to have been a meer humane Law so did it no way concern the service of God which the Excommunicate among the Jewes were not excluded from by it But was a meer civil punishment tending to change and abate the estate and condition of him that was under it in his freedom and intercourse with his own peole By all this hee seemes to fortifie the argument which Erastus had made showing that there is no such thing as Excommunication commanded or established by that Law and therefore that there is no such power in the Church But further seeing that there was no other company of men extant in the world for the Apostles to understand by the name of the Church when our Lord commanded him that was offended among his Disciples Tell it to the Church Mat. XVIII 16-20 hee insists strongly that neither the Church of Christ nor any Consistory or Assembly of men or particular person claiming or acting in behalf and under the title of the Church can be understood by those words of our Lord But that the name of the Church must necessarily signifie the Body of Jewes as well as Christians as unbelievers or that Consistory which was able to act in behalf of them in their respective times and places such as wee must also understand the witnesses there mentioned to be For it is manifest that at the beginning of Christianity onely Jewes were admitted to be Christians in so much that the dispute was hot about Cornelius and his company Acts XI 1. being no Jewes in Religion but yet such as believed in the true God and had renounced the worship of Idols Whereby it seemes the command of our Lord to baptize all Nations Mat. XXVIII 19. was then understood to concern onely those of all Nations that had made themselves Jewes by being circumcised afore Accordingly wee see that by virtue of Claudius his Edict commanding all Jewes to depart from Rome Aquila and Priscilla being Christians came to Corinth Acts XVIII 2. to show that Christians at that time must needs use the Jewes fashions who were therefore reputed Jewes by the Law of the Romanes and injoyed the benefit of their Religion by the Jewes privileges granted or confirmed by the same Claudius in Josephus Antiq XIX 4. Whereupon it seems necessarily to follow that the Excommunication then in force was that which the Jewes had introduced by humane Law confirmed by the Law of the Empire Though it is to be thought that the Christians upon particular agreement among themselves such as wee finde they had by Pliny Epist X. 97. Tertul. Apolog. cap. II. Euseb Hist Eccles III. 33. S. Hierome Chron. 2123. Orig. contr Celsum I. pag. 4. had limited the use of it to such causes and termes as their profession required Therefore when our Lord in the next words commands that hee which will not heare the Church be accounted as an Heathen or a Publicane As it is manifest that hee gives the Church no power but onely prescribes what hee would have the party offended to do So neither Heathen nor Publicane being in the condition of an excommunicate person among the Jewes how can it be understood that our Lord would have him to be excommunicate whom hee commands to be held as a Heathen man or as a Publicane The effect then of this precept of our Lord will consist in limiting the precept of the Law Levit. XIX 17. to the publishing of those offenses between parties the private complaint whereof should be neglected So that if the opinion of Gods people should be no more esteemed by the osfeuder the party offended freely to return his scorn by avoiding his familiarity as Jewes were wont to avoid the familiarity of Heathen men and Publicanes Now when our Lord adds in the next words Whatsoever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven The sense must either be general to signifie the obligation of all Law and the right and Power which one man may have by the act of his will to tye and limit another mans Or particular to the Law of Moses Whereby what was declared unlawfull by the Doctors and Professors of it was said in their language to be held or bound that which was permitted loose Which signification our Lord also uses Mat. XXIII 4. Luc. XI 46. This later sense concerning things and not persons will be farre from signifying that any man should be excommunicate And though Excommunication be a bond and was so among the Jewes yet how should wee understand that the Church is inabled to tye this bond by a commission the termes whereof containe all that superiors may do to oblige their inferiors This Author then acknowledges that S. Paul threatens Excommunication Gal. I. 8 9. 1 Cor. XVI 22. and that hee wishes himself that estate which it imports Rom. IX 3. Not as it hath been falsly imagined among Christians to be cut off from the communion of the Eucharist and other offices of Christianity But as it was used among the Jewes to inferre the abridgment of a mans freedome in publick conversation as vile and subject to the curses of the Church But when the same Apostle gives order that the incestuous person be delivered to Satan 1 Cor. V. 5. As also when hee saith that hee had delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus 1 Tim. I. 20. when hee ordereth them not to converse with such persons 1 Cor. V. 11. this hee takes no more to concerne Excommunication than those verses of the Psalms Blessed is the man that bath not walked in the counsail of the ungodly Or I have not sate with vain persons nor will have fellowship with the deceitfull That is to say that it is bad counsail towards God but neither ground nor signe of any commission to excommunicate in the body of the Church Whereas the Leviathan to show here out of order his sense of that place though hee acknowledge that both ancient and modern writers have understood it as if by the extraordinary graces which the Apostles then had to evidence the presence of God in his Church the excommunicate became subject to plagues and diseases inflicted by evil Angels to show that they came under the power of Satan when they were put out of the Church yet hee satisfies himself by saying that other learned men finde nothing like the excommunication of Christians in it pag. 209. and that it depended upon the singular privilege of the Apostles These are the grounds upon which the power of the Keyes and by consequence the charter and corporation of the Church and all Ecclesiastical right and power grounded thereupon are taken away in the first book de Synedriis to the same effect as in Erastus his positions But the Leviathan comes up close to the point in general and following the supposition which I have refuted That the Gospel or Christianity and the Scriptures that contain it are not Law till the secular Power that
because being to be held as a Heathen or a Publicane as being Excommunicate that is to say suppposing that to be true which Erastus would have to be salse by consequence and in effect it would become lawfull to sue him before Gentiles as being no longer a Christian Now when it followeth What forever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven If wee take binding and loosing in a general sense to signifie that Power of giving Law so that hereeby the Church is inabled to give Law to the Church setting aside for the present who of the Church is to give Law who to receive it then I say that by virtue hereof the Power of Excommunicating is given to the Church Because it is nothing else but such a Right established by a Law of God And if God give his Church a Power to make Laws then hee gives it Power to make a Law that shall give force to all the rest by inacting that penalty that shall be requisite to restrain disobedience But if wee take the terms of binding and loosing as they are used among the Jews and by consequence when that which is unlawfull is done for declaring what is lawfull or unlawfull to be done to be discharged of it I say that admitting the difference between the Law and the Gospel which I have established the Power of Excommunicating will follow in the Church For supposing the Law not to tender remission of sin in order to life everlafting but to the remporal privileges of a Jew to be bound and to be loose will signifie no more than to be in or out of possession of those privileges uncapable or capable of the fame by doing or not doing what the Law requireth to be done for that purpose In the mean time this Power will argue a Common-wealth of Israel founded by God by virtue of which foundation the Power of those who are inabled by the Law to make this declaration takes effect to all purposes contained in the Law But. supposing the Gospel to tender remission of sins in order to life everlasting upon such terms as the Covenant of Grace importeth To be bound and to be loose will signifie freedom from sin or the captivity and fervitude of it And therefore the Power of declaring this estare and what is to be done for the attaining of it will necessarily inserre a Society of the Church founded upon the Power of making that declaration whereupon any man may be accepted for such Neither can it be imagined that any part any degree of the fame can be in any man but so farr and to effect as the