THe Apostle's designe in the Context, is to demonstrate the Christian Church­es Exemption and Redemption from Legal Rites and Ceremonies, and her emancipation from a servile state by the Son of God Incarnate, the true Messias.

This he illustrates by a plain and familiar Simile, taken from the Civil Law; the sum is this. As the Heir while he is under age, and in his minority, is subject to Tutors, Governours, and Guardians, from which he is freed, when he comes at age, being then sui juris, at his own disposal; even so the Church, under her Legal Constitution, and Minority, was subject to the Mosaical Pedagogie, and Ceremonial Shaddows, Pigures, &c. as to a School­master, and Rudiments, suited to her Infant-State; but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law. So that the Church in her ma­ture and adult age, and under her Christian and Evange­lical Constitution, is by Christ, God-man, the prefigured Body and Substance of Levitical shaddows, exempted from the servile yoke of Jewish Rites and Ceremonies. The words then are Demonstrative, and in them there be two general parts, viz.

• 1. Christ's Person.
• 2. Christ's Portion.

1. The Person of Christ, considered as our Mediator, [Page 2] lyeth in these words; But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law. Where there be two great things obser­vable, viz.

• 1. The Incarnation of the Son of God.
• 2. The Legal Qualification of his Person.
  • 1. The former, in these words; But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman.
  • 2. The latter, in these words; made under the Law: whereby is intimated Christ's humble (but
    Notat, Non Obligationem, sed usum. An­selm
    voluntary) subjection to the Law; which was threefold.

1. The first was his submission to the Civil or Judicial Law, the Jewish Policy; in that he condescended to de­rive his humane Body and Being from the Jewes, for the Jewes were the Fathers of whom, as concerning the Flesh, Christ came, Rom. 9. 5. Christ was a Native Jew, and therefore subject to the Jewish Policy.

2. The second was his subjection to the Ceremonial Law, and thus Christ was Circumcised, Luke 2. 21. It was in pursuance of this Law, that Christ went up three times in the year to Jerusalem, to wit, at Festival Solem­nities; according to that in Exod. 23. v. 14. Deut. 16. v. 16. &c.

3. The third was Christ's Obediential Conformity to the Moral Law, which was two-fold, viz.

• 1. Original.
• 2. Actual.

1. The former was the Native Righteousness of Christ's Person: Christ is the only Person that was born holy; A­dam was created holy, every Believer is in sanctification made holy; but Christ (the immaculate Lamb of God) was born holy.

2. The latter, was Christ's Actual Obedience, which again was two-fold, viz.

• 1. Active.
• 2. Passive.

1. That was the Legal Righteousness and Obedi­ence of his Life, answering to the Active condition of the Law, Do this and Live.

2. This was Christ's Passive Undertakings in behalf of Mankinde; it implies, his voluntary submission to the Curse and Malediction of the Law, to a miserable life, and an accursed death, to a Cross and a Curse at once, (not on­ly nostro bono, but even nostro loco, in our room; which the Socinians deny) in answer to the poenal demands of a vio­lated Law, and the Threats and Comminations annexed. In a word, the Apostle in saying Christ was made under the Law, doth intimate, the Quality and Nature of his Estate of Humiliation.

Ʋse. This should stir us all up to thankful admiration; O the wonderful condescention of God, Christians! What? That He who made the Law, should be made under the Law! That the Scepter Royal, and Legislative Power of Heaven should stoop to Obedience! Here the Law-maker was made under the Law! Here God was subject to his Subjects Law. This is the only case wherein (be it spo­ken with reverence) In forma fer­vi scipso minor est Aug. de Trin. lib. 1. cap. 7. God was subject to Himself; O Beloved! This is at once matter both of Thankfulness and wonder.

2. Christ's Portion lyeth in these words, To redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of sons. This was the great designe and Love­plot of the Son of God in assuming to himself our Nature; here are specified two great Captial Priviledges accrew­ing to Believers from and by the Son of God Incarnate, viz.

• 1. Redemption.
• 2. Adoption. Of which hereafter.

The Theam that I intend to pitch upon and prosecute, is the Incarnation of the Son of God, That great Mysterie 1 Tim. 3. 16. of Godliness, the very Sun-shine of the Gospel, and all E­vangelical contrivances, in the Application whereof, I [Page 4] may very pertinently take into consideration those signal Benefits, viz. Redemption and Adoption.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.

Here is asserted the Incarnation of the Son of God; where we have four Observables; viz.

• 1. The Subject Matter out of which Christ's Body was made.
• 2. The Manner of the production of it.
• 3. The Father's Commission.
• 4. The Circumstance of Time when, &c.

1. The Subject Matter out of which Christ's Body was made, was the very substance of the Virgin Mary, its Material and Passive Principle; she was the Vox Hebr. [...] & Gr. [...] notant Sexum aeque ac conditionem. [...]. Proco­pius. woman mentioned in the Text. In Virginem introducendum erat Dei Verbum, exstructorium vitae, ut quod per ejusmodi Sexum abierat in perditionem, per eundem Sexum redigere­tur in salutem. Tertul. lib. de Carne Christi.

2. The Manner of the production of Christ's Body, is intimated in the word Made,—Made of a woman.

It is observable that the Son of God is here said to be * made, and not [...] non [...].

1. Begotten of a woman. Christ as God was not Made but Begotten; Christ as Man, was not Begotten, but Made. Nor

2 Born of a woman. Valentinus, Schwenckfeldius, Marcion, the primitive Anabaptists, Familists, &c. did grant that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, but denied that his Body was made of the Real substance of the Virgin; now saith our Apostle (by the impulse of the holy Ghost) The Son was not (only) born, but made of a woman.

In a Word;

In that the Son of God is here said (not to be begotten, nor to be born, but) to be made of a woman; we may ga­ther, That

1. Christ's Body was a Real Body, and a true Corporeal substance, and not a meer Phantasme, or Imaginary Body, as Marcion, and after him the Manichees did affirm; the first Author of which Heresie was Cerdo, saith Tom. 6. lib. de haeres. S. Augu­stine.

2. This Real Body was made of the very Matter and Corporeal substance of the Virgin Mary; and not a Cele­stial, Sydereal, or Elementary substance, conveyed into the world, modo transmeatorio, through the Virgins womb or Belly, tanquam per canalem Si Maria non filium sed ho­spitem in utero gestabat Ie­sum, quomodo dixit Elizabetha, Beatus fructus Uteri tui? &c. Tertul. lib. de Carne Christi. vel hospitium, as through a channel or hespitage, per Virginem, non, ex Virgine; as the Valentinians and Schwenckfeldians vainly conceit.

3. Excluditur concursus Maris; the concurrence of the Male Sex, and by consequence, Natural Generation, and sinful propagation is excluded. Christ was ab Adamo, but not per Adamum. As sin and misery came by a Woman, made of a Man, without a Mother; so happiness and sal­vation came by a Man, made of a Woman without a Fa­ther. Eve was from Adam without a Mother; Christ came of Therefore Mary is truly defined to be [...], and Dei para. Mary without a (Natural) Father. So that damnable was the opinion of Ebion, viz. That the Body of Christ was procreated of Joseph's Seed; as also that of Helvidius, viz. That Christ was not born of a Virgin, he denyed the Virginity of the Mother of our Lord.

The Son of God did assume to himself the Nature ofAssumpsit De­us naturam peccatorum, non naturam pecca­tricem. Sinners, (but) not a sinful Nature. The Corporeal sub­stance which he took to him, was free from all impurity, and corrupted Qualities, by the omnipotent vertue of the ho­ly Ghost, the Active Principle, (as Aquinas) and Efficient Cause thereof; by the Preparatory Acts of whose purifying and sanctifying power, the Bodily substance was fitted for Personal Ʋnion with the God-head: for the [...]. Damascen. lib. 3. Orthodoxa Fidei, cap. 2. holy Ghost [Page 6] did come upon the blessed Virgin, and the Power of the Highest did over-shaddow her; Luke 1. 35. And thus we professedly believe that Christ was conceived of the holy Ghost, viz. not as a Material cause, but as a supernatural Effective and sanctifying Cause; non de substantia, sed de po­tentia; non generatione, sed fussione, & benedictione. Aug. Serm. 6. de Tempore.

So that Christ's Conception in the womb of the Virgin, was without all exception pure and immaculate.

3. The Father's Commission is specified in these words, God sent forth his Son; This is the Authority of the Son's undertaking, it is no less then that of Heaven, and the blessed Trinity; He did not assume our Nature without a special Commission: Which may condemn those that run when they are not sent forth into the great work of the Ministery, and irregular engaging therein. The Son of God himself came not in the flesh without a Commission, his undertaking was Dispensatio authentica. Musculus in locum. Authentique. God sent forth his Son, &c. which argues not an inferiority of Nature to the Father, but only a Voluntary subjection in state and con­dition; now an in-equality of condition, and a co-equality of Nature, a Natural Parity, and a Voluntary Disparity, are not inconsistent.

4. The circumstance of Time, when the Son of God came in the flesh, is intimated in these words; When the fulness of the time was come, &c. Where it may be enqui­red, What are we to understand by the fulness of the time, or the full time?

Answ. Aquinas notes here a threefold fulness, viz.Annus Incar­nationis est Lambardo. Annus benigni­tatu, lib 3 Sent. Dist. 1. 1. Of Grace. 2. Of Promises. 3. Of Types, and Le­gal shaddows. In a word.

By the fulness of the time, we are to understand tempus praesinitum a Patre, (say the Ambrose. Carnel. a lap. Estius. Luther. Calvin. Learned) the time appointed of the Father, (as it is in v. 2.) and Divina ordinatione non fatali necessitate. Aquin. infallibly destined [Page 7] for the manifestation of his Son in the flesh, and the Re­demption of his Church from the Legal yoke and bondage of Jewish Rites and Ceremonies, by Him, of whom these were Typical Shaddows and Adumbrations.

This fulness of time, notes the accomplishment of all Prophetical Predictions and Promises of the coming of the Messias, and the abrogation of all Legal shaddows and Figures whereby he was typified.

But more particularly, for our more distinct knowledge, of what is meant by the fulness of the time.

1. A little before the end of Daniel's seventy weeks, mentioned Dan. 9. 24, 25. which contain from the end of the Babylonish Captivity till the death of Christ, (as is una voce granted by Chronologers) four hundred and nine­ty years. De Incarnat. lib, 2. Quaest. 6. Zanchy is of opinion, that about the space of thirty and three years (the time of Christ's bodily com­moration in the world) before the end of the seventy weeks, the Son of God came in the flesh. I confess it were the more remarkable, if Christ and Daniel's seventy weeks did both expire together.

2. Under the Roman Empire, which was the fourth Monarchy, mentioned Dan. 2. In the time of Au­gustus Caesar, Christ was born in the 42^d yeer of his Reigne, say Epiphanius and Eusebius; in the 41st, say Tertullian and Irenaeus.

3. Three thousand and nine hundred yeers from the Creation of the World; this is undoubted: but what the particular yeer of the Incarnation of the Son of God was, is variously resolved upon by Bullinger. ann. 3970. Funccius, ann. 3965. Melanchthon ann. 3965. Luther, ann. 3960. &c. Chronologers; but Chron. Genevae Edit. Anno Christi 1575. lib. 3. cap. 7. & 8. Notus Christus anno Mundi 2929. Aequinoct. Autumnali, ab Ʋrbe condita, anno. 752. anno 4. Olympiad. 194. &c. Bero­aldus his computation is most received, as the exactest of all. According to his Calculation, Christ was born in the yeer of the World 3929. in the yeer of Augustus Caesar [Page 8] his Reign 42. in the yeer of Herod's Reign 33. at or about the Autumnal Equinoctial, &c. This was (according to him) the fulness of the time mentioned in the Text; even the set and predestinated time of the Manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, and the Churches Immunity and Exemption from a servile-state by and through him.

Quest. But why did the Son of God come in the flesh at that time of all others? Why not sooner? Why not later?

Answ. This is a curious Question; (Hidden things belong unto God,) but were we to resolve it, we could as­signe no other reason for it, then To Velle Divinum, the absolute good pleasure of the All-wise God, who in his great wisdom, pitched upon this season as most proper and convenient for the manifestation of his Son to the World in our Nature. Men can but admire the Wisdome of God in this Circumstance, as well as in the thing. From Aquinas we may reverence the Wisdome of God in this in two respects. 1. Christ was a great person, (though he came not in great State) the King of Saints, the Soveraigne Majesty of Heaven, (though he came not into the World in Majesty) therefore it was fit that some preparation (of some thousands of yeers) should be made for his coming into the world, especially in the hearts of the little World. 2. Christ was a Physician, the Physician of souls, therefore it was fit that his coming should be deferr'd for some thousands of yeers after his Patients indispensable need of him; that so, though his Merits were of perfect vertue and efficacy for the salva­tion of believing sinners, from the beginning of the world, yet) they might insatiably long after even his Bodily ap­pearance, and inestimably prize him when come. The Old-Testament Saints might have come to this, O that the Deliverer were come out of Zion! O that our Physitian were once come! When shall the promised Seed of the woman come? O how acceptably did the Son of God [Page 9] appear in a Body in the Heb. 1. 2. last dayes, to the sinful, undone, captive sons of men.

De Incarnat. lib. 2. Quaest. 6. Zanchy after many pious and solid reasons given for the conveniency and seasonableness of the fulness of the time for the Son's assumption of our Nature, doth well observe, That this was, of all others, the fittest season for God's producing to the world at once two most signal instances, viz. of Justice and Mercy: Of Justice towards the rebellious and unbelieving Jewes, (once God's pecu­liar people) in rejecting of them: Of Mercy towards the Gentiles; in electing and making choice of them for his Christian Church; and in Gen. 9. 27. Hic (Iesus) in novissimis tem­poribus apparens, lapis summus angularis, in unum collegit, & univit, eos qui longe & eos qui prope, hoc est circumcisionem & praeputium, dilatans Japhet, constituens eum in domo Sem. Iren. adver. Haeres. lib. 1. perswading Japhet to dwell in the Tents of Shem.

O the profound depth of the Wisdome of God! How unsearchable are his judgements? His wayes past finding out.

Thus the words of the Text have been in a Theologi­cal manner divided and opened.—When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a wo­man.

In the words, this great Evangelical Truth lyeth clear, viz. That

Doctr. Dominus no­ster in novissi­mus tempori­bus venit ad nos, non quemadmodum ipse poterat, sed quomodo illum videre nos poteramus. Iren. advers. haereses, lib. 4. The Son of God was in the fulness of the time, (viz. six­teen hundred and sixty yeers ago) according to the deter­minate and infallible counsel of God's Will, made of a wo­man.

In the prosecution of my intended Discourse, this shall [...]. be my method. 1. I shall first discover what is compre­hended under that, viz. That the Son of God was made [Page 10] of a woman. 2. I shall next prove, That the Son of God was made of a woman, and that in the fulness of the time. 3. I shall in the third place alleadge the principal Reasons why the Son of God was made of a woman. And 4. Last­ly, I shall endeavour to bring this down to Use and Ap­plication.

1. As touching the first.

The import of that, viz. That the Son of God was made of a woman, is very comprehensive; for this is the great Gospel-Mysterie of the Incarnation, wherein the Son of God did assume to himself the Humane Nature, and so became [...], God-man in one Person.

This Assumption of our Nature, considered in a full Extent and Latitude, may be understood to comprehend under it two memorable things. viz.

• 1. Ʋnion.
• 2. Communion.

1. Ʋnion.

There is a Hypostatical and Personal Ʋnion between the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ. The Son of God, though for Nature, Co-essential; for Dignity Co-equal; for Time, Co-eternal with the Father; did notwithstand­ing assume the Human Nature into a Personal Ʋnion with the God head.

This Personal Ʋnion is the most intimate Conjunction of the Man-hood with the God-head in [...]. Dam. lib. 3. cap. 2. Christ, wherein those two whole perfect and distinct Natures are without 1. Conversion of the one into the other; Or 2. Compo­sition of a Third by both; Or 3. Confusion and mixture, inseparably conjoyned in one Person; which Person is [...]. id. Cum legitur, Verbum caro factum est, in verbo in­telligo verum Dei filium; in carne agnosco verum hominis filium, & utrumque simul, unam personam, &c. Aug. de Trin. lib. 13. very God, and very Man, ( [...],) yet (but) one Christ, the only Mediatour between God and Man.

