CHAP. 1.

RELIGION is the supream act of the Ra­tional Creature, springing from the natural and necessary Relation it beareth to the Cre­atour of all things, God Almighty. Or, a due Recognition of the Cause of all Causes; and Retribution of service and worship made to the same, as the fountain of all Goodness de­rived to inferiour Creatures. For there be­ing a most excellent order, or rather subor­dination of Causes in the Universe; there is a necessary and constant dependance one up­on another; not by choice, but natural inclination: And the Perfection of all Creatures doth consist in observing that station, and serving those ends, and acting according to those Laws imposed by God on all things. Thus the Heavenly Bodies moving in a perpetual and regular order, andPsal. 148. the Earth being fruitful in its seasons, and the course of the Waters ob­serving the Laws given them by God, may be said to worship and obey [Page 2] him. Which worship being performed according to that more perfect state of the Rational Creature, and the prescriptions given to it, may be called Religion. And nothing can be more fundamentally Just then for the Creature to refund, according to its ability and rank, the Fruits [...]. Philo Ju­daeus Alle­goriarum lib. 2. Papin. L. Si­quis. [...]f. De Re­ligios. of those perfections received from the Cause of all Causes; especially, considering that such retribution is rather an augmentation then diminu­tion of such Perfections in the Creature. For not onely are all things thus freely derived from God to the Creatures, but by a perpetual act of Providence, called Conservation, continued to them; together with a most various and bountiful supply of all things requisite thereunto: to which no Creature could lay any claim, either to have, or to hold. And therefore most just, equal, reasonable, and honourable it is, for it to make such a Re-exhibition to God, as is called Religion. Therefore that famous Heathen Lawyer said well, Summa ratio est quae pro Religione facit. The highest Reason of all, is that which makes for Religion. And Tullie in a certain place defines Religion thus briefly, and aptly, Religio est Justi­tia erga deos, Religion is Justice towards the gods. And Macrobius makes Pietie and Religion, two of the seven parts into which he divides Ju­stice.

These not onely truly Christian, but natural grounds of sober MenMacrob. Sa [...]. c. 7. P. 37. may suffice to put to silence the brutish Philosophie of some of late, who acknowledge no other grounds of Dominion, either Divine or Hu­mane, or of Obedience thereunto, but Power, and Force enabling to ex­act and extort the same; not considering that Protection on the part of the Governing, and Profit and Benefit on the part Governed, do create a debt of veneration and service. And therefore by the same reason should Justice have no place in the Ruler; but onely his Power and Pleasure, to incline him to govern well: as it should have no place in the Governed, to obey well.

And not only from the special benefits derived from God, should Man return the mite of his recompence, or recognition by Religion; but also from a subordination of Creatures serving him, should he be moved to pay the like to God. The Psalmist tells us that God hath put all things Psal. 8. 6, 7, 8. under Mans feet: All Sheep and Oxen, yea and all the beasts of the Field. The Fowls of the Air, and the Fish of the Sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the Seas. From this example therefore, Subjection and subserviency of all inferiour Creatures to Man, by the appointment of God, doth appear the reasonableness of Mans subjection unto God. Nei­ther was this (though forfeited by Man upon his first disobedience a­gainst God) so lost unto him, but it was confirmed unto him after the Flood in these words, And the fear of you; and the dread of you, shall be up­on Gen. 9. 2. every beast of the Earth, and upon every Fowl of the Air, and upon all that Quod non metu­itur, contemni­tur: quod con­temnitur utique non colitur. Ita fit, ut Religio, & Majestas, & honor metu constet, &c. Lactant. de Ira- Dei c. 8. Psal. 111. 10. Prov. 1. 17. moveth upon the Earth, and the Fishes of the Sea; into your hand are they delivered. This Fear therefore and dread of a Divine Majesty, is that which God hath in like manner laid upon Man, as the ground and cause of all religious worship of him: Man being infinitely more inferiour and subject, by nature, to God, then the Beasts are to him. For as Lactantius hath it, That which is not feared is contemned, that which is contemned can­not be worshiped: and so it comes to pass, that Religion and Majesty, and Honour consists of Fear. Which the Scripture assures us of also; where it saith, by David and Solomon both, The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdome.

[Page 3]And notwithstanding all Creatures do exhibit obedience unto Almighty God, yet none may properly be said to be Religions, but Man. For Re­ligion must be a service, and a tendency to Perfection, and union with God; but the Blessed Spirits of Men and Angels are out of their Appren­tiship, and imperfect state, and consummated in that fruition, and reward, and union with God, which they are capable of. And the Apostate Spi­rits, though they give obedience to God, cannot be said to be Religious, because their wills are constantly, and utterly rebellious; and all is invo­luntary and forced: but Religion must be free, and voluntary, as is inti­matedPsalm 110. by the Psalmist. Again, Irrational Creatures or Beasts cannot be said to be Religious properly, though they may be said to be Obedient: For Obedience may consist, as with necessity in Devils, so with ignorance and necessity both, as in Beasts: But Religion must be rational; as St. Paul implieth in these words, I beseech you brethren, by the mercies of God, Rom. 12. 1. that ye present your bodies a living Sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Whatsoever worship the Creatures give unto God is principally performed by their Head, Man: Man being, as the first born, and eldest Son to God, in comparison of them. So that as it was a natural Law, that the eldest of the Family and most worthy should be as a Priest to the rest, to offer Sacrifice unto God for all the rest; as Cain and Abel are interpreted to bring their offerings to Adam to present them to God: so do the Beasts bringing their several tributes to Man, through him offer their bounden service unto God.

CHAP. II.

ALL Religion supposeth a Deity; as all Arts and Sciences suppose their foundation upon which they are built, and not prove it. Yet notwithstanding for the more effectual know­ledg and perswasion hereof, and for the due exercise of that natural notion of a God, which many times is very weak, for want of use (as men sometimes loose the use of their bodily Limbs for want of due exercise of them) we shall briefly recount (for methods sake) some of those many demonstrations of a Divine supream Being, which is God: and that by these gradations.

First, That there are purer and superiour Beings to Man, though not, obvious to any of the five gross senses of man, may be gathered from the effects supernatural to all corporeal Creatures, and ordinarily visible. Such are the suddain and rapid translations of Bodies from one place to another. Such are likewise, voices heard without any notice given to the eye of persons present: Such are Apparitions made to diverse in all ages of Spirits, to persons, in the likeness of Bodies indeed, but decla­ring [Page 4] by their manner of entrance, their manner of motions and actions, their manner of departure and disappearing, that such forms are only as­sumed, to render their presence more obvious to us. Such are lastly the many Predictions and Revelations of closest and deepest secrets of men, not possible to be known but by a preternatural subtilty: All which are so frequently reported in Histories of all sorts, Divine and Humane, that who ever will call in question must be judged purposely to have taken on him such incredulity, that he might deny this thing; seeing there are in­finite other things, which upon no greater evidence, he firmly believeth. And what greater absurdity need a man be forced to than this singularity of judging in this cause? For can they who resolve to doubt of this mat­ter, alledge any sense or demonstration contrary to this? If they can, Why have they kept it from the World all this while? If they cannot, Why should they not yield to better grounds for it, than they have any against it, Viz. the concurrent testimony of so many and sober persons affirming the same, from their experience?

But if this be admitted, then, by due gradations may we easily ascend unto the most supream Being of all, which is God. No man being able to determine any point which may not be exceeded, until we come to infinity it self. And this present visible World being but a draught of that super­ [...], God was pleased to ordain Man to bear his Image in a Supremacy over all earthly Creatures; that from hence we may learn, that as one Creature serves another, and all, Man; so Man is subordinate to Spirits, and created Spirits to God, as their onely absolute Lord. And therefore in Scripture it is said of them, They are all Ministring Spirits (i. e. underHebr. 1. 9. Hebr. 12. 9. God) to them that believe: And that he is the Father of Spirits. Which necessary and harmonious dependence of all things on One, is so conso­nant to the common reason of Man, that the contrary, introducing a Dei­ty or independence, doth withal bring in a manifest Anarchy, and confusion in the Universe, repugnant as well to nature as reason.

Furthermore, the several Arts and Sciences minister several proofs of this, as might be shewn in particular; would it not be too long, and were it not to be found performed by divers already. That taken from the course of Nature may here suffice. Nature it self, and common ob­servation tell us, that there is diversity in Cause and Effect, and that there is Generation and Corruption; and that nothing in the World can pro­duce it self: And (for instance) he that lived many thousand years ago, could no more make himself, then he that lived but yesterday, or was born this morning. So that either Man, and if Man other creatures also (for there is the same reason) made himself, or was from eternity, or was made by another. The first is disproved. The second is false. First, because nothing hath been esteemed more absurd in reason than for to arise to an Infinity of Causes, one above another. Secondly, then certainly would, the same man, yea all men be eternal consequently, as well as ante­cedently; but the contrary to this, we daily see, and therefore may con­clude the contrary to the other.

Thirdly, The very nature of Creatures constituted of divers and con­trary natures, which are opposite and avers to all union, as Fire and Wa­ter, Wet and Dry, Heat and Cold, cannot move of themselves to that which is contrary to them; but every thing naturally covers to be of it self, and in it self; Fire making towards Fire, and Water to Water, and Earth to Earth; so that there must be a superiour power, as well to bring [Page 5] them, and joyn them together in one, as to contain, and continue them there. Which must be the first Cause, and that first Cause is God.

Fourthly, That common ground of all Societies, humane Justice, which is an immoveable and indelible principle in the mind of Man, approved of by all, doth evince this. For Justice supposes and infers a Deity. For all Justice doth suppose a Rule, according to which it is said to be just, and a Law: to contradict and oppose which, is to be unjust and injurious. For otherwise, it would be at the pleasure and arbitrement of every man, to make a Rule to himself, and for another; according to which all that pleased should be reputed just: But this would be one of the most absurd, ridiculous, and unjust things in the world. Therefore must there of ne­cessity be a common Rule of Right and Just: which can proceed from none but the Author of all Beings, and humane Society it self: without which,Meo judici [...] Pietas est sum­damentum om­nium virtutum. Cicero pro Plancio. it would be as reasonable, if it were profitable and safe, for any man to murder his Prince, or his Father, as to kill a Nitt, or Flea, that troubled him. For the Civil Sanction of Laws to the contrary, doth not make the foresaid impieties, sins; neither are they simply evil, because they are forbidden thereby: But they are forbidden by Man, and fenced by hu­mane Laws, because they are evil: and evil they were absolutely, because God had so decreed them. And as the Laws of all Soveraigns receive their Original vigour from God, so were it not that Gods Law fortified, confirmed, and secured Kings, they, and their Laws both would be no better then trifles, impertinencies, and impostures; which every wise man might shake off, and confound, when ever it lay in his power. For where obedience and subjection is due, it is for some reason, which reason is form'd into a Law. But no man can make a Law whereby he, of no King, should become a King: for before he can make any Law, he must be a King or Supream: And therefore this reason or Law must be Antecedent; and being so, must have an Author: And who can that be but God, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords?

Fifthly, Add hereunto that argument which is commonly taken from the common consent and agreement of all Men, esteemed most rational; all People, all Nations, concurring hereunto. Which must needs be the effect of a Divine power, and influence, so inclining mens minds, so that, one saith, It is so apparent that there is a God, that I can scarce think him to Cicero. be in his right mind, who denies it. And when we speak of Nature, and a Law of Nature, we would not be so understood, as some would needs take them, to help them out here; for such a necessary and inevitable principle, and impulse as none should be able to dissent from; for there is no such Law to be found, but so natural we make it to all indifferently and equally disposed, that the thing once fairly and duly propounded, shall not find contradiction without violence offered, at first, to the mind of man, bent to such a truth.

Sixthly, It is no weak argument of an over-ruling and supream Power, which may be taken from the contrary attempts, the vanity and infelicity of them. For it was just now granted, that great Wits (as they would be called) may, nay have disowned this truth. But first, consider we the silliness of their reasons, and weakness of their arguments against a Deity, who will yield to nothing but manifest, palpable, and invincible demonstrations for it; and it will be sufficient to confirm any sober mind in the faith of it. For how many hath Pride, to be thought some body ex­traordinary in maintaining Paradoxes; Singularity, to find out somwhat [Page 6] new (as Lactantius observed of those Philosophers that were reputed A­theists) [...]. Chrysoft. In Hebraeos Ser. 4. that took upon them such opinions, because they could find out nothing else to make themselves talkt on and famous: How many hath boldness and impudency, vain-glory and to appear free and illimited in their opinions and practices? How many hath Riot, Lust, and such like excesses converted to this kind of infidelity, more then Sobriety or Phi­losophie? It is, alas, no wit, no choice, no freedom, or generousness of mind at all: If (as Chrysostome hath said) the nobleness of the mind con­sisteth in believing the high and noble things) but a contracted stupidity, or sordid servility, and unavoidable necessity to enjoy themselves in their low and base courses, which constrain them to these perswasions unnatural to them. But I deny not but some of the Learned, and for ought we know, grave Philosophers, have inclined to Atheisin, as have many Great, Rich, and Powerful. But first, however some Princes have been dogmatical within themselves, and Practical Atheists in their unjust dealings towards others, yet never dared they to commend or incourage such principles in their Subjects, nor discover professedly such to their Neighbours by reason of the visible and monstrous mischiefs presently and naturally rushing out of them, to the ruin of themselves and others. And can that be a truth which is so pernicious to the Authors, and promoters of it, all over the World? Again, Can there be any thing more required to prove a thing to be irrational, and absurd, then that it should never by all countenance and advantages given to it by Power, and Learning, be able to prosper into any one Society upon earth? That it should never prevail so far as to be generally and publickly owned in any one Land or Nation? But, like a flash of wild-fire, make a noise, and a show, and presently come to nothing. Never could Atheists yet, from the Creation to this present, unite into a Body, or become a Commonwealth; but against all endeavours and devices, when Religion has for a time been discountenanced and crushed by impious Agents, it hath recovered it self again in despite of its adversaries. Which shews that it is implanted in Man, as a natural principle, which may be oppressed, but never extinguished.

For whereas Socinus and his crew of late, would prove that Religion is not natural to Man, from some remote Indians, who, he says, acknow­ledg no God. It is hard for any to make that good: But were it so: It doth not overthrow our opinion here, which teaches chiefly such a natu­ralness, as upon presentation of the thing to the mind of man, outwardly; doth meet with such compliance inwardly, as may well be called Natural. And besides, a principal doubt was, whether infinite People directly and positively asserting, and believing a Deity, any one can be found which dogmatically oppose the same? None of Socinus his instances reach to this. And it is not so improbable but inhumanity it self may have prevailed o­ver some people so far as to have buried all Civility in them. And what wonder is it, or what weakning to our Cause in hand, that they, who have ceased to be men, should have layd aside Religion? I do not think Divi­nity, or the belief of a God more inseparable from Man, then common hu­manity: and yet I may hold it natural too.

CAHP. III.

NOthing is so intimate and necessary to the very Being of a thing, as the Unity of it; as say Philosophers. Of the Unity of the Deity, therefore as necessary to Faith, we shall here briefly speak. Where first it is to be noted, to the advan­tage of the Faith holding there can be but one God, that though many great Wits have attempted boldly to deny a God; yet none of them, who have granted a Deity, have ever so much as denyed the reasonableness of that Opinion, which asserts the Unity of such a Deity: All generally looking on it as an Excellency to the Divine Nature, to be but One: However it is written of some ancient Hereticks, what is scarce to be found amongst the wiser sort of ancient Natural Philosophers, that there was a God of Evil, as well as of Good; conceiving indeed so far a­right, that the most Perfect absolute good, cannot produce directly what is evil; but erring herein, that they either thought that to be evil which was not so in it self; as evil Beasts, poysonous Plants, excessive Tempests, and the like; or supposing that what was really evil must have some posi­tive and direct Agent to produce it; which upon due examination will be found contrary to reason.

And surely, though the first thing, and most obvious to common ap­prehensions is, that there is a God, absolutely; yet this being granted and supposed, it is much more easie to convince an adversary, who shall call in question the Unity of God, that he is but one, then that he is, sim­ply: So immediately and necessarily does it follow from the very subject it self. For what does the very notion of God imply and include in it,Deum cum au­dis, substanti­am intellige, si­ne initio, sine fine; simplicem, sine u [...]la admi­stione, invisi­bilem incorpo­ream, ineffabi­lem, inest [...]a­bilem, in quo nihil [...]adjan­ctum, nihil cre­ntum sit, sine autore. Ruffi­nus in symbo­lum. but a thing most absolute, most perfect, most glorious, most entire, and whatsoever, and more then what ever the mind of Man can comprehend of excellency? But if there be more then one God, and these distinct and separate in nature, or space, then is there in one, what is not in the other; and the one is what the other is not, for else they were not divers, or many, but one, which is argued against by Doubters: And if the properties or perfections of one be not communicated to the other, but remain peculiar to each, nothing can be more certain and apparent than that all perfe­ctions are not united into one Being: and so consequently, that Being im­perfect, and defective in something, and so not absolutely and simply perfect, and so not God; whom we suppose to be most perfect, or not at all.

And the general and wise concord and harmony found in the World, do strongly convince the unity of the First Cause, and mover thereof.Athan. cont. Gentes p. 41. Tom. 1. True indeed, some contrarieties and contentions are seen in particular creatures of opposite natures, and qualities; but this doth rather argue the Unity of a Sovereign power, which doth reconcile them into a com­modious agreement, and ornament of the Whole. So that as in Musick, some light passing Notes of discord do add grace and sweetness to the [Page 8] Parts, the petty particular disagreement of Creatures illustrate and com­mend the excellency of the Order of Creatures in the World. And as itAthanas. ib. p. 42. is yet further impossible, but if two several Musicians should compose a Lesson, or Song consisting of several Voices, not consulting with one ano­ther, but from their several phansies and humours; these put together must needs make horrible jarring, and discord; so were there more then One God, who should have an hand in framing this Universe, it could not possibly have been avoided but the infinite and destructive inconveniencies in the parts thereof would betray the absurdness of such different Agents. Again, if there were more Gods then one, there may as well be believedSi sint duo qua­re non plures? Terrul. cont. Marcionem l. 1. c. 5. to be more then a hundred, then a thousand, then ten thousand, and so on. For who shall limit or determine them? And so the World would be like a Common-wealth, which should have more Soveraigns then Subjects. Neither can it be imagined with any reason, that such a multitude of gods should hold a Common Counsel, and lay their heads together (as Poets have devised) for the wiser management of their Kingdom of this world: because all such deliberations and consultations do imply a particular de­fectQuid intersint Numeri quum duo paria non differant uno? Una enim res est quae cadem in duobui. Id. ibid. of power, and knowledge, which are made up in some manner by the concurrence of many, supplying such single defects: But this supposition quite overthrows the Divine Nature.

And farther, either these supposed Gods must be equal, or inferiour to one another, in their Attributes: If the latter, then must such inferiour ones be turned out of the List, as insufficient and incapable of such anEquidem unum esse Deum sine initio, sine pro­le naturae, sew Patrem mag­num at (que) mag­nificum, quis tam demens, tam mente cap­tus neget esse certissimum? high dignity. If equal, to what purpose are many invented, when two or more differ not from One?

Sixthly, Infiniteness and Unity are convertible in the inquiry after the nature of God: For if God be Infinite, he must necessarily be but One; if he be One, he must necessarily be Infinite: Nothing less then Infinite answering the onely less then Infinite necessities of Creatures in the World: which all stand in need as well of support and governance, as of a First Cause to produce them.

7. Lastly, The same consent of Nations and People, as hath been inti­mated,Hujus nos vir­tutes per mun­dum esse diffu­sas multis vo­cabulis voca­mus, &c. Max­imus Mad. & August. Epist. 43. agreeing in but one GOD, as well as in this, That there is a God, sufficiently evinceth this. For not to speak of the more stupid, who are no competent Judges in such cases (who notwithstanding readily assent to this noble truth, once propounded) but the more Learned and Wise, who, upon disquisition and search, duly and thorowly made, have ever unanimously received this for a most certain truth.

CHAP. IV.

HItherto have we treated of Natural Religion, as it were, that which all men by the light and force of principles put in­to Man by the hand of God, who made him; so that scarce doth the Infant turn more naturally to the breast of the Mother, than doth Man arrived to the years of reason and common understanding, seek to God, by way of recognition, and dependance on him. But this one end, to which all tend so unanimously, admitteth of many roads leading thereunto: which particularly to enumerate, were both superfluous and tedious; and therefore may well be reduced to these four, Heathenish, Jewish, Mahometan, and Christian, which are so many Religions according to which One God is worshipped.

The Heathen, or Gentile (as the Scripture calls him) worship a God; and surely desiring (as all men naturally do) not to err, or be deceived, especially in such matters, as are of greatest importance (as the choice of a Deity is) do likewise rudely intend to adore none but the true God. For (as St. Paul well noteth, and teaches us in his Epistle to the Romans)Rom. 8. 20. the Creature was made subject unto vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. By which creature he doth certainly mean the Gentile; who according to the phrase of Holy Writ, speaking according to the received sense and opinion of the highly opinion'd Jews, was reputed no more of then a simple creature, and nature: in opposition to which St. Paul often makes mention of another, and New creature, as He that is in Christ Jesus is a New creature: and elsewhere. And by Va­nity2 Corin. 5. 17. Gal. 5. 10. Jonah. 2. 8. is commonly understood, False Gods and Idols; as in Jonah, They that observe lying vanities, forsake their own mercies, meaning False Gods: as the Prophet Jeremie likewise affirmeth of the Heathens Gods, They are but Jerem. 10. 15. vanity, the works of mens hands. Now the Creature, or Gentiles were un­willingly made subject to these Vanities and false worships, in respect of that general Principle inserted in Man, whereby he chooses truth before error, and consequently the true God before the false: however, through some particular Blindness of their understanding, and darknes, their Ephes. 4. 18. hearts be alienated from the Life of God, or from the living God, which is the same. Which Darkness of the heart may well be imputed to that Ori­ginal defect, or sin traduced from Adam to all his Posterity. Yet not­withstanding, even after that general waste made in the Soul of Man, God, as St. Paul well tells them, left not himself without a witness, in that he Acts. 14. 17. did good, and gave us Rain from Heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. So that the Invisible things of him (as saith theRom. 1. 20. same St. Paul) from the beginning of the VVorld, are clearly seen, being un­derstood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse. And the reason hereof goeth before, Viz. V. 19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath [Page 10] shewed it unto them. The invisible things of God are said to be seen clear­ly, because they are sufficiently exposed to be seen; and therefore if they do not see them, it must be the affectation of some sensual error which so darkens their mind, that they cannot, or will not.

And being thus first corrupted, no marvel if their Religion be like unto it, not only false but unreasonable and abominable; as may appear from these few, amongst infinite reasons. First from the Object of their worship generally directed to a multitude of Gods; and patching up a plenitude of power out of the shreds of innumerable Demi-gods, or pie­ces of Gods; whereof one should have power and vertue in one thing, and another in another: but this is to deny God in effect, who, if he be not absolute, is not at all; and indeed, all the arguments before used to prove there can be but one God, do prove that to be a false and foolish Religion which alloweth and worshippeth more than one: Neither can it suffice to excuse them, to say, that the wiser of the Heathens acknowledged but one God; because it availeth nothing at all but to add to their condemnation, for any persons to have a right sense and meaning reserved to themselves, and to proceed directly contrary to such found judgment, in their practice and worship it self.

And therefore the most absurd and abominable manner of worshipping their pretended Deities, is sufficient conviction of the Religion it self. For whereas, modesty, sobriety, temperance, chastity, truth, justice, and the like moral vertues, were such as the Light of Nature did com­mend to all men, and all consented to be excellent and laudable: All these were contemned by the admirers of these Gods, yea the very Religion it self tempted and incited many to offend against all these; and that (which is most intolerable) from the examples of the pretended gods so chusing to be worshipped; from whence must needs follow what St. Paul affirm­eth of the Gentiles Religion, and gods. The things which the Gentiles sa­crifice, they sacrifice to Devils and not to God. They were impure, and wick­ed1 Cor. 10. 20. spirits delighting in absurd and vitious practises. And therefore, upon this subject, no more need be spoken at present.

The Neat pretender to true worship may be the Mahometan, who wor­shipping the True God so far as may be discerned, yet faileth egregiously in the manner of exhibiting the same: the very grounds, and end also be­ing false and unreasonable. For, first; that the Author and Coiner of that worship was an impostor, and made pretences of Sanctity in the midst of impurities and infirmities he was subject unto, is apparent out of Histo­ries of those times and places, where he, by the assistance of a Fugitive Nestorian Monk laid the plot and whole design of his Religion, and that among a people altogether rude, ignorant, barbarous, easie to be decei­ved, and cheated into a credulity of pretended Revelations.

Again, the many absurdities and contradictions of their Law most sa­cred: as misnaming of persons, mistiming of Facts, mistaking of Histo­ries in the gross, impossible, prophane, blasphemous opinions concer­ning the nature, the will, the Actions of God, contrary to common phi­losophy and reason; Ridiculous and foolish imaginations of Angels, utterly false opinions of the nature of things, and such like, being duly and soberly weighed and examined, do convince the whole Fabrick of that superstition, of Idleness and foolish fictions.

And not to multiply more arguments here: The way of propagating this Erroneous Fashion of serving God, discovereth the Errour of the [Page 11] thing it self. For it is a general and most rational Principle deserving ad­mission and belief of all, That Religion, being the most excellent act of humane Creatures, ought to have the most high and noble Faculty of the soul for its proper seat and fountain, from whence it should proceed; such as is the intellectual faculty of Man. But this superstition is carried on by the ministery of the Senses, chiefly. And moreover, It ought to have for its end the most sublime and divine of all. But the Mahometan con­stituteth the low pleasures of the Senses, as the sufficient and proper end of all their service: making the beatitude of Heaven to consist in perpetual Licentiousness, and fresh delights of senses. And therefore no need of in­sisting on this subject, here: What is here spoken being for method sake ra­ther then necessity, or a formal confutation of those Errours.

CHAP. V.

DUT the Religion of the Jew requireth more diligent examination, as well because of a notable presumption from ancient Tradition, and a certain preoccupation of divine truths; and auctority of divine Constitution; as because the consideration thereof is an introduction to Christian Religion, and the disproof of that, a proof of the Christian.

And if according to Christians own concessions, and the eminentest A­postle St. Paul, they were once the people and true Church of God, To Rom. 3. 2. cap. 9. 4. them were committed the Oracles of God. To them pertained the Adoption, and the glorie, and the Covenant, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the Promises: Why not alwayes a Church? If once Gods peo­ple, Why not alwayes so? If once confessed to be pure and Faithfull, When did they cease to be so? When first entred corruptions into their Church? Under what High Priest? And who brought such errours first in?

This is the sum of what they can say either for themselves, or against the Christians; of whose Religion (which undoubtedly they do, and will call Heresie) they can give the time and place, when, and where it sprang up; and the person who first founded and advanced the same. And if any Church or Society of men in the world can lay claim to the Promises of perpetu­ity and infallibility, surely the Jewish will pretend much more, from the Prerogatives peculiar to them: as do witness every where, the Law and the Prophets,

To all this a sufficient answer shall be comprehended in the prosecution of the contrary Grounds. which here follows, which I reduce to these two; whereof One concerns their Errour about their Law, and the Other, about their Messias.

The first general Errour concerning their Law is first that they suppose [Page 12] that the word of God given to Moses for their proper use, was equally to oblige all Nations: saving where certain priviledges were pretended to Jews by birth, which they suppose no people were worthy or capable of, except the stock of Abraham. But that all nations could not be included in that Covenant which was made with Abraham, nor were all obliged to the Rites and Ceremonies thereof, appears, from the ordinary impossi­bility of being observed by all People. For how could people of the re­motest parts of the earth appear thrice a year at Jerusalem, as was com­manded the Israelites by God, who dwelt in the Land of Canaan? HowLevit. 12. 6. could all Nations at any time bring their Sacrifices to the door of the House of the Lord, to be there received and offered by the Priests?

Another Errour concerning their Law received by Moses is, that they say, It was it whereby men should be justified. Which is false; and that, First, because the most ancient, holy and renowned Patriarchs of the Jew­ish Line were not so Justified: They were not justified by the works, rites, or Ceremonies of the Law delivered them by Moses; as Saint Paul hath not only taught us, but irrefragably proved against them in several places of his Epistles. For the summ of his Argument, and force may truly be re­duced to this form, as it is laid down more largely in his third Chapter to the Galatians, Judaizing, after the embracing of the Gospel of Christ:Galat. 3. That way whereby Abraham, Isaack, Jacob, and the most holy and renowned Patriarchs of the Jewish Line were justified before God, must needs be it which God chiefly intended for the Justification of their Posterity, to whom all the promises of God were made, through them: But neither A­braham, nor Isanck, nor Jacob were Justified by the Law of Moses, so religious and rigorously now insisted on. The first part of this reason will be easily granted by the Jews, because they were the principal of the Jewish nation, and honoured by God above any that succeeded them; and therefore undoubtedly Justified by God. But that this justification couldV. 17. not be according to, or by the Law of Moses, Saint Paul in the forecited Chapter apparently proves: where he shews that the Law was four hundred and thirty years after Abraham. And how could that which then had no be­ing be a cause of justification of Abraham?

Again, the accounting of Righteous before God, is to be justified before God: But Abraham was accounted Righteous before God, by Faith, andGalat. 3. 6. Gen. 16. 6. Gal. 3. v. 7. not by Law: For so saith the Scripture, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Therefore, They that are of Faith, they are children of Abraham. that is: They, who believed and live as did A­braham, are Abrahams spiritual seed, and heirs apparent of all the Promi­ses made to him, whereby all nations (not the Jewish only) should be blessed.

Furthermore, No man could ever be Justified by that law, but may rather be said to be condemned and cursed by it, which he nor no man else did e­verDeut. 27. 26. keep: And the law saith expresly, Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the Gal. 3. 10. words of this Law to do them: which Confirming is well explained by the Apostle by Continuing. For who ever by disobedience breaketh it, can­not be said to confirm it, or continue in it. Now, seeing all flesh failed more or less in the due observation thereof, there must be provision other­wise made by God, if so be he would have any saved. It will perhaps be here said, That God in such cases had appointed Sacrifices for expiati­ons, and reconciliations with him: But against this, not so much the Au­ctority, as the Argument of the same Apostle makes in his Epistle to the [Page 13] Hebrews, saying. In those Sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins, Heb. 10. once every year. That is, notwithstanding there were daily Sacrifices made according to the Law, every day; and upon special sins peculiar Sacrifi­ces made by the offendor for an atonement; yet every year, to shew the insufficiencie of the Precedent Ceremonies, mention was made of the sins of the People, when the High Priest entred into the Holiest of Holie. And the reason of this imperfection is given by the Author to the Hebrews, whenV. 4. he argueth, First, from the nature, the Sacrifices themselves, That it is im­possible that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins: or as one of their own Prophets before him intimateth, saying, Wherewith shall I Mic. 6. 6. come before the Lord, and bow my self before the High God? Shall I come be­fore him with Burnt offerings and Calves of a year old? Will the Lord be plea­sed 7. with thousands of Rams, or with ten thousands of Rivers of oil? Shall I give my first born for my transgression? The fruit of my body for the sin of my Soul? And so again in the book of the Psalms: Sacrifices and offerings thou Psal. 4. 6, 7. didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened: Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me, &c. All which, with many such like places, do declare what esteem Good and Godly men had of the Legal Sacrifices, that were but in themselves insufficient and unacceptable to Almighty God, for either the expiating and satisfying for sins, or the appeasing of God offended by the same: and therefore some further remedie, some more excellent means of reconcisiation were necessary: And this appears from the ends of such Sacrifices instituted: which principally were these. First, to declare a right that God had in all those Creatures, which he had given man for his use, and service. Secondly, to represent to man the guilt and punishment, unto which he was subject, by his sins; as verily, as that beast so slain and sacrificed before his eyes. Thirdly, to insinuate unto him the true means of becoming reconciled unto God offended: which was,

A Second general end of the Old Law, which was to prefigure the Messi­as, and only true Saviour of the world: who related not only to Abra­hams seed, but to all, to whom the promise made to Abraham, related, viz. Gen. 22. 18. Galat. 3. 10. In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. And therefore if such an objection be made, Wherefore serveth the Law, if not to such Ends? Saint Paul answereth thus, It was added because of transgressions, to whom the Promise was made. Because of Transgression, First, by reason that the O­ral Covenant made with Adam, and renewed to Abraham, suffice not, of it self, to contain man in his dutie, without the additional statute committed to writing by Moses, called signally, The Law. Secondly, this became to them under it, a rule and direction, until such time as the seed, to whom it was promised, should come. i. e. The fulness of the Gentiles, to whom, through Adam and Abraham both, the Messias was promised. Whence appeareth the vanitie of the Jews imagination, supposing that God, by an immutable decree, had affixed the priviledges and benefits of the Gospel, entirely to the Jews. And this inferrs another argument used by Saint Paul against the perfection, and perpetuity of the Jewish Law. For nothing was promised to Abraham and his seed peculiarly, but upon the Covenant of Circumcision. But Abraham was not reputed righteous be­fore God, by vertue of Circumcision; but being Righteous, was Circum­cised; and all the principal Promises made to Abraham, as the Father of the Faithful, were before Circumcision, as the historie in Genesis assures us, and Saint Paul to the Romans argueth; and concludes against the Jews, They [Page 14] which are the children of the Flesh, are not the Children of God: that is, in that respect, or for that cause; because they were lineally descended from Abrahams flesh and blood: but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed. i. e. They were the persons comprehended in the Covenant, and promises made to Abraham: all which sufficiently nulls the Jews pretensi­ons, taken from their Law. We now proceed to the Second general Head against them, taken from their Messias.

CHAP. VI.

BOth Jews and Christians agree, that the Covenant made by God with Adam and Abraham, was through the Messias. But the dif­ference between them is notwithstanding very great. The Jews, still expecting the Messias to come, and the Christian believing it, as the first Article of his Faith, that he is actually come, and hath delivered his Laws, and performed all things prefigured and promised by the Law of Moses. If this supposition of the Christian be not true, then is the whole Bodie of his Faith a meer shadow, and false. And if the Messias be come, then is the Religion of the Jew false, and no better then a vain Superstition. This therefore is diligently and Faithfully to be enqui­red into: though with this Caution premised, That it is a thing to be supposed no less, and taken for granted in the Christian Religion, that Christ the Messias is come; then it is to be supposed to Religion in gene­ral, that there is a God.

These following Circumstances evince the Messias to be come. First the cer­tain expiration of the time prefixed by the Holy Scriptures, and the Jewish Doctors themselves, for the coming of Christ. The great Masters of the Jews affirm that the world shall continue six thousand years; whereof two thousand are to go before the Law, and two thousand should be under the Law of Moses; and that in the fifth thousand year, the Messias shouldSixtus Senen­fis Bibl. lib. 2. Genebr. Chro. initio. Vid. Rayl. mundum Mar­tini Pug. fidei Part. 2. cap. 6. come into the world. Who these are, and from whence they collect this, is no place to shew here; Genebrard, Galatinus, Raymundus Martini, have done it; and many of the Fathers receiving their tradition from them, have spoken to that purpose: But the Jews themselves do reckon from the Cre­ation to this day, above five thousand four hundred years: and yet there is no appearance of a Messias for their turn. So that being driven to this [...] extremitie, they have been constrained to take up this curse, to secure their suspected Cause, viz. Let the Spirit of all them be burst in pieces who com­pute times: as Buxtorfe relates to us. And if it be so, as some Jews haveBuxtorf. Sy­nagog. cap. 3. Vid. Ray mun­dum Martini, Pug. fidei Part. 2. cap. 6. phancied, viz. That the Messias was born the same day their Temple was burnt at Jerusalem; Where has he spent his time all this while? Why doth he not appear to their deliverance? They are wont to say, It is for their sins. In which I agree with them, that indeed it is for their sins, that they [Page 15] are never like to see that Messias, whom they dream of, because they reje­ctedSee Chryso­stom. Serm. 3. Against the Jews. Tom. 6. p. 338, 339. him who came to them, as the true Messias.

Secondly, The apt Analogie and correspondence between the Messias re­ceived by Christians, and foretold by the ancient Prophets, doth declare him come. For instance, that of Genesis, That the seed of the woman should Gen. 3. Deut. 18. 15. break the Serpents head. That in Deutronomie, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up of your brethren, like unto me &c. That of Esay the seventh and thirty fourth verse, Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a child, Esa. 7. 34. and they shall call his name Immanuel: (however modern Jews endeavour to pervert and corrupt that text.) That of the Psalmist The Lord said unto my Psal. 110. Lord, fit thou on my Right hand, until I have made thine enemies thy footstool. That of Micah, And thou Bethlehem Judah art not the least amongst the Prin­ces Mich. 5. 2. of Judah: For out of thee shall come a Governour which shall rule my people Israel. And many more like places are interpreted of the Jews themselves, of the Messias. And it being so, whom have they to show (now the time is past) that many stand in competition with Christ, our true Messias?

Thirdly, several Events prove the Messias already come. In Genesis it isGen. 49. 10. Numb. 24. 17. Esa. 9. 6. Esa. 4. 2. John 5. 43. [...]; Athanasius de Incarnatione. Chrysostom. Ser. 2. against the Jews, p. 333, 334. to 6. sheweth how that thrice they were cō ­founded in attempting to rebuild their City and Temple. said, The Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come &c. And so in Numbers, there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and Scepter out of Israel. And in Esay, To us a Son is born, to us a Child is given: and the Government shall be upon his shoulders. And by the same Prophet it is said, In that day shall the Branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious &c. To which many other places might be added: All which we urge, not upon our own authority but the judgement of their ancient Rabbies, especially that Famous Chaldee Paraphrast so applying them. Now these can belong to none but him, whom we acknowledge for the Messias, Christ Jesus: though diverse Impostors, and false Christs have pretended to such Prophecies, to the delusion and confusion of that unhappy and blind Nation: as Christ truly foretold. And however great varietie may be found amongst Learned Christians concerning the precise times, where­in the said Predictions had their verification, yet all unanimously agree that they are fulfilled; the Jew in vain dissenting.

Fourthly, the Destructions and Dissipations of that Nation and Church prove the truth of the Messias come. For now so great obscurity and con­fusion are found in their best Records, and especially, their Genealogies, upon which depend their assurance of their Messias, that not knowing now, them of the Tribe of Judah, from them of any other Tribe; and much less the Line of David, from others: They are not able to distinguish a vain pretender, from a real heir of David, and so must needs suspect all pre­tenders to be the Messias.

Fifthly, by vertue of the Ancient Phophecies and promises made unto the Jews, by their Predecessors, their form of worship was to continue un­to their Messias at least: but nothing is more plain than that this is actually dissolved; and that in the most material parts of it. Their holy City Jeru­salem, their more Holy Temple in it, and their most Holy Altar in that, are all ruined and buried in oblivion: and a Mock City built in oppositi­on to that, by Alius Adrian and from him called Aelia properly.

Sixthly, The unparralell'd Judgments of God continually pursuing that Nation, until the accomplishment of all things foretold by Christ, and his Apostles, concerning destruction to come upon them, to the utmost, confu­teth their Expectations, and confirm our Faith in Christ, as the true Messias. For First, about the time of Christs Coming into the world, the Scepter [Page 16] of all Political and Ecclesiastical Power was utterly taken from them. HerodScaliger. Pro­leg. in Chron. Euseb. that Alien (what ever Scaliger and some others siding with him say, making him a Jew) invaded all civil Power, and kept it to himself; and then pro­ceeded to baffle all Sacerdotal Rights; Killed most of the Heads of the Principal Families: and, at his pleasure, put in and out Priests: as also the Romans did likewise. All which some find in the Misterie of Christs age, when he was put to death. For it is observed that there were thir­ty Jubilees from the time that the Israelites first entred into the Land of Promise until the Coming of Christ to preach and publish the Gospel: at which time the Scriptures tell us, that he was about thirty years of age: after which time, there were never any more kept by that People. And that John the Baptist, (who was the Voice in the wilderness preparing the way for Christ) was that Trumpet, which was to sound at the Publication of the Evangelical Jubilee; and cessation of the Legal; and abolition of the whole Fabrick of that Church. For (to proceed in the historie of their miseries and ruine) about the Fourtieth year after the birth of Christ, and scarce seven years after his death and Passion, (whereby they had brought the curse of innocent blood upon themselves, and children) a very sore ca­lamnitie seised all that people at once; by the Emperour Caligula his com­manding his Statue to be erected amongst them, as a God: which caused a great slaughter of them at Alexandria, and coufusion in Judaea. And when Philo Judaeus of Alexandria attempted to satisfie and pacifie the Em­perour,Philo Judeus de Legatione ad Caium. without it; himself witnesses, with what shame, scorn and sharp reprehension he was repulsed, and thrust out of the Emperours presence. Who thereupon, with his philosophie, endeavouring to comfort his bre­thren, with expectation of Divine assistance, found himself deceived; their troubles multiplying upon them, until the death of that Emperour. About the same time in Babylon and Seleucia perished about 50000, under the Grand Mutinier Annelus. About the year of Christ 68, Florus Pro­curator of Syria crushed the Jews two years together, until rebelling a­gainst the Romans they were set upon by Cestius the Roman General; who slew great numbers of them; wasted their Country, took their strong holds of Defence, held against the Romans and rased them; came to Jerusalem it selfe, and might have taken that also, but that God had reserved them to greater mischiefs, and vengeance; the Roman army being called off upon o­ther occasions. In the thirteenth year of Nero, the year after, Vespasian under the Emperour was recalled out of Achaia to invade and reduce the Jews, to more absolute obedience and subjection, who coming into Galli­lee destroyed the Country, and put to death no fewer then 100000 persons, and led captive with him to the number of fourty thousand: in the year 72, Vespasian himself being Emperour, sent his son Titus into Jewrie to finish the conquests of those mutinous and obstinate Countries, and after devast­ations of the same, coming to the siege of Hierusalem it self; so many and unparallel'd were the miseries suffered by them that no age or history could equal them till at last taking the City, firing the Temple against his will and strong endeavour, by the tacit and irresistible decree of God, there were numbred of those that perished in the Citty no fewer then 1100000; and about fourtie thousand Captives: with the sale of which all persons were glutted, refusing them at the lowest and basest rates: the prophecie of old being at this time especially verified, Ye shall be sold to your enemies for bond­men Deut. 28. 68. and bond-women, and no man shall buy you. This ruine and waste so quel­led and broke them that they were disabled and disheartned for divers [Page 17] years to attempt any mischiefs, but about the year 116 under Trajan the Emperour, Gods Justice began to awake against them farther. For in seve­ral parts of the Roman Empire, as it were by consent, at the same time re­belling, they slue of Greeks and Romans above two hundred thousand, and as many in the Island of Cyprus alone; but Trajan sending the Roman For­ces amongst them, destroyed innumerable thousands of them. In the year 130. mutinying again under Adrian the Emperour, being seduced by a false Prophet, and Christ, Barchocab, they were destroyed with great slaughter. And five years after mutinying again, Julius Severus was called out of Britain, and going against them, destroyed fifty thousand of them, with fifty strong holds, nine hundred principal Towns, rasing eighty to the ground, leaving the Land in a manner desolate. And the year fol­lowing finished the work by destroying five hundred and eighty thousand Jews, besides an infinite multitude which perished by Exile ansd Famine: all the Jews being forbidden to remain in any part of Judea, or so much as to look back upon it: Jerusalem is laid quite waste, and another City built not far from it, named (as is said) Aelia, from Aelius Adrianus the Emperour. And to pursue these miserable obstinate wretches no far­ther, since that time (which is as great an Instance as any hath been, or can be given of Divine wrath against them) though they be in numbers great, and in riches too, and industrious, and zealous for their supersti­tion, they have been both so infatuated and blasted in all their counsels, and designs, that they could never make a Society amongst themselves, so far as in any part of the World to be governed within themselves, or ex­ercise their Religion, but by restraint, and at the will and pleasure of o­thers. Now to conclude; That that should be the true Religion which for these sixteen hundred years could no where be truly practised, or exercised according to the pretended obligations of their Law, the ground and form of the same, is incredible, and next to impossible. Or that the true Messias should not be actually come, or Christ should not be he, whose predictions and Justice have been so manifestly verified upon his implaca­ble enemies, and withal, hath so far raised and exalted, and asserted, and propagated, and defended the believers in him, is most unreasonable to doubt of, after such convictions and evidences.

But last of all, Let any indifferent judge compare the Doctrine and Ser­vices of the Jewish Superstition, with the received Rule and ground of it, the Old Testament, and he shall easily discern, how they have by their many Talmudical inventions, their bold and ridiculous Comments upon the Scripture, held in no less, if not much greater veneration than the Scripture it self, their infinite absurd and directly false Traditions (imposed upon all of their way) as Oracles; turned their Faith into Fables, and their Facts to have no agreement with the Letter of their Law; but newly in­vented most of them, except Circumcision: (which we have shewed they have not as Jews) and he will undoubtedly conclude against their anti­quated Religion, and Innovated Superstitions.

CHAP. VII.

AFTER the consideration of Religion in General, and the rea­sonableness thereof, with the Exclusion of the principal false pretenders of worshipping the true God; it follows to treat of the Christian Religion, and the Reasonableness, and several incomparable Prerogatives thereunto proper. And first, it is to be known, what we mean by Christian Religion, and what it is?

Christian Religion is the worship of the only true God in the unity of nature and trinity of persons, through one Mediatour between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus; according to his Will and Laws revealed in his holy Word, commonly called the Scriptures. This description whe­ther artificial enough I will not contend, but full enough I suppose it is, to declare as well, What it is in it self, as Wherein it is distinct from others. And therefore omitting to treat of the more curious and formal part thereof, we shall here shew briefly What great advantages it hath a­bove any other, to the obliging us to a more faithful and devout observa­tion thereof; and that this only, and no other can truly please God, and lead us to him, and crown us hereafter with eternal bliss and glory.

And it having been proved that by the consent of all Nations there is a God; and it following more strongly upon that ground supposed, that such a Supream and Infinite being is to be worshiped, and that this worship is that which we call Religion; and that of the Religions pretending to be divine, the others have been found vain and deficient, the Right of being received, as the only proper worship of God, must of necessity devolve upon the Christian Religion, as that which is least obnoxious to the same, or like exceptions; and hath many more sober and rational inducements to perswade the same to any equal judgment. Which argument might well be drawn from the very Body of this Religion, and the several parts where­of it consisteth, together with manifold Pregnant Circumstances attending the same. But because this would ask a far longer time, and more tedious labour both to Writer and Reader then can consist with this intended Com­pendium, it may abundantly suffice to give such probable and credible proofs of the Scriptures, That they are the revealed will of God as Chri­stians do believe, without question. For the summ and substance of all Christian religion, so far as it is truly so called and professed, being foun­ded on the Holy Scriptures, and there expresly contained, if it be evin­ced that they are of divine Original, it will follow, That what they deliver is so likewise; and consequently, the Religion built upon them.

But because it is one Principle which Christian Religion is built upon, in common with all Religions, that somewhat must so be believed that no natural reason or Mathematical can invincibly demonstrate. And the rea­son hereof is, because the ground of all such demonstations is setled upon [Page 19] the order of Nature between Cause and Effect; in point of right rather than matter of fact. But that the Scriptures are so the word of God, as to be revealed by his Holy Spirit to certain select Persons to that end, is altoge­ther matter of fact: and that not proceeding from such a necessary and na­tural Agent, as that according to the course of Causes and Effects it could be no otherwise; but from a free Agent which certainly might have sus­pended such acts of Revealing his Will. And the same Reason holds against all proper Demonstration from Effect. For as it cannot be demon­strated that such a Cause must necessarily have such an Effect, it cannot be infallibly proved that such an Effect must have such a Cause. For unless it could be proved that fire must necessarily burn, it could not be proved that what we see burnt must necessarily proceed from fire. For before this can be don, it must be shewed that nothing in the world has the same virtue, but fire: and this supposes that we have a perfect and exact know­ledg of every thing, and the nature of it, in the world. Take we an in­stance yet nearer to our present subject. It is a common Maxime amongst the Schoolmen, That no Creature can work a Miracle of it self, but it must have the Supernatural power of God, either immediately or me­diately: and, That whatsoever Effects are wrought by any Spirit inferiour to God, deserve not the name of a Miracle. And yet it is confessed with­all, that diverse such works which appear to us as extraordinary, and above nature, are not of God, but some (perhaps evil) Creature. Must it not then first be known, what those extraordinary acts are, and how they are wrought, before it can be concluded that they are of God? And how can this infallibly be discern'd but by another miracle, and this by a third, a third by an infinity, of which there can be no knowledg? So that in truth the received doctrine of the Schools being thorowly examined, the contra­ry will appear the more reasonable of the two▪ and that we must rather first of all acknowledg a Divine Power precedent and effecting this extra­ordinary stupendious work, before we may call it a Miracle; than first ad­mit this to be a Miracle; and then, and thence infer a Divine Power. So that it seems very difficult and dubious to make scientifical conclusions of any thing divine: And that after all, there may be sufficient presumptions to render a thing credible without lightness and rashness, yet the Arguments perswading shall not be so pressing and cogent, but due place should remain for a Faith, or assent, which may not be properly humane and natural, (which it must needs be, if it proceeded simply from sense or reason natu­ral) but divine; and an admirable temperament be found in that we call The true Christian Faith; wherein the Grace of God inwardly moving and inclining the Will to embrace that, to which it might notwithstan­ding all reasons to the contrary, not altogether unreasonably have dissented; and yet with reason doth assent: the Grace of God pulling down 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5. strong holds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledg of God, and bringing into Captivity every thought, unto the obedience of Christ. As St. Paul excellently saith, speaking of the carnal warfare of humane ratiocinations, either for, or against Divine Faith and Doctrine; which have no might but through God, as he suffers by his justice the reasonings and eloquence of men to take place against his do­ctrine, or to prevail towards the receiving of the truth, by the superad­ded Power of his Holy Spirit: as to this end St. Paul speaks in his first E­pistle to the Corinthians, thus, And my speech, and my preaching was not 1 Cor. 2. 4, 5. with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of [Page 20] Power, That your Faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the po­wer of God. Signifying unto us, that the power of God is no more than ne­cessary to concur with humane reason to the heightning it to such great ef­fects: though the Grace of God be all sufficient of it self to produce such effects; without, yea contrary to such reasons as humane Philosophy or Eloquence can minister to a man. And this I have held not unnecessary to be premised to this great difficulty of asserting and evidencing the Scrip­tures to be the word of God, as well ingenuously to profess, there appear no such convincing reasons to prove the same, as some make shew of, and promise; as to discover the error of such who would have Christian Reli­gion to stand upon humane Faith. For if Christian Faith be built upon the Scripture, (as is most undeniable) and the assurance we have that the Scriptures are the word of God, can be absolutely wrought by outward reasons, (which cannot be drawn from the Scriptures, being supposed, at present, under question) certainly all our Faith must hang upon the veraci­ty and certainty of such Reasons. Therefore must this middle way be chosen to acknowledg such prerogatives, even of outward reason, prepa­ring and disposing mens hearts, that no other Religion or writing can lay any tolerable claim to; and yet such as shall stand in need of a divine con­course to perfect the same, to the nature of a truly divine and Christian as­sent and Faith. Now the foresaid preparatory and justly inclining mo­tives may be these following, peculiar to the Scriptures. The first thing then which must be supposed in this case, is, that which all Religions, and even common Reason require, that it is the will of God that some of man­kind should be saved, that is, become blessed and happy after this Life is ended, in heaven: But this cannot be supposed without due obedience and worship given unto that great and bountiful Creatour and Saviour: and this Obedience or worship cannot be given unto God, in a manner acceptable to him, unless this manner be first of all known unto man: and this cannotVid. Thomam. 1. [...]. q. 1. 1▪ cor. be known, unless God teaches him that knowledg. And this teaching of him must either beby inward, or outward Revelation; Inward Revelation is the natural endowment of the understanding given by God unto Man, enabling him to judge of things: and this all People equally share in, (not that there is a necessary equality, or so much as disposition to knowledg in all men, but that no order of People are denied this benefit; which some persons stir up and improve to a more high and excellent degree of knowledg) yet not so, but we see many persons, and almost people so degenerate as not to perceive those things which conduce necessarily to the ends of common humanity and civility. Therefore God at first in creating of man, pur­posely instituted him least the greatest part of his own workmanship, and that by his own intention, should miscarrie in the due ends of being; or the defects of him originally redound on himself. To determine this more accurately, is the office of some other place: only this may suffice here to note, that man apparently being defective in this so necessary a point, stan­deth in need of some supply to perfect him in it; divine inward Revelation failing him generally, even in matters of an inferiour nature to devine worship. Wherefore, that his will be cleared and revealed outward­ly, which inwardly is obscured and corrupted, is necessary to the foresaid ends: And therefore that the Word of God, which is received by Christians as proceeding from him, and a Declaration of his Will to mankind, is to be made appear so far, as it may be credible to an in­different and imprejudicate mind: and serve the ends for which it was or­dained [Page 21] of God, viz. Instruction of man in the mind and will of God, and leading him unto eternal happiness.

CHAP. VIII.

IT coming to the same end, to prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and the Religion built upon them to be of God; we shall here endeavour to give farther evidence of both together, in this order.

First, If the Scriptures and Christian Religion have been pre­served and asserted by God himself, it is plain that they proceed originally from God. For as the Scripture telleth us (not without the assent of rational men) Whatsoever plant God hath not planted, shall be rooted out. Mat. 15. 13. But God hath specially and wonderfully owned and maintained the Do­ctrine of the Scriptures, therefore by his appointment, were they ordain­ed. For it is a Rule in Natural Philosophy, which holds no less true in Supernatural; We are nourished and conserved by those things of which we consist. Neither is it probable, that God should give any direct counte­nance to that as Divine, which is forged and counterfeit. But we see that whereas many eminent and Learned mens Works highly approved and ap­plauded, have perished, the Holy Scriptures have been preserved entire.

And this attestation of God to them hath been more apparent in the concomitant Acts and Miracles wrought by Christ, the immediate Author of them, and his Apostles and Servants under him. Christ saith expresly, My Doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. This he thus proves else­where,Joh. 7. 16. Joh. 10. 25. Joh. 14. 11. The works that I do in my Fathers name, they bear witness of me. And again. Believe me for the very works sake. And again. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not. From all which fair dealing, it appears that ChristJoh. 10. 37. intended not to impose a groundless, and reasonless Faith upon the world, but to commend such an one as had such competent demonstrations, as that subject was capable of, or the like Moral things. Now, that such miracles were wrought by Christ, and that not by sleight of hand, after the man­ner of cunning Impostours, the Effects themselves in himself, and which is much more, his Followers and Servants in his name, is matter of Credit as much as any thing delivered unto us in humane Histories. Besides, Christs Apostles professed they delivered nothing but from God and Christ to us: and this they prosecuted with many and great difficulties, dangers, di­stresses, and generally with the loss of their very bloud, cheerfully poured out, and their lives prodigally spent in that testimonie, that no men of rea­son or common sense would have gone through so much dry service, but upon a divine impulse and assurance of the truth they delivered an expecta­tion [Page 22] of an everlasting reward for it.

Here therefore both Jews and Gentiles enter their Caveat, and affirm, That what Christ did, was by indirect means of Evil Spirits: Some Jews specially traducing him with abusing the Sacred name of God privily born about him to that purpose. The Heathens have compared to him Apollonius, Tyanaeus; and Jannes and Jambres, withstanding Moses before Pharaoh; be­ing all notorious Magicians. But these have received answer from most ofArnob. cont. Gentes. Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 1. Euseb. De­monst. Evang. lib. 3. c. 3. & 8. &c. the ancient and Learned Fathers, who have met with this Exception and to this purpose answered. First, that it is not true, that they ever wrought such miracles as did Christ, and his Servants. Secondly, the wonders they wrought were not done with such simplicity and perspicuity as the other were. Christ and his Apostles only by the word of their mouths comman­ded the winds and seas, and cured the sick, opened the eyes of the blind, gave straitness and strength to the Lame and Creepled; whereas Magi­cians are constrained to use many horrible and ridiculous Rites to the in­ducing of Evil Spirits to act for them. Thirdly, The end of this do­ctrine and Miracles mutually justifie one another, as to the divineness of them. For, most or all Magical wonders were wrought to ends agreeable to such Evil Spirits as set them on work, viz. For Cousenage, for Lust, for wantonness, for malice, for revenge, and such like unreasonable pas­sions. But the ends both of the Christian doctrine and Miracles, were no other then Temperance, Continence, Patience, Meekness, Charity, and the compleat exercise of all such Virtues as nature it self approved and magnified: And declared openly to be done against vain-glory, and Licentiousness, and in opposition and confusion of such wicked Spirits as abused mankind generally before Christ's coming in the Flesh. And as Christ argues strongly, How can Satan cast out Satan? How could he giveTertul. Apol. cap. 23. Lactan. 8. In­stitut. cap. 27. Hieron. ad Marcel. ep. 17. [...], &c. Athan. de Incarnat. Hotting. Hist. Orient. lib. 2. any countenance or aid to them that ejected and dispossessed and confoun­ded him? yea made him pronounce his own unhappiness, and inability to resist the Divine vertue in Christs servants by Exorcisms tormenting him; as the ancient Fathers frequently assure us: telling us how they o­penly challenged them to stand it out with them. Now these things were effected by the Word of God. Which insinuates,

A Third ground of the Divineness of the Scripture and Christianity also, viz. The nature of the Doctrine, whose simplicity, Majesty, Puritie, Humility and Sublimity are such as will admit of no Competitors. It is written of Mahomet indeed, That having patched up his Alcoran, he openly boasted and brag'd what he had, done and challenged those pitiful, ignorant, and stupid people, to shew any man that could compose such another piece. But it is certain that himself was so altogether illiterate and ignorant, and so continued, that he could neither write nor read, but caused it to be set together by better Wits but no better hearts then his: And the very vain­glory discovered sufficiently the imposture. But such was the doctrine of our Saviour and his Apostles, that, so far as any thing can prove it self from its native truth and Excellencie, this did manifest it self to the world, and captivated more with its plain dealing than ever any of the most pro­found Philosophers works, or the Eloquence of humane Orators. Which yet further appears from,

A Fourth head, viz. The incapacity and infirmitie of the Chiefest Agents under God, in inditing and framing the same, which amazed the Elders of the Jews themselves hearing Peter and John deliver such wonderful do­ctrine,Acts. 4. 13. accompanied with such marvellous works, until they resolve them­selves [Page 23] in the reason of it, considering that they had been with Jesus: who had taught and enabled them, being but simple unlearned and ignorant men of themselves, so to speak and act. And the like may be said of the rest of the Apostles: who likewise having been with Jesus, and afterward more amply furnished with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, spake the wonderful works of God, to the Admiration of all their Auditors. Which maketh St. Chrysostome in several places to triumph over all other Doctors, in their behalf speaking to this purpose. Where are now your Chrysostom. Tom. 2. pag. 560. H. Tom. 4. pag. 611. grave and learned Philosophers, with their affected habits, their long beards, their solemn gate? Where are your Eloquent Orators? A Poor Tent-ma­ker, as was Paul: An ignorant Fisherman, as was Peter, and the rest of the simple Apostles, have carried the world from them all; have drawn▪ all Nations after them. Can this proceed from any but a Divine power?

And Fifthly, could it be ascribed to any thing but a Divine power, That so many wise, so many learned, so many noble, so many rich, so many young and old Virgins, tender and delicate, should so humbly and devoutly embrace, so stoutly and hardily maintain with the loss of their lives, and relations, and fortunes, such a doctrine as brought them no Credit, no profit, no pleasure, but rigours and Severities, and self de­nials, but by Divine inspirations? How many hath Mahomet's Religion won unto it, for so many hundred years, besides those who have either by early education, suckt in those corrupt Principles, or by Terrour and Power over them, have been constrained to it? or corrupted by the flatteries of Licentiousness and Pleasure countenanced by it? Alass▪ so few that they are not worth the reckoning up.

Sixthly, The admirable harmony between these diverse Authors far di­stant in place, at the time of their composing Holy writ, with them­selves, and also with the Ancient Prophets before Christ, insinuating the same things they, at Christs coming, explain'd and published; is no small argument of Gods finger in the work. Which are Tertullians twoTertul. Ad­ver. Marc. lib. 3. cap. 5. reasons given against Marcion: who blasphemously affirmed, One God to be the Author of the Old Testament, and another of the New.

Seventhly, consider we the manner of propagating this word of God, [...] A than. de Incar nat. and worship: that, as is already intimated, was not only by weak and illiterate Instruments: but altogether in a meek, peaceable, and gen­tle perswasive, not coercive way, by civil fore or violence; but less towards such as once having freely given their names to God, and were incorporated with them, proved false and made defection from them. Though it hath appeared, that the vengeance of God hath won­derfully pursued the Persecutors of his faithful Servants.

Lastly, (aiming at brevity) It is a notable argument of its Native Excellency and Perfection, That all the greatest Wits of the world being bent against the Word of God, and endeavouring to pick holes in it, and convict it of errour, have failed in such their attempts; and have rather rendr'd it more undoubted and conspicuous. Whereas no soo­ner are other Pretending writings brought to due light and examination, but they are convicted of impostures.

CHAP. IX.

IT being found what is the Letter of the Word of God: It is neces­sary to know, what is the true sense of it: For this is only in truth, the Word, and not the Letters, Syllables, or Grammatical words. To know this, we must first distinguish a Sense Historical and Mysti­cal.

The Historical Sense is the same as the Literal; so called because it is that which is primarily signified and intended by such a form of words. And this is twofold. For either these words are to be taken in the proper and natural signification (as I may call that which is in most vulgar use) or in their borrowed and mataphorical Sense. As when I call a thing hard, and apply it to Iron, or Stone, I speak properly; and according to the Natural sense: but when I apply Hardness to the heart, I speak improper­ly and Metaphorically, and yet Literally too, intending thereby to signifie not any natural, but moral quality in the heart. The Seven Ears, (saith Joseph in Genesis) are seven years, and the Seven fat Kine are Seven years. And so Christ in the Gospel, This is my Body; and infinite others in Scrip­ture, are Metaphorical and Literal Senses both.

The Mystical Sense is that which is a translation, not so much of words from one signification to another; as of the entire Sense to a meaning not ex­cluding the Historical or Literal Sense, but built upon it, and occasion'd by it. And is commonly divided into the Tropological, Allegorical, and Anagogical: which some (as Origen) make coordinate with the former, saying, The Scripture is a certain Intelligible world: wherein are four Parts, Origen. Ho­mil. 2. In Di­versos. as four Elements. The Earth is the Literal Sense. The waters is the pro­found Moral Sense. The Air is the Natural Sense, or natural science there­in found. And above all, the sublime sense, which is Fire. In another place he mentions only, the Historical, Moral, and Mystical: And gene­rallyIdem. Homil. 5. in Leviti­cum. the Fathers do acknowledg all these, though with some variation, not distinguishing them, as we have; as might be shown, were it needful to enlarge here, on that subject. The Moral Sense is that which is drawn from the natural, to signifie the manners and conditions of men. The Al­legorical is a sense under a continuation of tropes, and figures. The Anago­gical, a translation of the meaning of things, said or done on earth, to things proper to heaven. The Oxe being suffered to eat, while he trod out the Corn; according to St. Paul, in the Moral sense, signified that the la­bourer was worthy of his hire. Mount Sinah and Mount Sion (as the sameGal. 2. 24, 25. Apostle saith) signified the two Cities of God, Earthly and Heavenly, Allegorically. And the Church of God upon Earth, the Church Trium­phant in heaven. It is therefore without reason and modesty both, that some strickt Modern Divines have set themselves against the Antient, in contracting all these senses into one, so as to allow no more: which is of very ill consequence to the Faith both of Jew and Christian. For ge­nerally all the hopes of the Jews concerning the Messias to come: and all [Page 25] the proofs of the Christian taken from the Old Testament, That he is come, would come to little or nothing, seeing there is manifestly a Literal or Historical sense primarily intended; upon which the Mistical is built. So that the arguments of the Evangelists, and St. Paul in his Epistles convin­cing that Christ was the true Messias, must needs be invalid, seeing their quotation to that purpose had certainly another Literal Sense. And it is against the condition of the whole Law it self; which, as St. Paul Heb. 10. 1. saith, was a Shadow of good things to come, and not the very things themselves.

