drunkenness who putteth the bottle to his neighbours mouth provoking him to drink to excess or of Theft who will by no means steal himself but is aiding in his advice and putting advantages into his hands to take anothers Goods In like manner the necessary consequence of a light Errour being very notorious though a person be not formally an Heretick in the conclusion which he may protest against as not following from his erroneous proposition yet if in truth it doth so and is generally so reputed to the mis-leading of Christians such a man is really or virtually an Heretick and obnoxious to the guilt and punishment due unto such Errours which he denies For instance It is a notorious Heresie to hold it unnecessary there should be any Church of Christ and to affirm That it suffices that every good Christian hath the word of God and believes and lives by himself though the word of God contradicts this impiety sufficiently and to be a Christian at large If any person heretically inclined shall deny that this is his opinion or that thus he would have it yet if he preaches such Doctrine and publishes such Opinions which do necessarily infer thus much he is a notorious Heretick in reality though not in the formality As also if he should teach The Church hath no power to enjoyn any thing besides what the word of God requires This Errour taken simply and nakedly hath no such monstrousness as may not pass for tolerable but in the necessary consequence it is as pernicious to the community of Christians as to preach against Christ himself And therefore the argument of late Rationalists is very false founded upon this ground Socinus Chi. viz. That Christians are not to be obliged under pain of damnation such as Anathema's and Excommunications are to any thing which Christ hath not by his Law prescribed For this indeed taken strictly is true Christ for ought may appear doth not in Scripture command Rites in use with the Church but Christ under pain of his displeasure doth require that we should do all things not contrary to his injunctions for the keeping up Non sunt parva existimanda sine quibus magna consistere enim possint Hieron of the nature of a Church and Christian Society and therefore though the Errour be in it self light it falls in the event heavy upon Christianity it self and deserves no less rigour than is used towards the offender in Faith it self Lastly From hence we may reasonably judge of the frequent denunciations of alienation from the Faith and Church against them who erred heretically affirming in general That Heresie quite alienated from the Church and that Society could not be of the Church which maintained an Heresie For first we are to note that few or none before St. Cyprians time were so severely censured by the ancient Fathers but such as were offenders against the very principles of Christianity it self St. Cyprian indeed and others from him extended this censure to such as were less criminal For it is a very hard matter to instance in any one Article of Faith though I know some great Clerks have attempted it which Novations or Donatists rejected or offended against So that abating somewhat for the vehemence of the zeal conceived against such enemies to the Church in the writings of Fathers against Hereticks it will appear that it was matter of Fact rather than Faith or Heresie which exposed them to such censures For uncharitableness will as certainly damn as unfaithfulness And he that dies for Christ as divers Hereticks did in animosity groundless against his brother and especially against the Church of which he is or ought to be a member may notwithstanding loose his Life hereafter as well as here But of this more now we are to speak of the Church CHAP. XXIII Of the proper Subject of Faith the Church The distinction and description of the Church In what sense the Church is a Collection of Saints Communion Visible as well as Invisible necessary to the constituting a Church HAving spoken of the Nature Kinds Acts and Effects of Christian Faith we proceed now to speak of the proper Subject of Faith which is the Church Which word is commonly used as well for the Place where our Lord is publickly and solemnly worshipped as for the People of God serving and worshipping him But of this latter only we art to treat at present which we define to be A Calling and Collection of Saints from The Church is an universal Congregation or fellowship of Gods faithful People and Elect built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the head and corner stone Hom. Chur. of Engl. Part. 2. pa. 213. their vain Conversation in the world to the Faith and Worship of God according to the Rule and Laws of his Holy word and to visible communion with themselves which description I doubt not to be grounded in all its parts upon the Scriptures themselves And that God is the Author and only Institutor of such a Church if it needed any proof the Scripture would soon afford it St. Paul saith to the Corinthians Chap. 7. * 1 Cor. 7. 17. But as God hath distributed to every man as the Lord hath called every one so let him walk and so ordain I in all Churches And so exhorteth the Thessalonians to †1 Thess 2. 12 walk worthy of God who called them to his Kingdom and Glory And so in very many places else where as will appear farther now we consider the Term from whence God doth call and choose his faithful people and that is the World the world not taken in its natural sense signifying the Natural bodies of all sorts of which it consisteth nor absolutely from it in the more special sense in which Mankind is sometimes called the world for civil conversation and humane mutual Offices may be maintained and ought between Christians and Heathens or Infidels but rather in a moral sense that is unnatural unjust unrighteous communication with the wicked of the world as wicked as St. Paul explaineth himself to the 1 Cor. 5. 9 10. Corinthians I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicatours Yet not altogether to refuse to converse with the fornicatours of this world or with the covetous or extortioners or with Idolaters for them must ye needs go out of the world but if any man that is called a brother be a fornicatour c. St. Peter takes most of the terms in our description speaking 1 Pet. 2. 9 10. of Converts to the Faith Ye are a chosen generation a Royal Priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar People that ye should shew forth the praises of God who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light c. And St. Paul to the Ephesians According as he hath chosen us in him before the Ephes 1. 4. foundation of the World that we should be holy and
infinite reasons First from the Object of their worship generally directed to a multitude of Gods and patching up a plenitude of power out of the shreds of innumerable Demi-gods or pieces of Gods whereof one should have power and vertue in one thing and another in another but this is to deny God in effect who if he be not absolute is not at all and indeed all the arguments before used to prove there can be but one God do prove that to be a false and foolish Religion which alloweth and worshippeth more than one Neither can it suffice to excuse them to say that the wiser of the Heathens acknowledged but one God because it availeth nothing at all but to add to their condemnation for any persons to have a right sense and meaning reserved to themselves and to proceed directly contrary to such found judgment in their practice and worship it self And therefore the most absurd and abominable manner of worshipping their pretended Deities is sufficient conviction of the Religion it self For whereas modesty sobriety temperance chastity truth justice and the like moral vertues were such as the Light of Nature did commend to all men and all consented to be excellent and laudable All these were contemned by the admirers of these Gods yea the very Religion it self tempted and incited many to offend against all these and that which is most intolerable from the examples of the pretended gods so chusing to be worshipped from whence must needs follow what St. Paul affirmeth of the Gentiles Religion and gods The things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and not to God They were impure and wicked 1 Cor. 10. 20. spirits delighting in absurd and vitious practises And therefore upon this subject no more need be spoken at present The Neat pretender to true worship may be the Mahometan who worshipping the True God so far as may be discerned yet faileth egregiously in the manner of exhibiting the same the very grounds and end also being false and unreasonable For first that the Author and Coiner of that worship was an impostor and made pretences of Sanctity in the midst of impurities and infirmities he was subject unto is apparent out of Histories of those times and places where he by the assistance of a Fugitive Nestorian Monk laid the plot and whole design of his Religion and that among a people altogether rude ignorant barbarous easie to be deceived and cheated into a credulity of pretended Revelations Again the many absurdities and contradictions of their Law most sacred as misnaming of persons mistiming of Facts mistaking of Histories in the gross impossible prophane blasphemous opinions concerning the nature the will the Actions of God contrary to common philosophy and reason Ridiculous and foolish imaginations of Angels utterly false opinions of the nature of things and such like being duly and soberly weighed and examined do convince the whole Fabrick of that superstition of Idleness and foolish fictions And not to multiply more arguments here The way of propagating this Erroneous Fashion of serving God discovereth the Errour of the thing it self For it is a general and most rational Principle deserving admission and belief of all That Religion being the most excellent act of humane Creatures ought to have the most high and noble Faculty of the soul for its proper seat and fountain from whence it should proceed such as is the intellectual faculty of Man But this superstition is carried on by the ministery of the Senses chiefly And moreover It ought to have for its end the most sublime and divine of all But the Mahometan constituteth the low pleasures of the Senses as the sufficient and proper end of all their service making the beatitude of Heaven to consist in perpetual Licentiousness and fresh delights of senses And therefore no need of insisting on this subject here What is here spoken being for method sake rather then necessity or a formal confutation of those Errours CHAP. V. Of the Jewish Religion The Pretence of the Antiquity of it mulled Their several Erroneous grounds of the Jewish Religion discovered DUT the Religion of the Jew requireth more diligent examination as well because of a notable presumption from ancient Tradition and a certain preoccupation of divine truths and auctority of divine Constitution as because the consideration thereof is an introduction to Christian Religion and the disproof of that a proof of the Christian And if according to Christians own concessions and the eminentest Apostle St. Paul they were once the people and true Church of God To Rom. 3. 2. cap. 9. 4. them were committed the Oracles of God To them pertained the Adoption and the glorie and the Covenant and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the Promises Why not alwayes a Church If once Gods people Why not alwayes so If once confessed to be pure and Faithfull When did they cease to be so When first entred corruptions into their Church Under what High Priest And who brought such errours first in This is the sum of what they can say either for themselves or against the Christians of whose Religion which undoubtedly they do and will call Heresie they can give the time and place when and where it sprang up and the person who first founded and advanced the same And if any Church or Society of men in the world can lay claim to the Promises of perpetuity and infallibility surely the Jewish will pretend much more from the Prerogatives peculiar to them as do witness every where the Law and the Prophets To all this a sufficient answer shall be comprehended in the prosecution of the contrary Grounds which here follows which I reduce to these two whereof One concerns their Errour about their Law and the Other about their Messias The first general Errour concerning their Law is first that they suppose that the word of God given to Moses for their proper use was equally to oblige all Nations saving where certain priviledges were pretended to Jews by birth which they suppose no people were worthy or capable of except the stock of Abraham But that all nations could not be included in that Covenant which was made with Abraham nor were all obliged to the Rites and Ceremonies thereof appears from the ordinary impossibility of being observed by all People For how could people of the remotest parts of the earth appear thrice a year at Jerusalem as was commanded the Israelites by God who dwelt in the Land of Canaan How Levit. 12. 6. could all Nations at any time bring their Sacrifices to the door of the House of the Lord to be there received and offered by the Priests Another Errour concerning their Law received by Moses is that they say It was it whereby men should be justified Which is false and that First because the most ancient holy and renowned Patriarchs of the Jewish Line were not so Justified They were not justified by the