The two Natures of Christ are united,

1. * [...], without any change or mutation in the [...] Dam. Assumpsit (fili­us) carnem, non se conver­sit in carnem, Aug. Verbum caro factum est, non in carnem mutatum, ut non desisteret esse quod erat, sed caperit esse quod non erat. Id. Dial. ad. Orosium. Divine Nature, or conversion of the one Nature into the other; and therefore damnable was the opinion of Apol­linaris, who stuck not to affirm a kinde of alteration in the Divine Nature.

2. [...], without Division; contrary to Nesto­rius, Accessit Deo hum ana sub­stantia non persona. Fulg. who alledged (not a distinction, but) a division be­tween the two Natures of Christ, attributing to each Na­ture its proper hypostasis; and so obtruded to the world an Union of Persons, instead of a Personal Union; [...], non [...]; a Social, not a Personal Con­junction.

This Nestorian heresie was anathematized by the first [...]. Justin. Imper. contess. Rectae Fidei. Ephesin Council, under Theodosius the younger, and Ce­lestine the first, whereof Cyril was President, anno Christi 430.

There is in Christ Aliud & Aliud, but not Alius & Alius; two Natures, but one Individual Person.

3. [...], without confusion and mixture, or a composition of a Third Nature by both; Christ's two Na­tures remain still distinct by their several Essential Propri­eties, contrary to Eutyches, and (after him) Dioscorus, who alleadged a mixture in the two Natures; so that ac­cording to them, Christ is a compound made up of the Divine and Humane Natures intermixed.

This Eutychian heresie was anathematized by the Council of Chalcedon (which was the fourth cecumenical [...], &c. Dam. lib. 3. cap. 3. vid. Dam, lib. 3. cap. 2. Council) Act. 5. under Martian and Leo the first, anno Dom. 451.

4. [...], Inseparably. Christ's two Natures are indissolubly conjoyned. The Personal Ʋnion is a Perpetual Ʋnion. That Nature (Christians) which the Son of God did sixteen hundred yeers ago, assume into Hypostatical Union with the God-head, is by an everlasting conjuncti­on united to him. And certainly this will be matter of everlasting joy and wonder, to the consanguinal Saints in Heaven.

This is the Nature of the Personal Ʋnion of the Deity and Humanity in Christ. Super hac re, vid. Symb. Antioch. Nicen. Constantinop. Athan. Chaleed. Act. 5. & Dam. lib. 3. cap. 2.

From this Personal Ʋnion of the Humane with the Di­vine Nature in Christ, follows 1. A Mutual Communion of Proprieties, wherein what is proper to either of the Natures, is attributed to the whole Person; as in these Scriptures, No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. John 3. 13. The Church hath God purchased with his own blood. Acts 20. 28. God will judge the world by that man whom he hath ordained. Acts 17. 31. and such like. 2. The Excellency of the Humane Nature, both in respect of the gifts, (as Wisdome, Knowledge, Pow­er, &c.) with which he was qualified for his Mediatorship; and the honour and adoration due unto it by vertue of its Union with the God-head. 3. The Concurrence of both Natures, in operibus Theandricis, in the works which Christ produceth as God-Man, wherein both Natures co­operate; each Nature contributing its own.

2. Communion.

There is a threefold Communion between Christ and Mankinde, viz.

• 1. A Communion of Natures.
• 2. A Communion of Properties.
• 3. A Communion of Infirmities.

1. There is a Mutual Communion of Natures and Es­sential [Page 13] Parts between Christ and Man. The Son of God did assume to himself, the true Essentials of Man, viz. [...]. Symb. Chalced. Act. 5. The Entire substance of a Real Body, and a Reasonable Soul, the very Humane Nature; so that Christ is Consubstantial with Ʋs, as well as with the Father. * [...]. Symb. Chalced. ibid.

This is a Communion of Essential Parts.

2. There is between Christ and Mankinde a Commu­nion of Essential Properties; the Son of God did assume the Powers of Life, Sense, Motion; the Faculties of Rea­son, Will, and Affection; a Body with its just Quantity and Trin-dimension; even all the Natural Properties of Man, considered as a Corporeal, Animal, Sensitive, Reasonable Creature.

3. There is between Christ and Mankinde a Commu­nion of Infirmities: The Son of God did assume not only our Natures and Essential Properties, but also our Infirmi­ties, viz.

1. Natural.

Not Personal Infirmities; Those were such as do ge­nerally accompany the Humane Nature, as its common At­tendants since Man's fall and prevarication from his Pri­mitive Integrity; and they were of two sorts; viz. 1. Body-Infirmities; as heat, cold, hunger, thirst, sleep, &c. 2. Soul-Infirmities; as grief, anguish and sorrow, fear, ignorance, &c. (I mean Ignorantia pura Negatio­nis. Non ignoravit aliquid priva­tive quod tenebatur scire, sed nescivit negative, absque peccato, quod aetati [...] conditioni non competebat. Dr. Prideaux Manuduct. ad Theol. Polem. loc. 3. [...]. Dam. lib. 3. cap. 21. Negative Ignorance; that was ignorance (not of that which he ought ex officio to have known; but of that which was not congruous for him quoad statum, according to his condition to know; and [Page 14] thus Christ is said to be ignorant of the particular day and hour wherein he himself is to come to judge the world, (Mark 13. 32.)

These, and such like infirmities did the Son of God take upon him, but not Mens Personal infirmities, as blind­ness, lameness, dropsies, gouts, consumptions, &c. which are not universal, or necessary concomitants of the Humane Nature, but attend upon Persons, rather then upon the Nature, and proceed from some particular causes, as the malignity of the Constitution, the inequality of the Tempe­rament, the predominancy of some corrupted humour, or such like, not incident to Christ.

2. Christus si­milu suit carni nostra pecca­trici n [...]n in culpa sed in p [...]na. Lombar. Sent. lib. 3. dist. 3. lit. D. Infirmitates miserabiles, non damnabiles, poenales, non Peccatrices. Dr. Prid. Montidust. ad Theol. Polem. loc. 3. Infirmitates merae privationis, non pravae disposi­tionis. Penal.

Not sinful infirmities; Christ's infirmities were mise­rable, but not damnable; the infirmities of sinners, but not the infirmity of sin; which is not only an imperfection, but an infection; now Christ was the holy and just One, free from all (both) Natural and Personal guilt.

Christ was by way of Passion here on earth (as he is now by way of compassion in heaven) touched with the feel­ing of our infirmities (yet) [...]. Symb. Chalced. Inter Trinitatem & hominum infirmitatem & iniquitatem, Mediator factus est homo, non iniquus, sed tamen infirmus, ut ex eo quod non iniquus jungeret te Deo, ex quod infirmus, propinquaret tibi. Aug. Praes. in enarrat. 2. Psal. 29. without sin, Heb. 4. 15. Christ did partake of our infirmities, but not of our iniquities.

The Son of God was in all things made like unto his Bre­thren, [...]. Dam. lib. 3. cap. 20. but that wherein (we) his Brethren are like unto Satan. In a word, Christ's Infirmities were wholly incul­pable.

2. As to the second thing proposed;

That the Son of God was made of a woman, and is al­ready come in the flesh, is a truth which runs clear in the veins of the Gospel, as the great Theam thereof.

The [...] Word was made flesh, John 1. 14. He was made in the likeness of Men, and found in fashion as a Man, Phil. 2. 7, 8. In him dwelleth the fulness of the God­head bodily, Col. 2. 9. For as much as the children are par­takers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, Heb. 2. 14. Verily, he took upon him the seed of Abraham, Heb. 2. 16. He was made of a woman, Gal. 4. 4. &c.

From these and such like Scripture proofs it is evident, that the Son of God was made of a woman, he being the only true Messias who was promised from the beginning, and prophesied to come in our Nature; which yet the incredulous Jew will by no means admit of, what is Gospel-testimony to him? But

2. This Truth is also clear from the manifest accord and consent of the Evangelist S^t Luke his History of the Nativity of Christ, with the Prophetical Predictions, con­cerning 1. The particular Time of the Messias his com­ing, Gen. 49. 10. 2. His Family and Pedegree, Jer. 23. 5. 3. His Virgin-Mother, Isa. 7. 14. 4. His Country, Mic. 5. 2. 5. His Condition, Isa. 53. 2. which is apparent to any that compare them together. Yea,

3. The 1. Prophesied places of the Messias, 1. His Birth. 2. Education, 3. Teaching. 4. Suffering, are destroyed; and 2. The prophesied time of his coming is elapsed; Ergo, &c. It was prophesied

1. That Christ should be born in Bethlehem, Mic. 5. 2.

2. That he should be brought up in Nazareth, Isa. 11. 1.

3. That he should enter into Jerusalem while the se­cond Temple was yet standing, Hag. 2. 7. 9. & Zech. 9. 9. compared; and in this sense it was said, and verified that the glory of the second Temple should exceed the glory of the first Temple.

4. And that under the fourth Monarchy, Dan. 2. 44. That was the Roman Empire, which together with the o­ther three, viz. the Syrian, Persian, and Grecian, were subverted by him, the King of Kings, The Stone out out of the Mountain, Dan. 2. 45. whose Kingdome is firm and everlasting, and destructive to all Kingdoms contra­ry to it.

5. That the Scepter should not depart from Judah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, till Shiloh (that is, the Messias) came, Gen. 49. 10. But Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, and the Temple, are razed and destroyed; the fourth Monarchy is totally subverted; The Scepter is wholly taken away and departed from Judah. For the better understanding whereof we must know, that the Scepter (that is, the Jewish Form of Government) conti­nued until the time of Herod the Ascalonite (an Idumean)Vid. Joseph. Antiqu. lib. 14. a Proselyte-Jew, who began to reigne in Judea about thir­ty and three yeers before the Nativity of our Saviour, being created King of Jury by the Roman Senate; He in the thirtieth yeer of his Reigne, slew the Jewish San­hedrin, (a Convocation in whom did reside the Legislative pre-eminence) and so deprived the Jewes of the Scepter and Principality, and defaced their Government, (which was afterwards at the destruction of Jerusalem, with all their Fundamental Lawes, and Civil Customes, and Rites, utterly abolished, insomuch that there remained no form nor face of a Commonwealth at all among them, as before.) Now near upon this time, Shiloh (that is, the Messiah) came, being lineally descended of the Royal Tribe of Judah; Ergo, &c. Nay,

4. Not only Prophetical Predictions concerning the Messiah, but even the Messiah his own Predictions are fulfilled. O that the poor Jew would hearken to this! Had I to do with a Jewish Synagogue, I should hope (through strength from the Almighty) to urge this Argument with good success; not only Prophesies concerning Christ, but [Page 17] Christ's own Prophesies and Personal Predictions are ac­complished. What? Did he not in the dayes of hisMatth. 24. 2. Luk. 19. 43, 44. flesh prophesie concerning the Temple, That there should not be left one stone upon another, which should not be thrown down? And did he not foretel with tears in his eyes, the future desolation and depopulation of Jerusalem? O Jeru­salem, Jerusalem! &c.—Behold your house is left unto you desolate. And was not this accordingly fulfilled not long after? It was accomplished some forty yeers after Christ's Ascention by Vespasian the Emperour, and his Son Titus, say Eusebius and Josephus. It is a strange thing to me (but that Ʋnbelief is become Penal, a curse as well as a sin) that the Jewes are not convinced from the very (vocally-silent) Ruines of their Temple and Metropolis. Oh Lord convince them!

3. As touching the third thing proposed, viz.

The Reasons why the Son of God did take upon him our Nature.

1. The Prime Impulsive cause hereof was, a Principle [...] of free and infinite Love. That Intrinsecal Motive, and Primum Mobile of all Evangelical Contrivances. The Assumption of our Nature into Personal Ʋnion with the God-head, was the prime piece of God's gracious designe and Love-plot concerning sinners. The Son of God was induced thereunto ab intra, from an impulse of Omnipo­tent Love; By this the whole Trinity was (as it were) o­ver-powered. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c. John 3. 16. Love was Mightier then the All-mighty: Here God was his own Captive; (be it spoken with reverence.) Sure, there was a strange Omni­potency in Love. O wonderful Love! The most powerful Motive with God in God! The Project of Man's salva­tion was a Love-plot; It was laid in Love; It was carried on in Love, It was accomplished in Love: The Son of God did out of Love to our Persons assume our Natures. The Incarnation was purely the Product of Infinite Affe­ction; [Page 18] That then which moved the Son of God to cloath the Deity with flesh and blood (as I may express it) and to take upon him our Nature, was not 1. Any Meritorious Qualification in Man; O no! We could as soon have merited Salvation as a Saviour, and so there had been no need of God-Incarnate. Nor was it 2. Any Created Ex­cellency; O no! So Angels had been Gainers, and Men irrecoverably Losers; whereas (admired be rich Grace) God took not upon him the Nature of Angels, but the Seed of Abraham, Heb. 2. 16. But it was purely an Internal Principle of free, boundless, and illimited Love. This (Be­loved) is a Reason far above Reason.

2. A second Reason why the Son of God was made of a woman, may be drawn from

The Nature of Christ's Mediatory Office.

It was proper and requisite that the Son of God under­taking the Office of Surety and Mediatorship between God and Man, should partake of both Natures; the Humane as well as the Divine, and so become [...], God-Man, else he had not been duely qualified thereunto; Hence Christ is a Mediator, not only qua Medians, in re­spect of Office; but also qua Medius, in respect of the Concurrence of the Divine and Humane Natures in Him. Christ as he is God, bears a Proportion to his Fathers Majesty; In Christ as he is Man, there is a propinquity to our Meanness. In a word,Nota, Ter Medius est Christus, viz. 1. In S. Trinitate est Media Persona. 2. Inter Deum & Hominem Medians ex par [...] Officii. 3. Respectu Naturarum, est Medius.

The Mediator between God and Man, must be both for Nature and Condition a Middle-Person, Ergo, &c.

3. A third Reason why the Son of God became Man, may be taken from

The Order of Divine Justice.

As the Nature of Divine Justice is such, that God can­not salva justitia gratifie sin with impunity, or suffer the [Page 19] least guilt to go unpunished, (for that were Partiality) contrary to Socinus his soul-deceiving-fancy) so it requires satisfaction to be made in the same Nature wherein the offence is committed, and accordingly God doth punish sin in the sinners Nature. True it is, God might have given a Commission to an Angel to assume our Nature; yea, and that Angel might have suffered in our Nature; But an Incarnate Angel could never have satisfied wrong­ed Justice. Therefore the Son of God interposing as Sure­ty and Mediator, between a just God and sinful Mankinde, condescended to become Man, that he might answer and satisfie the strictest demands of Impartial Justice in the same Nature that he came to save. Had not Christ been God, his sufferings could never have been by condignity meritoricus; had he not been Man, they could never have been satisfactory to Justice. Therefore he became [...], God-Man.

4. Lastly,

The Attributes of God, viz. The Love of God; The Goodness and Mercy of God; His Power; His Wisdome, &c. shine clear in the Incarnation, as in a Glass. Here they concur by way of Eminency, as in the Trinity's Master­piece (so to speak) and the very Flower of the Evangeli­cal Oeconomy. O how gloriously conspicuous are they here, not only for kinde, but even for Degrees! Now one thing that the Son of God designed in taking upon him our Natures, was the Illustration of the Glory of his At­tributes. For these Reasons was the Son of God made of a woman.

If any should enquire, What is the Reason, why the Son of God was made of a woman in the fulness of the time (viz. sixteen hundred and sixty yeers ago) rather then at any other time sooner, or later; This is answered before.

Thus I have fully opened and demonstrated that Evan­gelical Conclusion, viz. That

Come we now to the last thing proposed, viz.

The Application.

Ʋse 1. Here is matter of Wonder and Admiration, and that fourfold, viz.

1. An Evangelical Mystery.

[...], The Incarnation of the Son of God; That [...]. Great Mystery of Godliness; What? That God should be made of a woman! Is not that a Mysterie? That God should become Man! The Immortal God, Mortal! That the Maker of all things should be made! That God should be made what He made!