It is here replied commonly; That all these are but one LiteralPerkins on Gal [...]. 22. sense, diversely expressed: which is to grant all that is contended for; but with a reservation of a peculiar way of speaking, to themselves; that having been so infortunate as to judge of things amiss, they may in some manner solace themselves with variety of phrase; too commonly found amongst such as resolve to say something new, where there is no just cause at all.

And to that which seems a Difficultie. That no Symbolical sense can be argumentative or prove any thing in Divinity; we answer, That it cannot in­deed, unless it be known first to be the true Mistical sense of the words al­ledged; For neither is the Literal sense it self, until it be known that such was the true intent of the Speaker. But those things which were symbo­lically and Mystically delivered in the Law, being well known to Christ and his Apostles, as likewise to the Learnedest of the Jewish Doctors by a received current tradition amongst them, were of force to the ends al­ledged by them. But where such a Mystical sense is not received, nothing can be inferred from thence, which is conclusive.

CHAP. X.

IT availeth a Christian as little to have the Letter of the word of God without the genuine sense, as it doth a man to have the shell without the Kernel. For the sense is the word of God, not the Letter. Wic­ked men, yea the Devil himselfe maketh use of the Letter to contra­dict the truth it self, as St. Hierome hath observed, and other Fathers, and constant experience certifieth not without the consent of the Scripture it self, which saith of it self, In it are some things hard to be understood, which 2 Pet. 3. 16. they, that are unlearned and unstable, wrest, as they do all other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, because it is very necessarie to be infor­med of the difficulties and dangers in misinterpreting Scripture, before we can throughly apply our selves to prevent and avoid them, we will First shew briefly, That many things are difficult in Scripture, and the Reasons why: and after proceed to the most probable means rightly to in­terpret the same.

[Page 26]And these obstacles in attaining the true sense of Gods word, are either found in our selves or in Gods wisdome and Providence; or lastly in the Word of God it self. Some indeed piously but inconsiderately make all the reason of difficulties (not denied by them altogether) in the Scripture, to be in Man: supposing they hereby vindicate Gods Providence from that censure it might otherwise be liable unto, if so be that God should deliver such a Law to man which could not well be understood, but apt to mislead men into errour. And therefore, say they. It is the darkness, and pervers­ness of mans understanding and will, that make things in Scripture obscure, and not the condition of the Scriptures themselves. But this no ways doth attain its end. For when did God deliver his written word unto Mankind? In his state of innocencie and perfection, or imperfection and blindness of mind? God certainly knew that man was frail, and apt to mistake, when he delivered his Law: How then is this an Apologie sufficient for him, who gave such a Law, as was disproportionable to his understan­ding at the time of giving it? But then secondly, considering that the un­derstanding, and the thing to be understood are Relatives; and that it comes to the same end, whether the Facultie be unapt to conceive, or the Object unapt to be conceived; such an excuse is to no purpose. But yet withal wo must note that man is not to be excused from guilt in misunderstanding. First, be cause he willingly brought this defect upon himself by his Original [...]lly and Fal [...] of Secondly, Because he, through vile and vitious affections doth oftentimes contract a greater darkness and disorder than is natural to him, even in this state of Original sin. And God, as all other Law-givers, did not proportion the Law given, according to the contingent dis­positions of particular mens understanding, but according to that com­mon Scantling found generally in Man: So that undoubtedly some men are the proper authors of their own ignorance in divine matters, through their affected evil manners: as the Scripture, and the Fathers join­tly shew.

A second General reason is from God. 1. Calling man to the knowledge of himself, and that by his word; and never intending to alter the course of nature, and general state of man in this life, which was, and is, to be fallible (Infallibilitie being the portion of the blessed in the life to come;) [...]t were not impossible that God should either by so framing his word, or so reframing man, have secured him from erring about it, but he hath not so done: neither doth it appear, how such Exemptions and priviledges could consist with his Providence more general. For,

Secondly, The Providence of God having determined to preserve humane and divine Societies, as he had constituted; this can hardly be understood to be more readily and safely effected than by mutual obligations, and a ne­cessity of mutual offices to be done one towards another. And the first thing conducing hereunto, is, the Order of Governors and Governed, of Ma­sters and Scholars; of such as teach, and such as are taught in the Word. But if every man were wise in the Laws of man, had the power of the Sword justly given into his own hands, or the power of the Word in his own breast, then would there be no need at all of Rulers or teachers to teach or instruct; or reprove and redress errours in manners: because, Every man is supposed to be an independent Prince: and though he should offend against nature it self, was not to be punished by one who had no au­tority over him. Hence there fore it is, that God most wisely hath suffered an inequalitie of Persons in all Ages, all Faculties, all Policies, as well [Page 27] divine as humane, that the more strickt the bond is, the more intire the soci­etie and unity might also be.

Thirdly, As this discrimination secures the necessary relations between men within themselves, so doth it the dependance between God and Man, which must never be forgotten. For, as for the Father to deliver all the writings of his Estate to his son, and to put him in present and full pos­session of all his wealth, is the next way to tempt his son to forget and dis­respect him and no more to acknowledg any duty to him; in like manner, were it so that God, at once, should have put man in ample and absolute knowledg of his holy writings and will, without reserving to himself the farther manifestation of difficulter matters, there would be no address to God, no worship, no seeking to him for satisfaction and information in the Care of his Soul. One main end and office of prayer would be extinct. So we read that God designing the Law to the Israelites, provided afore­hand, That the ordinary Rulers should judg the people at all time; but the hard causes, they should bring to Moses; and Moses himself, cases too hard for him, to God: As in the Case of him that gathered sticks on the Sab­bath day, and of Zelophehads daughters.

Fourthly, God suffers this, to the end he might quicken, and excite our Endeavours and industry in the search after his holy will so reveiled unto us. For, were it so that all things were presently and readily obvious un­to us, there would be wanting that excellent vertue of labour, to which God hath ordained all men since the fall; to perserve them from greater mischiefs incident to weak man. And besides, contempt and slighting areBesides those Texts of Scripture, which by rea­son of wis­dom and depth of sense, and my­stery laid up in them, are not yet con­ceived; there are in Scrip­ture of things that are [...] and [...] seemingly confused, [...] carrying sem­blance of Contrariety and Achro­nisms, Meta­chronisms, and the like, which brings infinite ob­scurity to the text. There are I say, more of them in Scripture then in any writer that I know secular or divine. Dr. Hales Serm. 1. p. 22. alwaies the consequent of what is plain and familiar to us. And there­fore, that argument which some use to prove all things evident in Scrip­ture, and others contrariwise, that all things are unquestionable in the Church, so that according to the opinion of the one, a man committing himself to the holy Scriptures, and according to the other, submitting him­self to the Church, in all things, he may promise himself security, rather than safety, do make more against this; It being more certainly the Will of God, (while we war in the Church militant) we should never rest secure from due solicitudes, and temptations; but by often contentions with him to pre­serve our selves from falling from the true Faith, or falling into a false Faith.

A third General reason of the obscurities in Scripture may be taken from the Scriptures themselves: which not compared with the general ability of mans reason and understanding only, but with other writings also, are of difficult access: and that will be thought no calumnie, if it be considered, First, That the languages in which they were originally written are so far perished now adayes, that they are familiar to no nation, neither can the many Idioms and proprieties of the phrase be well understood by us. Se­condly, The Histories thereof, and the several customes, rites, Civil and Re­ligious, amongst the Heathens, as well as Jews and Christians; the habits, gestures and acts, very easily known and readily apprehended by such as lived in those dayes and places, are now hardly to be understood. Third­ly, The difficulty of distinguishing between Canonical and Uncanonical Writings. Fourthly, The subtilty and artifices of Heretiques, in their corrupting, if not the Letter, yet perverting the genuine sense: Yea, the very Orthodox Expositors are themselves so various and unconsenting in the true meaning, that they much more distract and unsettle, than guide or promote men in the knowledge of Scripture it self; which naked would [Page 28] be better understood and resolved on, then with them. Fifthly, The seeming opposition and contradiction in Scripture, are no little impediments to the setling of mens minds in the knowledg of them. Sixthly, a Sixth diffi­culty will be, The distinguishing of things Judicial, Ceremonial and Moral, so far as to be assured, How far it is lawful to use, or necessary to refuse, what is prescribed by Precept, or example in the Old Testament. Se­venthly, To name no more; The several various Lections may much offend the simplicity of such, who shall not be well inform'd concerning the sub­stantial integrity of Divine writ. And all these I recite to no other end, than to flacken the precipitancy, and cool the impetuous and presumptious heat of such, who, the less able they are to examine and judge, the more confident they are to conclude out of Scriptures, what they phansie and like best: refusing the outward and ordinary means of receiving the true sense, upon indeed a certain truth, That Gods Spirit is the best interpreter of its own Laws; and God is able to direct them in the sober use of them; but a most unsound and unsafe inference from hence, that God doth, or will so assist them, when they neglect those sober outward means he hath no less or­dained to that end then the former. Of which means we are in the next place here to treat.

CHAP. XI.

THE Opinion, That all things necessary to salvation are plain­ly enough delivered in Scripture, is pious, and reasonable enough, taken with its due qualifications and limitations; namely, of Persons, of Times, of Places, and such like. For of things supposed to be necessary, all are not to all men alike necessary, no not to the same man, at all times. For there are some Articles of Faith that are sufficiently explained and propounded to him, others are not so; and therefore in relation to such a person, not so neces­sary to be explicitly believed. Again, some points of Religion are ne­cessary to be received for their own sakes, after due proposal, others are necessary to be received for the sake of others; and so imediately only ne­cessary. The Articles in the Creed of the Apostles are most of the for­mer sort, to be, for their own sakes, believed: But the Articles of the [Page 29] Church, and its power, and autority, (which I take not to be mentioned in the Creed as most do) are necessary for the preservation of the true Faith it self: For without the use and receiving of Discipline, there can be no Church properly so called (as may hereafter be prooved) and with­out a Church there can be no long continuance of Faith. Therefore, from hence it is not difficult to null the pretensions of some ranck Disputants, who lay it as a Principal foundation, and so reasonable, that it scarce needs any thing but clamours and out cries to make it take effect on them that shall dare to reject it, That nothing is necessarily to be offered to the Faith of any, or to be by him received, which is not expressed in holy writ. For in holy writ, it is necessary to observe and obey such as are set over us in the Lord, so far as we are not convinced, that they determine or impose a­ny thing contrary to the word of God. And for ought doth appear, it is as necessarily required that we should depend upon our Guides in the Church for the due meaning of the Scriptures, as upon the suggestions of Gods Spirit which refuseth not, but requireth such outward means concurring with its direction. For nothing can be more absurd or vain than simply to depend upon divine intimations of Gods Spirit, because it is all suffici­ent, of it self, to such purposes. For it is not only sufficient to them, but to all other, as well divine as natural ends; and yet to so rest on it as to neglect or pass over contemptuously other meanes, is rather to provoke God to denie the ordinary assistance of it. For God doth not act in the world according to his power, but according to his Will and Promise made unto us. It is true, that Christ hath promised in St. Ma­thew, Whatsoever ye ask in my name believing, ye shall receive; andMath. 21. 22. by St. Luke more expresly, If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts Luk. 11. 13. unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the ho­ly Spirit to them that ask him. These, and such like promises of being in­vested with Gods blessed Spirit, must not be so absolutely understood, as that all who simply crave it, should forthwith certainly be therewith en­dowed; because St. James (as other places of Scripture) explains and re­strains this large promise, according to the Oeconomie, or more gene­ral tenour of the Gospel, i. e. That we ask aright, and believing, which whe­ther we in prayer do duly observe, may be well doubted of us; though we doubt not of the Thesis it self, or Rule, That he that asketh aright shall receive.

And besides, these are senses in which such promises are truly verified, and Gods Spirit truly given, and yet not a full importment of all the graces which flow from it. For they, who at first were called to the Faith of Christ, and baptized, were indued with the holy Spirit, and yet not presently instated in the discerning of all the mysteries of Christian Faith, but still depended upon the Prophets and Apostles, and interpreters of Gods will, for the attaining of his will even revealed in General. For ac­cording to the known distinction, there are spiritual Gifts signally so cal­led, and spiritual Graces. And some men may receive the influence of Gods Spirit in the way of Grace, which sanctifies the will and affections, and not of Gifts, which illuminates the mind and understanding; and that not only to the use of things absolutely necessary to our Salvation, but to the benefit of others.

Add hereunto, That notwithstanding the Spirit is so sufficient of it self, and God doth grant it to them who ask it of them; We know that gene­rally it is not granted to any, but in the way which Christ ordained the [Page 30] same, and that was, that first, it should descend (as it also did) imme­diately and primarily upon the Church representative, or Ruling; who were then his Apostles and holy Disciples; and in like manner is it still to be expected soberly, through the mediation of such as are by Christ set to govern the Church, and rule under him, herein succeeding the A­postles; and not immediately, and by a leap from the head to the lowest members: which though it may be, yet is so rarely, that none can without another extraordinary confirmation, rest satisfied that so it is really with him.

Lastly, for our clearer proceeding, We are herein to distinguish between the attaining to the true sense of Scripture, and the decision or determi­nation of Controversies according to the Scripture. And that the most important Query is not so much, Whether a man hath the Spirit, or not, or whether he hath the truest and most genuine meaning of the Spirit spea­king in the Scriptures, or not; but how this should be made known and manifested so far unto others, as that they should rationally and soberly rest satisfied in the opinions of the said pretenders to such truths. For, its well and smartly said in this doubt, The Question is not, Whether the Spirit in a Man or Church, or the Scripture, (though this last way is ve­ry improperly expressed) be the best Judge of the Sense of Scripture; but where it resides, to such purposes? And what a great stir is made to lit­tle purpose, while the former is so easily granted on all sides, and there is nothing done at all to convince a sober man or Christian, That such or such persons are they we ought expect the dictates of Gods Spirit from. For, Judgement, properly so called, can never be separated from Autority, or lawful presiding over others, joyned with power to oblige to such sentence as shall be passed: but how this should be competible to single, or many Persons agreeing in the same thing, in their private capacity; yea though enabled with the spirit more than ordinary, cannot well be understood. So that at most, they can be judges of controversies only for themselves, and that at their own peril; and can do no more than perswade, advise, and exhort, not oblige others to think as they do: But Judges must, and ought to do more, or they had as good do nothing. So that, that which hath found great acceptance and applause by too many, doth upon examination prove very insignificant and impertinent to the resolution of the difficultie in hand, viz. That things that are necessary are obvious in Scripture, and, Every man is Judge to himself: granting; I say, This; (which is yet re­ally untrue) yet scarce any thing is said to the purpose; which enquired not so much, How a man might perswade himself, but how, and with what influence he may proceed to the conviction and reducing of others; so that the essential to a Church be not destroyed, as it certainly must be, where no communion is; and there will infallibly cease all communion where it is meerly arbitrary for Christians to believe and judge and walk and wor­ship as they please. For, this it is for every man to judge for himself. Will it be yet farther said, That we should bear with one another, and live peaceably and charitably one with another, and not molest each other for his Judgement; If it be, as I know it is; I reply first, That this plausi­bility, without possibility, is not true according to the opinions of them who use it. For they certainly hold, That Heresie and Schism are not to be endured or born withal. Christ and God must not be blasphemed by unsound opinions, or prophane or superstitious actions: and this di­versity, yea, contrariety of judging, must needs find these faults in one [Page 31] another, very often; and consequently, be of opinion, That they are not to be suffered; and Charity must not be so far mistaken or abused, as to licentiate such enormities.

But, What if after all this contention for the Spirit, it be not judge at all, as in truth it is not, in any proper sense? For, the Spirit is only the due qualification of the Person, or Persons, not simply to judge (for that descends upon them by being ordinarily, and orderly constituted over the Church of Christ) but to judge aright; and to give faithful and unerring sentence in matters under debate and question.

And the same may be, in proportion, affirmed of Reason termed by some, who would seem to excell others in reason, most improperly, as well as un­reasonably, Judge of Controversies; For all judgement, disquisition, and expositions, are made by Persons, not by things. Reason indeed is the Instrument whereby a Person is enabled to judge, or find out the truth; unto which unless there be a due accession of Autority and Power, such reason, though very exquisite and happy, must keep within its own doors, and judge at home for it self, and not for others: nor contrary to more pub­lick and autoritative determinations, without the peril of being taxed of Arrogance, and it self justly condemned, if not for the Inward errours of the mind, for the outward errors in ill managing truths.

If it were so, That Reason in men were infallible, we ought not to stand upon nicities of terms, or improper language. But for men to de­ny others the Seat and Power of Judicature, because they may err; and to take it to themselves, as if the spirit of Error had no power over them, is at the same time a grievous, though pleasing error, both against Reason and common justice too.

And if it be said, That every man is bound by the Law of nature, be­ing indued with reason, to use that reason, and not bruitishly to suffer himself, he knows not or cares not whether, to becarried by others Rea­sons, and not his own: I retort, And every man is obliged by the Law of Nations, which is a more refined principle than that of gross Nature pro­perly taken, to contain himself in the order of Community he is placed, and to submit to the reason of common Judgement, no less than his own. For, undoubtedly, until every man in private and particular, be unerra­ble (which is not to be expected on this side heaven) there will diverse in­consistent judgements prevail, and divide one from another; and cause such a breach as the society, whether divine or humane, will soon pe­rish, and come to nothing. But granting what was before demanded, That every man must act according to his reason above the nature of beasts; this doth not conclude, That therefore he must be let alone; and not brought, even by force, to submit to others, against such reason. First, Because it is not resolved by any but a mans own deceitful opinion, That it is really reason which is so presumed to be. Secondly, Because he that is so constrained to submit his reason, is not thereby denyed either the nature or use of his, but still much transcendeth the capacity of beasts: For, He discusses, he discourses, he judges rationally, after the manner of men; even when the effect of all these Acts are contrary to reason. And lastly, In wise men, and good humble Christians, there is a superior principal of reasonableness to that of meer direct nature: For, That he that has most reason on his side and (when that it self is controverted) he that according to appearance of Circumstances, may lay the fairest claim to that, is to be followed, no rational man can deny. Therefore, should a Mans pri­vate [Page 32] reason perswade him, That he hath found out the truth, and yet at the same time assure him, That he is no less fallible than another man; and there­fore may possibly embrace and hug a false conception with as much fond­ness as a true; and withal, That private Judgements are not in themselves so safe as publique, nor single, as many. What violence were this to his reason, nay, how much more rational than the first simple Act, to comply with the Reason of others, whom reason also requires to listen to and o­bey; and Scripture much more?

From hence we may rightly conclude against both extremes in these days, who yet agree in this very ill-grounded opinion, That there must be an In­fallible Director or Judge, or we cannot submit to them, in matters of Faith and our Salvation. This is absolutely untrue, both in humane and divine matters. Who sees not indeed that it were to be wished for, and a­bove all things desired? Who sees not the great inconvenience for want of such a standard of opinions as this? But can we rationally conclude there­fore, that so it is? Or hath God, or ought he, of his necessary goodness and wisdom (as some have ventured to affirm) to grant all things, that are infallibly good for man? Is it not sufficient, that a fair (though not infal­lible) way is opened to attain the truth here, and bliss hereafter; but eve­ry one must find it? Is it little or no absurditie, That infinite never come to means of truth, and so great, that many who enjoy them, do not receive the benefit by them.

Again, Are good manners and virtues no less essential to Salvation than Faith? and is there no infallible Judge of manners? Is there no infallible Casuist? And must there be of points of Faith? How many have the in­fallible Rule of holy Life, and yet mistake either in the sense or applicati­on of it, so far as to perish in unknown Sins? And yet none have, to pre­vent that great and common evil, call'd for an infallible Censour, whose de­terminations might settle doubtful consciences in greatest safety, and silence all apologies which are wont to be made for our sins and errors, and so bring us nec essarily to truth or leave us under self and affected condem­nation.

But, The Ground of this mistake being farther searched into, will be found very weak and fallacious. An infallible Faith (say they) must have an infallible Judge: And of these some assume thus. There is no man infalli­ble; Therefore no man can be Judge of Faith: Others assume thus. But there is, and must be an infallible Faith; Therefore, there must be an infallible Judge. So that we see, both would have infallible Judges; but differ only in their choice of them. For, The former would have the Scrip­tures Judge and Rule, which is very honest; but very simple. The later would have some external Judge; which hath much more of reason in it: And fails only in the choice of this Judge, or in the description of him. For, There is nothing more unreasonable than to ordain that which is un­der debate to be Judge of it self; besides the great absurdity of confoun­ding the Rule or Law; and the Interpreter and Judge. And, There is no­thing more fallacious than to confound Causes and occasions together; as the later opinion doth. For, If the Church, or whatever Judge may be supposed, were the true direct cause of our Faith; then indeed it would necessarily follow; That our Faith could no wayes be infallible, unless the Judge were also infallible; the effect not exceeding the cause, nor the Conclusion the Premises or propositions from whence it was deduced: But, Because the Church is only on Occasion, or a Cause without which we [Page 33] should neither believe the Scriptures in general to be the Word of God, nor any sentence to be duly drawn from the same, there is no necessity at all of such a consequence. For, The Infallibility now spoken of, is ei­ther the thing believed, which is the Word of God, of which the Church, I hope, is no Cause, or the Grace of Faith excited and exercised by us through the Spirit of Grace in us: the mynistery of the Church serving there­unto: acording to St. Paul saying, We therefore as workers together with 2 Cor. 6. 1. him, beseech you also, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

For, as in things natural, He that applies Actives to Passives, that is, the Cause proper, to the matter about which the Action is, is not the pro­per or natural cause of the Effect, but the occasion only: yet is said vul­garly, so to be; as when a man applies fire to combustible matter, he may (though improperly) be said to burn it, when it is the fire, and not he, that burns it: So the Church or Judge of Scriptures sense applying the same to a capable subject, the effect is true and infallible Faith, but it is not the effect of the Church, or instrument (or mean rather) but of the Holy Spirit, of Grace, which taketh occasion from thence to produce Faith, and that infallible. For; Were this Infallibility, we now speak of, the Churches then, when ever the Church should so propound and urge points of Faith, they must needs have an effect in the Soul: For, if they say, The Church teaches in an humane way, they say she teaches in a falli­ble way: which overthrows all. And from this is cleared that difficulty, which opposeth a Judge of Scripture and Faith, because none could be found infallible; For not making the Judge the cause of Faith but occasi­on, he may be necessarily required to Faith: God who is the only prin­cipal cause with his holy word, seldom or never concurring without those outward means. And therefore, though I readily enough grant, That the Scriptures are so plainly written, that a single simple person wan­ting greater helps to attain to the abstruser sence of them, and using his ho­nest and simple endeavour, may easily find so much of the Rule of Faith and holy Life, as to be saved by them; yet I cannot say the same of any men who presuming on Gods power, against his promise, which includ­eth the use of outward meanes, or mistaking his promise for absolute, when it is conditional, shall look no farther than their own wits shall lead them.

Now, The outward meanes to which God hath annexed his promise of Grace may be these.

First, That which we have here handled, a general and sober submission to the Guides of our youth and our spiritual Fathers and Pastors in Christ; which to forsake, is the part of a wanton and fornicating Soul, according to Solomon. This, common Reason and nature it self seem to require of allProv. 2. 17. under Autority, by the disposition of Almighty God; That they in the first place hearken unto the voice and explication of the Church, where­in they are educated, until such time as a greater manifestation of truth shall withdraw them unwillingly from the same. For, so long as Senses are equally probable on both sides, we are obliged by conscience to our proper Fathers in Christ. For, to do otherwise, is to provoke God to deliver such over as light and gadding Huswifes, to the impure embraces of any seducer to Schism and Heresie. But, when such a conviction shall be wrought in us, of the errors and unsafety of that communion in which we were educated, That we must either forsake that, or Christ; then must the advice and sentence of our Saviour prevail with us, in St. Luke. If any Lu [...]. 14. 26. [Page 34] man comes to me, and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children, and Brethren and Sisters, yea and his own Life, also, he cannot be my Dis­ciple. And as we should go against common prudence and humanity it self, out of an opinion, That our Parents natural may err, and set us upon un­warrantable Acts, to turn them off, and deny all obedience unto them, least they should lead us into errors; so should we do very unchristianly, and against apparent precepts of Scripture, contemptuously and proudly to deny submission both of Judgement and practise unto our spiritual Parents, because, forsooth, they are men, and may err, the Spirit of disobedience tacitly insinuating unto us a much more pestilent opinion, That while we do as best liketh our selves, we shall be much more safe, if not infallible, as if we might not err. But of this, as we have already spoken in part, so may there offer it self a more proper place, more fully to speak afterward.

A second general means to attain the true sense of Scripture is indeed the Spirits assistance, by which it was at first composed: There is cer­tainly none like to that. For, (as St. Paul hath it.) What man knoweth the 1 Cor. 2. 11. things of a man save the Spirit of a man, which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

The only hazard we here run is, (and that no small one) That we presume not lightly upon such a peculiar guidance of the Spirit, which we have not.

The general remedie therefore of this evil, is that prescribed by our Lord Christ, viz. Prayer. For, Thus he speaketh by St. Mathew. All things whatsoever ye ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. And moreMat. 21. 22. Luk. 11. 13. particularly by St. Luke. If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask them.

And a Third means is when, being soundly and well instructed in the ge­neralAugustin. de Doct. christ. Lib. 3. cap. 2. drift and design of Faith, or Gods holy word, we by the Analogy which one part of Faith must bear with another, do judge of the truth, or error of any thing contained in Scripture.

And, To this belongs a Fourth, as it is commonly reckoned, viz. due andId. 16. cap. 3. prudent comparing of several places of Scripture; knowing that no sense can be admitted of Scripture, which disagreeth with any part of Scrip­ture.

Skill or knowledg of the original tongues in which they were wrot, may be accounted a Fifth meanes, and herein a special observation of the seve­ral Idioms of both Old and New Testament.

Lastly, Consideration of the Histories of Countries, Persons, and Cu­stomes, to which Holy writ do relate. To these, several others of inferi­or Order might be named, but I here pass them, to come to a more exact and seasonable treatise of Tradition, so much conducing to the abovesaid ends.

CHAP. XII.

TO this place is due the Treating of Tradition, as well for the better compleating of what may yet seem wanting in directi­ons for the attaining the proper sense of the Rule of Faith, the Scripture, as because of the pretensions, in its behalf, made by some to an equal share in the Rule it self; by laying down this fundamental Division of the Word of God, into Writ­ten; commonly called Scripture: and Unwritten; called Tradition.

And, That the Word of God may be left unwritten, as well as written, isMoreman said, the Church was before the Scrip­tures—Philpo [...] shew­ed that his argument was fallacious. For he took the Scriptures only to be that which is written by men in letters, whereas in very deed all Prophesy ut­tered by the Spirit of God was counted to be Scrip­ture. Fox Martyr. Vol. 3. pag. 29. undeniable; nay, That actually it was delivered by word of mouth, be­fore it was committed to writing, is evident from the infinite Sermons of the Apostles, Evangelists, and Evangelical Preachers, who declared the same. For, To them who were contemporary to the immediate Disciples of Christ, the word of God was delivered by speech, to the end it might be written, so far as it seemed expedient to Divine Providence, for the perpetual benefit of succeeding generations: but to us, The word of God is preached vocally, or orally, because it is written. And so we read our Saviour himself used it against the Devil and incredulous Jews: not quo­ting the uncertain and unecessary Traditions remaining with the Jews, but the written Word, saying by St. Mathew; Mat. 4. V. 4. 7. 10. Joh. 8. 17. It is written, man shall not live by bread alone. And verse the seventh, It is written again. And the third time, It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, &c. And so by St. John, and innumerable other places, It is written in your Law. Christ in all his disputes against his Jewish adversaries, seldome or never argu­ing from their Traditions, which were many, but from the written word of God only.

And notwithstanding, speaking Philosophically, it is not repugnant to reason, That things delivered from Father to Son, through many ages, should persevere in their pristine integrity, and be preserved incorrupt in the main; yet is it inconsistent with the Fallibility of humane nature, to secure them in all Points from violation, either without writing, or with. All the world concurring in this: That the Invention of Letters was a spe­cial gift of God towards Mankind, for the more safe and profitable con­tinuance of things passed to following times. Such an intollerable Para­doxCresies Exo­mologesis. is that which modern Wits (their scarce tollerable Tenets urging them thereunto) have of late vented, and to their best defended; That Tradi­tion, taken in contradistinction to Writing, is more safe than writing; [Page 36] as if writing had not all the priviledges belonging to oral Tradition, with great advantage: or because written monuments may suffer by tract of time, and passing so many hands, unwritten traditions might pass so many ages and mouths inviolate: When, while we see too great variety in the reading, or letter of books, we could be so blind as not to behold infinite more of the same nature in Traditions: It is as seldome found, That a tale should be reported in the very same phrase or words it was at first told, as it is that things transcribed with any common honesty, or diligence, should fail considerably, so much as in the Letter. And if they say, in Tradition, forms of words are not so much to be stood upon, doth it not altogether hold as good when this Tradition is written? How then do not men blush to argue so boldly, and at the same time so weakly?

There is therefore a twofold Infallibility to be distinguished, as well in Relation to unwritten Doctrines, as written; the one consisting in the Mat­ter delivered; the other in the manner so delivering: And truly, as to this later, it cannot be said, without some strong Presumption to the contrary, the written Traditions which are the Scriptures, have been so precise [...]y and absolutely defended from either the common injuries of time, or special miscarriages incident to humane frailty, or perhaps, as some conjecture, the studious mischiefs of sacrilegious hands laid on them, as not one title, one word, one period should not have been damnified thereby. The Provi­dence of God (granting some such minuter defections from the Original Co­pies) hath been singular in preserving them in that degree of perfection and entireness, we now enjoy them: So that infinite is the disparity in this case between them and unwritten Traditions, which none have been so audacious positively to affirm (though indeed their large and loose reasons seem to tend that way) that any one unwritten doctrine hath been conser­ved unto us in the same form of words it was at first delivered to the Church.

And the like, though not so great advantage is to be acknowledged on the Scriptures part, compared with the pretended unwritten word of God, in reference to the matter: and that in these three respects. 1. The Evidence. 2. The Importance; and 3. The Influence that the doctrine of the Scrip­tures have, and ought to have over all Traditions.

And for the first; It is impossible (taking traditions as they are distingui­shed from Scripture) that the like grounds of Faith should be offered to us, as we have above shown are to be found, proving the Scriptures to be the word of God. For are all, or some only Gods word? All cannot be, because Traditions in several Places of the world have been diverse, and even con­trary. Because some are acknowledged to have been the Constitutions of Men, or the Church, since the Apostolical Age. Because many are acknow­ledged to have been quite lost. Because many have been confessed to be chan­ged, of them which remain. Now if the Church hath failed in the due Cu­stodie of such treasures committed to her, How can any man be assured sufficiently of the integrity of the remainer? How can the Church be estee­med an Infallible Witness of traditions? And who can but admire the Con­fidence of such Patrons of the Churches fidelity, or rather felicity (for I would not, nor need I call in question its good will and Honesty) in her Of­fice of Preserving the Monuments of our Religion untouch'd by errors, who by reasons would demonstrate that that cannot be, which we see done be­fore our eyes? For at other times the same Party, if not the same persons, stick not to profess, that divers Antienter Traditions are perished, and more modern have succeeded them. They say, that some Traditions are as [...] [Page 37] as sense can make them: The Tradition that there were such famous Cities as Nineve and Babylon, and are such as Constantinople and Rome, requires the same Faith, as the beholding them with our Eyes. But first, It should have been said in the argument, They are as evident as those things we are informed of by our senses: but this is far from truth: All the testimonies of Past and present persons affirming that to be so which I have no sense of immediately, being abundantly sufficient to beget a belief, but not equal­ling in evidence the testimonie of any mans well-disposed senses. For does not this so general testimonie it self, depend upon a mans senses receiving the same? Or can any man be so well assured, upon the Credit of any per­sons whatever, that the Apostles delivered such things to be believed and observed by the Church, as if he himself immediately received the same from them?

If it be said, that the case of Ecclesiastical Tradition is far different from humane, in that the Church is divinely assisted to such ends, suppo­sing this at present, still we are no less intregued then before. For, as is said, The truth of a thing, and the Evidence whereby it appears to be true, are very much different: And here it will be no less difficult to make such a supposed Assistance appear, then the tradition it self, which it com­mends to the World, upon such pretences. And therefore, they who have sifted this matter more narrowly, and stated it most rationally, have thought it best to forsake such topicks, at present, as Extraordinarie Assistances: andHen. Holdeni Analysis Fid. tell us plainly, that what the Church doth in this case, she doth it not as divinely directed, but as so many Men delivering their testimonie, which is true, but then, what becomes of Infallibility; all men singly and conjointly, as men, being fallible? Well therefore they proved to tell us, That to a jugde of Controversies, Credible Testimonie, or moral infallibilitie may suffice; and to this I agree in the main, though the term Moral Certainty, and Moral Infallibilitie, seems to me as vain and improper as it is modern: it upon enquirie, amounting to no more then the old Probabilitie well and reasona­bly grounded

The next thing in Holy Writ, is the much greater importance the things therein contained are of, above unwritten doctrines. For who of all the An­cients, but such as are by tradition stigmatized for Heretiques for such theirBasil. Ma. de spiritu sancto [...]. opinions, did constitute any rule of Faith distinct from the Scriptures; or bring any to stand in competition therewith? Some ('tis true) have distin­guished between Dogmes of Traditions and doctrines of the Scripture, and haveaffirmed, That as well the one as the other ought to be received by a good Christian. All this we agree to; how, we shall show by and by more ful­ly; and here by comparing this by the words of St. John, saying, This Joh. 4. 21. Commandment have we from him, that he that loveth God, love his brother al­so. By which it is not required that any Christian should with the same kind or degree of Love, love his neighbour, with which he loveth God. For we must love God only for his own sake, and our brother for Gods sake. Nay, when God sayes we must love our neighbour as our selves, he does not exclude difference in degrees of love: In like manner, when it is said, That we ought to believe and receive the unwritten as well as written traditions, it was never intended by that excellent Father, that we should admit them in equal veneration. For most things there by him instanced in, are appa­rently extrinsical to Faith. Therefore the true meaning is, That no good Son of the Catholick Church, can, or ought to refuse the customes, or practices, or forms of words concerning the doctrine of Christ, be­cause [Page 38] they are not so express'd or contain'd in Scripture as other matters are.

And if we mark, we shall not find any one thing exacted of Christians in the purest and most flourishing state of the Church, as points of Faith, which only depended upon unwritten Tradition; and were not thought to have the written word of God for their warrant and foundation. And in this one thing (were there no more) doth the prerogative of the Scripture mani­fest it self sufficiently above Traditions distinct from it: That whatever vertue or credit they have, is first of all owing to the Scriptures. For o­therwise, why should not the Traditions of the Jew or Mahometan be as credible to a Christian as they of the Church; but that he suck'd in his principle with his Mothers milk; That the written word of God hath given so fair testimonie of the Church and its traditions? For the testimonie of the Church otherwise, would certainly be no more to be valued than that of any other societie, of like moral honestie. So that the Scriptures must be the very First principle of all Christian belief.

But here steps in the old objection drawn from a most eminent Father of the Church, which Extollers of tradition can as well forget their own names as leave out of their disputations on this subject; though according to theirAugustin. custome they have a very bad memory to bear in mind what hath been suffi­ciently replied to it. I should not, saith that Father, have believed the Scriptures but for the Church: and yet we have said we should not have be­lieved the Church but for the Scriptures. How can these stand together? Very well, if we please to distinguish the several wayes of information: for in the same there must be granted a repugnancie. And the distinction is much the same with what we have before laid down, viz. Of the Occasion, and the direct Cause of Faith. For though the Churches tradition be an Intro­duction to the belief of the Scriptures, and such a necessary Cause with­out which no man ordinarily comes so much as to the knowledge of them: yet it doth not at all follow, that through the influence of that supposed Cause, an effect of Faith is wrought in the Soul concerning them; but from a superiour illumination and interiour power, which has been generallyJoh. 4. required to such praeternatural Acts. As the Woman of Samaria brought her fellow Citizens to Christ, but was not the author of that faith which after they had in him as the true Messias; or as the Horse I ride on carrying me from London to York is not the proper Cause that I see that City, but mine own senses; though I perhaps should never have seen it otherwise.

But another more Ancient and no less venerable Father of the Church isIrenaeus. here brought in, demanding, What if nothing had been written, must we not then have altogether depended on the Traditions? To such as extend this quae­rie too far, I move the like question. What if we had no Traditions at all; must not then every man have shifted as well as he could, and traded upon the finall stock of natural reason in him? Or was it impossible that man should come to bliss without the superadded light outwardly exhibited? That as the case stands, man ordinarily cannot be saved without such received revelati­ons, as are dealt to us from the Church, I believe: But upon supposal, that no such means were extant, that there should be no other Ordinary way of Gods revealing himself to man in order to his salvation, believe it who will, for me. I answer therefore directly, No question but tradition would have suffi­ced, if nothing had been committed to writing. For either God would have remitted of that rigour (as no man can doubt but he might have made the terms of the Covenant fewer, and lighter) with which we now stand obliged to him according to that most equal Law of the Gospel, as well as [Page 39] Reason, Unto whom much is given, of him shall be much required: and to Luk. 12. 48. Mat. 25. whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. Nei­ther is it probable, against the intent of Christs most excellent Parable, in St. Mathew: that of that Person, or that People to whom he hath de­livered but two, or five Talents, he should extort the Effect of ten. Well therefore doth that Father argue against such as should dare to consine God only to Scripture, and so superciliously or contemptuously look on the Traditions of their Christian Fathers, as not worth the stooping to take up; yea, as necessarily warring against the Word written: Whenas it is cer­tain, a thing is written because it is first declared; and is the Word of him that speaketh, no less before, than after it is written; and not so, because it is written. St. Paul therefore joyns them both together, in his Epi­stle to the Thessalonians, saying: Therefore brethren stand stedfast and hold 2 Thes. 2. 15. the Traditions, which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle. Here are plainly both written Traditions, and unwritten; and written Word of God, and unwritten: and they differ only in the several ways of promulgation, and not in the Law of God. And it is more then proba­ble, That those first principles of Christian Faith were not received of St. Paul in writing; of which he speaks in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 15. 1, 2, 3, 4. concerning the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour, nor delivered in writing at his first publication; yet were no less the word of God then, than afterward.

Yet, as this sufficiently allayes the heat of hostility indiscreetly concei­ved against all Traditions, even for the very names sake, which is be­come odious to us; so doth it not so much favour the contrary party, as hath been phantasi'd. For 'tis observable, That there is a very great diffe­rence between the Tradition now touched, and that so commonly and pas­sionately disputed of in the Church. That was, and may be called a Tra­dition, as every thing expressed by Word or Writing, whereby one man delivers his mind (for so the English Phrase hath it, not amiss) to another transiently: But the Tradition now under debate may be described, A con­stant continuation of what is once delivered, from Generation to Generation. For, No man can with any propriety of speech, term what is not a year or two in standing Tradition. Tradition is a long custom of believing. The things which are so called in the Scriptures, are not such; and there­fore can be no president for those of these dayes. There being not the like reason, that we should give the same respect, or esteem so Apostoli­cal, that which now is so reputed, and that which any mans memo­ry might assure him was so in very deed the Apostles Doctrine.

This controversie then seems to come to this issue. First, in Reason, Whether Oral and Memorial Tradition can be so secure, as Scriptural? The resolution of which doubt almost every man may make sufficiently, of himself, and hath been competently treated of above.

The other Question is about matter of Fact, Whether the Church of God did ever so unanimously agree in the necessity, validity or Sacredness of any Traditions not contained in the written Word of God, as to equal them with this? This we absolutely deny: And upon the account of Tradition it self: There being no such Tradition to be found in all the Records of the Church; that Tradition is so highly to be valued. Again, there appea­ring consent sufficient in the Church for many ages, That as to the Materi­al parts of Christian doctrine the Scriptures do sufficiently instruct us, as a Rule, and Law of believing. For, If the Law of Moses, as a Law, [Page 40] was sufficient before the Prophets added to it, for the People of God un­der that Dispensation. And the Law and the Prophets were still sufficient till John and Christ, is to believed, That the Law of Christians delive­red by Christs appointment should fall short of the same ends now? It is truly affirmed. That what St. Paul writeth in commendation of Scripture, was intended chiefly, if not only of the books of the Old Testament, viz. That they were able to make a man wise unto Salvation through Faith that is in Christ Jesus: and, All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is pro­fitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Now, if the Scriptures of the Old Testamant were sufficient to bring a man to the Faith of Christ, and to instruct him to Salvation, can any man reasonably doubt, Whether the much clearer, and fuller manifestation of the Doctrine of Christ, and Salvation, by the books of the New Testament, are suffici­ent to the same end, joyned to the obscurer of the Old? I know there are that say expresly, No: and endeavour to make it good by several instances very material to Faith; and yet not expressed in Scripture; and yet again, of force to be believed by all that would be good Christians: As the Ar­ticles of the Trinity, and of Christs Person consisting of humane and di­vine nature: Of his being born of the blessed Virgin. Some other are added hereunto, but they are either such as are neither favoured by Scrip­ture, nor good Tradition; as Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, &c. or have only a general warrant from Scripture and Tradition; and such are they which are of a mutable nature, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church: which ought not, when confirmed by long consent and use in the Church, lightly to be refused and cast off; so when any Church, having power o­ver its own body, shall think fit to alter, is that Church to be refused as a true Church, by others. But to the first of these, we stick not openly to profess, That it suffices to believe so much only as is really contained in, and soberly deducible from the Scriptures; taking these articles of Faith separately from certain accessory obligations of all good Christians. For instance. It is not required to believe the doctrine now established in the Catholick Church concerning the Trinity, in the forms at present received from the nature of the Articles themselves, which may with safe­ty sufficient be assented to, as they are simply found in Scripture: yet con­sidering, That Hereticks have stirred up most dangerous and sacrilegious doubts, to the obviating them, and securing the main stake which would be endangered if farther explications were not found out and imposed, it is needful to receive them also, or at least not to oppose and declare a­gainst them. For 'tis very well known, there passed some ages before the Articles of the Trinity of Persons were so much stood on, or so well set­led as now they are, and that Tradition was as much to seek as the written Word of God, to bring things to that pass they now are in.

And for Christ's manner of birth, I know no such Tradition either writ­ten or unwritten which required antiently any more than to believe bare­ly, That the eternal Son of God became man, and was incarnate, and born of a woman, who was a pure Virgin; but probable circumstances and re­verence to the high Mystery of Christs Person obliged to the honorary part of that Article. And the like answer may be made to another instance a­bout Paedobaptism, which some, as occasion offers, will say is required in Scripture; and again, it serving at other times their turn better to denyBellarmin. [Page 41] it, will hold the contrary. For Baptism of Infants, as Infants, is not in­deed required by Scripture; but as persons saveable, it is: the rule gene­ral in Scripture running thus, Except a man be born of water and the Holy John. 3. 5. Ghost he cannot be saved. It is not said, unless a man be born by water, while he is an infant or Child, but absolutely. For had it been so expres­sed, just doubt might have been made, whether a man baptized at his full age, were effectually baptized? Neither is Baptism appointed signally and pre­cisely for men in years (though none but such at the first preaching of the Gospel who could profess their Faith could be capable of it) but indefi­nitely is it spoken without any limitation; and therefore sufficiently im­plied. Other instances against the plenitude of Scripture as a Rule of Faith have either already been touched (as that which tells us, It is no­where contained in Scripture that the Scriptures are the word of God, neither can it be proved by it: for no more can it be demonstrated by Tra­dition) or may be easily brought to the same end.

To conclude this point, having shewed what we mean by Tradition, and what it serveth not to, it were unreasonable to leave it slurr'd so, and not to give it its due in shewing the great use thereof in the Church of Christ. For however we make it not supream, nor coequal with the written word of God, it may without any offence or invasion of Divine Right or Autoritie claim the next place to it; and as Joseph to Pharaoh be greater then all the the people besides, but inferiour to Pharaoh in the Throne. Of God it is said, Thou satest in the Throne judging right. God now judges by his WordPsalm. 9. 4. written, as by a Law and Rule of faith, as is shewed. Yet, I see no reason for the injudicious zeal and reverence of such who think they cannot give enough unto the Scriptures, unless in word and pretence (for tis no more, themselves constantly acting contrarie to their profession) they ascribe all the Form of Judging unto the Scriptures, and all things determinable to their decision. I wish with all my heart (so far am I from an evil eye or niggard­ly affection towards Scripture) they could make their words good, when they tell us all things are contained in Scripture, It is a perfect Rule of all emergent doubts and acts in the Church, It is Judge and Law both of Con­troversies; but alas, they cannot: For they take away from it more then by this rank kindness they give to it. Gods word is Perfect as a Law, and so far as he intended it: but it must cease to be a Law and take another na­ture upon it, if it were a Judge too in any proper sense: And the Canon of Scripture must be it self variable and mutable, if it could particularly ac­commodate it self to all occasions and exigencies of Christians. But this is not only absurd, but needless. For God, when he made men Christians, did not take away from them what they before had as Men, but required and ordained that humane judgement and reason should be occupied and sancti­fied by his divine Revelations. He in brief gave them another, and far bet­ter Method, Aid, and Rule to judge by; and did not destroy, or render altogether useless their Judgement even in matters sacred. To the Law and Esay. 8. 20. to the Testimonie (saies the holy Prophet) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. This indeed plainly declares the Rule by which we are to walk, and Judge: but it doth not tell us that the Law it self doth speak; but men according to it: And this is to Judge. Now, because no one man, no one age, no one Church should judge for all, no nor for it self, contrary to all, doth the necessity and expediencie of Tra­dition, not to affront or violate, but secure the written word of God; and that in two special respects, appear.

[Page 42]First, as giving great light and directions unto the Rulers of the Church, and limiting the uncertain and loose wit of man, which probably would otherwise (according to its natural pronitie) flie out into new and strange senses dayly, of holy Scripture. The Records of the Church, like so many Presidents, and Reports in our Common Law, giving us to understand LowConsuetudo eti­am in Civilibus rebus pro Lege suscipitur, cùm deficit Lex; nec differt Scripturd, an ratione consis­tat, quando & Legem ratio commendet. Tertul. de coron. mil. cap. 4. such places of Scripture were formerly understood, and on which side the case controverted passed. And why this course in divine matters should not be approved, I see not, unless unquiet and guilty persons shall seek, under colour of a more absolute appeal to Scripture (which is here supposed to be sincerely appealed unto before) to wind themselves into the seat of Judicature, and at length, not only as fallibly, but also usurpingly, de­cree for themselves and others too. This event hath so manifestly appeared, that there is no denying of it, or defending it. They therefore who pro­fessedly introduce Tradition, to the defeating and nulling of Scripture, deal indeed more broadly, and in some sense more honestly, (as being what they seem) than they, who give all, and more then all due to it in lan­guage, but in practise overthrow it. But we making Tradition absolutely subordinate and subservient to Scripture, and in a word, of the nature of a Comment and not of the Text it self, we are yet to seek not what deceit­fully and passionately (for we know enough of that already) but soberly can be objected against it. For if it be said, Tradition is it self uncertain, it is obscure, it is perished, it contradicts it self, and so can be of little use: we readily joyn with them so far, as to acknowledge that such tradi­tions, and to them to whom they so appear can with no good reason be ap­pealed to: But we deny that there are none but such; and that such as prove themselves to be true and honest men upon due trial and examination, ought to be hang'd out of the way, because they were found in company with thieves and Cheats.

Supposing then, That such honest Traditions are to be found in the Church; another great benefit redoundeth to the Church from thence, in that it doth, in some cases, supply the defects of the Law it self, the Scri­pture. But here, I must first get clear of this reputed Scandal given, in that I suppose the Scriptures defective, or imperfect: I have already, and do again profess its plenitude and sufficiency, as far as a Rule or Law is well capable of. Now, what God by his infinite wisdom and power might have done, I cannot question, in contriving such an ample Law as should comprehend all future and possible contingencies in humane affairs; but this I say, That he disposing things by another Rule, viz. to act ac­cording to humane capacity and condition, never did, or so much as intended to deliver such an infinite Law. Is not Moses, and Gods deal­ing to him, and his ministry to God, and the people, frequently alledged as a notable argument to convince us of the amplitude of the New Testa­ment? Moses (say they) was faithful in all his house: And therefore muchHeb. 3. 2. more was Christ. Very good: and what of all this? As much as comes to nothing. For wherein did the faithfulness of Moses consist? In pow­ring out unmeasurably all that might be said touching divine matters: Or rather in delivering faithfully and exactly all that God commanded him? This truly did Moses; and therefore was very true and faithful to him that sent him, and gave him his charge. This did Christ, and this did the Apo­stles of Christ, and his inspired servants; and therefore were all no less faithful to God than Moses. But did not Moses leave more cases untou­ched in the Administration of the Jewish Policie, then were litterally ex­pressed? [Page 43] Yes surely; judging it sufficient, that he had laid down gene­ral Rules and Precepts, according to which, Emergencies (which might be infinite) should, by humane prudence, be reduced, and accordingly determined. And so (choose they or refuse they) must they grant did Christ, and his Instruments, leave the Law of the Gospel; which yet not wanting all that can be expected from a Law, cannot modestly be pro­nounced imperfect, notwithstanding (as is said) manifold particulars are not there treated of. Now those are they we say, Tradition doth in some measure supply unto us; and the defect of Tradition it self (which hath not considered all things) is made good by the constant power of the Church, given by the Scriptures themselves, in such cases: which re­quire determination of circumstances of time, place, order, and man­ner of Gods service, according to the Edification of the Church of Christ.

CHAP. XIII.

HAving thus spoken of the Rule of Christian Faith, and its Auxiliary, Tradition; we are now to proceed to the Na­ture and Acts, the Effects, Subject, and Object of it. For as all Christian Religion is summed up in one Notion of Chri­stian Faith, so all Faith may be reduced unto the foresaid Heads. Faith taken in its greatest extent, containeth as well Humane as Divine: And may be defined, A firm assent of the mind to a thing reported. And there are two things which principally incline the mind to believe. The Evidence of the thing offered to the understanding, or the Fidelity and Veracity of him that so delivers any thing unto us. For if the thing beFides, est do­num divinitùs infusum menti hominis, quae ci­tra ullam haesi­tantiam credit esse verissima, quaecunque no­bis Deus per u­trumque Test­tradidit ac pro­misit. Erasm. in Symbolum. apparent in it self, to our reasons or senses, we presently believe it: And if the thing be obscure and difficult to be discerned by us, yet if we stand assured of the faithfulness of him that so reports it to us, and his wisdom, we yield assent thereunto.

But Faith properly Divine hath a twofold fountain so constituting and denominating it, The Matter believed, which is not common nor natural, but spiritual and heavenly. But more especially that Faith is Divine, which is not produced in the soul of Man upon any natural reasons necessarily in­ferring the same, but upon a superior motive inducing unto it, that is, [Page 44] Autoritie divine; and because it hath declared and revealed so much unto us, as St. Peter believing Christ to be the Son of God, it is said, Flesh and Boood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. ThisMat. 16. 17. was a divine Faith upon a double respect. 1. by reason of the object, Christ, a divine person. 2. by reason of the Cause, God, by whose power he be­lieved the same, it not being in the power of flesh and blood, any natural reason, to convince the judgement so far as absolutely to believe, That Christ was so the Son of God, so that to be revealed is that which makes the Faith properly divine, and not the divine object or thing believed. For as it hath been observed by others, any thing natural, and which by natural reason may be demonstrated and so must be believed by a natural Faith, be­ing also commended unto us upon divine autority or revelation may be also believed by a divine Faith. That there is an invisible Deity is clearly de­monstrable from the visible things of this World, and accordingly may and ought to be believed, upon the warrant of natural reason it self, as St. Paul teacheth us saying, The Invisible things of him from the Creation of the Rom. 1. 20. world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse. That is, If God had not revealed all this, yet men ought to believe this, out of sense and reason: but this hinders not, but this very thing should become an article of our Creed also, and so, because it is revealed, Form in us a divine Faith.

But we must be aware of an ambiguity in Revelation, which may mislead us. For sometimes Revelation is used for the thing revealed: And some­times for the Act Revealing: that which we call now, The Revelation of St John, and in truth all Scriptures as we have them now, are the things God did reveal unto his servants, but the Act whereby they were revea­led or the Act revealing this to them, ended with the persons receiving them.

And this is no superfluous or curious observation, because of a received maxim in the Schools, That without a supernatural act we cannot give due as­sent unto a supernatural object, nor believe truths revealed by God without a super added aid of Grace illuminating and inclining the mind to assent thereto. From whence doth follow, That, of all divine Faith is most properly, if not only divine, which doth believe that such things are Revealed of God, and not, That, which supposes them to have been revealed by God, and that he said so as is expressed unto us doth believe. For this latter, e­ven any natural man and greatest infidel in the world would believe, who believes there is a God: it being included and implied in the very notion of a Deity, that God cannot lie or deceive, or affirm a thing to be, which is not. But the Christian Faith mounts much higher then Heathens, and by the Grace of God believes that God hath Revealed such things, wherein consists his Christian Faith.

The first thing then a true believer indeed must believe, is, That the Scriptures are the word of God; and this as it is the most fundamental, so is it most difficult of all to one not educated in the Faith of Christians; because it neither can be proved by Scripture, nor whatevermen, who pro­mise nothing less in their presumptuous methods then clear demonstrations, may say, and argue by Tradition: The Scriptures, (though not testimo­nie of it self, yet) matter and manner may induce, and Tradition fortifie that; but the Crown of all true Christian Faith must be set on by Gods Grace.

[Page 45]A Second thing in order, is, when we believe that God hath spoken such things, that we believe the things themselves so delivered to us of God. For though as is said, any rational heathen may well do this, yet many a Christian doth it not. For, The foo [...] not in knowledge so much as practise, [...] 14. [...]. [...] Ti [...]. [...]. 9. hath said in his heart, there is no God: saith the Psalmist, and St. Paul, that many out of an evil conscience have made Shipwrack of their Faith, which really once they had.

A third degree of Christian Faith, is, When not onely we believe that God hath revealed his Law unto us, and what he hath so revealed to be most faithful, true, and holy; but obey the same. For in Scripture Faith is taken for Obedience, and Obedience for Faith; as in the famous instance of Abraham, who is said to believe God, and that his Faith was counted for Righteousness. And why is Abraham said to believe God so signally▪ Because he was perswaded that God bade him offer up his Son unto him? No, but because he did it by Faith, as is witnessed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this acceptation of Faith is much confirmed by the con­traryHeb. 11. 17. speech of Scripture, in whose sense, they who obey not God, are commonly said not to believe him: as in the Book of Deuteronomie,Deut. 9. 23. Likewise when the Lord sent unto you from Kadesh-Barnea, saying, Go up and possess the Land which I have given you, then ye rebelled against the Com­mandement of the Lord your God, and believed him not, nor hearkened unto his voice. And therefore in the Acts of the Apostles it is said, A great Acts. 6. 8. company of the Priests were obedient unto the Faith. That is, believed what was Preached by the Apostles. And yet more expresly St. Pauls phrase to the Romans declares this, where he saith, But unto them that Rom. 2. 8. are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indigna­tion and wrath. For no man can so properly be said to Obey, as to Believe a truth.

But that distinction of greatest moment to the illustrating of many ob­scurities, and solving many doubts arising to Christian Readers out of the Scripture, and especially St. Pauls Epistles, is that of Faith, into the Doctrine of Faith or Object, and in sum, the whole New Covenant as ma­nifested in the New Testament: And the Act and Grace of Faith in a true Believer. The former is that which we are required to believe: The latter signifies the inward propension to the receiving the things so mani­fested in the Gospel: And is again subdivided into Faith complexly, or generally taken, and specially: that, as comprehending the whole duty of a true Believer, and all Christian Graces flowing from that Fountain, and built upon that Foundation: This, as distinct from the two other Theological Graces, Hope and Charity; of all which St. Paul treateth di­stinctly, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, concluding his thirteenth1 Cor. 13. 13. Chapter thus, And now abideth Faith, Hope, and Charity. And that Faith is taken for the Doctrine of Faith, or of Christ revealed in the Gospel, isActs 6. 7. very plain and very necessary to be noted; as in the place to the Romans even now touched: where, as Obedience is taken for the act of believing; Faith is taken for the Gospel it self: And in the same Book it is written that Felix sent for Paul and heard him concerning the Faith in Christ: thatActs. 24. 24. su [...]y was the Gospel or Doctrine of Christ, or through Christ. And St. Paul to Timothy, Now the Spirit speaketh expresly, that in the latter times, 1 Tim. 4. 1. some shall depart from the Faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of Devils: Where Doctrines of Devils is opposed to Faith, the Doctrine of Christ. And in the Acts, Elimas is said to seek to turn away the Go­vernour Acts. 13. 8. [Page 46] from the Faith. And so Act. 14. 22. And Faith is not only so taken for the Gospel as opposed to Gentile, but Jewish works and worship, or the Law of Moses; and that most frequently in St. Pauls Epistles, as shall appear more plainly by and by.

In the mean time, here preparing grounds for a more important disqui­sition, it will not be amiss to note other supposed kinds of Faith: of which four are vulgarly by modern Divines pitch't upon, as of a quite dif­ferent nature and form. They are Historical Faith, Temporarie Faith, which last but for a season, Miraculous Faith, seen in working of miracles. All which terms of Faith I without any more adoo, grant to have ground in Scripture as so many distinct Acts, but not kinds of Faith. They are very unadvised­ly distinguished as several Species because several events or effects: they may be all brought under that of Justifying Faith, not as Species under their Genus, but as parts are reduced to the whole, or degrees inferiour, to the highest. For undoubtedly Historical Faith, as they call it, whereby a man gives a general Credence or assent to what is delivered in Scripture, is a degree and good step to that called Justifying Faith, and there is no Justi­fying Faith without it: And so are the Acts of a Temporary Faith, and Mi­raculous Faith, acts of a Justifying Faith. For, as for the temporariness, or failing, it distinguishes Christian Faith neither from Gentile, nor Jewish belief; nor true from false, but only as to the Event, that the one conti­nues and comes to perfection, and the other comes to untimely end. Which puts no more difference between the Justifying and not Justifying Faith: then the untimely death of a child does distinguish him from a man: which is in growth, not in nature; according to which all good distinctions ought to be made. For, if nothing be wanting to the denominating this failing Faith, a Justifying and saving Faith, but duration, how can they be thus reasonably distinguished? And as to the Faith producing miracles, it is the very same in nature with that which was required by our Saviour Christ, to have miracles wrought upon them that were by him miraculously cured, than which nothing occurs more frequently in the Gospels: and is an act of Justifying Faith; as supposing the belief of Christ, according as the Gospel describes him, which as it shall be shewed presantly, is the true Justifying Faith. For as Christ himselfe saith in St. Mark, No man shall do a Mark. 9. 39. Miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me; So that by Faith in Christ such miracles being wrought, who can denie it to be the effect of a Ju­stifying Faith? But that which may have deceived men, is an opinion, That what ever proceeds from a Justifying Faith, must needs proceed from it, as it justifies. For in truth, Miracles, or the gift of the working them, is not that which commends us to God, to our justification; but to men: and Graces rather than Gifts, both Sanctify and justify. Yet this hinders not, but Justifying Faith may be the spring from whence that Gift proceeds, and so not opposite to it. But it is here commonly said, That Heathens and Reprobates may have the three sorts of Faith, here opposed to Justifying Faith. But I must crave leave to denie, and declare their errour herein. For, It is a contradiction to say, A man can so much as Historically believe all the Gospel, and yet continue an Infidel. The Devil therefore believing, as St. James tells us, (for his words are much stood upon in this Case) is no Infidel. And yet he, nor prophane Believers and reprobates are not true Christians; not because they have nothing faithful in them, but be­cause this good ground and Justifying Faith Inchoate, being, as the Schools speak, unformed, and destitute of a proportion of Charity and obedi­ence, [Page 47] never increases to act, or reap fruits of Righteousness, which is to [...]e Justified. And Reprobates Faith may be true Faith, so much as they have of it, and so long as they hold it: For God forbid that their Faith should make them Reprobates: It is their want of Faith in perfection, and perse­verance that so distinguishes them. For were not that Faith true, real, and and saving which they have, or had; they might be damned for having no Faith at all, but they cannot be damned for not continuing and growing in that Faith, as the Scriptures assure us some shall. And no more at pre­sant needs here be alledged than what St. Peter at large delivereth, 1 Epistle. C. 2. V. 13, 14. 15. 20, &c.

Some add hereunto an Hypocritical Faith: which indeed must needs be quite of another kind, but what it is no man can tell further then from the negative notion, viz. That it is not true Faith; and so no Justifying Faith, but a shadow of it, not the thing: but the foremention'd Faiths are, or may be, real and Good: but Hypocritical can never be so as Hypocritical. But we shall conclude this Chapter with an other observation, we conceive, has occasion'd misbelief concerning Justifying Faith. For it is too com­monly believed, That all Justifying Faith▪ must and doth necessarily and actually Justify all in whom it is: But that is not so, but that is truly Justi­fying Faith which in its own nature tendeth thereunto, though peradven­ture defeated of its effect. For, if natural causes have not alwayes their proper effects through outward impediments, may it not be much rather the case of spiritual things which work not naturally, but freely?

To the former distinctions of Faith may be well added another; and that of Faith Explicite and Implicite, much insisted on, and therefore here to be considered. And it cannot be, neither is it denied, but really such cases there are in which good Christians have not that plenitude of Faith desirable, and in some cases, necessarie. For otherwise, we must condemn the Faith of St. Peter himself, so much commended by Christ himself;Mat. 16. 16, 17, 18. when he openly professed the Deitie of our Saviour Christ. For not long after Christ sharply rebuked him for his ignorance of this Passion of him;Mat. 16. 23: saying, Get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me. And, so were the Disciples ignorant of the Resurrection of Christ, and of the Ascension of Christ, supposing his Kingdom should be rather a Temporal than Spiritu­al and eternal; as appeareth by their Question, Wilt thou at this time re­store Act. 1. 6. again the Kingdom unto Israel? And I make no doubt, after so much evi­dence from the Histories of the Primitive times, that many Eminently ho­ly persons suffering martyrdome for Christ, were very meanly seen, and setled in divers of those Articles of Faith, which have been since imposed as necessarie on the Church, and indeed ought to be. How this can be allow­ed is therefore to be inquired into. And to this end; First, it must be de­termin'd, what may be meant by Implicit, and Explicit Faith. That we call Explicit Faith, which clearly, distinctly, and expresly believs an article of Faith, or any divine truth revealed. Implicit then, must be such a Faith that believs obscurely and confusedly only. Second­ly, it is necessarie to distinguish this distinction it self. For, Faith may be said to be Implicit, either in respect of its object: or of its Act. The First Impliciteness consisteth in this, That a Christian believing some one material article of Faith clearly and expressly, may be said to believe that which is included in that, and necessarily follows from it. As he that shall believe that Christ consisteth of a divine and humane nature, may be said to believe that article contained, as it were, under it, viz. That Christ [Page 48] had a humane will, as well as divine; though his ignorance be such as never to have particularly considered the same. But the Act of Faith I call im­plicite, is when a man being, (as they say) a Christian or Believer at large, and liking that Religion very well, shall without search, without know­ledge of the principal points of Faith, shuffle all together, and conclude all (as he thinks) sufficiently in this, That he believes as a good Christian or Catholick believes; as the Church believes.

The First of these kinds of Faith must necessarily be allowed as good and laudable, provided it be not accompanied with an affected ignorance or sloth, hindering a mans proficiencie in the Extent and Intention, or de­grees of it. For surely this means the Holy Scripture, when it saith, I have fed you with Milk, and not with meat: for hitherto, ye were not able to bear it, 1 Cor. 3. 2. 1 Cor. 2. 6. neither yet now are ye able. And again, Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, &c. Which intimate un­to us, That the servants of Christ imitating their Master herein, did not presently pour forth all the several Mysteries of the Kingdom of God, and of Faith, but proceeding gradually laid first the foundation, Christ Jesus, and according to the capacitie of their Converts, opened the rest more Explicitly afterward. And I make no doubt but the obscure and narrow Faith of the unlearned, being generally more sincere and firm than that of the knowing and inquisitive, shall lead them to Heaven, no less than that more ample: Christs equal proceedings being such, as not to require the same of all, in quantitie of measure but of proportion to their state, and his Gifts and Graces conferred on men.