Community of the Church shall have allowed It is not now unknown that divers of those that dispute Controversies for the Church of Rome do challenge the Power of making Law for the Church by virtue of this Power of binding and loosing given by our Lord to his Apostles And this opinion taketh place by the former interpretation of these words which being admitted that consequence cannot be refused But taking the Power of binding and loosing to be by virtue of the Keyes of Gods House which are the Keyes of David or the House of David the figure of the Church which is that signification which the language of the Scripture required when our Lord. having promised his Church adds Mat. XVI 19. Unto thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven what soever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven The Power of binding and loosing in the Church will be correspondent to that which the Doctors of the Synagogue had of declaring this or that lawfull or unlawfull according to Moses Laws and a man tied to do this or that for maintaining his privilege by it And having said this I conceive I have done more than hee that distinguished these two meanings in our Lords words thought fit to do Hee distinguishing thus in the first book de Synedriis pag. 291 hath thought it enough to argue that neither the one nor the other will serve to ground the Power of Excommunicating in the Church Wherein what hee hath proved I referre my self to that which hath been said But in what sense the words of our Lord are to be understood according to his own opinion hee hath not declared how requisite foever it had been to do as I according to my opinion indeavor to do As for that little Objection that in Our Lords words it is not persons but things that are said to be bound and loose It is to be underflood that things are neither bound nor loose of themselves But that by the way of common understanding of men and speech it is attributed to them from the obligations that Iye upon men or persons by virtue of which obligations or freedom from them such things as they import are said to be bound or loose as lawfull or unlawfull for them to use who using them are either bound or free to such rights as the using or not using of them inferrs Though by consequence of this Power the Power of binding by Law or loosing that is of leaving free without tying by Law will naturally follow For as in Civil Government whatfoever person or persons are absolutely and without limitaiton indowed with the Soveraign Power must necessaraily be indowed with the Power of giving Law whereby they do but limit themselves what Law they will govern by which is before those Laws be declared their will and pleasure So if wee suppose in the Church a Power of admitting into and casting out of the Society of the Church wee must needs suppose a Power of giving Law to this Society because no Society at all can have Communion with it self but according to some Rules of exercising the said Communion which for the present are called Laws Now our Lord Christ having given his Disciples the Power of binding and Loosing by opening or shutting the doors of his Church that is by admitting into or excluding out of it hath thereby given them the Power of framing his Catholick Church Not that they are so properly said to binde those whom they shut out of the Church For when Christianity declareth mankinde to be under sin not to be freed of it but by submitting to Chrissianity the bond is contracted by him that finneth the shutting of the Church door upon him is but refusing him the cure whereof hee tenders himself uncapable But those whom they admit into the Church they are properly said to loose because though they cannot be loosed without their own act yet that act is not to be done without submitting to that authority which is intrusted to require it And this authority with those who acknowledge it by being admitted into the Church is that which consstuteth the Society and Corporation of the Church For admitting into the Church and allowing to continue
who will or can think it reasonable that the Church should be thought to avow all that hath been written by any of the Church and is come to the hands of posterity by whatsoever means Or who will think it strange that a Christian should not understand the Rule of his Christianity though the right understanding thereof should have been the condition requisite to the making of him a Christian If the profession made by the writing from which posterity hath it were evidently so notorious to the Church and the maintenance thereof so obstinate that the Church could not avoid taking notice of it and contradicting it without quitting the trust of the Rule of Faith deposited with it then and not otherwise I do admit that the contrary of that which is regularly and ordinarily taught by Church Writers is inconsistent with the Rule of Faith Besides this another presumption or prescription limiting the interpretation or Scriptures in such things as concern the Traditions of the Apostles wee may be confident to have gained from the Society of the Church demonstrated by the premises To wit that if any thing be questionable whether it come by Tradition from the Apostles or not there can no conclusion be made in the negative because it is not expressed in the Scriptures Here I desire all them that will not mistake mee to take notice that I intend not here to conclude or inferre what force those Traditions which I pretend may come from the Apostles though it be not certified by the Scriptures may have to oblige the Church which question I found it requisite to set aside once afore But that which here I affirme onely concerns the question of fact that it is not impossible to make evidence that some Orders or Rites and customes of the Church had their beginning of being brought in for Laws to the Church by the Apostles though not written in the Scriptures Confessing neverthelesse that the proving hereof which no reason can hinder mee to proceed with here will be a step to the resolving of that force which the Traditions of the Apostles whether written or not written in the Scriptures have and ought to have in obliging the Church at present when it shall appear to be common to written and unwritten Traditions to have their authority from the Apostles And the evidence of this prescription depends upon a more general one limiting the interpretation of Scripture in mater of this nature that is concerning the Laws of the Church how far they were intended by the Apostles to tye the Church not to exceed the practice of the Church succeeding the times of the Apostles The demonstration whereof consists in certain instances of things recorded by the Scriptures of the New Testament either evidencing onely mater of fact that is what was then done and therefore importing no precept what was to be done for the future or importing such precepts as no man will stand to be now in force It is manifest that the Scriptures report how the Disciples under the Apostles were wont to assemble themselves to serve God by the Offices of Christianity upon the first day of the week called vulgarly Sunday after the Resurrection of Christ John XX. 19 26. Acts. XX. 7. Con. XVI 2. Apoc. I. 10. Speaking of the banishment of S. John conforming himself to the times of the Church for the service of God and thereupon ravish'd in Spirit Which no man questions It is said indeed in this case as it is said by others in the question of Tithes that the first day of the week is commanded to be kept holy of Christians by the fourth Commandment But I demand of any man that can tell seven whether the first day of the week and the seventh day of the week be the same day of the week or not And if this be unquestionable I demand further whether the Jews were tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep the last day of the week or not Assuring my self that whosoever believes the Scriptures and reads the Commandement that obliges them to rest all that day in which God rested from making Heaven and Earth can no more doubt that they were bound to rest on Saturday than that God rested from making Heaven and Earth upon that day I demand then whether the same precept that obliged them to keep Saturday can oblige Christians to keep Sunday And do conclude that it can no more be said then that the same word signifies both the seventh and the first day So wide an error so small a mistake can cause when faction hath once swallowed it A man would think it a very easie mistake to understand the seventh day of the week which God commands to be hallowed as if it signified one of the seven and no more Which if it were true then were the Jews never tied to rest on the Saturday by Gods Law but might have chosen which day of seven they would have rested on notwithstanding that God rested on the Saturday which is to make the reason of the precept impertinent to the mater of it I intend not to deny that the reason and ground upon which the Christian Church came to be enjoyned to keep the first day of the week is drawn and to be drawn from the fourth Commandment But