without blame before him in love And it hath been shewed before how that when in the New Testament we read of Gods Calling and choosing and electing we are not so much to understand the eternal purpose or decree of God but the execution thereof in Gods actual calling and electing certain persons to the profession and belief of the Faith of Christ which he effected by the fulfilling of the Prophesie made by Christ in St. Matthews Gospel relating to the Matth. 24. 31. destruction of the Jewish Polity and Church and erecting of the Christian instead thereof viz. And he shall send his Angels that is his Messengers and Ministers with a great sound of a trumpet i. e. the Gospel preached and published and they shall gather together his elect i. e. such as he shall make choice of from the four winds i. e. from all quarters of the world from one end of heaven to the other Now these persons by Gods word and good-will called from such vanities ignorances and vices are in the Scripture called Saints not so much because they were all so throughly or absolutely sanctified from their former natural or moral impieties contracted in their state of Nature and Gentilism as that they should retain no sin and none of them should fail of heaven hereafter But first either from the better part the whole was denominated actually holy which is not unusual in all speech Or because having made renunciation of the World and Flesh and Devil in Baptism they were called and consecrated to Holiness Or lastly because they made open and solemn profession thereof however some so called might be and did appear to be reprobates And names and appellations are given not from any inward affection or quality which sense cannot judge of but from such things as are visible and apparent And thus in the Old Testament as well as New it is used As in the Psalmes Gather my Saints Psalm 50. 5. together unto me those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice which imply the whole body of the people of Israel as the words going immediately before do also declare And wherever in the Book of Psalms which is in divers places we find the Congregation of the Saints is meant the Israelites in general And in Daniel Chap. 7. v. 8. 21 22 25 27. is the word necessary taken Now it being most customary with the Penmen of the New Testament to borrow the phrase of the Old this tearm Saints was translated from the Jewish Synagogue to the Christian Church by St. Paul expresly to the Romans saying To all that be in Rome beloved of Rom. 1 7. God called Saints so the original better then the insertion of to be made in the translation As likewise in his first Epistle to the Corinthians To the Church of God which is at Corinth to them that are sanctified in Christ 1 Cor. 1. v. 2. Jesus called to be Saints withall that in every place call upon the name Jesus Christ their Lord and ours And the like salutation we shall find in most of St. Pauls Epistles as also most frequently in the body of them as may be obvious to any reader though I deny not but sometimes in the New Testament it is taken in a more restrained sense signifying especially the victorious and triumphant not Militant Saints From all which it doth sufficiently appear in what sense the Church may and ought to be described a Society or Collection of Saints And withal how miserably and mischievously they err who giving that title to a Party hold themselves bound to gather a certain select number out of Christians not accusable of any notorious errour from the Faith of Christ as the Apostles of Christ did out of Heathens and Jews and to constitute and call them Saints Another thing requisite to the constitution of a Church is That it be a Communion of Saints it sufficing not that persons elected or selected as above-said be many in number but holy by nature or institution as God ordained of old in the forming of the Jewish Church Deut. 7. 6. Thou art Deut. 7. 6. 26 19. 18 9. an holy people unto the Lord thy God The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself above all the people that are upon the face of Earth Which words are with advantage applyed unto the Christian Church by St. Peter Whence it is that the same St. Peter maketh it an 1 Pet. 2. 9 10. 2 Pet. 1. 4. end of calling this company together That they may be partakers of the Divine Nature or as it is otherwise more plainly render'd Of a Divine Nature Holiness drawing us near unto the Nature of God himself As the Wiseman also writeth The giving heed unto her Laws is the assurance Wisdom 6. 18 19. of Incorruption and Incorruption maketh us near unto God And not only must they be holy but to that end must of necessity hold a twofold communion The one Invisible with one Head Christ The other Visible and external with one another For the Apostle tells us speaking of Christians The head of every man is Christ And to the Ephesians The 1 Cor. 11. 3. Ephes 5. 23. husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the Church and and he is the Saviour of the world There can therefore no question be made but it is most essential as well to the Church in general as every particular Christian or Member of the same that Christ be the Head of his Church as St. Paul yet more clearly expresseth it to the Colossians excepting against such Professors of Christian Religion as held not the Head from which all the Body by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit 2 Col. 2. 19. together encreaseth with the increase of God Therefore leaving that as on all hands granted we come to the external communion of the Church CHAP. XXIV A Preparation to the knowledge of Ecclesiastical Society or of the Church from the consideration of humane Societies What is Society What Order What Government Of the Original of Government Reasons against the Peoples being the Original of Power and their Right to frame Governments Power not Revocable by the People IN the outward Communion of the Church two things are to be enquired into First the Nature of it wherein it consisteth Secondly the Adjuncts or Affections thereof First we shall treat Civitas à conversatione multorum dicta est pro eo quod plurimorum in unum constituat contineat vitas Origin Homil. 5. in Genesim briefly of the Nature of this Communion To understand which clearly it will be expedient to begin with the definition of Communion in General or Society humane For Communion is nothing else but Humane Society And Humane Society is nothing else but a conversation of men out of natural reason inclining and moving them thereunto for the mutual supply of the
the fall of a well-built State But this perpetual plague of discontented ambitious Incendaries both Divine and Politick plying the common people with language agreeable to their humour and nothing ravishes them more than to be told what an interest they have in modelling States is that which alone suffices to overthrow all order in a Republick And this we intended for a second Argument A third may well be the common and villanous gloss inseparable from such pestilent Principles executed For the same Histories that relate to us how crafty and seditious Ring-leaders of Ego â—â—nquam existimavi universi populi Judicio eam rem constituendi reges permitti deberi sed ut prope ad consuetudinem nostram ex omnibus ordini bus Selecti ad Regem in consiliumâ— coirent Buchananus DeJure Regni apud Scotos pag. 11 an inchanted multitude have deluded them by infusing such false Dogmes do tell us that they finding it impossible to obtain the concurrence of all persons who according to the pretended Laws of Liberty and Equity ought as one to agree in one design do first with great injustice interpret their Rule to hold and be fulfilled in the Major part of the people only Then finding themselves most commonly destitute of that advantage they proceed to expound it more to their purpose tyrannical and and boldly affirm That by the People is not meant necessarily the most but the best and soberest and godliest and such only that study really the good of Religion and the Liberties of the People And are not these fine doings Do not these popular tenets hang well together and end well which in process of their own reason and practises confute the very first Principle of all viz. That People have an absolute Supream Power to frame Governments when before they can bring matters to their intended conclusion they are forc't to deny them But this popular dogme will appear yet as more false so more odious from what we shall now speak of the Second Point in this general discourse of Government CHAP. XXV Of the Form of Civil Government The several sorts of Government That Government in General is not so of Divine Right as that all Governments should be indifferently of Divine Institution but that one especially was instituted of God and that Monarchical The Reasons proving this THE Second thing to be here examined is the Form of Government To speak orderly of which it is necessary to call to mind the several forms or kinds of Government extant in the World which though according to the infinite variety of prevailing Factions may also be infinite yet may best be reduced to these two Monarchy or the Supremacy of One presiding over all others within such or such Dominions and Polycrasie or Polyarchie where many have the power in their hands of administring the Republick And this again is subdivided into many forms As Polycrasie here properly and strictly taken not as before for any number opposite to One but for a great number of persons invested with Civil Power And Aristocracie consisting of a Few comparatively with the others and them of the Nobler and richer of the People And Democracie wherein the People are said to retain the Power of Government in their own hands But this last is only said and by some ignorant and undiscerning people phansied to be rather than in reality is so or ever was or possible for to be and that upon the reasons amongst divers others already given against the Peoples power This the Philosopher in This Aristotle shews Politicks lib. 4. cap. 4. initio his Politicks doth in effect as far as he dar'd confess amidst so many pretenders to it And they who dispute of it are constrained to desert the proper genuine sense of the word Democracie which should comprehend the people generally without exclusion of any and to affix a new meaning to it whereby many of the inferiour and ignobler sort are taken into the numerous Counsel and Court of Judicature administring the Publick And thus at this cheap rate are the people choused into a fond and empty opinion that they are some body when 't is not the thousand part of them who are at all actually concerned in Government The Histories of the frequent and vain but fatal attempts made by the Roman and Grecian Populacie to become Masters of themselves and to Rule their Rulers are more than enough to confute any man willing and able to learn what a Chimera such a Government is and what devastations rather than security such presumptions have exposed Cities unto who when they were most popularly governed and so should be most free never regarded in the least the adjacent peoples freedom which lived without their City never admitted their Voâ—es never advised with them as they ought to have done if they would have made good their principles which teach that Power is of right in the People and consequently that they ought to govern and by no violence or fraud ought they to be defeated of this their pretended Birth-right and they without the Gates in remoter parts are of the same condition with Citizens And if they recurr to the old hold of the Patrons of such natural Rights in people to say That notwithstanding them there must be some over-ruling power to bring things into settlement and order and therefore the universal judgment and approbation of every person must not be expected I as easily reply and more strongly conclude That therefore there can be no such natural Right in them so much as to prescribe to themselves it being most ridiculous to affirm as well as dishonorable to God to believe That the All-wise Providence should so dispose of Power that unless humane wit mended it nay quite changed it it could never be exercised to the benefit of mankind And this being made good not only must this Democracie be found a meer imposture upon people but the pretended Right of Government communicated unto the Chief in the other two Species's of Government Aristocracie and Polycracie For these persons must either profess a right growing up unto them from the powerful usurpations and oppressions made by them over their brethren the rest of the people who naturally and justly were and ought to be as free as themselves and so all the frame is founded in injustice or this was freely communicated unto them from the people But against this is sufficient what we have often both said and shewed before That the People never had any such Power and if they had ought not nor could part with it or remove it from that place and proper subject wherein it was by God seated and settled And therefore none of these can be just or natural for nothing that is unjust can be natural or agree with the Divine Will And from hence is refuted the vulgar Warrant that is used to justifie as indifferent in their kind all sorts of Civil Government telling us That God