But that other sort of Faith which satisfies it self with the sincerity and Catholickness of it, and that it is of such a sort, not attending to or en­deavouring after any further illumination, or information in the branches arising from that root, we cannot see how men can speak reasonably, or con­scionably in the commendation of it, or such who are owners of it, can hope to receive any greater benefit, than to be numbred amongst true Believers without the reward. For, it is expresly against Gods word, which requi­reth that the Word of God should dwell in you richly in all wisdom, &c. AndCol. 3. 16. Ignea res fies est, ubicunque ociosa est, non est. Sed quemadmodum in lucerna ole­um alit flam­mam ne extin­guatur, ita Charitatis ope­ra fidem alunt ne deficiant. Fides gignit bona opera: Sed illa vicis­sim nutriunt Parentem. E­rasmus in Symbolum. the reason hereof is, because the obedience of Faith (of which before) is generally proportionable to the Faith it self from whence it springs. How then can any man act (as all men are tied) with an universal obedience, who know not nor believe what they are obliged to do, but by that Faith which is wanting in them? And rudely and effectedly to rest quietly under the im­maginarie protection of believing as the Church believes, may indeed keep men (which is all commonly lookt after, here) from being Hereticks, but it doth not secure them from being Heathens. For, what ever is said and preten­ded, such ignorant persons do not believe as the Church believes. For when the Church believes Expresly, and they believe confusedly, do they believe as the Church believes? When the Church believes she knows what, and they be­lieve they know not what, do they believe as the Church believes? Lastly, when the Church believes directly and positively things as they are propounded, and these believe negatively, that, is no otherwise then the Church, not op­positely to the sense of it, do they believe as the Church believes? May not a Heathen believe no otherwise then the Church, and yet be an Heathen? Nay, the more naturally stupid and indocil men are, the safer Catholicks they should be, because they do not believe contrary to the Faith of the Church. It may be said that Baptism alone is sufficient to distinguish such implicit believers from Heathens: which I grant, as to the Essence or na­ture [Page 49] of Christianity, but not to the Life and exercise of a Christian: for that, as St. Paul hath by his word and example certified us, is, by the Faith Col. 2. 20. of the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us. Therefore, as I am so charitable to all well-disposed Christians, to be perswaded there is no necessity for all to have either the like measure or manifestation of Faith in any one point of Faith (our Saviour Christ requiring Faith but as a grainMath. 17. 20. of Mustard-seed, sometimes;) so am I to all Churches, as to be perswaded, That they all require, and that in all a some measure of Faith explicite, as ne­cessary to Salvation, and that, besides this, Believing as the Church believes. For in truth, this is nopoint of Faith in the (Actus Signatus or) general no­tion; though to believe the Church Catholick, may be. For who sees not a vast difference, between believing the Church it self, and believing what the Church believes? And that may be compleated in believing the Being, and Extent of it, which is much short of the body of Faith which it re­ceives, and professes.

CHAP. XIV.

THere is a great difference between Good works, and Perfect works: For the first hath respect unto the thing done; and the other, unto the manner of doing it, agreeable to all due forms and Circumstances. And every work that is good, is not Per­fect: though every work that is perfect must of necessity be Good. And to the doing of a Good work, there seems to be no more abso­lutelyAct. 17. 11. Rom. 10. 17. Si Fidelis fe­cerit opus bo­num & hic ei prodest libe­rans eum a malis: & in illo saeculo ad percipiendum regnum coele­sto, magis au­tem ibi quam hîc. Si autem Infidelis fece­rit bonum opus, hîc ei prodest opus ipsius, & hîc ei reddit Deus pro ope­re su [...]. In illo autem saeculo nihil ei prodest opus ipsius. O­pus imperfec­tum. in Math. Hom. 26. required than that a man should act according to well informed and regulated reason, and true affection. So that the works of natural men may be good, though heathens; such as are, Visiting the sick, and relieving the poor, defending the Fatherless and widow oppressed: and especially such outward moral Acts as may be done by natural men tending to their Conversion and Salvation, as willing hearing, and equal judging of the do­ctrine of Faith, even before actual Faith conceived: for which St. Paul esteemed the Bereans praise worthy*. So that they are not absolutely Splen­did Sins: for were it so, they were by no means to be done, and no man did well, who, before his Conversion, went to hear Christ preach; or gave any attentive ear to what St. Paul wrote, or taught, for want of Faith: whereas we are taught by common reason, as well as by St. Paul, that Faith it self cometh by hearing of the word of God. For how can any man possi­bly believe what he never heard of? So then, some duties and Acts are lau­dable and acceptable to God, without Faith: though not arising to the per­fection of Evangelical Goodness, by which a man pleaseth God▪ and is ac­ceptable unto him even to his Justification and Salvation. There may there­fore be distinguished a fourfould goodness in Actions. 1. Natural, when a man acteth agreeable to the perfection of the Rule of natural Beings, as a [Page 50] man acteth agreeable to the perfection of the Rule of natural Beings; as a man is said to walk well, when he goes according to the nature of man, and limps not, nor halts: and to write a good hand, when his letters and words do answer exactly a Perfect Rule or Copie. This, Religion taketh no notice of at all. 2. A man is said to do a Good Act when it is so morally, and in its kind, as tending to the honour of his Creator, whose Instruments meer Moral men are, in exercising his Paternal providence; and to the benefit of others. For, it being the proper Character of God which is spoken of him by the Psalmist, viz. Thou art Good and thou doest Good. They whom GodPsal. 119. 68. chooseth and stirreth up to minister under him in good and useful things to the Communitie or any particular, do that which is good; however not ab­solute. 3. There is a Religious or divine goodness in Actions, which are done agreeable to the Revealed Will of God, passing natures sagacitie or search. And this is twofold, Legal and Evangelical, both exceeding the former, but the one exceeded of the other, viz. Legal of Evangelical.Vere enim, quando decli­namus d malo & facimus bo­num, quantum ad comparatio­nem caeterorum hominum no­lentium decli­nare à malo & facere bonum, dicuntur bo­na quae agimus: quantum au­tem ad Verita­tem, secundum quod dic itur in hoc loco, Quia unus est bonus, bonum nostrum non est bonum. Orig. Hom. 8. in Matthaeum. For as Natural Acts are good, done according to natures intention and in­stitution, by themselves; but are not good compared with moral duty performed: and moral Acts are Good in themselves, but not so in respect of a Superiour Order and end of working instituted of God in his holy Law; So are Legal Acts wrought according to Gods word given to the Israelites under that dispensation or Covenant as required of God, and serving to those ends God propounded to himself and his people. Wherefore it is that the Children of Israel revolting from God, and forsaking that institu­ted worship of his Law, are thus censured by the Prophet Hos. 8. 3. Hosea, Israel hath cast off the thing that is good, the enemie shall pursue him. And St. Paul, (than whom no divine writer more opposes the Law, occasion being offered, yet) giveth his suffrage 1 Tim. 1. 8. The Law is good if a man useth it Lawfully. (And the Gospel it self is not good unless used Lawfully:) Therefore were the works of the Law also, good works, within their bounds; but not so compared with the Perfection of the Gospel; but displeasing to God and pernicious to men, who being delivered in the fulness of time, by the coming of Christ from the Pedagogie and beggerly Elements of the Mosaical Law, should presume to retain that vail which was done away in Christ, and embrace those shadows, the body Christ being present. Hence it is that St. Paul as in many other places, writing to the Corinthians, speaketh thus at large,—The Letter killeth (i. e. the Literal sense and observation of the2 Cor. 3. 6. Old Law, after the New became of force, destroyeth rather than saveth the observer of it;) but the Spirit, (i. e. the Spiritual Law) giveth Life. But if the ministration of death, written and graven in Stones, was glorious, so that 7. the Children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his Countenance, which glory was to be done away: How shall not the mini­stration 8. of the Spirit be rather glorious? For even that which was made glorious 10. had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. All this doth shew the great disparitie between the Law and the Gospel, and the prehe­minence of This above That. So, be the Law in it self, and for that season, and for that people, glorious and good; yet upon the approach of the Gospel and its being in force, all that perished and the works thereof no longer good works, much less justifying, because they were not done in Faith: not in the Faith of Christ, but in the Faith of Moses. The prin­cipal then, yea only Good works that are now of any account as to abso­lute acceptation at Gods hands, are those which are done in an Evangelical manner. Now the manner of acting thus Evangelically to the denomina­tion [Page 51] of our works, Good, is thus described by St. Paul, For by Grace are Ephes. 2. 8. ye saved through Faith: and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God. Not 9. of works, least any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in 10. Christ Jesus unto Good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Which certainly implieth, that Grace being taken for the Gospel of Grace, in opposition to the Law, Christ in opposition to Moses, and Faith to the belief of Moses Law; we are no longer of the Old man but the New man, we are created anew in Christ, and that Good works from him, and through Faith in him, are they only that properly can be so called, and to these we are fashioned, and as it were, created by the Gospel. So that if we should describe Good works of Christians, we may call them, Acts, done in the Faith of Christ, according to the tenor of the Gospel, as a Rule directing us to the manner and End of working.

Nevertheless, though these be good, and every Good and Faithful Chri­stian stands obliged by vertue of his Holy Faith professed, and the Cove­nant of Grace entred into with God under the Gospel, and the hope of ob­taining the special promises of the Gospel; yet are they not in themselves Good as to the perfection prescribed by that Rule, and in Justice might be exacted by God through the ordinarily inseparable defects from humane frailty, so long as we are in this world. And how far they avail, it now follows to be examined.

CHAP. XV.

SUpposing then, that there are such works which both God and man esteem Good; it is next to be sought into, how far their Goodness does extend: and of what efficacie they are, or what are the Effects of them. Remembring withall, that here, Faith is no way excluded, but advanced rather: seing Good works being the Effects of Faith the Effects of Good works must of necessity be likewise the Effects of Faith; as the fruit ows no less to the Root, which gives life and growth to the whole tree, than it doth to the branch from which it immediately proceeds. Yet is it here to be noted, answerable to what is said before, That all good works do not proceed from Faith. For the works of the Gentiles have a real goodness in them, and that much more than they of the Jew, as they are Jewish; and yet not done in Faith, nor attaining to the Decorum or perfection of the Gospel, and therefore frequently called sinful, and no ways conducing directly to salvation, or Justification, as do the works [Page 52] wrought in Faith. I say directly, because as in nature a man is said to live the Life of a sensible Creature before he come to the perfection of humane nature: so may there be a preparatory or previous goodness in the works of Infidels, which may dispose to, not merit the life or form of Faith. But because the Regeneration, called sometimes the Creation of the New man to shew the absoluteness and independence of the Divine power and plea­sure in such Acts, doth not proceed as nature doth: For that which may be as predisposing, is not simply requisite to the introducing the form of Spiritual Life: but by the most free and powerful providence, many are elected and brought to Spiritual Life, without any such previous goodness. And if we should grant natural or moral Justice were necessary as an Ante­cedent to Faith, it would not follow that it were so by way of merit, or disposing God to perfect that rude beginning, with the accession of his Grace. For, we are to make a necessary difference between Preparation to Grace, so much talked of. For there is a preparation of a mans self, or the subject which is to receive this holy impression: and there is a prepa­ration of the Agent which conferrs this, by moving or inclining him to such an End. I suppose the Schools, and severer assertors of the Freeness of Gods Grace, to which a man cannot by acts of nature dispose himself, do mean the latter, viz. that no man by any principle of nature, or habits of vir­tue acquired and exercised according to the Rules of Justice and wisdom, can thereby be said to have done any thing which of it self might incline God to regenerate him by his Grace. For it seems to me, keeping to the Rules and sense of Scripture, as unlikely that a Christian should be author any more of Spiritual Life, than a man is of his Natural: But no man can with any sense be said to contribute to his natural Life, no more can he to his Spiritual Life, which is commonly called the First Grace. But that the natural man, living soberly, Justly and temperately, is not thereby in a grea­ter readiness, and less distant from the divine Grace perfecting the same, were hard to affirm; as well considering the method that God usually takes (though not alwaies, nor is bound to any,) is to proceed, not per saltum (as they say) or from one extream to another, on the suddain; but by apt gradations, as the encouragement is from hence given to immortality it self. And yet, as wood being orderly laid can never thereby merit or claim a kindling; or as a conveiance of a great Mannor being fully and fairly drawn can never deserve, nor so much as for its sake, dispose the Lord whose it is, to pass it away by setting his hand and seal to it: so neither can any fair hand of natural works induce God to conferr on a man the State of Grace. For this Passive preparedness we speak of, doth not so much as either open the eye to discover the use or benefit of Grace, nor in the least incline the Will to desire it. Now because the holy Fathers, and especially St. Augustine and moderner Divines, do speak of the Works of the Unregenerate, as not only insufficient and imperfect, but sinful, yea sin; it is very requi­site to take their true meaning: which cannot possibly be, as if they were simply evil, for then were they simply to be forborn and omitted; but Sy­necdochically, they intend alwayes to intimate a sinfulness in defect, of what was due to such Actions, compared with the divine Rule. Or they called them Sin, not so much from the nature of the Actions themselves, as the in­separable evil of Commission alwayes accompanying them; as was Pride and presumption upon their such laudable works; as sufficing of themselves without a Saviour or Sanctifier Extraordinarie, which they were either wholly ignorant of, or contemptuously rejected, to intitle them to exact [Page 53] Philos [...]phers, and observers of the law of Nature, whe [...]ein the blessedness of a man in this life consisted, according to them; and afterward to open the door of a Paradise framed to themselves. Of these Good works thus mischievously attended, as constantly they were in Natural men, truly might be said by St. Austine on the Psalms, Good works without Faith do but help Aug. in Psal. 31. men to go faster out of the way. And by Chrysostom sometimes speaking more than enough of the use of works preparatory, Nothing without Faith is Good, and that I may use such a Similitude as this, they seem to me who flourish with good works and are ignorant of Gods worship, to be like the Reliques of dead persons finely adorned. And the voice of Scripture is so clear, that there is no need to alleadg the same against the inefficacie of the best natural Acts to spiritual ends and purposes.

The more principal and useful enquiry then, is, concerning the works of the Regenerate, done upon the grounds, by the vertue, and to the pro­per ends of Faith, what they may avail a true Believer. For that they are beneficial, and that most of all to the benefactor himself, Man, is in a manner consented to unanimously: or if it be not, we shall make no great scruple plainly and stoutly to affirm so much, after the holy Scriptures have so clearly and positively delivered the same; as amongst many in these places, Finally brethren whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, Phil. 4. 8. whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any vertue, if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things which ye have both received, 9. and learned, and heard, and seen in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you. And Heb. 6. 8. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh Heb. 6. 7. oft upon it, and bringeth forth Herbs meet for them for whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth Thorns and Briars is re­jected, 8. and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned. Who sees not here, that a good Christian, fruitful in good works, is compared to good ground, which is blessed of God; and evil Christians barren and unfruitful, compared to ill ground, next to cursing? And elsewhere, This 2 Cor. 9. 6. I say, he that soweth [the seed of good works] sparingly, shall reap sparing­ly: but he that soweth bountifully, shall reap bountifully. And the PsalmistPsalm. 62. 12. agreeable hereunto, saith, Unto thee O Lord belongeth mercy, for thou ren­derest to every man according to his works. And Jeremie rendereth it as aJerem. 32. 19. reason of Gods greatness, which is an inseparable and essential attribute of God, that he is so equal in this case; saying, Great in Counsel, mighty in work: For thine eyes are open upon all the wayes of the Sons of men, to give every man according to his wayes, and according to the fruit of his doings. And yet more plainly, St. Paul to the Romans speaking of God: Who will Rom. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9. render every man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuing in well doing, seek for glory and honour, and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish to every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile. But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. I shall add but one more Text, and that found in the Epistle to Titus, which not only in sense but almost in terms proves what I laid down concerning the beneficialness of good works. This is a faithful saying, and these things Tit. 3. 8. I will that thou affirm constantly; That they which have believed in God, might be careful to maintein good Works: these things are good and profitable unto men. And so far as we now urge good Works, the answer is very [Page 54] sufficient to that place alledged against the Effect of good Works in gene­ral;Luk. 17. 10. where our Saviour saith in St. Luke, And when ye shall have done all things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: We have done that which was duty to do. To this, I say, it is fully answered (though more might be said,) We are unprofitable to God our Master, who commanded us to work: for so saith David likewise, My Goodness exten­deth Psal. 16. 3. not to thee: but it is not said, We are unprofitable unto our selves, or, that no good accreweth unto our selves thereby. And I would to God that though no good Christian can deny the usefulness of Good works in general, that do not denie the Scriptures or common sense, yet they would be more firmly setled in the belief hereof than too many are, and suffer this Faith to have its proper influence upon their lives, which might be safely ad­mitted, and that without any offense or prejudice to the freeness of Gods grace, as will yet further appear.

For the Effect of Good works doth not only confine it self to certain temporal blessings of this world, and outward prosperties, which in truth was the proper portion and promise made by God to the Jew, under the Old Law (so far as it was Ritual and Mosaical) upon their obedience; but it extendeth it self plainly to the spiritual blessings upon earth, and im­mortal in heaven, as our blessed Lord expresly teaches us in his Sermon on the mount, saying, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall en­ter Mat. 7. 21. into the Kingdom of heaven: but he doth the will of my Father, which is in Heaven: that he shall, is to make no criminal addition to Scripture, the sense being so plain. And so St. Paul to Timothy teaches. It is a faith­ful 2 Tim. 2. 11, 12. saying, If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him. If we suffer, we shall also raign with him. And is it not certainly implied that we shall receive the promises of God, which are as well of Eternal and Spiritual things, if we do the will of God by Faith and works of Faith, when it is said, Ye have need of patience, that after ye have done the will of God, ye might Heb. 10. 36. receive the promise? And I should wonder at the subtilty of Perverters of divine Writ, if they shall be able to draw any other sense from the words of Christ expressing his Rule of proceeding at the day of Judgment, thus, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the Mat. 25. 34, 35, 36. foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; Naked, and ye cloathed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. How can any thing be spoken more plainly to make Eternal Life the rewardThey falsify our Tenets saying, That we hold that Good works are not means of Salvation. Francis White Epist. Dedie. of Good works, than is here spoken? Or how can any man affirm that all things necessary to salvation are plainly taught and easily to be understood in Scripture, and shall denie this to be plain, and such good works as are here specified, necessarie to salvation? For to bring in any Scholie which shall elude this, will do them much more mischief in other cases, as lea­ding to the corrupting all places of Scripture, which they allow to be plain, and rendring them altogether useless to the ends for which they are alleadged. For, to say only that Faith must be here understood, is most true, but insufficient to make the testimonie void; because otherwise, they were not good works. And this must alwayes be retained in memory which we have before laid as a foundation, That they are not the good works of natural Reason, or humanity, nor the good works of the Law now voi­ded which we here in this dispute contend for; but they are the works of Faith qualified with all the due conditions of the Gospel of Grace, and actuated by the Spirit of Grace.

[Page 55]And here it may be useful to instance in some of those principal adjuncts which make our works truly evangelical and leading to that blessed end spoken of. And here I do not make Faith so properly a condition, as a cause and a common Essential foundation supposed to all Evangelical Acts: as the root is not aptly termed a Condition of the fruit, but the intrinsique Cause thereof. But others there are very necessarie though not in the same degree: such as these; First, that they be done in obedience to the will and command of Almighty God ordaining Good works; Anew commandment, John. 13. 24. saith Christ, I give unto you, that ye love one another. And how far this extends St. Paul tells us, saving, He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law. Rom. 13. [...]. Ephes. 2. 10. And yet more expresly to the Ephesians he saith, We are Gods workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. And again to the Thessalonians, he saith, This is the Thes. 4. 3. will of God, even your sanctification. Secondly, the merits of Christs Passion, whereby we are redeemed to God, and sanctified according to St. Paul to Titus speaking of Christ, Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem Tit. 2. 14. us from all iniquitie, and purisie unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of Good works.

A third thing requisite to constitute a work Good according to the Gos­pel is, that it proceed from a Person adopted or made a Child of God by Grace. For, this is required of all true Christians; That they be born again of John. 3. 5. Joh. 3. 9. water and the Holy Ghost. And as the same author elsewhere hath it, Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

A fourth, is the inward Grace of God working and moving the mind to holy works: and this preventing us, so that we are first excited of Gods Spirit without any natural inclination of our own to do that which is the good and acceptable will of God. For to this end make our Saviours words in the Gospel, where he saith, Without me ye can do nothing, that1 Joh. 15. 5. is, no Good work answerable to the perfection of the Gospel, and the promises thereof.

A fifth, is the outward Grace of God remitting and passing over the seve­ralOmnia manda­ta facta depu­tantur quando quicquid non fit agnoscitur. Aug. Retract. defects and blemishes adhering to Good works, even of the Regenerate. For then (saith an holy Father truly) is the Law fullfilled, when what is com­mitted amiss, is pardoned: And to this relate the words quoted in the Epi­stle to the Hebrews, as an ingredient into the Covenant of the Gospel, viz. I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will Heb. 8. 12. I remember no more.

Sixthly, Perseverance in good is likewise necessarie, though not to the essence of the Act done, to make it Good, (for perseverence doth not of it self add good or evil to an action, but supposes the same, and continues it as it finds it) yet to the reward it is absolutely necessarie. Forasmuch as Gods Judgement, as mans likewise, is alwayes passed according to what a man actually is found to be, whether good or evil, and not to what a man hath been, or possibly afterwards might have been. For, saith the word of God, Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a Crown of Life. AndRevel. 2. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 8. elsewhere, Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless unto the day of our Lord Jesus.

Last of all, to make a good Work rewardable, is requisite the freeness of Gods promises made to accept the same, and to reward it, not for its own sake, but for his sake, and Christs sake. And that God hath pro­mised blessed rewards to those that work according to the tenour of the [Page 56] Gospel, as now described; doing it as his children, under the protection of Christs mediation and merits, to the glory of God, through the ope­ration of Gods Spirit, persevering therein, till God shall call them off; resting not upon themselves, but his promises; is most undeniable, and a Principle necessary to be maintained and practised by all faithful Chri­stians, doth appear from what is before alleadged. And what (if any thing may be) is yet more cleerly asserted by Christ, saying, He that recei­veth Mat. 10. 41. a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophets reward. And he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a Righteous mans reward. And so to those that suffer for Christ, which is reputed amongst the chief of Good deeds, Rejoyce and be exceeding glad: Mat. 5. 12. for great is your reward in heaven, for so persecuted they the Prophets. And Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water Mat. 10. 42. only in the name of a Disciple, verily I say unto you he shall in no wise loose his reward. And in St. Luke, Christ saith, But love your enemies and do good Luk. 6. 35. and lend hoping for nothing again, and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the Children of the Highest. For he is kind unto the unthankful and evil. Here, besides the positive promises, is added a reason to assure all that shall do good works, that great shall be their reward: viz. because Gods good­ness and mercy is such that he imparteth of the same unto the wicked, he doth good unto the ill-deserving and shall he not much more do good to those that are good, and abound in Good works? To ascribe therefore so much to a modern notion of Faith as many do (though the Learneder favou­rers of it closely dealt with, are constrained to depart from this new rigour, as I could show by divers instances) as to divide it from it self, that is, the works of Faith, from Faith; the fountain in order to Justification, and Sanctification, and Salvation, is in effect to denie the Christian Faith, and introduce one of their own invention, to the great dis­honour of God, and reproach of Christian Faith; which consisteth in these two things principally, Evangelical Obedience, and a Glorious reward. And now least some prejudiced mind may suppose that I have stated this point too favourably to the Roman sense, and injuriously to the Franckness of Gods grace and mercy, in relation both to our Sanctification and Justification, and also to the vertue and efficacie of Faith in order to them, I shall end this discourse with the Stating of this cause as I find it by Vortius a most severe and rigid Calvinist: as they call such men, in this negativeVort. disput. Select. Part. 2. p. 728. 726. way. The Controversie therefore (said he) between us and the Papacie. First is not Whether good works are to be done; For, we affirm it. 2. Neither whether they be necessary and profitable to salvation: we affirm both. 3. Neither whether they are pleasing to God, which we affirm. 4. Nor whether God grants a Remu­neration and Reward to them. For, we affirm it, 5. Nor whether it be lawful to do good works with an eye to the reward; We say so. 6. Nor yet whether good works are sins; we stoutly deny. 7. Nor lastly, Whether the just be worthy of a Crown; For this we yield, with this limitation, Not out of their own worth, but the worthiness of God, &c. And if all this be honestly and fairly agreed to, I see no reason to fear the empty cavils and vain exceptions of some men, who have run themselves they can scare well tell whether themselves, from Popery: but I may venture to tell, Why? viz. Partly out of a blind implicite Faith in the Teachers they raise to themselves: and partly to save their Credit and purses by a strange and monstrous notion of Faith, rather then their souls. But the main block of Offense taken, not given, by this doctrine, seems to be an opinion of Merit favoured hereby. Of this therefore we shall speak next.

CHAP. XVI.

TO merit is of a very various and ambiguous sense, among the the Ancients humane and divine. It were superfluous to note all, and to omit all, injurious to our present design. These three are the most needful to be observed. For sometimes it is used in prophane Histories, for Service military; as the souldier under such a Commander, is said to merit, Mereri, under him.Meruit & sub Servitio Isau­rico in Cilicia, sed brevi tem­pore, &c. Suet. de Julio Cae­sare in Vita. Aere mere [...]t▪ parvo—Lu­can. lib. 9. Vocabulum me­rendi apud ve­teres Ecclesi­asticos Scrip­tores, fere i­dem valet quod consequi, seu aptum idone­umque fieri ad consequendum. Id. Cassand. Schol. in Hymnos Ec­clesiast. p. 179 It is likewise frequently used by humane and Ecclesiastical Authors for to obtain or acquire only by just and due endeavours, without any just deserts of the Partie said to merit, but rather of Grace and favour of him who hath appointed and promised freely to reward such actions as are en­joyned and assigned with such ends and remunerations, which far exceed the proportion or value of the work. For, surely in publick and antient Games (from which practice St. Paul hath borrowed many a Metaphor de­scribing the service and contention of Christians in the service of God) to outrun, and prevent by footmanship, him that was matcht with one, did not properly deserve such a vast reward as was usually conferred on him who excelled his Fellow: (For what title of justice can the hasting to take a crown give to him that receives it?) yet was he said to deserve it, and that either comparatively, because he in reason ought to be preferred before a­ny other that came behind him; and therefore merit it rather than he. Or because the Authors of such rewards having solemnly and fairly quitted all their Rights, and by publick promise setled the same upon other, upon cer­tain conditions they shall judge fit, there is a conditional Right thereby de­volved upon others: yet not out of the worthiness of the acts leading to the accquiring the same. But a third notion of merit implies such a pro­portion between the Act, and the end or recompence, that it were no less than unjust and unreasonable for him who is concerned in the reward to denie it to him, or detain it from him, the work being accomplished. It being a Principle of common justice what Christ pronounces as Christian reason too, The Labourer is worthy of his hire: i. e. he merits it. And thereforeLuk. 10. 7. Jam. 15. 4. James saith well in the like case; Behold the hire of the labourers which have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entred into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath: i. e. they crie for justice against them who are indebted to them for such service which deserve much reward.

Upon these general grounds thus premised, we shall have easier access to the difficultie of meriting in relation to God, and the reward he hol­deth forth to his faithful servants. For in truth, this latter sense is scarce [Page 58] maintained or allowed by any Good Christian; or if it be, we shall not ac­count it worth the expence of so much pa [...]ns and time, to refute them any further than the thing it self doth, rightly considered For merit (as is said effect) is the just right that a man hath to a thing in possession of another, there being no difference in such cases between what man enjoys, and what he doth not enjoy, but that the one is in the possession of himself, and the o [...]her, of another: both being of right his own, the one by ancient, and the other (per­haps) by moderner purchase. And this is founded upon the equity of Com­mutative Justice, whereby one thing is exchanged for ano [...]her, as about for reward; such a commensurateness of the Action of a Christian being ne­ver to be found in order to the end promised: For al [...] that we can do, is our duty to God, and not our desert. And though God may have seem'd to have receeded in some manner from his original R [...]ght over us, in that he stipulates with his servants, and Covenants with them for such im [...]ense [...]e­compence for such light labours; yet this doth not extinguish his domin [...]on absolute over us, nor extenuate, or bring down the va [...]ue of the reward it self, so far as to ballance the account between God and man, so that they should relate to one another as do Debtor and Creditor. Because, whether man contracts or not, whether he promises or not, Justice in behalf of the Servant claims a proportionable reward: and a Debtor he is really, though perhaps Legally he be not: But between God and man the [...]e is no such na­tural mutual obligation, before a free promise on Gods part issued out. And therefore, after such promise made, impossible it is that any or many Acts on mans part should be commensurate to the goodness of the reward expected: but it must all depend upon favour and grace. For, who hath p [...]e­vented Job. 41. 11. me (saith God in Job) that I should repay him? And St. Paul to the Romans; Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of Grace, but Rom. 4. 4. of debt.

The principal enquiry then, is about the works of such as acknowledge a Freeness of promise in God, (as most, or all Christians do) what propor­tion they may bear to the reward so freely promised? And in truth, there seems no less then a contradiction, after an acknowledgement of the freeness of a promise infinitely exceeding the labour or work, made to impute the reward rather to the work, than to the promise. For he that cannot merit the cause absolutely required to the effect, cannot be said to merit the Ef­fect: so that he who protests against the sufficiency of his work to merit the promise, can have no tolerable pretension to merit the effect. Hence it is that Paul saith against such as may glory in their works, Where is boasting Rom. 3. 27. then? It is excluded. By what Law? Of works? Nay, But by the Law of Faith. And yet in the two more favourable and less proper senses above specified, may a man, without prejudice to Gods free Grace, or Faith on Christ, be said to merit; there being more exotiqueness to Scripture Phrase, and harshness to ears tender of Gods free Grace, than guilt in that word. For first, who can denie that he is the servant of God (that he is) according to the vow in baptism, a Souldier of Jesus Christ; that he serves under him in the work of the Gospel, against the world, and flesh, and Devil, to the encrease of Grace and vertue according to Godliness? This is to merit many times with the ancient, without any implication of obligation upon God or Christ towards us for our service.

The second acceptation then is cheifly to be discussed, which allows not only a service, but an efficacie to Good works so far as to render them capable of such a term as Merit. For there is a wide difference between a [Page 59] sufficiencie of a work to obtain a thing, and the efficiencie. The former indeed is absolute: The latter not so St. Paul saying to the Corinthians,2 Cor. 6. 1. We therefore as workers together with him, i. e. God; doth certainly imp [...]ie somewhat of activeness, and efficiency (by way, at least of Instrument) subordinate to that of God, towards the great work of advancing the Gos­pel: but he disavows a sufficiencie when he saith, Who is sufficient for these 2 Cor. 2. 16. 1 Cor. 3. 5. things? and when he saith, Who then is Paul and who is Apollos, but Ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man, and so then ne [...]ther is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the 7. increase. No man can be a minister or instrument to another but he must actNon est tamen alienum n [...]c arrogans si e­tiam David remuner [...]tio­nem à Domi­no Deo suo pro egregiis latori­bus pos [...]ulet. Praer [...]gativa est f [...]d [...]i atque justitiae de Do­mini favore mercidem u­surpare. Am­bros. in Psal. 119. 1. Et tamen si bene cogites ipse dedit fi­dem: primò qua cum pro­meruisii, non enim de tuo promeruisti ut tibi aliquid deberetur, &c. Aug. Tract. 3. in Joan. Ipsa vita ae­terna quae uti­que in fine sine fine habebitur, & ideo me [...]i­ti [...] praecedenti­bus redditur, quia ea merita quibus red­ditur non a nobis parata sunt per no­stram suff [...]cien­tiam, sed in no­bis facta per gratiam etiam ipsa Gratia nuncupatur, non ob aliud nisi quia gra­tis d [...]tur. Aug. Ep. 105. [...] together with him. Again, No man that is an instrument or minister to ano­ther, can intitle himself absolutely or principally to the effect. So then, supposing that upon works evangelical reward certainly follows of course, of Gods promise, vet this glory is not to be assumed to the Instrument, but Principal causes moving thereunto: which are three, principally arising and over-ruling a Christian. The inward Grace of Gods spirit in respect of man working: The Indulgence of God in remitting the rigour of the Law, according to whose exactness the work is to be, but seldom or never is performed: And the promise of God condescending to such low and fa­vourable terms in bestowing his rewards. So that notwithstanding (as is said) there be certainly an efficacy (which sometimes the holy Fathers call merit) in Good works, there is never found a sufficiencie or such a worth in the best Christians actions, which may be commensurate to our Salvation. For though (as many of the reformed have truly spoken) we be saved by our Good works; we are not saved for our Good works; no more then be­ing saved and Justified by our Faith we are Justified for our Faith, as shall be seen by and by.

So then, all the merit of a true Christian consists in this, That being by Faith built upon that sure and only foundation, besides which none can [...]ay any other, neither is there any other name under Heaven whereby a man may be saved; Christ Jesus, this Faith is so active and operative in holy works proceeding from it, that the Person is qualified thereby, according to the frankness of Gods Covenant made with him in Christ, to become capable of the benefit and end of the Covenant, Viz. More Grace here, and fruition of Glory hereafter. For notwithstanding a the sufferings [no not of Mar­tyrdom for Christ] of this life, are not worthy (of themselves, nor indeed by the accession of Gods Grace) to be compared to the glory to be revealed; yet may they be a means, and Rom. 8. [...] way leading to the same. And though, Tit. 3 5. We are saved, Not by Works of Righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration, and renuing of the holy Ghost; Yet this we are not capable of so freely, but Gal. 5. 6. by Faith working by Love. Which moveth the Apostle to exhort us thus, Phil. 2. 12. My beloved as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence onely, but now much more in my absence, work Out your own salvation with fear and trembling, And left any man should conceive amiss of the Grace of God, as perfecting all things without our concurrence; or should presume so far of his own strength as to judge himself able of himself to effect that, it is most wisely and seasonably ad­ded; v. 13. For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Whence it is that Eternal life is termed expresly, Rom. 6. 23. The gift of God. Nay moreover, the means conducing hereunto next under God, is acknowledged owing unto God, by the same Apostle to the Ephesians; Eph. 2. 8, 9. For by Grace are ye saved, through Faith; and that not of your selves, it is the [Page 60] gift of God. Not of Works, least any man should boast. Yet, notwithstanding these, and many other places of holy Scripture magnifying the grace of God, are not Works of Faith excluded any more then Faith it self, from their pro­per vertue in obtaining the promises. For still the reward is not of Debt, but of Mercy, as some of late distinguish; and yet it is not so of mercy, as, that Justice, subsequent and conditional to the promise, should be wholy exploded. For, what can the Scripture else intend when it saith, If we confess 1 Joh. 1. 9. our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And doth not St. Paul joyn them both together, saying, That Rom. 3. 26. he might be Just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Is it not here as plain as words need make it, that the Apostle concerneth the justice of God in the justification of him that believeth? How then can these be re­conciled, but by distinguishing a twofold Justice in God, in reference to the work of Man: An absolute or antecedent Justice, before his promise freely made; and a consequent conditional Justice, supposing a free stipu­lation made by God, which never could be deserved, neither is deserved by the completion of the terms to which Man stands obliged to God. So that St. Paul joyns them both together, thus considered, without any su­spition of contrariety: For, saith he to the Thessalonians, It is a righteous 2 Thes. 1. 6, 7. thing (and that is no less then just) with God, to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you: And to you who are troubled, rest with us, &c.

But some have said concerning the reward in such cases, as holy, faithful working, promised, that it is promised to the Person, and not to the Work. Which if it were so, as upon tryal would scarce prove so; what an evasion doth this prove? Seeing, in such cases, it is most absurd to di­vide and oppose those two which are inseparable. For, God neither doth reward the work without the person, neither the person without the work: but the person working, as the person believing. Therefore, when St. Paul saith in his second Epistle to Timothy, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the Faith, he declareth his holy Life and good works: and when he addeth, Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteous­ness, which the Lord the Righteous (or just Judge as the old Translation had it) shall give me at that day, and not unto me only but unto all them also that love his appearing; doth sufficiently implie an inseparableness of the person from the work: and that which puts the person into a capacity of the reward or Crown, is the dutifulness of the person towards God. So that there must of necessity be a Causality in good deeds, in order to our Salvation: though considering the most vulgarousness of the word merit, and not the sense di­luted with the abovesaid qualifications, it is both immodest and unsafe to applie the same to Acts which are Good neither for their own sake, nor for the Agents sake, but for Christs sake, and the liberal promise sake of God. So that to say, That Christ merited that we might merit, is very improperly, as well incroachingly, spoken upon the Grace of God: but to say, That Christ merited to the end we might effectually work out our Salvation, is to say no more then St. Paul intendeth in his Epistle to the Thessalonians; where he affirmeth that God hath not appointed us to wrath: but to obtain Salvation by [...] [...]hes. 5. 9. our Lord Jesus Christ. And how obtain? the words going before and fol­lowing, speaking of good works, sufficiently declare; and yet shall be more fully explained in the succeeding Chapter.

CHAP. XVII.

WE have shewed the Effect of Faith to be Good Works; we have also shewed how, and in what sense the Effect of good Works is Salvation: but there remains two other effects both of Faith and works of Faith, here to be considered, before we proceed: and they are Sanctification and Justification. For good Works are fruitful not only in reference to an ample and manifold reward, but inServa ergo mandata Dei-Sanctifica cor tuum ut Deus inhabitet in te. Et quotidie magis & ma­gis invenies Deum. Opus Imperfect. in Mat. Him. 4. reference to good Works: as the Parable of our Saviour in the twenty fifth of Mathew plainly informs us: where it is said, Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same and made them other five talents. These five talents acquired to the first five, can­not be interpreted, the reward ultimate; for that is expressed after­ward to be the Joy of the Lord: but they were the intermediate effects of the stock of Grace treasured up in the Soul, and exhorting and improving it self by the continual supplie of the Spirit of Christ, according to theMat. 25. 16. doctrine of St. Paul to the Corinthians, saying, Insomuch that we desired Ti­tus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same Grace also: Therefore as ye abound in every thing, in Faith, in utterance, in knowledge, and v. 7. in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this Grace also. Of this influence of Christs Spirit to the augmentation of Grace in the hearts of the true believers, speaketh the same Apostle to the Colossians, thus, The Col. 2. 19. Head from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment, ministred and knit together, encreaseth with the encrease of God. Sanctification then may be described The Grace of God infused into the Soul of a Sinner, and purifying it by Faith: as Justification is the reputation and acceptation of a person for Just by almighty God, through the intuition of the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ: And yet more distinctly to declare their mutu­al agreement and difference, it will conduce much to the due understanding of them both.

First then, Justification and Sanctification agree in their Subject The true believer, the same person who is Sanctified being also Justified; and he that is Justified being Sanctified also: For so saith the prophet Nahum of him. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power and will not at all acquit the wic­ked. Nahum. 1. 3. And when we find St. Paul affirming the contrary in appearance, viz. that God justifieth the ungodly, we are to understand him to speak not inRom. 4. 5. [Sensu composito] in such manner that he is justified, while he is so ungodly, but in [Sensu diviso] a distinct sense and season, as if it had been said. Him that was once ungodly: as he seems to interpret himself in his Epistle to [Page 62] the Corinthians; where having spoken of the many abominations men were subject to, he saith, And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are 1 Cor. 6. 11. Sanctified, but ye are Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God. Secondly, Justification and Sanctification agree in their foundation, which is at least inchoate, and initial holiness. For, though no mans inherent holiness arises so high as to denominate him truly Just, or holy, for its own sake; yet both to Sanctification and Justificati­on, is necessarily required some preparatorie and imperfect holiness, con­sisting principally in the Conversion of the mind to God, from sin. Thirdly, both Sanctification and Justification are alike owing to Faith, as their im­mediate Cause, next under Gods Spirit; as may be gathered from the prayer of Christ for his disciples: Sanctifie them through thy truth: thy word is Joh. 17 17. truth: That is the doctrine of Faith, received. To which Faith, the ef­fect of Sanctification is ascribed by St. Peter in the Acts, whereby theAct. 15. 9. hearts of the Gentile were purified or Sanctified. Fourthly, they are both e­qually imputed unto us through the Righteousness of Christ. Therefore saith St. Paul to the Corinthians, To them that are Sanctified in Christ Jesus, And1 Cor. 1. 2. Heb. 10. 29. to the Hebrews, it is said, We are Sanctified by the blood of the Covenant. So that no less are we Sanctified then Justified by Christs death and merits, and the imputation of them.

But on the other side, they are distinct in some formalities; such as these may be; for First, the immediate cause of our Sanctification is in holy Scrip­ture imputed to the operation and influence of the Holy Spirit, as our Justification is more properly attributed to Christ the mediator between God and man: As appeareth from St. Pauls words to the Thessalonians. But we are bound to give thanks alwayes for you brethren beloved of the Lord, 2 Thes. 2. 13. because God hath from the beginning chosen you to Salvation, through Sanctifi­cation of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. And St. Peter. Elect accor­ding 1 Pet. 1. 2. to the foreknowledge of God the Father, and Sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience. Thirdly, Justification looketh backward, being an abso­lution of the guilty, from sins formerly committed, and holding him Just: but no man is justified actually from sins which hereafter he may fall into: But Sanctification relates chiefly to the time future. For not only is a sin­ner by the Spirit of Regeneration and Sanctification purged from the old Leaven of sin and malice, but he becometh a New Lump, and unleavened;1 Cor. 5. 7. Rom. 6. 13. and whereas he hath yielded his members as Instruments of unrighteousness un­to sin, he doth yield himself unto God, as those that are alive from the dead. And old things are done away in him, and all things become new. And whosoever is 1 Joh. 3. 9. (thus) born of God; doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. Fourthly, to the Act of our Justification the will of man doth not necessarily concurr, though it dissents not, but is rather passive than Active; but to our Sanctification is absolutely requi­red the co-operation of the will and affections of man with the Grace of God, in all those who have attained unto the use of reason. For indeed by baptism Infants are so far Sanctified as to be freed from that hereditarie evil incident unto them, which their will concurred not to: but to actual San­ctification from those evils our wills did freely consent, actual concurrence of our wills is necessary, Fifthly, Our Justification is entire and abso­lute at once; no man being partly Justified and partly not Justified, though he be partly Just and partly unjust or unholy: But no man in this Life is so perfectly Sanctified as that there wants not somewhat to consummate the same; because Justification being altogether the Act of God, and not at all of [Page 63] Man, God may, and doth wholly and freely remit the guilt of sin to the pe­nitent offendor: But Man being also concerned in the Sanctification of him­self, his acts are imperfect and defective, so that the effect it self partakes of the same, and so Sanctification continues imperfect. And it is not all at once, but answerable to our natural man proceedeth by degrees, Until we all come Eph: 4. 13. in the unity of the Faith, and of the knowledg of the son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the Stature of the fulness of Christ: which fulness of stature is that we are to hope for, and enjoy only in heaven. Lastly, to search no farther into this point, before Justification there must of necessity goe some degree of Sanctification, even in the opinion of such as contend most rigorously for freeness of Justification: for to make Justification alto­gether inconditionate, and absolute on mans part, is to blaspheme the immu­table Justice of God, and withall, destroy the use of Faith in order to our Ju­stification: For it is impossible any thing bearing the name of a cause or con­dition, as Faith certainly doth, when we say We are Justified by [...]aith, should be posteriour to the thing it so relates unto. The promise indeed of pardon and Justification of a sinner is actually made to those who do not actual [...]y be­lieve and repent, but promise answerably and covenant to believe, and re­pent:Non enim ut f [...] eat, ignis cal facit, sed quia fervet: N [...]c ideo ben [...] currit ro [...]a ut rotunda s [...]t, sed quia rotunda. A [...]g. ad Sim­plic. Qu. 1. but the Execution and performance of this promise is not made before there be an actual fulfilling of our Covenant with God. But then on the o­ther side, there must be perfect Justification before there can be that perfect Sanctification, which we all aspire unto, and God expects from us. For then are we truly Sanctified, when our works are holy and acceptable unto to God, which they are not untill they proceed from a person so far Justified as to be accepted of God. Whence may be resolved that doubt, about Gods ac­ceptation of the person for the works sake, or the work for the persons sake. For wisely and truly did the wife of Manoah inferr Gods acceptation of their sacrifice from the favour and grace he bore unto their persons: and at the same time prove the favour God bore to their persons from the Acceptance of their sacrifice, saying, If the Lord were pleased to kil us, he Judg. 13. 23. would not have received a burnt-offering, and a meat-offering at our hands; nei­ther would he have shewed us all these things, nor would, as at this time, have told us such things as these. That God therefore accepted their Burnt-offering, it is a sign he approved their persons, but the reason antecedent of Gods ac­ceptation of their sacrifice, was because he first approved their persons. And yet, notwithstanding the goodness of the person is the original of the goodness of the work, nothing hinders but the goodness of the work may add value, favour, and estimation unto the person. As (to use Luthers com­parison and others after, and before him) the tree bears the fruit, and not the fruit the tree: And the goodness of the tree is the cause of the goodness of the fruit, and not the goodness of the fruit the cause of the goodness of the tree: Yet the fruit doth procure an esteem and valuation from the ow­ner to the tree; and endears it to him, to the cultivating the ground and dressing, it and conferring much more on that than others. In like manner, the Person Sanctified and Justified produces good works, and not those good works, him: but some actions accompanied with Gods grace, antecedent and inferiour to the fruit it self: Yet doth the fruit of good Works add much of esteem and honour from God to such a person; and render him ca­pable of an excellent reward: for St. Paul to the Philippians assureth them and us, when he saith, I desire fruit that may abound to your account. Phil. 2. 7.

CHAP. XVIII.

TO the informing our selves aright in the much controverted point of Justification, (which whether it be a proper effect of Good works or not, doth certainly bear such a relation [...]o them as may well claim this place to be treated of) it seemeth very expedient, after we have distinguished, and illustrated it by Sanctification explained, to proceed to distinguish it likewise from Justice. For as Righteousness or holiness, the ground of Sanctification, is to be distinguished from Sanctification it self, so is Justice the ground to be distinguished from Justification its complement, and perfect on: This being omitted or confusedly delivered by diverse, hath been no small cause of great obscurities. For, Righteousness or Justice seems to be nothing else but an exact agreement of a mans actions in general to the true Rule of Acting, and that Rule is the Law or word of God. For he that offends not against that, is undoubtedly a Just man of himself, by his own works, and needs nothing but Justice to declare and ackowledg him for such, no mercy, nor favour. As that thing which agrees with the square or Rule is perfect. But notwithstanding such supposed perfect conformitie to the Law of God be perfect righteousness, yet is not this to be Justified: Neither can any man in Religion be said more to Justifie himself, than in civil cases: where it is plainly one thing to be innocent, and to be an accurate, unre­proveable observer of the Law in all things, and to have sentence pro­nounced in his behalf, that so indeed he really is: For this is only to Justi­fie him: though in pleading his own case, in clearing and vindicating him­self, a man is vulgarly said to Justifie himself. And no otherwise, if we will keep to the safe way of proper and strict speaking, is it in Religion. Supposing that which never happen'd since Christ, that a man should have so punctually observed every small, as well as great precept of Gods Law, that no exception could be taken against him, yet is he not hereby Justified, though he may be said to be the true Cause of his Justification, and that he hath merited it. Which St. Paul seems to implie unto us saying, For I know 1 Cor. 4. 4. nothing by my self yet am I not hereby Justified. For in truth, Justification is an act of God only, as Judge, no less then author of his own Laws, upon the intuition of due Conformitie to it, or Satisfaction of it.

And, as a man may possibly be just and yet never be Justified (taking things abstractly;) so may a man be unjust and guilty and yet be justified: doth not the word of God, as well as common reason and experience, certifie so much? He that Justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the Just, even Prov. 17. 15. [Page 65] they both are abomination unto the Lord. This then surely may be. No man then can be justified by himself, or any Act, or Acts of him, no not through Christ.

But though he cannot thus Judicially and formally Justifie himself, it is not so repugnant to reason or Scripture to be said Materially and Causally to act towards his Justification. Nay, he cannot come up to the rigour of the Rule, nor excel so far in Justice and holiness, as to demand at Gods hands, his absolving sentence: yet that he cannot contribute towards it, is not only false, but dangerous doctrine leading men into a sloathfull des­pondencie, and despair, so that they shall do nothing at all, because they cannot do all that is required of Justice.

But to arrive in this doubtful and perplexed way to the right end of this Dispute, it will be necessarie to pass briefly through all the several Causes of our Justification, and so much the rather, because divers before have so done, and failed in their Divinity, because of a mistake in Logick, in miscalling Causes. And first we must know otherwise then some have taught, That the Material Cause of our Justification is not the graces in us, nor the pardon without us; nor remission of sins, nor obedience of Christ, nor of our selves; but the person justified is the subject of Justification. For who with good sense can say, Our sins are justified, our good works are Ju­stified?Acts. 13. 3 [...]. True it is St. Paul saith, by him (Christ) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be Justified by the Law of Moses: Shew­ing hereby, that we are Justified from our sins: but not that our sins are Justified. And so where St. James speaks so often (of which hereafter) that we are Justified by Works, he intendeth not to say our Works are Justi­fied. For tis the person, not the qualities of him, that is Justified. And if any speak otherwise, they must be helpt out by recurring to Figurative not proper speaking. In such cases as these, if ever we would judge aright, we must hold as precisely as can be to propriety of speech.

About the Final cause of our Justification, I find nothing singular, but in common with all the Acts of God towards man▪ and all the Actions of Man towards God, viz, The glory of God. Neither is there any difference of parties herein.

But concerning the Formal Cause of our Justification before God, some discord is found; yea concerning a Formal Cause, in General, what it is; and wherein it consisteth; which is very necessarie to be understood to at­tain to the true notion of being Formally Justified. A Formal Cause then is that whereby a thing is, what it is; subsists in it self, and is distinguished from other things; being always essential and intrinsecal to the thing, so by it constituted, that it cannot be so much as conceived without it, and cannot possibly but be, with it. This, whether artificial or not, I weigh not much; but is a true description of that Cause. For instance sake, A man is a man properly by his soul, and not by his body, his soul being his Inward form; and as it is impossible that he should be so without it, so is it impossible but that he should be so, with it; whatever outward visible defects or imperfections may appear otherwise. So in the present cause, it must necessarily be, that the Formal Cause of our Justification be intrinsecal to the Justified person; and that not being, that he should not be justified: Contrary to what some have affirmed upon this occasion; who from an in­stance of an Eclipse, would show that the formal Cause is not alwayes in­trinsecal to that which it formeth. For, say they (as it should seem by the autority of Zabarel) In an Eclipse of the Sun, the Moon interposing, is the [Page 66] formal Cause of the Darkness of the Earth, and yet it is not intrinsecal to it, but separate. But the mistake is plain; that the Moon being not the cause of the earth it self, but of the darkness of the earth only, it is not the Formal Cause of that, and so may be extrinsecal to it, and intrinsecal to the darkness, as the formal cause: but whether this be so or not, we are here only to show that no cause formal can be external to the thing of which it is the form; and by consequence, that nothing without us can be the for­mal cause of our Justification, or that whereby we are denominated Just before God: So that neither Christ, nor his merits do render us so Justifi­ed. And therefore, they who to magnifie the mistery of our Justification do object to themselves, How a man can be Just, by the justice of another, and how righteous by another persons righteousness, any more than a man can hear with another mans ears, or see with another mans eyes, do tie such a knot as they can by no means loose. For in plain truth, neither the one nor the other can formally be. But they may say, As it is Christs righte­ousness indeed and rests only in him, so we cannot be said to be justified formally by it but as it is made ours especially by Faith, and is applied unto us, so we may be formally Justified by it. To which I say, that if that individual formal Righteousness which is in Christ were by any means so transferred formally unto us and infused into us, that we should in like manner possess it, as did Christ; then indeed the argument would hold ve­ry good, that by such application we were Justified formally by Christs righteousness: but no such thing will be granted, neither is any such thing needfull. For, though the Scripture saith directly that Christ is The Lord our Phil. 3. 9. righteousness, and St. Paul desireth to be found in Christ not having his own righ­teousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by Faith. Yet we are not to understand hereby that the formal righteousness of Christ becomes our formal Righteousness; but that he is, by the Gospel he revealed unto us, the teacher of Righteous­ness, and that far different from that Righteousness of the Law, which St. Paul calls his own, as that which he brought with him to Christ: and he isJustification is neither—but a certain a­ction in God applied unto us, or a cer­tain respect or relation whereby we ar acquit of our sins, and accepted to life everla­sting. Perkins Gal, 2. 16. Rom. 8. 30. the Prime Cause of our Righteousness, sending his holy Spirit unto us, and by his merits appeasing the wrath of God, and satisfying his Justice for us: all which is not the formal cause of our Righteousness or Justification. For neither is that formal righteousness in us, which is inherent Righteousness, the formal Cause of our Justification. But our Justification formal, is an Act of God terminating in Man, whereby he is absolved from all guilt, re­puted Just, and accepted to Grace and favour with God. When God hath actually passed this divine, free and gracious sentence upon a sinner, then, and not before, is he formally Justified. This is the end and consummation of all differences between God and man; and the initiating him into all sa­ving Grace here, and Glory hereafter: as St. Paul writing to the Romans witnesseth in these words, Whom he predestinated them he also called; and whom he called, them he also Justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

CHAP. XIX.

IT remains therefore now that we proceed to the means, causes and motives, inducing God Almighty thus to Justifie Man a sinner; whom he might rather condemn for his unrighteousness. And these, as ma­ny and divers in kind, as they are, may all be reduced unto the Ef­ficient causes so often mistaken for the formal. And truly, to proceed herein regularly and clearly, we must begin with the Cause of all Causes, God himself. For though Christ be the Cause of all Causes visible, and in the actual administration and execution; yet he is not the first, but subordi­nate [...]. Chrys. Hom. 27. in Joan. Cause of Mans reconciliation to God, his Justification and Salvation. For as holy Chrysostom divinely and sublimely enquiring into the reason that might incline God to restore Man being fallen, and lost by his Aposta­sy from God, unto a state of bliss again; to admit of any terms of Recon­ciliation with him; determines it, it is nothing but the divine Philanthro­pie of God, his free, undeserved, unscrutable love towards man, springing, (as it were,) from his own breast, beginning within himself, and of himself absolutely, irrespectively to any outward motives, but to show as St. Paul saith, He would have mercie on whom he would have mercie, and he Rom. 9. 15. would have compassion on whom he would have compassion: and because as the Psalmist hath it, Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in hea­ven Psal. 135. 6. and in earth, in the seas, and in all deep places. He pleased to leave the fallen Angels, and he pleased to restore fallen man; and that because it so pleased him. For not so much as any consideration of Christ could dispose him to decree so favourably on the behalf of man: but first, this decree passed, and then followed the determination of the means, most con­venient thereunto: which was, to send his son, to give him to be Incarnate and to be the great and powerful Mediator between God and Man; mighty to save. Christ then was that which in general moved God Ex­ternaly to the Justification of Man, after he had conceived of himself a pur­pose to reconcile man to himself; as S. Paul clearly asserteth in his second E­pistle to the Corinthians, All things are of God who hath reconciled us to him­self, 2 Cor. 5. 18. by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministery of reconciliation. To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing 19. their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconcilia­tion. And more particularly elsewhere, he describeth unto us the several parts of our reconciliation to God, saying, But of him are ye in Christ Je­sus, 1 Cor. 1. 30. who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, Sanctification and redemption. Therefore it is, that so often in Scripture Christ is called aGal. 3. 20. Heb. 8. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 5. Heb. 9. 15. Heb. 12. 24. Mediator between God and man; for the bringing to pass, and causing to take effect, the General decree of God for the redemption of Mankind. For through Christ we were by God predestinated, as is taught us by St. Paul to the Ephesians, Having predestinated us unto the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. WhereEph. 1. 5. we see plainly, that Christ was not the Cause that we were predestinated in Christ, but the Good pleasure of his Absolute will. Again, we were [Page 68] called in Christ, as St. Jude implieth, saying, To them that are sanctified Jud. 1. by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. And as we are called and sanctified, so certainly are we justified freely by Christ. And there is nothing more requisite for us to be fully justified in the pre­sence of God, then to be made partakers of Christ: and, as St. Paul saith, To be found in Christ, not having our own righteousness, which is of the Law, Phil. 3. 9. [whether of Nature or Moses] but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by Faith. From whence, and several other texts of Holy Scripture testifying the absolute necessity of Christ to the Justifying and saving of us, it appeareth that nothing can be more contrary to the Eternal purpose of saving man through Christ, yea nothing indeed more tidiculous, then to but imagine that there can be any Act in man con­tradistinct from Christ, and not receiving all its worth and vertue from Christ, which can avail any thing towards the salvation or Justification of him: Or that a man being grafted into Christ, and partaking of his graces and merits, can fail of being accepted of God unto Justification, and sal­vation. For as St. Paul saith to the Romans, All have sinned and come short Rom. 3. 23, 24, 25. of the glory of God: Being justified freely by his grace, through the redempti­on that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood, to declare his Righteousness for the Remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God, &c. Now there are three things in General which truly denominate us to be in Christ, and partakers of him: To be partakers of the benefit of his Passion satisfying for us: To be par­takers of his spirit, and graces thereof renewing and sanctifying us: and thirdly, to be partakers of his Intercession before God on our behalf. For as the Scripture tells us, He ever liveth to make intercession for us. And thisHeb. 7. 25. his intercession, an Act of his Sacerdotal office, is it whereby Christ pro­perly meriteth for us. For the Passion of Christ doth sufficiently discharge us of our former Obligations and obnoxiousness to the Law of God, and the punishments therein denounced against the contemners and violaters thereof; and so may be said, having fully satisfied all the Law justly de­manded of us, to have merited pardon and remission of what is passed, doth not thereupon entitle us to any graces or blessings from God, but yet putteth us into a capacity of them; but the actual collation of them is rather owing unto the uncessant mediation of him before God in behalf of us. And this the Scripture intends, when it saith, We have a great high Priest Heb. 4. 14. that is passed into the Heavens, Jesus the son of God. And thus we have made a second step towards the clearing our Justification in its Efficient Causes, viz, That it is wholly effected by Christ made righteousness sanctification and Redemption unto us.

But a third thing and that of no mean necessity and difficulty both, is be­hind, how we come to be so entirely partakers of Christ, how Christ so becomes ours as that God should upon the intuition hereof freely Justifie us? For as St. Austin hath observed of the giving of the Holy spirit of God to those that ask aright (whereas none can ask aright but by the Ho­ly spirit,) herein is a great mysterie that a man can be said to be capable of the Spirit before he hath the Spirit: In like manner, can no man be said to be capable of Christ and his Benefits, before he be in some manner actually in Christ. For if all our works are Sanctified by Gods Spirit, and accep­table to God, only as they are done in Christ; how can any such Acts lead us unto Christ, or make us capable of him, seeing it is one of the greatest perfections and excellencie of good Works, or Faith (for unless it, and [Page 69] we be in Christ, it cannot be a saving Faith. i. e. leading us to Salvation) to make us effectual partakers of, and one with him?

These difficulties constrain us to distinguish both Faith and being in Christ into (I cannot say properly, two kinds as) two eminent Periods, and Degrees of Faith, and being in Christ. The one is initial, and preparato­ry as a foundation; which is not a distinct building from the house finished and furnished, but a part of it; and material Cause thereof. The other is consummate and formed: yet not so, but addition of perfection, though not of Parts, may be made; all mens Faith being capable of farther degrees in this life. And from hence that mystical sense of our Saviours words in St. Johns Gospel, may both give, and receive illustration. For in the sixth of John, Christ hath these words, No man can come unto me except the Joh. 6. 44. Father which hath sent me draw him. And in the fourteenth of John he saith, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Joh. 14. 6. me. Teaching us, That notwithstanding, God is the First cause to bring us to be in Christ, and that by his Predestination before time, and his Cal­ling and Electing us in time, to the knowledge and Faith in Christ, yet he is not reconciled unto us; he doth not pardon us, nor justify us, before Christ brings us unto him: and offers us to him as a new l [...]mp, and as capable of his grace and favour, which obtained, we are then truly justified by Christ.

And as there are two distinct acts of God, the one of his good Providence in bringing us to the Covenant made with mankind in Christ; and the other of his special Grace in accepting us through Christ, being in the Covenant; So are there two principal Periods (as I said) of being in Christ: and the First is when we are taken within the Covenant of the Gospel of Grace, by baptism; whereby we are made members of Christs mystical Body and in­heritours of the Kingdom of Heaven. Not that immediately and necessa­rily, All baptized persons are sure to go to heaven, but all baptized per­sons are thereby put into a capacity and Right to heaven. To this St. Paul Gal. 3. 27. to the Galatians gives us his fair suffrage, saying, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. And the same is impli­ed in this his salutation: Salute Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen and my Rom. 16. 7. fellow Prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles, who also were in Christ, before me. Where doubtless these persons are said to be in Christ, before St. Paul; because they were baptized, and made profession of Christ, before St. Paul. And so when he speaks of the Churches of Judea which are in Christ Gal. 1. 22. he meaneth no more than such who were become of Jews, Christians in Judea; not intending that every one who so professed Christ should be infallibly Justified and saved by Christ, as they shall who are arrived to the more per­fect state of being in Christ; of which the Apostle thus speaketh to the Co­lossians.; Whom [Christ] we preach, warning every man, and teaching every Col. 1. 28. man in all wisdome, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.

Now what is, or wherein this perfection in Christ doth consist, is I sup­pose past any mans apprehension or Judgement precisely to determine; that is, what degree of holiness in Christ, God will accept to our Justification: but in general these two States of a Christian are plainly deseribed thus by St. Paul to the Corinthians, If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new crea­ture. 2 Cor. 5. 17. Where being a new Creature, and being in Christ, are distinguished as Cause and Effect: our being in Christ Jesus being the reason and cause of becoming New creatures. So that we may well observe in this case a two­fold Conversion requisite to make a man truly in Christ. A conversion to Christ, by renouncing false Religions, and false opinions of a Deity, and [Page 70] assenting to, and embracing the doctrine according to Godliness. This eve­ry man doth, who takes on him the name, profession, and mitiating Sacra­ment of a Christian: of this is to be understood what is spoken of the con­version of the Gentiles. And this conversion is rather (to speak properly)Acts 15. 3. a conversion to the truth of Godliness, than to true Godliness; Or a con­version to the Truth of Faith, rather then to the life of Faith: of which St. Paul to the Galatians, The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the Faith Gal. 2. 20. of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. The summ then of all this, is this, That to be in Christ effectually, to our Justification and Salvati­on, is so to be converted unto him as to believe the Faith of Christ and to Live the life of Christ.

This being cleared, nearer access is made unto the solution of the prime Doubt; which is, What is that which so farr and fully enstateth us in Christ, that thereupon God doth freely justifie us? For it is now supposed and gran­ted that our so being in Christ making us partakers of the merits, mediation, and Righteousness of Christ, doth immediately and absolutely qualifie to Justification: and secondarily, that which brings us into Christ may proper­ly enough be said to be it whereby we are Justified. And here comes in the grand dispute about the vertue of Faith, Whether that only, and wholly per­formeth this? For in what sense Faith may be said to bring us unto Christ, or thus to lay hold (as they say) of Christ, in the same may it be truly affirmed that, next under God and Christ, we are Justified by it.