I say further that the reason and ground of a positive Law makes it not a Law but the act of him that hath power to give Law signifying that hee intends to inact it for a Law whether hee expresse the reason or not And thus I say as I have hitherto said concerning other Ordinances which have the force of Law to oblige the Church that they can no more stand by virtue of such Ordinances as I acknowledge to have been torrespondent to them under the Law of Moses than Christianity by the virtue of Judaisme or the Gospel by virtue of the Law which though it bear witnesse to the Gospel yet hee were a Madman that should say That hee who was bound to be circumcised by virtue of that circumcision should be bound to be baptized supposing him of the number of Christians who agree that Baptisme coming in force circumcision could no more continue in force And surely those simple people who of late times have taken upon them to keep the Saturday though it were in truth and effect no lesse than the renouncing of their Christianity yet in reason did no more then pursue the grounds which their Predecessors had laid and drawn the conclusion which necessarily followes upon their premises that if the fourth Commandment be in force then either the Saturday is to be kept or the Jews were never tied to keep it Besides this particular it is manifest that the Apostles observe the third and sixth and ninth hours of the day for the service of God Acts II. 15. III. 1. X. 3 9 30. And this according to an Order then in force among Gods people according to the Scriptures Psal LV. 18
Church been in possession and practice at that time the Bishop of Rome had been a mad man to think that refusing it would be the means to reduce those of Asia to his judgment and practice If this possession and practice had no ground of right is it possible that none of either party should discover the sandy foundation of the dispute and perswade the parties which were so much in love with their own way on both sides to give no heed to other Churches the Communion of the Church having no ground and therefore being of no consequence What meant Irenaeus so to trouble himself to perswade Victor to hold communion with those of Asia though not condescending to keep Easter by the same Rule but that hee saw if the Church of Rome should break with the Churches of Asia that hee must break either with the one or the other of them who desired to hold communion with both Were the Disciples of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples cousened into a humane Tradition of the Unity of the Catholick and Apostolick Church when hee so earnestly labored that holding with the Church of Rome hee might not be constrained to forbear the intercourse which for the advancement of Christianity hee held with the Churches of Asia But S. Cyprians time affordes divers passages of great consequence The Schisme of the Novatians in the first place It is a thing manifest by Eusebius his Histories VI. 44 46. VII 4 5. that the Church of Antiochia together with the Churches of Pontus which then seem to have either resorted to Antiochia or in consideration of neighborhood to have held great correspondence with that Church and Cilicia made very great difficulty in admitting the election of Cornelius and condemning the Novatians for refusing to receive into communion those who in time of persecution had sacrificed to Idols and so renounced the Christian Faith In time by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria moved it seems with the consent of the rest of the Church they were also induced to disclaime the Novatians and to concurr to restore the Unity of the Church which for the time had remained in suspense And it is a thing very much to be observed which the Council at Antiochia in Encoeniis Dominicae aureae pleads to the Church of Rome in the dispute they had with Pope Julius about admitting the Acts of it in Sozomenus III. 8. and Socrates II. 5. They had taken upon them to make a new provision in that which the great Council at Nicaea had taken order in afore Which was in effect to make void the acts of that Council The Pope I suppose had reason to except that this could not be done without his consent including in it the consent of the Churches which adheered to him unlesse wee imagine that the Synod of Antiochia being but a part of those who had decreed at the Council of Nicaea had power to dissolve the acts of the whole What is it then toat this Synod allege for themselves Even this That having preserved or restored the Unity of the Church of Rome by disclaiming the Novatians they expected the like compliance from them in the present businesse Whereby it appeareth that the consent of the whole Church did make and was to make good the acts of part of it though not assembled with them in Council no lesse than if they were And indeed what made the second general Council of Constantinople under Theodosius to be general none having appeared at it for the Western Churches but the consent of Damasus and his Synod ex postfacto the rest of the West adheering to the same Which if it be so I do not think I need any other evidence that from S. Cyprians time all Christians did believe that they are bound to maintain themselves in communion with the Church when they believe that the consent thereof is able to do such acts as these I cannot here omit the words of Dionysius of Alexandria out of a leter to Novatianus recorded by Eusebius Eccl. Hist VII 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you were carried away against your will as you say you may show that by returning with your will For you should have indured any thing rather than smite asunder the Church of God And to suffer martyrdome rather than divide the Church had been no lesse glory than rather than commit Idolatry but greater in my judgmene For there a man suffers martyrdome for his own soul alone but here for the whole Church And now if you can perswade or constraine the brethren to return to concord your fall will not be so great as that exploit But if they will not be ruled and you cannot by all means save your own soul It is easie to observe that the same Churches which had made so much difficulty in disclaiming the Novatians were they who joyned with S. Cyprian in standing upon the rebaptizing of those that had been baptized by Hereticks As appeares not only by Firmilianus his Epistle to S. Cyprian but also by Dionysius of Alexandria de bapt III. alleged by Euscbius VII 7. even before S. Cyprian Whereby wee see how much Eusebius contradicts himself when hee sayes VII 3. that S. Cyprian was the first that called in question the Tradition received in that case In this businesse the XIX Canon of the Council of Nicaea makes it evident that neither S. Cyprians party nor their adversaries altogether prevailed For it is there inacted That those who had been baptized by the Samosatenians should be baptized again And must not the same needs hold much more of the Gnosticks and of almost all the rest of those Heresies which S. Cyprian nameth in his LXX Epistle Besides it is manifest by the second Council at Arles can XVII that of Laodicea can VII VIII Gennadius de dogm Eccl. cap. LII and others that the practice of the Churches after this dispute was ended was not every where the same And which is most remarkable Not onely the great Council at Arles Can. VIII makes a Rule for the Africane Churches which the first Council at Carthage followeth to the like purpose with that of the Council of Nicaea But also Optatus lib. I. demonstrates that hee rebaptized the Sabellians which the foresaid Rule alloweth not Whereby it appeareth that the extream opinions held by Steven of Rome that none were to be rebaptized and by S. Cyprian that all were moderated by the succeeding practice of the Churches though diverse in divers parts of the Church Now let mee ask by what means this moderation came to prevaile over that vehemence of contention which you may see the parties transported with in S. Cyprians Epistles What could it be but the conscience of that obligation which both parties owned to preserve the Unity of the Church and the respect of those other Churches that were not ingaged in the dispute as they were The businesse of Paulus Samosatenus is of the same time Was