Here God was made of her whome He made! HereIsa. 9. 6. Maries Everlasting Father became Maries Son! These are R [...]ddles to flesh and blood, Beloved!

Here is Miraculum in miraculo, a Mysterie in a Myste­rie; That the Son of God should become the Son of Man! David's Lord, David's Son! This was a great Mysterie, a case so intricate, that it plunged and non-plusd the great­est Rabbies among the Pharisees, Matth. 22. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46. But

That the Son of God should become the Son of a Vir­gin! — Here is a Mysterie in a Mysterie. That a Virgin should become a Mother! This was a Thing so Mysteri­ous, that Mary her self, the Royal Mother of our Lord, was a stranger to the manner of the accomplishment of it, How shall this be [...].? said she to the (Angelical) Angel, Luke 1. 34. So strange, that (as worthy Bishop Ʋsher notes in his Emmanuel) it was proposed as a signe and wonder to Unbelievers, seven hundred and forty yeers be­fore it was accomplished, Isa. 7. 14. Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son! &c. What? For a Virgin [Page 21] to conceive, and bear! &c. O! What Paradoxes be these? Angels wonder, Devils tremble at these astonishing Ve­rities. Finally,

The Personal Ʋnion of the Humane and Divine Na­tures in Christ, is a stupendious Mysterie, (that which S. Augustine did so much admire) and a thing which is able to plunge the Celestial Intelligences themselves.)

There be two great Mysteries, viz.

1. One Nature in Three Persons.

2. Two Natures in One Person. And I dare (al­most) be bold to say, That

Three in One in the B. Trinity, is not a greater Myste­rie, then Two in One in Christ. O! Wonder Christians, won­der at this great Mysterie of Godliness! Wonder, That the Word should be made flesh! That the Son of God should be made of a woman! I, of a Virgin! &c. I am perswa­ded that This is, and will be to all eternity, matter of admiration and wonder in Heaven.

2. Evangelical Love.

Here is the most signal Demonstration of the Love of God to Mankinde that is possible. What? That the Son of the Living God should be made of a woman! &c.

This Love may be considered in a two-fold respect, viz. As a

• 1. Superlative Love, and in its Dimensions.
• 2. Soparative and Distinguishing Love.

1. This Love is superlative, and (for degrees) transcen­dent.

Such are the Dimensions of the Love of God, that it is (like God Himself) Incomprehensible; it [...]. Eph. 3. 19. passeth know­ledge: O the height, depth, length, and breadth of this Love! It is the work of Angels and Glorified Saints to admire it. That God should send forth his Son made of a woman, was an unparallell'd instance of Love. God SO loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son into the world, &c. John 3. 16. Note that particle ( [...]) SO, [Page 22] Thereby is intimated, the very Maximum Quod Sic of Love (and that may be termed without any Derogati­on from the Deity) the very Maximum Quod Sic of Omnipotency: The highest pitch and Degree of Love, that God could possibly express to Angels or Men. Such was God's Love to Man, that He gave the Son of his Love un­to Him; O what a Mirandum of Love did God exhibite in that Deed of Gift! The Result of God's Love to Man was no less then the great Emmanuel Isa. 7. 14. Matth. 1. 23., God with us! If ever God did (as I may say) excel Himself, it was in this same Love. Herein the B. Trinity is most Eminent.

Two of God's Holy Attributes were in this Evangelical Oeconomy extended to (a non-ultra) their Outmost, (be it spoken with reverence) viz.

• 1. Love.
• 2. Wisdome. (Of the latter of which hereafter.)

A greater Love then that which God did express in the Assumption of Our Nature into Personal Ʋnion with the God-head, is (I dare say, to the praise of rich grace) ultra posse Divinum, an utter Impossibility with God; A thing Impossible to Omnipotency it self; Hoc non potest Om­nipotens. There be two great and signal Loves of God to Man, observable from Scripture, viz.

• 1. The Love of God, in making Man in his owne likeness.
• 2. The Love of God in making Himself in Man's likeness.

God made Man like Himself in the first Man, Adam: God made Himself like Man in the second Adam, Christ. There God was the Pattern, and Man the Pourtaicture; Here Man was the Pattern, and God the Pourtraicture. Now Christians, the latter is the greater Love. In the former God communicates Himself to the Creature But it the latter, God doth by an infinite condescention assume the Creature into Personal Ʋnion with the Deity. That God should take upon Him the Humane Nature, intimates [Page 23] greater Love, then that Man should partake of the 2 Pet, 1. 4. Di­vine Nature. O Matchless Instance of Affection! Belo­ved, Heaven it self could not answer the demands of a soul touching a greater Love then this is. Quò Nitè Dei? Quo tua flagravit Cha­ritas? Quo crevit tua Be­nignitas? &c. Aug. l [...]b. Med. cap. 7. pag. 698. Tom. 9. Basil. 1569. Whither? O Son of God! Whither flamed thy Charity? Whither encreased thy Benignity? Whither reached thy Love? Whither amounted thy Compassion? &c. Here we may say much, and speak but little.

2. This Love of God is a Distinguishing Love. Signal is that Discrimination, which this Love hath made be­tween Angels and Men, in the favour of Mankinde. The Son of God was made of a Woman; so that God became Man; but we do not read that God became an Angel. God took not upon him the Nature of Angels, but he took upon him the Seed of Abraham, Heb. 2. 16. Angels did eminently partake of the Divine Nature, (that is) of God's Communicable Graces and Excellencies) but God did not partake of the Angelical Nature; But

As God made Man like Himself in the first Creation, so he made Himself like man in the Gospel-work of the Incarnation, &c.

The Personal Ʋnion of the Humane Nature with the Deity, was a Capital and Distinguishing Honour conferr'd upon Mankinde. O highly honoured Man! Angels are not fit Competitors with thee. I challenge the whole * nine Angels, Archangels, Vertues, Powers, Principali­ties, Dominions, Thrones, Cherubims, Seraphims. Orders of them. What Angel can plead Consanguinity to the Son of God? This Man can do. What Angel can say that of Christ, which Adam said of Eve; Gen. 2. 23. This is Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh? This Man can say. Thy Nature, O Man! is Personally One with the God-head in Christ; The Angelical Nature is not thus ho­noured.

There is a Royal Dignity conferr'd both upon the Na­tures and upon the Persons of Men.

1. Upon their Natures; for

Our Nature being Personally United to the Deity in Christ, partakes of the Legislative Power of Heaven, and is Entitled to the Crown Royal thereof. The Deity and Humanity of Christ (though distinct Natures, yet) wear not distinct Crowns, but are (as hath been often said) Per­sonally One in King Christ. Now, the Father and the Son divide neither Crowns nor Scepters, but (joyntly) exercise one and the same Jurisdiction. The Man Christ is the King of Angels. O what a Pre-eminence of Nature is that!

The Humane Nature, is by vertue of its Personal Ʋni­on with the God-head, promoted (as I may say) to Regal Authority over the Angels.

2. Upon their Persons; for

Men may be said to be of the Blood-Royal of Heaven, and are (so to speak) more neerly related to the Imperial Crown of Heaven, then Angels. Now Beloved, what is this other then the fruit of a Distinguishing Love?

This Distinguishing Love of God may be further il­lustrated from this consideration; namely, That Angels are Spiritual; and men, Corporeal Substances; so that there was a greater conformity in Nature between God and An­gels, (for both are Spirits) then between God and Men; Now that God should condescend to assume to himself a Body, rather then a Spirit, was meerly from the discrimina­ting Love of God. What? And must Clay be encircled with the Rayes of Divine Majesty? Would not the Angelical Nature have been a more proper Receptacle for the Deity Alienum erat a Natura & Di­vinitate (Dei) sanguinem & carnem suscipe­re, propter nos autem ea quae sibi erant aliena suscepit,, vt domesticos sibi saceret, qui sue­romus alioni per peccatum. Origen. in Esaium, Hom. 7. then Dust and Ashes, that inferiour piece of the Crea­tion?

Such was the Love of God to Mankinde, that he Illos neglexit Illos dilexit. pas­sed by the fallen Angels, and took upon him the Nature of fallen Man, being made of a woman.

Hence Angels and not Men are Divels to day; O what an Impression should this make upon us! What? That Man by the Order of Creation, Satan's Inferiour, should be honoured with Consanguinity to the Son of God, and neer Relation to the B. Irinity! And that Satan once an Angel of Light, should be the first Inhabitant of outer darkness! That the Angels which kept not their first estate, should be left irrecoverably in their lost and accursed e­state, and be reserved in everlasting chains under darkness! Iude 6. Whereas the Son of God hath graciously condescended to unite to Himself the Nature of fallen Man, that Man might be recovered out of a miserable estate, and restored to a better estate then that from which he had fallen! Is not that a distinguishing Love? Though I could speak with the Tongues of Men and of Angels, yet should I fail in this so amazing an inquisation: This is Soraphical Divini­ty, Christians! Eternity it self is little enough to admire, and with praise to Comment upon this Theam of God's superlative and distinguishing love to Mankinde, in.

3. Evangelical Humility.

That the Son of the living God should be made of a wo­man, was the greatest Instance of Humility that is imagi­nable, Christ's Humiliation was gradual; there were these two steps in it, viz.

• 1. The Assumption of our Nature.
• 2. Obedience, Active and Passive in that Nature.

These were the two gradual parts of the Lord Christ's Self-denyal; but the former was the greater of the two.

That God should become Man, was a greater argument of Self-denyal in Christ, then that God-Man should be­come Obedient (even) unto death; in that there is an in­finitely greater distance between God and man (in respect of Being) then there is between Man and death; (for [Page 26] God is of an Infinite Being, and Man (but) of a finite and limited capacity,) whereas (in a sense) it is as Natural for Man to die as to live.

That He who for Nature was co-essential with God, should become co-essential with man!

That He, who for Dignity was co-equal with God, should become a Isa. 53. 11. Mat. 12. 28. Phil. 2. 7. servant.

That He who for Time and Duration was co-eternal with God, should condescend in the fulness of the time to be made of a woman!

That Christ should be made of Her whose Maker he was! Is not that Humility?

That the Incomprehensible Majesty of Heaven, * whom1 Kings 8. 27. the Heaven of heavens cannot contain, should stoop to nine moneths confinement in the wombe of a poor Virgin!

That the Glory of God should fill a Tabernacle of Clay!

That * the High and Lofty One should pitch in dust andIsa. 57. 15. ashes! That the Sun of Divine Glory should suffer an E­clipse by the Interposition of Earth! O what a stupendi­ous condescention was that! Beloved, Heaven seemed in this to have been wholly devoted to Man. The whole Trinity, (ever admired be Free Grace) seems to have been Self-denied here; The Father was (in a manner) denyed to his Dear and only Begotten Son; and the Son to Himself; to his Connatural Glory (which he suffered to be clouded for a time) in condescending to become Man; as he was to life it self, in condescending to die like a Man; though he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet he made himself of no reputation (he degraded himself) and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, &c. Phil. 2. 6, 7. Quo nate Dei? Quo tua descendit humi­litas? &c. Aug. lib. Med. cap. 7. pag. 698. Tom. 9. Basil. 1569. Whither! O Son of God! Whither descended thy Humility? I have been proud, and thou bast been humbled; &c.

4. Evangelical Wisdome.

That the Saviour of mankinde should be the Son of God, made of a woman, is an Instance of astonishing Wis­dome. What?

1. That God should contrive such a method of salva­tion, as that he could punish sin, and (yet) spare the sinner! What is that other then the plot of infinite Wisdome? God did punish sin in the Nature of sinners, and (yet) did spare the persons of sinners; Justice received satisfaction in our Nature, and (yet) Mercy was glorified in the salvation of our Nature; and (which is a glorious soul-refreshing truth) the same Justice which obliged God to punish sin in our Nature, doth now oblige him to pardon sin in our Persons.

2. That God should at once glorifie both Justice and Mercy in a Saviour, is the memorable product of Divine Wisdome. Those two Attributes, viz. Justice and Mercy, are both at once glorified in Christ; Justice, In that God did indispensably require satisfaction in order to the sin­ners salvation; Mercy, In that God did from an impulse of free Love to sinners, provide a Surety and Mediatour in order to satisfaction; God satisfied Himself in Himself: So that here is a sweet Attemperation (so to speak) of Justice and Mercy. Those two Attributes (however they may seem to represent God with a contrary Aspect, yet) are (as it were) reconciled in Christ; Here Mercy is acted in the severest piece of Justice; never was there a more severe Act of Justice, then that God's own Son should be­come a sacrifice, rather then Justice should not be satisfied. Again, Never was there a more signal Act of Mercy, then that God's own Son should become a sacrifice, rather then Mercy should not be glorified. O the Wonder-working Wisdome of God!

Had God called a General Assembly of the Peers of Heaven, those Celestial Intelligences, they could never have devised such a method of salvation for poor sinners, [Page 28] as God hath in love to their souls, contrived in his own Son, made of a woman; O the depth of the Riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God!

Thus I have endeavoured to display matter of Wonder and thankful Admiration. Beloved, these are things which the very glorious Angels desire to look (and pry) into. * 1 Pet. 1. 12. [...]. Angelical Speculations! And I dare say, that it will be a great part of the work of Angels and Saints in glory, to celebrate those Mirabilia Dei, and Evangelical wonders, with praises, to all eternity.

Ʋse 2 2. Here is ground of Reprehension.

Was the Son of God in the fulness of the time made of a woman? This may serve sharply to reprove two sorts of persons.

• 1. The Jew.
• 2. The Judaizing Christian.

1. The Jew.

Although it is palpably manifest, and clear (as the light) from the infallible Oracle of Gospel, the visible accom­plishment of Prophetical Predictions, &c. That the Son of God is already (long ago) come in the flesh; that the Messias, the promised Seed of the woman, is come; yet Jewes (poor wretches!) will not believe it. To this day do they continue in obstinate incredulity, and a vain expectation of the Messias their King; and so (alas! alas!) through a vain expectation of the Saviour, they miss of a Saviour. That which my soul most pities them for, is, That during these sixteen hundred yeers darkness and desertion, hundreds of thousands of them (yea, for ought I know) as many hundred thousands as there are centuries of yeers, have dyed irrecoverably in their sins! (But just is God in all his wayes) And if God in mercy to their souls, hasten not their Conversion, and the re-ingraf­ting of those * Native Branches into the common Root, Rom. 11. 21. 24. (Christ;) how many thousands more may yet perish, the Lord knows! For (oh Lord!) they dye daylie! Ah! Thus [Page 29] it fares with them, who (once) were God's peculiar peo­ple! his Portion! the dearly Beloved of his soul!

The Metrical Apostrophe of a Mr. George Herbert of Cambridge, in his Sacred Poems. holy Poet to that Na­tion

It is observable of that people, that by adhering to the Law, they lose the Gospel; by cleaving to Moses, the Typical Messias, they miss of the Messias, the true Moses. Were I able by my voice to reach the land of Jewry, or the dispersed Jewes where-ever they are scattered as forlorn Vagabonds, to day, I would a little expostulate with them. Oh, obstinate and incredulous Jewes! Are ye in Covenant with perdition? Are ye resol­ved to perish in Ʋnbelief? But, will ye not admit of Go­spel (which presents us with this great Evangelical truth, viz. That in the fulness of the time, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman? the only true Messiah) What? Are ye in league with Moses? In love with servitude and bon­dage? The Prophesies concerning the Messias are fulfil­led; yea (as I have shewed above) the Messias his own Prophesies and Personal Predictions are fulfilled: O that [Page 30] ye would learn the belief of the Truth, from the very Pro­phesied Ruines of your Temple, City, Lawes, whole State, Policy, and Commonwealth! Ah! poor Jew! The Lord convince you, that there is no possibility of Life for you, but in him who dyed by you! Ye cannot be saved but through him, whom by wicked hands ye have crucified and slain: The only (possible) way and method of salvation, is that very blood which (you are guilty of, and) hath these sixteen hundred yeers layn upon your heads through your crucifying of the Lord of glory; and that direful Impre­cation, His blood be upon us and our children, wherein the Curse of that execrable sin of blood-shed is entailed upon your Posterity! And, O how sad is it, when Persons are guilty of that very blood which alone is effectual for the pardon of guilt! for peace with God! for the salvation of precious souls! &c.