This I know not how it can be effected better, then by the help of a most obvious and necessary, but most neglected distinction of the use and notion of Faith in holy Scripture; omitting that threefold Faith above-mentioned, and several others impertinently invented and ill imployed in this case. For Faith is taken in Scripture either Complexly and Generally for the whole Body of Christian divinity, and Graces contained in the New testa­ment: Or it is taken Simply, and distinctly, for a special Grace separate (I mean in nature not in Operation) from Hope and Charity, which together constitute the three Theological Graces. Instances of the former have been given already in the twelfth Chapter, and need not here be repeated in par­ticular. For let any man of common equity and understanding, weigh the subject and end of all St. Pauls Epistles to the Romans, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Hebrews especially (not excluding the other,) where he most expresly and zealously urges Faith against works, and he shall soon per­ceive that his intention and drift is, not absolutely to oppose works of Faith to the doctrine or Grace of Faith, but the works of the Law; which infirmer Christians, newly entred into the Faith of Christ, had so venerable an opinion of, that they imagined Christ could profit nothing without the works either Ceremonial or Moral of the Law of Moses. For whereas they for instance, depended absolutely on Circumcision, for their Justification, and thought that without so sacred and solemn a Rite, they could not be profited by Christ himself; St. Paul on the other side, resolutely and posi­tively determineth thus, Behold I Paul say unto, you that if you be circumcised Gal. 5. 2. v. 4. Christ shall profit you nothing. And presently after, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are Justified by the Law: ye are fallen from Grace. Can any thing be more manifest then here it is, that Grace is opposed to the Law? And that to trust in that, is to fall from Christ? And when it follow­eth, We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by Faith; is it notv. 5. as plain as need be, that Faith is here taken for that doctrine (and not Act) of Faith, whereby men are instructed in Christ, believe in Christ, adhere [Page 70] to him, relinquishing the imperfect and antiquated doctrine of the Law, and its practises; which by St. Paul are all called Flesh in opposition to the spiritual worship of the Gospel: as to the Philippians, For we are the Cir­cumcision, Phil. 3. 3. which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoyce in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh, &c. 4. Rom. 3. 21. And to the Romans, But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested (that is, surely now is the doctrine of Righteousness published through Christ, without the Law) being witnessed by the Law and the Pro­phets. Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all 22. 20. 27. and upon all that believe. And verse the twentieth, By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified, &c. And verse the twenty seventh, the Anti the­sis, or opposition doth most evidently declare the Apostles intention. Where is boasting then? It is excluded, By what Law? Of Works? Nay, but by the Law of Faith. The Law of Works then is the Law of Moses, and the Law of Faith is the Law of Christ. And to be Justified by Faith in Jesus, of which immediately before, is to be understood of the whole Covenant of Grace or Faith, which is made to us in Christ Jesus, and revealed in the Gospel as contradistinct to that Covenant of Works given by Moses: and not of a­ny special Grace or Act of Faith, as Faith is sometimes distinguished from other Evangelical Graces.

It may be said that the works of the Law are excluded expresly, and therefore no competition is to be made between them and Faith, in the case of our Justification. To which my answer is, That though I grant, that not only the works of the Law, though moral, do not Justifie, but not the works of Faith, of themselves; yet I may confidently say, None of these places com­monly alleadged by the Exalters of Faith, and Depressors of Good works, to null the merits of works done even in Faith of Christ, do, according to the literal meaning, really perform so much: yet I rather choose to affirm▪ That the works excluded by St. Paul are not works of the Law moral, so much as Mosaical. For the morality of the Old Law was not properly of Moses, but the Ceremonial only, and consequently the Law from these ta­king its denomination of Mosaical, when works of the Law are mentioned in the New Testament, we are to understand Mosaical Works, rather than Mo­ral: but not at all works of Faith. So that, whatsoever is contended or pre­tended, our being justified freely by Grace, and justified (again) by Faith doRom. 3. 24. Gal. 2. 16. not at all deny our Justification by works of Faith: or that the efficiency of such a Faith is quite of another nature from that of works done in Faith.

But yet it is plain from the whole design of the Epistle of St. James, theQuoniam haec opinio fuerit exerta [sine o­peribus justifi­cari hominem] aliae Apostoli­cae Epistolae Petri, Joan­nis, Jacobi, Judae, contra eum maxim [...] dirigunt inten­tionem, ut ve­hementer a­struant fidem sine operibus nihil prodesse, &c. Aug. de Fide & Ope­ribus. c. 14. second Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. Jude, that divers of Old did so mistake St. Paul as of late dayes he hath been understood: which moved St. Austin to say directly that these Epistles were on purpose contrived and published to obviate such a misconstruction of the Blessed Apostle, as if he had intended, when he often sayes, We are Justified by Faith only, a separate notion of Faith from works and effects of Faith: which was far from him; from whence we have a very compendious, solid and clear reconciliation of St. James his Epistle especially with those of St. Paul. For, as is shewed al­ready, certain it is, that it being his principal end to oppose, and void the pretensions of the Jews to Justification without believing in Christ, or as a more moderate sort of them weak in the Faith of Christ, admitting no suffi­ciency in Christ to justifie them without a dash, as least of Moses's Law; he declared freely for an absolute sufficiency in the Faith of Christ, to justify and save such as believe in him. This doctrine of St. Paul was quite mi­staken [Page 72] by some who supposed that the act of believing, simp [...]y taken, or the Grace of Faith specially used was it whereby they were in a certain way of being justified, leaving out the fruits and effects of that lively Faith, and ma­king it a dead Faith, as St. James calleth it: who thus argueth against such a fond and dangerous presumption, What doth it profit, my brethren, though a James. 2. 14. 17. man say he hath Faith, and have not works; can Faith save him? Faith without works is dead. For the use and end of knowledge and Faith being only obe­dience, and a life according to Faith; what a monstrous and ridiculous thing would it be, to divide the Cause from the effects proper to it?

But it is usually replied, No, God forbid we should divide Faith from good Works. Where there is true justifying Faith, there will be, there must be good works: and that for several other reasons, but not for our Justifi­cation. This is most true, whereever there is a Justifying Faith there will be, good Works, but what do they there in order to Justification? Just as much as the fair gay train of a Peacock to the bird that draws it after it, make a fine show, and that is all that we know of. But the difficulty is yet very strong behind: And that is, seeing it is granted that some, Faith in Christ is Justifying, and some is not Justifying; whence comes this about? Is it not because one is a lively and operative Faith, and the other is drie and unactive and unfruitful? So that Faith which is said to Justifie, is it self first Justified by its works. For though, as hath been said, Faith doth absolutely produce good Works, and not good Works Faith: yet good Works are they in which its goodness consists next unto its object, Christ, and consequently render it Justifying actually.

And whereas they would evade his, and elude St. James's autority, by distinguishing the Cause and Sign of our Justification: saying, That we are Justified only by Faith (effectivè) effectually, but by works (as St. James saith ostensivè) declaratorily, as signs that we are Justified, it is a sense meer­ly obtruded upon the Apostle: there being no more grounds or occasion given by St. James, why they should understand him, that works justifie only declaratorily, than are given by St. Paul, that I should interpret that Justification which he ascribes to Faith, to be only Declaratorily. For though Faith received in the mind is not apparent, yet when it is professed, then it may be said no less to declare our Justification then good works, as the Scripture it self testifies, saying, With the heart man believeth unto righ­teousness Rom. 10. 10. (i. e. to the doing of works of righteousness, which proceed from a true Faith) and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation.

CHAP. XX.

ALL this while we have treated of the complex notion of Faith; or at least, as it is that first general Grace whereby we are inserted into Christ, and justified by it together with its blessed retinue of subordinate Evangelical Graces, which are reduced to these three, Faith, Hope, and Charity: where Faith standeth by its self, and is a peculiar Grace of it self, and hath in this acceptation a more then common prerogative attributed unto it in order to our Justification, or the bringing us to Christ, and parta­king of Christ. For that is it whereby we are only properly justified; and all Graces serve for no other end here, than to adopt us for the benefit of Justification through Christ, and for Christ's sake alone. So that no man can as yet complain, That though I derogate somewhat from the ver­tue and value of Faith in reference to our Justification, as it is explained by moderner Divines (some I mean;) I do not in the least detract from the sufficiencies, freeness, and absolute necessity of Christ's Merits and Grace towards us. Yea, I establish it; nay, I augment and commend more the Free Grace of God, then do they who have chose another way to express it. For all this while I do not compare Works with Christ, nor Hope, nor Charity, nor Obedience, with Christ; (as is plain) but I compare now one Grace with another; and Faith simply considered, with the obedi­ence of Faith. For, Faith taken as in general for the embracing of theFundamentum ergo esi justitiae Fides. Ambr. Offic. Lib. 1. cap. 29. & Lib. 2. cap. 2. Habet vitam aeternam fides, quia est funda­mentum bo­num: Habet & facta, quia vir justus & dictis & factis probatur, &c. Id. de Basili­cis non Tra­dendis. Fides quae est justitiae fundamentum, quam nulla bona opera praecedunt, sed ex qua omnia procedunt, ipsa nos à peccatis nost [...] is purgat, &c. Prosper Lib. 3. de Vita Contemplativa, cap. 21. Fides est omnium bonorum fundamentum: & humanae salutis initium, &c. August. in Vigilia Pentecostis. whole Body of the Gospel, hath this undoubted prerogative to be the Grace of all Graces, the Mother of all, the Fountain from which all flow; and, as the Fathers generally do justifie, because it is the foundation of all access to Christ. Which assertion of theirs, however later Wits have slighted and contemned, as not giving Faith its due, in order to our Justification, doth in my opinion, with much greater perspicuity and sim­plicity and soundness, express its proper office, then those newly inven­ted; and several distinctions and sub-distinctions confunding, rather than setling the judgment of a good Christian.

And first, They ascribe this virtue of Justifying to a special Faith: Then they say, this Faith doth not justifie as a Work, or Act, but Grace. [Page 74] Then they proceed to affirm, That not as a principal cause, but only as an instrument created by God in the heart to that end. And yet farther, Not as an Instrument active and operative; but as an Instrument rather receptive and passive, as appears by the example given of an Hand, which is no true cause of an Alms given; but yet it properly receives it. But first, What a disorder must these multiplyed niceties needs breed in the minds of the simpler sort, who are not able to comprehend them; and so are brought into great troubles of conscience, whether their Faith be directed to Christ under the true relation it ought to bear? How much more clear and easie is that Doctrine that teaches, First; That neither our Faith nor Works proceeding from thence, can avail any thing, without Christ, and that all their sufficiencie is of Christ. And next, That this Faith and good Works do but qualifie us, according to the Free Covenant of Grace, for Christ. Secondly, If it be deny­ed, as in truth it is, That Faith is any more an Instrument, whether active or passive; or a Hand, as it is called, to lay hold (especially in another kind) of Christ, than Hope or Charity; I do not find how they can prove it. For I may, and do yield a greater degree of vertue in Faith special, well founded on God, than in other Graces distinct from it; but I do not yield that this is the Faith properly by them contended for: For, It is a mixt compound Grace, consisting of Hope and Love, which they call [Fiducia] Confidence, and resting upon God. This in­deed is a special Grace as considered in subordination to the general Grace, whereby we assent and submit to the Gospel of Christ: but it is not special, as distinct from other co-ordinate Graces with it.Calvin. Inst. Petrus Mart. Lo. Com. class. 3. cap. 4. num. 6.

But what manner of Faith (say they) do we suppose that, which goes so ill attended alone? First, I suppose there is such a Grace distinct from others, and that which was set up against others to justifie, and now croud­ing into it all others to make it justifying, they affirm what at first they were so much denyed; namely, That justifying Faith is not so much a single, or singular Christian Grace, as a confluence of many Evangelical Graces together; which render a man capable of being justified; accord­ing to the Covenant of Free Grace, before God, though never worthy. To which we readily assent. Again, If, as they say, Faith [Sola, non So­lit [...]ri [...]] Only, not Alone justifies, it will be no less difficult for them to give either good autority or reason, why the same may not be ascribed to Love, or Charity, or to Hope; and when the insufficiencie of either of these be declared, to that effect; it may not as reasonably now, as before he replyed, and said, Charity only doth justifie, but not alone, because Faith and Hope must be conjoyned with it. There is little judgment or sincerity in such manner of disputings as these.

But here, to prevent suspition of mis-reporting the opinions of such as contend for a modern notion of justification by Faith, which the Holy Fathers were ignorant of, I find my self constrained to set down the state and reason of the Question, as that learned man, Mr. Perkins hath explain'd,Perkins on Gal. 3. v. 10. &c and defended Justification by Faith. In his Reformed Catholique, Point the fourth: And in his Comment on the Galatians he moves this necessary Querie, as most material to the clearing of the Controversie; What is that very thing that causeth a man to stand righteous before God; and to be accepted to Life everlasting. To this in both places he answers, altogether to the same sense and purpose, and with very little alteration of words; saying, The Obedience, or Righteousness of Christ, and it stands in two things, [Page 75] his Passion in Life and Death, and his Fulfilling the Law joyned therewith: which he calls the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ. In which re­solution there is no difference between us; no exception justly to be taken.Perkins Re­form. Catho­lick. pag. 570 Now sayes he afterward (pag. 570. Reform. Cath.) All, both Papists and Protestants, agree that a sinner is justified by Faith: This agreement (saith he) is only in word. And why so? The Papist saying, we are justified by Faith, understands a General or Catholick Faith, whereby a man believeth the Articles of Religion to be true. But we hold, That the Faith which ju­stifieth is a Particular Faith, whereby we apply to our selves the Promises of Righteousness, and Life everlasting, by Christ. But if we say, That even the General Faith (not taken for the Object or Articles of Faith, but Ha­bit exercised) performeth this sufficiently, though not immediately (as in truth we do) by the influence it hath upon inferiour and subordinate Graces, whereof a Particular is but one; then in vain is all laid upon the Particular Faith. And that place by him alledged out of Galatians 2. 20. makes more against what he would prove by it, than for it: viz. I live by the Faith of the Son of God. For it is directly denyed, That hereby is in­tended such a Particular Faith as is before mentioned by us: The words of the Apostle before, and the main design of his Epistle declaring that he understood no other Faith in Christ here, than that General whereby he relinquished the Law of Moses, with all its imperfect umbrages, and be­took himself, by Faith, to Christ; and liv'd now according to Christ, and not to Moses. Neither doth that which follows prove the specialty of this St. Pauls Faith, as he conceives: viz. Who hath loved me, and given himself for me, particularly. For this is apparently a Predicate of Christ, and not of the Faith there spoken of: It is a description of Christ, and not of the Faith in Christ; which if it were, would make but little to the purpose. For who knows not that a General Faith comprehends a parti­cular Faith, and the Faith whereby we believe and receive the Gospel, disposes us to believe that Christ died for us, which is one part of that Faith: And the Faith that believes that Christ dyed for all, doth necessa­rily lead us to believe that Christ dyed for me particularly. Therefore, still it remaineth unresolved, what singular and signal vertue there is in the Particular Grace of Faith, which other Evangelical Graces depending upon the General Faith, as well as doth this Particular Faith, may not be capable of in order to our Justification.

Hear we then, to understand this better, what the same learned Author sayes in the entrance to that Treatise of the Reformed Catholick. A man is justified by Faith alone, because Faith is that alone instrument, created in the heart by the Holy Ghost, whereby the sinner layeth hold on Christ his Righte­ousness, and applyeth the same unto himself: There is neither Hope, nor Love, nor any other Grace of God within man, that doth this, but Faith alone. Thus he. Where several things are taken for granted, not to be granted. First, That Faith is any more created in the heart of man, than any other Grace, there expressed or implyed. Secondly, That it is an Instrument Active, laying hold of Christ, in a special different manner from other Graces. For in truth, we are not so much justified or made partakers of Christ, by our laying hold of him; as by his laying hold of us. Thirdly, That in what sense Faith may be said to lay hold on Christ, in the same, the other Graces may not likewise be said so to do; because all Graces (speak­ing properly) which are indeed operative (as is said) towards our Sancti­fication, are but Passive in order to our Justification, which is an act of [Page 76] God only, declaring, and holding us Just in Christ Jesus. So that the old Querie here returns upon us again, Which of all these Graces prevail most to the inserting us into Christ: which I grant to be the General Faith, as a foundation and first mover of all Graces. And as for the particular Faith compared with its fellow Graces, it may be allowed a greater vertue, but not of another kind, in reference to our union with Christ. For, when an humble and desponding Christian considering his own unworthiness, and the unsufficiency of his repentance it self, and graces to incline God to mercy, so far as for their sakes to accept him in Christ for just and inno­cent; he, as the last refuge he hath, quitteth all worth and capacities in himself, and fleeth with a strong confidence (which in this case is called Faith) unto the free and absolute Grace of God revealed in Christ Jesus unto us: upon which God beholding the whole glory of the Absolution of such a sinner, to redound to his Grace, is pleased to receive such a person to mercy, according to that of the Prophet Esay, Thou shalt keep him in per­fect Is [...]iah 25. 3. peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusteth in thee. Than which words I find no testimonies of Scripture, of the many alledged, more pregnantly proving the power of that fiducial Faith (as I may so call it) in order to the Justification of a man before God: and yet it must here be granted, That this trust is much different from the Faith contended for. And that from hence, or the like Texts, not a different vertue in nature or kind, though peradventure more effectual and prevalent, is ascribed to it above other Graces, in order to our Justification. All which is no less true of our Sanctification than our Justification. For we are altoge­ther as much sanctified by Faith alone, as we are justified by Faith alone, or only: as appeareth from the Scripture, which saith, That our hearts are John 15. 3. Acts 15. 9. purified by Faith. So that in this much disputed Question, I know no readier way of satisfying the fearful and dubious mind, than by taking a due estimate of the power of a General or Particular Faith in reference toFides nos à peccatis omni­bus purgat, mentes nostras illuminat, Deo concliat. Pro­sper. ubi supr. our Sanctification, and judging alike of our Justification thereby. For we are sanctified as freely by Grace, as we are justified, and as much by Faith too: as Prosper before cited, saith.

And therefore, lastly, in answer to divers places of the Ancients which are produced to confirm the modern sense of Justification by Faith alone, I answer in a word. That it is true, their words seem to attest so much, but their meaning was plainly no more than this; That Faith many times doth justifie without Works, that is, any outward manifestation of their Faith, by such fruits: but never without inward acts of Repentance and Charity distinct from this special Faith: nor without such a devotion to good Works, which wants nothing but opportunity to exert them; which is by an extraordinary Clemencie and Grace of God, accepted for the thing it self. This appears by the example by them given, to manifest their meaning, of the Thief on the Cross; who was so justified and saved by Faith alone, without good Works answerable thereunto, because his sudden faith was prevented by sudden death. Nevertheless, That his Faith was so much alone as to exclude Repentance, and such Graces as were competible to one in his condition from a proportionable concur­rence to that effect, is no where said, nor intended by any of the Fathers, whose judgment is of account in the Church of God.

CHAP. XXI.

ANother effect of Faith, or at least consequence upon it, hath the certainty or assurance of our Justification and Salvation been commonly reputed. The better to understand which, we must take as supposed and granted the difference between the Truth of a thing, and Evidence of it: or the Certainty that such a thing is, and the knowledge that so it is. So that the doubt­ing of our Justification or Salvation, doth not make the thing infallibly so, but leaves us under fears, and sometimes disconsolations: But a compe­tent remedy seems to me to be ready at hand, if we consider that our o­pinion of our selves is no good conclusion against our selves; but rather, being founded in humility and disowning of our worth and righteousness, an introduction to a comfortable hope in Gods mercy, who hath begun at least the work of Grace in us, by rendring us studious and anxious about his service, and our salvation: unless it could be proved (which we shall see presently whether so or not) out of the word of God, that it is his will and direct command that we should have this assurance in us. For as saint John saith, Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall as­surt 1 John 3. 19, 20. our hearts before him: For if our heart condem us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things; i. e. the hearts and consciences of the children of God do frequently condemn them; but their comfort is, that God is greater than their hearts, and doth not judge according to what opinion, good or evil, we have of our selves, but according to his own Wi [...]dom and Grace. So that it is no just inference at all, I do not believe I shall be saved, therefore I shall not be saved. Nor this: I do believe I shall not be saved, therefore I shall not be saved. Only they have great cause thus to argue and conclude against themselves, who are wont, on the con­tra [...]y, to reason I believe I shall be saved, therefore I shall be saved; abu­sing and corrupting the Doctrine of Faith two wayes most dangerously. First, In making it the simple and direct cause or means unto Justification; and then a reason of a Reflex act, whereby they stand assured that they are so acquitted, and justified before God. But St. John in the former words cited, reasons much otherwise. For having in the 18. verse exhorted to, and urged the duty of mutual Christian Charity, he inferreth from thence, in the 19. verse, Hereby we know that we are of the truth, &c. i. e. from the Indication of Love and Charity to the Brethren.

[...]ere is then an assurance, and that before God; and yet, as we have [Page 78] seen, there resteth and consisteth withall a diffidence and doubting, as we have shewed: The reconciliation of this seeming opposition doth lead us to a necessary distinction tending to the resolving of the principal Que­rie; and it is between the State of Justification, and the Act of Justifica­tion. And again, as to Assurance here spoken of, It is one thing to be assured of our Justification, and another of our Salvation, as shall here­after appear. First then, I hold it sufficiently demonstrable out of Scrip­ture, That a man may, and every good Christian ought to be assured that he is in a state of being justified and saved likewise. This we teach well in our Church Catechise in answer to this Question, Doest not thou think that thou art bound to believe, as they have promised for thee? thus. Yes veri­ly; and by Gods help so I will: and I heartily thank our heavenly Father, that he hath called me to this State of Salvation, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Every Christian that in Baptism hath put on Christ, and is en­tred into a Covenant of Grace with God, is bound to believe assuredly, that thereby he is in a state of Salvation and Justification. For thereby, God hath especially elected him to salvation: of which Election the Scrip­tures chiefly, if not only, speak; which are drawn to signife the Eternal Decree of God, choosing not only men estranged from God to the Cove­nant of Grace, but such as are first within the Covenant, to an infallible Justification and Salvation. This I say is rarely, if at all intended by a­ny of those many Texts of Scripture alledged to prove the same, they meaning no more then Gods Election to the state of Grace; that is, the Faith and Profession of the Gospel. Whence it is that the persons so cal­led and converted to Christ, are by St. Paul called the Election: as Rom. 9. 11. For the children being not yet born, neither having done good Rom. 9. 11. or evil, that the purpose of God according to Election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth. Here the purpose of God is distinguished from the election of God; meaning That, what God had before-time pur­posed and resolved on, he in time executed in electing the younger, and relinquishing the elder, and that rather from his own Free-will, then my difference in the Persons so elected inducing him thereunto. And so Chapt. 11. v. 5. The remnant according to his election, is the remnant ele­cted. Chap. 11. v. 5. 7. 28. And again, verse 7. he saith, The election hath obtained. And verse 28. Touching the election they are beloved. In which three places, it is to me plain, That by election St. Paul doth mean the Persons elected from Jew­ish Superstition to Christian Profession. As St. Peter also useth the same word, saying of the Jewish Converts, Elected together with you. And1 Pet. 5. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Matth. 24. 22, 24, 32. and several other places, in which nothing more is intended by the Holy Ghost, than they who were in out­ward communion of Faith. So that being sure of a mans Election, as every ordinary Christian is, he becomes in proportionable manner sur [...] of his Justification and Salvation; that is, sure that the Faith he professes is altogether sufficient to lead him infallibly to salvation; which neither the Religion of the Jew or Gentile can assure him of. Yet to the reapin [...] of the fruit hereof, it must alwayes be supposed, That such condition [...] as God requires on the Party stipulating be not wanting.

Now of this sort of Assurance I make no doubt but the word of God is more genuinely interpreted and applyed, than of that personal assurance peculiar to some, who frame another notion of being elected; which is of being signally chosen out of the former Elect to an infallible assurance of their Justification and Salvation: which though I willingly grant o be [Page 79] true; viz. That God hath his peculiar ones amongst Christians too, as Christians amongst Heathen; yet I find little or nothing spoken of under the said Appellations of Elect, Elected, Election, in Scripture, but of the first sense generally. My appeal shall be to the indifferent judge, by laying the testimonies before him, which are principally these, many coming nothing near the point. St. Paul saith to the Romans of Abraham, That he did not doubt of the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong Rom. 4. 20, 21. in saith, giving glory to God. And being fully perswaded that what he had promised, he was able also to perform. How far this is beside the matter every sober man will easily see, that shall consider seriously; That these Promises were made directly and expresly to Abrahams person, and not in common with other persons. And can any man be so unadvised as to conclude, That because Abraham having such a particular and personal Promise made to him by God, and indeed absolute and inconditionate, that he should have a Son by Sarah his wife, which he believed, and without staggering was assured of; therefore they, who have no such personal as­surances given of God, but only general, and alwayes conditional, of their Justification and Life Everlasting, can be in like manner assured of the same: or ought to believe that they shall be saved, as much as Abra­ham did, that God would send him a Son, as he promised? The sum of Gods infallible Promise to Christians is this in St. Matthew, He that be­lieveth Matth. 16. 1 [...] and is baptized shall be saved: where it must of necessity be gran­ted that, Believing is a very comprehensive word, according to our di­stinction of Faith above given; and consequently that it cannot be so evi­dent to a man that he believeth, according to the Tenour and intent of the Covenant of Grace, as it was to Abraham, that God himself made such a Promise to him; and therefore hath not the like footing for his Faith, as­suring him that he believeth aright, as that he should have a Son, when his common sense told him that God had promised he should.

It is said, that Faith is opposite to doubting: For, Christ said to Pe­ter, Matth. 14. 31. O thou of little Faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? This is very true: and therefore we say, It is no article or object of our Faith, to believe that we shall be infallibly saved: but it is rather an object of our Fear, and more properly of our Hope. For though it be said in the Apostles Creed, I believe the remission or forgiveness of sgins; it is not meant, that any man should thereby stand obliged to believe, as an Arti­cle of Faith, the actual forgiveness of his own sins: but that his own sins and all other Christian peoples are remissible: and that in the Catholick Church, there is forgiveness to all that repent and believe. And this is no more then that General Assurance; that by being baptized we are in a state of Salvation, as is above-said.

To multiply many Texts to infer this from Gods faithfulness, who pro­miseth: and from his gifts being without repentance, and such like, are not worth their time that use them; nor would it be worth mine to examine them, any farther then to say, That they are a great deal too large, to have any particular relation to a mans personal state: As if God must needs change, if a man falls from his stedfast purpose. Or God, when he in his own counsel determines to save any man infallibly, must inseparably annex thereunto this Evidence of his will to the Party, any more then it is ne­cessary that all men, who leave others their Estates, should tell them so much; and require at their hands that they make no question of the same, under the penalty of forfeiting all.

[Page 80]The surest grounds therefore for this seem to be taken from revelation; which no Christian can absolutely oppose: For not only may God, but God hath revealed this to others, by the testimony of his Spirit, or other sufficient Evidence for to beget an assurance. But two exceptions are made against this way; the one, That the dispute is only about the Ordina­ry dispensations, common to all true believers. The other, That these places alledged prove no more than the common Justification of believers, and their Adoption: As for instance, John 1. 12. As many as received him, John 1. 12. to them gave he power to become the Sons of God: even as many as believe in his name. Here, say they, believing is put for receiving; so that true faith receiveth Christ: and this it doth by a particular application of general promises unto a mans self: Therefore a man ought to be particu­larly assured of his being in Christ. The whole Antecedent I grant; viz. That every man believeth Christ when he receiveth him; and that Christ is received by Faith: And that every man is bound to apply Christ par­ticularly, and his Promises to himself. But the consequence here made, follows not from hence: For by the former, a man believes assuredly that the Promises of Grace made through Christ to the Church, do particular­ly belong to him: he hath a right to them, being called to the Covenant:Neither do we promise any other securi­ty of Salvati­on by only Faith, but to those that la­bour in their calling, and be fruitful of good Works. Dr. Fulk on Rhem. Test. Phil. 3. v. 11. And thus far a man is, and ought to be sure of his Salvation. But there being implyed in all Promises of Everlasting Salvation, certain conditi­ons of obeying and repenting, as well as believing simply, whether a man is to that degree proficient in these, as to put him in actual possession of Christ; this is no where revealed, neither are we commanded to believe it.

And when St. Paul saith to the Romans; Rom. 8. 15, 16. See likewise 1 John 5. 9, 10 Ye have not received again the spirit of bondage to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. What is more plain than that his mean­ing is, to distinguish the general state of the Church of the Jews from the Church of the Gentiles: and the spirit of Moses (as I may so say) which tender'd to bondage, from the spirit of Christ, which is that free Spirit: For as it is elsewhere said, If the Son make you free, then shall you be free indeed. And from hence no more can be concluded to any single person than to the whole Church of God, in which there are many reprobates, as all agree. Neither is the matter helped out any whit by what follows; The Spirit it self beareth witness with our Spirit, that we are the Sons of God. I presume, few will be so severe and ignorant as to deny the large ac­ceptation in Scripture of the Children of God, and Sons of God, and Saints, viz. That generally they signifie no more than those who were elected out­wardly to the Faith and Profession of Christ, and to the means of becom­ing, not only denominatively, and of Right, but really, and effectually in Fact, the heirs of Eternal Salvation. To be then the Sons of God, here with St. Paul, signifies no more than by Faith to be the peculiar people and favorites of God, above all such as were not thus brought home to Christs Fold. Now that such singular Grace and Priviledges belonged to Chri­stian, St. Paul proves from the testimony of the Spirit, namely; That the Christian Religion is only the true Religion, thus. The Spirit beareth witness with our Spirit: Our own Judgment, our Consciences doth sted­fastly assure us that we are the Children of God: but this is not all: this proves nothing to another to the convincing of him that we are the true Servants and Children of God; but the Spirit of God bearing witness with our Spirit, doth. And the Spirit of God beareth witness with us suffici­ently, [Page 81] when it declareth openly by miracles, signs, and wonders wrought before the eyes of our Adversaries, that what we preach and believe is the truth: Which is the same with what St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 2. 4. saying: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of Power: That your faith might stand not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God. In which words he plainly sheweth the ground of the Corinthians faith, not to be taken from any fair or plausible Rhetorick, or form of words, whereby men are led oftentimes to believe against reason; but on the more solid grounds of extraordinary miracles, wrought by the power of God, and which did demonstrate to all equal judges, That it was the Spirit of God which both taught them such mysteries of Faith as they preached, and confirm­ed the same by such signs and wonders, as did appear generally at the pub­lication of the Gospel. Now what doth all or any of this concern the supposed particular, inward, tacit testimony, whereby it is said a man is to be assured of his Salvation: And no more do the words of the Apo­stle in the end of the same Chapter prove, too long to be recited: but thisRom. 8. 35, 36 37, 38, 39. is briefly to be answered. 1. That they speak not at all of any indivi­dual, single Christian, but of the Church of God, and that indefinitely or at large: viz. That God hath so determined to plant, propagate, and maintain that Religion, into which divers were collected by the ministry of the Apostles, that whatever, or from whomsoever, evils might befall the Church of God, yet they should never prevail with such persecutions to separate the faithful from Christ: no not all the Powers nor Principali­ties on Earth, nor all the Angels of Heaven, or of Hell.

But to secure these and the like testimonies the better, to their opini­ons, some much admired persons of the Reformation (peradventure su­specting what might be answered) have proceeded to say, That what pro­mises Calvin. Inst. Christ hath made to his Church, do equally concern every Christian as well as the Church: which I cannot yield to, without these Exceptions: First, That it may be understood of a particular Church, as well as par­ticular Persons. But (as may hereafter appear) God hath made no abso­lute promise to any particular Church so far, that it can be any point of Faith to believe that Gods counsel & decree are such to it, as never to suffer it to Apostatize from him: So that no individual Church can be sure of its perseverance in the truth: and if not that, how should any particu­lar person claim so much? But the Promises of Christ being taken (as they ought) of a Church indefinitely, it is most agreeable to Gods word to maintain an infallible perpetuity of the same. Again; It is to be remem­bred, that all this while, we are speaking, not so much of certainty be­fore God (according to which we may yield the Salvation of men to be infallible) but certainty before men; or to the party concerned imme­diately, which we call Assurance or Evidence. In the body of an Or­thodox Church, it is certain in it self, that many men shall be saved, but not certain to us that any one therein shall; nor evident to any one, that he shall.

To the reasons taken from the Power of God, who is able to save, and reveal this; And the truth of God, who is faithful in his Promise; And the Knowledge of God, that he knoweth who are his; what need we make any answer, besides showing the vanity of that inference which is drawn from the possibility of any thing, to the Fact it self? and of that pre­sumption, rather than faith, which leadeth men to assure themselves of the [Page 82] benefit of the promises, which are conditional, before it be evident un­to them that such conditions have been duly observed by them. The con­sideration of this uneven dealing and unreasonable conclusion, upon such a supposal, hath prevailed with some to make the promises of Salvation so free, as not to consist with any condition, but peremptory, and abso­lute, yea, excluding Faith it self (the last thing of all that their Religion will suffer them to deny God) as a Condition; making the only use of it to be, to receive what is so freely given them, as they falsly and prophane­ly imagine.

It will not, after this, be necessary to lay down the reasons of the con­trary opinion, having already shewed, That there is no Precept for such a point of Faith, no Proposition declaring it, no Article of our Creed requiring it, that falling very short of it which teacheth us to believe in God: wherein they say three things are imposed on us to believe. First, That there is a God. Secondly, That this God is my God. Thirdly, That I must trust and put my confidence in him for my salvation: All which we readily assent unto. But the most pertinent of all these come not home to the case before us. For every man may, and ought to put his confidence in God for his Salvation: and yet be never so much as confi­dent of his Salvation, as is plain: and that upon this reason, That the well grounding of such a confidence as this latter, may be very obscure to him, and so the thing it self not clear. Again, It is prescribed by the Lords Prayer, and other places of Scripture, to pray daily for Remissi­on of Sins, saying, Forgive us our sins, as we forgive them that trespass against us: this we are no less to pray for than for our daily bread. Therefore since we are not ordinarily so assured of the Pardon of them: For as a man hopeth not properly for what he hath, neither doth he pray for it, knowing he hath it. This St. Pauls argument to the Hebrews Heb. 10. 18. proves, saying; Where remission of sin is, there is no more offerings for sin: i. e. where the remission of our sins is known to us. Praying being our Sacrifice under the Gospel. This were ridiculous, and displeasing to God, we thereby implying that we have not that which we know we have; which were unthankfully done of us. God in such cases expecting just­ly from us, acknowledgment of his Grace, conferring such a blessing by all humble and devout Praise and Thanksgiving for it, and not absurdly petitioning him as if we had it not. And this is so convincing upon some, that I find a bold profession in these words, The fourth Petion [in thePerkins. Lords Prayer] must be understood not so much of our old sins or debts, as of our present and new sins. I grant we must petition for pardon for our new sins: but I deny that we are not daily to repent and beg mercy at Gods hands all the dayes of our Life, for our ancient, as well as moder­ner offences. And therefore the same Author suspecting (it may be) the insufficiencie of this answer, proceedeth; I answer again: We pray for the pardon of our sins, not because we have no assurance thereof, because our assurance is small: we grow on from grace to grace in Christ, &c. Which is very soundly and soberly spoken, but quite overthrows what was be­fore contended for about Certainty. For Assurance that is weak and small, is no assurance; but a competent degree, and a comfortable mea­sure of hope and probability: which we not only allow, but know to be enjoyned us in holy Scripture by St. Peter, saying; Make your calling and 2 Pet. 1. 10. election sure, for if ye do these things ye shall never fall Where we grant, That a man is bound so to walk, believe, and live, as becometh the Faith [Page 83] he professes, that his Salvation is sure before God, and that he shall in that conjuncture, never fall; but this is not made so sure thereby to himself; and one reason is included in the very words, which are, If ye do these things: which implyes that such things may be omitted, and express the consequence thereupon.

And not only doth this premature Certitude take us off from Prayer and Repentance, which alone destroy all true Faith in us, and under a glori­ous shew of most supream and firm assurance, leave us really destitute of the proper means to attain that good degree of perswasion to the quieting of the troubled and distrustful Conscience, but it also quite alienates the mind, and enfeebles the hands of faithful men, in the vigorous pursuit of obedience; without which no man shall be saved. For, as a man cannot, needs not, repent of what he knows to be so fully forgiven, nor ask that pardon again, which he is thoroughly perswaded is granted him: So neither can any man with that solicitude and resolution pursue the means of Salvation principally seen in obeying Gods Laws with Faith in Christs merits, when his mind shall be wholly possessed with an opinion, that the principal end next to the glory of God, is absolutely satisfied, namely his soul saved.

They say indeed that the meditation hereof should rather quicken, and incite men to a more exact walking with God, out of a greater obligation of gratitude, and common ingenuity, to make returns answerable to the singular Grace conferred. 'Tis true, it should so, indeed. And so should an inheritance put actually and irrevocably into the son and heirs hands, before the death of the Father. But how many instances have we, That so it is not; for one, That so it is? Or who can say, That ingenuity and good natur'dness are generally as powerful to keep up order and vertue in the world, as the proposing of future favours and penalties to the per­sons concerned? We are not therefore to judge of the future motions, ofQuod non me­tuitur contem­nitur, quod contemnitur utique non coli­tur. Ita fit ut religio & ma­jestas & honor, metu constet, metus autem non est ubi nul­lus irascitur. Lactant. De Ira Dei, cap. 8 men so much from some moral obligations, as from natural propensions. And who can say, That naturally we are are as prone to do good to others, as to ourselves? To obey God abstractively, i. e. secluding the fears and hopes we have from that service, is to do it for Gods sake, which is con­fessed to be the most noble principle a man can act by; but when the Evils imminent on disobedience, or the Blessing ensuing our obedience tho­rowly affect us, we then will move upon a natural principle actuated and promoted by Faith.

But to conclude this, the Sum of what a good Christian is to believe in this point, is

First, The immutableness of God in his covenanting with man, and the mutableness of man on his part, in fulfilling the tearms he is tyed to God in. Both these are intimated to us in these words of St. Paul, which are vulgarly brought against us; viz. Nevertheless, the foundation of God 2 Tim. 2. 19. standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth who are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. The first foundation of God, is that which he hath layed in his assuring us, that he will have a Church in despite of all Enemies and Persecuters, which would destroy it. The second is the seal to this Charter; which rela­ting to special persons, is twofold: The First, That God knoweth who are his; that is, (according to Scripture phrase) owneth and asserteth the cause of those that are his, and will never forsake them, otherwise than he hath declared; that is, they not violating egregiously the Covenant on their [Page 84] parts. The second is that which follows; viz. Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. This is the seal set to the Co­venant made by God; which if not duly and proportionably, to the fa­vourableness of the Evangelical Covenant, observed by man, the seal of God avails but little to the benefit of a Christian.

A second conclusion may be, That notwithstanding God hath no where enjoyned us, under any forfeiture, to obtain this assurance; yet he re­quireth us to be alwayes so pressing and proficient in Faith and Holi­ness of Life, that, above his Capitulations or ordinary Promises made in his Word, he may communicate his pleasure unto us, and good-will con­cerning the particular salvation of us. This hath been imparted unto di­vers, and may again, when it seems good to God: But it is no Rule to us.

Thirdly, A faithful Christian ought to endeavour the attaining to a strong and true degree of Hope, by Gods grace, and the working out of his Salvation with fear and trembling. For St. John saith, That a man may arrive to such a state of assurance (as 'tis called) that, conside­ring and believing the undetermined mercy of God in the Gospel, he may have confidence of Gods love towards him, his own conscience not con­demning him: as St. John saith, Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then 1 John 3. 21. have we confidence towards God.

Lastly, This sense serves much to the comfort and tranquility of the mind of scrupulous Christians, more than the holding of a peremptory as­surance of Salvation: which they, who require it, cannot deny to be wanting to many faithful servants of God. For, when they consider that the want of this assurance is no indication or character of a Reprobate, as some would make it (and they must, who bring it under precept and promise) then are they heartened still to press towards holy and devout exercises, believing that God, not seeing nor judging as man judgeth, nor as they of themselves, but out of his incircumscribed mercie, may accept them, and have mercy on them. And here properly doth that do­ctrine of Faith, commended in the Articles of our Church, as very com­fortable, take place; viz. as that which, when we have done all, we must betake ourselves unto, and which brings us neerest to God: namely, not that we believe we are justified for, or because we believe we are, freely; but because Faith, and trust in God, as it is the first stone in our heaven­ly building, so is it the crown and consummation of all, when we disown and disavow all sufficiencie in ourselves, or our most Christian Acts, even Faith it self; and trust in his mercy to be accepted, under all our fears and reasonings to the contrary; not manifestly violating the Covenant with God, for which our own hearts and ordinary apprehensions may con­demn us.

CHAP. XXII.

THus having sufficiently treated of the most general and prin­cipal Effect of Faith; before we leave this, we are in reason to enquire into that which privatively relates to true Faith, and that is, Heresie; What that is? and wherein it consisteth? For Heresie cannot properly be applyed to any but such who are of the Faith; and in some degree belong to the Catholick Church: wherein it is distinct from Atheism, Apostasie, and professed Infidelity. For Infidelity, though it carries with it in its name, a sense which comprehends both Atheism and Apostasie, yet use hath prevailed so far as to apply it only to such who do receive some Ar­ticles of the Christian Faith, and them fundamental too, though not as the Christians. For Example: Infidels may believe there is a God, and that God but one, and that there shall be a Resurrection of the Just and Unjust, and Life everlasting, either in misery or bliss: yet being either wholly ignorant of, or directly denying some fundamental Points of Faith, as Christian, they continue Infidels, though not Atheists. Neither can they be accounted Hereticks, having never been of the Church, nor initiated into, or embraced the true Faith. These are Negatively only related to the Church, as Logicians say, Dissimilary things relate one to another, viz. A black thing to a white: But Heresie is of a privative sense, and an opposition to the true Catholick Faith, with an Obligation not only taken from the matter of Faith it self, to which all the world owe homage and obedience, but from some extrinsecal formalities whereby some men more especially contract a relation to the Church of Christ. And the first and most principal cause hereof is, the solemn dedication which is made by ourselves, or others (we not oppugning it) of us in the initia­ting Rite of Baptism: wherein renunciation is openly made of all things, persons, and opinions, contrary and inconsisting with that Doctrine we there submit unto, and vow to observe. This Dedication of us to Christ, doth make and denominate us Christians; and Catholicks, according to the less ancient use of the word, of which we shall hereafter speak.

Now, according to the degree or manner of violating this most solemn and sacred Vow in Baptism, are men said to be Apostates and Hereticks. [Page 86] And an Apostates are Hereticks, but not all Hereticks, Apostates. The principal difference consisteth in this: 1. That the Apostate doth re­nounce even the first principles of Christian Faith, as Christian: And they are they which are expresly contained in the form of Baptism, where­by he became a Christian. 2. In a formal profession contrary to such Covenant made with God in Christ. But Heresie doth not absolutely de­ny the Grounds of Christianity it self, but, whether by affected errour, or invincible; doth resolutely and firmly assert things contrary to true Do­ctrine.

But to give a precise definition of Heresie, as St. Augustine of old, so we find at this day, very difficult, and not to turn to the right hand or to the left; not to make it too broad and wide, nor too narrow and rigorous. The Reason hereof may be first taken from the name, which imports such [...] dictae G [...] voce ex interpretatie [...] electionas, qu [...] quis sive ad in­stituendas su [...] ­cipiendas uti­tur, &c. Ter­tullianus Prae­script. cap. 6. Vide [...]. Hispalens. O­rigin. lib. [...]3. a singularity of choice and addiction to an opinion, which may as well be true as false; good, as evil: Thus the ancient Heathens, as well Ro­man, as Grecian, used the word; and so did the Christians too for some hundred years after Christ. And when it began to be restrain'd to the e­vil part, a second thing made the notion of it no less difficult and ob­scure; viz. the largeness of it, for those errors, which were not materi­al, or of any great consequence to the Christian Faith or Church, as for to stigmatize them which were of note and moment in the same. And a third thing obscuring the true nature, is the manner of asserting and main­taining great, as well as small Errours.The word Heresie gene­rally signifies any opinion either good or bad. More especially it signifies an Errour in Religion. Thus Ecclesiastical Writers take it.—Yet most properly it is an Errour in the Foundation of Christian Reli­gion taught and defended with obstinacy. Perkins on Galat. 5. v. 20.

To understand this, we must know how that a twofold Criminalness in Heresie, according to the two more essential parts constituting it, ac­cording to opinions generally received. The one is called the formal part, which relates to the manner of holding such opinions as are errone­ous.Inter Haereti­c [...]s non sunt deputandi qui aut ab Ecclesi­asticis seducti sunt à parenti­bus: in erro­rem lapsi nullà pertinaci ani­m [...]sitate defen­dunt, quaerunt autem [...] so­licitudine veri­tatem, corrigi parati, quum invenerint. Augustin. E­pist. 168. For lighter errours against the Doctrine of the Scriptures, and peace of the Church, being maintained with obstinacy, and against due proposal of the truth, do characterize and constitute an Heretick. The other is the material part; namely, That about which men do err in Faith. And this hath a peculiar difficulty in it, arising from the undetermined points of Faith, and, I think a moral impossibility (as they call it) to define what are those so necessary points of Faith, to be believed; the de­nyal where of makes an Heretick. This is thought generally to be suffici­ently explained in the Creeds of the Church, by some. But others find many considerable points not therein comprehended, unless by such a reduction whereby any thing, almost, may be compelled to come under anothers wing. There are therefore that hold that the decrees and resolu­tions of Counsels fully and only can satisfie this scrupulousness; and no question but all these conduce very much to the acquiring a settled Judg­ment, in matters of Faith; and espeially this latter: against which not­withstanding, there may be made these following exceptions. First, That all things defined by Councels, and that with the affixing of Anathema's, are confessedly not of Faith, but of Rites, and Order also. Secondly, That those Canons which are of Faith are so variously and miserably handled, and distracted by Learned Interpreters, that a sober well-mean­ing Christian may, without any heretical pravity of mind, fall involunta­rily [Page 87] into a reputed Heresie. Thirdly, That contrary things have sometimes been determined in several ages. From all which it is manifest, That it is much more easie to define Heresie then an Heretick: because there is an in­gredient of personal aversion from, or opposition to the Truth, which can scarce be discovered: but in the abstract, Heresie may properly e­nough be defined, to be (not an opinion) but a False Proposition contrary to the Catholick Faith.

And if it be thus uncertain and obscure what Heresie is, through so ma­ny various kinds and degrees thereof, answerable to the several branches; therefore, it cannot be easie to prove, all Heresie in the common notion, as opposite to Faith, to be destructive to Faith. That it destroyes that Part of Faith against which it is bent, is undeniable: but that any particular Errour should destroy the whole, any farther than it is opposite to the whole Body of Faith, is incredible. Some Heresies pluck up the Tree of Life, Faith, by the roots; some cut it down to the root; some lop off the arms; some, lesser branches; and some, which have been reputed Here­sies, do only brush and beat off the leaves and ornaments. An example of the former is given by St. Paul to the Corinthians; some of whom, it should seem, denied the Resurrection in general, and by necessary implication of Christ, who was as dead as any mortal man else. But if there be no resur­rection 1 Cor. 15. 13, 14. of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. It were to no purpose to believe any point in Christian Religion, dis-believing that of the resur­rection. And in short, to deny any thing expressed, or necessarily, and immediately included in the form of words used in Baptism, is to root up all our Creed, and render all our Faith vain in other Articles. An in­stance of the second sort of Heresie, may be, to deny the Mediation of Christ by way of satisfaction for us, restraining the intercession of him to that supposed one, now in Heaven: Of the third, may be Errours about Free-will, and affirming a positive necessity to commit sin against God: Of the denyal of the efficacy of Good works done in Christ, towards our sal­vation: and the affirming a meritoriousness in them towards the same: Of the last, the affirming it unlawful to use any Ceremonies in Gods service, but what are specially commanded in his word.

And from hence it seemeth necessary to distinguish Heresies and Here­ticks, into Formal or direct, and Virtual and real. A Formal Heresie isPropositio sa­piens haeresim est ex cujus concessione, co-assumpto aliquo quod non potest rationabiliter negari, sequitur [...]aeresis in fide: vt siquis dice­ret quod beatus Gregorius non fuisset Papa. Gerson de ne­cessitate Salu­tis. that which is expresly maintained and asserted in tearms, but denied in the inference and consequence, whichyet certainly and necessarily follows up­on such positions: as supposing a man should, with the Monothelites of old, affirm that Christ had but one Will. This is a formal and direct He­resie, but if (as it is possible) the same person should deny the true con­sequence hereof; viz. That he consisted but of one Nature; He were not a formal Heretick in this latter; because, though this Errour doth certain­ly arise from the former, yet all Heresies being erroneous apprehensions, and affections of the mind, this Errour being not received into his mind, doth not so affect him as to denominate him formally an Heretick: Yet must he answer for Heresie, in his account before God, because the movers and promoters of such shall no more escape, then he shall from the punishment of drunkenness, who putteth the bottle to his neighbours mouth, provoking him to drink to excess: or of Theft, who will by no means steal himself, but is aiding in his advice, and putting advantages into his hands to take anothers Goods. In like manner, the necessary consequence of a light [Page 88] Errour being very notorious, though a person be not formally an Heretick in the conclusion, which he may protest against, as not following from his erroneous proposition, yet if in truth it doth so, and is generally so repu­ted, to the mis-leading of Christians, such a man is really or virtually an Heretick, and obnoxious to the guilt and punishment due unto such Er­rours which he denies. For instance; It is a notorious Heresie to hold it unnecessary there should be any Church of Christ, and to affirm, That it suffices that every good Christian hath the word of God, and believes, and lives by himself, (though the word of God contradicts this impiety suffi­ciently) and to be a Christian at large. If any person heretically incli­ned, shall deny that this is his opinion, or that thus he would have it; yet if he preaches such Doctrine, and publishes such Opinions, which do ne­cessarily infer thus much, he is a notorious Heretick in reality, though not in the formality; As also, if he should teach, The Church hath no power to enjoyn any thing besides what the word of God requires. This Errour taken simply and nakedly, hath no such monstrousness as may not pass for tolerable, but in the necessary consequence, it is as pernicious to the com­munity of Christians, as to preach against Christ himself. And therefore the argument of late Rationalists is very false founded upon this ground,Socinus. Chi. viz. That Christians are not to be obliged under pain of damnation, such as Anathema's and Excommunications are, to any thing which Christ hath not by his Law prescribed: For this indeed taken strictly, is true, Christ (for ought may appear) doth not in Scripture command Rites in use with the Church; but Christ, under pain of his displeasure, doth require that we should do all things not contrary to his injunctions, for the keeping upNon sunt par­va existiman­da sine quibus magna consi­stere enim pos­sint. Hieron. of the nature of a Church and Christian Society; and therefore, though the Errour be in it self light, it falls in the event, heavy upon Christiani­ty it self, and deserves no less rigour than is used towards the offender in Faith it self.

Lastly, From hence we may reasonably judge of the frequent denunci­ations of alienation from the Faith and Church, against them who erred heretically: affirming in general, That Heresie quite alienated from the Church, and that Society could not be of the Church which maintained an Heresie. For first, we are to note that few or none before St. Cyprians time, were so severely censured by the ancient Fathers, but such as were offenders against the very principles of Christianity it self. St. Cyprian indeed, and others from him extended this censure to such as were less criminal: For it is a very hard matter to instance in any one Article of Faith (though I know some great Clerks have attempted it) which Nova­tions or Donatists rejected, or offended against. So that (abating some­what for the vehemence of the zeal conceived against such enemies to the Church, in the writings of Fathers against Hereticks) it will appear, that it was matter of Fact, rather than Faith, or Heresie which exposed them to such censures. For uncharitableness will as certainly damn, as unfaithful­ness: And he that dies for Christ (as divers Hereticks did) in animosity, groundless against his brother, and especially against the Church (of which he is, or ought to be a member) may notwithstanding, loose his Life here­after, as well as here. But of this more, now we are to speak of the Church.

CHAP. XXIII.

HAving spoken of the Nature, Kinds, Acts, and Effects of Christian Faith, we proceed now to speak of the proper Subject of Faith, which is the Church: Which word is commonly used as well for the Place where our Lord is pub­lickly and solemnly worshipped, as for the People of God serving and worshipping him. But of this latter only we art to treat at present: which we define to be, A Calling and Collection of Saints from The Church is an universal Congregation or fellowship of Gods faith­ful People and Elect, built upon the foundation of the Apo­stles and Pro­phets, Jesus Christ being the head and corner stone. Hom. Chur. of Engl. Part. 2. pa. 213. their vain Conversation in the world, to the Faith and Worship of God accord­ing to the Rule and Laws of his Holy word; and to visible communion with themselves: which description I doubt not to be grounded in all its parts upon the Scriptures themselves. And that God is the Author and only In­stitutor of such a Church, if it needed any proof, the Scripture would soon afford it: St. Paul saith to the Corinthians, Chap. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 17. But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk, and so ordain I in all Churches. And so exhorteth the Thessalonians to 1 Thess. 2. 12 walk worthy of God, who called them to his Kingdom and Glory. And so in very many places else where, as will appear farther now we consider the Term from whence God doth call and choose his faithful people, and that is the World; the world not taken in its natural sense, signifying the Natural bodies of all sorts, of which it consisteth: nor absolutely from it in the more special sense; in which Mankind is sometimes called the world; for civil conversation and humane, mutual Offices may be maintained, and ought between Christians and Heathens or Infidels: but rather in a mo­ral sense, that is, unnatural, unjust, unrighteous communication with the wicked of the world, as wicked: as St. Paul explaineth himself to the1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. Corinthians: I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicatours. Yet not altogether [to refuse to converse] with the fornicatours of this world, or with the covetous or extortioners, or with Idolaters: for them must ye needs go out of the world—but if any man that is called a brother be a fornica­tour, &c. St. Peter takes most of the terms in our description, speaking1 Pet. 2. 9, 10. of Converts to the Faith. Ye are a chosen generation, a Royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar People, that ye should shew forth the praises of God, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light, &c. And St. Paul to the Ephesians. According as he hath chosen us in him, before the Ephes. 1. 4. foundation of the World, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

And it hath been shewed before, how that, when in the New Testament. [Page 90] we read of Gods Calling, and choosing and electing, we are not so much to understand the eternal purpose or decree of God, but the execution thereof in Gods actual calling and electing certain persons to the profes­sion and belief of the Faith of Christ: which he effected by the fulfilling of the Prophesie made by Christ in St. Matthews Gospel, relating to theMatth. 24. 31. destruction of the Jewish Polity and Church; and erecting of the Christi­an instead thereof: viz. And he shall send his Angels [that is his Messen­gers and Ministers] with a great sound of a trumpet, (i. e. the Gospel preached and published) and they shall gather together his elect (i. e. such as he shall make choice of) from the four winds, (i. e. from all quarters of the world) from one end of heaven to the other.

Now these persons, by Gods word and good-will called from such va­nities, ignorances, and vices, are in the Scripture called Saints; not so much because they were all so throughly, or absolutely sanctified from their former, natural, or moral impieties contracted in their state of Nature and Gentilism, as that they should retain no sin; and none of them should fail of heaven hereafter. But first, either from the better part, the whole was denominated actually holy; which is not unusual in all speech: Or because, having made renunciation of the World and Flesh and Devil in Baptism, they were called and consecrated to Holiness: Or lastly, because they made open and solemn profession thereof, however some so called, might be, and did appear to be reprobates: And names and appellations are gi­ven not from any inward affection or quality, which sense cannot judge of, but from such things as are visible and apparent. And thus in the Old Testament, as well as New, it is used. As in the Psalmes, Gather my Saints Psalm 50. 5. together unto me: those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice: which imply the whole body of the people of Israel, as the words going immediately before, do also declare. And wherever in the Book of Psalms (which is in divers places) we find the Congregation of the Saints, is meant the Israelites in general. And in Daniel, Chap. 7. v. 8. 21, 22, 25, 27. is the word necessary taken. Now it being most customary with the Penmen of the New Testament, to borrow the phrase of the Old, this tearm Saints was translated from the Jewish Synagogue to the Christian Church, by St. Paul, expresly to the Romans, saying: To all that be in Rome beloved of Rom. 1: 7. God called Saints; so the original better then the insertion of to be, made in the translation. As likewise in his first Epistle to the Corinthians; To the Church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ 1 Cor. 1. v. 2. Jesus; called [to be] Saints withall that in every place call upon the name Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. And the like salutation we shall find in most of St. Pauls Epistles, as also most frequently in the body of them: as may be obvious to any reader: though I deny not but sometimes in the New Testament it is taken in a more restrained sense, signifying especial­ly the victorious and triumphant, not Militant Saints. From all which it doth sufficiently appear in what sense the Church may, and ought to be de­scribed a Society, or Collection of Saints: And withal, how miserably and mischievously they err, who giving that title to a Party, hold themselves bound to gather a certain select number out of Christians not accusable of any notorious errour from the Faith of Christ, (as the Apostles of Christ did out of Heathens and Jews) and to constitute and call them Saints.

Another thing requisite to the constitution of a Church is, That it be a Communion of Saints, it sufficing not, that persons elected or selected (as above-said) be many in number, but holy by nature or institution; as God [Page 91] ordained of old in the forming of the Jewish Church, Deut. 7. 6. Thou art Deut. 7. 6. 26, 19. 18, 9. an holy people unto the Lord thy God: The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all the people that are upon the face of Earth. Which words are with advantage applyed unto the Christian Church, by St. Peter. Whence it is that the same St. Peter maketh it an1 Pet. 2. 9, 10. 2 Pet. 1. 4. end of calling this company together, That they may be partakers of the Divine Nature; or, as it is otherwise more plainly render'd, Of a Divine Nature: Holiness drawing us near unto the Nature of God himself. As the Wiseman also writeth: The giving heed unto her Laws is the assurance Wisdom 6. 18, 19. of Incorruption, and Incorruption maketh us near unto God. And not only must they be holy, but to that end, must of necessity hold a twofold com­munion. The one Invisible with one Head, Christ. The other Visible and external, with one another. For the Apostle tells us, speaking of Christians, The head of every man is Christ. And to the Ephesians; The 1 Cor. 11. 3. Ephes. 5. 23. husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and and he is the Saviour of the world. There can therefore no question be made, but it is most essential as well to the Church in general, as every particular Christian or Member of the same, that Christ be the Head of his Church: as St. Paul yet more clearly expresseth it to the Colossians, excep­ting against such Professors of Christian Religion as held not the Head, from which all the Body by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit 2 Col. 2. 19. together, encreaseth with the increase of God. Therefore leaving that, as on all hands granted, we come to the external communion of the Church.

CHAP. XXIV.

IN the outward Communion of the Church two things are to be en­quired into: First, the Nature of it, wherein it consisteth. Se­condly, the Adjuncts or Affections thereof. First, we shall treatCivitas à con­versatione multorum dicta est, pro eo quod plurimorum in unum constitu­at & contineat vitas. Origin. Homil. 5. in Genesim. briefly of the Nature of this Communion. To understand which clearly, it will be expedient to begin with the definition of Com­munion in General, or Society humane: For Communion is nothing else but Humane Society. And Humane Society is nothing else but a conver­sation of men out of natural reason inclining and moving them thereunto, for the mutual supply of the particular defects and exigencies each man is [Page 92] subject unto in a separate condition. And this Society thus combining or concurring together is commonly called a Republick: the word signify­ing, The common good: it being the design and end of all Republicks or Common-wealths for men, first in order to seek the common interest and good of the whole Society, and so through that to derive particular and private benefit to each member thereof, and not, as some blindly and bru­tishly addicted to their private personal profits, to begin at home; and not to secure the Publick stock. These are no better than such Pilferers and Thieves, who being in partnership with others, pocket up in the first place all that they can lay hold on, and contribute no more to the common stock than they are by force constrained unto.

Now this Society may be divided into three sorts, Natural, Civil, Di­vine or Ecclesiastical. Natural, is that Order and Regiment constitutedOrd [...] est pari­um & dispari­um rerum sua cuique loco tri­ [...]uens disposi­tio. Aug. Civ. Dei 19. 13. Bernardus. Gerson enti­tiloquio. Gubernare est movere ali­quos indebitum finem, sicut nanta gubernat navem emendo eam ad portum. Thomas 22. Q. 102. 2. co. by God in every mans soul: which consisteth of the Superiority of the Rational faculties, and the Subjection and Obedience of the Inferiour or Sensitive Affections. For Order, as several of the Ancient have descri­bed it, is nothing else but The Disposition [or placing] of equal and ine­qual things into their proper places: which Order is the foundation of Government. And Government (according to Thomas) is the moving of men to their due end. There being therefore a twofold end of man; se­cular and spiritual: Government likewise must be answerable. And both agree in this, viz. to be the Administration of the Weal Publick to ends agreeable unto them. In which we are yet farther to consider these things. 1. The Original of Government. 2. The Form of Government. 3. The Rule and Reasons of Government. 4. The Obligation upon Men under Government. And of these briefly; as a necessary Introduction to the Doctrine of the Church.

And concerning the first, the Cause and Fountain of all Government: Some pretending to fetch the Fountain head of all humane Rule from its first rise, have quite forgot what they went about; and inverting the or­der of nature, have begun at the end; which is rather the effect, then cause. For now we do not enquire, why, or to what end it is? but who made it, and whose hand it was that framed this Tool to bring to pass such a work as humane safety and tranquility. That this must be the same cause with that of man himself, seems reasonable to me to conclude, from the necessity of the same, and the wisdom of Divine Providence; which ha­ving given generally such instinct and common prudence unto Creatures to do nothing which shall serve for nothing: nor to erect any thing, but with competent provision to conserve and continue the same in that being, so far as the Supream Wisdom shall not oppose the same; How is it cre­dible that God should make that Master-piece of his, Man, upon earth, and not at the same time provide for that subsistance and continuanceSevorum & bestiarum (in­quit Aristote­les Polit. 3. cap. 6) non est Civitas [...]. which are necessary? But it is plain, that man though as brutish, and a sensible creature, he may wear out, possibly an unhappy, ignoble life, yet without society and community and unity, through the bands and liga­ments of sound and reasonable Laws, cannot subsist, as civil or rational, or as easily improvable to perfection of natural state upon earth: but must necessarily degenerate into the rank of Brutes. Therefore sure Divine Wisdome left him not destitute of such helps as were proper to this end; but together with his very nature instills into him an inclination to Socie­ty; and by his own Act and Ordinance, whereby he ordained that man should propagate and multiply, prescribed the best and only manner [Page 93] of civil Regiment; investing some with a natural right of dominion over others: As the man over the woman; and the parents over the children: from whence it is ready and easie to approach to a community, and that with a subordination. This is so plain, that the perspicuity and simpli­city doth, rather then any thing else, offend the unsatisfied acuteness of rarer wits; and move them to pry farther to confound themselves, others, and the Order God hath set in the world: beginning at the feet and ending in the head, and putting counsel into the tail to teach the head how it should rule the body: and empowring children to enact Laws for Parents, how they ought to govern; which they certainly do, who affirm that the grosser body of the people did first of all agree upon Government, and constitute their Ruler: which dogmes have no fewer nor higher arguments to confute and oppress them than these. First, they are Ridiculous. Se­condly, Sacrilegious and Impious. Thirdly, Impossible. Fourthly, Pestilential and Pernicious to all Government.

It is first ridiculous, as that opinion which inverts all order, and con­trary to a much more sound and sober Rule in Politicks; viz. That no man can create one greater than himself. And if it be said that therefore no single one can confer greater power than he himself is possessed of on another, but Many who are greater than one, may: I answer, This is true, where the supposition which is here false, and taken for true, is granted; viz. That many men have in such cases as these any more power then one. For I wholly deny that any are, or altogether have any right, whatsoever power they may usurp, to create such Powers: And it still remains absurd to suppose that any, or all whose only place and capacity it is to serve, should more then command: For, 'tis a true saying, It is more to make a King, than to be a King. For still I hold this which I have not found shaken by the many attempts of innovating Wits, that there is a real Pa­ternal Power in lawful Princes. And though we should suppose that, which was rarely, if ever done, that a man should adopt any man into the place of a Father, as men usually did some, as their sons; yet can we not suppose, that hereby any paternal Power is really conferred on such an one, but only imaginary; and impediments removed whereby Pater­nal power, which hath an acknowledged common right to Rule, take place over such a person, as hath so submitted unto it. So in like man­ner, it cannot be denyed against innumerable instances to be given; that the People, in certain exigencies and faileurs, have as it were adopted one man specially as their civil Parent, whom we call commonly a King: and hereupon absurdly and proudly conclude, they have made a King: but we know this to be nothing so. For 'tis not choice, but Power that makes a King: and in this case no power at all is given, or can be given; nor in truth ought to be taken away as the manner is from Princes entring through the populacie, into the Throne. For God only is the proper and immediate Author of Right and Power, which he hath inserted into Pa­rents over their Children; and hath proportionably prescribed to Kings and Princes, without ever advising with the People, or expecting their consent or confirmation: This the Scripture it self calls Jus Imperii, or1 Sam. 8. 9. lefs significantly with us, The Manner of the King. Reason calls the same Justice: which never takes its measure from earth originally, but from heaven: not from the People, but from God. And that Similitude found in the works of a very judicious and learned man, to shew the Prophets right to institute, at first, Kings, from their right to restore Kingly Power [Page 94] lapsed by reason of the visible Heir to it ceasing; viz. That as the Lord of a Mannour resuming the estate of a Tenant whose legal Heirs are un­known to himself, doth argue that it first proceeded from him; so the right of the People to constitute a Prince over them, upon a total cessation of legal Pretenders, do imply, an original right to be in the People of founding Monarchs; doth to my apprehension infer the contrary, being better stated. For it sheweth no more than this, That in truth God being the true and proper Lord of the Mannour, this dominion is devolved unto him, and not to the People. And that even in such cases a tacit hand of God is seen by many eminent Instances in Histories, designing the Person receiving that Rule; the People being but so many Stewards of Gods Court, in admitting a new Tenant to Kingly Power. For by me (saith theProv. 8. 15. Dan. 2. 23. [...]testas [...] est apud Ele­ctores, ergo nec ab ipsis datur sed ab ipsis ta­men certae per­sonae applica­tur. Grotius, De Imperio Summarum Potestat. cap. 10. §. 2. Idem de Jure Bel. & Pa. lib. 3. c. 3. § 8. 1. Simpliciter esse verum ne­gat. Populum creare Magi­stratus. Scripture) Kings reign, and Princes decree Justice. And the like doth Daniel assert to God: He changeth the times and seasons; he removeth Kings, and setteth up Kings: he giveth wisdome unto the wise, and know­ledge, &c. The most therefore that the People do when they act most in creating Kings is, under God, to apply the Person to the Place or Office of Governing: And therefore in the second place it is no better than Sacrile­giously done by them to mutilate that Power which God hath given by the necessary and common Laws of Natural Justice to Supream Rulers, and transfer of it to themselves: as it would be for a Guardian to an Or­phans estate, to pare and pill it, and bestow it on himself; although per­haps out of terrour the consent of the party so defrauded be obtained, lest he should loose all. Yet doth not all this contradict the general pra­ctise of Subjects, who having long continued under equal and reasonable Laws, explaining and particularly applying the common Supream Law of Justice to a State or People, do present such Rules of Regiment to their future Prince, for his confirmation: unless they be so far urged on him who hath a Personal Right by Birth to succeed in the Throne, as to deny absolutely to submit to him without such conditions yielded unto. Indeed, could they prove the Right of Choice of the Person, to be the same with the Power belonging to the Place, they might mangle, alterate, and adulterate it as they pleased: For 'tis a Law, that a man free from Rulers (as these are supposed now to be) may do what he will with his own: and choose whether he will part with any of it, or not; and what, and how much he will give away: but it not being so, and a duty lying upon him of being Just: He that (as our Saviour saith) is unjust in the Luke 16. 10. least, is unjust also in much.