in his power so to do but that he hath so done actually to the fairest Pretenders we shall deny until better demonstrations than can be made from their own asseverations or appealings to the extraordinary effects of their Ministry Christ sayes in the Tenth of John Verily verily John 10â— 1. he that entreth not by the door into the sheep-fold but climbeth up some other way the same is a thief and a robber That the Sheep-fold is the Church that the door is the ordinary way of entring into office in that Church that the Shepheard is Presider over the Church I find none to doubt nor that climbing in at the windows is extraordinary thrusting ones self into Office in the Church nor that such as do so though they be never so conscionable painful and orthodox otherwise are not thieves and robbers if not shearing abusing the Flock yet taking that upon them without ordinary grant which belongs not to them This evil is only remedied by a successive and ordinary transmission of that Power which Christ left with certain peculiar persons he called Apostles with authority to communicate the same to others to the worlds end according to the several ranks and orders of his Ministers of which his Church consisteth So that succession not of Doctrine only but Officers in the Church is no less essential to a Church properly so called than Officers themselves or Discipline And as for the distinction invented without any precedent in antiquity without any warrant from Scripture without any justice or reason humane or divine to stop mens mouths and blind their eyes who are very simple of Vocation internal and external it is utterly rejected as a vain frivolous impertinent phansie For internal Vocation as they called it is nothing but an ability competently serving to such an end but this is no Vocation at all properly any more than it is for me to take anothers purse because God hath given me strength power and opportunity to do so It may be an exception will here be put in against the comparison from the unlawfulness of this latter and not of the former but I suppose as well an unlawfulness in the former though not so notorious as in the latter And adde That however considered in it self it be unlawful for me to spoil another yet if God calls me to it it is not and according to the new Doctrine of Vocation a man is then inwardly called when he is enabled to do a thing But an Outward call too is commended and that ordinary too when things are setled to our mind otherwise extraordinary calling must suffice And truly an extraordinary calling will suffice at any time but then very much better proofs are expected to make such extraordinary Vocation apparent to equal judges than we can any where find in the Apologies of them that rest wholly upon that as their safest Anchorage in this unhappy fluctuating Vocation By what therefore we can judge from the description the Scriptures give us of a formed Church and sentence of the Ancient no Society a Nibilâ—lind est quantum ego quidem intelligo Ordinaria Dei ad altquod munus vocatio quam ab his penes ques est plena legitima de ejusmodi rebus statuendi potestas personae ipsâ—rum judicio non in-idâ—nâ—ae nullo intercedente prava ambitione dolo malisve artibus designatio Sander sonus Praefat ad Tract de Juramento Church can be truly and formally called which wants lawful and ordinary Pastours and Priests and no ordinary Pastours or Priests without due Ordination and no due Ordination but from such who have that power in a right Line communicated unto them in a succession of mortal Persons to an immortal faculty in the Church as may hereafter in convenient place be farther proved So that it may well be admitted that Succession not when one steps up unappointed or illegally appointed into the place and office of another but thus explained is necessary to the Being of a true Church of Christ And yet I do not say it is necessary to Christianity or simply to salvation where it is not despised or scornfully rejected For we may well suppose that Gods promises will notso far fail as to leave a Christian people destitute of such ordinary means of becoming a Church without notorious forfeitures of his grace on their parts or will remit of the general rigor of his Laws requiring Unity of a Church as well as Unity of Faith to the being good Christians and true believers And for these who are most troublesome and loud in demanding Succession or rejecting all Churches defective therein as scarce in saveable condition though I hold it an high temptation of God and provocation of highest displeasure to flock to such Societies as are not known to have this succession of Pastors without such interruption that the Renewal and restitution thereof were meer Laical and consequently void yet where invincible ignorance through education or incapacity natural of judging hath subjected a Christian to that unhappiness who dares exclude him from salvation And the greatest boasters and magnifiers of succession should do well to consider how they can better than hitherto they have quit and secure themselves from the retort of want of succession For however a numerous a glorious Roll is shown of succeeders in their principal See yet we find unanswerable difficulties in their due succession and ordination of which these two will take them up more time and cost them more care and pains than their lives length may suffice to viz. The uncertainty of Succession from Intention necessary to that Sacrament of Ordination which can never be sufficiently known to have been present at that time no though the Ordainer should swear solemnly to it more than Morally which amounts to no moâ—e upon tryal than Probably And the more then probable suspicion of Simoniacal contracts in ascending the Pastoral throne which the common Law declareth nulling such indirect Invasions and voiding Ordinations For the third sign of the true Catholick Church Unity the more I look into it the less I find considerable in it It being necessary according to common Philosophy That every thing which hath a â—eing should be but one and not many and if the Catholick Church be so in this sense what great matter is acknowledged in it above other things For when a thing is divided into many parts it ceases to be what it was before but still there is unity in the Parts severally considered And so if we suppose the Universal Church divided schismaticaâ—ly into distinct and opposite societies it can scarce be supposed but the Parties so divided are though infinite yet in unity with themselves And how then can that which is common to so many be a specifick character of one especially By this separation therefore it may be concluded That one or perhaps both are in fault and guilty but agreeing within themselves equally as well they may
and for ought appears the Schismatical may be in greater unity within it self than the Catholick how can any man discern from unity which is the Catholick or true Church The Unity therefore which may any wise describe or distinguish the sounder part of Christs Church from the heretical must not be taken from that which it holdeth within it self but with some other which is acknowledged for Catholick wherein comes the use of Antiquity again because the Ancient Churches of Christ were saved by the same Faith and Worship that all succeeding Churches must be therefore if it may appear that a Church doth not agree in all necessary or considerable points of Faith Worship and Government with them of former ages supposed to be truly Catholick it self cannot be Catholick or a true Christian Church But they who look no higher than one Age or two and no farther then one place or two and finding convenient agreement amongst themselves do characterise themselves for Christs Church fall into the censure of St. Paul to the Corinthians who measuring themselves by themselves and comparing 2 Cor. 10. 12. themselves among themselves are not wise And in the Revelation of St. John we read of some Nations into whose heart God hath put to fulfill Revel 17. 7. his will and to agree and give their Kingdom unto the Beast until the word of God should be fulfilled I hope this unity of consent will not be taken for any argument of the faithfulness of their consent or Catholickness But more we shall have occasion to speak of Unity in the treating of Schism In the mean time I see no force at all in the places alleadged out of the Old Testament to prove so much as may be well allowed to the unity of the Church as where it is said My Beloved is but one and to the Cantic like purpose For such places taken in relation to Fact and not to Precept and counsel rather that Gods Church should be so and endeavour to keep the Spirit of Unity in the bond of peace as the Apostle speaks can Ephes 4. 3. be understood strictly only of that single Nation of the Jews which was alone chosen so peculiarly to himself Or of the future Coalition of Jew and Gentile into one Body as the same Apostle in the same Epistle speaketh of Christs Passion That he might reconcile both unto God in one Chap. 2. 