be and was sufficient means under the Law to make them understand their obligation to that spiritual obedience which the Gospel covenanteth for though wee suppose as the truth is that the Law expresly covenanteth onely for the temporal happinesse of the Land of Promise Therefore there was also sufficient meanes to oblige them to expect the coming of the Christ as wee see by the Gospel that they did at the coming of our Lord and as all that will maintain Christianity against the Jewes are bound to maintain And therefore to the objection proposed I answer That though the words of the precept of loving God with all the heart and all the minde and all the soul and all the might may contain all that Christianity requireth to be done in consideration of duty to God and with an intent of his honor and service Yet neverthelesse that sense thereof that depends upon the Covenant of the Law is to be limited to the observation of those precepts which God should confine their civil life to in the service of him alone The intent of the Covenant being to contract with God for temporal happinesse in the Land of Promise they undertaking as a Common-wealth to live by such civil Lawes as hee should give as well as to worship him by such Ceremonies as hee should prescribe And therefore supposing they observed those precepts they were to expect the inheritance of the Land of Promise though wee suppose that they did it out of respect to that reward and not onely to God and to his honor and service Yea though wee grant that for the acknowledging of the true God alone they were bound to indure persecution and death rather than for fear of torment to deny God or sacrifice to Idols or renounce his Law as wee see Daniel and the three Children did under Nebuchadnesar and the zealous Jewes in the Maccabees time under Antiochus Epiphanes For if the Heathen had cause to believe that which is received of all as the ground of civil Society that particular persons are bound to expose their lives for the defense of their Countrey that is to no other end but that they may live and die in the Lawes under which they are bred though they had no promise of God that they should hold their inheritance of this world by maintaining them Cereainly the people that obtained their inheritance by taking upon them Moses Law shall stand bound not onely to maintain it by the sword under the conduct of their Soveraignes but also by suffering for it when they were not to maintain it by force A thing nothing strange to a man that shall consider how desâ—rable life is to him that is forced from the Lawes of his Countrey As for the other part of loving our Neighbor as our selves it is without doubt pregnant with an evident argument of this truth seeing in plain reason the extent of the precept might so argue the intent of it For it is evident by infinite Texts of the Law that a mans neighbor in this precept extends no further than to Israelites whether by birth or by religion that is to say those that are ingraffed into the Covenant by being circumcised For example Let mee ask how the Law could forbid the Israelites to seek the good of the Moabites and Ammonites if it be part of the same Law to love all men under the quality of neighbors as themselves Let mee demand of any man how Mordecai was tied not to do that honor to Haman that his Soveraigne commanded to be done How hee could in conscience disobey his Prince in a mater of indifferent nature of it self had it not been prohibited by the Law of God Whether a Jew that is commanded by the Law to professe hostility against all Amalekites could be dispensed with in this obligation by any act of his Soveraign Whether any just reason can be alleged for Mordecai but this Nay those who are called strangers in the Law That is to say those that had renounced all Idols and professed to worship the true God and thereupon were privileged to dwell in the Land of Promise out of which the Israelites were sufficiently commanded to root all Idolaters those strangers I say by the leter of Moses Law are not comprehended in the precept of loving our neighbor as our selves For hee that asked who is the neighbor that the Law speaks of Lut. X. 27-37 is not convicted by our Lord by any leter of the Law but by a Parable intimating the example of that which hee did for mankinde to be the reason of that which the Gospel requires Forsooth if the love of Christians extend to strangers and enemies because the good Samaritâ—ne which is our Lord Christ extended his so farr then not because Moses Law had convenanted for it Therefore besides this precept of loving our neighbors as our selves it was requisite that the Law should by a particular provision limit that respect and tenderness wherewith they were required to use those strangers as converts to the true God for so the Syriack translation of the Law calls them alwaies to wit in the rank of Widowes and Orphans If this be true the precept of not coveting by the immediate intent of Moses Law stands confined to that sense which the Jewes at this day give it according to the decisions of their Doctors that no man by contrived oppresion or vexation designe to force his neighbor that was by the Law inabled to make a divorce to part with his wife or any thing else that hee called his own Which sense our Lord also in the Gospel manifestly favors Mar. X. 19. where recounting the precepts that those must keep that will inherit life everlasting after thou shalt not bear false witnesse hee inserres thou shalt not take away by fraud or oppression that which is another mans for the sense of the tenth Commandement thou shalt not cover that which is thy neighbors All which extendeth no further than the over act of seeking what is not a mans own And though this be out Lords answer to him that asks what hee is to do to obtaine life everlasting yet it may well seem that our Lord intended first to propound unto him the civil Law of Moses as necessary to salvation and a step towards it because the Gospel saith that our Lord loved him that answered All these things have I kept from my youth up as acknowledging that hee said true For that hee had kept these precepts in that spiritual sense and to the intent and purpose which the Gospel requireth it was not true And by that which followes when hee askes what remained to be done namely that hee leave all to follow Christ hee inferrs in one precept the whole inward and spiritual obedience of God which under the Gospel is expresly required To wit that a man set all the world and himself behinde his back that hee may follow Christ Therefore though they be the obedience
it smelled so ranck that I conceived my self bound to cry out upon the venene that may be so closely couched under the words But to those that believe the truth of Christianity arguments from the mystical sense of the Old Testament must not seem contemptible those of our Lord Christ and his Apostles being such provided that the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel be preserved upon the right ground and in the right grain Provided also that no more waight be laid upon them than they are able to bear To wit no more than wee can lay upon the Law of Moses in proving the truth of Christianity Which if wee premise not the miracles of our Lord Christ and his Apostles done to witnesse their commission from God together with the excellence of Christianity above Judaisme even in the ballance of reason If wee make not good and constant correspondence between both wheresoever the ground of that correspondence takes place wee allege a reason that needs a reason to defend it But if wee do that wee imprest all the miracles done by Moses to introduce the Law to depose for the truth of the Gospel Wee furnish our selves of a magazine of argument in all points of Christianity to convince those who have received it what the conâ—â—itution of Gods ancient people and the truth then on foot will inferre upon the correspondence which they are supposed to hold with Christianity and with the Church I do then freely grant that Excommunication stood not immediately by Gods Law among Gods ancient people though by that Power which Gods Law had vested on them that first introduced it Were it Esdras by commission from the King of Persia as to the Power that inforced it with means to constraine though by the Law as to his Title before and against other men by the Law or whosoever it were besides But I will allege evidence for it after the return from Captivity which to my knowledge hath not hitherto been alleged Namely that which is called in the Greek Bible the third Book of Maccabees where it is râ—lated that when some of the Jewes at Alexandria had obeyed the Edict of Ptolomee Philometor commanâ—ing to worship an Idol which hee had set up the rest of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abhorred those of them that had turned Aposâ—â—â—es and condeâ—ned â—â—em as enemies to the Nation depriving them of mutual conversation and the henefit of it III. 25. Upon the consideration of which passage I easâ—ly conclude that of 1 Macc. XIV 38. not to be well understood nâ—â— translâ—ted where it is said that Razias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying indeed that in the â—orâ—er times under Antiochus Epiphanes when so many Jewes departed from their Law hee had brought in the decree of not mixing Judaisme That is to say that hee had been the means of passing a decree that those who stuck to their profession should not commâ—nicate with the Apoâ—â—ates These things were done by virtue of the Law against the will of their Soveraignes and therefore Philometor complaines of them for it 3 Macc. III. 16. but it is by virtue of his decree being his subjects that they put them to death aftâ—rwards VII 8 9 10. I do also grant that the putting of a man out of the Synagogue which I admit to have come in by the act of those men who nâ—verthâ—lesse had their authority originally from