But thirdly, to shew that there can neither be Divine nor Natural Right in the People to choose or create Governours, and much less Government, the impossibility of the real and just execution of this power abundant­ly sufficeth. For if men, as some have been so blind and bold to affirm, were naturally free untill they brought this subjection upon themselves: Then first this were general and without exceptions; or but partial, and with exceptions: If this latter be true, and some were naturally subject, This will destroy the principal dogme it self, and open a way to the un­answerable reasons against natural freedom: For that which we have by nature, we have in common, and without exception of the thing it self, though peradventure with some discrimination in the degree and measure. But if the first be granted, That all are free; then must cease of necessi­ty subjection natural of children to their parents; which hath been with better advice and reason received, then it hath by some been well-nigh [Page 95] quite disowned, to the making way for Novel Politicks. And again; Grant that all men were once (but no body could never tell when) and in a certain place, (but no body could ever tell where) equally free, or at least, all of years of discretion, which is most uncertain; It would be known first, How men dare to be so presumptuous as to make such a breach of the Law of Nature as this must be; viz. To part with their birth-right, and to imbezel that which God had given them, concomitantly with their own lives. I say, what a notorious ingratitude, and an offense against God to alter nature it self, who, we may well suppose, doth all things most consonantly to Divine reason. If therefore men had this Liberty natu­rally in them, I hold it no less a sin to give it away, than for one to cut off a member of his body, or to destroy ones reason, if it lay in his power. And to say that the People, in such cases, do not absolutely devest them­selves of power, nor part with what God and Nature hath placed in them; because they commit only to such the Administration of such power as is resident in them radically; it being neither commodious nor possible for the universal Body to manage it self, to the due ends of civil Society; but reserve unto themselves a right of Revocation, upon the Male-administra­tion, or abuse of Power so delegated: This is to traduce Divince Provi­dence and Wisdom notoriously. For what can be a greater reproach to a wise man, or the most wise God, than to admit such a gross errour, as to so constitute and frame a thing to such ends and purposes, which it can never attain; and to endow a people or person with such a faculty which can never avail, nor succeed to the intention of it, and never be execu­ted, as certainly Supream in the People cannot, but must be delivered over to another more capable subject. Thus it seemeth to me that such suppo­sed power ought not to be translated from that subject to which God had annexed it, to that which the people liketh better, man here in mending Gods ordinance. Therefore surely there being found a necessity of having power otherwise posited than in the people; and it being an egregious absurdity of altering that God had ordained; it must follow, to reconcile these things, That there never was any such power in the people at all; but what they have, is unto them derived from another Power originally.

And this is further confirmed from the Impossibility as well as impiety of making any such translation of power from its natural subject, the Peo­ple; because it cannot ever fairly or justly be brought about: seeing that the People cannot unanimously, much less ever did concur to the Election of any one Government or Governour. They cannot all give in their Votes to such an end; alwayes some were dissenting: and if they did not enter their Protest against the proceedings of their fellows, it must be be­cause they were deterred, curbed, and oppressed by a more prevalent fa­ction obliging them, and constraining them most unjustly to comply with their Opinions and Decrees. For there appears no sound reason why a more numerous and powerful faction may not as well take away my E­state, because they are stronger than I, as take away my birth-right, which Liberty is here asserted to be. So that the very first step to Liberty must be founded in injustice, in taking away that from me, which I might no less in natural reason spoil them of: and in servitude too, in bringing me whom they acknowledge to be naturally free, into unwilling subjection. Neither is the difficulty solved in saying, That Reason and Nature also re­quire that for order sake and regulating humane Society, the Minor part must yield to the Major. For upon this supposition indeed that power [Page 96] is so absurdly and inconveniently posited, there doth presently appear such a necessity: But my Argument is taken from the absurdity of any such necessity of natures creating, that the supposition is very false. And if it were true, yet were not that Maxime true which is here brought to controul and correct the same. For Nature doth not teach us, much less necessitate us in any case to follow the most numerous; but rather reason, and experience, and the judgment of diligent and wise discussers of this Point inform us, That the multitude are more inconsiderate, undiscern­ing, and injudicious, then the fewer in number, many times: the world being generally thicker set with fools, than wise men; and fools, being commonly more apt to be led by fools, than with deeper and sounder reasons of the Wise.

Now as to the right of Revocation resting still in the People, even after the supposed investiture of Power made to a Prince, or other Magistrates; I must confess (upon supposition of a native right in them) it to be very reasonable, yea though the contract be very binding upon them to the se­curing of the persons so inaugurated, in that State. And that from the grounds already laid down, which prove that no alteration ought to be made contrary to Divine or Natural Institutions; and consequently, the People being by natures Law Proprietaries in that Power, all alienations attempted must needs be void, any farther then they judge fit, yea and far­ther too; because they themselves are bound to keep themselves to such innate Rights, and observe them duly. And besides Civil and artificial Law, as I may well call Humane, can never extinguish Natural, absolute­ly and justly And therefore what they gave, the People, they may re­quire back again; because they received that entailed upon them and their Posterity, which they ought not, nor can cut off. And this I say, not be­ing ignorant what others have said to the contrary, who are said to yield supream Power in the body of the People, which they may dispose of to another, but not revoke again, any more than a man may recover back his Estate once lawfully made over to another. But the disparity of the cases makes the answer very easie: which is, That no man being so naturally in­vested with a temporal estate, as is here supposed the People to be with this Right of Dominion, that may without any violation of a superiour Law be parted with, and not this. For supposing equally, that God who hath given only a general right to man to possess the earth, and not assign­ed any particular Lands to particular persons to be holden of Divine Right, had done this latter, it would have followed, That he ought not to sell them; and that such sale made, were void before God: As doth plainly appear in the distribution of the Land of Canaan unto several Tribes, by no means to be confounded: and of entailing of Lands unto particular Families, by no means so to be alienated, but they might return, at a time prefixed, to the same House.

But the Right of Rule in the People is lookt upon as by Nature and Di­vine ordinance belonging to them, and therefore cannot [de Jure] be trans­ferred; or, if attempted, must needs, by the same Right, be revokable. But I look not upon that Argument much used, as concluding against the pretended power of the People, which stands thus. No man hath power of life and death over himself. Therefore he cannot communicate this power essential to the Supream, to any other. For, is it not possible a man, who hath no such power over himself (as in truth no man hath) may yet have over another, and this give unto another; from a concurrence [Page 97] wherein One may receive a general dominion over many? But if no man could give the power of Life and Death to another, who cannot dispose of his own Life; How could Kings themselves grant that power to inferi­our Magistrates, whenas themselves have no power to take away their own lives, neither can they give power to another to take them away?

The last thing to be censured in the doctrine of the Peoples power, is the perniciousness of it to all Empires and States, where it is infused into the minds of the Commonalty, and improved to actions naturally flowing from thence, as experience hath sufficiently proved, as well as reason in­formed: of which latter (omitting here the odious instances, Histories, and our own senses have ministred unto us) we shall give these three only. First, That if it were true that such Power were radically and revocably in the people, the people never being able to judge with general consent aright of the same thing, nor soberly and quietly to concur to the same conclusi­on, through the infinite variety and d [...]scord found in several free minds, such licence of constituting and repealing their own Acts, must of necessity produce great divisions and confusions amongst them, without any insinua­tions or instigations of subtiller and more turbulent heads, which do con­stantly watch and improve such occasions to bring ruin to a Nation, upon some remote contemplation of a possible advantage arising out of the fall of a well-built State. But this perpetual plague of discontented, ambitious Incendaries, both Divine and Politick, plying the common people with language agreeable to their humour, (and nothing ravishes them more than to be told what an interest they have in modelling States) is that which a­lone suffices to overthrow all order in a Republick: And this we intend­ed for a second Argument. A third, may well be the common and villa­nous gloss inseparable from such pestilent Principles executed. For the same Histories that relate to us how crafty and seditious Ring-leaders ofEgo [...]nquam existimavi u­niversi populi Judicio eam rem [constitu­endi reges] per­mitti deberi, sed ut prope ad consuetudinem nostram ex omnibus ordi­ni bus Selecti ad Regem in consilium [...] coi­rent. Bucha­nanus, DeJure Regni apud Scotos, pag. 11 an inchanted multitude have deluded them, by infusing such false Dogmes, do tell us that they finding it impossible to obtain the concurrence of all persons (who according to the pretended Laws of Liberty and Equity ought) as one, to agree in one design, do first with great injustice inter­pret their Rule to hold and be fulfilled in the Major part of the people only. Then finding themselves most commonly destitute of that advan­tage, they proceed to expound it more to their purpose tyrannical, and and boldly affirm, That by the People is not meant necessarily the most, but the best, and soberest, and godliest, and such only that study really the good of Religion, and the Liberties of the People. And are not these fine doings? Do not these popular tenets hang well together, and end well, which in process of their own reason and practises, confute the very first Principle of all; viz. That People have an absolute Supream Power to frame Govern­ments, when before they can bring matters to their intended conclusion, they are forc't to deny them? But this popular dogme will appear yet as more false, so more odious from what we shall now speak of, the Second Point in this general discourse of Government.

CHAP. XXV.

THE Second thing to be here examined is the Form of Go­vernment. To speak orderly of which, it is necessary to call to mind the several forms or kinds of Government ex­tant in the World: which though according to the infinite variety of prevailing Factions, may also be infinite; yet may best be reduced to these two, Monarchy, or the Supremacy of One presiding over all others within such or such Dominions; and Polycrasie, or Polyarchie, where many have the power in their hands of administring the Republick. And this again is subdivided into many forms. As Po­lycrasie here properly and strictly taken (not as before, for any number opposite to One, but) for a great number of persons invested with Civil Power. And Aristocracie, consisting of a Few comparatively with the others, and them of the Nobler, and richer of the People: And Demo­cracie, wherein the People are said to retain the Power of Government in their own hands. But this last is only said, and by some ignorant and undiscerning people phansied to be, rather than in reality is so, or ever was or possible for to be; and that upon the reasons, amongst divers o­thers, already given against the Peoples power. This the Philosopher inThis Aristotle shews Poli­ticks lib. 4. cap. 4. initio. his Politicks, doth in effect, as far as he dar'd, confess, amidst so many pretenders to it. And they who dispute of it, are constrained to desert the proper genuine sense of the word Democracie, which should compre­hend the people generally without exclusion of any, and to affix a new meaning to it, whereby many of the inferiour and ignobler sort are taken into the numerous Counsel, and Court of Judicature, administring the Publick: And thus at this cheap rate are the people choused into a fond and empty opinion that they are some body, when 'tis not the thousand part of them, who are at all actually concerned in Government. The Histories of the frequent and vain, but fatal attempts made by the Roman and Grecian Populacie to become Masters of themselves, and to Rule their Rulers, are more than enough to confute any man willing and able to learn what a Chimera such a Government is, and what devastations rather than security such presumptions have exposed Cities unto: who, when they were most popularly governed, and so should be most free, never regard­ed in the least the adjacent peoples freedom, which lived without their City, never admitted their Vo [...]es, never advised with them as they ought [Page 99] to have done, if they would have made good their principles, which teach that Power is of right in the People, and consequently that they ought to govern, and by no violence or fraud ought they to be defeated of this their pretended Birth-right: and they without the Gates in remo­ter parts are of the same condition with Citizens. And if they recurr to the old hold of the Patrons of such natural Rights in people, to say, That, notwithstanding them, there must be some over-ruling power to bring things into settlement, and order; and therefore, the universal judgment and approbation of every person must not be expected: I as easily reply, and more strongly conclude, That therefore there can be no such natural Right in them so much as to prescribe to themselves; it being most ridi­culous to affirm, as well as dishonorable to God, to believe, That the All­wise Providence should so dispose of Power, that unless humane wit mend­ed it, nay, quite changed it, it could never be exercised to the benefit of mankind.

And this being made good, not only must this Democracie be found a meer imposture upon people, but the pretended Right of Government communicated unto the Chief in the other two Species's of Government, Aristocracie and Polycracie. For these persons must either profess a right growing up unto them from the powerful usurpations and oppressi­ons made by them over their brethren, the rest of the people, who natu­rally and justly were, and ought to be as free as themselves (and so all the frame is founded in injustice) or this was freely communicated unto them from the people. But against this is sufficient what we have often both said and shewed before, That the People never had any such Power, and if they had, ought not, nor could part with it, or remove it from that place and proper subject wherein it was by God seated and settled. And there­fore none of these can be just or natural: for nothing that is unjust can be natural, or agree with the Divine Will.

And from hence is refuted the vulgar Warrant that is used to justifie, as indifferent in their kind, all sorts of Civil Government, telling us, That God hath instituted Government in General, but not limited it to any one kind, but left it to the wisdom and choice of men to pitch upon what Government best agrees with a Nation. But to what mens wisdom? to some few? or to many? or to all men of that Nation? All, or the major part have no wisdom, nor possibility to choose: Few, or many choosing doth manifest injustice to the others. But what needs repetition of what is said quite opposite to all this? This therefore is only here to be added, That the supposition here made is utterly false, and incongruous to the nature of all things else constituted by God, and contrary to the course of nature, and Gods manner of working, which apparently is not to begin with Generals, and so to proceed to Particulars: but first he makes Par­ticulars, [...]nd creates only [Individuums] single beings: and by a necessary consequence, whatever existence the General Nature hath, it borroweth from thence. As God did not at first make man in General, and then left some body else (as they thought) to make Adam and Eve and the rest: nor did he irst and only make a living Creature in General, and then left the Angels, or some other unknown Creatures to us, to make what speci­al Animals they pleased out of that: but he first made Adam, and so mans nature was made. He first made the Sun and Moon (so far as we read) and upon that followed, that he made great Lights. And the like method must of necessity be acknowledg'd in Gods Institutions Moral and Civil: and [Page 100] he must inevitably (so far as humane wit can reach) first ordain some one Government in particular, before he could be said to be the Author of Government generally taken.

Now if it doth not at all appear, That God had any more than a com­mon hand (whereby evil as well as good doth spring up in the World) in the institution of any more than one sort of Government; and that he did particularly pitch upon one, and gave instances and intimation of his choice of one, and nothing can be alleadged in behalf of the opposite to that, as proceeding, in any direct special manner, from him, then will the form of Government, we now seek after, commend it self unto us. And this we shall do by giving the Divine Prerogatives, which Monarchical Government hath above others invented by man, to stand in competition with it. And this not by wading deep, or wandring far into an uncertain and tedious Disputation of finding out reasons on both sides, which may seem to commend and prefer one above another, and so consequently to conclude a divineness in one especially; but by certain visible indicati­ons and motives evidencing this to every imprejudic'd mind. And they are these.

First, Consider we that simple and imperfect Regiment, which isNatura enim commenta est Rege [...], quod & ex aliis ani­malibus licet cognoscere: & ex apibus, qua­rum regi am­plissimum cubi­le est, medióque ac tutissimo lo­co. Seneca de Clement. lib. 1. cap. 9. Vide etiam Hieron. Epist. 4. Isidorum Pe­lusiat. Epist. lib. 2. ep. 216. Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 4. pag. 217. Basil. Ma. Hom. 8. in Hexaem. Chrysost. in Rom. Serm. 23. pag. 189. found in Animals, and there will appear a resemblance of this Monarchi­cal power only, as in herds of Deer, and Cattle, and Bees, in which is observed the Superiority of one over all, so far as there is any subjection at all. Yea, St. Cyprian, and divers other Fathers writing against Gentile Idolatry, do prove the Monarchy of God over all the World, from the Unity of Inanimate things, as the Sun in the firmament raigning, as it were, over all the other Celestial Bodies.

Secondly, The more proper and refined Law of Nature written in mens heart, and inclining them to this kind of Government only, do not a lit­tle argue the hand of God in its institution. That being received for a Law of God natural, to which all people without syncretizing, consul­ting, or combining mutually, do consent and practise. Now it is evident, so far as any History doth inform us, That all Nations were at first govern­ed by a single person. And whereas Nimrod is reported by some, first to have usurped Regal Power over men, because the Scriptures tell us, how he was a mighty hunter before the Lord, it hath more of phansie tha [...] substance in it: Yet possibly he might be the first that collected many pet­ty Princes of Families together, constraining them to lay aside their Do­mestick Monarchy, and to be subject unto him: Or that he brought his neighbour Princes all to his Dominion, and so became a Tyrant overthem. And at this day, if we advise with those People in both Indies discovered, we shall find that they scarce ever heard of any other Government but that of Monarchy, and that almost Paternal, being extended to▪ very few Persons, compared with the multitude of which Kingdoms or Govern­ments generally consist. And in truth, it may give some repu [...]e to the Go­vernment of many that Christian Religion favoureth it: but it can give no credit to Christian Religion, That it only practises and acknowledges a different way of Ruling people from all the known world besides. For it will be hard to find any other but Regal Power out of Europe: and in Europe, not the tenth part owning Antimonarchical Government. And of those that do differ from Monarchical Power, not two agree [...]ng in the same form, but only negatively against a single Persons Suprenacy. So that we may see they have no general Rule to go by, but every Nation are a Rule to themselves.

[Page 101]Thirdly, the Paternal Power being acknowledged to be natural, and of Divine institution, and differing from Monarchical and Regal, but as [Magis and Minus] the lesser degree doth from the greater, the thing is in a manner yielded.

But fourthly, Divine Presidents and Examples do further confirm this and that taken from the Word of God; in all which there is no mention at all made of any Government but Regal, though not alwayes under that name. For, before the children of Israel went into Egypt, the Father or Patriarch of them had this power without competitor. In the the Cap­tivity, and Servitude of Egypt, they had no publick Government besides that of the Kings of Egypt, unless peradventure every Tribe had a Chief by succession over them, without any Civil Autority. From their de­parture out of Egypt to the death of Joshuah, the Supremacie was in one; notwithstanding subordinate Councels and Rulers constituted by Moses. After Joshuah, arose Judges by Gods special appointment, not many at once, thereby framing an Aristocracie, but one Eminent person giving Law to all others. And these differed from that of more formal Regal Persons in­stituted by God at the desire of the discontented people, in that before Saul, God kept the choice of their Governours more immediately in his own hand, and ordained them Deliverers and Judges according to his pleasure, and occasions offered: which was the reason (together with their rejecting of so eminent a Servant of God, as was Samuel) that God1 Sam. 8. 10. said of the People, they had rejected him rather than Samuel. From Saul to the Captivity, it is manifest what their Government was; and from thence it matters not, as to our present purpose, how they governed themselves, seeing they were ruled by the Regal Power of Foreign Princes: until sha­king off that yoke, they were brought under that form by their own Deli­verers, which was again extorted from them by usurping Tyrants. So that when Philo-Judeus and Josephus seem to write of an Aristocratical Government instituted by Moses, they can no otherwise be understood to write faithfully, but in reference to Ecclesiastical Courts, and Cases of Religion, purely; wherein the Counsel of many was to take place, but not to the administration of Civil Justice, unless, as is above-said, when they were themselves subject to Forrain Princes.

The Objections against this Form thus asserted, I leave to be answered from the positive grounds thus laid down: And commend the Reader to the learned Disputations of others, which are many, concerning the excel­lencie and benefits of one Form above another. But as to Hereditary and Elective Governments, what is convenient may be gathered from the gene­ral discourse now made: Now we proceed to the Third thing in Govern­ment, the mutual Obligation of Governour and Governed.

CHAP. XXVI.

THAT we read not in the New Testament of any Rules or Advice given to Kings and Princes, how to govern the peo­ple under them, the reason is plain, viz. Because in those dayes there were none Christian: and St. Paul says, What 1 Cor. 5. 12. have I to do to judge them that are without? the Church: For doubtless, had any been of the Society of Christians, they had fal­len under the Christian Discipline and Precepts of the Apostles: But that occasion of instructing Kings in the due administration of their pow­er, failing, we are to seek for satisfaction from the old Testament: where not much is found, besides general moral Precepts of Sobriety, Tempe­rance, Justice, and the like enjoyned Solomon by David his Father; and left by Solomon in his Book of Proverbs for Rules to succeeding Princes. Moses likewise, not without Gods appointment, hath drawn up some spe­cial Precepts for Kings to follow, in the real and cordial embracing of Gods word and worship: and taking the defense and protection thereof. Of which to speak, it little behoves us at present.

Neither purpose we out of Humane Arguments and Autority, to pre­scribe to Supreams what they ought to do, or how to govern any farther than the known Rules of Justice in common do require: For, no doubt there is a mutual Obligation between Soveraign and Subject, and that he is tyed and circumscribed in the exercise of his power, by God; as really, as this is in his Obedience to him: and that upon the common duties ex­pressed by St. Paul of Masters to Servants, and Husbands to Wives, and Parents to Children. For it doth not at all follow, That because Princes are not subject to their Subjects, therefore they are free from all subjecti­on.Ephes. 6. 8. No, St. Paul's Rule holds good to Kings as well as to Masters, viz. That they should know that their King and Master is in heaven: and that Kings are to be subject as well to the Laws of God, as their Subjects are to the Laws of Man. And though Children ought to obey their Parents in all things: yet there is tacitly understood certain Laws of Limitation [Page 103] restraining the boundless tyranny of both civil and natural Parents. For Subjects and Children are to know that they have a higher Lord, and a more powerful Father, to whom in the first place obedience must be paid. And we must withdraw our selves from the commands of our Earthly So­veraign, when our Heavenly, who is his Soveraign, doth require it: as all rational Kings do grant, as well as People.

But neither ought we to restrain the will of Princes to the literal and express will of God only, but even to the most just and reasonable Laws of Humane Authority: but only we must distinguish the vast difference between the obligation of Subjects to the just and equal Laws prescri­bed and imposed on them, and that of Princes, in relation to those Laws concerning their governing. For all Laws contain two special causali­ties in them: The one Exemplary, whereby a Form and Rule is prescri­bed, directing such as are to be guided thereby, to the observation of Justice, Equity, and Reason, as well to the publick as private good: And to this (so far as it is reasonable) Kings are no less bound than Subjects: they ought to observe entirely and religiously these sound and profitable Laws, and that under pain of Gods displeasure. The other causality which Laws have, is Efficient and Compulsive; whereby a Ci­vil penalty being denounced, and impending over the head of the infrin­gers thereof, they are better guarded from transgressions, by either loss of outward good, or life it self, according to the merit of the Of­fense.

It cannot either consist with the Law of God or Nations, to inflict punishments on Princes Soveraign. Not but that, for instnace, mur­der, adultery, unjust spoil, and robbery of the Subjects, may no less (considering the nature of the Crime) deserve such punishment of Princes, as they do of People; but because there is none in such cases that can, or ought duly and regularly to execute such Laws, because there can be no such execution without the power of the Sword; and there can be but one proper subject of that power in any one Republick. Every man must not put to death him that is a notorious offender, no not though he be justly and legally condemned to dye; but he, or they only who are thereunto rightly impowred and authorized by the Supream: And though every man may in his own mind and judgment, sentence a male­factour whose crime is high and apparent, to death; yet cannot he in civil judicature, render him obnoxious to it. And the reason hereof is plain, because Justice must be done justly, or else there is incurred no less guilt than is sought, and intended to be revenged. And of all guilt, I know not whether any be greater than the assuming of such a power, which no wayes belongs to a man. For better it were to take away ones horse, or to ravish another mans wife, or to extort unjustly anothers estate, than to devest a Prince of his Right of Rule, and usurp it to himself; and that, first, because no mans estate, or any thing that is his, doth descend to him, or otherwayes becomes his, by the like Divine title as the Supream Power rightly posited and possessed, doth to the owner thereof: and, therefore this being more sacred, the invasion of this right is much more wicked and unjust. Secondly, Because a publick mischief, and of gene­ral influence upon all, is much more intolerable than a private. But such a violation of Princely Right, must of necessity draw on a publick mis­chief upon the whole civil Body; I mean, all the Subjects in such a Nati­on, who shall be distracted between the sense of obedience known other­wise [Page 104] to be due, and the terrour of usurped Power threatning ruin to such as comply not with their unjustice.

This being so necessary and convincing a truth unto most men of com­petent reason, though incompetent conscience, they have sought out an e­vasion, which, as occasion may serve, may unqualifie Princes, and ennoble and enable Subjects to oppose in hostile manner the tyrannies, as they call them, of Princes. And the one strikes high, and through the loyns of all Supremacie in single Persons; affirming that one man is not capable of such a mass of power, without apparent tyranny. And as for manifest tyran­ny, no great scruple, they think, ought to be made in repressing and curbing it, and reducing it into its proper bounds. This must be re­felled by a more reasonable and sober judgment of tyranny. For 'tis a gross and dangerous mistake to look upon tyranny with such a vulgar and evil eye, as to conceive that Plinipotencie and illimited Power is present­ly tyranny: And that tyranny is not so much the abuse and unjust exer­cise of power (which is the truest description of it) but power it self: and that it is not separable from some kind of Government, as that which is absolute and unconfin'd by Laws. But the first thing here supposed, and so commonly and boldly taught, is very false. For there is no such thing as a Government in it self tyrannical: and there is no one of all those which have been, or may be invented, but may equally be subject to that imputation. And to be brief, there can no possible reason be given why the Government of one should be tyranny, rather than that of many, of a Senate. Or, why people should not be said more truly to be free un­der that, than this; the Laws being more benign and equal there than here? as who can deny but they may be, whatever actually they are? Nay, we see, that where most plausibly and gloriously Liberty is pretended by Governours, and presumed on by the credulous multitude, there com­monly the yoke of obedience is most heavy: and that a bold affirmation of a Free people prevails to the perswasion of men, that so in truth they are, contrary to common sense: And all this chiefly from that fundamen­tal Errour, taken for an unquestionable truth; viz. That to be governed by many is a state of Freedom; and by a single Person, of tyranny. But tyranny is not proper to any one kind of Government, whether consisting of one, or more: It is in brief, no Government at all, but the excess and [...] Arist. lib. 3. Polit. cap. 4. & 5. corruption of Governing; and is in it self equally incident to all kinds; however, where Learning most flourished of old, that extream hath been, as it were, appropriated to one, the better surely to secure the hold which many Usurpers possessed themselves of; commonly taking occasion from the miscarriages of such persons as were the managers of Power, to invade Government themselves.

And if it be a true and reasonable distinction of Tyrants into Titled and Titleless; how is it possible, those great, many, and zealous assertours of Popular Liberty, and invaders of Government, (as Junius Erutus with his Fellows) should escape the due censure of the worst of Tyrants, who expelling a Tyrant who had a Title, usurped a power, to which he had no Title; and then proceeded to exercise an act, to which he had no power; viz. the thrusting out of his Equal and Collegue, collating, be­cause, possibly he might have afterward committed an offense, not that he had. This was a piece of tyranny, not exceeded by any before him. But it may be alleadged, That there is a Law, whereby it was free for any man to kill Tyrants; and some late Demagogues have written, for the [Page 105] promotion of Religion (forsooth) as well as Civil Liberty, that to killBuchananus De Jure Reg­ni apud Sco­tos. Tyrants (and here I will not show whom they call Tyrants) is as good an act, as to slay Wolves, Lyons, and Bears. But I would fain know, whence such a Law proceeded, if not from tyranny it self? Even such persons, who, under colour of natural Law of returning evil for evil, and self preservation, have done the greatest injustice imaginable, not only against the person persecuted, but the people, who never at any time had power so to deliver themselves, nor, if they had, did generally and una­nimously, or could confer the same on the new Pretenders to it. That Law therefore of killing Tyrants, invented by Tyrants, taketh place on the Authors of it, as much as any body else; and, where the like power can be snatched up, may have the same event on popular States-men, as well as Kings and Princes: For they are Tyrants too.

The other ground of Resistance of Supremacie abused by a single Ru­ler, is commonly taken from a supposed right in Inferiour Magistrates, (as they are vulgarly called) to restrain the exorbitancies, and chastise the fury of immoderate Princes. This invention hath so much more of speciousnes, than the former, by how much there is a sound of Authori­ty, and hope of greater order, and prudence, and formality of Justice, than could be expected from a disorderly, ignorant, loose and precipi­tant multitude: But being examined duly, will be found very rotten, and vain. For, as hath been well observed before me, and is easie to be ap­prehendedGroti [...]s, De Imperio sum­marum Pat. by the meanest capacity, Magistrates here, are no more than common people: it being plain, That no man can be properly tearmed a Magistrate or Governour, but as he hath power and autority either de­rived, or originally in himself, over others; and not as he is himself subject unto another. Therefore any person bearing the name and office of a Magistrate, though he be called also a Peer, is no more than a Sub­ject, in relation to him who gave him that power and dignity. And ha­ving no power but what he received, and having received no power but to such and such ends and purposes, (and no man did ever intend to ena­ble another to offer violence or injury to himself) to disown a power bor­rowed, and to make it absolute; and to draw the Sword of Justice a­gainst him that first put it into his hands, is not only base ingratitude, but as notorious rebellion, as if any of the vulgar rank should do the same.

St. Paul doth indeed require good Christians to make supplications, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. prayers, and intercessions, and giving thanks for all men: For Kings, and all that are in authority, &c. which hath been so understood by some, as if he had intended here, to distinguish and establish a co-ordination of Governours over the same people; but there is no necessity at all of such a consequence: and St. Peter expresly distinguisheth their relations,1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. not to be co-ordinate but subordinate, saying; Submit your selves to e­very ordinance of man, (that is, not, as some weakly and presumptu­ously would interpret the Apostle, as if Kings and Princes were mens creatures, and by them constituted, but humane Creature (which is the word in the Original) doth signifie such Persons as have authority over men, as men, and not as Christians, such as were then Civil Governours amongst the Gentiles, which the phrase of the Jews commonly called Crea­tures barely; and Humane, as having no such Divine Graces conferred on them, as had the Jews) for the Lords sake, whether it be unto Kings as Supream, or unto Governours, as unto them that are sent by him, for the pu­nishment [Page 106] of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. Here Go­vernours are said to be of two sorts, (not co-ordinate and subordinate; but) Supream and Subordinate: such as have authority immediately and absolutely in themselves, without dependence upon others, and such as are of an Inferiour order, and under the said Supream, rule and execute Justice. So that nothing can be more absurdly and sediciously taught than to make such as are constituted by another, to have any authority at all over their Founder and Lord, the author of their power.

I know infinite instances may be brought of Common-wealths which have admitted, and been governed by such a Co-ordination, or at least a power reserved in store in the hands of certain persons, whose proper office and care it should be, to regulate and reduce to a safe mean, the extreams which single and absolute Monarchs may easily fall into. But all these varying so exceedingly from the natural form of Government, sway not much with me. For that which is natural, and of Divine Or­dinance and Institution, cannot possibly be uncertain and mutable, so that no man shall be able to know where to place his duty of Obedience, which God requires to be paid to such as are in Authority: And obedi­ence being due only to the Supream himself immediately, or to those that derive authority from him, how is it possible to understand, but by the sad effects of power pressing and afflicting a man, where he is to yield his obedience. Therefore surely God can have no hand in such mo­dellings of States which shall perplex a man in rendring his subjection. For it is not a great, empty, and ridiculous Title which maketh a Su­pream, but entire power, and absolute freedom at least from subjection to others, especially of his own Dominion. All Titles without this, are honourable Mockeries: but the real Supremacy is actual (I say not how justly or injuriously, in those Tutours of Princes and Keepers of the Li­berties of the people, as is commonly given out: and in this case (sup­posing that Right and Power are not separated) not these Proveditors or Senatours, who thus chastise Princes are rebellious, but they who bear­ing the name of Kings and Princes, being in truth but meer subjects, refuse to submit to the decrees of their Superiours.

But if possession giveth not Right, which is the most Christian, as well as rational opinion, it may be doubted how a just title can be acquired by any Persons in co-ordination to the Supream power, when as we have shown, the People never had any such themselves, and therefore can trans­ferr none; nor such select persons had any of themselves, who assume this, nor is it to be conceived how any natural Right should descend upon ma­ny persons, as the Paternal power doth upon one, from whence Monar­chical Power and Right may flow. And If Senatours as they call them, or suck like States-men cannot regularly found their title in nature, or Divine Writ, or revelation, It was no act of Rebellion, that greatest act of Hostility in Julius Caesar, to reduce the Roman Common-wealth to Monarchy. For there are two things to be considered in Civil Authority, The Government it self in its form and kind; and the Governour invested with this. The Person Governing may doubtless offend notoriously, though I dare not say forfeit to any other his Authority: but the Govern­ment it self being abused cannot be in fault, or for any miscarriages of the Person, lapse to other. The Government is religiously to be obser­ved and secured from adulterations and corruptions, even when the Mo­narch is irreligiously discarded and dethroned. So that the Tyranny of [Page 107] a single person invading the Government administred by States, and ar­rogating the Supremacy to himself alone, must needs be less criminal than for many conspiring into a Common-wealth, to change both Person and Government from the Natural to the Artificial, and meerly of Humane in­vention and pleasure.

Now that Possession doth not alwayes include a Title, nor Might, Right, in Civil Affairs, is both most reasonable and Christian to believe. Rea­sonable from several heads: First, from the notoriousness of the mis­chiefs which croud in upon all Societies of Men, where this Tenet is re­ceived. For what a powerful motive will it be to all discontented persons to invade others and dispossess them, when there lies no other difficulty before them, but the means to attach successfully, whom they intend to destroy; but having overcome that, by whatever vil­lanies, they shall be reputed as legal owners of what they are become Masters, as the most innocent and just person of all. But can ever any peace, or security be expected by that Society wherein it shall be law­ful for any man to intrude himself into Power? No, say some, Power acquired and possessed doth give Right to hold, but not justifie the Act of inordinate acquiring the same: But if it be true in Logick, That the Conclusion doth alwayes partake of the weakness of the Premisses: and in Nature, That an evil cause, be it but of the nature of a Circumstance, corrupteth the whole effect, is it not altogether as rational, that such an hainous act in the acquiring such Power here, should quite marr the ef­fect? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one; saith holyJob 14. 4. Recte factum est ut id quod male caeptum est Autoritate publica destru­cretur. Dama­sus. Epist. A­cholio, Eury­dico, &c. apud Holstennii Collectionem pa. 40. Part. 1. Job. So not one can, by an unrighteous Act produce a righteous effect. Neither can the inveterateness of an Evil any wayes mitigate the same; nor tract of time wipe away that Guilt which was at first acquired: For prescription in such cases never gives just Title, but where other Titles are extinguished, which is by accident. Then indeed Possession it self giveth not a good Title, but hath less evil and inconvenience than that at­tempt which hath neither one, nor other.

Secondly, From whence comes the difference made between private spoils and robberies, and publick; that the one should once and al­wayes remain unjust, the other not? This would be known.

Thirdly, How irrational and intolerable must that Dogme be which degradeth humane order and claims, into them, of beasts and reasonless Creatures? Is it not to be supposed by all pretenders to Reason, That Reason is the proper and noble principle of man, whereby he is distin­guisht from meer Animals? And can any man find a more sound princi­ple, or more essential to humane Society, than Justice? Now if Title or Right to a thing be the same with posession and never fails to succeed upon that; what advantage hath man above beast in his acquisitions? Or what reason hath not a beast to endeavour to make prey of all he can ma­ster? Indeed he hath much more reason than man acting after this manner, seeing he doth proceed therein according to that Law of natural instinct and impulse given unto him, and hath no more superiour principle than self-preservation to direct him otherwise: but man hath; and therefore neglecting, or contemning that for advantage unnecessary, becomes more vile and brutish in his doings than beasts themselves, to whom it is as natural to live one upon another, as for men to live in Society under the direction of reason, and protection of common Justice.

[Page 108]Fourthly, Humane and Civil Society require some Rule according to which it ought to be framed and administred. Now either this Rule can be known, or it cannot be known: If it cannot be known, it is all one as if it were not extant at all, because that which is unknown cannot possibly have any influence upon a man: But if this rule of humane life and actions is only in power, and no establisht right of Justice, it must of necessity vary according to might and strength in the possessour of Dominion: which being uncertain, and every day almost changing, a man should stand obliged to accommodate his obedience answerable to the degrees of Power, and so sometimes should be bound to give obedience to the fourth degree, which we here suppose to be the highest, sometimes to a third, sometimes to the second, and sometimes to one onely, and these degrees being absurd and obscure to him, he must of necessity be perplex­ed and undetermined in his resolutions.

Lastly, To add no more, the inverting of the argument brought a­gainst fixt obedience upon the score of Justice, from Gods omnipotence over the Creature, makes much more against mutable obedience. For whereas it is supposed (not at all so much as offered to be proved) that the ground of our obedience to God is laid in his Omnipotence, and we are bound to serve and obey him because we cannot otherwise choose; This is grosly false: For though God be of such infinite and absolute power as he could compel us to obedience, even against our resolutions and will, yet in truth he doth not, but, as is apparent, leaves us at Li­berty either to obey, or rebel against him. And if obedience were only due where power constrains, or fear of evil impels a man; then where no actual force were upon a man, and where he could carry his offence so well that he feared no evil, there he owed no actual obedience because as the habit of Authority doth answer the habitude of obeying, so the act of obeying must answer the act of power; which being not exercised, neither should it be needful to exercise any act of obeying. But fur­ther, Power in God doth not properly or immediately entitle him to the service and worship of the Creature. For though all things pro­ceed originally from the power of God, yet from his good-will and pleasure actuating his remoter power, do all things take their being and subsistance, and provision immediately; and therefore from hence much rather than from that, are we to take an estimate of our obedience; and where brutality and monstrousness have not so far confounded and debauched mens understandings, as to deny themselves to be men (which they do who destroy all principles of knowing and doing) this must be received as a sure ground; viz. That every man must have his due, and his due is his own, and therefore our very beings proceeding from God, our preservation and provision being the effect of his good Providence towards us, if there be any reason of mens actions in the world, this must of necessity be such, that what we have received of God, we should ac­knowledge to be received of him; and apparent Justice (more than Power) requires we should return God his own, so far as we are able: Now our very beings we cannot without violation of his will, who gave them to continue according to his will, not our own: Therefore so far as we can, we are bound to a recognition of him, out of Justice, were there no such thing as power to constrain us; or else we should do him1 Chron. 29. [...], [...], 12. 13, 14. wrong in detaining his due from him: and this Recognition improved is nothing but Religion. And hitherto relateth the argument of the Apostle [Page 109] St. Paul, saying; What? know ye not that your body is the Temple of the 1 Cor. 6. 19. 20. Ho [...]y Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own, &c. From this one ground the Apost [...]e argueth, viz. Ye are not your own: being made by God, and not by your selves; and possessedPsal. 100. by the Holy Spirit, in Gods Right; and purchased by a price after ye had (as far as in you lay) made away your selves, so that ye are not your own, not at your own disposing; the Justice of the cause is ma­nifest, that therefore ye ought to render what ye are, and what ye have thus received to the Author of All, God Almighty, and that by Religious observance of his will. And this in proportion holds in mat­ters Civil, between Prince and Subject. For though (as hath been said) all things proceed primarily from God, yet subordinately we are owing to the benign Influence humane Authority hath over men, to keep them in due bounds, so that one preyeth not upon, nor spoileth another: For to this profitable protection, is justly due submission and o­bedience: For there are three general Arguments couched in the Apo­stles exhortation to obedience in the thirteenth Chapter to the Ro­mans. Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 1. Fear of mischief and evil, v. 3. Wilt thou not be afraid of the power? do that which is good. 2. Expectation of benefit from it, v. 4. He (the Magistrate) is the Minister of God for good to thee. 3. And lastly, for conscience sake; which was the second Argument mentioned above, and intended to lead to obedience to Civil Powers. And Con­science having for its rule, not only natural and common Justice, but the revealed and written will of God, it may suffice to have alledged testi­monies out of Gods Word already confirming this duty, and to leave others to every ingenuous Christians diligent use of it, to avoid pro­lixity. And for the objections which may be made, and are commonly found against what is above delivered, for the same reason I pass them over; as likewise because I intend not here Controversie, but Positive Institutions.

CHAP. XXVII.

THE Reasons moving me to insist a while upon Civil Go­vernment, before I entred upon Ecclesiastical, are, First, because I find Authors of the grounds of Christian Reli­gion to treat of the same, generally. Secondly, because, where breaches have been made often in the Faith and Dis­cipline of the Church; there, necessary provision ought to be made to se­cure them for the future; but for want of due understanding of this Do­ctrine, licencious zeal blinded with presumption hath transported very many into unchristian practises. Thirdly, because it is a necessary in­troduction to the more clear and compendious pursuing of our subject of the Spiritual Society of the Church of Christ, and particularly its Form.

The Form of Christs Church may be distinguished according to the vulgar Notion, into invisible and visible; or inward and outward. In­visible we here call that which doth not at all offer it self to our outward sense of seeing, cannot be beholden with our eye: Or that which may in some manner appear to our sight, but not as a Church of Christ, though in truth it so may be. According to the first acceptation of invisible, we understand the Body Mystical of Christ, consisting of himself the only proper Head, the Holy Spirit animating and influencing the same, and the particular members of the holy, most happy invisible Spirits in heaven, and Saints on earth spiritually united to them by Christ in the divine band of holiness. And hitherto do the words of the Apostle to the Ephe­sians seem to be applyed; saying, Having made known the mystery of his will—That in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather Ephes. 1. 9, 10. together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are in earth, even in him: signifying hereby the mystical conjunction of Men and Angels in Christ Jesus: although there are who not improbably and more literally do understand these words only of the collection and uni­ting of Jews, (who in respect of their peculiar exaltation to Gods service [Page 111] and favour, are stiled in Scripture heavenly compared with the Gentiles) and Gentiles into one Faith, and Church of Christ, which therefore di­vers times is called a Mystery, as Romans the 16. 25, 26. Ephes. 3. v. 3, 4, 5. Col. 1. 26, 27. 1 Tim. 3. 16. because, as is there expressed, it was an hidden and incredible thing to the Jews, that the Gentiles should be ta­ken into the like priviledges and rights of serving God, as were once e­steemed incommunicable to any so fully as to the Jews. But whether the Scri­pture, according to its most genuine and literal sense, intendeth at any time to comprehend into one Society, Angelical Peings, and Humane, as the Church of Christ, as I do not find (though the Ancients as well as Modern have held such an opinion) so do I not oppose; the Mystery of which we now speak being sufficiently verified in the preternatural and invisible conjunction of Christ and his Church, in the indissoluble bands of his Spirit, guiding the members thereof into all sufficiencie of Grace here, and immortal absolute glory hereafter in heaven.

To understand this co-union or conjunction of Christ and his Mem­bers the better, we are to call to mind a threefold union intimated in holy Writ unto us. First a conjunction of Nature when more are of the same individual nature: as the three Persons in the Holy Trinity are u­nited in the same Divine Nature, though in themselves distinct; which is so proper to that mystery of the Trinity, that it is not to be found else­where, no not in that intimate communion we now speak of, between Christ and his Members, their natures continuing distinct. Again, ano­ther conjunction proper to Christian Religion is the union of two natures into one Person; as in the Mystery of Christs incarnation, when the hu­mane and divine Nature become one, so far as to constitute but one Per­son, Christ Jesus: So do not Christ and his Church. But by a third way are Christ and his Church united into one aggregate Spiritual Body or Society; which is effected by his Spirit, which yet do not make pro­perly a Part of that Body, but by its manifold divine Graces do produce and conserve the same: Christ thereby and his Church being, as St. Paul saith, One Spirit. He that is joyned unto the Lord is one Spirit. And1 Cor. 6. 17. St. John likewise saith, Hereby we know that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

This truly, and only in a proper sense is invisible, and that alwayes: and hath two Parts, the triumphant in Heaven, which is a most perfect, pure, holy, and blessed Society which have through the bloud of the Lamb and the power of his Spirit, overcome the three grand Enemies, Sin, Death, and the Devil, and reaped the fruits of their sufferings and labours; all tears being wiped from their eyes, all sorrows being fled away, all temptations for ever conquered, and ceasing to molest them. Now this part of Christ's Church remains alwayes invosible unto us here below.

And as for the other Part which is called Militant, and are described to be A number of faithful and elect people living under the Cross, and aspiring towards the perfection of Grace and Glory hereafter, supposing at present what may hereafter be farther discussed; viz. That such a pecu­liar number of holy persons there are within the visible Church of Christ, which shall infallibly attain to everlasting bliss in heaven; yet neither are these, as such, at any time visible or discernable to our common sen­ses. It being scarce, if at all, possible to judge infallibly who shall be saved, and who shall not be saved: it being much more difficult [Page 112] for any man to be assured of another mans salvation, than of his own: seeing that, as is said, hereunto an inward testimony of Gods Spirit is required, which is the ground of that sound hope which is commonly called Assurance; but the Promises of God in holy Scripture do not ex­tend in like manner to the assuring of any man that another shall be sa­ved, as that he himself shall; or that anothers faith shall not fail as that his own shall not; but thus far only probably a truer and more certain sentence may be pronounced by others, who are ordained of God to be judges of our state of Grace, upon the discovery of our consciences to them, then can be by our selves; which is sufficient: but of the unal­terableness of that state no man can certainly affirm any thing. Which holdeth true likewise as to the contrary state of Damnation. For though a more than probable judgment may be made of the state of Damnation of him who continues impenitently in notorious sins, yet may no man pronounce a peremptory sentence against any such person, that he ine­vitably shall be damn'd; because he cannot see into the abstruse Counsels of Almighty God so far, as to deny a Liberty left in him to confer such efficacious grace upon such a notorious offender as may reduce him to God; no more than withdraw grace from him who at present standeth in all probable way of perseverance.

This being so, it followeth from hence necessarily, That the Church of Christ, taken for the so faithful and elect, that they shall without all peradventure attain the Crown of the Triumphant, is, evermore in its own nature, invisible, that is, not to be distinguished by us, nor known cer­tainly; and if so, then in vain and to no purpose at all are such Dispu­tations as are made about the invisible Church, in that sense of invisibi­lity which signifies that which can in no manner appear certainly to us.

The other sense of invisibleness, according to which a thing is possible to be seen, is an object of sense, but actually is either not to be seen, or with very great difficulty. For as in Philosophy, it is with Divisibili­ty; so may it be with Visibility in Divinity. Every thing that hath Quan­tity, according to the Philosopher, is divisible or is capable of being divided into lesser parts, even without end: but yet so small may the parts so divided become at last, that no Artist shall be able to cut them any more in pieces. So may we understand a thing to be visible, which is so small and inconsiderable, that actually it can hardly, if at all, be per­ceived: But visible and palpable being taken for things which not only affect the senses simply, but with some more than common notoriety; the usual question, Whether the Church of Christ is alwayes visible, ought to be understood of such a competence of perspicuity as may ordi­narily be discerned by persons rightly disposed in their understandings; taking here, right disposition of our inward apprehensions, in a proportio­nable manner to that which relates to our common outward senses; which if it be called into doubt, (as it may) no wonder that the other may be, and that without remedy.

Now according to the most strict acceptation of Visible, for whatsoe­ver may possibly be discerned, the reasolution will be easie, That Christs Church is, and must alwayes be visible: For thus to be Invisible, is as much as not to be at all. For seeing the Parts of which it consists (be they but two or three persons in the most rigorous sense) are Visible, the whole must needs be visible too, of it self: however it may in the more [Page 113] received sense be termed invisible, because compared with the Church of Christ, as prophesied of, and promised in the Gospel, it is so inconsiderable, as may deserve rather to be accounted invisible, it being out-shined, and over-shadowed by other Preten­ders.

But there being two things which constitute the Church; one, the association of many persons into outward communion one with another: the other the inward communion in the true Faith of Christ: and the for­mer being common very often to Hereticks, as well as true Christians, it may be doubted, whether the true Church of Christ, as opposed to heretical Societies is at all visible? For seeing the true and orthodox Faith, together with its practical holiness, do not occur plainly to our senses, the true Faith cannot be discerned visibly from the false, by any outward sense: How can it possibly be said, that the Church of Christ is at all visible or apparent to a man? 'Tis true, a man may discern a real man from a painted man, or from any other creature from the outward notices of his body, though he cannot see his soul, which doth primarily constitute the person of man; but he cannot see whether he be a true and honest man in a moral sense, from any thing appearing outwardly. So may one discern the Faith professed in general to be Christian, by the outward frame and fashion of the Church professing the same: but the soundness of the same, and sincerity according to Christs will and institution, he cannot from thence conclude upon. And therefore, if the Catholick Faith, as Catholick (in the stricter sense) can never be visible; the Catholick Church so being and denominated from that Faith, can never be said to be properly visible, but only as a Society, not as the true Society of Christians in opposition to the false. For instance, sense or common reason not informed from the word of God, could never judge whether the Arrian or the Catholick Faith (as it then began to be called) were most truly Christian: but they both might judge that they were Christian Societies, and so at least outwardly, made a true Church. But because it is one thing to profess the true Faith; and another quite distinct from that, Truly to profess the Faith, as it is one thing to profess Justice and Truth and Honesty, and another truly to profess these and practise them, therefore can there be no estimate taken of the true Catholick Church from the persons professing the Catholick Faith, who are alwayes uncertain and mutable, but judge­ment must be made from the outward constitution only, which are Discipline or Government, and not Doctrine or Faith. For where the former is not rightly composed according to the mind and insti­tution of Christ, there cannot be said to be a true Church. And where the second is wanting, there must likewise be no Church, the foundation of the Church and Rule failing; viz. the true Faith. But wherever these be inviolately and incorruptly preserved, and publickly professed, though we should suppose every particular Member of such a Society to be notorious Hypocrites, yet the Church might be said to be a true Church: because the Church doth not re­ceive any more than its material subsistance from the persons be­lieving: but its formal and more distinct Being it hath from the true Regiment and Faith, which it is possible, though scarce probable, may be sufficiently preserved under hypocri­tical and wicked members of the same. This is not only true [Page 114] in it self, but appears so to be from the necessity of having any know­ledge of the true Church at all; and its being visible at any time. For it never being certainly visible who are the predestinate infallibly to Life, and who are not; who shall constantly stand, and who shall fall; who are inwardly hypocrites, and who are faithful and sincere in­deed (seeing notwithstanding the exactest judgment and search of man, there may be a falling away:) It could never appear which is the true Church, if judgment were to be made not from the outward Forms and Faith professed, but from the affection and inclination of Persons: or from the invisible decrees of God, of granting or denying perseve­ring Grace to persons in the Church. So that it is manifest from hence, how lurious, frivolous, vain, and sophistical disquisitions must needs be, which are founded and managed upon the ground of an invisible Church properly so called.

The improper acceptation then of Invisible can only occasion a just controversie: i. e. as it is taken comparatively, and in relation to a much more conspicuous and glorious Society; and that either of Infi­dels who may by numbers much exceed in outward glory much out­shine it, in power over-rule it; and by persecution and oppression so far straiten, lessen, and crush it, that it may be termed obscure and in­visible. Or otherwise compared with the Societies of much more publick and outwardly glorious Hereticks and Schismaticks, pretending the Ca­tholick Church.

And truly, if acute and exact Geographers computing the several professions of Religion, and their possessions of the earth, deceive us not, the Church of Christ may comparatively with other superstitions Mahometan, Jewish and Gentile, be not unaptly said to be invisible: Christian Religion being allowed but Five parts of Thirty, Mahome­tan six, and Idolaters nineteen parts of the earth. But if we shall di­vide Christian again into Catholick, according to the Judgment of seve­ralSee Brere­woods Inqui­ries, Chap. 14. Writers, there will not remain at present above two parts of all the Thirty parts of the earth to be possessed by the Catholicks: and if so, what will become of the visibility of the Church, thus understood? And if a moderate sense of visibility be admitted, signifying a real and apparent being only of the Church, though inferiour in pomp and num­ber unto others, how doth the great end and benefit for which chiefly the Church is to be maintained Catholick and Visible, shrink up into lit­tle or nothing, when it cannot commend it self, for any such glory to the beholder, nor signalize it self to the doubter of the true Faith in the Church? as may hereafter appear more fully when we shall come to speak of the Notes of the Church: It may suffice to conclude this Point with these two:

First, That Christs Church is essentially, and so long as it is at all, must necessarily be a Society or a communion of many. For so we are taught to believe out of the Apostles Creed: which speaking of the Catholick Church, exegetically interpreteth what we are to understand by that term: viz. The Communion of Saints. And there­fore we are to distinguish between being of the [Catholick] Church, and being Christians. A man may be a Christian, and yet not be of the Church: For no man can be of the Church who doth not hold communion with it. For to deceive himself, and say, though he be not of the visible Communion or visible Church, he may be, [Page 115] or is of the invisible and mystical, is to take for granted that which he ought to prove, but never can be able, but from somewhat external; and the ordinary method and most effectual means of being mystically united unto Christ, is by being Politically united (which must be visibly) unto the Body of Christ, the Church. It hath been therefore ever matter of greatest wonder to me, to hear, and read how freely all struglers and Fa­ctions of Christians (how inconsiderable soever) do assert to, and confi­dently to assert that common Rule, Without the Church there is no salvation, and are so obscure, nice or absurd in their sense of it: having very little or nothing to secure themselves from self-condemnation, besides an ill grounded presumption that they are inwardly united to Christ, and are of the invisible Church; which in truth is no Church: but a certain state wherein there is no administration or order, that we can learn▪ now all Society must necessarily have order and administrations for their regula­ting: but none such do we read of to be in Christs invisible Body, Christ himself being all in all; and therefore improperly called a Church. And therefore all such being infallibly saved who are so of Christs Body: they that so abruptly and peremptorily assure themselves they are of that in­visible State, do in effect contradict themselves, and mean they shall be sa­ved without being of the Church: For surely the Authour of that say­ing meant nothing else, but that before one could be (according to Gods ordinary dispensation revealed in his word) of Christs mystical Body, called abusively the Invisible Church, he must belong to the visible com­munion of Christs Political Body or Church. So that it is not▪ sufficient to comfort our selves with an opinion that we are good Christians, and hold the same Faith entirely and purely, that is required of us, unless we hold outward communion.

And therefore, secondly, as Christs Church must necessarily be a Socie­ty communicating, so must it be a visible communion, and outward. For how is it possible that such communion which constitutes a Society, should be entred into, unless it be visible? There shall therefore, as well out of the very nature of the Design God and Christ had to establish a Church, as from the many promises fortifying that Resolution, and perfe­cting that Design, be evermore an outward visible company of Professours of Christian Religion in the world, which shall retain the Faith of Christ, and the necessary effects of it in Worship, to that degree of perfection, which shall, or may lead a Believer certainly to Salvation, as will more plainly appear from what is now to succeed; viz. the outward Form of the Church.

CHAP. XXVIII.

FOR the Church to be, and to be visible, or appear to be, I reckon the same thing: and therefore thought good to speak of that, and premise it to what in order follows on this subject: viz. The Visible Form 2. The Adjuncts or Affections: And 3. the Power of the Church of Christ. By the Form of the Church we mean that frame and outward constitution, whereby the So­ciety of Christian believers are not only united mystically and inwardly to Christ, as their proper Head, and universal, nor as agreeing in the substance of one Faith and Worship, but as conventing and consenting in one outward Discipline, or Administration of this Body so collected. So that Discipline, otherwise called Government, is, by principal Se­ctaries themselves, rightly affirmed to be an essential ingredient into the nature of a Church: which will manifestly appear if we distinguish be­tween the nature of a Christian, or many Christians separate in them­selves from any Jurisdiction, and the nature of a Church. For a Chri­stian, or a true Believer, differeth from a Church, in two things princi­pally: First in the matter. The material part of a believer, as he is a Christian, (not as he is a man) is his Faith, consisting of its several Ar­ticles and Branches. But the matter of the Church is the Christians them­selves, whereof it consisteth. Secondly, they differ in their Form too: For no man is properly a Christian, though he believes all the Articles of a Christian, and lives accordingly▪ unless he be formed and fashion­edFormale autem Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae est pro­fessio fi dei Christi int [...]gra sub suis Legiti­mis Rectoribus & à Christo institut [...] mini­stris, cum Sa­cramentorum obsignatione, & participati­one, Sec. Mar­cus Anton. Spalat. Lib. 7. cap 10. §. 26. by the Sacrament of Regeneration, which is Baptism. But the Form of Christs Church doth consist in that outward disposition and order of Superiour and Inferiour communicating mutually in all Christian Acts and Offices necessary to the conservation of the whole Body; and the edifica­tion and encrease of every Member thereof. This Description of Christs Church is warranted us from St. Paul to the Ephesians: who expresly maketh Eph. 4. 15, 16. Colos. 2. 19. Christ the Head of his Church. From whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted, by that which every joynt supplyeth, ac­cording to the effectual working in the measure of every Part, maketh in­crease of the Body, unto the edifying its self in Love. The like words to which we find to the Colossians, chap. 2. 19.

It must therefore from hence be granted, That there is to be Govern­ment in Christs Church: and that the Government ought to be propor­tionable [Page 117] to the Body thereby ordered and ruled. To the Internal Body of Christ, or Mystical Church not visible to us, an Internal, Mystical, and Invisible administration, is very agreeable and sufficient from Christ the Head, and by the influence of the Holy Spirit: but the external Church standeth in need necessarily of external Rule and Direction, as much as it doth of external Doctrine, Instructions and Sacraments, though it be inwardly informed by the Spirit of Christ.

Now if it be enquired what that Government is whereby Christ would have his Church directed, (which is the most famous Question of late dayes, though scarce ever call'd in question for some hundred years af­ter Christ) the resolution will be facilitated from what we delivered concerning Government civil. For first, if Government Ecclesiastical be so essential to the subsistence of a Church, that without it, it cannot be of any continuance, without a Miracle; it cannot be imagined with any probability of Reason, that God or Christ should make one part of his Church; and leave it to the liberty and pleasure of Man to make the other: but least of all can they be of this opinion, who think so sacred­ly of all Ecclesiastical Orders, that to admit any of humane invention or prudence, is to prophane the whole Systeme. Again, upon the grounds laid down in civil Government: If Christ be the Author of Government Ecclesiastical in General, he must also be the Cause of some one Govern­ment in Particular, otherwise he could not be the Authour of any at all: seeing Institution Political, as well as Creation Natural, must of necessity have some Object to terminate it, as its effect: Generals, in all cases fol­lowing Particulars, in the things themselves: though the way of know­ledge, or learning these things, is to begin with the General, and so to descend to Particulars.

Thirdly, to understand what kind of Government Christ instituted in his Church, what more certain and compendious way, what more equal, than to judge rather from matter of Fact, than long and uncertain Dispu­tations built on Arguments which are subject to diverse casualties from mans Passion, and Interests prosecuted thereby: whereas there is evi­dence sufficient from the thing it self, to settle belief in that Point.

Fourthly, we are here to note, That when we speak of Government, we intend not to comprehend therein all Accruments, Ornaments or Additions, which happened after the thing it self: For these may be, and doubtless oftentimes have been the effects of humane Prudence, regu­lated by general Precepts: but we speak of the Form it self, or the Kind of Government: For though we said, God was the Author of All well grounded Government, and do not mean, that every particle thereof, or inferiour, additional Grace must proceed from the same hand: For God having permitted, if not ordered, that every nation should conform it self in outward matters, to the condition of the time and place; God must have made for several Ages and several Places, several Regiments, which no man hath presumed to affirm; the Divine Right or Institution extending only to those things, wherein all at first agreed. So that as children receive from the Nature of man, at first created by God in A­dam, their fouls and bodily shape, with the several parts necessarily thereunto belonging; but their behaviours, gestures, gates, favour and complexions are commonly derived from their immediate Pare [...]s. So doth every true Body of Christ, every Church, receive common forms [Page 118] and shapes from the first Institution of Christ extant in the Primitive times, but their particular modifications and customes are owing to to their Spiritual Fathers, whether mediate or immediate. Which frowardly and peevishly to reject, or disobediently to oppose, without higher warrant, what is it else but to imitate such graceless and unnatu­ral children who are ashamed of their own Parents?

Fifthly, A distinction ought to be put between the nature and degrees of any thing, and especially of the Church; which had its conception in the womb of the Jewish Church; its infancy, during our blessed Sa­vioursTum maxime Deus ex memo­ria hominum labitur, cum beneficiis ejus fruentes hono­rem dare divi­nae indulgentiae deberent. La­ctantius lib. 2. cap. 1. de Ori­gine Erroris. [...]. Nazienz. O­rat. 1. contra Julianum. abode upon the earth; its minority, during the Apostolical Age of One hundred years; its perfect state, soon after the first Christian Emperours advanced it, and augmented it with secular strength and glory: And it is certain, that as the Roman Empire became more corrupt and declined, so Christs Empire degenerated in many things, contracting deformities in Doctrine and Discipline, even from secular advantages gran­ted unto it by the Devotion and Bounty of the best Wishers to it. We are not then to be so narrow in our judgment of the Churches state, to allow no more to it then when it but just crept out of the womb, or when, having gathered a little strength, it could stand alone, but not act ac­cording to the prime Institutours intention; but as it was habited and affected in its riper years, when we may behold that in more conspi­cuous manner, which at first was obscurer, yet essentially the same.

For as nothing is more evident to all, but such as resolve they will un­derstand nothing that they dislike, than that, in nature, the Father is made before the children, and not the children before the Parents; so is it as plain, according to the course of Christs Church, and the history of the Scriptures, that the people at the first did no more make or appoint their Government, or Governours in Christ, than they did teach or in­struct them: For by the word of God were Christians at first begotten to1 Cor. 4. 15. Philem. 10. a new and spiritual life.

The method which Christ used in procreating and prosecuting his Church, is therefore thus made plain: First he himself, as the Father and Head of us all under God immediately, (according to that of St. Paul, The 1 Cor: 11. 3. Ephes. 5. 23. Head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the Head of Christ is God) did by his divine Doctrine and Miracles beget unto himself his twelve Apostles, his children: these being first consum­mated by Christ unto a capacity of Fathers also, and enabled to multiply into spiritual children of Grace; when Christ ceased visibly and politi­cally (for he never ceases spiritually) to assist and direct his Church, were by him, as so many Princes of his Ecclesiastical Monarchy, commis­sioned and authorized to dilate the same, and amplifie it, according to the Power, Prescriptions, and Grace given them to that end. And Christ foreseeing his Kingdom to be of that vast extent, that it would surpass the strength and ability of any one man to administer the whole, did not leave any Delegate so plenarily endued with Power Ecclesiastical, as that all should derive from him, as they did from himself: For then it had ap­peared by some Act of Christ, and some instance in them, in their recei­ving subordinate power from that eminent Person, during his abode on earth, which could have been no more derogative from Christ, than it is thought to be now by any. But the Twelve were alike called by Christ immediately, and not the least intimation of any prae-eminence, unless in order, which cannot be avoided, where there is found never so great and just equality.