2. The Judaizing Christian.

By Judaizing Christians, I understand those that con­tend for Ceremonies in point of Worship, in a professed Christian Church: For a Ceremonial kinde of Worship being peculiar to the Jewish Church, (as wholly Typical,) it fol­loweth by necessary Consequence, That an Introduction of Ceremonies in point of Worship (into the Christ an Church) is a Reduction of Judaisme. Now such are lyable to a just Reproof from hence, namely, That the Son of God was in the fulness of the time made of a woman. (Where Adul­terate Rome, with her Jewish-Popish Trumpery, falls shrewdly under the lash, (only what pity is it that so strong a weapon is in so weak a hand?) For the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies being but Shaddows and Typical Adumbrations of the promised Messias, must needs be abrogated now, since the Messias, the Body and Substance prefigured by them, is come: When the Body is come, the Shaddow evanisheth; Types cease in the Anti-type. So that to retain Jewish Ceremonies in the Christian Church, were Antichristian Judaisme; for that were (virtually) to deny that the Son of God is come in the flesh.

I lay down no other (as to the sense) then what a greatD. Downam, in his Treatise of Christian Liberty. * Doctor of the Formalists hath asserted before me. The Ceremonial Rites (saith he, they are his own words) be­cause they were principally ordained to prefigure Christ, are so abolished, that it is not lawful for Christians to observe them; for that were to deny that Christ is come. (I con­fess I am of his judgement) and he cites S. Augustine, Contra Fau­stum Manich. lib. 19. cap. 18. Ea non observant Christiani, per quae Christus promittebatur, nec adhuc promittuntur, quia jam impleta sunt. Christians observe not those things by which Christ was promised; neither are they as yet promised, because they are already fulfilled.

For my own part (it's true, I am less then the least of ten thousand, and therefore no wonder that men in this Learned Age over-look me, as little objects which escape the sense, however) it is a conclusion with me, that Cere­monies in point of Worship, are altogether unlawful in Gospel-times; since Christ, who was typified by them, is come; (for when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman:) as (blessed be God) we read, preach, hear, and believe to day. I do not now plead either Conscience or Covenant that forbidden Argu­ment; But My ground is Scripture-Evidence. For,

Was not this God's great designe in sending forth his Son made of a woman, namely, That he might redeem them that were under the Law? The Jewish Church was sub­ject to the Ceremonial and Judicial Lawes of Moses. As 1. A Yoke in respect of her servile-state. And 2. A School­master, and Rudiments, in respect of her Infant-state; (and hence the Apostle calls them, The * Elements of the [...]. world, v. 3.) But the Son of God did in the fulness of the time, (when the Church was grown up to maturity and an adult age) take upon him our Nature, and was made un­der the Law, that he might redeem his Church from that bondage and subjection. Exemption from Legal Rites and Ceremonies, whether we consider them 1. As a Pedago­gie; [Page 32] Or 2. As a Yoke, being that part of Christ's pur­chase which is peculiar to the Christian Church. And

What other is the drift of the blessed Apostle in the Context, then to prove the same?—When we were children (saith he) that is, the Church in her Infant-state and minority,) we were in bondage under the elements of the world) that is, a Mosaical Pedagogie of Puerile Ceremonies and Rituals) v. 3. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, &c. And hence it is that he so roundly checks the Galatians (a Ju­daizing people in many things, as appears) v. 9, 10, 11. But now (saith he) after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, How turn ye again to the [...]. weak and beggerly Elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bon­dage? Ye observe dayes, and moneths, and times, and yeers; I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. What? (would be say) Are ye in love with your Bonds? Will ye return to your first Rudiments and A B C? A notable Sarcasme! And hence is that Cautelary Ad­vice of the Apostle to the Colossians, chap. 2. v. 17, 18. Let no man judge (or condemn) you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath dayes, which are a shaddow of the things to come, but the Body is of Christ. Legal Observances, and Festival Times were meer shaddows of Christ to come. He is the Body that was prefigured by them. Now this Body being come, to what purpose are shaddows? Oh! that men should con­tend so eagerly for shaddows!

Once more,

Carnal Ordinances, Rites, and Ceremonies, were imposed upon the Jewes. [...], until the time of Reformation, Heb. 9. 9, 10. (O what pity is it that they should be pursued by professed Christians instead of a Re­formation!) Now the time of Reformation, was the time of the Churches Emancipation and deliverance from these carnal Ordinances, Rites, and Ceremonies by her Redeem­er, [Page 33] the Son of God, made of a woman. In a word, Cere­monial Worship in a Christian Church, seems (to me) to be contrary to God's designe in coming in the flesh, not to say, to the designe of Gospel.

But let us examine what the Ceremonialists say for themselves.

Ceremonies (say they) be of two sorts, viz.

• 1. Typical.
• 2. Symbolical.

1. Typical Ceremonies (say they) being ordained to presigure Christ, the promised Messias, are by him abo­lished, and (by consequence) unlawful in the New Te­stament times; But

2. Symbolical and Mystically-significant Ceremonies may very lawfully be continued in the Christian Church, as useful for edification (besides Order and Decency;) (byDr Burgess of the lawful­ness of kneel­ing. &c. cap. 17. pag. 52. vertue of some spiritual signification, which they attribute to them, calling them sacred signes of spiritual Mysteries.) Thus the Surplice (for instance) being (say they) a Sym­bolical Ceremony, as that which signifies the Ministers pureness and Innocency, may be lawfully (yea profitably) used (even) by the Christian Clergie.

Answ. It is not my purpose to debate the lawfulness of those Mystical-significant Ceremonies. I leave that to be learned of those, of whom I may learn. The Learned Au­thor of the Dispute against the English-Popish Ceremo­nies, hath by divers arguments disproved it, &c. Only,

I shall presume to speak my own thoughts (having re­spect to the Text) in a few particulars, which I am hum­bly bold to offer to the Ceremony-mongers for satisfaction.

1. If Types and Legal shaddows be abolished by Christ, (the true Messias) who was (as hath been often said) prefigured by the same, and therefore is called John 1. 17. The Truth in answer to Types; and Col. 2. 17, 18. Praesente viri­tate Typus & Ʋmbra cessa­vit, Origen in Jes. Nave. cap 13. Hom. 17. The Body in answer to shaddows, which they do and must acknowledge; Then I desire for Conscience sake to be resolved, in order to [Page 34] three things, namely, what ground there is for

• 1. The Introduction of Altars.
• 2. The nice observance of Holy-dayes, (I approve of a holy observance of dayes.)
• 3. Organical Musick in the Gospel Church?

1. As touching Altare.

Who knows not that the Altar (both That of Incense, Exod. 30. and That of Burnt-offering, Exod. 27.) was an eminent Type of Christ? I dare say there was not a moreAltare suit pri­us, & sacrifi­cia celebraban­tur, sed ut venit verus Agnus, qui seipsum Hostiam obtulit Deo, cuncta illa velut pro tem­pore posita ces­saverunt. Ori­gen. in Levit. cap. 16. Hom. 10. Cum in adven­tu Salvatoris nostri Dei è Coelis descendens veritas, de terra orta est, Ʋmbra & exemplaria ceciderunt. Cecidit enim Hierusalem, cecidit Templum, Altare sublatum est, &c. Id. in Jos. Nave. cap. 13. Hom. 17. memorable Type under the Law, then the Altar was. Now then, if Types be abolished by Christ, why not Al­tars? Under the Old Testament (saith Hospin. de Templis, de orig. Altarium. Hospinian) there were two Altars, and both did prefigure Christ; but be­cause all Types and shaddows are past and evanished, Nulla Altaria deinceps in Ecclesia, excitari sen erigi debebant; It is unlawful afterwards to erect Altars in the Church; and he quotes the Prophet Isaiah, prophesying of the Kingdome of Christ, chap. 17. v. 7. At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the holy One of Israel; and he shall not look to the Altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, &c.

2. As touching Festival dayes.

Those also were under the Law Figurative and Peda­gogical, as is clear from the letter; Let no man (saith our Apostle) judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, &c. [...], which are a Shad­dow of things to come, but the Body is of Christ, Col. 2. 17, 18. Those were Legal shaddows and adumbrations of Christ, the Body; therefore they are abrogated. Quis nesciat, ubi jam est corpus ibi umbram desinere, saith Zan­chy upon the place; Who knows not that shaddows cease and evanish when the Body is come? But

It is objected, That Jewish Festivities only are abolish­ed, because those were Typical; but Christian Festivities are warrantable, &c.

Answ. It is well observed by Hospin. Do Fest. Christ. cap. 2. Hospinian, That Chri­stianorum festa ab hominibus tantum, Judaeorum vero, a Deo fuerunt instituta. Christian Festivals were ordained by Men only, but the Judaical by God himself. Now if those of God's own Institution which he ordained for his own honour be abolished by Himself. 1. How presumptuous is the Papist which dares to press the observation of feasts of their own devising, and that for the honour of Men like themselves? Nay 2. It seems not a little strange to me, That when God hath abolished what he himself did insti­tute, Men should presume to re-institute the same. God is willing that Festivals should evanish as meer shaddows; and is Man unwilling? But The Papist loves to super­erogate.

It is replyed,

They do not observe their Festivities after the manner that the Jewes did, to whom they were Pedagogical, and meer Figures.

Answ. It is remarkable that the Apostle doth sharply check the Galatians for observing of dayes, and moneths, and times, and yeers, Gal. 4. 10. Now, who doth doubt but that the Galatians (before whose eyes Jesus Christ was Gal, 3. 1. See Cart­wright against the Rhemist, on Gal. 4. 10. evidently set forth) did believe that the Son of God was come in the flesh? So that we cannot imagine them to have observed those dayes, moneths, yeers, the Anniversary Solemnities, and other Festival Times, as Figures and Ad­umbrations of Christ to come; but rather, as Memorials and Commemorative signes that he was already come, and yet behold here they are taxed as culpable! Ergo &c.

3. As touching Organical Musick in the Worship of God.

That was also Pedagogical and Figurative; and there­fore peculiar to the Jewish Church: What ground is there [Page 36] then for the retention of it in the Christian and Gospel-Church? Since (as is granted even by those that are stick­lers for it) all Types and Figures are abolished.

Two things are incumbent upon me here, viz.

• 1. To evidence that Organs in the Worship of God were Types.
• 2. To instance in the Anti-type, or the thing (parti­cularly) typified thereby.

As touching the former.

That Organs in the Worship of God in the Old Testa­ment times, were Types, Figures, and meerly Jewish, may appear from the impregnable testimonies of Classical Au­thors, (whom I have consulted in the thing.)

1. Justin Martyr that ancient Father (who lived inJustin Martyr Quaest. 107. the second Age and Century of the Christian Church,) saith, That the Primitive Christian Church did explode that Pedagogical Custome of Organical Musick in the worship of God, as rather beseeming [...], Children, and the Infant-State of the Church, then the Gospel-Church; and retained Vocal singing.

2. * Chrysostome (who lived about two hundred yeers [...]. Chrys. in Psal. 150. after him) saith, That Organs in Divine worship were permitted to the Jewes because of their weakness; and he makes a moral Application of it to us under the Gospel. As (saith he) the Jewes praised God with all Instruments of Musick, so Christians are commanded to praise him with all the members of their Bodies; Eyes, Ears, Tongue, Hands, &c. [...]. They are his own words on Psal. 150.) then Man himself be­comes (as it were) a manifold Harp to God.

3. Isidorus Peleusiotus his Disciple, asserts the very* Isidor. Pelous. lib. 1. Epist. 457. lib. 2. Epist. 176. same thing, and puts the Jewish Musick (in Divine wor­ship) into the same rank with the Jewish Sacrifices, which who can deny to have been Typical? Since (saith he) the Lord permitted to the Jews their bloody Sacrifices because of the Infancy and Puerile state of that Church; [Page 37] [...]. Why shouldest thou wonder that he permitted to them also the Harp and Psaltery?

4. S. Nemo se con­vertat ad Or­gana Theatrica quod ei jubetur in se habet; si­cut alibi dici­tur. In me Deus vota tua, &c. Aug. in Psal. 32. Conc. 1. Augustines testimony is very remarkable, Let no man (saith he) betake himself to Theatrical Organs, (to wit, in the worship of God) thou hast within thy self (O man) what God requireth of thee; according to that which else-where is said, Thy vows are upon me, O God, I will ren­der praises unto thee, Psal. 56. 12.

But further,

5. Aquin. 2. 2 de Quaest. 91. Art. 2. Aquinas asserts the very same thing, Instrumen­ta Musica, sicut Citharas & Psalteria, non assumit Ecclesia in Divinas laudes, ne videatur Judaizare. The Christian Church makes not use of Musical Instruments, as the Harp or Psaltery, in the celebration of Divine praises, lest she should seem to Judaize. And again saith he, In veteri Testamento usus erat talium instrumentorum, tum quia, po­pulus erat magis durus & carnalis, &c. Tum quia hujus­modi instrumenta corporalia aliquid figurabant. The Old Testament Church made use of such Musical Instruments, both because she was more obdured and carnal, &c. and also because those Instruments did typifie and prefigure somwhat. Mark that. Hence Cardinal Cajetan comment­ing upon that Article, observes, That the Church did not use Organical Musick in the dayes of Aquinas.

* Hospinian, after that he hath cited divers Authors,Hosp. de Tem­plis, de Orig. Organ. and noted many things concerning the first use and intro­duction of an Organ into the Christian Church, hath these words; Colligimus ex his Organorum hujusmodi usum, veteri & Apostolicae Ecclesiae prorsus incognitum seroque in­ventum & receptum fuisse. We gather (saith he) from those, that the use of Organs was altogether unknown to the Ancient Apostolick Church; and that they are but lately invented and received into the Church; and he [Page 38] brings in Cardinal Cajetan confessing the same thing, and withal adding, That for confirmation thereof, the Romish Church useth no Organs before the Pope; and Suarez Tom. 2. de Vi [...]t. & Stat. Relig. lib. 4. cap. 8. num. 5. Suarez that Jesuitical Champion gives the reason of it: Musical Instruments are not used in the Pope's Chappel, because (saith he) the use of them, non tani gravis judicatur, is not judged to savour of gravity enough. Ah! That Bri­tish Cathedrals should come short of Popish Chappels in point of gravity!

(The same Suarez speaks of a Pope that did by Edict* Suarez ib. viz. Tom. 2. de Verit. & Stat. Rel. lib. 4. cap. 8. num. 1. so bid Organical Musick in the Worship of God, and he brings in Navarrus affirming the unlawfulness of using Organs at Mass, or other Divine service, by vertue of that Prohibition.

Baron. Anal. Eccles. ann. Christ. 60. pag. 578. Caesar Baronius that great Popish Annalist affirms the same thing that Hospinian upon the matter, Sane qui­dem Musica Instrumenta, haud antiquitus in Ecclesiam in­troducta & recepta esse videntur, saith he, Musical Instru­ments seem not to have been received into the Church in the Primitive times. And he quotes Justin Martyr as­sertingJustin. q. 107. the same thing. Nay,

Bellarm. lib. 1. de bonis oper. cap. 17. Bellarmine himself, that great light of the Romish Fir­mament, confesseth that Organical Musick, was at first introduced into the Christian Church in the dayes of So saith Ba­laeus an En­glish Bishop according to Hospinian de Tem. de orig. Organ. Pope Vitalian, Ann. Christ. 660. according to Platina. Or (saith he) if we will credit Almoinus, (lib. 4. de gestis Francorum, cap. 114.) not until the dayes of Lodovicus Pius, 820. yeers after our Lord's Incarnation, and that by the indu [...]try of one Georgius Venetus a Priest, (as I finde in H [...]nian de Templis, de origine Organorum; where he [...]teth Aventinus, affirming the same thing (lib. 4.) t [...]t Almoinus.

Thus I have made a Collection of Testimonies (having perused my Authors severally.) From which it is evi­dent, that Organical Musick in the Worship of God, was under the Law a part of the Jewish Pedagogie, and fi­gurative, [Page 39] and (by consequence) Peculiar to the Jewish Church.