that act of God which made them a people under those Lawes imported a great abatement of the temporal privilege of each Jewes estate in as much as it is evident that whosoever was banished the conversation of Jewes in whole or in part was at the same rate abated the privilege of a Jew which they held by the declaration of their Soveraignes to maintain them in the use of their own Lawes For the privilege which a man holdeth among his people whereof hee is a native will appeare of what consequence it is when hee comes to live among strangers But I do not therefore yield that to be excommunicate out of the Church by the original constitution thereof and the Law of God imports the abatement of any secular privilege Because of the difference between the Synagogue and the Church which God appointed to be gathered out of all Nations under the condition of bearing Christs Crosse For such a company refusing their Communion to such as they exclude can neither prejudice their persons goods nor fame which being doubtfull to the world so long as they professe the Religion which the world owns not returns by consequence when they quit that Religion to return to the Religion of the State Rather as the Leviathan truly sayes they make themselves liable to all the persecution that may be brought upon them by such as think they have had ill measure by being put out of the Church Now to that which is argued That because the Christians went for Jewes among the Gentiles at the beginning of Christianity injoying Jewes privileges and thereby the exercise of their Religion therefore the Excommunications used by them must needs be such as were in force among the Jewes according to Moses Law that is by the Power which it establisheth The answer is by denying the consequence The reason this The Christians at the beginning communicated with the Jewes in that service of God which they used as well in the Temple as in the Synagogue How should they have opportunity to make them acquainted with the Gospel otherwise But as sometimes they assembled secretly among themselves for fear of the Jewes Acts XII 12. John XIX 38. so also besides those Offices which they served God with among the Jewes in the Temple or in the Synagogue they acknowledged others which they held themselves bound to and for which they retired themselves from the Jewes Acts I. 13. II. 42 46. III. 23. V. 42. VI. 2. The ground of their Communion with the Jewes Christians know to have been the hope of winning them to be Christians lasting while that hope should continue the ground of serving God in their own Assemblies the obligation of Christianity for ever to continue In regard of the conversation and communion which they held with the Jewes whether Civil or Religious they were subject to be excommunicated by the Jewes That is part of our Lords Prophesie John XVI 2. They shall put you out of their Synagogues Nay the time cometh that whoso killeth you shall think that hee doth God service But whatsoever the effect of these Excommunications might be being driven and confined in a maner to the Communion of the Church by being excluded or at least abridged the Communion of the Synagogue must they not needs forfeit their Communion by not fulfilling the condition by which they held it Or could they forfeit it upon other gronnds or to other effect than those upon which and to which they held it Indeed I will not undertake to give you many Scripture examples of Excommunications
till after a distance that As by the offense of one it came to all men to condemnation so by the righteousnesie of one it came to all men to justification of life For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous And hereupon as the exaltation of Christ is imputed to his obedience in the state of his humiliation by S. Paul Phil. II. 8. he humbled himselfe becoming obedient unto death So are the effects and consequences thereof Rom. IV. 25. who was delivered for our transgressions and rose againe for our justification to be ascribed to the same And that which the Father proclaimes of the sonne Mat. III. 17. XVII 5. This is my beloved sonne in whom I am well pleased cannot be understood in any other regard but of his obedience performed in publishing the message which the Father sent him upon into the world and suffering for it in which he testifies so often in S. Johns Gospell that he came not to doe his owne will but his Fathers that he sought not his owne glory but his Fathers he did not he said not any thing of himselfe but what he had seen his Father doe what he had heard his Father say that it were tedious to repeate the severall places And this according to the figure of David Psal XI 9. 10. then said I Lo I come In the volume of the book it is written of me that I should fullfill thy will I am content to doe it O Lord yea thy Law is within my heart Whereupon the Apostle saith that we are sanctified by this will through the once offering of the body of Jesus Christ Ebr. IX 9. to wit the will of God which by doing his will Christ had moved to favor us Even as in the figure punishment is remitted remitted to Davids posterity for the promise indeed 2 Kings VIII 19. XX. 6. 1 Kings XI 3. but made in consideration of Davids obedience 2 Sam. VII 18. Here I suppose further that this obedience of Christ is not tenderd as of Debt which they that beleeve him to have been borne a meere creature must hold But having proved that he assumed mans nature being the Word of God God of God from everlasting afore doe necessarily presume that this obedience being undue is meritorious to whatsoever purpose God that sent him accepts it And hereupon inferr that God granted those termes of reconcilement which the Gospell importeth in derogation to his owne originall Law in consideration of it For I doe suppose that man being fallen from God yet knowing God and himselfe to have been made by God and to be governed by his providence necessarily understood himselfe to be under the obligation of making God the end of all his actions and therefore of injoying no creature otherwise then the service of God should either require or allow Though that ignorance of God which originall concupiscence hath since brought into the world through the worship of Idols and the corruptions that attend upon the same had since so extinguished or darkned the light of nature in man that the greatest part of mankind though they could not deny this truth neverthelesse held it prisoner in unrighteousnesse as S. Paul sayes Rom. I. 18. This is that which I call the originall Law of God the transgression whereof bindeth over to that punishment which God by his word declareth And of this Law the necessary immediate consequence is that we submit to all such Lawes as God shall publish to man in as much as he requires and upon such penalties as he declares So that by publishing the Gospell the originall Law of God is not abrogated continuing still the rule of mens actions but rather strengthened and inlarged to all those precepts which are positive under the Gospell and come not from the light of nature as necessary conditions to salvation in all estates But the publication of the Gospell is a dispensation in the exercise and execution of the originall Law by the penalty which it in acteth in consideration of Christs obedience though being generall to all mankind after the publishing of it it may be called a New Law as proposing new termes of salvation which if any man challenge to be a derogation to Gods originall Law I will not contend about words As for the Law of Moses if we consider it as containing the termes upon which that people held the land of promise the publishing of the Gospell neither abrogates it nor derogates from it Being onely given to hold till the time of reformation as the Apostle calls it Ebr. IX 10. therefore expiring when the Gospell was published which limited the intent of it But if we consider it as containing an intimation of that spirituall obedience which God required of those that would be saved under that light by the outward and civil obedience of those positive precepts whereby they were restrained from the worship of Idols and commerce with Idolatrous nations in proportion to the reward of the world to come signified by the happinesse of the land of promise then must we acknowledge another dispensation in the same originall Law by the Law of Moses and for the time of it which was also in force under the Fathers from the beginning though not burthened which that multitude of positive precepts which the Law of Moses brought in for the condition upon which they were to hold the land of promise And in opposition to those it is called by the Fathers of the Church the Law of Nature not in opposition to Grace The very giving it by Gods voluntary appearing to the Fathers and instructing them by familiar conversation as it were being a work of meere grace as also the effect of it in the workes of their conversation which we find so truly Christian that the Fathers of the Church doe truly argue from thence that Judaisme is younger then Christianity And therefore I do here acknowledge this his dispensation by which the Fathers obtained salvation before the Gospell to have been granted also in consideration of that obedience which our Lord Christ had taken upon him to performe in the fullnesse of time Nothing hindering us to understand in Gods proceeding with them something like that which in the civil law is called novatio or delegatio renwing of bonds or assignation of payment Gods accepting the interposition of our Lord Christ to the reconcilement of them being as if he accepted a new bond for an old debt or of payment by proxy to be made at a certaine terme This is a point as manifest in the Scriptures of the New Testament as it was requisite that a point not concerning the salvation of those that live under the New Testament but the understanding of the reason thereof in the salvation of those that died under the Old for the maintenance of it against unbelevers should be manifest For S. Paul thus writeth 1 Cor. X. 1-4