16. Body by the Cross having slain the enmity thereby i. e. between Jew and Gentile These difficulties and uncertainties in this Note of Unity have constrained the Patrons of the Roman Cause to find out such an Unity which indeed is more apparent and certain to him that commits his Faith to be guided by some outward sign but so much repugnant to all ancient Churches so wholly strange to them and unheard of that it may seem to do them much more mischief than advantage as that which excludes all Antiquity from having any suffrage in this cause And this their Note is Unity Bellarm. de Notis Eccles lib. 4. cap. 10. init with the Bishop of Rome as boldly said and as weakly proved as their enemies could wish St. Hierom indeed saith to Damasus he is resolved to hold as He and that See believed in one particular of the Trinity and used not simply and abstractly consider'd this as a probable argument of Orthodoxness and preserving the peace of the Church but with the concurrence of other Circumstances rendring his Opinion probable But doth he or any ancient Author deserving with themselves the name of a Father teach as they would perswade indefinitely That to hold communion with the Bishop of Rome is to be assured you are of the true Catholick Church Christs Charter much stood upon to St. Peter and the Rhetorical flourishes many times of the Holy Fathers extolling St. Peter and his Successors but never categorically affirming or soberly determining so will not amount to this Hence they proceed to Universality too as a sign of the true Church and an help to Unity it self For it profitteth nothing that there be some one Church and that in one Age and Place which is at unity with it self if it be not universal Christs Church is said to be universal but so many senses are given of Universality it self that it is hard to apply it positively to any pretending to it For nothing so plain as that the Christian Faith doth not and never did possess all Nations nor all the persons of those Nations where it hath flourished No man therefore can know the true Church by that which is not true of it And therefore I make no doubt but the most anciently genuine and proper sense of that expression in the Apostles Creed where it is said I believe the Catholick Church Vide Augustinum Epistolâ— 50. aimed at no more than to cause us to believe that Christs Church was from that time forward no longer to be of one Nation or one Denomination as it was before Christs Incarnation but Catholick that is Universal and indifferently to extend to all People For at that time when the Creed was composed the secondary sense wherein Catholick and sound Believer signified the same thing was scarce at all heard of no not before the Councel of Nice under Constantine Afterwards it was applyed to particular Sees as well Alexandrian Antiochian and some others as Roman In Theodosius the second his dayes which above 400 years after Christ a Sozomenus Ecclesiast Hist lib. 7. cap. 4. Law was made that none should call themselves Catholicks but such as believed aright concerning the Holy Trinity the rest should be termed Hereticks Afterward notwithstanding every Sect and Heresie usurped that name as may appear from that very place corruptly cited out of Austin August Epist ad Epistolam Fundamenti by some to prove the true Church from the Title of Catholick it self For saith he however all Hereticks desire to be called Catholicks yet if any enquired for a Catholick Church they were directed to the Orthodox and not Heretical Churches But if we take the word Catholick in a more restrained sense not for that which is all over the world actually but so far as it doth extend passeth generally through all and that not Places but Ages too where shall we find a Catholick Church Christians never for fourteen or fifteen hundred yeers not conspiring into one belief no not in things held very important to Faith and I mean not only single persons but Societies of Christians Therefore neither from hence can we conclude directly of the true Church in opposition to Heretical And therefore the Patrons of this opinion of the Universality finding themselves harder pursued with difficulties than they can evade being taken in their own snares are forced according to their very vain custom to leave off the tryal of the truth from matter of Fact which is most plain and ready and proceed to say It ought so
From all which we may gather both the Efficient and Exemplary cause of the several orders in Christ For first we read how he called unto himself twelve Apostles as well to minister under him during his abode upon earth as to Preside and inform his Church after his departure out of this World which according to St. Hierome were prefigured by the twelve fountains the twelve Patriarchs the twelve Tribes the twelve Princes of Exod. 15. 27. Mark 3. 14. the Tribes There he not only elected but ordained also as St. Mark testifieth that they should be with him and that he might send them out to preach naming them Apostles as St. Luke writeth After the choice and Luk. 6. 13. Mat. 10. 1. Luk. 9. 2. Math. 10. 1. Math. 10. 10. Ordination of them he gave them actual Mission as it appeareth by St. Mathew and Commission to preach and to work miracles to the confirmation of his Doctrine and to receive a reward for their pains And when the Harvest was too great for so few Labourers as twelve St. Luke tells us he added Adjutants to them seventy Disciples answerable to Luk. 10. 1. Numb 11. 10 the seventy Elders by Gods appointment set over the children of Israel and the seventy Souls that went with Jacob into Egypt These two orders Gen. 46. Eph. 3. 5. are thought to be intended by St. Paul to the Ephesians where he maketh mention of Apostles and Prophets by Prophets meaning such who bare that part of the Prophetical office which consisted in ordinary instruction of the People of which in other places likewise he speaketh Now adding to these the common sort of Christians or Disciples which were if not at the time of Christs abode upon earth yet afterward Christians as St. Paul intimateth where he affirmeth Christ was seen after his resurrection of 1 Cor. 15. 6. above five hundred brethren at once We have three distinct orders of Christians First Apostles secondly Evangelists or the seventy Thirdly simple Believers or Christians And it is most certain that as the Apostles did not so much as choose their Lord nor the Evangelists the Apostles so the Common sort did not then constitute or choose their Preachers or Evangelists but while Christ continued on earth he kept the power of Ordination of whom he pleased in his own hands and never is it so much as insinuated that upon his departure he left any power in their hands to dispose Ecclesiastical Affairs or Persons therein but that with his Apostles as succeeding him in visible Administration he deposited this power many arguments are offer'd us out of Scripture For in the Person of St. Peter he gave power to all the Apostles saying Feed my sheep And that this same power Joh. 21. 15 resting in them was by them transmitted unto others the very same form of words almost used by St. Peter himself to be the Governours of the 1 Pet. 5. 2. Church do prove where he saith Feed the Flock of God which is among you taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly And St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles likewise And that the whole Ecclesiastical Acts. 20. 28. Jurisdiction was entirely in the Apostles and Apostolical Persons doth appear from the enumeration of the most principal parts of which such Jurisdiction doth consist which may be these as we find them in Scripture recorded 1. Power of determining Controversies of Religion as appeareth from the Question agitated about keeping the Law of Moses Acts. 15. and concluded by the Apostles and Elders which were of the second Order after the Apostles And in the eleventh of the Acts the same resolved Acts. 11. the doubt concerning the Conversing with Gentiles 2. Of imposing Laws and orders for the due and sober conversation in matters of Moral nature as may be gathered from St. Paul to the Thessalonians where he adviseth That Christians study to be quiet and to do their own business and to work with 1 Thes 4. 11. their own hands as we commanded you And so in the second Epistle he thus writeth Now we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ 2 Thes 3. 6. that ye withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us And so verse the twelfth of the same Chapter Thirdly Censurings and Punishments of the refractory and disorderly and that of two sorts First of suspension and interdicting as did the Disciples of Christ suspected Preachers of him in St. Luke John answered Luk. 9. 49. and said Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy name and we forbade him because he followeth not with us And so others they restrain who preached without their command or exceeded their commission as may be read in the acts of the Apostles by vertue of the same censuring Power St. Paul Acts. 15. 24 25. 1 Tim. 2. 12. interdicts women from preaching in the Church Secondly the Censure of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separation of 〈◊〉 and notorious offendors in the Church from communion in the Church For St. Paul writing to the Corinthians in this manner What will ye shall I come unto you with a rod or in Love and in the spirit of meekness doth evidently distinguish a twofold 1 Cor. 4. 21. power resident in him of severity to chastise and meekness to comfort and support And this power is more plainly expressed in the exercise thereof upon the scandalous offendor in incestuous marriage As also 1 Cor. 5. 3 4 5. in the formidabâ—e proceedings against Hymeneus and Alexauder whom St. Paul delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme and several other things more proper for some other place A Fourth instance of Jurisdiction is seen in the power of Ordination pertaining to the Apostles by imposition of hands For they did ordain those Deacons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles And St. Paul to Timothy exhorting Acts. 6. 5 6. 2 Tim. 1. 6. him to Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of his hands doth declare the Act of Ordination used by himself From alâ— which these four conclusions do necessarily follow First that by Christ and his Apostles intention there were alwayes in their dayes distinction of persons in the Church some having the power of Rule and some being subject according to the Comparison of St. Paul to the Corinthians of the natural order and superiority of and subjection of the 1 Cor. 12. Members in a natural Body to one another and coming to application v 28. be saith And God hath set some in the Church First Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers after that Miracles And by demanding and Questioning v. 29 30. doth vehemenâ—ly deny a Parity in the Church And this distinction of Persons was no otherwise known at first but by the common name of Brethren given to
not say to extenuate I know not what unkindness or perhaps incivility we were driven out from such communion and went not out of our selves but may declare Franckly We voluntarily chose to relinquish such communion so condition'd Now such errours we may well charge the Church of Rome with even while we hold it to be a true Church in the sense above expressed viz. Essentially true but not Integrally For so a Monstrous man may beget a truly natural son and out of the Loyns of the Corrupt Church of Rome may proceed a Perfect Church And he that holds that a man may even now when it is much more definitive and express in its errours then itwas about sevenscore years ago when it met first with that Opposition which it could never master as yet be saved in the Church of Rome may hold there are many damnable errours in it which in their nature do damn yet do not alwayes actually damn as is said And this doth altogether vindicate such Churches as directly leave them provided they leave such their errours only and not extravagantly hurry themselves into contrary errours out of detestation to theirs And this doth lay a necessity upon such as communicate with them to desert them and a much greater upon such as are at present alienated from them to preserve themselves from such imminent dangers though not infallibly destroying the soul Now if it be here demanded as I know necessarily it must and will be that to make this high charge probable we give some instances of such their errours and Schismaticalness though I might well decline that so great and Schismaticalness though I might well decline that so great and copious a subject in this transient and compendious discourse referring them to what hath been sufficiently written though some have I confess Est sâ—lus in Orle 〈◊〉 Chaâ—actâ—â—â—s Episcâ—â—us suique â—â—dimis pâ—incipium â—â—nis Anasiatius Germonius D Indultis Apesiolicis Praefat. §. Episeopus Vide etiam â—etrum Gregorium Syntagm L. 15. C. 3. quid tribuitur Popâ— supra Conciliis â—rincipilus weakely and inconsiderately over-acted to this purpose yet I shall not absolutely without this general touch leave the matter so reducing their Errours to these two Heads Schismatical Doctrines and Heretical And this alone I look on as a most Schismatical dogm next to heresie and which alone suffices to justifie the separation of all other Churches from that of Rome viz. That they maintain if not in express termes which somedo who perhaps will not be acknowledged when they are pinched hard to speak the sense of the Church in reallity That the Pope or See of Rome hath arbitrary power of himself to Judge and Censure all Churches and to institute or Cassate Lawes for the universal Church and that he cannot be a Schismatick There is nothing more fundamental in the Lawes and Traditions of the Catholick Church than that no one of the Patriarchs should presume to form or oblige the Catholick Church by their single and private Canons and Decrees without the consent and concurrence of his Brethren neither can any meeting deserve the name of a General Council wherein their sentence is not