I might have argued from the Authentique Example of Christ and his Apostles, whom we finde singing Hymnes and Psalmes; Christ and his Disciples sung an Hymne, Matth. 26. 30. They had not an Organ there, at least we read of none. Paul and Silas sung praises unto God, Acts 16. 25. Vocal praise is the Gospel praise. This Christ commends to the Apostles, and they to their Christian Flocks and Churches (respectively) as Eph. 5. 18, 19. Col. 3. 16. James 5. 13. But let our Musical Zelots instance, when and where Christ or his Apostles did either command or commend Organical Musick to the Gospel-Church if they can. But

I was willing to trace them in their own Element, for, they are professed Antiquaries, and many of them (I doubt)Vid. Aug. Confess. lib. 10. cap. 33. Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 4. Hierom. in Eph. 5. Hospin. de Temp. de orig. Organ. Erasm. in 1 Cor. 14, Zepper. de Polit. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 13. Muscul. Epist. Dedicat. ante Comment. in Psalmos, &c. more ready to interpret Orthodoxy by the Fathers then by the SON. If notwithstanding those pregnant testi­monies, men remain obstinate, I can but turn them over to the lash of the more sober sort of Papists, as Erasmus, Cajetan, &c. who have both lamented and sharply in­veighed against the sad (and too too frequent) prophanati­on of Divine Worship, by their Organical and Theatrical Musick; (quae carnis potius voluptati, quam Spiritus aedi­ficationi inservit. Lactanct. lib. 2. cap. 24.

As touching the latter.

The Anti-type. That which was prefigured by Organi­cal Musick in the Old-Testament Church.

Were I worthy to speak my own thoughts in the thing, I would say, That

Legal Adumbrations and Types might be conceived to have had a threefold reference, viz. to

• 1. Christ Personal.
• 2. Christ Mystical.
• 3. The Glory of Gospel-Ministery.

1. As they did respect Christ Personal, they had a more [Page 40] especial reference, either to his Incarnation, or to his Offi­ces, or to his Death, &c. and accordingly were abrogated as to their Typical signification.

2. As they did respect Christ Mystical, that is, the Church (consisting of her Head and Members mystically united) they were (according to the successive promulga­tion of the Gospel, and Plantation of the Christian Church) gradually abolished, (even) as to their continuance and observation. And hence S. Paul did at the beginning, and (as it were) the first dawning of Gospel, in the Gentiles Hemisphere, Circumcise Timothy (though by his Fathers side a Greek) because of the Infirmity of the Jewes, Acts 16. 3. But afterwards when the Gospel was more gene­rally published, and the Christian Church more ripened, he would not Circumcise Titus, Gal. 2. 3. Now

3. Organs, and other Musical Instruments (we may in­clude the silver Trumpets, Numb. 10.) in the Jewish Church, may (as I humbly conceive) be said to have pre­figured the Glory of Gospel Ministery. That Organical Musick was under the Old Testament Figurative and Ty­pical, is I presume (now) apparent; and why it may not be said to typifie the Glory of Evangelical Administration, I cannot learn.

Why may not Organs, &c. be said to have prefigured the same thing that the Silver Trumpets did? But the Silver Trumpets did (if we credit the Significant praedicationem Evangelicam toto Orbe reso­nantem. Cornel. a lap. in Num. 10. [...]. Cyrill. in Exod. lib. 3. pag. 323. vid. pag. 322. Learned) pre­figure Evangelical Preaching and Ministery. Ergo &c.

And

What could be more properly typified by the Musi­cal sound in the Jewish Church, then the Psal. 89. 15. joyful sound in the Christian Church, even the glorious sound of the E­verlasting Gospel? &c.

Thus I have endeavoured to shew, both 1. That Or­ganical Musick under the Old Testament was a Type. And 2. What was the Anti-type; Now, since it was Typical, why is it introduced into the Gospel-Church?

Possibly it will be said that an Altar, Organ, Candle­sticks, &c. are retained in the Christian, (though they were Typical in the Jewish) Church, but not as Typical. And then 1. What Type was there under the Law, which may not (as well as those) be received into the Gospel-Church, so it be not received as a Type? Why not a Tabernacle as well as an Altar? (For my part, I would fain learn, what reason there is for the one more then for the other.) Why not a Brazen Serpent? &c. Again, 2. They must be at the expence of coyning a new distincti­on, (for that of Typical and Symbolical Ceremonies will not bear them out) which we have not heard of as yet.

This is my first answer.

2. Membra coincidunt.

The Members of that distinction of Ceremonies, Ty­pical and Symbolical, are co-incident. Even those Cere­monies which are said to be (and retained as) Symbolical, were under the Law Typical. Now this is contrary to the Rules of a right Division.

To instance. The Surplice and other Vestments are re­tained as Symbolical and significant Ceremonies; for a Mystical signification is attributed to them; the Surplice being a signe (as is said) of the Minister's Purity, &c. Now the Priestly and Levitical Garments, to which these answer, were all Typical. Multiplex illa Vestium Sacer­dotalium distinctio & varietas, erat in Veteri Testamento Typica; Veritate autem exhibita quid amplius Typos re­quirunt? saith Syntag. Theolog. lib. 9. cap. 38. Amandus Polanus. The distinction of Priestly Vestments under the Law was Typical, but the Truth and Anti-type being exhibited, why do men contend for Types any longer?

Christ's threefold Office was shaddowed by the High [Page 42] Priest's Apparel; (as is observed by Polanus, and others) viz. His Kingly Office, by the Mitre which the High Priest did wear upon his Head: His Priestly Office by the Plate of pure Gold, whereon was engraven Holiness to the Lord; and the Ephod and Brest-plate whereon were engraven the Names of the twelve Tribes. His Prophetical Office by the Ʋrim and Thummim in the Brest-plate, from which he answered as from an Oracle, as also by the Bells and Pomegranates; the one typing the sound of his Do­ctrine; the other the sweet savour of his Life. As for the four extraordinary Garments which the High Priest wore only once a year, to wit, when he entered into the Holy of Holies upon the Propitiation day, which were for colour white, (and therefore called Vestimenta alba, [...] white Garments) and for number four, viz. 1. The lin­nen Breeches. 2. The linnen Coat. 3. The linnen Gir­dle. 4. The linnen Mitre, Lev. 16. 4. These (give me leave to say it) were not so much signes of Aarons; as Levitical Shaddows and Types of the Lord Christ (that immaculate Lambe of God, the Holy and Just One) his Purity and Innocency, the holiness of his Person, and the Inculpableness of his Life; He was our holy, harmless, and undefiled High Priest, Heb. 7. 26.

Amandus Polanus indeed saith, that S. Paul in descri­bing and prescribing the Christians Panoplia and compleat Armour, Ephes. 6. doth allude to the Sacerdotal Vestments under the Law, viz. the Mitre, Brest-plate, Girdle, &c. But if the Christian Clergy-Men ground the Mystical sig­nificancy of Vestments upon this, I know no reason why the Laity, and every Private Christian may not challenge as good a right to the use of Mitre, Girdle, Surplice, &c. as they, since it is incumbent upon every Christian to put on the whole armour of God, &c.

From what hath been said it may appear, that the Priest­ly Vestments under the Law, were Levitical shaddows, and Typical; and yet those under the Gospel are said to be [Page 43] Symbolical only, and Mystically significant; then the same Ceremonies are both Typical and Symbolical: Now if they were Typical, why are they not abolished? If they were Symbolical according to our Bishops (else why are they re­tained in the Gospel-Church?) and (yet) Typical accor­ding to Polanus, and (as it is evident) then tis needful that they study another distinction then that of Typical and Symbolical Ceremonies; saying, that Typical Cere­monies are all abolished, but Symbolical Ceremonies may be retained in the Gospel-Church.

In conclusion,

I desire to be resolved, what is the Mystical signifi­cation of a Mitre in a Christian Bishop? Not Dominion (I1 Pet. 5. 3. hope) over God's heritage? O! Leave that to the Anti­christian Bishop of Rome, who is taught of his Father the John 8. 44. Devil to usurp power over God's Inheritance, and to Lord it (as much as he can) over Consciences, yea, over Crowns too, (but surely it was not so from the beginning, that the Crown should be subject to the Mitre). Now

The High Priest's Mitre, was (as I have shewed above) a Type of Christ's Regal Authority and Kingly Office.

This is my second answer to that distinction of Typical and Symbolical Ceremonies; more I might say, but I forbear.

Only give me leave to add, That a Ceremonial Worship is abolished, not only Christi CORPORE, but even Christi ORE; not only by the Body, but even by the Do­ctrine of Christ, and his Personal teaching in the dayes of his flesh; The hour cometh (said he to the woman of Sa­maria) and now is, when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, John 4. 23. By worship­ping the Father in spirit and in truth, we are to understand a Now and Evangelical manner of Worship.

Here then is principally intimated; Not

1. The Indispensable Need of the Concurrence of God's Spirit with a soul in Divine Worship. Nor

2. Sincerity, or the Absolute necessity of joyning the Inner with the Outward Man, the Soul with the Body in Divine Worship; for, did not the Religious and Devout Jewes, (yea, and for ought I know, many Samaritans) worship God thus, viz. by the special assistance of God's Spirit, and by a sincere joyning of the Soul with the Body in his Worship, before? (it were an uncharitable part for me, or others to think otherwise) Now Christ doth here mean some New manner of Worship, by worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth; Woman (saith he) believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father, v. 21. But &c. v. 23.

That then which is chiefly intended here, is,

3. The Utter Abrogation of the Old Carnal and Cere­monial Worship, as a thing meerly Typical (worshipping in Spirit, being opposed thereunto, as Carnal; worship­ping in truth being opposed thereunto, as Typical) and the substitution of a New, and Evangelical Worship, free from Jewish Ceremonies.

It is probable that the Ceremonians will say,

Though we make use of Ceremonies in Divine Worship, yet ours is not a Ceremonial worship; for we place not wor­ship in the Ceremonies.

Answ. 1. Holiness is placed in the Ceremonies, Ergo Worship. lib. 5 s. 69. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy, saith ex­presly, that some dayes ought to be with men more holy then others; Contrary to de Fest. Christ cap. 2. Hospinian, who affirmeth that one day is not holier then another, in it self, else (saith he) the Heathens are not to be blamed, who, attributing e­vents to inevitable fate, distinguish of lucky and unlucky dayes. But what shall I say? Are not mens adulterate practises shrewd symptomes thereof? as, Their Incur­vations and cringings before an Altar of stone; a nice and superstitious regard to a table of wood, which they enclose as if it were a second Holy of Holies; their de­vout respect to a material structure and fabrick, (which [Page 45] (yet) possibly in the dayes of old, was a Receptacle of Idolatry, yea and devoted thereunto); their declared sin­gularity (not to say sanctity) of Vestments,

and such like; Are not (these I say) shrewd symptomes of the truth of what I say? But

2. Ceremonies are pursued as things necessary to Divine Worship; Ergo &c. Possibly they will not say that Ce­remonies are Essential parts of the Worship of God, (though as I shall presently shew, some have even gone this length) yet I appeal to themselves, whether they ground not a Necessity (yea an indispensable one) at least, on the Mystical significancy, or pretended, teaching ver­tue (They are resolved to teach, if not Ore, yet more. Ah! dumb Teachers!) or pleaded order and decency of Cere­monies, (though it were an easie matter to disprove, as the necessity, so the expediency, yea, the pretended law­fulness and indifferency of them.) Now, Quaecunque ob­servatio quaesi necessaria commendatur, continuo censetur ad cultum Dei pertinere, saith De vera Ec­cles. resorm. p. 367. Calvin.

Nay,

3. Dr. Burgess of the Lawful­ness of kneel­ing, &c. cap. 3. See D. Burgess cap. 15. p, 41, 42. A great Formalist saith, That Ceremonies may be called Worship of God, not only ratione modi, but even ra­tione medii; not only as additional things belonging to the reverend use of God's prescribed Worship; but also as a mean, though not by vertue of any thing in it self, but by vertue of somwhat else. If so, with what face can they blame Papists, who place worship (indeed) in their Cross & Crucifix, but not by vertue of any thing in it self, but in respect of Christ crucified, whom (say they) it repre­sents? Once more,

4. A thing pertains to the Worship of God, say the Ad cultum Dei pertinet aliquid dupli­citer, uno modo, cum cum aliquid Deo offertur; alio modo, cum aliquid Divinum assu­mitur. Aquin. 2. 2. Quaest. 95. Art. 2. Schoolmen, two manner of ways; viz. vel quoad oblatio­nem, vel quoad assumptionem; either when we offer to God [Page 46] any thing in point of Worship, or when we add and re­ceive any thing into his Worship: Hence they are guilty of a superstitious and Ceremonial Worship, not only who offer to God for Worship, but also who assume in God's worship as sacred, what God himself hath not ordained. Such are Jewish-Popish Ceremonies, Ergo &c.

Thus I have pursued at large the Ʋse of Reprehension, having respect to my Text: O that the Lord would se­cond it with the powerful convictions of his Spirit!

Ʋse 3 Here is matter of Consolation.

Beloved; Here is a Summary of Evangelical Comfort, here is the choicest thing that is displayed in Gospel. What? A Redeemer for undone Mankinde! A Saviour for sinners! And that one of their own flesh and blood too! viz. The Son of God made of a woman. Here is Semen Mulicris, the * Seed of the Woman, which was five thou­sand Gen. 3. 15. yeers ago promised and preached, by God Himself, the first Evangelist, and Preacher of Christ and Gospel; I will put enmity (said he) between thee and the woman, and be­tween thy seed, and her seed; and IT shall bruise thy head, &c. This was the first Gospel that ever was preached. The second Evangelist was an Angel, who made a comfortable Sermon upon the same Text: Fear not (said he to the Shep­herds) for behold, I bring you good tydings of great joy; for unto you is born this day, in the City of David, a SAVIOƲR, &c. Luke 2. 10, 11. This Angelical was a truly Evangelical Sermon. It is well worthy of our observation, that an Angel was imployed in the first pub­lication of the Nativity of our Lord; and Gospel-comfort redounding from thence to sinful, undone, Man. But I would not, I must not be too prolix here. The comfort that doth accrue to poor, broken, captive sinners, from God-Incarnate, may appear from an inspection into the capital benefits, mentioned v. 5. viz.

• 1. Redemption.
• 2. Adoption.

God's great designe in assuming to himself our Nature, was (saith our Apostle) That he might 1. Redeem them that were under the Law. 2. That we might receive the Adoption of Sons.

These be priviledges of the first magnitude, and they are gradual. In the one we are exempted from a Ser­vile; In the other we are dignified with a Filial conditi­on: By the one, we cease to be Slaves; by the other, we become Sons. I shall (through mercy) speak to both; (but to the latter more briefly) for displaying to the Saints Gospel-comfort; which divides it self here (as it were) into two streams or channels.

Of Christian Liberty.

1. The first is Redemption.

This is a Believers Christian Liberty, (that great E­vangelical Priviledge) wherein he is freed from his Na­tive Bondage and Captivity, intimated while he is said to be under the Law. Now

Christian Liberty considered in its full Extent and La­titude hath in it these eight steps.

1. The first is, Exemption from the Curse and Con­demning power of the Moral Law.

There is a twofold Power in the Law. viz.

• 1. Mandatory.
• 2. Damnatory.

A Commanding and a Condemning Power.

And accordingly the Legal Obligation is two-fold, viz.

• 1. Active.
• 2. Penal.

That is an Obligation to Duty; This is an Obligation to a Penalty.