given generally to every Church For whereas our Lord elsewhere gives unto S. Peter this power of binding and loosing there is no doubt that in Peter bearing the form of the Church he gave it to all the Apostles Proceeding to allege S. Jerome and S. Augustine to the same purpose And upon the words of our Lord Feed my sheep Quod Petro dictum est omnibus Christi discipulis dictum est Hoc namque fuerunt caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus fuit pastores sunt omnes grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis tunc unanimi consensu pascebatur deincepâ— a successoribus eorum communi curâ pascitur That which is said to Peter is said to all Christs Disciples For what Peter was that were the rest of the Apostles They are all shepherds but the flock appears to be but one which as then it was fed by the Apostles with unanimous consent so is it since fed by their successors with common care These Fathers then when they give this for the reason why our Lord gives Peter onely the Keys of the Church with the charge of feeding his flock that hee bore the person and form of the Church suppose the Church to be a body compacted of all Churches ruled by the same form of Government for the preserving of unity in the whole as the colledge of the Apostles consisteth of so many persons indowed all with one and the same power for whom one answers to signifie the unity of the whole Whereby it appeareth first negatively That the Church did uot understand any Soveraign Power to be committed to S. Peter by these words Then positively that our Lord speaking to him alone signifies there by the course which he hath established for preserving unity in the Church To wit that all Churches being governed in the same form the greater go before the lesse in ordering maters of common concernment S. Cypriane from whom all the rest have this doctrine hath cleared the intent of it when he thus writeth Epist ad Jubai LXXII Manifestum est autem ubi per quos remissa peccatorum datur quae in baptismo scilicet daâ—ur Nam Petro primum dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit ut id solveretur in caelis quod ipse solvisset in terris Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur dicens Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos Hoc cum dixisset inspiravit aâ—t illis Accipite spiritum sanctum Si cujus remiseritis peccata remittentur illi si cujus tenueritis tenebuntur Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ— praepositis in Evangelicâ lege dominica ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare Now it is manifest where and by whom remission of sinnes is given when it is given in Baptism For our Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and in whom and from whom he instituted and declared the original of unity in it this power that it should be loosed in heaven whatsoever he had loosed on earth And after his resurrection also speaking to the Apostles he saith As my Father sent me so send I you And having said this he breathed on them saying If ye remit any mans sinnes they shall be remitted him if ye retain any mans they shall be retained Whence we understand that it is not lawful for any but those that are set over the Church and grounded in the Evangelical Law and the Ordinance of our Lord to baptize and give remission of sinnes Because Peter received the Keys therefore all and every Church that is those that are over it and none else can give remission of sinnes by admitting to Baptism Shall we think the consequence extravagant having so clear a ground for it to wit the unity of the whole Church setled upon two ingredients the same form in all Churches but with dependence of the lesse upon the greater Churches If any man say all this is disputed by Cypriane to prove that Baptism given by Hereticks is void wherein he hath been disowned by the Church And that therefore the reasons are not well grounded from whence it is inferred The answer is easie because he inferrs upon them that which though true they do not inforce That a man cannot lawfully baptize is not so much as that if he do baptize his Baptism is void S. Cypriane took both for one and therefore his reason is good though it conclude not his purpose Why not void being unlawful I refer my self to what S. Augustine since hath disputed and the Church decreed and practised And here you have one ground for that distinction between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing one with another the Bishops and Priests of several Churches according to the original constitution of the Church I allow S. Hierome to say that wheresoever there is a Bishop whither at Rome or at Eugubium an obscure City near Rome he is of the same worth as of the same Priesthood Epist LXXXV For as to the inward Court of the conscience the office that is Ministred by the Bishop or Priest of a lesse Church is no lesse effectual then by one of a greater Church But as to the outward Court of the Church supposing all Churches governed in the same form but the Churches of lesse Cities subordinate to the Churches of greater Cities by the appointment of the Apostles the act of the lesse Church of the Bishop or a Priest of it cannot be of that consequence to the whole as the act of the greater Church And so though the Bishop or the Priest of a litle Church be of the same Order with the Bishop or Priest of a great Church yet the authority of the one extendeth without comparison further then the authority of the other can do And you may perhaps dispute whether this authority produce any such as Jurisdiction or not but whether there be ground hereupon to distinguish between the Order which is the same in both and the authority which it createth in which there is so great difference you cannot dispute Certainly the office of a Deacon in a greater Church may be of more consequence to the whole then many Bishops can bring to pass As the assistance of Athanasius in the office of a Deacon to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea was of more consequence to the obtaining of the decree of the Council then the votes of many Bishops there CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The businesse of Pope Victor about keeping Easter a peremptory instance The businesse of the Novatians evidenceth the same Of the businesses concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks Dionysius of Alexandria Paulus Samosatenus S. Cypriane and of the Donatists under Constantine AMongst the proceedings of the Church I will first alledge that of the Church of Rome
if the fourth Commandment be in force they cannot be obliged to keep the Lords day Is it not an even wager that not doubting the fourth Commandment to be in force as they are told they shall keep the Saturday which if it be in force they ought to keep rather then the Lords day which finding no reason for it because they are told none they will presently imagine to be a Popish custome I know there is one argument which is very plausible to induce well meaning Christians into that zeal which we see they have for the strict keeping of the Lords day which they call the Sabbath Because this opinion will oblige the world to exercise more works of godlinesse and to abstain from more of those debauches which Festivals occasion in vulgar people then otherwse To which for the present I will say onely this That having showed the truth to be as it is I can oblige all Christians to believe that Gods glory and the advancement of his service cannot be grounded well but upon the truth And therefore I may well demand their patience till I come by and by to show the ground of the mistake which they are carried away with to think that Gods glory and service is not more plentifully provided for by the Laws and customes of the Catholick Church then by strict keeping the Sabbath upon a false ground which hindring the effect of those Laws by consequence hinders Gods service But now all this being setled what is there remaining to alledge why Christians should be bound to keep the Lords day but the act of the Apostles by virtue whereof it came into force among all Christians in all Churches For it would be too ridiculous to