heard or received But there is nothing more notorious than the Bishop of Rome's invasion of a sole Right to Govern the whole Church of which he hath been often soundly charged by the eminentest of the Later of the Greek Bishops Nilus Thessalo nicensis though their complaint hath generally been received no otherwise than with a deafear or an insolent stomach and contempt of the Sacred Canons of the Church as might be made appear by several instances were this a proper opportunity so to do Neither do I know how they of Rome can exempt themselves from apparent Schisme upon the account which Balsome urgeth against them viz. That the Popes have separated and are divided Balsam Resp 1. Jurts Graeco Rom. L. 6. pag. 370. from the Four other Patriarchs Will they say they are Schismaticks and Hereticks It is no more then they will pay them with again And 't is no harder matter to prove one than the other But if Four of the Patriarchs of the Church may be Hereticks and Schismaticks and so continue for many hundered years together What becomes of that argument for the true Church taken from the Universality of its Profession For putting the Case that those of the Roman Communion were equal yea Superior in extent of Ground and number of professers which is hardly to be granted yet being apparently inferiour in the number of Patriarchs they cannot pretend universality unless they beg the question as too often and importunately they do that the Roman See is the only Standard to weigh and Conclude all Ecclesiastical controversies and quarrels This is as we said such a fundamental Errour in the outward Politie and Discipline of the Church that it alone might justifie a Separation from such a Monster I shall give but one instance and that of one Man expressing the sense of Vid. Aus Barbossam de Officio Potestate Episc Par. 3. Allegat 57. num 3 4 5 6 7. the Church of Rome though some will have it called The Court of Rome only concerning the Popes Power He the Pope is the Universal Bishop of the Church He hath the whole World for his Diocess He is the Bishop of Bishops The Ordinarie of Ordinaries In things concerning Benesices he hath free and absolute power All Benesices in respect of this Holy Prelate are manual and he may use absolute power in them But to this adding such to us manifest errours and corruptions in Faith and practise as have been introduced into that Church there can be no just Scruple made of Separating and to profess so much without mincing the matter by certain fine evasions which strictly enquired into will no more satisfie than down-right dealing which chargeth them with such heretical-Dogmes which contrary to Charity as well as Verity require Separation Of the many of which that of Transubstantiation may claim the first place together with its long Train of Gross abuses and Errours following upon and flowing from it For though I know diverse Learned men of our Church do look upon it as a very absurd falsity in matter of Fact rather then of Faith yet if it be considered as reduced to Propositions invented and strenuously asserted to maintain that Errour in fact it putteth on the nature of Heresie too To say that Christ had but one hand is not an Heresie of it self but a notorious non-truth in matter of Fact But so to defend this opinion as thereby to deny Christ to have been of the same nature with us amounts to Heresie Granting likewise that not only Christs Natural Body is in that Sacrament but it is that very thing which after Consecration appeares though not as it appears to our senses is but a fowl absurdity and errour in point of Fact Yet when it
God himself is his Knowledg or Omniscience which the better to judge of we may distinguish according to the Object of it into knowledg of it into knowledg of things within himself or of himself which is more Internal and things without himself external For if we should speak more Properly God knoweth nothing by an ababsolute direct knowledg but himself and all other things Relatively rather according as they bare relation to him in being or not being in being â—ike him as that which is Good or dislike him by which manner he understandeth Evil. And nothing but God himself can perfectly know God no not the highest and most divine Spirits attending him more immediately in the state of Glory because perfect knowledg doth not consist in an Apprehension that God is or that he is infinitely glorious and Perfect but in comprehension to know him as he is True St. John saith 1 Joh. 3. 2. We shall know him as he is meaning that in the state of glory we should have a much nearer and clearer access unto his divine nature than we can have here by the Organ of our Faith And that so we shall see him that there will be no more use of Faith or outward information from revealed doctrines but Inward Revelations and illuminations shall immediately flow into us from God to the fuller apprehension of him and satisfaction of the restless mind of man But to know him as he is is the Property of himself incommunicable to any Creature For to comprehend a thing saith Austin is nothing else but so to know it that nothing of it should be unknown to the Knower As a Vessel is said to contain such a quantity of liquor that nothing should be left out And thus God only and no Created being conceiveth God comprehensively The Relative knowledg of God in order to things external is to be estimated according to the Variety of things so known by him yea not only the knowledg but even the very Being of God is described unto us according to the manner of outward things All things of reality and not merely imaginary are by general consent divided into three sorts according to the three distinctions of time Into things Past Future and Present And therefore God is said to be He which is and which was and Rev. 1. 4. 8. which is to come Therefore surely the distinction of Gods knowledge most agreably to the nature of God and things known too is into that of things Past Present and to Come And there being no great difficulty or difference among Christians concerning the two former viz. Knowledge of things past and present all concurring that the knowledge of things passed never passes with God nor of things present nor of future but the Knowledge of all these being immediately and immoveably present with God so that many more warily will have all understanding in God to be rather Science than Prae-science and Knowledge rather than fore-knowledge It were needless as well as endless to enlarge thereupon The third about things to come deserves more accurate enquiry For as to the distinction of Gods knowledge into that of Vision whereby he beholds all really existent things whether in themselves past present or future And that of Intelligence it may be questioned as common as it is For we speak not of possible but actual knowledge but that which may possibly be but never shall be the object of the supposed Intelligence of God is only a possible knowledge and not a real and therefore not to be matched with real knowledge For to say God knows the possibilities is no more than to say not that he knows the things but himself in whom and to whom all things are possible Therefore confining our Discourse only to things future we are to observe such to be either necessary or contingent there being no mean between these two And here first What is that which denominates a thing necessary and what contingent or accidental and then in what respect they are so called and distinguished And here first we are to distinguish of necessity it self with the Schools For there is a simple and absolute Necessity the contrary to which is altogether impossible and so nothing but God is of Necessity For God being absolute and supream over all things as nothing can by way of anticipation lay a necessity upon him so neither can any thing afterward obstruct or necessarily impede his will For as St. Paul saith Who hath resisted his will It neither hath been at any time nor can possibly be That Gods resolute Will should be opposed so as not to obtain its designed end But there is a conditional Necessity which they call Hypothetical which hath no such simple and original certainty but dependent upon somewhat else And this Dependance or Conditionalness is either upon The first Cause which is God or some second Cause the Creature For there was no such absolute Necessity that this visible world should have a Being but this Being depended upon the Will and Pleasure of God And this world being there was no necessity that it should consist of so many parts or several kinds of things but this depended upon the wisdome and pleasure of God also The other Hypothetical Necessity was founded by the First Cause God in the Creature upon supposition that it had a Being that such should be the nature of it As that supposing the Sun it necessarily followed it should give light and supposing there be such a thing as Fire in the world there is a necessity it should heat and burn Of all which there can no other reason be render'd but that which Scotus gives Because this is this and that is that And because the Creatour of them and all things else hath imposed such a Law unalterable upon the very natures of things themselves that upon supposal they have a Being such and such it should be And this I take to be that Necessity which Philosophers call a Necessity of Consequent viz. that which is immediately consequent to the being of a Thing that of Consequence as they call it being nothing else but a rational Inference following upon some Particular supposed As the Genus is alwayes supposed to the Species and not on the contrary For example He that runs must of necessity move and he that moves must of necessity be but not on the contrary And the ground of these and all such things Necessity is taken from the immutable decree of God who hath so determined that things should be And not only is this true in things apparent and visible to us but must necessary be no less true in things invisible and to us obscure and uncertain viz. That upon supposal Nihil est adâ—o contingens quin in se aliquid necessarium habe it Thom. 1. Q. 86. art 3. co of such a peremptory Decree and Cause from God that which seems to us most contingent and casual must have a
most certain and inevitable event even not inferiour to any of those necessities we have touched and the reason is plain because here is supposed the same will and same power to effect this as them and the variety and uncertainty of the means whereby a thing is brought about makes nothing at all against this because this proceeds only form the relation such means have to our understanding and apprehension which not being able to descern any connexion natural between the Cause and the Effect do look upon the effect as meer chance For instance that a fly should kill a man by choking him is as contingent a thing as can ordinarily happen And who could believe it that should be told that such a fly moving lightly and wildly it knows not whether it self perhaps a mile off from the place where this falls out and many dayes before the fact should certainly be the death of such a man yet no man of reason and conscience can deny but Gods providence and decree may impose an inevitable necessity upon this creature so opportunely and fitly to move as that it should certainly kill him and that at such a time and in such a place And if any should hereof doubt the express asseveration of our Saviour Christ in the Gospel may satisfie him herein saying One Sparrow shall not fall on the ground without your Father If any should so Matth. 10. 29. contrive our Saviours words as to understand without Gods will to be contrary only to Gods will and not of Gods will concurring and his knowledge noting the same St. Luke will instruct him otherwise who renders Luke 12. 