1. The Mandatory and Directive Power of the Law is ever in force; for the Law is a standing and Irreversible Rule of Life and Obedience. But

2. The Damnatory and Maledictive Power of the Law (by vertue whereof sinful Delinquents are bound over to [Page 48] death; to a curse and condigne punishment; (on the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die, said God to Adam concerning the Probational Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, Gen. 2. 17.) is fully answered and disa­null'd for Believers, by Christ; for he hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed the Saints from the curse, though not from the command of the Law. And in this sense it is said, that the Law is not made for a righteous person, 1 Tim. 1. 9. which therefore we must not under­stand in the Antinomians and loose Libertines sense, as if the Law were not at all Obligatory to a righteous person, binding him to holiness and obedience; O no! The Law is ever recti-dica, but never male-dica to Believers. In a word;

Believers are by Christ exempted from the Penal curse, malediction, and condemnatory sentence of the Law. So that

Though (temporal) death is inevitably common both to the Redeemed, and to Reprobates; for it is (by an old in­fallible Statute) appointed unto (all) men once to die, Heb. 9. 27. yet the Redeemed of the Lord are not lyable to death (nor indeed to any affliction whatsoever) by vertue of any maledictive influence of the Law upon them. Mors illis nec abest, nec obest: though death is inevitable, yet it is not hurtful. Death is necessary in the Saints, not by way of satisfaction to injured Justice, (for Christ hath performed that, and Justice were not Justice if it should require sarisfaction twice): but (as I may say) by way of Introduction into Glory; they are by a blessed exchange possessed of Eternal Life, with the loss of a Natural life. Death is not a Penal or Judicial thing in the Saints; forInane est deli­rium illud Pa­pisticum de ex­emptione a poe­no aeterna, sed non a poena temporali. the curse and sting is taken away. The same may be said of all the Saints afflictions; they are not properly penal, but rather probational or castigatory; chastisements rather then punishments; they are crosses, not curses; Medicinal, not Maledictory; Physick, not poyson; for instruction, not [Page 49] for destruction. O! What comfort is that. There is not now mors in olla, the deadly pottage are healed; though I die, yet I shall not be damned, &c.

2. The second is exemption from the Rigour of the Law, and its Exaction of Inherent Righteousness. [...].

The Law in its strictness and first constitution, did re­quire of us perfect and personal Obedience, and that upon pain of death, according to its Active condition, Do this and live; Now the Son of God hath in our Nature satis­fied the Active demands of the Law, for Believers, as ef­fectually, as if they themselves had made perfect and per­sonal satisfaction thereunto: by vertue whereof they are exempted from the Rigid Exaction of the Law; that is, They are no longer obliged to the performance of Obedi­ence Legally perfect; nor obnoxious to vengeance of the curse for their Legal defects.

There is a two-fold Perfection to be considered, viz.

• 1. A Perfection of Degrees.
  Perfectio gra­duum. Perfectio par­tium.
• 2. A Perfection of Parts.

The former is Legal Perfection, and it stands in op­position to Imperfection.

The latter is Evangelical Perfection, and it stands in opposition to Hypocrisie only; for this is that indispensa­ble Gospel-Qualification, Sincerity; This is new and E­vangelical Obedience. Now

Redeemed ones, are, by Christ, who performed Obe­dience, Personal and Perfect for them, exempted from the former, viz. the severe demands of obedience, absolutely perfect upon pain of death; O what comfort is that to poor sinners! Though many weaknesses attend our duties, and many enormities our life; though it be as Natural for us to sin, as for the spark to fly upwards; for (the Lord knows) It is Natural for us to do that, which without mer­cy, would undo us. Yet the poor sincere sinner is in Christ accepted, his failings and defects being covered with the robes of the Lord Christ's righteousness. God brings a [Page 50] Believers Obedience to the Touchstone rather then to the Ballance; He tryes, not weighs it; He eyes the Quality, more then the Quantity; the thing, more then the de­grees; He judgeth of Evangelical Obedience, more by the Principle then by the Rule, by the Heart, then by the Law (considered in rigore); It is not; this, or that hast thou done; this or that duty hast thou omitted; this or that sin hast thou committed, &c. But, thus, and thus was thy heart: If there be first a willing minde, it is (now) ac­cepted, 2 Cor. 8. 12. &c.

3. The third is Exemption from the guilt of sin.

This is the Remission of sin in Justification; which is God's gracious Act of Oblivion and Juridical Acquit­tance (so to speak) wherein he pardoneth sin in the blood of Christ so, as that it shall not redound to the sinners pu­nishment. This is a singular piece of the Lord Christ's purchase. God gives his Son, and God doth in him for­give sin. As the Reigning power of sin is taken away inReatus pecca­ti. Regnum peccati. sanctification, so the guilt of sin is taken off in justification; that is, the justified person is acquitted in Christ, so that God will never deal with him as a Christus su­scipiendo poe­nam & non suscipiendo culpam, & culpam delevit & poenam. Aug. de verb. Dom. serm. 37. guilty person, or by way of punishment properly; for God doth remit both the guilt and the punishment: so that the afflictions and crosses which justified persons are exposed to in the world (to speak properly) are not penal, but rather probational, (as is shewed before) Chastisements, not punishments; for probation, not for reprobation; Tollitur peccatum si non ne SIT, tamen ne OBSIT. O but this is matter of great comfort! I am pardoned now! the Articles of my peace are confirmed now! God is reconciled! I am acquitted! Although there is a defiling power in sin, yet there is not a damning power in sin! &c.

4. The fourth is Exemption from the Reigne and Do­minion of sin.

As in Justification, the vis Damnatrix and Guilt of sin is removed; so in Sanctification, the Vis Dominatrix and [Page 51] Reigne of sin is removed. There tollitur peccatum, ne OBSIT; Here tollitur peccatum, ne PRAESIT; There sin loseth its Jam non sti­mutus sed ju­bitus, Bernar. Serm. 26. in Cant. sting, Here sin loseth its strength. A Person is in Sanctification exempted, though not from the Presence, yet from the Power of sin; though not from the Tyrannie, yet from the Rom. 6. 14. Dominion of sin; though not from the Rage, yet from the Reigne of sin; though not from the permanency, yet from the predominancy of sin; from the power of, though not from a power to sin. A sanctified soul is neither a Throne not a Sepulchre to sin; though sin remains there, yet sin reignes not there; Rom. 6. 1, 2. though sin continues in It, yet It continues not in sin; O poor Soul! though sin do sore press thee, yet it shall not oppress thee; the Spirit of Sanctification frees the soul from its Native Captivity and bondage to sin. This is a special part of our Redemption.

5. The fifth is Exemption from Satanical bondage and subjection.

Men are by Nature (as Sins, so) Satans Captives; but the Son of God made of a woman, hath led captivity captive. He is the Seed of the woman, that should bruise the Ser­pents head. He is the LYON of the Tribe of Judah, who hath over powered that Roaring Lyon, and hath spoil­ed Principalities and Powers: The Son of God took upon him our Nature, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil, Heb. 2. 14. The Son of God became Man, that he might destroy the Devil, in the same Nature that the Devil had destroyed. Satan is now become subject to those, who once were sub­ject to him. Lord, even the DEVILS are subject to US through thy Name, said the Disciples, Luke 10. 17. O how is our captivity turn'd! The Prince of Darkness is become subject to the meanest Disciple of Christ. Be­sides the Natural tye that is upon Satan, (he being a creature, and therefore of a limitted capacity) by reason whereof he cannot do the evil he would; there is a [Page 52] Providential tye, by reason whereof he doth not the evil he can; yea, and a purchased exemption from subjection to him.

We must distinguish between 1. Subjection to tem­ptation. And 2. Subjection to the Tempter. The least of Saints are freed from the latter; though the best of Saints are not (in this life) secure from the former. O what comfort is this to a Militant Saint! What though Satan attempt thy ruine? yet know, that Christ will ruine the attempt; He may disquiet thee, but he cannot destroy thee; he may bruise thy heel, but is it not the work of the Seed of the woman to break his head? Satan is Christ's Captive in chains.

6. The sixth is Exemption from Legal terrors, and fear of Wrath, Hell, Death, &c.

The former was a freedom from bondage to Spirits, this [...], Rom. 8. 15. [...], 2 Tim. 1. 7. is a freedom from the Spirit of bondage.

O what fears and terrors is a Reprobate Conscience possessed withal! The Law is violated, Wrath is incur­red, Hell and damnation is deserved, as condigne punish­ment; the dreadful pursuits of sin-revenging Justice are unavoidable; my own Conscience accuseth me. O the condemnatory voice of Conscience! that Bosome-hell! Miserable Man that I am; What will become of me? Where shall I dwell for ever? Who shall be my compa­nions to all eternity? Damned Spirits? or the Spirits of just men made perfect? Such terrors and fears are (as it were) a Preface and Introduction to hell. Now Redeemed ones are free from those Legal terrors, and in stead of a Spirit of bondage, they are possessed of the Spirit of Adoption, whereby they cry Abba, Father; And this is that which breeds comfort in life, and confidence at death in the children of God.

7. The seventh is Exemption from the Ceremonial and Judicial Lawes of Moses; That Unsupportable Yoke, which neither the modern Jews, nor their fathers were able to bear. Acts 15. 10.

This freedom and Immunity are we in a more especial manner to understand by Redemption in the Text. The Jewish Church, like an Heir during his minority, was sub­ject to a Pedagogie, viz. the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws of Moses, in which respect the state of the Jewes seemed to be a servile-state; but when the fulness of the time was come (even the time of the Churches maturity and riper age) God sent forth his Son made of a woman, to redeem his Church from that bondage and servitude.

There were three Laws committed to the Jewes, viz.

The

• 1. Moral.
• 2. Ceremonial.
• 3. Judicial.

The Moral Law was ordained to be a standing and Un­alterable Rule of Life and Obedience, both to the Jewish and Christian Church. The Ceremonial and Judicial Lawes were Appendices of the Moral Law. The Ceremonial, of the first Table, determining the particulars of that Wor­ship which was peculiar to the Church of the Jewes; The Judicial, of the second Table, determining the particulars of that Policy, which was peculiar to the Common-wealth of the Jewes. So that the Ceremonial contained the Ecclesia­stical Lawes of that Church, and did respect God. The Judicial, the Civil Lawes of that Commonwealth, and did respect their Neighbour. Now

Christ did in the fulness of the time redeem his Church both from the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws, as a Gal. 5. 1. yoke of bondage, imposed not upon the necks, but even upon the Consciences of the Jewes, binding them to a strict and ac­curate observation of the same.

As touching the Judicial and Civil Law.

What things soever contained therein were communis juris, of common Equity, and had a foundation in the Law of Nature, and might be enforced by the Law Mo­ral, are still Obligatory to Christians: But, what was pecu­liar to the constitution of the Judaical Policy, and are not [Page 54] enforceable by any common Right, but were the particu­lar positive Laws of the Jewes; do not more binde Chri­stians then any other Municipal Law. For Christ destroy­ing the Jewish Commonwealth, their Temple, and City, ac­cording to the Prophesie of Daniel, chap. 9. v. 26, 27. did withall abrogate and destroy the whole Jewish Policy and Lawes. And thus it is said, The Priesthood (namely of Aaron) being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law (namely of Moses) Heb. 7. 12.

As touching the Ceremonial and Ecclesiastical Law.

That (together with the Judicial Law) might be con­dered in a fourfold respect, as is evident from Scripture, viz. as

• 1. A Badge of distinction between the Jewes and all other Nations, Gen. 17. 13, 14.
• 2. A Ratified signe of Guilt, Col. 2. 14.
• 3. A Typical Adumbration of Christ and his Bene­fits, Heb. 9. 9, 10.
• 4. A Tutor and Schoolmaster to the Infant-Church, Gal. 4. 1, 2, 3. Now

The Christian Church is freed from the Ceremonial, (as from the Judicial) Law, in all these respects. For,

1. Christ hath broken down the middle-wall of partition between Jewes and Gentiles, &c. Eph. 2. 14, 15.

2. Christ hath abolished and taken out of the way the hand-writing of Ordinances, which was against us, &c. Col. 2. 14.

3. Christ, the Typified Body of Levitical shaddows and Adumbrations (Col. 2. 17.) is come.

4. When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, &c. to redeem them that were under the Law, (his Church) from a Mosaical Pedagogie and Elements. Gal. 4. 4, 5. Then

1. The Ceremonies are not things Indifferent in the Christian Church. They were abrogated by the Son of God, whose designe in coming in the flesh, was, to redeem [Page 55] his Church from that Legal Yoke; so that to obtrude them upon the Gospel-Church, were to frustrate Christians of one great End of the Incarnation; and to infringe their Christian Liberty. (O! How sad is it when men pursue Iniquities for Indifferencies!) Ergo, &c.

Do Cas. Cons. lib. 4. cap. 11. Cas. 3. Baldwin in his Cases of Conscience hath a passage which I cannot omit. Charles the fifth caused a wretched book called INTERIM, to be published, wherein yeild­ing to the Cross, Surplice, Holy-dayes, and other Cere­monies was enjoyned, conformity thereunto being much urged by some furious Zelots, who pleaded the Empe­rours Commandment in a thing Indifferent; the non-con­forming Protestants replyed, That the Question was not about a thing Indifferent, &c. The same Reply might we make to those that urge the Ceremonies as Indifferent things: How can those be said to be things Indifferent; which Christ hath abolished? From which he hath Redeem­ed his Church?

2. How impudent is the Church of Rome in burthening Christians, with a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were ever able to bear; namely, a heap of superfluous, yea ridiculous, yea impious and Antichristian Ceremonies? ButSunt pompae istae omnes & Ceremoniae Papisticae, ni­hil aliud quam furi meretricii, ad hoc excogitati, ut homines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur. Zanchy ad Regin. Elizab. Epistol. lib. 1. pag. 112. this is like her. Though they are a burthen to the better sort of Christians, yet they are a part of her Whorish paint, whereby she endeavours to allure Christians to partake of the cup of her Fornications.

3. The Ceremonies of the Jewish imposed upon the Christian Church were an Antichristian yoke. What in­solent Tyrannie is it then in the Romish Church, to ob­trude old Rotten Ceremonies, together with a monstrous heap of her own cursed hatching, upon Christians? (I pray God professed Protestants take not pattern by her) its sufficient proof that she is Antichristian, and that [Page 56] THE MYSTERIE OF INIQUITY is at2 Thess. 2. 7. work there. By reason of such execrable Tyrannie, the case of Christians (I speak it with much regret) is abun­dantly more sad, and their condition more servile then was that of the Jewes; O what pity is that! Observe,

1. The Ceremonies were imposed upon the Jewish, by God himself; They are imposed upon the Christian Church, by Men like our selves: There the Jews were the servants of God; Here Christians are made 1 Cor. 7. 23. the ser­vants of Men. Nay,

2. The Jewish was an Infant-Church, the Christian is a ripe and Adult-Church; The Jewish-Church was like an Heir under Age, and more servile; The Christian-Church is like an Heir come at Age, and a Redeemed Son, so that Ceremonies are more intollerable in the Christian Church. O how derogatory are they to the Ripe and Mature age of the Church? Num puerescit Ecclesia? Shall the Church alwayes be a childe? Away then with Pedagogical and childish Ceremonies. For my part, I think, that the Riper and more Mature the Church is, the more impertinent (to say no more) are Ceremonies; and therefore, the sixteen hundred yeers (the Age) of the Christian Church considered, the Ceremonies are infinite­ly more impertinent and slavish (I say no more) now, then they were in the time of her Infancy, yea, then they were in the fifth, yea, then they were in the tenth Century, (& sic deinceps) Ergo, &c. Further,

3. The Ceremonies were abolished by Him, of whom they were appointed, namely, by Christ, the Col. 1. 18. Head of the Church: In the Christian Church they are appointed to them, for whom they were abolished; namely, by some Members (rather The Pope is so far from being the Head, that I had rather call him a Monster in, then a Member of the Church. Monsters) of the Church.

But

4. What more horrid Sacriledge, then to rob Christi­ans of that Liberty and Freedome, which the Lord Christ hath procured and purchased for them with the meritoricus price of his dearest blood? Now such is their Exemption from the servile yoke of Rites and Ceremonies in the Worship of God under the Gospel Ergo, &c. Ah! Rome! Rome! The Lord rebuke thee.

Quamvis e­nim neque hoc inveniri possit, quomodo contra fidem sint; ip­sam tamen Re­ligionem, quam Dei miserecor­dia liberam es­se voluit, ser­vilibus oneri­bus premunt: ut tolerabilior sit conditio Ju­daeorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverunt, legalibus tamen sarcinis, non Humanis praesumptionibus subjiciuntur. Aug. ad Januar. de Ritibus Eccles. Epist. 119. cap. 19. Vid. Aug. ad Januar. de Variis Consuetud. Region. Epist. 118. cap. 2. S. Augustine complained grievously of Ceremonies wherewith the Church was burthened in his time; (O how much more may we complain of the same in our time!)