allege that it is grounded upon those Scriptures whereby it appeareth that it was kept under the Apostles either as a reason sufficient or as distinct from the authority of the Apostles For these Scriptures being the Scriptures of the Apostles we can derive no authority from them but that which we first suppose in the Apostles I suppose here that no man will say that our Lords appearing to his Disciples after his resurrection upon that day was enough to make it a Law or evidence that it was so made unlesse his Apostles could testifie that he appeared to that purpose As for the rest if it may by circumstance appear that under the Apostles they did assemble to the service of God upon the Lords day will it therefore follow that all Chistians are bound to do the same Or can any more then this appear by that which I alledged out of the Apostles writings If there could the writings of the Apostles being their act as much as any act whereby they could declare an intent to oblige the Church there will be nothing to bind it to keep the Lords day but the authority of the Apostles But he that will give his own common reason leave to speak shall hear it say that it is not their words that oblige us to it but the originall and universall custome of the Church evidencing that they used to celebrate that day with an intent to introduce the obligation of it into the Church For of this original and universal custome having as yet found no question made on any side I hold it superfluous to take pains to make evidence of that which no man questions When Justine the Martyr presenting to the Empire an Apology for all Christans declareth that their custome was to assemble on the Lords day to serve God with the offices of Christianity which there he describeth had it not been to abuse himself and the Empire to declare that for the custome of all Christians which was indeed the custom of some but of others not Whither Easter was to be kept upon the fifteenth day of the first Moon upon which our Lord suffered or upon the next Lords day upon which he rose again was a dispute in the Church as ancient as the Apostles The former custome having been delivered to the Churches of Asia by S. John the later to the West by S. Peter and S. Paul But what ground could there be for this dispute had not the first day of the week been honoured and observed above the rest in regard of our Lords rising again Certainly the Eâ—ionites were one of the ancientest sects thar rose up against the Church and they as Eusebius Eccles Hist III. 27. keeping the Sabbath as the Jews and because the Jews kept it observing also the Lords day because the Christians kept it It is true that among the Eastern Christians the Saturday was observed for the service of God many ages after condescension to the Jews in regard whereof the observation of Moses law was in use after Christ in some parts of the Church more in some lesse was quite out of date But that is no argument that the Lords day was not kept when the Sabbath was kept to them who see S. Paul keep the Lords day Act. XX. 7. within the time of compliance with the Jewes For the offices which God is served with by the Church are pleasing to him at all times as well as in all places whereas the keeping of the Sabbath upon any day but a Saturday would have been a breach of his Law For when the other Festivals of the Jews are called Sabbaths in the Law that is not to say that the Sabbath was kept upon them for I have showed you two severall measures of rest due upon them by the Law but that they participated much of the nature of the Sabbath and therefore may be called with an addition such or such Sabbaths but not absolutely the Sabbath Therefore when Christians afterwards continued the custome of serving God upon the Sabbath that is the Saturday it is to be understood that they served God with the offices of Christianity not with the rest of the Jews Sabbath If it be further demanded whither the obligation of the Lords day do not depend upon the precepâ— of the Sabbath so that it may be called with an addition the Sabbath of Christians though not absolutely the Sabbath because that nâ—me is possessed already by the Saturday in the language of all Christians as well as Jews till men affected an abuse in the name to bring their mistake into mens minds To this I answer that if the Lords day had no dependance upon the precept of the Sabbath we could not give a reason why one day of seven is observed For the choice of the number could not come by chance And I cautioned afore that the Resurrection of Christ was as sufficient a reason why the Church should serve God on the Sunday as the creation of the world was why the Synagogue should serve God on the Saturday But this dependance was not immediate because I showed also that this was not enough to introduce the obligation upon us The act of the Apostles intervening was the means to make the obligation necessary
Gregory of Nâ—oâ—aesarea may perhaps relish either it was not publickly taken notice of when it was published or passed over in silence for the present in respect of his merit toward the Church As it must be said of his opinion concerning souls flitting into new bodies As for Euseb of Caesarea and the author of the Constitutions which are both charged in this point Eusebius living in the time when the consent of the Church over-ruled the contrary rather evidenceth then interrupteth that Tradition which condemneth him if he agree not with it But the author of the Constitutions is not known at what time he lived to write in the name of Clemens the Apostles Scholar that which for his part he thought most likely to come from the Apostles Whether or no he might think it became him writing in that name to use such terms as he found the ancientest Church-Writers use before the businesse of Arius Whether or no he might mistake himself in doing so I will not dispute But being hard to believe that he writ till the heresie of Arius and Eâ—nâ—mâ—us was down As I can give my self no good reason why he should bring in Arius under the habit of the Apostles so I see the suspicion which he hath contracted in a manner as ancient as the credit of his book in the Church After all this if any man marvail that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria should think so slightly of Arius his opinion as in debating it sometimes to side with him sometimes with his adversaries according to Sozomenus Eccles Hist I. 15. Let him consider that the Ecclesiasticall Historians informe us that the difference of Arius was commenced at a Consistory That is at a meeting of the Clergy to debate the businesse Onely Sozomenus that there had been divers meetings about it In which Alexander had not declared himself but spoken sometimes on this side and sometimes on that Not because there is any appearance in the story that Arius himself could have construed his procedings as if he had been doubtfull which side to choose But because any wise man in his place would have thought it the way to preserve his authority over Arius by not declaring himself party against him till he appeared untractable by that reason which his authority must inforce when it self would not serve the turn As for the great Constantine who in his Leter to the Church of Alexandria declareth many times that the question concerned not the substance of Faith It must be said that being no Christian as yet nor catechized in the Faith his information failed either in matter of fact reporting the position of Arius in such terms as might bear a good construction in which what latitude there is it may appear by the premises or in point of right making that not to concern the substance of Faith which indeed doth For those terms in which all the Ecclesiastical Histories agree that the debate was stated are such as indeed do concern the substance of Faith Neither is there any mark in the writings of the Fathers before this time upon which it can be said that any of them thought that there was a time when the Word of God which being incarnate in our Lord Christ was not but was made by God of nothing after that time Which are the characters that distinguish the heresie of Arius Set aside then the Constitutions Eusebius Origen and his Scholar Dionysius as questionable in point of fact or as granted that the sense of their words is not reconcileable with the Faith in point of right the retraction of Dionysius makes as much more for the Faith then his misprision condemned by Gennadius de Dogm Eccl. Cap. IV. and Facundus X. 5. against it as the rejecting of Sabellius makes more for the same then the doubtfull words of Gregory of Nâ—ocaesarea against That which is to be said thereupon is that there can be therefore no reason to blame the Councill of Nicaea for adding to the Creed the terme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oblige the Arians to the sense of the Church S. Athanasius in his Treatise de Actis Conc. Nicen. hath shewed us that it was introduced to cut off those equivocations whereby they ought to cover their owne sense under those other words which were propounded as capeable of