6. the same speech Not one is forgotten which implies Observation and Providence That therefore those things which seem to us most free irregular and contingent may have a tacit and unknown determination from God which should fix and infallibly limit them to some special ends I may presume no man can piously doubt and especially after that great Opposer of Gods Providence over humane actions hath been constrained to acknowledge so much I mean Socinus who granteth God the liberty and power so to determine Praelâ—ct car 6. the Salvation as well as the acceptation and improvement of Grace offered to Peter and to Paul that the effect should inevitably follow which being allowed all the arguments usually brought by him and others not of his rank of the inconsistency of such inevitable decrees with the freedom of Mans will will lie as heavy upon him to solve or answer in his cases as on any other who should extend the same to many more than he pleases to do For can we any more conceive that Gods good will to them should first make them brutes before it made them Saints in limiting their choice and determining the same to one side rather than others or that he should extinguish a natural humane principle in them to bring them to salvation but secure it to others I hope not Therefore if a necessity destroyed not their humane Liberty how can it be concluded that it doth it in others Oâ— that there is no possible concord between Necessity and Contingencie Indeed in the same respect it must necessarily be true whether we regard God or Man For neither to God nor to Man can the same thing be allowed to be necessary and contingent at the same time but there appears no reason why the same thing which is necessarily to follow on the part of God may not be said on the part of man to be fortuitous free and chance as it is called For we indeed vulgarly call that only necessary where there appears a necessary connexion in nature between cause and effect and according to the degree of evidence and assurance to us we hold a thing necessary or contingent in which sense we hold it necessary that an heavy body out of its natural place should left to it self descend to it and possess it And we hold it not so necessary that the Sun going down in a cleer red evening towards the West should portend the day following to be fair and cleer Our Saviour when he affirmed this spake after the observations and opinion of men which generally herein fail not So that the being of a thing reaâ—y and the appearing of it so to be being so far different in nature it follows not at all that so it is intrinsecally and of it self because we can make no other judgment of it than in such a manner and that because we perceive no natural connexion between the cause and effect necessitating it therefore there neither is nor can be any Some things God hath ordained so openly inseparable one from the other that we easily and readily infer the one from or by the other and this is all we call necessity in nature But if God more covertly and subtilty hath likewise ordained the like connexion not by a Law of constant Nature but his singular will for which we can find out no reason this we presently call Contingent though it be as certain as the other And names being given to things by man according as they are apprehended the distinction of things into Necessary and Contingent is very reasonable and serviceable to man as signifying to him such a diversity of Effects in the world that some have apparent natural necessary cause to produce them and these things we call Necessary and some things have no such natural causes but more immediately are ordered by God bringing causes by his special Providence together besides their nature to produce such an Effect and that certainly though not naturally and this we call Contingent That this manner of proceeding of the Providence of God is possible is impossible to be desired And in many things seeming to us as casual as may be that actually they are all granted For to us considering all circumstances it was a thing meerly indifferent and undetermined whether Peter should believe unto Salvation or not but considering the resolute Providence of God disposing certainly outward causes it was certain and infallible The great question must then be about the General viz. Whether God hath two immutable Laws whereby a necessity doth attend all effects as well such as we tearm free and contingent as such as are necessary with this difference only that on some things he hath laid a Law natural which ordinarily and necessarily moveth to one certain effect and end as are seen in natural generations and corruptions as that as St. Paul saith Every seed should have its own body i. e. produce it And 1 Cor. 15. that whatever is so generated should by a Law of Nature also incline to dissolution again And that by a private invisible Law which reserves to him or particular decree he certainly bringeth to pass even those things of which we can give no reason and there appears to us no connexion or order of causes but causes are by his special hand brought to
that is in the sense even now Jude 4. explained given over to condemnation by God If we may make humane methods of any use to us in arriving at the knowledge of Gods proceedings as hath been generally received why may we not judge thus of Gods order of Causes Especially having the consent of the Scripture which thus speaks frequently according to the several occasions given And if it be said to be absurd thus to judge of God as unsetled in his knowledge and judgment and being regulated by emergencies We can well answer as in other points of Anthropapathie or Gods complyance with Mans capacity in speaking after humane manner And if God condescends on purpose that we should understand something of him to our edification shall we transcend unnecessarily the limits of modesty and content our selves with no other order or less knowledge than God himself hath of himself and wayes Gods acts several in respect of us may be simple in respect of himself and one but denominated and discriminated variously from the divers habitude of the Object The simple eternal Will and Law of God is this that the Righteous shall be saved and the Unrighteous damned This is his Predestination in general of all mankind subordinate to this are the several intermediate changes the first being immutable And it concerneth not to enquire What kind of Righteousness this is or whence or how man comes by it Whether he hath it as original Justice given him immediately of God at his first institution or whether he hath it superadded and derived from Christ This is certain which St. John saith He that doth righteousness is righteous even as he is â— John 3. 7. righteous whether this Righteousness comes by Nature or Grace And this is another infallible Rule which St. Peter delivereth in his Sermon to Acts 10. 34 35 Cornelius That God is no respecter of Persons But in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him Which is his most immutable Counsel and Decree of saving men and the consideration whereof we should firmly and immoveably stick to and put in practise But because it is one principal part of our Righteousness to agnize the Author and ground of it that famous doubt ought here to be touched Whether Righteousness be an effect of Predestination and Election or the Cause thereof with God The answer to this doth require that we be first satisfied in these three things Predestination Election and Vocation and the importance of them and principally to note in order hereunto that however later Authours especially from St. Austins time downward have invented and that usefully and reasonably enough several significations and importances of them which are not to be neglected yet the Scriptures use them promiscuously as may be seen from these instances amongst many Ephesians the first the fourth and fifth the Apostle saith According as he hath chosen i. e. Elected us in him before the foundation Ephes 1. 4 5. of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will Where Beza himself in his Annotations will allow Election in the fourth verse to signifie the same as doth Predestination in the fifth And that Vocation is taken for both 1 Pet. 1. 10. may be gathered from St. Peters words saying Who hath called us unto his eternal glory And it is as certain that St. Austine also so confounds them diverse times nevertheless they have their distinct conceptions which may be these For first Predestination or Fore-ordination according to Scripture it self will admit of a contrary object And there is a Predestination to Evil as well as to Good but in a different sense For as we have shown when God is said to ordain to Evil it must be rather understood in the Negative sense when he ordains not to Good but delivers over men to the commission of sin But Election is alwayes in a good sense as is also Vocation and are but so many progressions of Divine Providence in the salvation of the Faithful and not specifically distinct Species or kinds of acts as doth appear from St. Pauls accurate use and Rom. 8. 25 30 placing of them in his Epistle to the Romans Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to Moreover whom he did predestinate them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them be also glorified Where the Apostle explaining the order of Gods proceeding in the saving of man makes a commutation of tearms expressing it For here Fore-knowledge is not that simple Intuition whereby he knows all things but that effectual knowledg founded on a precedent Decree which is the same with Predestination as now commonly used And that Predestination here is the same with Election is probable from that it is added to be conformed to the image of his Son and Calling is actuating of that Election and Predestination So that Predestination is alwayes understood as an act of Gods counsel and Election when taken properly as distinct from that is an act outward whereby it pleaseth God to take to his special favour certain persons and pass over others And Vocation seemeth to be nothing else strictly taken than that outward means or ministry whereby such are chosen to God As a man first propounds several objects to himself next he pitches upon one and determines to take it thirdly he actually makes choice of the same by some special signal of his will And this God commonly doing by word of mouth calling him to him hath given ground to that form of speech in Scripture of being called and calling the publication and ministration of the Gospel of Grace being that word of Gods mouth by which a man is selected from the rout and refuse of the World to the means of Grace Justification and Glory This I take to be the simplest and soberest state of this perplexed mystery In which I suppose it necessary to be advised how we stick too religiously to the tearms Predestination Election and Vocation because of their mutable signification in Scripture which must needs confound an immutable adherer to any one sense precisely and that such words must be understood rather from the relation they have one to another and the matter treated of as also the occasions than according to any simple sound of them And therefore to return to the Question moved concerning Righteousness as an effect or cause of Predestination Election and Vocation it must be answered from the distinct consideration of these tearms For when all these as sometimes are Synonymous and the same with that Pre-determination of Almighty God to Grace For there is a Predestination and Election and Vocation to Grace as the means as well as to Glory the End then it can be in no tolerable sense said