Although (saith he) they were not things contrary to the Analogie of Faith, yet Religion which God in mercy and pity (to his Church) would have to be free, is burthened thereby, as with a slavish yoke; insomuch that the servile condition of the Jewes was more tollerable (then that of Christians) because they were subject to LEGAL and Divine Impositions, not to HUMAN Presumptions.

Thus S. Augustine complained that in his dayes the Christian Church was more plagued and burthened with rotten Ceremonies, then was the Jewish Church in her time. I pray God We have not cause to complain, that the Church is burthened with a heavier yoke in our dayes, then she was in S. Augustines time; Where then were our Christian pre-eminence to the Jewes? Mens fiercely­zealous contentions for a numerous heap of Jewish-Popish Ceremonies and Innovations in the Worship of God, are sad, sad Prognosticks thereof. Give me leave to add, That the Retention and pursuance of such things in the Christian Church, would prove,

1. A Load and burthen to Religion; and then might it not justly be feared, that Religion it self would become [Page 58] burthensome? O let Men take heed, lest, by burthening Religion (as S. Augustine phraseth it) they make Religion become a burthen!

2. A Bar to the Jewes conversion. I much wonder, with what confidence we could Wooe or Court the Jew to our Religion, as long as we press or retain a Legal yoke of Ceremonies in the Worship of God, which in the re­spects aforesaid, is more intollerable, then was that, which neither the (later) Jews, nor their fathers were able to bear, we should urge them but with mean success, to cast off a Divine, and to submit their necks to a Human yoke; Sure the Jew might hope for Exemption from the hand­writing of Ordinances, and burthensome observance of Le­gal Types and Shaddows, by the Messiah, when come; But alas, their hopes would receive little life or strength from the Gospel-Church! Nay

Is not their Ʋnbelief and Incredulity touching the Messiah strengthened and confirmed from the retention of those very things in the Christian-Church, whereby he was typed and presigured? Is it not probable that this might prove an Obstruction to their conversion? For ought I know, had not adulterate Rome been in the way, JE­RUSALEM had borrowed as much from LON­DON (long ere now) as ROME hath from JERU­SALEM, in point of Divine Worship; What? And are Ceremonies still a Eph. 2. 14. middle wall of Partition between Jews and Gentiles?

3. A Hinderance and Impediment to the Churches gra­dual Excellencies, growth, and propagation. The Riper and more mature the Church is, she should be for Know­ledge more Eminent; for Doctrine more Powerful; for Discipline more Regular; for Worship more Pure; &c.

In conclusion.

Ceremonies may not be retained;

1. As a Wall of Partition between Jews and Gentiles. Nor 2. As a signe of sin-guiltiness. Nor 3. As Typical [Page 59] and Figurative. Nor 4. As Rudimental or Pedagogical.

(For that were to Judaize.)

Nor 5. As things Sacred and Holy. Nor 6. As matter of Worship. Nor 7. As matters of Necessity, and Obli­gatory to Conscience. Nor 8. As things of a Spiritual Ef­ficacy. Nor 9. As matters of Merit. Nor 10. As mat­ters of Perfection. Nor 11. As things of a Teaching Quality. (The Church of Rome is like to be well taught) but do they not in point of Ʋse, tend more to destruction then to instruction?) Well,

That were to Romanize.

Nor 12. When Scandal doth from thence accrue to ten­der Consciences. Nor 13. When they are abused to Idolatry or Superstition.

If these respects be excluded from the Ceremonies, a very little matter would make me (caeteris paribus) turn Proselyte. I am for Ornamenta, but not for Onera in the Church. They miserably err (in my minde) who inter­pret the Churches Burthen to be the Churches Beauty!

Thus I have dispatched the seventh step of Christian

Liberty.

8. The eighth (which is consequentially dependant thereon) is Exemption from all Bond of Conscience in re­spect of things Indifferent; these are things neither com­manded nor forbidden in the Eternal Law of God. This is in a more especial manner called Liberty of Conscience, and it hath a two-fold reference; namely,

• 1. To the Creatures of God.
• 2. To Humane Ordinances in things Indifferent.

1. As touching the Creatures.

Christians are freed from scrupulosity of Conscience, in respect of them, and from the Legal observance of the difference of meats, clean and unclean, made by the Ce­remonial Law, that being taken away under the Gospel: Hence said Christ, Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, Matth. 15. 11. And the Apostle Paul after [Page 60] him, I know, and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean (or common) * of it self, Rom. 14. [...]. 14. Now, Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with Thanksgiving, 1 Tim. 4. 4. Now, all things are lawful, 1 Cor. 6. 12. Now, unto the pure all things are pure, Tit. 1. 15. This Liberty is an E­vangelical Priviledge, whereby a true Christian may with a safe and free Conscience, use or forbear any of the Crea­tures of God appointed for his use.

2. As touching the Ordinances of Men in things In­different. Certain it is, that the Conscience of a Christian cannot be bound thereby, but is free from the Obligatory vertue of all Human Commandments. For my more distinct proceeding, I shall express my self in these following pro­positions, whereof some be gradual.

1. Vid. Ames. de Cons, lib. 1. cap. 2. Perk. Treat. of Cons. cap. 2. sect. 3. Alsted. Theol. Caf. cap. 2. He is said to binde the Conscience, who hath such a strict and Immediate Authority over it, as that Conscience ought to be subject thereunto; insomuch that what is con­trary to it, is sin. A binding Power, is an Ordering and (as it were) a Coactive Power. To urge and enforce Con­science ad assensum vel dissensum, to assent to a thing as law­ful, or that ought to be done, or to dissent from a thing as unlawful, or that ought not to be done, may be said to binde Conscience. Vid. Ames. de Cons. lib. 1. cap. 3. Item Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. § 5.

2. God alone can bind Conscience. And in this sense, He is said to be our only Law-giver, Jam. 4. 12. Imperial Authority and Jurisdiction over Conscience is peculiar to God alone. Hence saith Com. in 1 Pet. 5. 3. Neque enim cum huminibus sed cum uno Deo, negotium est Conscientiis nostris, Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 5. Erga animas & conscientias nostras, nemini quicquam juris nisi Deo. Tilen. Synt. part. 2. Disp. 32. Thef. 4. Liberi sumus ab omnibus humanis Ritibus, Quantum quidem ad Conscientiam attinet. Hemming. Enchyr. clas. 3. cap. 14. Ab omni traditionum huma­narum jugo, liberas habent conscientias (fideles) cum solius Dei sit, res ad Religionem pertinentes praescribere. Profess. Leidens. Synt. pur. Theol. Disp. 35. &c. Luther, Ʋnum Dominum habe­mus, qui animas nostras gubernat; We have but one Lord and Governour of our souls.

From hence it is evident, that the binding and obliging Power over the Conscience is peculiar to God, [...] But

3. The Lawes of God, wherein were determined those particulars which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Moral Law of God, are abrogated; Now those were the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws of Moses; the one de­termining Ecclesiastical, the other Civil matters, peculiar to the Jewish Church, and Commonwealth. From both which Christ (as hath been said) hath exempted the Christian Church. Now

4. The Laws of Men (whether Civil or Ecclesiastical (as such) are not properly Binding or Obligatory to Con­science. God is (as hath been said) the sole Lord of Con­science. As for Human Laws and Ordinances; neither is simple Obedience due unto them; neither doth a thing which in respect of the Law Moral is Indifferent, that is, neither commanded nor forbidden, by vertue of them be­come simply necessary. They are Declarative only, not Authoritative: that is, they declare what is fittest to be done in things which are Indifferent, and cannot be enfor­ced, either by the Law of God or Nature. There is in them a Directive Power, but not a Coactive Jurisdiction. They have only vim dirigendi & monendi saith Synt. part. 2. Disp. 27. Thes. 39. Vid. Marcum Antonium de Dom. de Repub. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 2. N. 12 Chem. exam. 2. de bon. Oper. p. 179. Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 6. Ames. de Cons. lib. 1. cap. 2. Tilenus.

And hence is that charge of the Apostle to the Corin­thians, Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of 1 Cor. 7. 23. men, (which we are not to understand of subjection to Magistrates, or of External servitude, but of the bondage of Conscience.) And that to the Colossians, Let no man Col. 2. 16. judge you (or usurp power over the Conscience) in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day. And hence is that sharp reproof, Why are ye subject to Ordinances, Touch not, Col. 2. 20, 21. Taste not, Handle not? that is, Why do ye observe Hu­man [Page 62] Traditions, as if the Conscience were bound by them? &c. Conc. Trid. [...]ss. 4. Cursed is the Tyrannie of the Romish Church, which imposeth her Heterodox Traditions upon Conscience, teaching that they are with like reverence to be embraced, a [...] the Written Word of God.

5. The Oligatory and Binding Power of Human Laws, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, is, Vis quaedam Divina, Divine Authority. This is Ratio Legis, the very Reason of the Law; without which the Law it self can never bind. There must be more of REASON then of WILL in all Human Ordinances; though WILL without enquiry after REASONS, is Obligatory in Divine Ordinances: Now the REASON of Man's Law, can be no other, then the WILL of God in his Law.

As touching Ecclesiastical Laws.

It is not the Authority of the Church, of Councils, or Convocations, but the Matter of the Canon, not Ratio Precipientis, but Ratio Praecepti, that bindes. In a word,

There must be in all Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitu­tions, 1. Conformity to the Word of God, that is the Rule. 2. They must Manifestam Ʋtilitatem prae se ferre (saith Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 32 Calvin) they must serve as to the Glory of God, so for the Publique Good; this must be the End. They must tend to the maintaining of Ʋnity, (as of Verity) these must not be separated) Order and Decency, to the pre­venting of Scandal, without Impositions upon Conscience, or the infringing of the purchased Liberty thereof: Else to Obey Ecclesiastical Canons, were not (believe it)Vid. Jun. Ani­madv. in Bel­larm. controv. 3. lib. 4. cap. 16. Item Thes. Theol. de lib. Christ. Thes. 11. Tilen. Synt. part. 2. disp. 27. Thes. 39. Item Thes. 9. Alsted. Theol. Cas. cap. 2. Hospin. de Orig. Fest. Christ. cap. 2. Bez. Conf. cap. 5. art 16. Paraeum, comment. in 1 Cor. 14. Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 32. Item Resp. ad lib. de Pii viri officio, pag. 413. Prof. Leid. Synt. pur. Theol. Disp. 35. Thes. 19. Jus Canon. decret. part. 1. dict. 61. c. 8. Perkins Treat. of Cons. cap. 2. sect. 8. &c. CANONICAL OBEDIENCE.

As touching Civil Laws.

We are bound in Conscience to observe the Magistrates Commandments. Though we are not bound in Conscience Quamvis ad Justas Leges humanas, justo modo observandas, obligentur homines in Conscientiis suis a Deo; ipse tamen Leges humanae, qua sunt Leges hominum, non obligant Conscientiam. Ames. de Cons. lib. 1. cap. 2. BY those Commandments, as such.

Obedience (Active or Passive) to the Magistrates com­mands is necessary; though not Necessitate consequentis, yet Necessitate consequentiae; that is, Though they are not Ob­ligatory to Conscience (Pros. Leid. Synt. pur. Theol. Disp. 35. Thes. 39. primo & per se) primarily, direct­ly. and by vertue of any Genuine binding power In them­selves, and as such; yet they are binding by vertue of 1. The Lawfulness of the matter commanded; and 2. God's Exod. 20. 12. Rom. 13. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. General Precept touching indispensable Obedience (Active or Passive) to the Magistrates Commandments. In which respect we must Rom. 13. 5. be subject even for Conscience sake. Thus, though this, viz. The lawful Commandments of the Magistrate are necessarily to be obeyed, is not true by the simple necessity of the Consequent, as an Axiome and Prin­ciple manifest of it self, or by a simply necessary Connexi­on between the Antecedent and Consequent, or Subject and Predicate, viz. The Lawful Commandments of the Magistrate, and Necessary Obedience. Yet, it is true by theIn Divinis ad Praecipientem, In Humanis ad Praeceptum respiciendum est. necessity of consequence, that is, such a necessity as may be soundly concluded from the Law of God, wherein Obedi­ence to the Lawful Commandments of Magistrates is Indi­spensably commanded; so that it is a Conclusion manifest by Discourse; and thus, upon these Premises, viz. 1. That all lawful Commandments of Magistrates are necessarily by vertue of God's Commandment to be obeyed. And 2. That this or that is a lawful Command of the Magistrate. It will follow Necessitate consequentiae, That This or that Com­mandment of the Magistrate, is necessarily to be obeyed. In a word,

There be two things which oblige us to obey the Ma­gistrates Commandments. 1. The one is, the Matter of the Human Precept, which must be Consonant, at least, not Repugnant to the Law of God. 2. The other is, The Authority of the Divine Precept, wherein (as hath been said) Indispensable Obedience to the Lawful Commandments of Magistrates is enjoyned.

From what hath been said, it is evident, That

Human Laws are Obligatory and Authentique, only by vertue of the Law of God; their binding Power being purely Mutuatitious. We are to obey the Magistrate, and all that are in Authority, so far forth, as that in obeying them we obey God; the Great Law-giver. Vid. Alsted. Theol. Cas. cap. 2. Prof. Leid. Synt. pur. Theol. Disp. 35. Thes. 19. But

Quaest. What if the Magistrate command things which Conscience will not suffer to conform unto?

Answ. 1. Subjection to Magistrates and Loyalty is an Indispen­sable duty; It is very observable, that none of the Apo­stles did more urge and enforce that Duty, then S. Paul did, though he was a Subject to the greatest Tyrant that ever lived, namely that Monster of Mankinde, Nero Caesar, who was the Author of the * First Persecution, and is calledNero ex Cae­saribus primus in Christianos distrinxit gla­dium. by Apolog. 5. Tertullian, Dedicator Damnationis Nostrae, the first that made a Law to condemn Christians to death.

2. There is (according to some of the Learned) a great difference between Subjection and Obedience; Sub­jection (saith Of the Church. lib. 4. cap. 34. D. Field) is generally and absolutely re­quired, where Obedience is not; as when Conscience suf­fers not a Man (Actively) to Obey, yet Duty leads him (by Passive Obedience) to submit and subject himself to Authority; and thus the [...], Rom. 13. 1. [...], 1 Pet. 2. 13. Greek word notes Submission or Subjection in Scripture; which is much to be observed, lest in stead of submitting, Men either (by Active Obe­dience) [Page 65] conform contrary to Conscience, or (which Piety abhors) rebel contrary to duty. Thus, had I been an In­feriourNote, It is one thing to obey Nero the Ma­gistrate, ano­ther to obey Nero's Com­mandment. Magistrate under Nero, and by him commanded to execute that cursed Edict of his, touching the con­demning of Christians to death, I would not have (Active­ly) obeyed him, neither would I have rebelled: What then? Why, I would have offered him my Neck (through passive strength from the Almighty) not my hand. The same may be said in respect of the contraverted Ceremo­nies, when imposed by Authority; though I cannot con­form to them, yet (through the Grace of God) I shall never rebel; but according to Scripture injunction, I will submit to the Higher Power, whether it be to the KING1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. as Supream, or unto Governours, as unto them that are sent by Him. Let men know then, that there is a Medi­um between Active Obedience and Rebellion, viz. SUB­MISSION. The Lord forgive them that interpret Non-Conformity to the Mitre, to be no less, then Disloy­alty to the Crown; The latter (I thank God) I am taught of him to abhor. Again,

3. I like well that distinction of Parker of the Cross, cap. 5. sect. 14, 15. Non Obedire, and Nolle Obedire; the one is no more then not to conform by Active Obedience. The other is, Obstinate Disobedi­ence and Contempt, which is ever to be avoided.

But

Quest. How are Magistratical Injunctions in things In­different, and Indispensable Obedience thereunto, consi­stent with Liberty of Conscience?

Answer.

6. Liberty and Limitations are not inconsistent. A Spiritual and Internal Liberty may very well consist with Extrinsecal Limitations. That we may the better apprehend this, let us consider, That

There is a two-fold Restraint; namely,

• 1. One upon the Conscience and Inner Man.
• 2. Another upon the Person, and Outward Man.