the Catholick sense He that will say that this course ought not to have been held or that having taken effect it ought not to have been retained may as well say that the faith of Christ or the Unity of Gods service in that faith is not to be preserved For being once questioned therâ— must be a Rule and a mark to discern Christians from Hereticks I observe therefoâ—e likewise that the troubles which Arius occasioned in the Church never came to an end till the word person in Latine and hypostasis in Greek was admitted in opposition to the word essence or nature included in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Council of Nicaea had introduced into the Creed that the difference between the Church and Arius might be stated upon the expresse terms of three persons and one nature For it is evident by S. Jerome Epist LVII that the terme of hypostasis for person was not then received who writes to Pope Damasus to be authorized by him whether to admit or to refuse it But as after that time we hear no further question of the term so under the Emperor Gratiane and Pope Damasus we find the dispute extinguished But I say neverthelesse that there is no cause therefore to imagine that the sense of the Church and the faith thereof hath received any change by the use of new terms which the necessity of preventing Hereticks hath obliged the Church to introduce And I say as the others said that the importance and consequence of the said new terms ought to be reduced to that force which the sense of the Church according to the Scriptures alloweth or rather prescribeth And that whosoever shall take upon him under pretense of the most unquestionable decrees that any age of the Church hath produced to prescribe against that sense which the primitive records of the Church do inforce in so doing sets up the authority of that present Church against the Tradition of the Catholick And after all this shall the Socinians be admitted to alledge that S. Hilary quittâ—th a doubt whether the holy Ghost is to be called God or not Surely the Socinians cannot be admitted to alledge this unlesse they will be content to submit to S. Hilary in the whole businesse Nay unlesse they will stand to the Church to which S. Hilary stands But for those that are not Socinians and would be satisfied I will not use that wretched answer of Erasmus in that excellent preface to S. Hilarys works That the Church hath since decreed otherwise As if there were not a reason why the Church so decreed or as if he were not bound to render that reason
for his discharge But I will say thaâ— as in the case of the Nicene Creed and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it appeareth that the Church may be necessitated to use such expressions as have not been in use afore and not onely to allow particular persons as Doctors of the Church to use them but to give them pasport and authority in the publick service of the Church And that people or Doctors of the Church should stick at them when they are first frequented is no more to be marvailed at then that the Socinians should marvaile that the Son of God who acknowledges to come from the Father and to receive all from him should by any man be acknowledged God from everlasting Unlesse it be marvailed that all that allow it not are not Socinians For neither is it any marvaile that men should marvaile at the due consequences of those things which themselves admit Nor that marvailing at them some should be Socinians others continue Christians All this would be good in case it did appear that S. Hilary had any where put any doubt whether the holy Ghost may be called God or not But the observation of Erasmus bears no more then this That S. Hilary is no where found to call the H. Ghost God which who will not laugh at unlesse it could be said that S Hilary no way saies as much as that is For shall the Faith of the Church or shall the Faith of S. Hilary depend upon the use of that word Shall it not serve his turne that he useth words signiâ—ying the same Which had Erasmus been so diligent to collect as the Socinians have been forward to make advantage of his negligence they had never drawn that observation into consequence He that would be satisfied of S. Hilaries Faith as well as of the Faith of the Church before S. Hilary in this point Let him peruse what Petavius hath collected Dogâ—atum Theol. 3. de Trinitate VII 7-15 I am now before I leave this point to consider what the light of reason argues against the mystery of the Trinity which I acknowledge to seem so strong that it seems to forbid all use of reason in them that admit the Christian Faith For seeing all use of reason supposes this principle that those things which agree or disagree in a third agree or disagree one with the other And that the mystery of the Trinity inferres Though the Father is God and the Sonne God yet that the Sonne is not the Father It seems it cannot be maintained without disowning the use of reasonable discourse This difficulty may be and is branched out into many difficulties It is argued If so Then shall there be three Gods the Father one the Sonne another and the Holy Ghost a third Or three substancâ—s of one Godhead every person being God which is the substance of the Godhead Or that the same thing the Godhead shall subsist thrice to wit in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost It is argued If so Then shall every person be three persons Because every person is God that is Father Sonne and holy Ghost That the persons of the Godhead shall be both really the same and really diverse or not the same Being the same God yet severall persons It is argued further If so Then shall the Sonne of God be his own Sonne Because Sonne of that God which the Sonne is Then may there as well be more Sonnes and then infinite Then shall he be from everlasting because God and not from everlasting because Sonne Then should the Father and the holy Ghost have been incarnate because one with the Sonne who is in carnate Then cannot the Sonne of God be man because God before But all these consequences containe but one and the same difficulty from which thy proceed as the same souldiers are showed in severall armes and the same meats served with severall sauses For when the Father Sonne and holy Ghost persons subsisting before they are distinguished by our understanding are said to be one God the ordinary discourse of reason and the language that men use inferres three substances each subsisting of it self that is three Gods that is persons of the Godhead every one of them Father Sonne and holy Ghost as God is the same with themselves supposing one God not the same supposing three persons Againe the Sonne being God as the Father and the holy Ghost are and Sonne of God it is no more then that he should be his own Sonne That he should be from everlasting and yet Sonne and no more Sonnes then he no more then that he is God and the Sonne of God both That he onely incarnate never a whit difficult then that being the same God he is neither Father nor holy Ghost To answer then this one though great difficulty First I insist that the Socinians who object it which may be said of Arius or Aetius or whosoever may be found to have objected the like cannot avoid as great inconveniences if they mean to be Christians For the Socinians pretending to honour the Sonne as the Father the Arians the Sonne and the holy Ghost both I demand what greater inconvenience there can be objected to one that pretends to be a Christian then to give the honour due to God alone to his creature Then that the Sonne of God should be God and a creature both Then that he should create himself as both God and creature Then that being made a man he should be exalted to the power and glory of God whereupon the honour of God becomes due If reason and Faith agree both together to assure us that there is a God that made all things It is not possible that any thing should be imagined more impossible then that one and the same subject should be truly qualified God and creature He that can imagine a greater contradiction a greater inconvenience a greater inconsistence then that the same thing should necessarily be what it is and yet that of it self it may be and may not be what it is Alwayes actually the same and yet capable of being what it was not sometimes The cause of all things and yet depending on that cause which it self is and so before and after it self Well may he imagine some greater inconvenience then this that our Lord Christ made a man as other men are onely conceived by the holy Ghost without man of a Virgine should be made God and indued with power and glory to which the worship and honour of the onely true God is due But let them that hope hereby to remove the stumbling block of the Trinity in Unity from before the Jews consider with themselves what satisfaction they can hope to give them or any reasonable creature by inviting them to give the honour of God to a creature called God because of that power and Glory which God hath given it above other creatures For seeing the same power and glory which God hath given it he might have