favour deferring the punishment of it who might have inflicted it upon both presently until his own appointed time But it can neither be understood nor believed how that pravity shot or guilt which equally infflicted both parts of man should be removed and cleared upon the suffering of one or applications made to it only Fourthly All satisfactions must be proportionable to the wrong and offence in the subject at least if not manner of them But Offenses are committed in the body as well as soul Therefore must the satisfaction likewise be answerable if at all made and there is no ground to suppose that God should assign any such remedy of personal errour which concern one part of man only Fifthly Either a man dyes in Repentance or Impenitencie If in Impenitencie then he hath no benefit of Purgatory according to Romanists If in true Repentance then are all his sins so far cleansed and remitted that there is no need at all of Purgatory which is apparent from the very nature of Repentance which is generally agreed to be a Second Baptism Now as Baptism washeth away all sin originally so that the person dying instantly upon it directly passes to Heaven in like manner must it be in the Baptism of Repentance all actual sins must be forgiven and none remain to be punished or purged This is granted with this exception provided we take Repentance entirely in all its parts whereof satisfaction they say is one which being not thoroughly made on earth must be compleated in Purgatory But to this passing by the dispute of satisfaction which is corrupted notoriously by the same persons we answer as before that all satisfaction In Purgaterio non posse animas mereri aut peccare Bellarm de Purgat lib. 2. c. 2. which can be accepted must be attended with the change of the Will of the person and be an act of the person and therefore this called Satisfaction in Purgatory being no act and having no concurrence of the Will of the Person the body being separate from the soul can no wayes supply the defects of satisfaction in this world and therefore if there be any it must be before the divorce of body and soul Whereupon St. Augustine Aug. Epist 54. who is confidently but vainly alledged as a Patron of this Purgatory fire saith thus Furthermore there is no place of amending manners but in this life for hereafter every man shall have what he in this life procured to himself And now in brief to take notice of the grounds maintaining the Affirmative we answer first to the Scriptures which Valentia makes but four of any cousiderableness though others by Metaphors and Allegories multiply them to no purpose First we must note that however the Old Testament is made use of to confirm this yet the more sincere and sober wholly wave all autorities and examples from thence and so shall we Nay there are some who altogether decline as well the New as Old Testament as doth Petrus Soto not finding any thing to the purpose but would not have us much wonder that nothing appears solid for it there seeing many things are of Tradition without Scripture Yet the most principal and colourable we shall try which are these First Matthew the Twelfth v. 32. Whosoever speaketh against Matth. 12. 32. the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come Some sins are not forgiven in the world to come therefore some are And that must be in Purgatory This is the sum of the Argument But the consequence is not so good as it is taken to be For it is frequent by way of emphatical speech and aggravation to put more into an argument than is really and strictly intended for true as may by and by appear from such another Instance But not to deny the validity of diverse answers given to it I hold it best to make short work with it and taking the word World as meaning no more than to insinuate unto us what in many other places the New Testament doth a twofold Age of the Church of God one under the Law of Moses and the other under the Law of Christ And plainly tells the spiteful and malicious Jews that they whoso reproachfully and incredulously spake of the Spirit of Grace manifesting it self to the world in miracles could not expect to be forgiven such a notorious sin either by vertue of the Law or Gospel which then began to be published And this state of the Gospel the Apostle calls the Ages to come in his Epistle to the Ephesians And the like discrimination Ephes 2. 7. doth he make in that place to the Hebrews if we compare his words in the sixth Chapter with them in the tenth where he declareth against a Heb. 6. 4 5 6. 10. 26. possibility of salvation to such who when they have once been illuminated and tasted the good things of heaven if they shall fall away from their Baptism and profession of the Faith in which they were once initiated and baptised to restore them again by repentance For to them remains no more Sacrifice for sins By which he means not as some have thought that one hath apostatised from the Christian Faith could never be restored again to Repentance and become a good Christian and in a possibility of salvation but as Eulogius Alexandrinus in Photius hath it very literally Phot. Bibl. and well Such an one returning unto the Law of Moses after he was enlightened or baptised could not possibly hope for any Sacrifice there which should cleanse him from his sins For though there was a possibility of salvation in the Law before Christ to such as never were enlightened to the embracing of the Gospel yet after Christ such as became Christians and relapsed into Judaism could not have any benefit from it because they do in effect deny Christ by whom they should be saved only A second Text from whence Valentia would fetch Purgatory and Bellarmine too whom we here principally examine is that of St. Paul to the Corinthians Every mans work shall be made manifest For the day shall 1 Cor. 3. 13. declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall try every mans work of what sort it is c. Which words being to Bellarmin's confession of the hardest of all the Scripture what great confidence can he or his fellows have in them And why doth he call Erasmus Heretick because he gives such an exposition of them as do make void the presumptions supposed to be very strong for Purgatory and Venial sins when he acknowledges such obscurity in them Indeed Erasmus his Notes do plainly overthrow both those imaginary Doctrines supposed to be founded hereon and I might spare any farther trouble but yet shall put in my opinion of them which I take to be grounded upon these two things first the most apt connexion between it and the context before and
of St. Paul that 1 Cor. 14. 35. women should ask their husbands and learn at home And St. Chrysostom often exhorts his hearers to consider of what they hear in publique at home and meditate of the Scriptures at home which was either privately with every mans self or to such as could not have access to the Publique And this publique way of Preaching had for a long time no prescribed subject but what the Bishop thought proper or seasonable for instruction or Exhortation was uttered by him But in Saint Bafils Nazianzens Chrysostoms and Augustines Sermons we find mention made of the Scriptures read before and Sermons made by way of Exposition of them after the manner that Epistles and Gospels are in use with us and commended as proper subjects to instruct Christian People the one giving us matter of Instruction from the history of the Life Doctrine Miracles and Death of our only Saviour Christ and the other principally moving us to the exercise of all Christians Graces and Vertues conformable to our calling and knowledg of God and Christ Far were our Christian Ancestors and well they might from the modern perswasion of Erratick Christians that the Sermon was more necessary than the Scriptures or that reading of the Scriptures was not Preaching or that Catechizing and instructing Novices in Christian Religion was not Preaching I confess I am of opinion that there is a distinction to be made between a Preaching and a Sermon taking here a Sermon for an Oration made by un-Christian as well as Christian Orators to inform and perswade to what they aimed at in such speeches And no instance can be given of any Orator Gentile or Christian for many hundred years that presumed to speak to the People out of his own writings rehearsed to them Poets were wont in Publique to recite their verses in Publique out of their book by reading and therefore could never in my judgment comply with the very modern practise of it there being no reason why it should be more tolerated in Divine than Humane Orations or why setting the custome of the place aside which must needs be corrupt and absurd as it is singular and new it is less ridiculous to rehearse a Divine Oration which we call a Sermon by reading than Humane I am sure the ancient Fathers whom we pretend to imitate and all modern Churches without exception of any but our own abhor it And are not at all sensible of the vulgar arguments weight to justifie it viz. because the matter is the same And what difference is there between a Sermon deliver'd without reading and with it if the hearer sees him not or looks not on him that Preaches But it is very expedient the Hearers eye should be attent as well as his ear and yet that is not all might be said neither but all I will here say But undoubtedly they erregregiously on the other hand who imagine such sermoning as we now speak of is only Preaching according to the mind of the Apostle and that which is the only proper means of Salvation We are not saved but by Faith we cannot believe but by hearing we cannot hear without a Preacher as the Apostle most undeniably concluding from thence the absolute necessity of Preaching But what Preaching When I said Recitation of a Speech concerning divine matters and our Salvation was not properly a Sermon or Oration unless pronounced after the universal Law of all Orators which is to denominate things aright I said not that it was not Preaching taking preaching from the end of it and not so much from the form The end is undoubtedly knowledg first of the Christian Faith The next end is Assent to that Doctrine of Faith The third end is Obedience to the Faith The last end is the Salvation of such a true believer Now all these may without doubt be obtained without the Forms of Oratory and by so many wayes as we are made capable of these great ends so many wayes are we preacht to And therefore reading to and writing to another as the Apostles did their their Epistles to several Churches or any communication may be called the word of God and Preaching as really as the most Oratorical Sermon Though still considering the nature of man and the ordinary course of perswading settled all the world over I cannot grant that such wayes are so effectual or operative upon the partakers of the same instructions By what is said may be gathered what I propounded at first viz. in what sense Preaching and Hearing may be reduced to the Worshipping of God and become part of his Service For taking the service of God strictly and properly neither of both of them are such but they are a necessary foundation to build our worship of God on They have of late dayes amongst Sectaries been called The Means in so high and signal sense as if they need say no more and they comprehended all Religious acts eminently which is nothing so They are indeed The Means and that of Faith worship and Salvation But worshipping of God in prayer and praises c. and obeying his will and living godly and soberly in this present world are much more effectual and excellent Means of our Salvation than they They are but Means to the more excellent means of Salvation as Faith Hope and Charity and therefore must know their place and keep their distance and Mr. Thorndyck Epilog l. 3. c. 25. their limits too For as an excellent person hath at large showed the vain abuse of this preaching by Presbyterians which shall cause me to contract here Preaching is not so much as the Means of Salvation unless it contains it self within the limits of the doctrine of the Church To the confirmation of whose opinion I shall here give St. Austins Judgment Nobis autem ad certam regulam loqui fas est ne verbâ—rum licentia etiam rebus quae his significantur impiam gignat opinicnem Aug. Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 23. who would have not only limits set to the matter but manner of preaching too by obliging to the phrase of the Church saying We Christians must speak by certain Rule lest by a License taken of wording it a wicked opinion be begot of the things themselves signified thereby And concerning this we know St. Paul hath thus provided in his directions to Timothy Hold fast the Form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in Faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus It was very well known to the ancient Church that if Preachers kept not themselves in the compass of sober words and phrases to which faithful ears had been accustomed though their new Forms and phantastique phrases might possibly admit of a fair construction yet naturally they tended to the dissetling of mens minds from the truth and drawing them to novelty of doctrine and worship By which means as also by affected postures gestures pronunciation and such like carrying with them an