Now,

There may be a Restraint upon the Person, when (yet) there is no Constraint upon the Conscience of a Man; and therefore we must distinguish between 1. The Right and Truth of Liberty, and 2. The Ʋse and Exercise of Liber­ty. Libertas Conscientiae, and Ligatio Conscientiae (con­sidered [...], &c.) are inconsistent; Liberty of Conscience is opposed only to bond of Conscience, not to an Extrinsecal Restraint of the Outward Man, in respect of the Exercise of our Liberty. Undoubtedly there may be a Restriction upon the Practice, or upon the Per­son, as to the Ʋse of his Liberty; and yet 1. Nothing derogatory to the Indifferency of the thing in it self. Nor 2. Any violence offered to the Internal and Real Liberty of Conscience; even as the Actus Imperati may be hin­dered or restrained, without any violence offered to the Actus Eliciti of the Soul. And thus, who doth doubt but that the King (our Dear and Dread Soveraigne) may on a Civil account, for the publick good of his Kingdoms, en­joyn his Subjects abstinence from such and such Meats, &c. Now, here were a Restraint upon Persons, in respect of the Ʋse and Exercise of their Liberty; and yet no vio­lence offered (upon the Kings part) to the Internal Li­berty of Conscience; for though the Outward Man is re­strained by the Civil Sword, yet the Inner Man, and Con­science is left free; that is, My Conscience is not bound by the Magistrates Commandment, though I be bound in Con­science by vertue of the Law of God, to yeild Obedience to that Commandment, the matter thereof being a thing Indifferent, and (therefore) lawful. Though I be tyed up by the Command as to practice, yet my Conscience is still free, while I am perswaded in Conscience that the thing is in it self Indifferent: Why may not I give my neck to my King, and yet keep my Conscience for my God? Why may not I yeild my Outward Man to the Civil Sce­pter of the King, Qui (vel) Nolentibus praeest, saith Jerome, [Page 67] and yet resigne my Inner Man to the Divine Scepter of my God, to whom appertains Interior Animae Gubernatio, as Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 5. Calvin words it?

The same may be said in respect of Cloathing. Doubt­less the King may for the good of his Subjects, on some emergent occasions, confine them to one kinde of Cloath, one kinde of Colour, one kinde of Habit, while neither Conscience is imposed upon, nor a Religious account ur­ged; for the Restraint would in such a case be; not upon the Conscience, while it is still perswaded of the Indiffe­rency of the thing in it self, and that it is not urged on a Religious, but a Civil account, and for the Weal-Publique; but only upon Persons in respect of the Indifferent Exercise of their Liberty.

Once more,

What reason is there to doubt but that the King may for the Publique Good of his Kingdoms, tye his Subjects to eat Swines flesh for some weeks, once a year? Yea, (and as the occasion shall vary) at other times to abstain from Swines flesh for some weeks? Now, here were a Restraint upon the Person in respect of the Exercise of his Liberty, and yet none upon the Conscience in respect of the Reality of his Liberty, while he is perswaded in Conscience, that the thing is Indifferent in it self, and in respect of the Law of God, though now it ceaseth to be Indifferent in its Ʋse, by reason of the Law of Man, viz. the Magistrate, whose Commandments in things Indifferent we are bound in Conscience to observe.

All which, that we may the better understand, let us consider, That

1. Christian Liberty in respect of things Indifferent, consists, in usu vel abstinentia, (saith Synt. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 33. Polanus); tam in abstinendo, quam in utendo (saith Instit. lib. 3. cap. 19. sect. 10. Calvin); in use or absti­nence, indifferently. Now

2. Here is Liberty, namely, That I may with a Con­science free from all Divine Obligation to the contrary, [Page 68] observe Human Constitutions made, pro re nata, upon va­rious (yea contrary) occasions emergent, for the Publique Good, that is, the good of that City, Kingdom or Body-Poli­tick, whereof I am a Member. For instance, Possibly it is ne­cessary at one time, for the Publique good, that rhere be an Ʋniversal Ʋse of Swines flesh (it may be to save other Beasts, or because of excessive plenty) Now, by vertue of my Christian Liberty, I may with a free Conscience, ob­serve a Statute made by the Magistrate, for the Univer­sal Ʋse of Swines flesh: A Jewish Magistrate might make no such Law. Again, possibly it is as necessary at another time that there be an Ʋniversal Abstinence from Swines flesh, (it may be for Healths sake, or scarcity, &c.) Now by vertue of my Christian Liberty, I may with a free Con­science observe a Statute made by the Magistrate, (upon a quite contrary occasion viz.) for an Ʋniversal Abstinence from Swines flesh, &c. Whither we use or abstain, the Conscience is never the less free; yea, therefore because we are free; libera Conscientia (utimur vel) abstinemus, we use or forbear with a free Conscience. Vid. Calvin. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 19. Sect. 10.

Nay,

By vertue of my Liberty, I may abridge my self of Li­berty. By vertue of the undoubted Reality of it, I may limit my self as to the Indifferent use of it.

Here is Liberty, that I may freely impose a Necessity upon my Liberty, Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 32. quatenus [...], aut Charitatis ratio exigit.

Here is Liberty, namely, That (notwithstanding the Indifferency of things in themselves, yet) I may freely tye my self to, or from such and such meats or such and such Cloaths, in respect of Decency or Charity, or warrantable Congruity and Pleasingness to my own minde, &c.

Finally,

They are much mistaken, who think that the Magi­strates Imposition in a thing Indifferent, takes away, or in­fringeth [Page 69] Liberty of Conscience; for who knows not that This is a thing Indifferent, namely, to begin Sabbathical Duties at four or six a clock in the morning? I prove it, (Though, the Observance of the Christian Sabbath be of Indispensable Necessity, (I am no Anti-Sabbatarian, yet) to begin the Sabbath then, is neither Forbidden nor Com­manded; to begin it then, or sooner, or somwhat later, is not repugnant to the Word, Ergo, &c. Now, May not the Magistrate tye me (yea, and all his other Subjects) to six or four a Clock in the morning for the beginning of the Sabbath? Yes, That he may; and yet say, if in so doing, he doth infringe Christian Liberty. No Imposition is repugnant to Liberty of Conscience, but Imposition up­on Conscience. What I have said doth not at all counte­nance Ceremonies, since (as is evident from what hath been said above) they are justly denyed to be Matters of Indifferency, (about which Liberty of Conscience is most properly Conversant.) I would they would decide the Controversie, by their, unheard of, Achillean proofs. Parturiunt montes &c.

Thus I have endeavoured to shew (which is a difficult theame to such a raw head) how the Magistrates Imposi­tions in things Indifferent; & Necessary Obedience thereun­to are consistent with Liberty of Conscience.

The Boundaries or Rules of Liberty of Conscience follow, which may be said to be five. Viz.

1. Piety; This is Loyalty to God, specified, 1 Cor. 10. 31. Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatso­ever See Rom. 14. 7, 8 Etiam illaeacti­ones quae sunt sua natura Adt­aphorae debent tamen a Christianis fieri in nomine Christi, hoc est juxta voluntatem Christi, & ad gloriam Christi. D. Davenant in locum. ye doe, doe all to the Glory of God. The End of our Li­berty is Gods GLORY; this should be the Scope of all our Actions, even of Indifferent ones. Our Own Good is subordinate not co-ordinate to That.

2. Loyalty. This is injoyned Subjection to the Magi­strate, who is (as it were) Gods Vice-Roy here on earth in respect of the Civil Sword entrusted by the King of See Rom. 13. 1, 2. Kings to him; Submit your selves (saith Peter) to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supreame, &c. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14.—as free, &c. v. 16. Observe, As free, there is Liberty; but yet sub­mit AS free; there is a Limitation. Then ours is a Limi­ted Liberty.

3. Charity. By this we are restrained from the use of any thing from whence scandall and just offence might ac­crue to weak Brethren. Take heed (saith our Apostle) lest by any meanes this Liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Cor. 8. 9. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink Wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak. Rom. 14. 21. Hence said S. Paul, If meat make my Brother to offend (or stumble) I will eat no flesh while the World stands. 1 Cor. 8. 13. Cum charitas semper sit colenda, scandala semper sunt vi­tanda, said Synt. part. 2 disp. 27. Thess. 31. Tilenus. Since Charity is ever to be enter­tained, Scandal is ever to be avoyded. By vertue of this Law of Charity we are tyed not only from the use of what might prove Scandalous and Offensive to weak Brethren, but also to the use and pursuance of such things as are Vid. Par. in 1 Cor. 10. 23. Vid. Calvin Instit. lib. 3. cap. 19. sect. 12. Expedient and Edisicatory. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie another. Rom. 14. 19. &c.

Quest. Is there not sometimes a repugnancy between the Law of Charity and the Law of Loyalty: as when the Magistrate commands That, which if we should observe, we should offend and scandalize the weak? Let us suppose, the Magistrate to enjoyne a Common-Prayer to be read; If I should read it, I should scandalize weak Christians; if I should not read it, I should seem to dis­obey the Magistrate; what shall I doe in such a case? I must not scandalize him for whom Christ dyed; I but nei­ther must I disobey the Magistrate.

Answ. Doctrine of Christian Li­berty. Dr. Downame, presents us with This, as an ex­pedient in this case of seeming Antinomy; namely, That if we answer or obey the Superiour Law, viz. that concer­ning the Magistrate, the Inferiour, viz. that concerning the weak Brethren (which giveth place to the other) is not broken or disobeyed, &c. And I must confesse there is much in it, and I can but commend the D^rs Invention; but yet under favour,

2. There had been more in it, if this had been suppo­sed, namely, That not only the Magistrates Command but also his Conscience comes in competition with the weak Brothers Conscience; that is, If the Magistrate himself had been supposed to be of a tender Conscience. For then, we should seem by gratifying others, not only to disobey the Magistrate, but also to offend and scandalize his ten­der Conscience. However,

3. Since I am so weak as not to pick satisfaction here, I should betake my self to Passive Obedience: I dare not conforme by Active Obedience, for then I should with my Rom. 14. 15. meat destroy him for whom Christ dyed. I dare not out of a respect to the Consciences of Inferiour Christians oppose or contemne Authority; God forbid. Rebellion and Re­ligion my principles could never yet reconcile; and I have ever thought, that it is not only sinne, but even a mi­sery Quod ad scan­dalum atimet. Vid. Magde­burg. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 441. Aug. Epist. 36. ad Casul. Zanch. de Imag. Pag. 390. Chemnit. exam. part. 1. pag. 179. Par. in Rom. 14. dub. 1. Calv. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 19. sect. 11, 12, 13. &c. to labour with Anti-Magistraticall Principles. Therefore I would chuse that which I am perswaded in Conscience, to be the pars tutior, the safer way; namely, to Submit: this is Passive Obedience; whereby I shall hope to eshun both the one and the other evill.

4. Purity. This is another Rule and Boundary of Li­berty of Conscience, which is mentioned Rom. 14. 14. I am perswaded that there is nothing uncleane [...]. of it self, there is Liberty; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be uncleane, to him it is uncleane; there is a Limitation. He [Page 72] that doubteth is damned if he eateth, because he eateth not of faith, for what is not of faith is sinne. Rom. 14. 23. ThatIn this case the Magistrate may Command lawfully, and (yet) the Sub­ject obey sin fully. is, if a man be not fully perswaded of the Lawfullness of what he doth, he sins: Hence saith the Apostle, Let eve­ry man be fully perswaded in his own mind; Rom. 14. 5. This is that Plerophory of Conscience without which a thing is Ʋnclean and Ʋnlawfull to us, though it be Lawfull in its own Nature. Hence saith In Rom. 14. 7, 8. Vid. Calv. in v. 14. Calvin, Nefas omnino est quipptam aggredi quod putes (Domino) displicere, imo quod non persuasus fis illi placere; It is unlawfull for thee to attempt any thing which thou thinkest may displease God, yea, which thou dost not perswade thy self to be a thing that will please God. Thus, If a thing should be en­joyn'd whereof (though) I could question neither the Com­position nor the Imposition; (yet) if I should use or attempt it against or with a Reluctancy of, Conscience I should sin; For Vid. Calv. in Rom. 14. 5. Alsted. Theol. Cas. cap. 2. Quicquid fit repugnante Conscientia peccatum est, whatever is done contrary to the Voyce, Dictates and Testimony of Conscience, that Bosome-Guide, is a sin: yea, The Vid. Hem­ming. Enchyr. Class. 2. cap. 7. Aquin. 1. 2. Quest. 19. Art. 5. Tanner. Je­suit. to 2 in 12. disp. 2. q. 4. dub. 2. n. 21. Baldwin. de Cons. Cas. lib. 1. cap. 7. Ames. de Cons. lib. 1. cap. 4. &c. Learned tell us that in things Indifferent (at least), even an Erroneous Conscience ligat, though non obligat. It binds, by a Negative tye; that is, though we are not obliged to do what it prescribeth, yet we are bound not to do what it con­demneth or forbiddeth. The reason whereof must be, the Representation of the Will of God therein; for an Errone­ous Conscience judgeth it self to act by Rule.

5. Sobriety. This is another Boundary of Liberty of Conscience. Brethren (saith the Apostle) ye are called to liberty, only use not your liberty as an occasion to the flesh. Gal. 5. 13. That were to passe the bounds of Sobriety, Temperance, Humility, Frugality, Modesty, &c. That were not a holy Liberty but a sinfull Licentiousnesse. That were not the Ʋse but the Abuse of our Liberty. These are the Bounds of our Liberty of Conscience.

And thus I have dispatched the last step of Christian Liberty; and the first Capitall Priviledge, viz. Redemp­tion. O how doth it concerne us, to contend for what Christ hath procured! Periculosum est in divinis rebus ut quis cedat jure suo, said Cyprian, de Haeret. baptiz. vid. Par. Comment. in 1 Cor. 7. 23. Tilen. Synt. part 2. disp. 44. Thes. 33.

The other great Evangelicall Priviledge is, Adoption.

One great designe of the Son of God, in assuming to himself our Nature, was; That we might [...]. receive the Adoption of Sons. Here is noted the filial state of the Church; not, but that all the Saints in the Jewish Church, were Sons, but because the condition of the Jewish Church considered as a Collective Body, was by reason of the Le­gall Non dixit Apo­stolus, accipia­mus, sed, reci­piamus, ut sig­nificaret hoc nos amisisse in Adam ex quo mortales sumus. Aug. in loc. YOKE of Rites and Ceremonies more servile then that of the Christian Church.

Adoption is that Evangelicall Priviledge, wherein the Naturall Sons of sinfull Men, become the Adoptive Sons of the Living God. It is peculiar to Beleevers, the Lords Redeemed ones. Christ is the Son of God by Naturall, Eternall, and Ineffable Generation, Angels are Sons of God by Creation; but Men (viz. Believers) are Sons of God by Adoption. There be two great and admirable truths in the Text.

• 1. Here, The Son of God became the Son of Man. God sent forth his Son made of a Woman.
• 2. Here, The Sons of Men became the Sons of God. That we might receive the Adoption of Sons.

[...]. Chrys. in Joh. cap 1. The Son of God became the Son of Man, that the Sons of Men might become the Sons of God.

O what Comfort is this to Redeemed Ones! what? that Slaves should become Sons! that such as are by Na­ture the children of wrath, should through Grace, becomeEph. 2. 3. the Children of the Most High God! &c.

This Theame doth well deserve another Treatise; but I must conclude.

Ʋse 4. Here is a Motive to Thankfullnesse.

Here is the most quickening Motive to Gratitude, Praise, and Thanksgiving, that Heaven can afford to Man­kind: What? That the Son of God should be made of a woman, for the Redemption, Adoption, Salvation of Sinners! Angels payed a Tribute of Praise for this Contrivance; Glory to God in the highest, said they. Surely Men are muchLuk. 2. 14. more concerned, since God took not upon him the Nature of Angells but the Seed of Abraham. O Let Men hence­forthHeb. 2. 16. become Tributaries to the most High God! blesse God Christians, write a Law of thankfullness upon your hearts, and Copy it out in your Lives. Blesse God Cap­tives, here is a Redeemer! Blesse God Sinners, here is a Saviour! One of your own flesh and blood! O let us be­gin our eternall work, where I end. I dare say, this is a Theame, which ten thousand times ten thousand and thou­sands Rev. 5. 11. of thousands, even the whole Host of Heaven will with praises Celebrate and Comment upon to all Eternity.

[...].