more of another memorable Father and Bishop Theodoret who disputing with an Heretick named Eranistes that denied our Saviour to have a real humane substantial Body after his Resurrection and affirmed That his Humanity was wholly swallowed up in the Divinity Theodoret arguing against him Dia◠2. Ch. 24. affirmeth That as the Bread after the Consecration in the Lord's Supper is not changed in form and substance but remains the very