say out of the Decalogue Six days shalt thou labour and do all that thou hast to do Therefore 1 Tim. 4. 3. must thou not keep any Holy-day to Gods Service but Sunday So say they God hath created all Meats to be received with Thanksgiving Therefore you must not abstain from them Indeed one place excellently well interprets the other For just as God hath said Six days shalt thou work so hath he said All Meats shall be eaten under the Gospel And as it would be unlawful under that supposed command to rest on any of the Six days from labour so is it unlawful under the Gospel to fast or abstain from meat any one day How can or dare any man if such arguing as this will hold good cease any one day from eating and drinking if it be a command that we must eat and drink all meats now not hurtful to our bodies and that without any exception or limitation of time Do not they much more offend against Christian liberty and Gods command who will not eat at all those creatures that God hath commanded or sanctified to our use by his Word than they who eat some sort of Gods good creatures but omit others But undoubtedly God never intended to enact a formal Law or give a Precept that the one or other should be done but to grant a liberty and indulgence so to do Now no Indulgences are Commands nor being not accepted generally offend the Donor God in the Decalogue had chosen one day to himself and for the six remaining left them free to do that which he forbad to do on the Seventh And this is all that is meant by Thou shalt labor six days God under the Gospel hath taken of the distinction of meats clean and unclean legally and freely pronounces us at liberty to eat what of them we please for none of them can hurt or defile us naturally as the Manichaeans held nor any Legally as the Jews held But they may Evangelically and Morally I hope when we commit gluttony with them may they not Yes excess they except but their Argument excepts not excess taken from the natures of things For ten pounds of meat and many quarts of wine are as clean as an ounce or a pint and God hath made all alike And so fish is as clean and as much Gods creature as flesh and flesh as fish Have they heard of any so blockish as to deny it of late dayes But what saith St. Paul They are evil to that man who eateth with offence Offence of whom Rom. 14. 2â— Of a mans own self no surely but offence of others And to eat against lawful commands fish or flesh is an offence to Superiours and that is much more an offence than to offend ones equal ones brother or inferiour as it would be for a man to strike his Master or Father than his Brother or Fellow servants Whence then I wonder to astonishment should it proceed to credibility that the Conscience of an obscure and inferiour Christian no doubt but an extraordinary person in his own eyes and opinion should preponderate the outward Laws and inward Consciences of his Governours according to which restrictions were devised and concluded Against such Aegyptian Pursuers of the Israel of God the Church a cloud of Witnesses may be opposed but they who dare consult ancient Presidents know it too well to put it to that issue That of the resolute and conceited man in the Commedian sitting their purpose much better Ego mihi video Ego mihi sapio Ego mihi credo plurimum Plautus I see for my self I am wise for my self I believe my self exceedingly And therefore to finall purpose is it to use allegations here which for the Observation of the Lenton Fast hath been so amply and exactly handled by a late Right Reverend and Learned Hand And for the Vigils Septuagesima Sexagesima Ember and Rogation weeks sufficient Authority and Reason are produced before their distinct Offices in the above-mentioned Collection of Private Devotions of old composed and by Authority instituted to the benefit of such as pretend to be of the Reformation established But those that are taught solemnly to quarrel at the whole no wonder they oppose it in such parts of it But yet something to their fears of superstition in distinction of Meats besides what is already said What if they be mistaken and the Church distinguishes not fish from flesh Undoubtedly at the first Institution of Fasts Christians were equally interdicted both and this custom is to this day retained in the Greek Church Our Christian Ancients not distinguishing between the flesh of fishes and the flesh of beasts properly so called living on the earth Imitating in their Fasts the perpetual Abstinence of the Fathers before the Floud eating neither one nor other but contenting themselves with the fruits of the earth and of trees flesh and wine being brought into the World together by Noah for the use of man For as Clemens Alexandrinus hath observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. p. 717. Origen in Gen. 1. v. 29. Hieronym in Jovin lib. 1. Munsterus in Gen. 3. 17. Man before the Floud was an eater of Grain rather than of Flesh And Origen after him upon Genesis saith This History plainly declares that God at first only permitted hearbs and the fruits of Trees for mans food But afterward license was granted to Noah to eat flesh And St. Hierome about the beginning of his Treatise against Jovinian saith the same and of late Munster and others which to cite here were needless The Western Church for ought can be perceived at first abstained equally from fish and flesh And therefore St. Hierome where he states the case of the Church making choice of Meats and shows the difference between the judgment of it and Hereticks such as were Marcion and Tatianus of whom he understandeth the Apostle to speak in his Second Epistie to Timothy addeth Nec hoc dicimus quòd negamus Pisces caetera si 2 Tim. 4. Hieron in Jovin lib. 2. cap. 1â— voluntas suerit in cibo esse sumenda whereby it may seem as if no less scruple had been made about the eating fish then of flesh But it is evident that about that time some distinction in Use not in Nature of Meats was made by the Church nothing scarce more frequently occurring in the decrees of Councils and Fathers writings than the defense of the Church her practise in discriminating Meats and yet condemning and anathematizing such Hereticks as abstaâ—ned from any Meats proper for mans use out of opinion of uncleanness that should be naturally in some more than others But the Western Church through favour and indulgence hath for many Ages permitted the use of fish to all obedient Sons as also of wine at such times as her Fasts are observed It is therefore a great mistake in her Enemies and Accusers to judge her of rigour in limiting
praecipit vel humana Constitutio Et ut facilius ita tutius quâ—que est omnes Imagines è templis submovere qudâ—n impâ—trare uc nec modus praetereâ—â—ur nec admiscedtur superscitio Eratm in Symb. Decalog Cateches 6. commended yet have not men dared as yet by any direct Precept to command the use of Images at all in Churches For that Images should be in Churches saith Erasmus no Constitution so much as humane requireth And as is is more easie so is it more safe to withdraw all Images out of Churches then to prevail that the Mean should not be exceeded nor Superstition mingled therewith Thirdly If that Rule of Explication holds good viz. that in the Decalogue where a sin is forbidden there the occasion leading thereunto is also forbidden I make no doubt but to worship the Creatour or any Creature by an Image is also here forbidden as Idolatrous though perhaps not Idolatry absolute And contrary to the current sense and distinction of modern Romanists concerning Material and Formal Idolatry of which we have before spoken denying an errour about the Object to be Formal Idolatry provided the intention be directed to the only true object of worship God we may more safely and properly call this outward visible adoration given to outward objects or at least seeming to be given to them Formal Idolatry than Material because there is nothing wanting to common sense which might make and denominate it Idolatry and this to have the Formalities of Idolatry but if they take Formal for the intrinsick specification of a thing then it is a Contradiction and Nonsense to say or suppose that there can be any Idolatry not Formal as to imagine any thing can be without its form or that which is absolutely necessary to make it what it is Furthermore this worshipping of God by any thing made is forbidden by this command if not as simply and immediately unlawful in it self yet under the head of Scandal unjustly and unnecessarily given For in this Case it will no more if so much as excuse a man from the just suspicion of Idolatry that he upon occasion declares he does not worship the thing before which he worships than it could do them of whom St. Paul to the 1 Cor. 8. 4. Corinthians speaks who sat in the Idols Temple being Christians and knowing an Idol was as much as nothing in the world and a man having so much Faith and Knowledge might do as he please in neglect and contempt of that but St. Paul could not be put off so but knowing and taking for v. 7. 10 11. granted that some did eat before an Idol with a conscience and sense of an Idol as it were adjured such presumers under the terrour of being accessary to the ruin of their brothers Souls not to have to do with them So what if it be true as most true it is a man may worship God or Saints before an Image and have a right intention and pure conscience towards God is it not also as true that he may have an erroneous and idolatrous intention Nay are not the Evidences and Presumptions much more clear and strong that his intention is corrupt then that it is pure Can flesh and bloud put any difference between the visible act of him that doth worship an Image directly and properly and of him that doth not Is not this then scandalous to sin So that we may reasonably conclude this Command to stretch it self to forbid all worship by Images and especially in publick where there is more danger to others though not under the same guilt or penalty as flat idolizing of any thing besides God For in that it is said Thou shalt not bow down to them is plainly forbidden external reverence to or before them in any way of Religious worship In that it is said Nor worship them is expressed the internal act and forbidden And thus far of the more literal sense of this Precept the more remote and reductive sense as I may call it is to interdict all worshipping of Imaginations or vain opinions which are certain Idols of the mind as the other are of the outward senses And thus Hierom upon the Prophet Esay Hieron in Isaiam c. 40. tropically applies his words To whom will ye liken the Lord c. We may say that Arch-hereticks are here rebuked who make sundry Idols out of their own heart c. And again upon the same Prophet afterward Quicquid Id. in Isaiam c. 44. v. 15 16. de Idolis dictum est potest referri ad haereseon Principes c. Whatever the Prophet speaks of Idols may be referred to the Ringleaders of Hereticks who dexterously frame out of their own hearts certain images of their opinions and of a lye and worship them knowing that they made them themselves And think it not sufficient to keep them to themselves unless they seduce other simpler folk with the adoration of them Against this little noted but most frequently practised Idolatry we have an excellent Sermon of a Reverend Bishop Andrews Sermon of worshipping Imaginations Sin ulachris phantasmatum suprum sectatores suos omnis error illidit Aug. Expos Ep. ad Rom. Inchoata lib. Prelate long since made and never more need was there then is now to inculcate this when people blinded with the love of their own inventions and opinions of the sense of Scripture run carelesly and rashly into the Idolatry of their own wayes having first consecrated them with an obscure and mistaken Text of Scripture or two and so made them as they think Divine This is condemned in this Commandment as are also all corrupting depraving mis-sensing Gods Holy Word bringing in Sects and Heresies disesteem and abuse of his Sacraments And to name no more to be remiss prophane and negligent in the true Service and Worship of God either by inward aversion or outward absenting themselves without just cause from him in his house and denying him that outward adoration and humiliation which he here forbids us to give any but himself which he surely never would have done had he not set some value on it himself And on the contrary we are required positively here to give all outward as well as inward worship to him as he is in his illimited nature without circumscribing him in our minds or likening him to any corporeal being how excellent soever The second Part of this Commandment gives us the reason of it viz. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God deterring all men from the violation of the same from the Power Majesty and Justice of him against such contemners of his worship and his word So that as too often it is seen that some fond worldly and covetous Parents will even venture their own necks and damn their souls out of an extream desire to advance their children and to settle them sure and flourishing as they think in the world after them God confounds this their plot