[Page 119]Now because they were rather inhabitude and Right, than Act, Ru­lers and Fathers of the Church, and the whole Earth was to be their Dio­cess, therefore it behoved and was most just that they should set in Com­mon-councel together touching the general design of reducing the whole World to the knowledge and obedience of Christ: as we read they did in the Second to the Acts, and in the Fifteenth, and elsewhere. But being enjoyned to depart from Jerusalem, and every one to betake himself to such peculiar Quarters of the World as fell to them by Gods Providence and Assignation, it was no longer so absolutely necessary to hold assemblies for the special management of each ones proper Cure, but full power re­sided in every Apostle of Christ, and accordingly was by them exerted, to ordain matters necessary to the Flock collected by them. So that not­withstanding what was of publick concernment to the whole, fell under the cognizance of all the Apostles, as Peers of Christs Kingdom, yet were limited Districts or Diocesses disposed of by the councel and authority of one presiding there. And if there were called more to consult of that portion of the Church, it was rather of humane reason, than divine In­stitution. For it was ever far from Gods intention in appointing extra­ordinary Methods and Rules for his Church, utterly to extinguish or evacuate humane Reason: which his own hand had planted in mans soul before; but it was to be subject to the Superiour Law given by him, and where that which was never intended to be of that unnecessary and im­mense latitude as to take in all contingencies, prescribed not otherwise, Gods will, we may be sure it was, that that other help of reason should not be denyed its office, and right of ministring to our uses. And what is more agreeable to reason, then, That In the multitude of counsels there is Prov. 11. 14. safety, (many being able to discern more than one alone, and more willing and ready to execute when their head in determining goeth before their hand in executing: And on the other side, That For the transgression of a Prov. 28. 2. Land many are the Princes thereof. Nature it self teacheth us that ma­ny Counsellers and few Commanders is the most rational and secure course to prevent discords and confusions.

But I am far from disputing or arguing this Question any farther than the ground I have laid already will allow, and that is only, to enquire after matter of Fact in the Government of Christs Church; thinking it most reasonable and pious to conclude that to be the only Divine which Christ instituted, and that Christ only instituted that, which only ap­peared in the World at his being upon earth, and his Apostles after him: who, though they brought not Ecclesiastical Government to that visible Form and Order as it afterwards shewed it self in, to the world; increa­sing with the number, and magnificence of professours of Christ; yet gave the Idea and Patern in all the main substantial parts of it. For, as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you, saith Christ. Christ faithJohn 20. 21. not to any one of his Disciples, So send I thee: for then it might have been understood so as if he had endowed some single person with such a plenitude of power, whereby he might succeed him in presiding over all his other Disciples, and consequently over the universal Church: but so send I you: signifying the imparting of his absolute and entire power unto all his Apostles, so far as might consist with the co-ordination founded amongst them, and conduce to the benefit of the future Church: Between Christ then and his Apostles, there was a likeness, but no pa­rity or equality of power: Between the Apostles themselves, there was [Page 120] an equality: But upon the raising of a Church, and multiplying of Christians immediately sprang up discrimination of Persons and Offi­cers in the Body of the Church. Neither can any argue from the Pa­rity of Christs Apostles, that there ought to be a Parity also among all that succeed in the Ministerial Office, any more than, that this Pari­ty should extend it self to the whole Body of the Church: For so it was with the Church first of all; not only all the Ministers, but Mem­bers were equal.

And whether it were simple necessity, or humane prudence, or di­vine Inspiration, that first moved the Apostles to limit that General Right, which Christ had given them indefinitely to Go and teach all Nations; and each of them to be universal Pastours, in assuming to themselves the special care and tuition of some one place, Province, or Country, it matters not much to enquire. For the supposition which some make of an Obligation upon every Apostle to keep himself so strictly unto the commission of Christ, empowring him to minister to all Nations, that it was not lawful for him, of himself, nor by general and mutual coun­sel and consent amongst themselves, to be determined to any one Province or Nation, is very groundless and injurious to the whole design Christ had in propagating the Faith. For the said commission of Christ given to his Apostles was not Lex but Jus: a Right to Act, not a Precept indi­spensably enjoyning the execution according to the full extent of the Let­ter. Again, It was not said to each singly, Go and teach all nations: but to all conjoyntly. So that to all it was a direct Precept which was ful­filled, if all Nations were by all the Apostles, not all by each of them instructed in Christ. But the interpretation which taks All nations to be rather understood negatively in opposition to the Jewish Church, which enviously denyed the like Priviledges of salvation to the Gentiles which they claimed proper to themselves, rather then positively, as if by virtue of Christs injunction they were necessitated to pass all the world over, (which it is certain that neither any one, nor all ever did; the intention of Christ being to open a wide door of Grace to all Nations, so far as humane ability could ordinarily promote the work) quite disables that argument. As it was lawful therefore for all the Apostles, and every one of them, to pass into any Part of the world, so was it not unlawful to make choise of some one considerable portion, wherein to move and of­ficiate according to his Place. For otherwise, how should it be lawful for them to continue in some one City two, three, or seven years, as 'tis as certain, as any thing in History can be, that some of them did, ta­king a peculiar and pastoral care thereof, and its Appendages?

Now, because as their Presence was finite in reference to place, so their lives were to time; therefore, when in any one large Province they could not manage immediately themselves, every City of note and com­mand, they assigned certain Substitutes to continue and promote what they had begun, even during their lives, in many Countries: And de­parting this life, left them to succeed in a perpetual line to all ages; not by intrusion and spontaneous invasion possessing themselves of Rule and Authority over others, but according to the same form that themselves were sent by Christ. For Christ not only sent his Apostles, but enabled them to send others in the like Pastoral charge. And these Apostolical Pastours, together with that personal Power given them to be exercised by them, had also a real paternal Power to constitute others of the like, or [Page 121] inferiour order, as necessary emergencies required, upon the increase of the Professours of Christian Religion, as may in due place be more cleer­ly proved.

From hence a reason may be rendred of the Opinion of some very so­berBilson. and learned Defenders of Episcopal Government, who seeing neither the Apostles alone to govern the Church, nor Bishops alone, have said, It is very hard to determine what was the Discipline of the Church in the very Primitive times of all. For surely, while the Apostles lived, the Government of the Church was Apostolical, and not properly Episcopal; because those Elders (otherwise called Bishops) said in Scripture to be set over Cities, were themselves wholly at the beck and disposal of the Apostles ordaining them, and governed and taught under them: no o­therwise than a Priest may be under a Bishop in all subjection. But the Apostles dying, and their intire power also with them, part of it de­volved unto that Person, who before in their Right presided over such a Church, (the Apostolicalness excepted which consisted in an immedi­ate Ordination to that Office by Christ, and illimitedness, as to the ex­ercise thereof; with other signal gif [...]s and graces, not here to be insisted on) and was properly Episcopal: which consisted in an Authority deri­ved from the Apostles, and consequently from Christ, to govern the Church; and not only present, for their dayes; but because it was to continue to all Ages, (which it could not without Governours and Tea­chers) to ordain such who should ordain others without interruption) for ever: And these not only such who should succeed them in the like Pastoral care, but who might together with them (though under them) by their counsel and labours, as the common Fathers of the Church, take part of his charge upon them, in teaching and governing such a portion of that Church as was allotted them. And these were called Priests or Presbyters. And as the Bishop was constrained, Christians multiplying, to ordain an assistent Presbyter to him, so when the People under that Presbyter increased so far that it was too difficult for him to discharge all Offices of publick and private ministration, it was found expedient to ordain an inferiour Officer in the Church, to him, for his assistance, called a Deacon or Minister. Not that these two last Orders themselves were of humane or moderner Institution than the Apostles dayes, but that they might be likewise undetermined, in the place of their Function, to any particular Person, until the consummation of the Apostolical age: But in truth, it is hard to determine what the Scri­pture intends speaking of Deacons; and therefore, I offer this mean o­pinion, as not inconsistent with theirs, who hold them of Apostolical Institution; nor with theirs, who make them much later: For the first may be true, as to the Office which was a degree Ecclesiastical, as St. Paul intimateth: and the other, as to the manner of exercise, in reference to one place, and one presiding there.

And the like seems most probable concerning the Evangelists, who were persons commissioned by the Apostles to preach the Gospel under them, without any determination to a certain place or people; and sa­ving this large Licence, were in no higher degree than simple Presbyters: the Apostles themselves presiding in all such places, as Pastours: But when they were by their farther Authority fixt to one City and Country, with a power to create Successours or Co-adjutors in the Government of that Church, then they became formal and proper Bishops. For the alle­gation [Page 122] of them is most frivolous, who would elude the express testimo­nies of Scripture, affirming that Timothy and Titus were Bishops, by say­saying they were Evangelists: For by the same reason they may deny they were Presbyters, because probably they were Evangelists, and so make them of no order in the Church, or of another, which is yet unknown to the world: which, whatever it may please men to call it, certainly it must be founded on Priestly Power, or else they could not have regular­ly acted as they did. Neither was it, as some may phansie, to degrade such Evangelists whose faculty extended to all places, to be confined to one afterward, as Bishop. First, because such power was more truly indetermined to one, than extending actually to all: For it depended on the pleasure of the Apostles to send them to what place they thought fit: Secondly, this fixing of them to one place was not without the ac­cession of power of Government, as well as preaching, which is no where found to be in them before; and which doth more than countervail such antecedent liberty of simply teaching, as was then in some manner fixed. Thirdly, there was in such cases as this, added a Power and Right of instituting others as occasion offered, which is unknown to have been in them as Evangelists.

From it follows that of all the forementioned kinds of Government; that of the Church approached neerest to that call'd Monarchical, which was only absolute and universal in Christ, the Soveraign Head thereof; but Ministerially under him, and over the Church under their circuit Politically, as proper Heads and Rulers: and whatever power (after extraordinary Callings by Revelation from God ceased) any one dis­partake of in the Church, was ctrtainly at first derived from such sin­gle Persons alone, however to the solemnity of such ordination others of an inferiour Order concurred thereto. And as the Government of the civil World was originally without exception, so far as search can be made by the most curious Antiquaries, Monarchical, though it were not governed by one man alone, but by Civil Supream Princes of seve­ral Dominions, into which the earth was parcelled. So though no one Father or Bishop ever presided over all the Christian world, yet seve­ral single Persons in their respective Provinces governing the Church as Principal, the Government of the Church may rightly be termed Mo­narchical in Particular; but Aristocratical as to the whole: For as the Apostles were all Monarchs compared with their Proselites, Converts, and Churches by them founded, but were but Peers compared one with another: So was it with the Bishops and Patriarchs of the Church suc­ceeding them: whereby the Prophesie of Christ in St. Matthew was verified, spoken not so much (as some mistake it) of his Heavenly Kingdome, but earthly, his Church and its ensuing glory. Verily I say unto you, that ye which M [...] [...]. have followed me in the regeneration, when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. That when the Church of Christ should flourish, then there should be such as, in lieu of the twelve Tribes of Israel, should Rule as in Thrones, the Church of God under the Gospel.

They who object against this the words of Christ in Saint Matthew, Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and M [...]tt. 20, 25. 26. they that are great exercise autority upon them: But it shall not be so among you. Do declare no less against Aristocratical then Monarchical [Page 123] Government, yea all Government over the Church. And their favourable g [...]osS in behalf of one, will be as valid for that which they reject. For as it was not at all the mind of Christ that there should be no Governours at all over his Church; so doth it not at all appear that what was lawful for many to do, was not lawful for one. But here the old cheat again takes place to suppose that the Government of one is in it self tyran­nical, and of many, free: but neither Christ nor nature ever taught them how to prove this presumptuous imagination. And to this may we add another such mistake from St. Peters words, That men should not be Lords over Gods heritage. And what then? Must there be more1 Pet. 5. 3. than one over a Church, and not onely one? May a company of Presby­ters oblige Christians to do, or believe such things, and not Lord it, but if by a principal Person bearing Rule, this same thing be done, then is the Precept violated? Besides, who sees not, that hath not a mind to be blind, That the Apostle speaks nothing at all in these words of the kind of Government, but the exercise of it, and abuse? Surely if Episcopal Government could not choose but tyrannize, and Presbyterial could do nothing but according to Scripture and equity; this Objection were unanswerable, otherwise not worth the mention­ing, much less answering, as common as it is, and as confidently▪ ur­ged.

And as to that Pretense intended to overthrow our prime ground of Christs institution taken from what was first actually found in the Church: viz. That Imparity of Christs Ministers was not found in the Church till about an hundred and forty or fifty years after Christ (when it is con­fessed by the Enemies of Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, that it prevailed.) Let the Huggers of this Device, First consider what a pitiful addition is made to their cause from hence; seeing that it is undenyable there was a disparity all the Apostles dayes, who in order excelled all Ecclesiasti­cal Persons; and that almost one hundred years were spent of the said tearm, in their time: So that about fifty or sixty years only this imagi­nary Government had its being, and then was lost again for fourteen hun­dred, and then was better lost then found, and taken up again. But a far worse inconvenience spoils this jest, as being founded and raised only from conjecture; and that conjecture upon the obscurity of those ages, not so clearly known as afterwards.

CHAP. XXIX.

IT being so necessary (as we have above shewed) to be in commu­nion with the visible Church of Christ, and the Nature of things themselves being more intrinsick, many times, than to characterize sufficiently them to the Enquirer into them; it hath been thought necessary to explain them farther by more apparent and observa­ble notices given of them. And in the Doctrine of the Church these seem to be of greatest consequence; Visibility, Universality or Catholickness, Sanctity and Perpetuity. Of all which we shall briefly speak in order: yet first premising somewhat concerning Notes in General.

For seeing (as we have said) it is necessary to know the true Church from the false, and the Natures of things are often-times so abstruse and hidden from us that we cannot discover them from their own Light, there­fore it hath been judged very reasonable to pitch upon certain outward Notes, eading us unerringly to the knowledge of the thing it self. And in truth, I cannot wholly approve of that course chosen to certifie us, and point out to us the-true Church, taken from the very being of it: such as are, Faithful and sincere Doctrine taught therein, Sacraments du­ly administred, Worship purely performed, and Discipline rightly constituted: because these are rather of the very intrinsick nature, and definition it self of the Church, than notes and characters outward, whereby the nature it self should be certainly known. We all, indeed without exception, con­sent that that Church is the true Church, which is thus qualified and affected; believeth aright, is governed aright, administreth the Sacraments aright, and worshippeth aright; and in one word, which followeth most exactly the Rules of Holy Scripture; but in the Assumption and Application is all the doubt, and infinite differences; which of all Pretenders to these, are assuredly so affected, and blessed most with them. Therefore, these are not sufficient lights and demonstration of themselves to us. For we grant readily, That whatever Church hath all them, is without con­troversie a true Church of Christ; but whether this or that Church pretending to them, hath them really, remains to be enquired into. Hence it hath been judged expedient to repair to some more sensible and apparent Notes or Indications to certifie us of matter of Fact; viz. that so it is with this Church, and not with another. And it is well said, That Notes of a thing must necessarily be distinct from the thing [Page 125] they notifie unto us: and that especially in these two things. First, in reference to the thing described, than which they must be more evident and apparent: as the argument must alwayes be more clear than the thing in Question to be proved therewith. Secondly, in reference to other things, they must not be common to more than that thing they are used to express and signifie: As no man that never saw an horse before, can know it from an Ox, by being told that, an Horse hath two ears, four legs, and a long tail. And a third note of a true Note may be added, and that is, that it be inseparable. For though no more but one thing has such a mark by which it may be known, yet if that thing be moveable, and not constant to it, it cannot at all times be known by it; as the Moon can­not alwayes be distinguished and known from other stars, from horns or Angles which many times it wants.

This speculation is very rational, but yet not exempt altogether from the inconveniencies of the former opinion, it failing little less in the In­vention and Application of such unfailing Notes as are presumed and pro­mised. For those being the very choicest of many more Notes mention­ed by some for the guiding us to the true Catholick Church, they are either obscure, or inconstant and separable, or lastly common to those Churches not received for pure and Catholick, as will appear by and by: Therefore, I suppose, a mean opinion may in this case be most true and safe: as that, First, there can be no such infallible outward means of comming to, or discerning the true Church from the false, as may se­cure any one from errour. For the Prophesies and Promises of Christ concerning the glory and conspicuousness of his Church; viz. that it should be as a City set on a hill: That it should be the Light of the world; That it should be a Mountain unto which all Nations should flow, and such like; infer no more than this, That, whereas under the Law the Doors of Christs Church were in a manner shut against the greatest part of the world; under the Gospel Christ would keep open house to all commers: and that it should be more possible and easie to enter into the communion of his true Flock, than formerly it had been; not that it should not be possible to mistake, but upon affected and wilful ignorance, next to malice. Neither doth there appear any greater reason, why any man should be infallible in the choice of the true Church, than when he is in the true Church, that he should be infallible in all points of Faith therein truly professed. In a word, No greater inconvenience doth appear from the want of infallible means to lead men to the true Church, who are in sight, but not knowledge of it; than to bring Hea­thens into an ordinary capacity of entring into it. A man may be dam­ned in that corrupt and degenerate state he now is in, for want of that grace, he could not of himself acquire, and yet God be under no im­putation of injustice or tyranny, who gives him no more than he de­serves, and denyes him no more than he may justly detain from him. For the mercy of God exceeds all, not only merit, but admiration that so many find the way to the truth; while some (as St. Paul hath it) are Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim. 3. 7. But were it so, that those means to salvation, whether general or par­ticular, did work naturally, not Evangelically or morally by the co-ad­jutancie of grace accompanying them, and inwardly disposing the mind to assent to, and embrace them, then indeed ought there to be certain and infallible causes outward to that end; but it is not so: for as liberal as [Page 126] God hath shewn himself in the Gospel and means outward of attaining to the truth, he keeps the reins still in his own hands, and the key of knowledge by him, the efficacy of the most probable means, even that of distinguishing and knowing the true Church, depending upon his free and inscrutable Grace; which would in this particular be su­perfluous and useless, if certain access might be made unto it by demon­strative notes to that purpose.

A second thing commending herein a mean opinion, may be the due acknowledgment of the use of such outward marks and means guiding us to this prime truth of the Church. For notwithstanding, we have said the Grace of God hath a main stroke in every mans right choice of such dubious undemonstrable truths, yet doth it not ordinarily con­curr (and we have nothing to know of extraordinary acts of God) but by such ordinary means as he hath instituted and tyed us to observe, to be capable thereof: and therefore are we to embrace and improve all outward helps which may best conduce to that end; otherwise we either forfeit or repel such grace from us. And of such means I know none more reasonable and probable to bring us to the knowledge of this point, then are they above mentioned.

Thirdly, the use of those means or notes upon tryal, will be found to consist not so much in the Affirmative, as Negative sense: that is, not characterizing Catholick Churches in opposition to Heretical, by being found only in any Church, because they are also found in such as are re­puted Heretical: but being not found in Churches pretending Catho­licisme, stigmatizing them for false and defective. And truly it is well worth the labour to be informed of errors, as that which prepareth to the knowledge of the truth.

Lastly, it is to be observed of the nature of Notes or Properties, that they are either of the whole Species or kind, as that given by Plato of a Man, That he is a two-footed creature having no feathers on his body: or they are Particular, relating to some Individuum or single one of that kind: as that given of God himself to distinguish Saul whom God had1 Sam. 9. 2. 10. 24 designed King, from the rest of the people, from his stature, That he was higher by head and shoulders than the rest of the people. And thus was Elijah the Tishbite known to Amaziah, That he was an hairy man, girt with 2 Kings 1. 8. a girdle of Leather. Now in this question it is not so much enquired into, how absolutely one man may be known from another; nor how one Church may be distinguished from another, as the Roman from the Greek, or the English from the French Church; for this, thought it be very ea­sie, is scarce worth the labour: but the doubt and material difficulty is, How to know which of these are Catholick and true Churches of Christ, and which are Heretical or Erroneous in any degree? I say, the Enquiry is not, which is which Church, as a man might be known to be such an one by name, from his stature, his hair or the like: but which of these are true and orthodox Churches. This can be by no other notes infallibly, but such as are truly and con­stantly proper to true Churches, and are no less found in other true Churches than in this. And therefore it is most true, what is com­monly said, That the true Church is known by the true Faith professed, right Discipline administred, and the holy Sacraments duly used; but not before it be certainly known that all these are actually so observed, and really not pretendedly only. And so is it as true, That, it being [Page 127] known certainly which is the true Church, it must be known likewise by necessary consequence, that all these three are faithfully observed in that Church; which could not be true without them. Now if we first must judge of Churches by the three General Instances and Indications, we must first judge of these Ingredients into its Nature: and before we can do so, must run through a whole body of Divinity, and that with fallible judgment in the search of it. On the other side, if we would know which is the true Religion, from the true Church; to know the true Church first, we must pass through infinite Disputes and Controver­sies, with the like uncertainty of judging aright as before: and in doing both these, we forsake the pretended method of judging by Notes, for we are hereby immers'd in the indagation of the thing it self, without consideration of Notes: which if they could be had apparently and in­fallibly, would prevent that long and tedious labour of examining the matter it self. But such (as I have said) I know none positive: the neerest we can come to the point, is Negatively, when there is apparent­ly wanting such things as declare at least the unsoundness and imperfecti­on of the whole Body, so defective.

CHAP. XXX.

THE four principal Notes of the true, or rather false Church, not found in it, are Antiquity, Unity, Succession, Univer­sality: and as moderner Controverters, in England espe­cially, the name of Catholick it self.

To the first of these we say, That her Antiquity is not to be compared with things of quite another nature, but with things of the same nature, and comprehended in some eminent Period of time. For the Natural worship was more ancient than the Mosaical, and the Mosaical than the Christian, in such things wherein they differed. For we have before shown, That Christian Religion, according to the material and natural Part of it, which was that connatural light and reason shining cleerly in the heart of man, and directing him to the belief and wor­ship of one God, exceeded in time the Jewish worship, yet was not to be preferred before it; and the like may be said of the Jewish and Christi­an. But the enquiry is chiefly about those of the same Oeconomy, the same profession and denomination. As if it should be demanded, which of the natural Religions were the truest? answer might well be made, That which was most ancient and agreeable to prime Institution. And in like manner, That must be the purest of the Jewish or Mosaical which a­grees [Page 128] most exactly with the most ancient and first instituted, of that kind: and so of the Christian undoubtedly; that which retained most of the divine Truths and Worship, ought to be preferred as the best of that kind; as is plain from the Prophet Jeremiah, advising that degenerous people and Church thus; Stand ye in the wayes, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.—Nay, we may extend this to the Mahometan Religion thus far truly; viz. to be informed from antiquity, which of all the se­veral Sects are most truly Mahometan, weighing their agreement to, or discrepancie from the Institutions of the first Author of that Supersti­tion.

But here it will be necessary to distinguish between things agreeable to the institution, things instituted, and things contrary to institution; and that as well for our better satisfaction in the following notes, as this present: though I confess, all this is overthrown if that be taken for granted, which some mischievously would obtrude upon the Christian Church in these last dayes, That nothing, whether intrinsick or extrin­sick to Religion it self, in the substance, must be instituted but by Christ, and such as were divinely inspired by him: But this at present I shall take for groundless, sensless, and unpracticable by the Assertours and Defenders of it; some other place being more proper for its confutati­on. But this diversity being allowed, as all reason requires, the reso­lution of this case will be much facilitated: For surely, that Church (have it never so many and fair advantages otherwise to commend it to the world) which shall either have lost any material Article of Christian Faith, or notably corrupted and perverted, or introduced any Tenet which is contrary to the first Institution, and for which no good ground or reason can be alledged out of the all-sufficient Rule of Faith, must needs be false: and that no such warrant can be there had, the total silence, or contrary Doctrine of the Ages next under the Date of Scriptures (which we here make the Rule) do prove. For where neither the Scriptures most ancient expresses, or necessarily infers any Doctrine of Faith; nor Tradition hath never so understood the Scriptures, there no greater evi­dence can be found upon earth to discern truth from falshood, and con­sequently the Catholick and Apostolick Faith from the Spurious and He­retical. And from this head it was that we find the ancient Fathers to oppose and confute the Heretical Inventions and Innovations of men contrary to sound Faith. For supposing that Christ was the first foun­der and dispenser of Christian Doctrine, and that he delivered this to the Apostles to be farther propagated in the world; what could be said more effectually against perverters of the same, than to shew that such fond and impous tenets as Hereticks obtruded upon the world, could never have Christ for their Author, because those who immediately drew from that Fountain, never taught any such thing, but the contrary rather. And that they did not, they proved from instances in all the principal Sees of the Apostles, and their immediate and following Successors, who ne­ver delivered any such Doctrine to the world. Upon this Innovating Hereticks were forced to seek subterfuge from revelations, and extra­ordinary discoveries promised (as they corruptly understood Scripture) by Christ in St. John, saying; I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye Joh. 16, 12, 13. cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when the Spirit of truth shall come he will guide you unto all truth, &c. Hence they collected, That Christ communi­cated [Page 129] not all to his immediate Disciples, but reserved diverse things to be imparted extraordinarily to them: and the phansie of such extraordi­nary favours from God is such a bewitching device, that few, not sound­ly setled in Faith, can chose but expect and thirst after, and at last con­ceit that so God doth deal with them, when there is no such matter. And of this Sacrilegious and Heretical folly are those Churches, no less than simple single persons, guilty, which under pretense of power in the Church (which must not be denyed) of declaring the sense of Scrip­ture and Faith; do in very deed invent and introduce new Articles of Faith; and absurd Scholies unheard of before, either in substance or form, and say, They do but explain only, what was before implyed and included in holy Writ. For all Articles of Faith, all necessary and due Discipline, all true Administration of Sacraments, wherein the truth of Christian Churches are generally affirmed to consist, must long since have been discovered from the Rule of all these, or otherwise; they, who were ignorant of, or defective in these, could not lay any just claim to be true Churches of Christ. So that in truth, Antiquity thus understood is an excellent Note of the true Faith, and the true Faith (not contra­dicted in worship, as is possible) more than a Note or Sign of a true Church, it is the very Being it self.

But where Antiquity it self is obscure, the condition of a Note (ac­cording to the Canvasers of this point) being to be more cleer than that which is in question, it cannot do this good office for us: And to argue backward, as too many do very incongruously, endeavouring to prove that which should prove; is to discover the fondness of their opinions and falsness of their cause at the same time. For instance, to say, the Church cannot err in Doctrine, therefore we must believe this to be most ancient: And to affirm that no man can precisely declare the time and place when such a Doctrine entred the Church taxed for innovation, is very absurd as commonly and confidently as it is used. For St. Augu­stine, on whose grounds they seem to build this supposition; supposed that First, no time could be instanced in, when such an usance was not in the Church: but many times this can be done against pretences to Apo­stolicalness; though the direct time when it began may not be instanced in. For whenas most Doctrines of Faith have some practical worship proper [...]. Ari­stoteles Po­lit. Lib 5. 8. 175. to them, and evidencing them, (such as are the form, the matter, the rites of prayer, none of which recorded in the Church, insinuate any such opi­nions in that age of the Church, especially of publick approbation) is it not an argument more than conjectural, there was then no such thing belie­ved in the Church; though we be not able to determine when it first sprung up? Again, it is very weak and frivolous, which is presumed as unquestionable, that all abuses and corruptions in the Church had some proper period wherein they must needs show themselves, according to that formality as afterwards they appeared in, and became notorious. No doubt is to be made, but points of Doctrine had their conceptions, augmentations, and progressions insensible as infinite other things in nature, and manners have had, and daily have. A man may better demand the hour in which an Apple began first to rot, or the week in which an old Groat began first to be defaced, and loose its form, than require a determinate point of time, or perhaps the year in which such a Doctrine began to be corrupted into an heretical sense and practise. But many of these are ve­ry exactly and faithfully set down, and found short of immemorialness of Tradition as they term it.

[Page 130]For Succession another note of the Church; I find it by some, divided into Succession Doctrinal and Personal: meaning better than they speak. For I know nothing properly succeeding, but where something is depar­ted or lost. Now the Doctrine of the Church being incessant and perpe­tual, and not diverse from it self, cannot be said so properly to succeed it self, as to persevere in the Church. But if we should pass that order, and allow this language; yet the thing it self seems here quite to be mi­staken: it being not at present enquired into the Faith of the Church (which if it were granted to be sound and Catholick, doth not of it self necessarily and fully infer a true Church: and upon the reasons before agreed to; viz. Due administration of Discipline to be essential to a true Church) but into the Form constituting it a Visible and Formal Church; to which is indispensably required proper Pastors, and that by the appointment of Christ, as St. Paul thus witnesseth speaking of Christ leavingEphes. 4. 11, 12 the earth, and ascending into heaven, and deputing thereupon certain Offi­cers in his stead, in a visible ministration, which he ceaseth now to exercise. He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pa­stors and Teachers; For the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Now it is not necessary here to deter­mine the quarrel about the kind of Officers here mentioned, it sufficing to our purpose what is very evident, that they who are Governours of the Church, must be given to the Church by Christ. But Christ acting no longer politically or visibly (as hath been said and must be yielded) but mystical­ly; he cannot be said to ordain any immediately in his own person, but by the ministry of others. Now how is it possible to distinguish them whom Christ hath appointed to constitute others in the Church, from them to whom he hath given no such order, but by this succession we now speak of, namely a traduction of that faculty which is in one deriving it originally, though by many intermediate hands, from Christ himself, to another succeeding him: because (as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaks) the Priests are not suffered to continue by reason of Death. ThisHebr. 7. 23. surrogation then of Pastors and Priests is not to be at the pleasure or ar­bitrement of men, to institute; but must be by the will of Christ: and this will of Christ must be revealed unto us either by the ordinary line and course from himself and Apostles, or else must by some extraordinary and miraculous way be made known to men. For though we deny it to be Christs practise to commission men to these ends, we do not deny it to be in his power so to do: but that he hath so done actually to the fairest Pretenders, we shall deny until better demonstrations than can be made from their own asseverations, or appealings to the extraordinary effects of their Ministry. Christ sayes in the Tenth of John, Verily, verily—John 10 [...] 1. he that entreth not by the door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. That the Sheep-fold is the Church, that the door is the ordinary way of entring into office in that Church, that the Shepheard is Presider over the Church I find none to doubt; nor that climbing in at the windows is extraordinary thrusting ones self into Office in the Church; nor that such as do so, though they be never so consci­onable, painful and orthodox otherwise, are not thieves and robbers, if not shearing & abusing the Flock, yet taking that upon them without ordinary grant, which belongs not to them. This evil is only remedied by a successive and ordinary transmission of that Power which Christ left, with certain peculiar persons he called, Apostles, with authority to communicate the [Page 131] same to others, to the worlds end; according to the several ranks and or­ders of his Ministers, of which his Church consisteth. So that succession not of Doctrine only, but Officers in the Church, is no less essential to a Church properly so called, than Officers themselves or Discipline. And as for the distinction invented without any precedent in antiquity, without any warrant from Scripture, without any justice or reason humane or di­vine, to stop mens mouths, and blind their eyes who are very simple, of Vocation internal and external, it is utterly rejected as a vain, frivolous, impertinent phansie. For internal Vocation, (as they called it) is no­thing but an ability competently serving to such an end; but this is no Vocation at all properly, any more than it is for me to take anothers purse, because God hath given me strength, power and opportunity to do so. It may be an exception will here be put in against the comparison from the unlawfulness of this latter, and not of the former: but I suppose as well an unlawfulness in the former, though not so notorious, as in the latter: And adde, That however, considered in it self, it be unlaw­ful for me to spoil another, yet if God calls me to it, it is not; and ac­cording to the new Doctrine of Vocation, a man is then inwardly called, when he is enabled to do a thing. But an Outward call too is commend­ed, and that ordinary too, when things are setled to our mind, otherwise extraordinary calling must suffice. And truly an extraordinary calling will suffice at any time; but then very much better proofs are expected to make such extraordinary Vocation apparent to equal judges, than we can any where find in the Apologies of them that rest wholly upon that, as their safest Anchorage in this unhappy fluctuating Vocation.

By what therefore we can judge from the description the Scriptures give us of a formed Church, and sentence of the Ancient, no Society aNibil [...]lind est, quantum ego quidem intel­ligo, Ordinaria Dei ad altquod munus vocatio, quam ab his penes ques est plena & legiti­ma de ejusmodi rebus statuen­di potestas, personae ips [...] ­rum judicio non in-id [...]n [...]ae, nullo interce­dente prava ambitione, do­lo malisve ar­tibus, designa­tio. Sander so­nus Praefat▪ ad Tract. de Ju­ramento. Church, can be truly and formally called, which wants lawful and ordi­nary Pastours and Priests; and no ordinary Pastours or Priests without due Ordination, and no due Ordination but from such who have that power in a right Line communicated unto them, in a succession of mortal Persons, to an immortal faculty in the Church, as may hereafter in conve­nient place be farther proved. So that it may well be admitted, that Suc­cession (not when one steps up unappointed, or illegally appointed into the place and office of another, but) thus explained is necessary to the Being of a true Church of Christ. And yet I do not say it is necessary to Christianity, or simply to salvation, where it is not despised or scorn­fully rejected. For we may well suppose that Gods promises will notso far fail as to leave a Christian people destitute of such ordinary means of be­coming a Church, without notorious forfeitures of his grace on their parts; or will remit of the general rigor of his Laws requiring Unity of a Church, as well as Unity of Faith to the being good Christians and true believers.

And for these who are most troublesome and loud in demanding Succes­sion, or rejecting all Churches defective therein, as scarce in saveable condition; though I hold it an high temptation of God and provocation of highest displeasure, to flock to such Societies as are not known to have this succession of Pastors without such interruption that the Renewal and restitution thereof were meer Laical, and consequently void; yet where invincible ignorance, through education or incapacity natural of judging, hath subjected a Christian to that unhappiness, who dares exclude him from salvation? And the greatest boasters and magnifiers of succession should do well to consider, how they can better, than hitherto they have, [Page 132] quit and secure themselves from the retort of want of succession. For however a numerous, a glorious Roll is shown of succeeders in their principal See, yet we find unanswerable difficulties in their due successi­on and ordination: of which these two will take them up more time, and cost them more care and pains than their lives length may suffice to; viz. The uncertainty of Succession from Intention necessary to that Sacrament of Ordination, which can never be sufficiently known to have been pre­sent at that time, no, though the Ordainer should swear solemnly to it, more than Morally, which amounts to no mo [...]e, upon tryal, than Probably: And the more then probable suspicion of Simoniacal contracts in ascending the Pastoral throne; which the common Law declareth, nulling such indi­rect Invasions, and voiding Ordinations.

For the third sign of the true Catholick Church, Unity; the more I look into it, the less I find considerable in it: It being necessary accord­ing to common Philosophy, That every thing which hath a [...]eing, should be but one, and not many: and if the Catholick Church be so in this sense, what great matter is acknowledged in it above other things? For when a thing is divided into many parts, it ceases to be what it was before, but still there is unity in the Parts severally considered. And so if we sup­pose the Universal Church divided schismatica [...]ly into distinct and oppo­site societies, it can scarce be supposed but the Parties so divided are, though infinite, yet in unity with themselves. And how then can that which is common to so many be a specifick character of one especially? By this separation therefore it may be concluded, That one, or perhaps both are in fault, and guilty, but agreeing within themselves equally, (as well they may) and for ought appears, the Schismatical may be in grea­ter unity within it self than the Catholick, how can any man discern from unity, which is the Catholick or true Church. The Unity therefore, which may any wise describe or distinguish the sounder part of Christs Church from the heretical, must not be taken from that which it holdeth within it self, but with some other, which is acknowledged for Catho­lick; wherein comes the use of Antiquity again: because the Ancient Churches of Christ were saved by the same Faith and Worship that all succeeding Churches must be; therefore, if it may appear that a Church doth not agree in all necessary or considerable points of Faith, Worship, and Government with them of former ages, supposed to be truly Catho­lick, it self cannot be Catholick or a true Christian Church. But they who look no higher than one Age, or two, and no farther then one place or two, and finding convenient agreement amongst themselves, do characte­rise themselves for Christs Church, fall into the censure of St. Paul to the Corinthians—who measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing 2 Cor. 10. 12. themselves among themselves, are not wise. And in the Revelation of St. John, we read of some Nations into whose heart God hath put to fulfillRevel. 17. 7. his will, and to agree and give their Kingdom unto the Beast, until the word of God should be fulfilled. I hope this unity of consent, will not be ta­ken for any argument of the faithfulness of their consent or Catholickness. But more we shall have occasion to speak of Unity in the treating of Schism. In the mean time, I see no force at all in the places alleadged out of the Old Testament, to prove so much as may be well allowed to the u­nity of the Church; as where it is said, My Beloved is but one, and to theCantic. like purpose. For such places, taken in relation to Fact, and not to Pre­cept and counsel rather, that Gods Church should be so, and endeavour [Page 133] to keep the Spirit of Unity in the bond of peace, as the Apostle speaks, canEphes. 4. 3. be understood strictly, only of that single Nation of the Jews, which was alone chosen so peculiarly to himself. Or of the future Coalition of Jew and Gentile into one Body, as the same Apostle in the same Epistle speaketh of Christs Passion, That he might reconcile both unto God in one Chap. 2. 16. Body by the Cross, having slain the enmity thereby; i. e. between Jew and Gentile.

These difficulties and uncertainties in this Note of Unity have constrain­ed the Patrons of the Roman Cause to find out such an Unity which indeed is more apparent, and certain to him that commits his Faith to be guided by some outward sign; but so much repugnant to all ancient Churches, so wholly strange to them, and unheard of, that it may seem to do them much more mischief than advantage, as that which excludes all Antiquity from having any suffrage in this cause. And this their Note is, UnityBellarm. de Notis Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 10. init. with the Bishop of Rome: as boldly said, and as weakly proved as their enemies could wish. St. Hierom indeed saith to Damasus, he is resolved to hold as He and that See believed in one particular of the Trinity, and used not simply, and abstractly consider'd this as a probable argument of Orthodoxness and preserving the peace of the Church, but with the con­currence of other Circumstances rendring his Opinion probable. But doth he, or any ancient Author, deserving with themselves the name of a Fa­ther, teach, as they would perswade, indefinitely, That to hold commu­nion with the Bishop of Rome is to be assured you are of the true Catho­lick Church. Christs Charter much stood upon to St. Peter, and the Rhetorical flourishes many times of the Holy Fathers extolling St. Peter and his Successors, but never categorically affirming, or soberly determi­ning so, will not amount to this.

Hence they proceed to Universality too, as a sign of the true Church, and an help to Unity it self. For it profitteth nothing that there be some one Church, and that in one Age and Place which is at unity with it self, if it be not universal. Christs Church is said to be universal, but so many senses are given of Universality it self, that it is hard to apply it positively to any pretending to it. For nothing so plain as that the Chri­stian Faith doth not, and never did possess all Nations; nor all the persons of those Nations where it hath flourished. No man therefore can know the true Church by that which is not true of it. And therefore I make no doubt but the most anciently genuine and proper sense of that expres­sion in the Apostles Creed, where it is said, I believe the Catholick Church, Vide Augu­stinum, Epi­stol [...] 50. aimed at no more than to cause us to believe that Christs Church was from that time forward, no longer to be of one Nation or one Denomination, as it was before Christs Incarnation, but Catholick; that is, Universal, and indifferently to extend to all People: For at that time when the Creed was composed, the secondary sense wherein Catholick and sound Believer signi­fied the same thing, was scarce at all heard of; no not before the Councel of Nice under Constantine. Afterwards it was applyed to particular Sees, as well Alexandrian, Antiochian, and some others, as Roman. In Theodosius the second his dayes, which above 400 years after Christ, aSozomenus Ecclesiast. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 4. Law was made that none should call themselves Catholicks but such as be­lieved aright concerning the Holy Trinity; the rest should be termed Hereticks. Afterward, notwithstanding every Sect and Heresie usurped that name: as may appear from that very place corruptly cited out of Au­stin August. Epist. ad Epistolam Fundamenti. by some, to prove the true Church from the Title of Catholick it self. [Page 134] For saith he, however all Hereticks desire to be called Catholicks, yet if any enquired for a Catholick Church, they were directed to the Or­thodox, and not Heretical Churches.

But if we take the word Catholick in a more restrained sense, not for that which is all over the world actually, but so far as it doth extend, pas­seth generally through all; and that not Places, but Ages too, where shall we find a Catholick Church? Christians never for fourteen or fifteen hundred yeers not conspiring into one belief, no not in things held ve­ry important to Faith: and I mean not only single persons, but Societies of Christians. Therefore, neither from hence can we conclude directly of the true Church, in opposition to Heretical. And therefore the Patrons of this opinion of the Universality, finding themselves harder pur­sued with difficulties, than they can evade being taken in their own snares, are forced, according to their very vain custom, to leave off the tryal of the truth from matter of Fact, which is most plain and ready, and proceed to say, It ought so to be: for certain reasons they draw at their pleasure out of Scripture, and the necessity of our knowledge of it: which is as solid a way of proceeding, as if I finding my self by natural sense cold, another should attempt to demonstrate the contrary, because it is Mid­sommer.

But this use we may yet make of Universality to jude of Catholickness of Faith, taking it for the most constant for time, place, and persons, ac­cording as all humane account requires to ascribe that to the more nume­rous and eminent, which is strictly proper only to the whole entire Bo­dy, as a Councel or Senate is said to decree a thing, when the chiefest do so, some dissenting: surely this is a very probable argument of the Ca­tholickness of that Faith, and consequently that Church so believing: But what we before observed must not be forgotten here, viz. That in all such enquiries as these, the Estimate must be taken from the whole Church passed as well as Present, and that there is as well an Eminency of Ages, as Persons, to preponderate in this Case.

Lastly, the advantage Negative from Universality is very considerable to discern the true Faith and Church from false, because it is most certain, if any Doctrine or Discipline shall be obtruded on the Church, which can­not be made evident to have been actually received in the Church (and not by colourable and probable conjectures and new senses of Scripture in­vented to that purpose) in some former Age, that is Heretical and Schis­matical, and in no good sense Catholick.

The last Note which we shall mention is Sanctity, which we hold very proper to this end, taken abstractedly from all Persons, as considered in Doctrine and Principles. For if any Church doth teach contrary to the Law of nature, of moral vertues, of Justice, or the like, we may well con­clude that to be a false Church, though it keeps it self never so strictly to the Rule of Scriptures in many, or most other things. For it is in the power of mans wit, and may be in the power of his hands, to devise cer­tain Religious Acts, and impose them on others, which shall carry a great­er shew of severity and sanctity than there is any grounds for in Scripture, or Presidents in the best approved Churches: and yet this is not true Holiness of Believers. For to this is principally required, that it be re­gulated and warranted by Gods holy Word: Yet neither so directly and expresly as if it were unlawful to act any thing in order to Holiness with­out special precept from thence. For I see no cause at all to reject the [Page 135] ancient distinction found frequently with the Fathers of the Church, of duties of Precept, and duties of Councel: For there ever was, and ought to be in Christs Church several ranks of Professours of Christs Religion; whereof, for instance, some live more contemplative, some more active lives. But if all commendable and profitable States were under Precept, then should all sin that do not observe the same: but God hath taken a mean course in not commanding some things of singular use to the promoting of Piety in true Believers, but commending the same unto us: Such are Virginal chastity, Monastick life, Travelling painfully not only towards the salvatian of a mans own soul, but of others likewise; and certain degrees uncommand­ed of Duties commanded; as of charity towards our Christian neighbours, & Watchings unto Prayer, and spiritual Devotion; which being prescribed, no man can determine to what degree they are by God required of us precisely: some therefore are left to the Freewill-offerings of devouter persons, who thereby endeavour either to assure themselves more fully of their salvation; or increase of the glory afterward to be received: For as Christ tells us in the Gospel, Much was forgiven to Mary, because she loved much, so shall much be given upon the same reason.

They therefore that teach contrary to such wholesome and useful means of Holiness as these, or the like, under, perhaps, vain suspicion of too great opinion may be had of their worthiness, incur, at least with me, the censure of being enemies to the holiness of Christs Church, and render their Churches more suspected for the opposing of them, than others for approving or practising them.

The Holiness then of the Church commending it to the eye and admira­tion of the World, doth consist in the divineness and spiritualness of its Doctrine and Ecclesiastical discipline in use in it, exceeding moral civi­lity. For it may be that such a severe hand of civil Justice may be held over a people that they may live more orderly and inoffensively to the world than some true Christian Churches: but if this be done, as often it is, out of civil Prudence, natural Gravity, or a disposition inclined rather to get an estate, than riotously and vainly to spend on, which brings such scandal to Religion, then is not this a sign of a true Church, or Christian, because it proceedeth not from principles proper to Christian Religion, but secular interest, how specious soever it may appear to the World.

CHAP. XXXI.

AFter the Church found, and founded as abovesaid, the speci­al Acts thereof claim due consideration, and the Power or Right of so acting. And this Power we make two-fold in General, Political and Mystical, or Sacramental: Of both which we must first enquire after the proper Subject, before we treat of the proper Acts thereof.

That all Power which is given by Christ doth reside in the Church as its subject, no man can, or doth question. But because the Church it self being (as is said) a Society united in one Faith, and administred out­wardly by Christian Discipline, according to Christs mind, admitteth of several senses and acceptations; therefore it must be first understood, which, and in what sense is according to Christs intention, the proper seat of this power. And before we come to Scriptural grounds, we take no small help in this Enquiry from the common state of all Government: which we have already shown to be such as is not ascending, but descending: It cometh not originally, nor can, from the multitude or people, who are the object of this power, i. e. the Persons properly to be governed, and not governing; all the Examples of former Ages confirming not only the unnaturalness and unreasonableness, but impossibility of the People governing themselves.

[Page 137]For though infinite Instances may be given of Cities, and Nations, which have wrung the Civil Power out of the hands of their Princes and Magistrates, and pretended they would be ruled by their own Counsels and power: yet could they never effect this, but were constrained, after all devices used to no purpose, to let go their hold, if not Pretensions, and suffer the assumed Power to return to a more capable subject. Which incapacity of using such Power is no less then an unanswerable Demonstra­tion to me that it was never there placed by any divine Will or Right; but somewhere else. Now though some eminent Reformers of the Late Age have been so superfluously, and in truth, superstitiously nice, and as is preten­ded, jealous for Christs honour and absolute Headship over his Church, that would not so much as allow the name of Government to the Church or any in it, least Christ should suffer loss, but administration must be theJunius de Ecclesia. name signifying power and Rule exercised in the Church; yet in truth, all this is no better then a Superstitious fear, where there is no fear. For they are not names, but things that are so much to be heeded: And if these men in their Charge, had not acted the part of Governours, as well as others, we might have allowed this invention for tollerable, but the truth is, the honour pretended to Christ, and the Gentle usage of the People have ended in the same thing which the other more openly and honestly professed to do: the difference being only in the Hands so acting. But 'tis no new thing to beguile dissetled people with new words, into new orders, nei­ther will it ever be left off, as common a Stratagem as it is, so long as the Peo­ple, are people, and Craft and Ambition shall spurrmen of Fortune to cur­rie, and scratch that unruly beast, to the end that, when they find it con­venient, they may get up of them, and ride them at their pleasure.

This incapacity of all Christians to rule themselves being the same with the other, necessarily inferreth a more proper subject of that Power, which not being assumed but delivered, any more then the Faith it self, founds a distinction of Christians and the Church, as ancient as the Church it self; not unknown to Civil Societies. For as hath been said, a Kingdom or Com­monwealth is said to decree and act such a thing, when not the thousand part thereof so much as know any thing of it, till it be done: so that clear­ly, there is a Nation Real and Representative, and Formal and proper. This consisteth of all Persons in that Society, and every member of that Political Bodie: The other, of such Principal Parts of that Bodie as are in Possession of autority and power to Rule the rest: and whose Acts are interpreted to be the Acts of the whole State. And that the Church con­sisting of infinite Persons uncapable of consulting or acting Decretorily, must, and alwayes had certain Select Persons representing the whole, which it should conclude; the thing it self together with Precedents of all Places and Ages do prove. The greatest arguments and most colourable are taken from the Infancy of the Church, to the contrary. For both Hereticks and Schismaticks endeavour at contrary conclusions from the Scripture. Patrons of the Popes absoluteness argue from a Superiority or Primacy of order in St. Peter when the Church consisted, it may be, of twenty per­sons to make good the Popes pretensions to supremacy over the universal Church, when it consisteth of so many Nations. But to this our answer is ready: First, that the like power was never in St. Peter over his fellow Apostles and the Rest that is claimed by the Present Bishop of Rome. Se­condly, That if such a Power as is asserted to St. Peter for the Popes sakehad ever been in him really, yet it could be no good ground of his Successors [Page 138] claiming the same over the Catholick Church. And that First, because there is no probability of the like Gifts and Graces requisite to such Autority in the Popes of Rome, as were given by Christ to St. Peter; yea, there are more instances to be given of the Ignorance, and horrible vitiousness of Persons possessing that Chai [...], then in any other Patriarchal See in Chri­stendom. Secondly, There is no Rule of Certainty (setting aside the Per­sonal incapacities and imperfections) how far the Apostolical power was derived to their Successors, but what may be taken from the end of such power, which was to conserve the Church in due order of Government, Devotion and Faith, and this may as well and better be performed with­out one Persons engrossing to himself the Disposal of all things Primarily, though not in the Execution. Thirdly, the difference is vast between the Church consisting of so few, and contracted into so narrow a circuit as at the first founding of it, when one man might have with great facility ta­ken the whole management of the Church upon him, and in following Ages, when it was diffused into so many and far distant quarters of the Universe, not to be inspected or managed by one man, though an Apostle.

On the other side, Persons of Democratical Principles and purposes, finding in holy Writ that the whole Church without distinction of Persons were often assembled together, and that during their such meeting, matters concerning the due administration of the Church, were treated of, col­lect from thence, that in right, and not rather occasionally, they concur­red to Publick Acts of the Church: but this likewise is a fallacy, without any necessity of consequence, as will appear from the original and orderly search made into the first Constitution, and the gradual Progress of Eccle­siastical Persons and functions.

First then, That Christ is the Head of the Church, and under that General notion of Power, life and motion doth communicate his influence unto his Body, the Scripture is so manifest, and it is so generally and willingly by all assented to, that it were lost time to insist on it. He is then by imme­diate consequence the fountain of all Power resting in that Body; as doth appear from the several Appellations subordinate to that of Head attribu­ted unto him in Scripture. For Hebrews the third and first, he is called The Apostle of our profession. And in the Book of the Acts he is stiled that Pro­phetHeb. 3. 1. Acts. 3. 22. Deut. 18. 15. Luk. 4. 18. which was in Deuteronomie promised to the true Israel. And an E­vangelist he is made to us by his own words verifying the Prediction of E­saias upon himself, Saying, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel. And St. Peter calleth him our1 Pet. 2. 25. Mat. 23. 10. Bishop. Doctour or Master he claims as proper to himself in St. Mathew: And to the Hebrews, as before, he is called a Priest, an High priest, yea last­ly, a Deacon or Minister, for the words properly used signify the sameRom. 15. 8. thing. From all which we may gather both the Efficient and Exemplary cause of the several orders in Christ: For first, we read how he called unto himself twelve Apostles, as well to minister under him, during his abode upon earth, as to Preside and inform his Church after his departure out of this World: which according to St. Hierome were prefigured by the twelve fountains, the twelve Patriarchs, the twelve Tribes, the twelve Princes ofExod. 15. 27. Mark. 3. 14. the Tribes. There he not only elected, but ordained also, as St. Mark testi­fieth, that they should be with him, and that he might send them out to preach, naming them Apostles, as St. Luke writeth. After the choice andLuk. 6. 13. Mat. 10. 1. Luk. 9. 2. Math. 10. 1. Math. 10. 10. Ordination of them, he gave them actual Mission, as it appeareth by St. Ma­thew, and Commission to preach, and to work miracles to the confirmation of his Doctrine: and to receive a reward for their pains.

[Page 139]And when the Harvest was too great for so few Labourers as twelve, St. Luke tells us, he added Adjutants to them, seventy Disciples answerable toLuk. 10. 1. Numb. 11. 10 the seventy Elders, by Gods appointment set over the children of Israel: and the seventy Souls that went with Jacob into Egypt. These two ordersGen. 46. Eph. 3. 5. are thought to be intended by St. Paul to the Ephesians, where he maketh mention of Apostles and Prophets: by Prophets meaning such who bare that part of the Prophetical office, which consisted in ordinary instructi­on of the People, of which in other places likewise he speaketh. Now ad­ding to these the common sort of Christians or Disciples, which were if not at the time of Christs abode upon earth, yet afterward, Christians: as St. Paul intimateth, where he affirmeth Christ was seen after his resurrection of 1 Cor. 15. 6. above five hundred brethren at once. We have three distinct orders of Chri­stians. First Apostles; secondly Evangelists, or the seventy; Thirdly sim­ple Believers or Christians. And it is most certain that as the Apostles did not so much as choose their Lord, nor the Evangelists the Apostles, so the Common sort did not then constitute or choose their Preachers or Evange­lists: but while Christ continued on earth he kept the power of Ordination of whom he pleased in his own hands, and never is it so much as insinuated that upon his departure he left any power in their hands to dispose Eccle­siastical Affairs or Persons therein: but that with his Apostles as succee­ding him in visible Administration, he deposited this power many argu­ments are offer'd us out of Scripture. For in the Person of St. Peter he gave power to all the Apostles saying, Feed my sheep. And that this same pow­erJoh. 21. 15▪ resting in them was by them transmitted unto others, the very same form of words almost used by St. Peter himself to be the Governours of the1 Pet. 5. 2. Church, do prove: where he saith, Feed the Flock of God which is a­mong you, taking the oversight thereof not by constraint, but willingly. And St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles likewise. And that the whole Ec­clesiasticalActs. 20. 28. Jurisdiction was entirely in the Apostles and Apostolical Per­sons, doth appear from the enumeration of the most principal parts of which such Jurisdiction doth consist, which may be these as we find them in Scripture recorded. 1. Power of determining Controversies of Religion, as appeareth from the Question agitated about keeping the Law of Moses, Acts. 15. and concluded by the Apostles, and Elders which were of the second Or­der after the Apostles. And in the eleventh of the Acts, the same resolvedActs. 11. the doubt concerning the Conversing with Gentiles. 2. Of imposing Laws and orders for the due and sober conversation in matters of Moral nature, as may be gathered from St. Paul to the Thessalonians, where he adviseth, That Christians study to be quiet and to do their own business, and to work with 1 Thes. 4. 11. their own hands as we commanded you. And so in the second Epistle he thus writeth, Now we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Thes. 3. 6. that ye withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. And so verse the twelfth of the same Chapter.

Thirdly, Censurings and Punishments of the refractory and disorderly: and that of two sorts, First of suspension and interdicting, as did the Dis­ciples of Christ suspected Preachers of him; in St. Luke, John answered Luk. 9. 49. and said, Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And so others they restrain who preached without their command or exceeded their commission: as may be read in the acts of the Apostles; by vertue of the same censuring Power St. Paul Acts. 15. 24, 25. 1 Tim. 2. 12. interdicts women from preaching in the Church. Secondly, the Censure of [Page 140] [...] and separation of [...] and notorious offendors in the Church from communion in the Church: For St. Paul writing to the Corinthians in this manner; What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod or in Love, and in the spirit of meekness? doth evidently, distinguish a two­fold1 Cor. 4. 21. power resident in him: of severity to chastise, and meekness to com­fort and support. And this power is more plainly expressed in the exer­cise thereof upon the scandalous offendor in incestuous marriage: As also1 Cor. 5. 3, 4, 5. in the formidab [...]e proceedings against Hymeneus and Alexauder, whom St. Paul delivered unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme: and se­veral other things more proper for some other place.

A Fourth instance of Jurisdiction is seen in the power of Ordination per­taining to the Apostles, by imposition of hands. For they did ordain those Deacons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. And St. Paul to Timothy, ex­hortingActs. 6. 5, 6. 2 Tim. 1. 6. him to Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of his hands, doth declare the Act of Ordination used by himself.

From al [...] which, these four conclusions do necessarily follow. First, that by Christ and his Apostles intention, there were alwayes, in their dayes, distinction of persons in the Church: some having the power of Rule, and some being subject: according to the Comparison of St. Paul to the Co­rinthians of the natural order and superiority of, and subjection of the1 Cor. 12. Members in a natural Body, to one another: and coming to application,v 28. be saith, And God hath set some in the Church, First Apostles: secondarily Pro­phets, thirdly Teachers, after that Miracles: And by demanding, and Que­stioning,v. 29, 30. doth vehemen [...]ly deny a Parity in the Church. And this distin­ction of Persons was no otherwise known at first but by the common name of Brethren, given to such as were Christians, without any autority in the Church: and therefore we read often of the Apostles and their Party on the one side, and Brethren on the other. But the Officers and Rulers of theActs. 11. 1, 12, 17, 15, 23, 16. 2. Church are not found to have any general name distinguishing them from others, but were by their particular charges and Offices known to men: as Apostles, Elders, Bishops, Evangelists, Deacons. But afterward, com­pendiousness of speech, general cemprehension of them so distinct requi­ring, they received their several Names, not, as Socinus, Salmasius, and some such presumptuous traders for Anarchy in the Church would have it, the things themselves, or being. For it is granted, that at first all true be­lieversClerus dicimur quia sors Dei sumus. Hieron. Item Praefat. ad Enarrat. August. Psal. 1 Pet. 5. 3. were called indifferently [...], or Gods Portion or Clergy as we now speak. For it is very probable that St. Peter using that word which we render Clergy, doth intend to comprehend thereby all Christian People, as well as they who (as St. Hierome saith are the Lords portion more peculiarly: But with good advice afterward, they who were more especially dedicated to Gods service, and attended his Altar, were signal­ly called the Clergy: and the other the Laity or people: very agreeably to the phrase of the Old Testament, where we find not only a distinction in the things themselves; but in the names of such as served any ways in Gods house, and those who were only Israelites at large. For these were called simply [...] Sons of the People, or the Laity (as we now adayes speak)2 Chron. 35 7, 12. Vid. Vatab. in Locum. in opposition to the Levites, which discrimination in terms was thought to be introduced in Josiah's time.

Secondly: From what is said we may conclude that even before, and af­ter this distinction, all the administration of Church affairs passed through the hands of these Persons of the Clergy or Ecclesiastical Fun­ctions, and that their Votes and Acts ever went under the name of the [Page 141] Church, it may be that in the beginning of the Church, when Chri­stians had not so many advantages, as after they had, and their conve­nience of assembling was not so great, but they were constrained to teach, and pray, and determine controversies, and ordain Laws for the Church, that the Laity (as we now call them) were present at all these; but that this fortuitous presence should inferr a right, nothing appears.

A third Conclusion may be, That, observing the orderly Rites used to invest any person with a Clerical Power, it must necessarily follow, that they who wanted them, never attained the thing it self. For the Author to the Hebrews asserts plainly the sacredness of Evangelical Ministring,Heb. 5. 4. from the Prescriptions and practise of the Levitical, saying, No man takes this office upon him but he that was called of God, as was Aaron: and least it might be presumed that this strickness concerned the Old Law only, he procee­deth to that greatest of Precedents, Christ himself: who, though he nee­ded not any Institution, being absolutely free to all such purposes, of him­self; yet was called of God in signal manner; to shew that all that exercise such Sacred function should much more be thereunto orderly called. Now to understand what this ordinary and orderly call is, the better, it is worth the observing how Aaron was called, for so in proportionable manner ought all under the Gospel be ordained to the Ministry. And here first, we may note, there is not the least intimation given of such a Call as is Internal, upon which many vainly rest: But Aaron was called not only internally, by certain proper and sufficient Gifts to that Office; but externally, and that not of himself, but of another: He was called by God. Now least it should be here suspected that a bare and bold presumption of being called of God, without some outward evidence prooving the same, might suffice to justify an Intruder of himself into the Ministry; the Scripture tells us how Aaron was called of God; and that is not only of God and immediately, but mediately, by man; that is, by Moses. Nay farther, because many con­tent themselves with such an Ordination as comes from another, not exami­ning much what power or Right such persons have so to ordain others, the Scriptures tell us, that Aaron was called by another, and him appointed specially by God so to do: as we read, Exodus the 28. 1. whereExod. 2. [...]. God commandeth Moses saying, And take thou unto thee Aaron thy Brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that they may minister unto me, in the Priests Office. Here is their Election or Vocation: Their consecration or ordination followeth afterward, described particu­larly according to its several Ceremonies, in the next chapter: So that we see the great Example or Figure of Evangelical ordination, directeth to such a form as ought to be of God, by the hands of some who are thereun­to appointed: And if any should here interpose that Moses himself was no Priest properly himself, though he were of the Tribe of Levi, and yet he consecrated Priests, being himself rather a Civil Magistrate; and from hence argue a power in Lay-men, especially Magistrates, to do the same now adayes. I answer, here indeed doth Calvins defence of himself, and such as are in like condition take place of an Ordinary call and an Extraordi­nary. For before God had setled a Rule and Order in his Church, the ex­traordinary and immediate hand of God, did appoint persons to minister before. It was therefore first of all, an Extraordinary Act in God to call Moses, rather than any others, to direct and Rule his Church; it was next an Extraordinary Act in him to separate the whole Tribe of Levi to Minister before him: but from that time forward, there was no such thing [Page 142] heard of, as an Extraordinary Call. Secondly, I answer that God pre­scribing to us Rules and Precedents, doth not thereby so tie his own hands, as he doth ours; but when he pleaseth, he may create Persons in Extraordinary manner, to what ends he will: And his Autority infallibly granted to those, we call now, Lay-men, is altogether sufficient to make a Priest of what Order or dignity soever he shall be. But until such infal­lible Proofs of either Gods immediate Calling, which is Extraordinary indeed; or his immediate enabling or empowring any other Person, not having in the ordinary Course established in his Church, received such a power, be given; all such Extraordinary assuming of the Ministery on a mans self is more then one way Extraordinary, and to be rejected as void. And with such no good and conscientious Christian ought to Communicate, as with Priests; that is, as Offering the Spiritual Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise unto God as a Legitimate and Publick Minister of God, or Media­tour of the People, or that Mistical Sacrifice in the Eucharist; and espe­cially going upon the grounds of Luther, Calvin, Perkins and some o­thers of Great note: that all Sacerdotal (they may call them if they please Ministerial) Acts done by him who is no true Minister, are really null and void.

Fourthly, we conclude, that seeing all Ecclesiastical power, as Ecclesi­astical, doth proceed from Christ, and his Successors, and that by Ordi­nary and visible means, they who have not received the same by such Ordi­nary Methods, are usurpers of the same, whether Political or My­stical. And that to deny this to the Church, is to deny that which Christ hath given them, and such a Principle of the Churches well Being, without which it cannot subsist; and it not subsisting, neither can the Faith it self. And to the reason above given we may add Prescription, beyond all me­mory. For from Christs time to this day a perpetual and peculiar power hath ever been in the Clergy (which hath constantly likewise born the name of the Church) to assemble, define, and dispose matters of Religion. And why should not Prescription under Unchristian, as well as Christian Go­vernours for so many Ages together, be as valid, sacred, and binding to acknowledgment in the Case of Religion, as Civil Matters; will ever re­main a question, in Conscience and common Equity, even after irresistible Power hath forced a Resolution otherwise.

It is true, such is the more natural and Ancient Right Civil Power hath over the outward Persons of men, than that which Religion hath over the Inward man, that it may claim a dominion and disposal of the Persons of even Christian subjects, contrary to the soft and infirm Laws of the Church: because (as hath been said) Men are Men, before they are Christians; and Nature goeth before Grace: And Civil society is the Basis, and support to Ecclesiastical. Yet the grounds of Christianity being once recei­ved for good and divine; and that Religion cannot subsist, nor the Church consist without being a Society; and no Society without a Right of counsel, and consultation; and no consultation without a Right to assemble together; the Right of assembling must needs be in trinsique to the Church it self. Now, if no man that is a Christian can take away the essential ingredient to the Church, how can any deny this of Assembling? For the practise of it constantly and confidently by the Apo­stles and brethren, contrary to the express will of the Lawful Powers of the Jews and Romans, and the reason given in the Acts of the Apostles of obeying God rather then man, do imply certainly a Law and Charter from [Page 143] God so to do, and if this be granted, as it must, who can deny by the same Rule, necessity of Cause, and constant Prescription, that they may as well provide for the safety of the Faith by securing the state of the Church; as for the truth, and stability of the Church, by securing the true Faith, by doctrine and determination.

The Great question hath ever been, Whether the Church should suffer loss of power and priviledges upon the Supream Powers becom­ming Christian: Or the Supream power it self, loose that domini­on which it had before it became of the Church? For, if Christiani­ty subjected Kings necessarily to the Laws of others, not deriving from them, then were not Kings in so good a Condition after they were Christi­ans as before; when they had no such pretences or restraints upon them: and so should Christs Law destroy, or maim at least, the Law of God, by which Kings reign. But there may be somewhatsaid weakning this absurdity. For Granting this, That there is a God, and that he is to be worshipped, and that as he appointeth (all which we must by nature believe) it seems no less natural to have these observed, than the Laws of natural Dominion. Now granting that at present, which (if we be true to our Religion) we must not deny: viz. That Christian Religion is the true Religion, and that God will be worshipped in such sort as is therein contained; For any Prince absolute, to submit to the essentials of that Religion, is not to loose any thing of his Pristine Rights which he had before being an Heathen (for he never had any Right to go against the Law of God, more then to go against the Law of Nature) but it doth restrain his Acts, and the exercise of his Power. And if the Supream, after he hath embraced Christianity, shall proceed to exert the same Authority over the Church, as before; yet the Church hath no power to resist or restrain him, Civilly; any more than when he was an Alien to it.

Now it being apparent that Christian Faith and Churches had their Forms of believing, and Communion before Soveraign powers were con­verted; and that he, who is truly converted to a Religion, doth embrace it, upon the terms which he there finds, not such as he brings with him or devises; therefore there lies an Obligation upon such powers, to preserve the same, as they found it, inviolate. And truly, for any secular Power to become Christian, with a condition of inverting the orders of the Church, and deluting the Faith, is to take away much more than ordinary accrues unto it by such a change. It is true, the distinction is considerable be­tween the Power of a Christian, and unchristian King, exerted in this manner; because taking the Church in the Largest sense, in which all Christi­ans in Communion are of it, what Christian Kings act with the Church, may, in some sense, bear the name of the Church, as it doth in the State, acting according to their secular capacity, but much more improperly there than here: because there are no inferiour Officers, or Magistrates in such a Com­monwealth, which are not of his founding and institution; whatsoever they do referr to him, and whatsoever almost he doth, is executed by them. But Christ (as we have shewed) having ordained special Officers of his own, which derive not their Spiritual Power at all, from the Civil; and to this end that his Church might be duly taught and governed, what is done with­out the concurrence of these, can in no proper sense bear the name of the Church. But many say, the King is a Mixt person consisting partly of Ecclesiastical and partly Civil Authority: but this taken in the ordinary latitude, is to begg the Question, and more a great deal than at first was de­manded. [Page 144] For who knows how far this Mixture extends, and that it compre­hends not the Mystical Power of the Church, as well as the Political: And how have they proved one more than the other, by such a title? It were reasonable therefore, first to declare his Rights in Ecclesiastical matters, as well as Civil, and thence conclude, he is a Mixt Person; and not to affirm barely he is a Mixt Person, and from thence inferr they know not what Ecclesiastical power themselves. And if he hath such power, whether it is immediately of God annexed to his Natural Right; or, by consent of the Church, is attributed unto him. For by taking this course we may reconcile many otherwise contrary opinions found amongst the Ancient Fathers, sometimes ascribing much of the Ecclesiastical Power to Christian Emperours, and sometimes calling the same in question.

The Church of England, so far as she hath declared herself herein, seemeth to take the mean way, and follow herein the Prescriptions of the Old Te­stament: and the Precedents of Christian Emperors found in the Antient Church, under the Gospel, and doth profess to be the due of our Kings, as much as ever any Kings upon earth, to sway in Ecclesiastical matters. In execution of which power, as there was alwayes approbation modera­ted according to the customes of the Church, so was there always Oppo­sition when the bounds were exceeded. And undoubtedly true is That we are taught by our Church to acknowledge, That whatever in Church Constitutions and Canons Church of England Can. 2. matters was the Right of Jewish Kings, or Christian Emperours of Old, is so now the Right of our Kings.

But some not content herewith have out of the Title of Head given at the first attempts of Reformation to our King, and made by acts of State Hereditary to his successors, drawn an argument to prove all that power which rested in the Church to be devolved on the Kings of this Nation. But this hath ever been disowned and disclaimed in such a large sense by themselves, as appears by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions, and an Act of Par­liament in confirmation whereof: I shall here only recite the opinion or testimony of Bishop Jewel in his view of Pius Quintus his seditious BullBishop Jewel against the Bull of Pius 5th. against her, in these his own word. Where is the called Supream Head? Per­use the Acts of Parliament, the Records, the Rolls, and the Writs of Chan­cery or Exchequer which pass in her Graces name. Where is she ever called Supream Head of the Church? No, No brethren, she refuseth it, she would not have it, nor be so called: Why then doth Christs Vicar blaze and spread a­broad so gross an untruth? &c. This was her Judgement and modesty then when there was greatest cause to apprehend some such thing: and what she thought of it, I never could learn was ever otherwise interpreted by her Successors. For notwithstanding that, according to the most ancient and undoubted Rights of this Emperial Crown, our Kings are supream Go­vernors of the Church as well as State: yet never was it expounded of the Church as they were Ecclesiastical, but as they were of Civil capacity: For herein differeth the Right of Kings according to our Reformation from that of Roman Perswasion. That Clergy men becoming Sons of the Church, in more especial manner than they of the Laity, are not thereby exempted from the Civil Power, either in matter of propertie, or Cri­minalness. But the Roman Church so far exalted and extended their Ec­clesiastical Power, as to withdraw such Persons and their Cases civil from Civil cognizance, and judgement, and assume it to themselves. And this the Pope claiming very injuriously, as Head of the Church: To root up this usurpation, Henry the eight null'd that his pretence, and took the title to [Page 145] himself intending nothing more then to vindicate his Prerogative in that particular.

For though it cannot be denied that many and great Priviledges to this effect, have been of Old granted by Christian Emperours to eminent Bi­shops to judge of their own Sons (as they were called) within themselves: yet did they never claim this, as a Native Right of the Church, or Chri­stianity; but as an act of Grace, from the Civil Power. And though the Church, following therein the Councel of St. Paul, to go to Law rather be­fore1 Cor. 6. 1. the Just, than unjust: and that Christians should rather determine Causes of differences amongst themselves, by arbitration, than scanda­lously apply themselves to the Judgement Seat of Heathen, did ever endea­vour to determine business within it self, and yet more especially, the Cler­gy: Yet they never denied a Right in Civil Autority to call them in que­stion, upon misdemeanours, or to decide their Cases of Civil nature. And for the other, of Divine nature, or purely Ecclesiastical, Princes never expected or desired to intermeddle therewith. This the Roman Deputy of Achaia, Gallio understood, not to concern his Juridical power, whenAct. 18. he refused to be a Judge of such matters, as were esteemed Religious, though in that violence was offered to the body of St. Paul before his face, he might, and ought to have shewn his Autority. But when the Soveraign Power became Christian, it was not thought unlawful at all, nor scandalous to address themselves to it for decision of Controversies. And this is it which is intended to be demanded now by our Kings in their Supremacy, in Cases Ecclesiastical and Civil, and acknowledged by the Clergy of this Church to be his due, without that servile way of seeking leave from the Bishop of Rome, or any under him. Onely where it may be showed that Peculiar Grants of Exemptions from the common course of Justice have been made by Princes to the Clergy of the Church, may it not seem equal that they should enjoy the benefit of them, as well as others, in other Cases.

But nothing is more unreasonable or intollerable then the impudence of those spitefully and malitiously bent against the Religion professed in our Church, who argue from the Kings Supremacy over the Church, such an absolute dominion there, as they will by no means acknowledge due to him in the State. If by Acts of Parliament a thing be confirmed to the Commonwealth, it is lookt on as inviolable by the King; and unalterable without the like solemn Revocation, as was the Constitution: But by vertue of the Ancient Right of the Crown, they would have it believed, the King may at his pleasure alter such solemn Acts made in behalf of the Church. Without the concurrence of the Three Estates nothing is lookt upon as a standing Law to the Civil State: but by vertue of this Suprema­cy Ecclesiastical, they would have it believed that without any more ado, without consent or counsel of the Church, he may make what alteration of Religion he pleases; which was never heard or dreamt of; Yea, and where­as not only his Civil but Ecclesiastical Power always acknowledged the Bounds of common benefit, and extended not to destruction, they would have it thought that he may, when he pleaseth, by vertue of such Headship, destroy the Body of the Church and Religion, and leave none at all, so far at least as the withdrawing of all secular aid and advantage do hasten its ruine. But they will not be of this opinion any longer than they have brought about their mischievous purposes. Surely St. Paul, who had1 Cor. 5. 12. nothing to do at all with State matters, and could not touch one that was [Page 146] without the Church by Ecclesiastical censure, was as much the Head of the Church as ever any Prince in Christendom, doth expressly declare that whatsoever autority he had, it was for the edification and not destruction2 Cor. 10. 8. of the Church. The argument therefore taken from an Hereditary Right in the Crown of England of being Governour and Defendor of our Church to the apparent ruine and destruction of it, we know very well from whence it proceedeth, and whether it tendeth: but where it will end, as yet, God only knows. This we know that Papists are mad when that scoff and reproach which they have constantly put upon both King and Church, from that Title, upon due enquiry makes so little to their purpose. And therefore they will fight with us, with the name only.

CHAP. XXXII.

NAture in all Bodies that have Life casts out of it what ever corrupts, afflicts or oppresseth the same; and by Struglings and contentions endeavours to deliver it self from such noxi­ous humors as would destroy it. And this is the reason men take Vomits, Purges and Sudorificks, that the deadly hu­mour being expelled, the wholesome may prevail, and the Whole be pre­served. There can then be nothing more reasonable or Christian than to put this in practice in Bodies Political or Ecclesiastical. We see how Thieves, Robbers, Murderers, and such like malefactors who are enemies to humane Society, be denied (and that justly) the benefit of that Society against which they have so offended by confinement in Prison or depriva­tion of Life it self, forfeited justly in seeking or acting the ruine of ano­ther. And can any that grants the Communion of Christians to be a Body knit together by its several joints and nerves, and consisting of several Members, deny but the like Evil may befal in its kind, to it, what doth happen to others in another: viz, that some noxious humor of Heresie corrupting the Faith in which, as the Scripture saith of the Blood, is the life of a Christian and the Church it self; may poison it: And some vio­lence of Schism may dissolve or dismember it? And shall not it be allowed the like remedy or means of Cure which are held necessary in like cases? No opinion, how heretical or immoral so ever, is more pernicious to Chri­stian [Page 147] Society than that which absolutely denyes power to the Church to e­ject unsound and tainting members out of it, and to provide for the secu­rity of the Body even by the abscission, and destruction of any one Part infesting it. For this opinion strikes not at one part of the Body, but all; neither at one point of Faith, but all; though not immediately and direct­ly, but indirectly and by consequence. For as upon the fall of the House, the persons within must needs be crusht to death, so upon the dissolution of the outward Frame of the Church, the Faith itself must of necessity in a short time perish, and be reduced to nothing. And therefore, those men of reason (as they would be accounted) give us but little cause to think them better men, than Christians, who affirm rawly and loosely, without qualification or due explication of their mind, that no man is to be cast out of the Church but for something which is necessary to salvati­on, or which Christ doth not require or forbid absolutely: either deny­ing, or not considering (a man can scarce tell which by their works) hereby that Christ, and St. Paul, and our Creed it self require conservation of the unity of the Church, both as a thing admirable in its self, and necessa­ry to the Faith it self. For any man therefore to broach or publish such an opinion as this, That every man may use what Ceremonies he pleases in the publick service of God; or if he pleases he may use none: and this, That the Church hath no power to command or forbid any thing which is not expressed in the Scripture: when as Rules general, and several Examples in Scripture justify the contrary. These I say being contrary, not only to some one Church, but all; even those they would by no means have touched there­by, do no less in their consequence, mischief to the Church, than the de­nial of the Mystery of the Trinity it self; or of Christs incarnation, how­ever I grant they, in their form are nothing, so foul. And therefore I presume to conclude them matter of Excommunication; and so I judge St. Paul doth, where he advises, nay commands in the name of the Lord2 Thes. 3. 6. Jesus Christ (the Thessalonians) to withdraw themselves from every one that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received of us. These tra­ditions, were (as it is here implied) concerning orders of the Church, and manners of Worship: which in all probability are most of them lost to us, St. Paul therefore requiring that whoever did not walk according to those prescriptions delivered by him, should be separated, doth not war­rant the like proceedings now. For tis the very same thing whether the Church withdraws it self, or whether it expells another. When the Israe­lites warned by Moses departed from the tents of the wicked Corah, Dathan, Num. 16. 26 and Abiram (who only walked disorderly not erroneously in the matter of worship, that we read of) and their complices, and touched nothing of theirs, they Anathematized them no less than if they had set them pac­king into remoter parts from the Congregation. Nay, if now-adayes, as lately Sectaries should prevail so far as to possess themselves of all the Pub­lick and Lawful places of Worship, and eject the true Church, they might stand no less legally and Really Excommunicate than if they were thrust formally from thence themselves. For'tis not the place, but the Cause, and the Body from which they are cut, that makes the Excommu­nication just and valid. This we are confirmed in by the same Apostle af­terward. And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, 2 Thes. 3. 14. and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Now St. Paul in this Epistle, had delivered many things not essential in themselves to sal­vation: And where the company of Christians was not great, and their [Page 148] society not formed, and their outward power little or nothing, as in the beginning of all Churches, there it sufficed in liew of Formal excommuni­cation, to withdraw themselves from such troublers of the Church. And this we read further of in St. Paul to the Romans, saying, Now I beseech Rom. 16. 17. you brethren, mark them which cause Divisions and offences contrary to the do­ctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. St. Paul generally in his Epistles not only insists upon unity of Faith but unity of Charity, and outward communion: they therefore that were Authors of unnecessary di­visions are they whom he would have noted and avoided, which when it is done with Publick consent, and sentence is the same in effect with Excom­munication: and therefore breeders of separation, and divisions are no less subject to excommunications than are Hereticks, though they hold nothing directly contrary to the Faith. But if men will say that, What St. Paul did, we may do, and no more, because he did no more, this is invented only to destroy, but will not hold strong enough: because the examples of the Governours of the Church our Rules, are not to be restrained to the very same Cases only, but to them of like general nature. St. Paul justi­fyes by his practice the excluding out of the communion of the Church such as bred causeless contentions and divisions and from hence the succee­ding Governors are justified in doing the like.

For, nothing can be said less to the question in hand than to recite many places out of St. Paul commanding to bear one anothers burdens, and that we should not judge one another; and that the strong should bear with the weak; and such like. For all these Texts speak either of Churches not Formed or constituted, but rather breeding; or of single persons a­mongst themselves coming to Christian Religion with the strong prepossessi­ons of the Excellency of certain Rites before Religiously observed; where­in all Reason, Justice, and Religion require that no man should impose his conceit upon another, without autority. But do we find in any place of the Holy Scriptures that St. Paul denied this Right of Judging, censu­ring, and commanding, to the whole Church? Nothing less, yea nothing more than the contrary, as may more fully appear when we are to speak of Rites and Ceremonies.

But it is commonly (and as they think accutely) said, that they are the Authors of divisions and Schisms, who will not do what they may to pre­vent them. And therefore, if Governours impose more then is necessa­ry to salvation, or Faith, upon others, they must answer for the divisions arising from this.

I may marvel, who before late years, (I may say rather dayes) ever un­derstood the Scriptures in this manner? but they will wonder perhaps again, I should think they are no better interpreters and appliers of Scrip­tures than are to be found in times and societies of old. Let that pass; But so must not their mistake, either of the power of the Church, or the na­ture of Charity, and common Justice. The power of the Church being meerly ministerial and servile as to Christ, and the Rule of all Christianity, the Scripture; but Magisterial in relation to inferiour members, exten­deth only to things of Christian Prudence, and extrinsecal to Faith; and the things uncommanded in Scripture properly (For in other things it is determined without any power to vary from thence;) this done, utterly de­stroyes all Right and Autority, as to outward matters: which they can ne­ver themselves approve of, in the practise, nor have done. But this is not all: for we say, that those Governors are not the cause of Divisions and [Page 149] Schisms who do not suspend and withdraw all Injunctions extrinsecal to Faith, or good life, but they rather who do not receive and obey such as are not contrary to either. This is the state of the controversie then between us; supposing there is Order and Legitimate autority constituted amongst us, whether this is more, or so much bound for peace, and unity sake, to gratifie such as are in their rank, subject in the Lord to them in all things possible, according to the Scripture: or these, on the contrary, are ob­liged to receive and observe all such decrees and constitutions which are indeed much accused and traduced, but cannot be proved to be any wayes contrary to the word of God, or any Analogy of Faith, which is not de­vised by themselves. And granting there were somewhat of Charity in reluxing of the rigour of Orders to be observed; is there not much more of Charity to be expected from them in obeying? How can they so vehement­ly urge that upon others, which they are much more bound to keep and pra­ctise themselves, but never reguard it? Does not Charity much more bind them to obey their Superiours, then their Superiours, them? Nay, can they lay any claim to a thing upon the account of Charity, who deny the same thing upon the account of Justice? Justice, and a debt of obedi­ence flowing from subjection, requires no less than Charity, a compliance of the Wills of the Inferiour with that of the Superiour: But only Chari­ty can be pretended, and that only pretended, where there seems to be an indifference in the thing commanded. For if they betake themselves to the inward temper and bent of particular consciences opposing or appro­ving things, they must needs come off Loosers by such trials. For there will soon be found consciences, on the contrary, that will be as stiff and re­solute for the defense, as theirs are for the abrogations of such indifferent things. No reason is possible to be given, why one conscience may not think as well of them, finding them not forbidden; as another doth, evil, finding them not commanded. For the too vulgar doctrine which teacheth, That what is not commanded is forbidden in Scripture, is as notorious a falsity as any thing can be pretended upon the Scripture. But farther, we absolutely declare against all such tryals of Publick Laws and Customes; as Particular: and especially private consciences; as unjust and unreaso­nable and in trut intollerable, in all Churches. This is the Rule we main­tain and hold to, That nothing ought to be ordained or imposed which may justly offend the conscience, and that is only evil. If therefore, the thing it self be acknowledged, or may reasonably be proved to contain nothing sinfull, (which only may offend the conscience) it is one of those evils which cannot be avoided; and such of which Christ speaketh in the Gospel of St.Luk. 17. [...]1. Luke, It is impossible but that offences will come. For, either the dissenting, or Assenting conscience must suffer: and which should in such cases suffer who should determine, but Autority? Was ever that chosen for a Rule which is infinite in uncertainties? So are mens consciences in particular. But still they are Instant and say, We grant such things may be left undone without prejudice to the Faith. And to the same argument we return the same answer in effect as before, viz, And they grant, they may be done without prejudice to the Faith. But their Case is little less than ridicu­lous, if it be truly considered what they lay down, and what they crave at our hands. For Peace sake (say they) we ought to yield what is not un­lawful, and all indifferent things: As if they much more were not so bound to do. But that we now add is, That there being two Parties diversly con­stituted, yet, as 'tis supposed, differing only in things of a middle nature [Page 150] between Good and Evil. If the one Partie should come unto the other pro­mising to have peace, and be at unity with it, on condition that it would yield all things that they may possibly, to them; were this any more than to say, They would be at peace and unity with them when they became of their mind, did as they would have them, and not differ from them? But I have transgressed I fear on this subject, here at present; which yet is not impertinent altogether, it proving that it is Lawful to Excommunicate such who agree with us in Faith. And the summ of the reason is this, viz. Because there are, as hath been acknowledged on both sides, yea is almost on all sides granted, two things essential to the Church, Doctrine, and Go­vernment, or Discipline, as it is called; to act any thing to the violation of either of these, may justly subject a man to this Ecclesiastical Censure. And however at first sight dissension and opposition to the Rites and practi­ces of a Church may not appear of a mortal nature of themselves, as be­ing perhaps about things in nature alterable, yet in the consequence ma­king a breach in the wall of the City of God, they let in certain ruine and destruction; Thieves and Robers.

And this holds no less to the Justification of the Church in Excommu­nicating refractory and disobedient persons to the Church in her citations: though in truth, the ground of her citation be matter of small moment. It were indeed much to be wish'd, that such severe sentences might not be executed but on occasions of greatest moment, not only for the persons sake so excluded, but the Churches sake, denouncing: whose autority must needs be much weakened, and her sentence much contemned, when upon matters appearing meerly trivial and light, it is inflicted: And therefore most useful it seemeth, That redress of pecuniary pretensions on persons re­lating to Ecclesiastical Courts should not be by Excommunication, but from the Civil Power enabling the Ecclesiastical to exact their dues. But where this is not in use, and where no other means appears of obliging men to reverence and submit to Ecclesiastical Powers, but the punishment Ec­clesiastical; I would fain have such persons, who profess not the utter aboliti­on of such autority and dissolution, propound some other effectual way of keeping up the power and autority of those Courts, besides Excommu­nication, before they declare so smartly against the abuse of it. Lastly, whosoever doth by contempt and disobedience first deny the Churches power and in very deed sever himself from it, can he, or any man of Chri­stian reason or modesty contradict the Churches Act in declaring and for­mally manifesting what was more closely, but really before done by him­self? So far as a man disobeys and opposes the Church, so far is he really separated from it. And to be partly on, and partly off, as some men propound to themselves and please themselves in, thinking it free to choose and leave at their pleasure what their private judgements shall lead them to, is not at all to clear them from the guilt or imputation of Schismatical­ness; For all proper Schismaticks agree in many things with the Church which they trouble and divide. And every Schismatick stands divided from the Church. And may not the censure of the Church by Excommunica­tion most reasonably at least follow a mans own Act; and declare that to be so which himself hath made so; especially not only thereby, or so much punishing the Offendor as securing the innocent and sound by such notice from the like contagion? Doth not St. Paul cleerly imply so much, whenGal. 5. 12. he saith to the Gallatians, I would they were even cut off that trouble you? How did these intruders and seducers so trouble the Church as to deserve [Page 151] such Excision or Cutting off? By two things principally, one whereof follows in the next verse, by a presumption of such Christian Liberty which was never intended by Christ for his Church. Another was in pointGal. 1. 6, 7. of doctrine, innovating rather in form than words. For it was not another doctrine of the Gospel that was offered to these green and unstable Chri­stians, but another Form, the easier to prevail upon their Consciences, and to alienate them from their true Pastors. Such as these would the Apostle have Cut off: and therefore very false and frivolous is that ground of Socinian Extract, mentioned in the beginning, viz. That nothing which in it self hinders not salvation, can give just occasion of Excommunica­tion.

I do not here (as many) insist much upon the words of Christ in St. Mat­thew, whereby he warrants a man to account him, as Heathen and publi­can,Math. 18. 15, 16, 17. who shall refuse to hear the Church arbitrating, and judging within it self; because I am of their opinion who expound this not of excommu­nication from the Church, but of a freedom granted to a man to go to the humane Civil Power, for justice against such a brother, as if he were no better than a Heathen and Publican, who will not listen to the voice and judgement of the Church. Yet surely this intimates a power in the Church to determine, and a duty in the members of it, to submit unto the Judge­ment of it: and if a private man may treat one of his brethren as he would a heathen, in some cases, may not the Church? This is the least we can honestly make of Christs Charter given to the Church by St. Peter, inMat. 16. 19. the same Gospel, I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoe­ver thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

But consideration and limitation of this grievous censure is not to be o­mitted, according to diversity of Persons, Relations, and the Causes gi­ven; from whence I suppose arose the distinction of Major and Minor or Greater and Lesser Excommunication, of ancient use in the Church. And Anathema and Excommunication according to the Ancient differ. For, Excommunication is nothing else but a denunciation of a person aliena­ted from the Communion of the Church, in the mysteries and worship proper to Christians: And this we may take to be the Lesser Excommuni­cation: but Anathema, or the Greater Excommunication, besides exclu­ding from Christian Communion, added a Curse corporal, which the Scripture calls properly, a Delivering unto Satan, as well for the destru­ction of Body as Soul. Thus was that incestuous person excommunica­ted by St. Paul: For the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be1 Cor. 5 [...]. 5. saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. For though we say, that this Anathema was to the destruction of the flesh, we mean only Actually, as in that state: but the end of that was rather the Salvation of it; by such out­ward judgements reducing the offender to repentance. This Anathema upon the body by plaguing it, being miraculously inflicted, hath ceased. But yet not all bodily punishments with it, taking here bodily punish­ments, not only for bodily pains, but bodily and outward losses. Of this sort may be those separate men from all Civil Communion with Chri­stians, denying them all outward conversation, as well as spiritual, in mat­ters of Religion. Now this seems to be a branch of the Old Greater Ex­communication, and not in all places disus [...]d. And sometimes is unlawful, and otherwhile lawful, according to the extent and application of them. For, to inflict the same to the dissolving of ties of nature, is not agreeable [Page 152] to the simplicity of the Gospel. And Natural Ties we call such as are be­tween Subjects and Soveraign, Parents and Children, Husband and Wife, which by no Ecclesiastical Excommunication can be broken or nulled: The reason whereof, besides the monstrous effects ensuing upon their evacu­ation, not here to be treated of, is this, That Ecclesiastical Power can take away no more than it gave; nor Christianity destroy what it never buil­ded. But Christianity did never simply confer such Rights on men, but the Law of Nature; only it regulated and directed the same, therefore can it not null it: It is therefore unchristian, for any pretending Ecclesiastical Power, to absolve subjects from obedience Civil, or Children from natu­ral, and the like. But every Christian in that he is adopted of God by baptism, and admitted into the Society of Christians, doth receive there­by certain Rights and power to communicate with it in all things: which power may be forfeited and lost by breach of Covenant, as well with the Body of the Church, to live and believe according to the Received Faith and practice thereof, as with the Head Christ. And this being so judged by those who are over the Church in the Lord, it is very consonant to Christian Religion, to deny such, of what order or rank soever they be, the signs of outward communion, Prayer and Communication of the Ho­ly Sacraments of Christ. The Church hath power to declare even sove­raign Princes uncapable of such Communion, and deny it them: which we call the Lesser Excommunication. Yet because (as we said) No natural Right can be extinguished, upon unchristian misdemeanours, If a Supream Prince of a Place should disdain to be denied or opposed in such cases, and would make his entrance into the Church by vertue of his Civil Right to all places under his Dominion, the most that the Church could do, justly in such cases, were to diswade him, but by any force to resist his entrance into any Church, were unlawful; as it would be also to minister in a Chri­stian manner in his presence: for this cannot be commanded by him: but in such cases suffering must be put in practice, as for the Faith it self sought to be destroyed

Some there are yet who call in question the peculiar and incommunica­ble Right of decreeing this Censure of Excommunication, to those called the Clergy: which is very strange, seeing this Power is part of that of the Keys delivered by Christ himself to such only as he constituted Governors of the Church; and that in Christs days their was a distinction between the Members of his Body, as to Inferiority and Superiority; Obedience, and Command; Teacher, and Learner; and much more in the Apostles days, after Christs Assention; and much more yet, after their days, ac­cording as the matter of the Church (Christians encreasing and improving) became more capable of a more convenient form and fashion. For as it is in the production of natural things, though the Form be certain and con­stant, and the very same at the first production, as in its perfection, yet it doth not appear so fully and perfectly as afterward: So was it with the Body of Christs Church: It is certain therefore, that from the begin­ning, this Act of Excluding from the Communion was never executed but by the Rulers and Presidents of Congregations, though the people might concurr thereto. Now that these Rulers whom we may call Bishops or Pres­byters were not created by the People, nor by the Prince, we have shew­ed already, and therefore did nothing in their Right, but in the Power of Christ whose Ministers alone they properly were: And this being essential to right Administration of the Church, how can it be supposed either to [Page 153] be separable from the Church in General, or from those persons who are the proper Administrators of it. For to say with some, It is needlessSelden de Jure Gentium apud Bibliander apud Erastum. wholly where Christian Magistrates rule, whose proper office it is to re­buke and punish vice, and scandalous misdemeanors; which, say they, can only be just cause of Excommunication; is to destroy the subject of the question, which supposes it needful, and upon this, enquires after the Persons which should Execute the same. And spitefully to defeat the Church of all Authority from Christ; doth indeed translate this Power to the Civil Magistrate. And is not the absurdity the very same which en­dowes the Christian Governor with Civil Power, and which endows the Civil Magistrate with Christian? If it be not absurd for a King to be a Philosopher, it is not absurd for a Philosopher to be a King. If it be not absurd for a Civil Magistrate to have Priestly power, it is not ab­surd for him that hath Priestly power to be a Magistrate. There is certain­ly no inconsistency on either side: For things of a far different nature and intention may easily meet in the same person, though the things themselves can never be the same. Here therefore, the things differing so egregiously, it is no more than nacessary that a different cause be acknowledged necessa­ry, which not appearing, the Effect must be denied. Now the Cause of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as Ecclesiastical, must needs come from him, from whom the Church it self hath its Original and being: And it is a cer­tain Rule that a man is born to nothing, that comes from Christ as Head of his Church, but is made and instituted. Which whoever is not, cannot lay any just claim to any Office under him.

I know it is objected, that Preaching being an Ecclesiastical Act, hath wi­thout contradiction been practised by diverse, and to this day may be, no ordination preceeding. To which I thus answer, by distinguishing first between doing a thing Ex Charitate and Ex Officio, out of Charity and out of duty Preaching was ever permittedin the Church (especially taken in the larger sense wherein it signifies all declaration of the Gospel) out of Charity: But the office of Preaching was never suffered, but upon an­tecedent qualifications. And these two differ yet farther: For he that doth a thing out of Office, doth it so that it is not lawful for him absolute­ly to omit it: but he that doth it out of Charity and only by connivance, not by commission, may cease at his pleasure, and as he made, may suspend himself when he will. Again, he that teaches without Autority upon bare permission, nay be silenced without any other cause renderd, but the will of him that hath the Jurisdiction: or if a reason be given, because, He hath no autority, is sufficient. But he that is orderly instituted to that end, cannot without injustice and Tyranny be denied the exercise of that which pertains to him.

Now the Key of Knowledge and the Key of Jurisdiction, of which the Power of the Keys delivered by Christ consists, and into which it is com­monly divided, are very different. For the first doth but open the door to the others, and prepares and qualifies a person for the other, but doth no more actually give power or autority, than the great skill and experi­ence of a Souldier makes him a Captain, to command others: or know­ledge in the law, makes a man a judge actually. It is therefore the Key of Jurisdiction or a Right given by Christ to administer the Church, and e­very member thereof, that is principally to be acknowledged in this Case: And which not being found to descend orderly from Christ, no effect of that affected power can be acknowledged. But, as is said, doth not des­cend [Page 154] naturally, or by birth, but Judicially, from others. In which manner who ever receives it not, sacrilegiously murps what belongs not to him.

But they who would wring this power out of the hands of the Church,Selden de Sy­nedriis. Lib, 1. Cap. 9. do give us certain Presidents as well from the Jewish Church, wherein there was (it should seem) a custom that one Person might excommunicate ano­ther, when he pleased. But the same Antiquaries tell us also, that it was in use amongst them for a man to excommunicate himself. And this I take to imply an answer to the former. For it is in the power of any man to se­parate himself from the Church, or any other Society materially, and Re­ally: but Judicially, and Formally, he cannot: neither can he separate another, otherwise than by absenting himself from the Communion of the Church: he may, indeed, as formally pronounce such a censure against himself, or an other as the most Canonical Judge in the world; but intrin­sique power being wanting, the outward Act turns to smoak, as to others; but as to himself, has no other effect then he that is in a boat hath upon the earth against which he sets his oar, and thrusts hard, but puts himself off, not the earth: as our neighbouring Ministers did when with intollerable and incredible presumption, they took upon them to Excommunicate their own Bishops; and some of the transmarine Churches of the same Plat­form, were so wise as to allow their Fact.

And to the Instances of some Princes whom Histories affirm to have Ex­communicatedId. ibid. certain persons; the Answer is, That the word Excommu­nication hath deceived the reporters and appliers thereof to this Case: For according to signification of that word, both in the Latin and Greek lan­guage, Excommunication or [...] is the declaration by Publick HerauldSuidas in [...] Item [...] of any guilty Person to be excluded, or banished the Princes Court or Company, or perhaps Dominions: Thus many have been Excommunica­ted by Soveraign Princes. But can any instances be given of such as with­out any further Act of the Church, have been thereupon denied Communi­on with the Church.

And what we say of Excommunicating, holds good likewise in the Po­wer of Absolution: which the same Persons allow to meer secular Powers, and would prove from an Act of Constantine the Great his absolving Euse­bius Bishop of Nicomedia. Constantine (we all know) had but little know­ledge in the Rites of the Church, at that time, and might attempt he knew not what, as soon as any other man, whose affection to Christianity far exceeded his Judgement: But what is affirmed of Constantines Act? That he Restored that Excommunicated person to the Communion of the Church: (which only is properly Absolution) No surely, but he might restore him to his See, and that is all: Or if more were done, he might be said to do it, who caused, by the interposition of his Power, some Bishop of the Church to free him from those Eonds.

But questionless that is none of the least corruptions which the Church of Rome stands guilty of, and which our Church hath but too much conni­ved at, that the Power of Excommunication should be in the hands of Lay men. To mend this a little, they of the Roman Law, distinguish that which by no means should be separated, curing one absurdity by another:Anastafius Germbnius de Sacrorum: Im­munitat. For they distinguish Episcopal Order, from Episcopal Jurisdiction: and say a man that hath not Episcopal Order, but Episcopal Jurisdiction, may Excommunicate: a vile and corrupt imagination brought in on purpose to serve the turns of ambitious, secular, and sacrilegious Drones who [Page 155] would drive two trades, of secular advantage, and Ecclesiastical Profits. For there is nothing so Essential unto Episcopacy as Jurisdiction (I mean an Habitude and Right to Preside and Rule,) and there can be no Episcopal power without that; nor that without Episcopal Charactar: Officers in­deed there may be under him, void of that Charactar or any Priestly: be­cause though the Court be properly Ecclesiastical, yet all things are not so which are acted therein. Judicial Acts, and Acts of Notaries and of Execu­tions are competible to unordain'd persons, because Gifts of nature and Learning may capacitate a man to them: but that of Jurisdiction properly so called, is the intrinsique Right of the Pastour of the Church: and this of Excommunication annext thereunto, or rather a part of it. And therefore, he is not a Bishop, that hath it not, and he that hath it, is a Bishop. It is not indeed necessary that this should be denounced by a Bishop, but that this power which is likewise inherent in a Priest as a Priest, be committed to him, after the decree made by the Bishop. For the Priest having a Jurisdiction within himself, by vertue of his place and office, but restrained by the Superiour Power to him; the Jurisdiction and Autority of the Bishop is seen sufficiently in this, that it enables a Priest to do that which of himself he ought not to do: and this is rather exciting an old power in the Priest, then infusing a new, giving right to it to exert it self which before it had not. But Lay-men having no Ec­clesiastical Charactar inherent in them, cannot by any such general com­mission given them from the Bishop, act effectually to that end for want of the due Principle: this Licence of the Bishop being nothing else, but removing of that Obstacle which hinders it to work where it was. For to deliberate, debate, and Judge of causes and persons subject to Ex­communication, may possibly be better performed by such who have attained to that science, without any order in the Clergy, but the fact it self is quite of another nature.

CHAP. XXXIII.

HAving thus spoken of the Political Power of the Church, which we so call because it imitates that which is so more pro­perly called in directing the visible Body of the Church to its proper end, as the Pilot doth the ship to its proper Ha­ven, and hath both Visible Acts and Effects; We are now to treat of that Power, We, in distinction to that other, do call Mystical: be­cause the End and Effect thereof is not outward or visible: but inward, spiritual, and Mysterious: and therefore also call it Sacramental, Sacra­ment and Mystery being the same in the Original Phrase of the New Testa­ment. For to the Church, as they are more peculiarly called, who are Officers in the same, doth it, of Right, appertain to celebrate these Myste­ries. Wherefore, first we shall speak of the Sacraments in General, as the manner is, and then in Particular.

The word Sacrament is rather of Gentile than Christian original, there being no word in the New Testament proper to it, but the vulgar Transla­tionSacramentum est invisibilis gratiae invisi­bilis forma; ita ut ejus si­militudinem­gerat, et cau­sa existat. Gulielmus An­tissiodorensis. Sum. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. thinking fit to render Mystery, Sacrament, in Latin, the Antienter Latin Church hath made use of it to express certain Mysterious Rites of sacred and necessary use in the Church of God: about which word so long since received, no contention ought to be had. The Nature, Number, Mi­nister and Use of them deserving principal enquiry.

A Sacrament is defin'd (as is commonly known) by St. Augustine, a Vi­sible sign of an Invisible Grace, which being taken rigorously, seemeth not to comprehend the whole nature of it: therefore Antissiodorensis would have its defect supplied, thus. A Sacrament is a visible form of an Invisible Grace, whereof it is also the Cause. But considering the many and sharp disputes upon this subject, I suppose it may be more fully described to be A visible sign ordained by God to produce an invisible effect of Grace in the soul of Man. This definition may be collected from the several parts of it, con­tained in the word of God: as first, from St. Paul to the Romans speaking of Circumcision, a prime Sacrament given by God to Abraham and his seed. And he received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness Rom. 4. 11. of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised. For there are three special properties of a Sacrament commonly acknowledged, To Signifie, To Seal, To Effect Grace: but in strickness of speech these make but two Acts. For, either a Thing doth barely signify and declare another, or it concurreth [Page 157] to the being of another, where things are Related one to another. For seals are no more than signs binding more firmly to the fulfilling of the con­tents of an Instrument or Conveyance. For as in such Cases, the Free good will of the Donour, is the only cause of an inheritance given; the Instrument of Conveyance consisting of so many words are the signs of the inward will, the seals are but signs of the signs of words, that is, an assurance that what was signified in the said Instrument, should hold good. And the Actual Delivery of this is the immediate Cause of entring into possession or enjoyment of this Gift. In like manner, The word of God promising his Graces to us, signifies the will of God to that end: The Sa­craments superadded do likewise sensibly signifie unto us the earnest God is in, when he made promises unto us, as Seals. And the actual exhibiting of these signs or seals on Gods Part by his Proxy or Ministers, and the due receiving of them on our Part, do put us into a fruition of those things which were so signified and promised. First then, They must be a sign, that is, a Representation of a thing and not the thing it self, and that to add to our knowledge and Faith: for if there were no agreement between the thing signifying, and the thing signified, the word of God alone had suffi­ced to that end. Secondly, they must be ordained of God, For if no man, in common justice, can give away another mans estate, but the true owner of it; how should it be possible, or equal, or credible, that any other besides God himself the Owner of his graces, should by instruments of his own forging convey such heavenly benefits to mankind, which proper­ly belong to God; This were supream folly and presumption to attempt. Or can any man know Gods mind or methods of working before he hath revealed them? Therefore it is said that God gave Abraham the Sign and Seal of Circumcision. Thirdly, they must rather be ordained Arbitrarily of God, and by special Institution, then Naturally; least the Free Grace of God therein contained should suffer, and the effect be ascribed rather to natural than supernatural Causes. For though the cutting off of the foreskin of the flesh, by explication, intimate the cutting off of the filth of the Soul: yet naturally it could not be so well understood: And God might, if he had pleased, ordained the cutting off of the tip of the ear, to serve the same ends. And so in baptism, Water doth naturally cleanse bodily filthiness, but without notice given of Gods will and grace, it could never have been believed possible to affect the soul, and purify it. Fourthly, as there must be some agreement between the thing signifying and signified, there must also be a real difference in their nature. For no­thing in nature or reason can signify it self, because nothing can be clearer than it self: For when a thing is obvious to our senses or otherwise appa­rentSicut Signum et res ipsa a­liquando possint esse diversa, ita saepenumero et in multis eadem esse possunt: Tun­stal. 9. de Eu­charistia fol: 16. we do not say, we have a sign of such a thing; but the thing it self. Yet this most certain Rule is sought to be bafled, and overthrown by Cavillers; who would bring in their false doctrine of the Eucharist, and would shew from bread on a Stall or Cloath which signifies bread and Cloath as well as is bread and Cloath, that the same body of Christ may be a sign of it self. But their attempts in their Instance fail them because that Bread which is exposed to be sold, or that Cloath, is not a sign of it self, viz. That it is cloath or bread; but is so only: but it is only a sign that either it is to be sold, which is quite another thing from Cloath it self, or it is a sign of other cloath which doth not appear. And so the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a sign of that Body which doth appear, but of that which doth not appear. And therefore, a Fifth condition of a Sacrament is, That it [Page 158] should visibly signify something invisible and spiritual. Lastly that Sa­craments are to be not only significant, or (which comes to the same) Sea­ling; but efficacious in themselves upon the souls of men: which may de­serve further explication.

A thing may be said in its self efficacious, though it doth not attain the proper end of its working; it misses of its effect, because the conditions required are not kept. For fire it self, as active and operative an Ele­ment as it is, doth not work effectually upon any thing but its proper mat­ter, nor upon that, at too great a distance. So may it be with the Sacra­ments, which though indeed they are the power of God, and not of na­ture, unto salvation, yet through some defect in the object, or indisposi­tion, may fail of their proper and wonted Effect: but not from any insuffi­ciency in themselves, or indignity of the Minister of them.

For, if in this sense that old barbarous Rule be taken, viz. That Sacra­ments have their virtue Ex Opere Operato, viz. From the work done i. e. that they are Efficacious means of Grace in themselves, and their vertue doth not depend upon the Ministers unworthines, or worthiness, provi­ded he doth work according to Christs institution and intention, it is true: For what St. Paul speaks of the Ministers of the Gospel, is true of the Ministers of the Sacraments, Not that we are sufficient of our selves to think 2 Cor. 3. 5. any thing as of our selves, but our sufficiency is of God. The Officers of God in the delivering of these means of salvation not swerving from the Rule and Prescription given by God, these Instruments themselves have their due and proper effect. As when a King of his Free Grace sendeth by a leud and vain fellow a Grant of some great Favour to any of his subjects, whom he pleaseth to raise out of a poor and base estate to riches and honour, 'tis not the unworthiness or wickedness of the bearer, so long as he is true in his Office, that can void the Grant, so neither can the evil manners of the Ministers of the word and Sacraments, null the power and promises of God made in them.

But though evil manners and vitiousness of the person do not corrupt or destroy the nature and end of the Sacrament, yet it is believed that the actual aversation of the mind of him who consecrates and administers, not only not intending actually to Consecrate, but actually intending not to consecrate, may evacuate the whole Action. But this is shown by the for­mer example to be very false, because still God hath inserted his will, and annexed his promises to the thing it self, and not to the Persons disposition or indisposition either of understanding, or manners. It is true, some of the Antients have said that Intention is necessary to a Sacrament, and this hath given occasion to that gross Error in the Church of Rome; which hath mistaken the intention of such Fathers as have spoken of Intention. For Intention is twofold: The Intention of Christ or God, and the Inten­tion of Man or the Minister; They may say that Intention is necessary to a Sacrament taking their Intention for the will and mind of God: which if it be not observed in all necessary thing, (at least the Sacrament) is not perfect or valid: but if it be, whatever mans intention be, it hinders not, the Sacrament is the same. And whereas they would sos [...]en this harsh, and moderate this erroneous doctrine, by distinguishing of Intention in the Priest, into Actual, Habitual, and Vertual: First, we may well except against this distinction it self, because they are forced in the explication of it to make Habitual and Vertual Intention the same, in all material things, only they cause them to differ, in that, Habitual is only a general intention with­out [Page 159] any actual consideration at the time of Consecration, of what they are about. Vertual, that there is at the entrance upon that Action, an act­ual purpose to do what Christ and the Church intended should be done, at that time; but this passeth a way suddenly, and all the remaining Action is performed by vertue of that first good thought. But this cannot serve the turn; For the form of the Sacrament consisting chiefly in the words of Consecration, according to their own doctrine, if such an Intention be wanting at that time, there can be no consecration, and if no consecrati­on, no Sacrament. So that there are two notorious inconveniences follow­ing upon this Error; the one, that the most sacred and Comfortable In­struments of Gods Grace and our Salvation are left to the lusts of maliti­ous and vain man to be bafled at his pleasure, and the Communicant defea­ted of the blessings God hath consigned to him thereby. Another that upon supposition that the Sacraments were duly administred, and so by consequence effectual to their proper ends; yet this being not certainly known to the Partaker thereof, his mind must be in perpetual disturbance and conflict, fearing that the Priest had an inward intention contrary to the outward appearance. But they say, there is at least a Moral certainty. And what is a Moral certainty? Can they tell? They have not yet. And all I suppose they can say is no more then to make it a good degree of Pro­bability; which will not serve this Case. But in truth, many Cases fall out so that there is that they call a Moral Certainty on the contrary: when spite and malice boll high in the breasts of men, and their happiness consists in doing all the mischief they can to them they malign, which we know by several Instances, is not seldom found in those Countryes where this doctrine flourishes most: And to what they are wont here chiefly to oppose; That there can be no probability of an effect where the cause is not real but jocular, ludicrous, and Histrionical (as it must be where there is no intention but only a fiction of doing a thing) as if one in mockery, upon the Stage, should baptize one, in derision of the Faith and Church of Christ: We answer, That if this Ludicrous Acti­on be so fictitious, and false that the thing only seems to be done, but is not done; and one seems to be baptized, but is not: It matters not what his intention may be: For we now suppose the thing to be done as Christ and the Church intends. For if this be wanting, surely nothing is really performed: But the question is whether when the thing is really done, saving the due intention, this defect voids all the rest. For let an Officer of a King mock what he pleases, and act what he pleases in scorn and derision of the thing he hath in Charge to deliver, and declare it is contrary to his resolution to deliver it, yet if he really doth deliver it, his contrary purposes and actions cannot hinder the effect, nor the benefit accruing from thence. For as St. Paul saith, Neither he that 1 Cor. 3. 7. planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth is any thing, but God who giveth the encrease. We see this in marriage more apparently than in other Sa­craments (if we may call this a sacrament, of which by and by) that, let the Minister intend what he pleases, nay the Parties Jest with that Sacred Rite never so lightly, if there be a performance of such things as are out­wardly required to that solemnity, it holds good to all intents and purpo­ses, even against the resolutions of the persons principally concerned there­in. Yet must we acknowledge a vast difference between those two most properly called Sacraments: Baptism, and the supper of the Lord. For undoubtedly, where in either of these there is a repugnancy of the will to [Page 160] them, their effect is nothing upon the person receiving them: because this is the principal obstacle of all to the efficacy, yet is the Sacrament never the less valid, and, truly performed as to the Nature of it.

And concerning the Efficacy of the Sacraments it is worth our enquiry; especially for their sakes who ascribing very injudiciously and injurious­ly, the Grace of Sanctification and Justification absolutely to a special Faith, thought of but lately amongst Christians; or to the unsearchable Decree of Almighty God, to justifie and save such persons as are ordain­ed to Life and Salvation, affirm this Decree and good purpose of God to effect all things necessary to salvation; and that the Sacraments are recei­ved only as so many pledges and seals of the good will of God in our Ju­stification and Salvation, long before concluded immutably towards us; but are of no efficacy, or vertue to bring them about. This, thoughCalvin. Cartwright. Perkins. plainly and directly asserted by some eminent Reformers, is no better than a pestilent Errour; contrary to all Antiquity of Ecclesiastical and Scriptural Writers: Of which latter, it suffices to instance in those ob­vious places which directly inferra necessity of them, and ascribe a ver­tue to them, of effecting, and not only signifying Grace, or sealing it un­to us. For Matthew the 3. v. 11. St. John distinguishing his BaptismMat. 3. 11. from the Baptism of Christ, assureth, that Christ should Baptize with the Holy Ghost, and not only with Water. Now if water alone signifies, or seals (for there is no such great difference between these as commonly is supposed) and therefore the Baptism that Christ used having more in it than so, it follows that it must be the efficacy and grace of the Holy Spirit. And they, who take notice of this argument to answer, that the difference between Johns Baptism and that of Christ here prophesied of, consists in this, That Johns was an outward washing, Christs an inward, doth confirm what I said: For surely this inward, being invisible, can be no outward sign or seal, whose natures are to be visible and apparent. And therefore it must be that Baptism of Grace wrought in the inward man. And doth Christ when he saith, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth, and is Baptized, Mark. 16. 16. shall be saved, doth he mean no more than, It is a sign he shall be saved? Or he hath his salvation, which came onely by believing sealed unto him? Or, are they not rather equally conjoyned to the same effect, Salvation? So that no more can a man expect to be saved by believing without being Baptized, than he can by being Baptized without believing. And this is manifest from the Baptism of Infants, which puts tham into a state of salvation, even before actual faith in them.

Again, Being born of Water and the Holy Ghost, of which ChristJohn. 3. 5. speaks in St. John (meaning thereby Baptism) must needs be more than certain indications and signs of life. Christ sayes there expresly, we are born by Water, and not that we are known to be born by Water only. And where as Calvin with diverse followers of the Reformation, presume to in­terpret this Water, as elswhere Fire, of the Holy Ghost, and not of the proper Element Water; I make no scruple to accuse them of extreme in­solence for so doing; as well, because they needlesly, and more immo­destly oppose the unanimous consent of the Ancient Interpreters expoun­ding it of Water-Baptism, than I do contradict them, whom I alwayes set in a lower form to them: as also, because the thing it self declares the contrary sense to be more agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost. For, Water and the Holy Ghost are put here, not exegetically (as they speak) but distinctly as two several things concurring to the same end. For, though [Page 161] John in St. Matthew addeth to the Holy Ghost, Fire, as Water is in S. John, Acts 2. 3. seeing there is found a real and proper verification of this baptism of fire which was at the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles and Disciples were visited with fiery Tongues from above, there is no necessity of fleeing to a meer metaphor: and if there be none here, there is none in that place where water is joyned with the Holy Ghost: And reading no where, that even the Holy Ghost appeared in the likeness of water, we are constrained to take this properly, of external water.

Furthermore, when an effect is ascribed to a thing, why should we make doubt to ascribe an efficacie or agencie to that reputed Cause? But to Bap­tism is ascribed remission of sins, as Acts 2. 38. Repent ye (saith St. Peter)Acts 2. 3 [...]. and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, &c. And elsewhere in the Acts, God commandeth St. Paul, Arise Acts 22. 16. and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. Can any thing but a fond partiali­ty to the new glosses of Modern Divines, incline any man to think other­wise of Baptism here, than of force to take away sins? Here they demand with a Passion, What? Ex Opere Operato? From the work of Baptism done? I answer; The work done of it self is not thus efficacious, as is said; but the Co-operation of the Holy Spirit, which God hath set over that work, and its influence, effecteth thus much.

Lastly, The Introducers and Defenders of this opinion of the ineffectu­alness of the Sacraments, allowing an efficacie to excite and nourish Faith, (which with them does all things) why should they be so nice and timorous in granting another effect of the same nature? For to encrease and confirm Faith, being a spiritual effect, is as much in nature, as washing away sins, or communicating new Graces? I see no difference, worth the noting, be­sides that from themselves; and an illaudable pronity to vary from Tra­dition expounding holy Writ, where wit and wantonness of Judgment can find the least footing to stand out against Antiquity.

But whereas some argue for the efficaciousness of Baptism, and the other Sacraments out of Reason; and some out of Reason argue against it; it is hard to see how either side can attain their ends; seeing whatever efficacy the Sacraments have, they derive from the Institution of God: which Insti­tution can be no otherwise known to us then from his word, and therefore, as Divine reason proceeding upon Scripture grounds may inform us, we may conclude, and no otherwise: Wherefore they argue very prophane­ly, and according to Scripture grounds, ridiculously, who talk of Aqua­quula, a Little water, as if for want of that God should suffer a soul to pe­rish; or for want of a Little morsel of bread, and a drop or two of wine, men should perish everlastingly. As if it were not a mercy of God to save some, and that by the contemptiblest things in the world, and such as his illuminable power and wisdom should choose, rather than rigour in bind­ing us to them; or to be authours of our own ruin. But to protract a disputation to prove that the efficacy of the Sacraments can arise from the Work it self; thinking thereby that it must follow that they are not at all efficacious, as some very learned men have done, is rather to be pitied than persecuted. For no otherwise do we ascribe vertue to them, Ex opere O­perato, but as it is opposit to Opus operantis, meaning that the instrumental things, the Sacraments, have not their sufficiencie or efficiencie from the Instrumental Persons, the Ministers of them, but that these doing the work required of them by the Ordainer, the efficacie follows, and yet not abso­lutely from the work, but from the will of God.

CHAP. XXXIV.

MORE contention hath afflicted the Church of God in the disquisition of the number, than nature of the Sacraments. First then, for methods sake, We shall divide them into Le­gal and Evangelical. Legal Sacraments were those outward Signs and Rites which God ordained to Abraham and his Seed, as Instances and Notices of the Covenant made between him and them. And therefore it will not be improper nor unseasonable to inter­rupt a little the immediate prosecution of the Sacraments, and treat of the Covenants God hath made with man, as well New as Old: seeing all the Sacraments, as well Jewish as Christian, relate to those Covenants.

A Covenant is nothing else but an Agreement solemnly made between two distinct Parties, with Conditions mutually to be observed: as in that between Laban and Jacob, That the one should not pass over, that leap to the Gen. 31. 52. other for harm. So likewise between God and Man, a Stipulation and Re­stipulation is made that the one should perform the part of a Patron and Lord, and the other of a faithful Servant to him.

This Covenant is but twofold in general, however it be diversified ac­cording to the several occasions of revealing the same. The first was pro­perly a Covenant of Nature; the second, of Grace. The Covenant of Na­ture was first made with Adam at his creation, wherein was bestowed on him, not only such Faculties and Perfections of Being as necessarily tend­ed to the natural perfection of man; but super-added certain supernatu­ral Graces which might dispose him with facility to fulfill the Law and Will of God: Notwithstanding which, he disobeying God, forfeited those more special aids and accomplishments, and so dissolved that Cove­nant.

God proceeded not upon faithless man according to the rigour of his Justice; but out of his free inscrutable favour inclined to renew a Cove­nant with him again, and that was in a third Person, not with false man im­mediately as before. And this Person, through whom he thus covenant a second time with man, was the Man Christ Jesus: and then these three are no more Covenants really. Yet because this second, of sending his Son as a Mediatour between God and Man, had such different Forms and Faces [Page 163] upon it, according to the several Oeconomies or Dispensations it pleased God to make to man, it is often in holy Scripture distinguished into the Old Covenant and the New: As by St. Paul to the Galatians, saying; These Gal. 4. 24. two are the two Covenants—The one from Mount Sinai; the other from Mount Sion or Jerusalem. And to the Hebrews; If the first Covenant Hebr. 8. 7. had been faultless, then should no place have been found for the second. Where he spake of the Covenant of Moses, and that of the Gospel.

But there was a more early Covenant made with Abraham: when God promised to him the Land of Canaan, and to his Seed: But both these agree in the same, in that they are tearmed Covenants of Works: not that they were so made that they only required working, and the second part, believing, which was under the Gospel: For this Covenant made with A­braham and Moses peculiarly to the Israelites, did suppose the first solemn Covenant of Faith in the promised Seed of the Woman, which should break the Serpents head: And therefore this was not another from that, but as a Codicil annext in order to some special Promises and Privi­ledges made over to the Seed of Abraham, upon tearms not common to all mankind. Such as were temporal blessings, and particularly the inheri­tance of the Land of Canaan. But that which is often called the New Co­venant, or the Covenant of the Gospel, is according to the substance of an ancienter date than that made either with Abraham or Moses; being the same which was made with Adam the second time in Paradise. But is cal­led the New Covenant, because it appeared but newly in respect of its dress and clearer revelation, at Christs appearing: And therefore St. John excellently expresses this, when he seemeth to speak on both sides, saying, Brethren; I write no new Commandment to you, but an old Commandment, 1 Joh. 2. 7, 8. which ye had from the beginning: the old Commandment is the Word which ye have heard from the beginning. Again, a new Commandment I write un­to you, which thing is true in him and in you: signifying unto us in what sense the Gospel was new, and in what, Old. It was new in comparison of the more conspicuous manifestation of it: it was old in respect of its Or­dination. For to this end, the Apostle to the Colossians speaking of the Gospel, calleth it the Mystery which hath been hid from ages, and from ge­nerations, Coloss. 1. 26. but now is made manifest to his Saints, &c.

But the nature of this Covenant, and the vulgar confusions made in trea­ting of the Old and New, will more clearly appear from a short consi­deration of the Agreement and Differences between these two Cove­nants.

And the first Agreement is that we now have insinuated, that the sub­stance of them both was the same. Secondly, they agree in their Author. For, contrary to some ancient Hereticks, the same God was the Author of the Old, who was Author of the New Law. Thirdly, they agree in the Principal Minister and Mediatour of both, which was Christ Jesus: who is therefore said to be the same yesterday, to day, and for ever, becauseHebr. 13. 8. both before the Law, and under the Law, and after the Law of Moses, Christ was the same Mediatour. Fourthly, they were one as to their end, which next to the ultimate of All, was the glory of God, was the salvati­on of the observers of them: obedience unto Gods will being the most immediate. Fifthly, they agree, In that neither of them was immediately given of God, but both in the hand of a Mediatour between God and Man, as the Apostle witnesseth of the Old Law, in his Epistle to the Galatians, Gal. 3. 19, 20. It was ordained by Angels in the hands of a Mediatour: Now this Mediatour [Page 164] is not a Mediatour of one: And of the Gospel, the same Apostle speaketh to the Hebrews, that Jesus was the Mediatour of a New Covenant: as wasHebr. 12. 24. prophesied in Deuteronomy by Moses, saying; The Lord thy God will raise Deut. 18. 15. up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken. And Moses and Christ agreed in that, First, Moses came not of himself, but was sent of God. So also Christ glorified Hebr. 5. 5. not himself, to be made an High Priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, &c. 2. Neither Moses nor Christ delivered their own will, or sought their own glory, before the glory of him that sent them. For Moses was commanded to make all things according to the patern shewedExod. 25. 40. him of God in the Mount. And we find nothing in the Books of Moses more frequent than, The Lord said unto Moses, &c. In like manner, Christ saith of himself, The Word which ye hear is not mine, but the Fathers that John 14. 24. John 5. 43. sent me. And elsewhere, I am come in my Fathers name, &c. Thirdly, they were both sent immediately of God. Fourthly, Both of them con­firmed the Doctrine by Miracles and mighty Signs, proving to the behold­ers a Divine Power assisting them. For Moses wrought such Miracles as none of the expertest Magicians could: and Christ saith of himself, If I John 15. 24. had not done among them the works that no other man did, they had not had sin. Thus they may seem to agree.

But their difference is no less: and that, First, if we consider their im­mediate Authors in their Persons. For Moses was only Man, but Christ God and Man: under which one manifold, other differences are compre­hended, as to their conception, birth, life, and death; manner of their office and administration thereof; which I pass over and come to the Laws or Covenants themselves given by Moses and Christ. For then the Law and Covenant in the hand of Christ was more ancient than that given by Moses, as to the substance and foundation, which was the Law of Nature, and Reason, and Justice towards God and Man, and perfect Obedience to the will of God. For the Promise of the Messias to come, was made to Mankind immediately after Adams transgression, wherein consisted the sum of the Gospel, many hundred of years before Moses his dayes, or Laws: and therefore must be more sacred and necessary. Secondly, The Law as Mosaical was only a type and shadow of good things to come, and not the very things themselves: as the Apostle to the Hebrews argueth.Hebr. 10. 1. But as it is commonly seen when a man propoundeth to himself to cast a fair Statue, or to build a fair house, he first makes a mold, and prepares convenient tools; So God, out of his wisdom, (however he could have done otherwise) first prepared the Law of Moses, as a Model, according to which he cast the Law of Christ; and made use of the Rites and Cere­monies to prepare the way for the Gospel. And hence ariseth a Third difference, because the Form of Moses his Law was temporary, and to cease, but that of Christ was to have no end, as was prophesied in the Book of the Psalms, speaking of the Jewish Politie, Church, and Magistracy, under the Metaphors of Heavens and their host, as is freouent in Scripture, They shall perisb but thou shalt endure, yea all of them shall wax old like a psal. 102. 26, 27. hebr. 1. 10. Jer. 32. 40. Hebr. 13. 20. Daniel 4. 3. Psal. 145. 13. garment, as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. Of Christs King­dom there shall be no end. Fourthly, The Law and Covenant Mosaical had only temporal Promises of reward and punishments, relating to this Life and the Land of Canaan, called for this cause the Land of Promise, unto Abraham and his Seed upon condition of Obedience unto those Laws [Page 165] delivered to Abraham and Moses: As upon due examination of particular in­stances which may be given, doth appear. For they declare to us that so long as they observed Gods commands, and kept to his worship, they prospered and were happy in secular blessings, but when they forsook them, God for­sook them, and they soon perished in their sins. But both the promises and threatnings of the Gospel and New Covenant were spiritual and per­petual, leading unto everlasting Life. For every one, saith Christ, that Matth. 19. 29. hath for saken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, for any names sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting Life. And so Luke 18. v. 30. Yet to judge more clearly of the Mosaical Law, and the better to reconcile both Jewish and Christian interpreters of Moses his Law, some whereof make it meerly Ceremonial, and concerning in its reward, only temporal blessings or curses (as may be gathered from the blessings and curses ennumerated in the Book of Deute­ronomie, Deut. 28. chap. 18.) others affirm it to have contained spiritual blessings, upon obedience, and the contrary: therefore we are to distinguish in the Law of Moses, those things which were meerly Mosaical and Levetical, from those things which were Natural and Moral. For the Law or Cove­nant made by Moses in Gods behalf, with the Israelites, contained in it many things of morality, and Gods worship and service, agreeable to the substantial part of the Gospel: but this it did not, as Mosaical, but ra­ther as Evangelical: For from the beginning of the World to the Incarna­tion of Christ, there was alwayes, as a thorow-Base to several parts in Musick, the Covenant of the Gospel in some degree running along with the various forms of Mosaical Constitutions, and these often insinuated and pressed in the Old Law: but the Covenant Mosaical, though it was built upon these grounds, was not fashioned by them, but as the Author to the Hebrews saith, had also Ordinances of Divine Service, and a worldly Hebr. 9. 1. v. 10. Sanctuary; that is, for that Age. And again, calleth them Carnal Ordi­nances imposed on them until the time of Reformation; i. e. of the Gospel it self. Now in all reason, the end should be proportionable to the means. If therefore the means be carnal, so ought also the end: and not spiritu­al, speaking of the reward. But the Ordinances of the Gospel being not Moral and Natural only, but Spiritual also, ought to have a spiritual or heavenly end. And as the reward upon Obedience, doth exceed that of the Law, so the severity upon disobedience: contrary to the too com­mon Errour, that the Gospel is more favourable unto sinners than was the Law. For though indeed the same trivial neglects, or commissions as a­gainstVide Chrys. Tom. 6. Serm. 94. initio. the Old Law, are not now punished in a bodily, sensible manner, as were they: yet the punishments generally of the offences against the New Covenant were greater, as St. Paul expresly witnesseth to the He­brews. Hebr. 2. 2, 3. He that despised Moses's Law dyed without mercy, under two or Hebr. 10, 28. 29. three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye shall be thought worthy, who hath troden under foot the Son of God, and accounted the blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing; and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace, &c. For we know, &c. Fifthly, the Ad­ministration30, 31. of the New Covenant differed from that of the Old: and that 1. In the Extent comprehending all Nations, without distinction;Jer. 31. 34. whereas that of Moses was restrained to Abrahams Seed, and that by Isaac, and that Seed again of Isaac, by Jacob. And secondly, it extends not on­ly to all Persons, according to the promise made to Abraham, that in his Gen. 22. 18. Seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed, and only his own Seed [Page 166] blessed: but to all capacities of man, his spiritual as well as carnal: which the Law of Moses did not, as the Author of the Epistle to the He­brews Hebr. 9. 9. doth witness; where he tells us, how those Legal Rites could not make him that did the service, perfect as pertaining to the conscience. And again, It is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins. Hebr. 10. 4. But the Soul and Conscience are both purged by the Sacrifice of the New Testament, once offered for all; which was the Body of Christ. Third­ly,v. 10. It extends to a greater degree of Liberty from the outward servile part of Gods worship, and either directs us only to the more inward and spiritual service, or gives Liberty greater to the Church than anciently was allowed, to accommodate it self to times, and place, and persons in the worship of God, which Liberty was not so far granted under the Old Testament.

Sixthly, The Law and Covenant made by Moses were according to the Letter; but Christs, according to the Spirit. That was exacted upon outward terrours propounded, or Mercies: This, was transacted by an in­ward principle of Ingenuity and Grace given of God; as St. Paul is to beRom. 6. 14. understood: where he saith, For sin shall not have dominion over you: For ye are not under the Law, but under Grace: meaning, That now least of all, we should let sin rule over us, being not under the Law, that is, exempted from the penalties and terrours outward, which seemed to constrain obe­dience, or whose disobedience was remitted upon certain outward Rites, which have no effect upon them who are under the Law of Grace. But the Grace of God so revealed outwardly, and so assisting and inclining in­wardly, doth require more ingenuous obedience than formerly: as in the next Chapter it is said; But now we are delivered from the Law, that be­ing Rom. 7. 6. dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the Letter.

Now from this adjustment of the Law of Moses and of Christ, it is e­vident in what sense St. Paul so oft calls one the Law of Works, and the other the Law of Grace. For he there takes not Law so generally as some would understand him, for all Rule and Doctrine of Holy Life, whereby they comprehend as well Evangelical, as Natural, and Mosaical, but in contradistinction to the Law of the Gospel, published by Christ; viz. the Law, as it was Mosaical, according to which it could justifie no man: it being it self to be done away in Christ. For (as the Scripture hath it) if perfection were by the Levitical Priesthood (for under it the People re­ceived Hebr. 7. 11. the Law) what farther need that another Priest should arise, after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Secondly, Answer from hence may be made to the difficulty, How far the Law of Moses, or the Old Law binds under the Gospel? For having shewed that the Gospel, in substance being ancienter than the Law of Mo­ses, as well because of the moral duties common to all mankind, as the Promises of the Messias contained in it; whatever we sind in Moses or the Prophets, or the Sacred Historians against any injustice, vice, or irreligi­on is not to be imputed so much to the Law, as Mosaical, but as Evangeli­cal: And therefore, whatever was Levitical or Mosaical, in that Law gi­ven to the Seed of Abraham, as such, ceased and had its full completion in Christ. And though many things there found, were alwayes, and still are of excellent use to all men, both morally and judicially taken, so that they cannot be said to have no force upon us; Yet their obliging power, as delivered by Moses, and not partaking of the nature of the Gospel, [Page 167] ceases, and is extinct; but lives, and is hinding as the same belonged anci­ently to Christs Law, and by it is renewed and confirmed.

Thirdly, The obscurity at least, if not errour, of those Notes of di­stinction found in many learned mens writings, from hence is discerned: such as are these. First, That the Law propoundeth wrath, without Mercy: but the Gospel, Mercy and Justice. For that the Law thus properly and precisely taken, as distinct in matter, as well as form from the Gospel propounded Mercies as well as Judgments, is most ap­parent from the eighteenth Chapter of Deuteronomy: though as we have shewed, neither the Mercy not the Judgments were of the same nature as they propounded by the Gospel; but chiefly temporal: For whether the breach of any of Moses his Laws, as such made men obnoxious to Hell, and not only to bodily and temporal punishments, I much questi­on; unless we consider the disobedience formal, and doing presump­tuously, which may attend that evil act. Secondly, They say the LawPerkins. required internal and perfect Righteousness; the Gospel, imputed. But this is very dangerous Doctrine: For first, it doth not appear that the Law, as such, and not partaking of the nature of the Gospel, doth re­quire such internal and perfect Righteousness; it being satisfied with the outwardness and formality of the Letter. Secondly, It must not be granted that Christs Law doth not much more require internal and per­fect Righteousness, than the Law; and that to our Justification: For it is one thing to require a thing absolutely, and another necessarily and indi­spensibly to such an end. The Gospel doth require as absolute Righte­ous internal and external, as man is able to attain to in this world; and as the Law required, though nor so as if without it there were no pos­sibility of Salvation, though for want of it there be a merit of dammati­on: but the rigour is qualified and remitted to us upon the intuition of Christs merits, who interposeth for us, with God not to exempt us in any kind from any imaginable part or degree of Holiness competible to us: but to mitigate, and remove the displeasure of God justly conceived against us, for not being perfect. For it no wayes follows, That because such a small proportion of Holiness shall be accepted, and such a vast proportion of wickedness shall be forgiven, and passed over through Gods free Grace in Christ, therefore by the general tenour of the Go­spel, God requires no more of the one, nor less of the other. For if the Gospel be (as sure it is) a more holy Law than that of Moses, Is it not so because it requires of those under it greater Holiness? A third difference I find is, That the Law promiseth Life, upon condition of Works: but the Gospel, upon condition of our committing our selves to Christ by Faith: This is very ambiguously spoken, and inclining to a very bad sense. For what Life, and what works are we here to un­derstand? It is shewed above how ill-agreed wise Interpreters are, Whether any life besides this present is promised by the Law, as Mosai­cal, and not Evangelical? and with this imitation I profess the Negative Part. Again, What works? Are we not to understand Works brought in and appointed by Moses? To these works are promised indeed Life, answerable to thom; i. e. temporal, and no more? But he that saith, we attain Life by committing our selves to Christ by Faith, doth cer­tainly mean Life spiritual and eternal: which vast diversity in the end and reward, quite nulls the comparison. And besides, how by com­mitting our selves to Christ? by Faith? So as that works of the Go­spel [Page 168] and Faith should be laid aside? Yes, say they, as to our Justifi­cation, though not to the commendation and approbation of our Faith: But the vanity of this we have already discovered, where we have proved, that there is no promise made to us under the Gospel, of be­ing justified by Faith; that the works of Faith may not be as instru­mental to our Justification and Salvation as the Act of Faith, so much presumed upon: and that the one is as derogatory to the fulness and freeness of Christs Grace and Gods Mercy, as the other, and no more. A fourth difference is, That the Law was written in Tables of Stone: but the Gospel in the Tables of the Heart; Jerem. 31. 33. 2 Corinth. 3. 3. This hath a true sense, and therefore may pass, though lyable to just exceptions, as taking the Scriptures in a sense scarce intend­ed. Fifthly, They say, The Law was instill'd into our Nature at our first Creation: But the Gospel was above nature, and given after the Fall. But we are not to distinguish the part from the whole, nor the inchoation of a thing from its perfection. The Gospel was in more particulars of agreeing with the Law of Nature, then the Law of Moses; and given in substance before the Law of Moses: and 'tis these two whose differences are sought after at present. In the sixth place, it is rightly said, that Moses was the Mediatour of the Old Law, and Christ of the New: by which they explain themselves, That by Law, they mean, Moses his Law: For Moses was not the Mediatour of the Law natural, but Adam rather. And truly in the seventh place, it is said, The Law was dedicated by the blood of Beasts; but the Gospel by the blood of Christ. But the conclusion to these, viz. That the two Testaments, the Law and the Gospel are two in nature, sub­stance, and kind, is so far only true, as the Law is taken precisely, for that introduced by Moses; and not concretely and conjoyntly with that Covenant made between God and Adam, after his Fall.

CHAP. XXXV.

VVHAT is now said of the nature and distinction of the Covenants made between God and Man, do serve much to the clearing of the Nature and Number of Sacraments here to be ex­plained briefly. For all Sacraments proper­ly so called, are of a Foederal nature, between God and Man. And this covenanting made by God and Man, is signed, sealed, and confirmed by these Sacraments: And therefore, according to the variety of these Co­venants, is also the variety of the Sacraments; unless we except that most ancient Covenant of all, between God and Man, before his Fall. For while man retained those connatural Graces bestowed on him by God, he needed no such outward helps, as Signs and Sacraments to contain him in due obedience to him, nor such signs of Gods promi­ses to him; being able to act more spiritually, freely, and perfectly then now. But upon the disabling of his inward man by sin once commit­ted, and the hebetation of his mind, it was no less than necessary, that, by his outward senses, occasion should be offered to the increase of his knowledge, fear, love, and faith in God: which is done by the media­tion of Sacraments instituted by God: and these diversified according to the variety of the Oeconomie it pleased God to use to the World. For under the Law of Nature (before Moses or Abraham) men stood obliged to serve and worship God: And in this condition the Sacrifices given to God, and Oblations, were of the nature and force of Sacraments: For whether by light of nature, or by special precept, men offered Sacrifice to God, it is apparent that was rather a signal to testifie their revering his Majesty, and duty to him, than any actual absolute worship: and to in­sinuate an absolute Dominion and Right God had to our own lives, in that instead of them which were forfeited to God by sin, we offered Beasts slain to him: and to all things in the World; in that was exhibited to him, so far as might be, and returned that which was received from him.

But to these before Abraham, was added that of Circumcision; and afterward that of the Passover. But we must note, that these two Sa­craments, as they were not originally, or from the beginning, instituted of God; so neither to all men, nor for all times: And this will appear from the particular occasions taken, and reasons rendered of their Ordi­nation. For when God commanded Abraham to circumcise his Son, and [Page 170] himself, and all the Males of his Family, it was no sign at all of any thing of general concernment to mankind, or of the Messias simply, which was before promised; but it was a sign only that the Messias should proceed out of his Loyns, and Seed: which was an extraordi­nary honour and singular priviledge conferred on him. It was a sign likewise, that his Seed were specially chosen to Gods favour, to inhe­rit that promised Land, and many other temporal blessings; which no wayes concerned other Nations. It might have likewise many other moral purposes which are ingeniously sought out, and largely prosecu­ted by others, and especially Postillers.

'Tis true, that many Nations observed this Rite of Circumcision, but not by the appointment of God, nor by their own invention, but as transmitted to them from such who either descended from Abraham, or received it from him. Neither was it to such of the Nature of a Sacra­ment, because not given them of God, and having no promises annext to that Act in them, but only as in Abraham. For the Covenant that God made with mankind, which we have call'd the Covenant of Works, in opposition to that of Faith, in Christ, made after the Fall, was made to Adam and all his, for ever, though all the Posterity of Adam reaped not the like visible benefit from it. And this second Covenant received se­veral additions according to the several Revelations, it pleased God to make unto some part of mankind above others; and that with Abra­ham and his Seed: The first eminent Act of God was to Abraham himself, when he gave him the Promise that the Messias should descend from him, and gave him the sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Rom. 4. 11. Faith which he had being uncircumcised, &c. Now what Faith was that which Abraham had before he was circumcised? Not that which moved him to offer his Son Isaac to God, and yet believe that he should inherit the blessings promised to him: but it was that Faith which he had in the more ancient and general promise with Adam, concerning the Messias. For otherwise, the Apostles argument to prove that we are justified by Faith, and not by works of the Law, would not hold good; which in effect is this. The same way that the Patriarchs, and particularly your Father Abraham was justified, the same way must ye be justifid too: but Abraham was not justified by the works of the Law, but by Faith in Christ. v. 10, 11, 12, 13. And this appeareth plainly. For if Abraham were justified before the Law, and before Circumcision, then surely Circumcision and the works of the Law could not avail to his Justification. For how was Faith reckoned to Abraham for righteousness? In circumcision, or in uncircumcision? not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of Circum­cision as a seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had being yet uncir­cumcised. From whence it appeareth, That what Covenant was made with Abraham by Circumcision, was not absolutely a new Covenant, but a special Priviledge, and Interest given to him in that long before, made with Adam after his breaking the first Covenant of Obedience and Works. And thus we see the nature and end of the first Sacrament given to the Jews before Christ, Circumcision.

And the second Sacrament of Note, was much of the same nature; as not being given to make an absolute generally new Covenant with Man­kind, but only to signifie the peculiar Right that People had to the general Covenants, above others; that as Gods First-born sons of all Nations, they should have a double portion of that Grace, which was com­mon [Page 171] otherwise to all. And farther, an addition of Temporal blessings was made sure to them by it; upon the due observation of those Rites and Laws given them: And this blessing was twofold hereby signified, First, that passed, in delivering them so eminently and miraculously from the destroying Angel, who killed the First-born of the Aegyptians, and brought them from that tedious and grievous bondage, by which they were oppressed. And therefore it was called the Passover. The second consisted in an Assurance of the promised Possessions in the Land of Canaan. Now besides these litteral significations and ends, there were two other Spiritually intimated by them relating to the Gospel, and its Services. And they were, the remission of sins in Baptism; and the right to hea­ven, and bliss after death by the participation of the means of Salvation, the Mannah of his Word, and the Sacraments of his Promises, Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

CHAP. XXXVI.

AS under the Old Testament, There were some special Sacra­ments and properly so called, besides many others, which by mens interpretation, rather than Gods Institution, were so called; as the Tree of Life in Paradise, Noahs Ark, Pas­sing through the Red Sea, the Brasen Serpent, and the like; so also, under the Gospel, as St. Paul saith, There are Gods many, and Lords many, but to us there is but one God; So are there Sacraments many, and many Sacramental things, but to us there are but two Sacraments proper­ly so called: Baptism, and the Eucharist, or Supper of the Lord. There­fore purposing to speak of all the reputed, as well as real Sacraments of the Gospel, (because though not Sacraments yet very Sacred, and deser­ving well to be understood) we shall divide them into equivocal or improper; and univocal or proper Sacraments. Of the former rank we make Orders sacred. Matrimony, Penitence, or Repentance, Con­firmation, and extream Unction: Of the latter sort are Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

[Page 172]Now to understand the just reason of this discrimination between Sa­craments, it is necessary that we pitch upon some general Definition of a true Sacrament, by which as a Light, and Rule, the False are to be ex­amined and judged. And therefore shall resume our Definition before laid down of a Sacrament. A Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by God to produce an invisible grace in the soul of man: which we have already defended.

But if men will religiously contend about words, it cannot be deny­ed, That many of the Ancient and Holy Fathers, and the perpetual lan­guage of the Church have accustomed themselves to call many more things than Two, or Seven, or perhaps Seven times seven, Sacraments: because they do contain something sacred and mysterious in them; but yet amount not to the perfection either of our received two Sacraments, or perhaps of the other five. And so long as men hold to the true and real Sacraments, and have the due use of them, it matters not much, if they give the NamePraelect. de Sacram. Qu. 6. c. 1. Sacrament unto those things which are not worthy of it; as Whitaker hath well said.

But the Reasons against more than two Sacraments in the proper sense, may be these. First, That we read not of the institution of any more than two, by God or Christ, in the New Testament; and of these two clear evidence there is found, as may more fully be seen, when we come to treat of them. Nay, according to the judgment of many of the Anci­ents, it was Christs intention we should have but two Sacraments, when he shed from his Divine side, water and blood, insinuating thereby Bap­tism, and the Sacrament of his Blood. And another argument intimating1 Cor. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. that Christ ordained but two Sacraments in the New Testament, is taken from the due conformity between the Shadows and Types of the Law, and the Substance of the Gospel: The Law had but two Sacraments proper, Circumcision and the Passover; and therefore that these two should pre­figure only two in the Gospel, is most probable. But not only the Fathers of old, but Schoolmen did alwayes acknowledge a due proportion to be observed between these. And it makes nothing against this, That the Fathers do often call some at least of the other five, Sacraments; because then they spoke at large, as we said before.

A second general Reason may be, That as they have no precept, so have they no promise from Christ, of Grace or favour Spiritual. For Ordi­nation indeed hath an ordinary Gift of Ecclesiastical Power, but no assu­rance of special Grace belonging to it. Confirmation hath a good and laudable end, but no special Promise to it. Repentance hath a promise, but hath no outward visible sign, upon which the word is built, to make it a Sacrament: for this is a

Third Reason of the equality of Sacraments, Because all true and pro­per Sacraments must consist as well of outward signs, to which the word and Grace are annext, as of the Grace it self therein given. But all these Sacraments have not these Signs, and they which have an appearance of visible signs, have them not by Gods institution.

Fourthly, The Sacraments of the Gospel are of concernment to all true Christians, according to their Capacities: but all Christians are not, by the confession of the Patrons of seven Sacraments, bound to marry, or to be in Holy Orders. Nay, some are absolutely interdicted the use of some of the reputed Sacraments, as are women from Holy Orders; therefore, whatever may possibly be said concerning the not circumcising of Women [Page 173] under the Law, under the Gospel there being neither Male nor Female, as St. Paul affirmeth, that cannot be a Sacrament equal in sacredness, or ne­cessity, of which Women are not capable.

Fifthly, The general Nature of Sacraments is such as renders the due Partakers of them more holy than they are, who receive them not: but no man saies that marriage faithfully observed doth make any person more holy then Virginity, therefore it cannot be a Sacrament: If they here say, That Marriage is not a Sacrament absolutely, but only as it is Christian, and a representation of Christs conjunction with his Church; and as it is blessed by the Priest. I answer, First to this latter; That blessing doth not alter the kind of the thing, but only sanctifies the thing it self: and therefore Marriage in Heathens and Christians is the same in nature; but not in the circumstances of Holiness. And whenas St. Paul saith in his Epistle to the Ephesians, having before treated of solemn Marriage, This Eph. 5. 31, 32 is a great mystery: from whence commonly is drawn an argument of a Sacramentalness in Marriage of Christians; the reply is easie, which quite nulls the conclusion. First, Because it is as manifest as a thing need be, that St. Paul doth speak rather of Heathens marriage than Christian, as appears from his citation of the first institution of Marriage, which com­prehends all: and therefore according to themselves, could not intend to make a Sacrament of it, seeing it is no Sacrament, but as Christian. Se­condly, The word being Mystery, doth not properly signifie a Sacra­ment, however the Vulgar Translation might be allowed to translate it so; but not men, upon that tearm given at large, to draw it into the number of Sacraments. St. Paul saith to the Corinthians, Behold I show you a my­stery, 1 Cor. 15. we shall not all dye, but we shall all be changed. Is this a Sacrament also? But many of the Fathers have so called it. It may be so, in the sense before spoken of, in which many more things may so be called. But lastly, The Apostle in that Place to the Ephesians doth expresly remove that tearm Mystery from the natural or civil conjunction of Man and Wo­manEph. 5. 27, 29. in Matrimony, and restrain it to Christ and his Church; and doth not so much as say that Marriage is a mystery. For having drawn an Argument for the due observation of Wedlock and its Rights; that seeing Christ loved his Church, man should love his Church; he addeth afterward, This is a great mystery: but I speak of Christ and the Church: which is as32. if it had been said, Here is a great Mystery; but this Mystery I mean not. So much of external Marriage, but internal, between Christ and his Church.

But after all this, seeing we grant with many of the Ancients, That the name Sacrament is communicable to more than two, it is not much worth the contending, whether we make more or fewer than seven; while, we reserve a peculiar sacredness to these two above others. Let us rather touch upon them in their nature, than name; as best worthy to be right­ly understood.

And first of Orders briefly, as having spoken thereof in treating of the Political Power of the Church, and there shown the necessity of them according to Christs intention and institution; which was to make a dis­crimination between Persons, and the several Members of that Body, the Church, of which he is the Head; as is also sufficiently insinuated by St. Paul, to the Corinthians, saying; But now hath Göd set the Members every one of 1 Cor. 12. 18. them in the Body as it hath pleased him: where he doth not speak of moral, but Political excellency, and order of Inferiour and Superiour: From whence [Page 174] the name of the Function is taken. For as St. Augustine defines it, Order is Civ Dei. Lib. 19. 13. the disposing or ranking of equal and unequal things in their proper places. And therefore sometimes the Church is divided by the Ancients into Clergy and Laity, as two Orders. Again, The Clergy by the Ancienter into three only, Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, as Optatus. Afterwards some madeIsidorus Hi­spalens. Orig. Lib. 7. c. 12. six, some seven, some nine, as Hispalensis, who likewise subdivideth the Bishop into four Orders, Patriarch, Metropolitane, Arch-Bishop, and simple Bishop. So that it were not worth the labour to strive about words here; and especially in distinguishing Order from Degree in the Church. For though the distinction in nature be manifest between the first importing a diversity in kind, and the other in condition of the same kind, yet the Church cannot be though to speak so circumspectly at all times, and so precisely, as not to use them promiscuously divers times; so that because she sometimes speaks of Degrees, they should deny the Order of the same thing. Neither are we to mutiny against the Constitutions of Eastern and Western Churches, which in progress of time, added some inferiour Orders to those most anciently received in the Church; viz. of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon: For I take it to be no invasion of Christs Right, to call to the assistance of such as he had constituted, such as he did not ordain to that end: but to retrench of the number, to dissolve that Order which he appointed, that is sacrilegious. What then may we call Orders, but The Collation of an Ecclesiastical Faculty or Power to serve God and the Church, by such as are authorized by God, using the necessary Forms of Words and Rites thereunto required, according to his order of Ministration.

Now we have already shewed, That as no man can create himself a se­cular, neither can he an Ecclesiastical Officer: and as no man in that Po­litv can be created but by one in Authority rightly derived to him, so can none in Spiritual matters be ordained to Ecclesiastical Ministration, but he that is thereunto called by some in Lawful, or at least, real Power: And therefore such who are chosen and appointed by the common people, are but common people after such vainly affected callings: and they who are of an inferiour Order were never acknowledged to have power to create one of a Superiour to them: As it was never endured in the Church till of late dayes, that Priests should appoint Bishops or Priests: because, though Power of the Keys were communicated to them, in reference to the two Principal and necessary Sacraments; yet never as to the whole complex notion of the same, which consists of Jurisdiction, as well as Knowledge and Intercession. And the School argument, which at least, hath given occasion to confound the Order of Bishop and Priest is very false and frivolous: supposing all Ecclesiastical Orders to be so denomi­nated in or dine ad consecrandum from their relation to the Power of Conse­crating the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; because they sup­pose that to be the supream Mystery and End of Priestly Office; but the distinction of Power Political and Mystical in the Church quite over­throws that: For the Power of Jurisdiction is greater in its kind, than that of celebrating, and therefore not so vainly to be taken. Again, the Orders of the Church are so called from the Relation they have to the Body Ecclesiastical, or outward Form and Constitution of it; which is made up of all of them by a gradual ascent, from the lowest to the highest; which make that Hierarchy, without which a Church has but very little to show that it is a Church, but is forc'd to shroud it self under the ob­scure priviledges of being an invisible Church, though not visible Orders [Page 175] therefore thus duly administred, though they be not a Sacrament (for then must there be seven Sacraments subordinate to the other famous seven; because generally seven sorts of Orders are administred in the Church) yet are they Sacramental things, that is, Sacred, and no less necessary to the constituting a Visible Body of Christ than are the others to the Invisi­ble: And though that cannot presently be concluded to be a true Church of Christ which hath them, I do not see how that can be a true Church which hath them not.

And for that which is commonly called Extream Unction, being the Anointing of the Infirm of Body, or such as are despaired of, as to this Life: I see no great matter to be objected against it, no more did Luther, nor Bucer, nor some other eminent Reformers for a good while after they left Rome; provided it be done with that solemnity and soundness of in­vocation of God, and Benediction of the deceasing Party as may comfort and strengthen him in his last Agonies: It being ancient, though not so old as is pretended, nor ministred in the same manner, as now. For in the beginning, not one, but many Presbyters of the Church were called according to the advice of St. James, to pray over the sick, and to anointJames 1. 14, 15 him with common, not compounded, or artificial Oyl, and that not with­out a miraculous event. But because the Miracle is now ceased, it is no good reason the thing it self should be detested. For Primitively a Mi­racle did accompany Baptism too, which ceasing, no man will declare the Sacrament it self ought to cease likewise. The Superstitions of Prayer and some other Rites added of late, whereby the simplicity of it hath been corrupted, is a more reasonable ground of laying it down: Neither is the want thereof in that formality to be charged upon a Church, where there is commanded and continued due Ministration to the Sick, answer­able to the necessities of Body and Soul. But though the use hereof be ancient, yet the name Sacrament hath not so anciently been ascribed to it, in the sense at this day Current. And Innocent the first, who is repor­ted to have so called it, doth permit others besides Priests to minister the same to the Sick, the Chrism or Oyl being made by the Bishop.

CHAP. XXXVII.

BUT of Confirmation much greater esteem hath ever been, and ought still to be had; though not so much as some of the An­cients, and divers Modern Schoolmen would exalt it to: unless a favourable interpretation be made of their judgments deli­vered concerning it. For they make it more useful than Baptism it self: and impute the efficacy of Baptism in great part unto this Sacrament. To judge the better of which Opinion, it is to be consider'd what this Confirmation is. Confirmation may be said to be a solemn Act of Invoca­tion of God, and Benediction of a Person upon his publick Profession of that Christian Faith into which he was before baptized. First, It was required that the Person capable of this Ceremony, should have first been baptized: For he was not hereby made a Christian, but, as the word im­porteth, confirmed in that Faith, into which he had been baptized. And the Reasons hereof were such then as do to this day commend exceedingly the use of it; viz. Because some were baptized in their minority or infan­cy, when, wanting common judgment, they could not discern the nature, use, and end of Baptism: and therefore very requisite it was that they should after due and sober information in the mysteries and principles of Christian Religion, make in their own person such a publick Profession of the same as they were bound to do at the time of their baptism; ac­cordingCatechismus Argentora­tensis. p. 36. D. Cum nos pu­eri instituti sumus in fide Christiana de­bemus eam pa­lam & aperte profiteri, &c. as the Church Catechism of Strasburgh, since the Reformation, well thus expresses it, by Scholar and Master. Schol. We that are chil­dren and instructed in the Faith of Christ, ought to profess the same in pub­lick, and clearly in the Church, seeing we could not do this, when we were baptized. Mast. How are ye confirmed? Schol. By publick blessing, in­tercession of the Church, with imposition of hands. Mast. But how art thou assured of this? Schol. We have Word of God, when he sayes, Let little Children come unto me, &c. Thus that Catechise. Another reason may be the danger from the multitude of Hereticks which possibly might have corrupted such young beginners in the Faith, therefore, as well for the better securing such persons, as for the satisfaction of the Church, that they who were once enter'd into communion with it, did so persevere inviolate in the same, this excellent Rite was instituted. And surely, because it notably discriminates Schismaticks and Erroneous persons from sober and faithful Members of Christ, and his Church; it is by vain, ig­norant, and ungodly persons scoffed at, railed at, and contemned. A third [Page 177] Reason respecteth the time to come, wherein a man foreseeing the many and great temptations of the World, Flesh, and Devil, which he had renounced in Baptism, to increase upon him, as he converses more with the World, doth thereby fortifie himself by a renewed profession of his Faith and Obedience to Christ. Fourthly, to this conduceth very much the Benediction of his Ghostly Father, the Bishop, and the joynt prayers of all the Congregation, which ought devoutly to be put up to God for the descent of his Grace, to preserve the persons so confirmed in that ho­ly profession: which should be most earnestly desired by every pious heart that likes his Religion, and fears his own frailties. And it is to me an infallible argument of desperate unchristian prophaneness, or a new su­perstition instilled into men, alienating them from the truth of that Religion in which they were educated, who carp at this so godly Constitution: their best ground being that which is to all their frivolous reasonings, Because no express place of Scripture commands it directly: and because it is possible to be saved without it: It is possible that we may be saved with­out many things which we daily use in Religion; and yet they contemptu­ously and wilfully omitted, may be a just and certain cause of our con­demnation: the Scriptures having not limited God to those means of sa­ving us, which they have, if we would be saved: And yet again, they have not so particularized our duties, that there should be nothing accep­ted by God from us which they have not expressed. I find it disputed on both sides, whether this Rite be of Divine Institution or not: and shall not determine it: but in this both Ancient and Modern, Eastern and Western Churches are agreed that it is of Divine use, and therefore I may deter­mine it to be pious and profitable; and them who oppose it, to speak evil 2 Pet. 2. of the things they understand not, for which they may utterly perish in their own corruption,

But I suppose the proper Minister of this Solemnity, who alwayes was the Bishop of the Church, hath much turned the stomach of those who very unhappily have none; or most wickedly endeavour to have none, against it. For considering how little is to be said against it, how much for it, the principle ground why they are bent against it, must be to defend them­selves from notorious defects. To understand this, as likewise the man­ner of performing this Sacramental Rite, it is to be noted, there was a threefold use of Unction, called also Chrism, in the ancient Church; whereof one pertained to the Presbyter or Priest: who in the time of Baptism was wont to anoint the party baptized on the crown of the Head. The other two were properly belonging to the Bishop, the one being done present­lyHieremias Patr. Cap 7. Censure O. rie [...]tal. after Baptism on the forehead, after the Priest had anointed him on the crown of the Head: which custom the Greek Church retain to this day, as their Patriarch Hieremias witnesseth: and when this was done, I sup­pose there followed no other Confirmation: but after the deferring of Baptism ceased, and the appointed times of Easter and Pentecost for that Sacrament were laid aside; and children, and that at all times, and in all places of Divine worship, were admitted to Baptism; and not alwayes, as most anciently, in the presence of the Bishop, then it became necessary that a peculiar time, and proper services should be appointed to this Solemnity; wherein the Party to be confirmed was signed in the forehead by the Bishop only, as before in substance, but with variation of circumstances. In Gregory Gregor. M. Epist. Lib 3. 9. the Great's days, it should seem the brest was anointed by the Priest. What need we trouble ourselvs in such things aswere alterable, in that unalterable [Page 178] solemnity: our Churches moderation endeavouring to prevail upon the modesty of some dissatisfied persons in it, have incurred the censurre of o­ther Churches, in paring that Ordinance to the Quick from unnecessary excrescencies, without any effect upon her own undutiful children, but per­tinacy and petulancy, in their private morosities, which at length may teach us, how vain such charms of Charity are used upon such deaf Adders, and unnatural Vipers: whom nothing will satisfie but the tearing to pieces the womb that conceived them. And that they may do with it what they list, they make the Church speak what they list, many times. And therefore, though it hath wisely declared, and plainly, but for two Sacraments, ordina­rily necessary to salvation, they are wont to exclaim against it; thereby in­ferring contumeliously that she holds more, though not so necessary: which had been no slander, if they at the same time had used that candour which became them in stating the mind of the Church, as they might, and ought: but to do this here, or in other cases, were to do themselves or Cause wrong; and to be just to us, were to be cruel to themselves.

A fifth pretended Sacrament is that of Repentance, sometimes also called Penance with us: For so I read Mr. Bradford in his Sermon on the Fourth of Matthew and the seventeenth, to speak, saying; Penance is a sorrowing or forethinking of our sins past: an earnest purpose to amend, or turning to God with a trust of pardon. Which description may suffice us at present. For the first thing in Repentance is a sound judgment of the e­vil of the Facts committed or omitted; the next is a belief and sense of the evil of punishment incurred by such enormities: A third degree or act of the mind is a change of the resolution for the time to come, to act more reasonably and faithfully. A fourth is an apprehension of the Grace and Mercy of God towards him upon his humiliation and return. A fifth the real execution and putting in outward practise the good purposes of heart, in effects proper to Repentance. A sixth is not to repent of Re­pentance, or return to the offenses for which he was so grieved: and which he renounced. A seventh is the fruits on Gods part signifying his favour towards such truly penitent Persons by the comfortable testimony of his Spirit of Grace, in their Consciences witnessing the remission of sins, and reconciliation to God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The Parts of Repentance are commonly made these three: Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction: which to speak properly cannot so be cal­led: For of all these only Contrition is of the very nature of Repentance: but Confession and Satisfaction, to which we may adde Reformation or Re­novation, are rather the Effects than Parts of Repentance: but these two are never the same in proper language. And therefore in vain do they go about to justifie that description as proper, of Repentance, which both Chrysostome and Ambrose do give us; That it is such a change which committeth not the same things again. And, an act whereby we lament sins passed, and commit not sins to be lamented. There can be nothing done more indiscreetly against a mans self, or injuriously against the Fathers, than to make every true saying of theirs a definition: or to deny them the liberty of their Rhetorical pen sometimes, when they write what is true, though not so accurately, as the laws of Logick may require. If we mistake not, this abuse of the Fathers hath done great mischief in the Schoolmens works, and especially Thomas's, as may appear in his Summes, where a bare and secure asseveration of some Father, is taken for a [Page 179] very sufficient definition, and turns the controversie quite another way, then reason according to Scripture would have it go. We all know that the Fathers, as all other Writers, even the Scriptures themselves, spake not alwayes Definitions: and the Definitions they gave were not alwayes ac­cording to the Rules and Practise of Logicians, but Rhetoricians; with whom it is most frequent to describe a thing from the proper and most commendable effect. If a man should say he is a Souldier indeed, who ne­ver yieldeth till he hath gotten the victory, should speak very true: but this were no true definition of a Souldier: For a Souldier may loose the Vi­ctory. And so Repentance is that which repeateth not former sins before sorrowed for, but this doth not prove that to be no repentance which cea­sing, a man returns to his former evil course; or that repentance per­sever'd in which was broken off, might not have carryed him to heaven. For who knows not that all habits moral, and graces spiritual, (such as are Faith and Repentance) have their proper seat in the inward man, affect the mind and heart immediately, and from thence are known primarily and described? Outward acts are but the effects: and the effects may illustrate, but cannot be of the essence of the Cause. Therefore Repentance exact­ly considered is nothing more than a thorow change of the mind and heart from things contrary to Gods will, and to the obedience of the same. This is true repentance; and if it be not effectual, it is because it is not, that is, perseveres not in that good nature. It were ridiculous to say, A man never went towards London, it was no real motion, because he turned back again, and never came at that place. And no less, that a man never truly repented, because he gave over, and reaped not the fruits of Repentance. For the nature of Repentance might be the same, though vastly different as to the end. Once true Grace, and alwayes true Grace, say they: but what word of God, what judgment of the wisest and holiest Christians have they to bear witness to their presumptuous assertion? Their own autho­rity is too inconsiderable, and their argument most vain which is taken from the event; and begs the question when they thus talk, If it be true Grace it will persevere; and if it persevere, it is true: So that give the highest instance that ever was, or any mans mind can imagine possible to be, of Grace, which failed: they answer very safely, (if as wisely) It was not true, for it faild. But this is no place to argue this point.

We except not against the things themselves in Repentance, Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction, but against the order they are set in: though Mr. Bradford, that holy and learned man, sticks not at that accurateness in his former Sermon, speaking thus: We say penance hath three parts, Contrition, if you understand it for an hearty sorrow for sin: Confession, if ye understand it for faith of free pardon, in Gods mercy by Jesus Christ: and Satisfaction, if you understand it not to Godwards—but to Manwards, in restitution of things wrongfully and fraudulently gotten, of name hindred, by our slaunders; and in newness of life. And Perkins makes our consent with the RomanPerk. Reform. Cath. Church to consist in this: That Repentance stands, especially for practise, in Contrition of heart, Confession of mouth, Satisfaction in work or deed. Of these therefore we shall speak briefly and distinctly.

CHAP. XXXVIII.

COmpunction is a general word comprehending Contrition and Attrition, the proper parts of Repentance: and according to Bernard, is an humiliation of the mind proceeding from the remembrance of sin, and the fear of Gods Judgment, &c. ButBernard. de modo bene vivendi, Serm. 10. if we take Compunction generally, it may be rather descri­bed An humiliation of mind proceeding from an apprehension of the Evil of sin. Now the Evil of sin being twofold, doth divide this Compun­ction into two kinds, Contrition and Attrition. Contrition being, accord­ing to the most received distinction of it from Attrition, A sincere and hearty sorrow of mind, upon the sight and sense of the Evil of sin, in it self, and the offence thereby committed against Almighty God his goodness chiefly: But there is another mischief in sin, and that doth principally concern the Offender himself, who thereby having violated Gods most just and holy Laws, and incurred his displeasure, has made him self obnoxious to the curses denounced against the breakers thereof: and therefore is a Ter­rour of Conscience conceived upon the apprehension of Gods wrath justly due to him, and impending over him. These, by some, are made not only diffe­rent (as in truth they are) but contrary too: so that Attrition should be rather an addition to former Guilt, than a method of evading Gods wrath, and being reconciled unto him: and their reason is, because it is not done in Faith: Hence they distinguish between Legal and Evangelical humilia­tion:Perkins. making the former quite distinct from the latter, and opposite to it. Legal contrition, say they (which is Attrition) is nothing but a remorse of Conscience for sin in regard of the wrath and judgment of God, and it is no grace of God at all, nor any part, or cause of Repentance, but only an occasion thereof, and that by the mercy of God: for of it self it is the sting of the Law, and the very entrance into the Pit of Hell. Evangeli­cal Contrition is when a repentant sinner is grieved for his sin, not so much for fear of Hell, or any other punishment, as because he hath offended and displeased so good and merciful a God. This Contrition is caused by the Ministry of the Gospel, &c. In this vulgar account of Attrition and Contrition, or the two Parts of Contrition, Legal and Evangelical, is a twofold errour committed, not to be passed lightly over. The one is a rude and common misapprehension of the state of the Gospel, as if it were all made up of Mercy, and consisted not at all of Justice and Vengeance to be executed upon sinners breaking the Law of the Gospel: but whatever [Page 181] we can reasonably suppose of mercy, must be owing altogether to the Go­spel: but if any threatning, and severities of Justice be feared, that must be borrowed from the Law. And what Law I pray do they mean? The Old Law, I doubt not. But the Law before Christ had its moralities or perpetual Duties, and its Mosaicalness which was transient, and is now actually ceased, as all the Obligations and Penalties belonging thereto. It cannot be that then which moves to this Legal Contrition: but if any thing, the moral and perpetual part, consisting of Justice and Equity, which are no less an ingredient into the Gospel than into the Law pro­perly so called. And, because there is nothing more absurd and ridicu­lous, than to have a Law consisting of just and holy Precepts and Rules: which shall not also consist of proportionable Rewards of the Observers and Breakers thereof; returning as St. Paul teaches us at large in his EpistleRom. 2. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. to the Romans, to the Jew and to the Gentile doing well, honour and glory; and shame and wrath to the evil doer: speaking of the present state of the Gospel. And we have before shewed, That so far is the Gospel from be­ing made up of all mercy, that the judgments and punishments therein de­creed against Sinners, are more grievous than they in the Law: and there­fore, the Gospel is called a Book of Good tidings or News: not because the Sinner impenitent shall sind any more favour, or so much as he might un­der the Old Law; but because the Salvation here published is of greater extent, comprehending all Nations and states of men; which the Law did not: And also offering full and free means of Repentance, and recon­ciliation to God through Christ, and a treasure of Grace, as well to assist in the performing of the condition of the Gospel, as to pardon and remit what is committed against it, upon humiliation and repentance. So that the Gospel has a Legal part (as the phrase is) and Evangelical: And the terrours of the Gospel or Legal Part of it have just influence upon the Consciences of men to humble and affright them, though there should beO Soror, nulla res sic nos ab omni peccato custodit immu­nes sicut timor inferni et amor Dei. Bern. de modo bene vivend. Serm. 4. [...], &c. Chrys. Serm. 7. Antioc [...]. pag. 512. To. 6 no such thing extant as the Old Testament: and therefore the Attrition of a Sinner under the guilt and sense of his sins, is much more an effect of the Gospel than of the Law. And therefore is not so the entrance into the Pit of Hell, as if directly it lead to Hell: For 'tis security and presump­tion that lead thither, rather then the sorrow of Attrition: This is cer­tainly a direct occasion of going to Heaven, and is an inferiour degree of more ingenuous sorrow and true contrition: For this Legal (as it is cal­led) Contrition is caused by the ministry of the Gospel too, and is an ef­fect of Evangelical Faith, whereby a Christian, having thorowly assented to, and been affected with the severe and holy Doctrine thereof, becomes humbled under it; and is brought to the sight and admiration, and affe­ction of the other Part of it, which to the truly broken and penitent of­fereth Grace and Pardon. That which seems to have mislead so many in­to a false notion of the Gospel, is the term Gospel or Evangel it self, which sounds nothing so much as mercy: though the English or Saxon word, we know, signifies originally no more than Gods Speech, which is indifferentRom. 4. 15. to Mercy and Justice both. And such places as this of St. Paul, The Law worketh wrath: as if he had meant to say thereby, that the Gospel did not work wrath as did the Law: but that was far from his purpose; in­tending only to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel (as they stood opposed) to be in this, That the Law without the Gospel, which St. Paul preached, wrought wrath without remedy, but the Gospel though it propoundeth and threatneth wrath too, to the unbelieving and [Page 182] disobedient, yet continued in it also a sufficient and proper remedy against all those Evils. And thus far of the very intrinsick nature of Repentance, Attrition, and Contrition; which are the two proper Parts of it.

The two most noted acts or effects (for Parts they are not) are Confes­sion and Satisfaction. And first we shall explain this Confession by these degrees. First, Out of the Abundance of the heart it must necessarily be that the mouth should speak, whether good or evil, truth or falshood, joy or sorrow. How then can it reasonably be supposed that no out­ward expression should appear of so great anguish of mind, as is supposed to affect the soul truly humbled and penitent? No sober man, much less good Christian, can choose but commend such Acts as this of true Repen­tance. For, as the comparison of an ancient Father hath it well; As it is with him that hath almost surfeited himself with ill digested or unwhole­some meat lying heavy upon his stomach, must cast it forth before he can well be eased or cured; even so he whose soul is oppressed with the filth, guilt, and weight of his sins, must vomit them up by due Confession, be­fore he can reasonably expect remedy and forgiveness. Many and very pressing are the advises and precepts of Holy Scripture to confess our sins, and many promises to such as do confess, annexed: which not intending at present, so much a Paraenetical or hortatory Discourse, as Dogmatical for the settlement and information of the Judgment and Consciences, I shall pass over, as agreed to on all hands, in the general. But Confession of sins being so variously taken; viz. for confession to God, and confes­sion to Man; for confession private, and confession publick; for confes­sion to our brother, whom we have offended particularly, and confession to the Church, to which we have given scandal, none ever took the bold­ness on them to deny absolutely the use of Confession. Nay I cannot find any seriously and positively denying the lawfulness or usefulness of private or auricular confession to the Priest or Minister. Some indeed very ignorant, and no less superstitious persons, are offended at the word Auricular, from the common use of it amongst them whose Doctrine and Practice have corrupted it. But the ancient use thereof was quite other­wise than now adayes it is: as it is thus expressed by Bishop Jewel. It is learnedly noted by Bishop Rhenanus, the Sinner when he began to mis­like Jewell De­fence p. 156. himself, and to be penitent for his wicked life, for that he had offended God and his Church, came first unto the Bishop and Priest, as unto the mouths of the Church, and opened unto him the whole burden of his heart. After­ward he was by them brought into the Congregation, and there made the same confession openly before his brethren: and farther was appointed to make satisfaction by open Penance: which being duly and humbly done, he was re­stored again openly unto the Church, by laying on of the hands of Priests and Elders.

Perkins on the Galatians speaketh thus:—This must farther admo­nish Perkins on Gal. 5. 19, 20. us, never to hide or excuse our sins, but freely to confess them before God, and before men also, when need requires. Whether we confess them or not, they are manifest, and the ingenuous confession of them is the way to cover them, Psal▪ 32. 1, 4.

Luther in his Colloquies delivers his opinion of Confession in these words: [...]ther Coll. Com. p. 257. English. The chiefest Cause why we hold the Confession, is this, that the Catechism may be rehearsed, and heard particularly, to the end they may learn and under­stand the same: However I, for my part, will never advise Confession to be intermitted: for it is not a man that absolveth me from my sins, but God himself. And see pag. 258. How sins are to be confessed.

[Page 183]Another of our Church speaketh thus: ‘No kind of Confession, either pub­lickArchbishop [...] Ans [...] to the [...] ▪ p. [...]. or private, is disallowed by us, that is any ways requisite for the due execution of that ancient power of the Keys, which Christ bestowed on his Church: the thing that we reject is that new Pick-lock of Sacramental Con­fession, obtruded upon mens consciences, as a matter necessary to salvation; by the Canons of the late Council of Trent. Sess. 14. c. 6.’ The Canon here in­tended I suppose is the Fifth of the Fourth Session, under Julius the Third.

Mr. Perkins again in another place saith; ‘In troubles of conscience, it isCases of Con­science, lib. 1. cap. 1. meet and convenient that there should be always used private Consession. For James saith, ch, 5. v. 16. Confess yoou faults one to another, and pray one for another, &c. For in all reason the Physician must first know the Disease before he can apply the remedy: and the grief of the heart will not be dis­cerned, unless it be manifested by the confession of the Party diseased. In private Consessions these Caveats must be observed. First, It must not be urged as a thing absolutely necessary, without which there can be no satisfa­ction. Again, It is not fit that Confession should be of all sins, but only of the Scruple it self.’ [Here Perkins's assertion is meerly of his own pleasure, and against his own rule, which requireth that the Spiritual, as well as Corporal Physician, should understand all Diseases; and are not all sins diseases? and of all diseases that the greatest which we are not sensible of?] 3. ‘Though yet it is specially to be made to the Prophets & Ministers of the Gospel. Lastly, He must be a person of fidelity, able to keep secret things that are revealed.’

Many more suffrages for the usefulness of Confession, might be alledged of men of unquestioned authority in such cases as this: but now I shall come briefly to declare what is to be received, and what rejected in this Confes­sion: 1. In speaking of the Original or Institution. 2. The Necessity. 3. The Tradition concerning it. 4. The due Practise of it. And the Church of Rome (however the Council of Trent hath determined it of Divine institution, to whose servile Canons we ascribe not so much as to the less servile judgment of some of the Learned Doctors of that Church) being divided in its opini­on concerning the institution of it; the ancienter of them generally deny­ing any such Divine Precept; and they who come after the Council being obliged to hold up its Credit, affirming, we may without great danger or difficulty affirm, that Christ hath not in particular and precisely required any such Sacramental Confession: but by general Rules of Piety and Pru­dence inferring so much as a Council, and holy direction to assure our Sal­vation; which possibly may be obtained without, and more possibly be lost for want of it. For the Priest under the Gospel being the same to the uncleanness of the Soul, as was the Levitical Priest to the uncleanness and leprosie of the Body; it agreeth exactly with the Analogy between the Old and New Testament, that the like power be allowed to him in his Sphere, as was to the other, in his; and the like real, though not formal and express command. Yea, I could shew (were it a place Scholastically to handle this matter here) how according to the opinion of the Learned ancient Jews, the people under the Law did practise this Confession, and that upon opinion of a Precept in their Law. But I do not rest upon any other than what the Gospel affords, either in Letter, or Inclusively under those duties which it prescribes a Christian. Yet what Solomon hath in the Proverbs, I take not to be so much Legal as Evangelical. He that covereth his sins, shall not pro­sper, Prov. 28. 13. but who so confesseth, and forsaketh them, shall have mercy. And that of Job, cleering himself from the concealing of his sins, as a great crime, commends the revealing them, as a necessary act: If I covered my transgres­sion Job 31. 33. [Page 184] as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom: seem to be counsel in com­mon with the Gospe [...], as having nothing ceremonial in them. And though that of Leviticus was truly Legal, as concerning outward absolutions andLevit cap. 13. & 14. pollutions, yet I see not how they, who allow any weight in the Type to infer the thing signified under the Gospel, can deny the like obligation in spiritual matters upon us, as was on the Jews, in respect of matters carnal. By that Law the polluted and diseased person was to appear before the [...]. Chrys. in c. 1. ad Rom v. 26. Levit. 5. v. 6. Pr [...]e [...]t, he was to be examined by him, judged and sentenced, for clean or unclean; whole, or unsound. Sin is certainly the Leprosie of the soul: and 'tis because men are led more by Sense than Faith, or by a monstrous Faith, rather than truly Evangelical, (which dispatches compendiously, more than safely, all duties of Religion in a word or single act) that they apprehend not the like danger or necessity in the case of their Souls, as Bodies; and therefore neglect the proper means conducing to their everlasting health. And this is yet more expresly propounded to us in the fifth Chapter of Le­viticus: where we read of many Errors and Offences to be redressed, and omitted. And that by bringing a Trespass-offering for the sin that he hath committed, a female from the flock; a Lamb or a Kid of the Goats for a Sin­offering, and the Priest shall make an attonement for him concerning his sin. Now the manner how, and the terms upon which, this attonement was to be made, are expressed in the words before, viz. He shall confess that he hath sin­ned Ego ut efficaci­bus scripturae testimonus argumentis ir­refutabilibus non p [...]ssum à [...] vincere hanc confessionem; hanc (inquam) qualis nune in usu est à Chri­sto aut etiam ab Apostolis esse institutam: ita piis om [...]i­bus religiose observandam, cens [...]o; veluti saltem, ab Ec­clesiae proceri­bus non sine afflatu Spiri­ [...]ûs Divini inductam. E­rasm. in Exo­mologesi a­pud Gesne­rum, Tom. 5. in that thing. And to whom, to God privately? or to the Priest also, who was upon his Confession to make an attonement for him? There can be no doubt of the latter.

And in the Gospel, though I dare not, nor Erasmus, affirm any particular direct Procept purposely delivered to enjoyn this; yet by consequence and implication, it seems to be required, especially in some cases of apparent and grievous errors committed against the Faith and Holiness of the Gospel. For hither may the words of Christ well be drawn, whereby he commissi­oned his Apostles to act in his stead, himself leaving this world. John 20. 23. Whoso­ever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Which words some Modern Interpreters restraining to the power of preaching the Gospel (though I confess that to be true) must pa­tiently suffer others to leave them, as they have their Predecessours, in that gloss: For first the Gospel might be preached by others as well as the A­postles: And next, whatever Remission of sins attends the publication of the Gospel, is to be imputed, not simply and barely, either to the Preaching, or Hearing, or Believing the same; but, to the admitting by an effectual Faith all the things the Gospel requireth to be done by us. And as by the preaching of the Gospel in general and common, a general remission is al­so published: So by a particular application of the same unto the parti­cular and private Case of some one Person, is confirmed in particular the state of Grace or Impenitency to particular persons, according to the judg­ment of the Priest. And to this also pertaineth what Christ saith in the per­son of St. Peter, to all bearing this Office: I will give unto thee the Keys Matth. 16. 19. of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou bindest on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou loosest on Earth, shall be loosed in Hea­ven. Implying indeed a Power communicative of persons scandalous to the Faith and Church of Christ: But of the same power it is a branch, which is in every single Priest proceeding judiciously in the Court of Conscience to the binding, that is, declaring bound a sinner; or loosening, declaring him, at least, absolved from his sins, upon his repentance manifested to him.

[Page 185]Now the Reasons obliging a man to this Confession upon Scripture grounds are these. First, That the Minister of God being according to his office not only to preach Christ and Repentance, and Faith, and remission of sins to all in general, but to apply and accommodate himself to the par­ticular exigencies of men receiving, and diversly affected with the Gospel: which cannot possibly be but by a particular revelation made to him either from heaven, or the party to be judged. So that although it should be a sufficient discharge of the Priests part and office to make a general promul­gation of the Gospel, and so declare that whosoever believeth and repenteth shall be saved, but whosoever believeth not shall be damned: Yet the hearer or receiver doth not thereby fully discharge his part, unless he understands more satisfactorily than ordinarily men can of themselves, their condition under the Gospel.

For secondly, By this Confession to another, a man comes better to un­derstand and judge himself; as to his Faith and Manners. As no man can naturally, without the help of Art, see his own face, nor those eyes, which see all things see themselves, but by looking stedfastly in the eye of ano­ther, may. So can no man so well at least, no not by the glass of Gods word, discern those things in himself which are to be seen by anothers eye: and therefore it must needs be a means to bring the presumptuous to repentance, and the distrustful to a comfortable serenity of mind and consolation.

Thirdly, Confession is not only a sign, or an act of Contrition, but a pro­per means thereunto: For some there are who come to confess their sins, and have no true sense of them: others have a real sense, which is commonly called Attrition, being well assured and convicted by their own Conscien­ces, they have done wickedly, and broke Gods sacred Laws, but there want­ing the grace of ingenuous sorrow, and an affection out of Charity or Love to God, this sense will not avail to obtain pardon at Gods hands: where­fore by the wise Ministry of the Confessour, as he is called, he is to be wrought to a sorrow of love, and such as is conceived as well for the evil of sin in it self, as the evil of punishment it subjects him unto. Whence Chry­sostome in a certain place speaketh thus, I would have you have a sense of Chrys. Tom. 1. pag. 139. your errors by Confession, and shew your ingenuity of your selves. For though it be a foul errror to hold, as many of the Church of Rome do, that the very coming to Confession, or the customary sentence of the Priest, turneth Attrition into Contrition; i. e. imperfect, and of it self unprofitable sor­row, into saving; yet the joynt exhortations, not to be separated in such cases, do tend naturally to the more sincere conversion of a sinner unto God, upon the account of vertue it self, and the love of Good and of God.

Fourthly, Such Confession is a very notable aw and restraint upon the offender; it being too common with us here, to fear the eyes and ears of men more than of God: And infinite sins we daily commit, which if we were thoroughly perswaded should come to the knowledge of Man, we would not dare to do, though we be assured in general that they must be known to God. And 'tis an extream folly and direct untruth which some have entertained, That we must do things only upon the most perfect principles, to the most perfect ends. For 'tis better a man should abstain from drunkenness to save his purse, than not at all. And that a child should learn for fear of the Rod, than gain no knowledge at all.

But this leads to a fifth benefit which is the more perfect; For infinite there are who, upon necessity and compulsion, have begun a good work, which [Page 186] they have concluded with delight, and greatest approbation, and with best circumstances.

Sixthly, Confession of sins to Man substituted ordinarily by God, is an excellent expedient to the preparing and enabling the Minister of God to relieve us upon our Death-bed. For how otherwise can he speak with judgment to us in our greatest Agony, when perhaps we cannot express our selves? but if we have formerly opened unto him the state of our Souls; he shall be much better enabled to assist in that our last conflict.

Lastly, According to the doctrine of them who hold it not only possible, but also a duty incumbent upon us, to get assurance of our Salvation, Con­fession of sins to the Spiritual Judge of souls must needs be very much ap­proved: For setting aside extraordinary Revelations, and granting the lit­tle knowledge we have of the arbitrariness of God in the bestowing free Grace, and continuing the same which we so often forfeit, and lastly the natural affection every man hath to judge partially for himself, there doth not appear any so proper, outward, and ordinary means of coming to a true knowledge of his state of Grace and Salvation, as the Ministration of a Priest unto us in Confession; and his judgment of our state of favour orQui confiteri vult ut inveni­at gratiam, quaerat Sacer­dotem. Aug. disfavour with God: Neither can any man so safely acquiesce, to the satis­faction of his doubtful Conscience, in the opinion he hath of himself, with out him, as with him. It is not to be denyed, that a man may by the grace of God and his own repentance, heal his wounded soul of an habitual sin, and be really reconciled unto God, and find true and well-grounded peace of Conscience, without the assistance of a Ghostly Physician, as he may cure himself by Gods blessing, of a Fever or Consumption: Does this therefore make the use of a Physician superfluous, and his Prescriptions vain? No sure. But it is not the like case of his soul, as his body: For sense cannot there be so easily deceived, as his opinion of himself, as to his souls sound­ness. There is scarce any thing that is more common in spiritual matters, then that which is so rarely found in the condition of his body; viz. That a man should be very ill, and not know, or very well, and not find it manifestly in himself. It is requisite therefore, even for them who have truly repented before God, to be informed of their such reco­very of Gods favour; or their not being purged from dead works to serve the living God.

The great impediment is a natural modesty, which peradventure the De­vil may have an hand in: but this is occasioned rather for the rareness of it; as may be seen from the undauntedness of such as live in the Eastern and Western Churches, where Confession is so common.

It may be said, That the abuses are so gross, that the use seems inferiour to it, by the easie and familiar absolutions given to notorious Offenders, and the great confidence these take to sin upon expectation of being ac­quitted. But to this it may be first replyed, That unless abuses be insepa­rable from a thing in it self good and profitable, they are not sufficient to remove the use of it absolutely. And secondly, in those things that are no­torious and to be discerned by one meanly instructed in the principles of Religion and common Morality, if the Spiritual Judge delivereth a cor­rupt sentence too favourable to the Penitent, he is able to judge him­self better, and so ought to do. For a Confessour cannot determine that to be no sin, which the light of nature teaches to be, for he doth not judge of that, but of Religion. Nor can be determine against the first Principles of Religion, viz. that without repentance any sinner can be saved: [Page 187] nor, that a man doth repent who hath no sorrow for his sins; or who ever at the time of a Formal absolution, nourisheth in his heart a resolution to return to the same sin he confesseth: So that in truth, a man is commonly false first to himself, before he is mislead by others. And not Historical­ly or Scholastically to dispute this, I shall only use that for an argument for it, which is often alleadged against Confession, from the abuse and ill event of it; for which Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople is said to have put it down: For had the thing been so evil, or unnecessary as some would have it, surely being once so judicially condemned and taken away, it could never so soon after have been restored, and continued all over those countries to this very day: So that it may seem either out of too great zeal of that Patriarch to repress scandals, or to satisfie the incensed mul­titude at the scandal given, that such a decree passed against it for a time: Though there is much to be said, that the Confession differed much from that here pleaded for; for that was by custom published, but this under most sacred silence: which if any should reveal (being a condition of con­fessing so freely, that it should be concealed) I make no doubt but the perfidious Priest committeth as great a sin as likely he can hear from ano­ther; and incurreth no less just censure of the Church, than is ordinarily inflicted upon persons convicted of scandalous sins. Saving, where (asConstitut. and Canons, Can. 113. our Church in her Canons hath soberly determined) the concealing of an offence against the Publick safety and peace, may bring a mans life in que­stion. And whatever else the sin were, it alwayes turned more to the re­proach of the discoverer, than the committer; and so may it do as well before God as Man.

The exception against it as Auricular is ridiculous and childish, not to be answered seriously. It is no Penance, but a Favour. The Church doth require a man should open his Conscience to his Priest, it doth not com­mand it to be done in so great secrecy, but as a favour to the Penitent; who doth no less fulfill the mind of God, and the Church, if he proclaim his own sins: provided it be with penitence, and not impudence. Some other corruptions crept into this useful practise come next to be noted and removed, in speaking of the secnod Act or Effect of true Repentance, Satisfaction.

CHAP. XXXIX.

THE Law and Justice are then said to be satisfied, when ei­ther we walk so exactly and conformably unto them as to fulfill the primary intention of the Law-giver, in doing that which is just and equal: or the secondary intention of the Law-giver, viz. in suffering due punishment and chastise­ment upon the breach of it: And this is a satisfaction of the Law too, but not so perfect a [...] the former; as being intended no otherwise than to se­cure the better the satisfying of it, in the Observation according to the first sense. Neither doth this, though fully suffered, make any man just or innocent; but acquits him from farther punishment. The former is wont to be called Active Obedience. The latter, Passive, but very improperly: For there is no Obedience truly so called, but what is Active. For all Obedience is an act of the Will: but passiveness is no act at all. 'Tis true, a free and willing submission to the punishment inflicted by the Law, hath somewhat of action in is, and so of obedience; but the suffering it self hath nothing of obedience, but is the effect of disobedience. And therefore much more reasonable is the distinction of satisfaction active, whereby we act according to the revealed will of the Legislator; and Pas­sive, whereby we sustain the penalty threatned against the disobedient. And thus we in some sense satisfie the Law, when we have undergone all that was imposed upon us by it. This first part and most agreeable to the will of God, Christ, and no man else, absolutely fulfilled, that we any where read of. Every Article, and every Particle of the Law of God was ful­filled by him. And this was yet no more than he ought to do as man. Now what supererogation can be, what redundancie to us, is hard to be under­stood, though confidently and zealously affirmed by many. This we can understand, this the Scriptures certifie us, that Christ being not obnoxious to the Law, and knowing no sin, was made sin for us; that we might be made 2 Cor. 5. 21. the righteousness of God in him. And from hence are derived all our com­forts and other benefits by Christ: For whereas they say, that Christs passive Obedience (as they call it) did set us free from punishment, but not purchase life and glory to us, there seems to be a mis-apprehension ofLuke 10. 28. the condition of glory and immortality promised by God. Do this (saith Christ) and ye shall live: i. e. keep the Commandements. Again in the Book of the Psalms, and St. Peter, God saith: The face of the Lord is against them Psalm 34. 16. 1 Pet. 3. 12. that do evil to root out the remembrance of them from the earth. And I know no middle state in the Scripture, between life and death; or glory and mise­ry. For God hath promised everlasting happiness, not to them that by [Page 189] their Good works purchase or earn it, but to those who live according to his Law; and stand innocent before him from the violation both of affir­mative and negative precepts therein contained. He that hath all these things remitted to him, is before God as if he had done all the duties of them exactly. He that is made partaker of Christs passive satisfaction doth thus stand acquitted, and by consequence hath a title and claim by vertue of the same to everlasting bliss: without the consideration of this active satisfaction or obedience.

Now to entertain such an Opinion of a mans private and personal satis­faction for his sins, as thereby to be able to claim any, either forgiveness of sins passed, or happiness to come, were to make the Cross of Christ of none effect: Yet because the Grace of God is not so free, that we should need do nothing more to be made partakers of the fruits of it, than pas­sively to receive it; but Christian Religian, and Faith whereby we are justified and saved, is an active principle in us, leading to all Good works. Therefore it is required that we should do somewhat to put our selvs into a capacity of the benefits of Christs Passion and Merits, whereby we are freely justified and saved: For as hath been said, we are not so freely ju­stified by Grace, as to be absolved from all conditions, but so freely, as that the conditions of coming to, and receiving Christ, by whom we are saved, have no proportion with the salvation from him, in justice or common e­quity. Now I see nothing against such a satisfaction to be required of eve­ry true and faithful Christian, whereby he satisfies the conditions of the Covenant of free Grace in Christ; and yet never satisfies the Law it self, or for his sins which is absolutely effected by Christ: which agrees very well with what I find thus set down by one of our Church: We believe that Whites way to the Church. §. 40. nu. 28. though Christ hath satisfied for the fault and punishment both eternal and tem­poral for our sins: yet our selves are bound to satisfie the commands of the Go­spel tying us to repentance and amendment, and patient bearing of the Cross. Though we do not think that the doing of it, is that answers or expiates the judgment of God due to our sins: but only serves as a Condition subordinately required, that we may be partakers of Christs satisfaction. Thus the Papists themselves sometimes describe satisfaction out of Augustine, To be the cut­ting off the cause of sin, and the stopping of the wayes that suggest them: and stick not to grant there is but one satisfaction only to God, even that of Christ, and we do not properly satisfie, but only do something in respect whereof Christs satisfaction is applyed to us. Satisfaction to God thus de­scribed, we confess, &c. And thus far the Fathers went, and generally no farther; however they are drawn to speak more derogatorily to the abso­lute satisfaction of Christ: For thus Isidor. His­palens. lib. 6. Orig cap. ult. Satisfactio est causa peccato­rum & sugge­stiones exclu­dere, & ultra peccatum non iterare. Isidore of Sevil, following herein St. Austin, expresseth the matter: Satisfaction is to exclude the causes and oc­casions of sinning; and no more to reiterate our sins. So that all Acts tend­ing to repentance and amendment of life being called Satisfactions, we hold Satisfactions to be necessary: And therefore Fastings, constant Prayers, Alms-deeds, punishing the Body outwardly, and denying things to it which may any way foment sin: yea, as the Ancients well said Est quippe ordo necessari­us, ut qui com­misit illicitu ab usu licito­rum restiingat. In qua re­strictione duo sunt consida­randa—Satis­factio & ne­cessitas Purga­tionis. Aelred. Abbas Com­pend: Speculi Charitatis cap. 40.; Seeing we have offended God in unlawful use of things lawful, to deny our selves the lawful use of the same: Yea, any punishment laid upon us by our selves or others in order to the bringing us to repentance, and amending our lives, are much to be commended; the abuse which is easily separable from them, being removed: viz. That such things are in themselves satisfactory to God.

[Page 190]But though these and the like, be not satisfactions of the justice, but ra­ther the mercy of God. Yet there is a satisfaction which is proper and in some sense adaequate to the offence committed: and this is to our brethren whom we have wronged and scandalized: And is either publick, when we have done any thing against the Church in general, by unchristian practi­ses, as Murders, Sacriledge, Uncleanness, and such like. It was constant­ly required that such should satisfie the will of the Church, of which they were members; and undergo penalties or penances judged meet for such offences, and not be admitted into brotherly communion until they had suffered for their folly, to the content of the Church: A laudable necessary practise to be retained still, as well that the offender being put to publick shame for publick sins, might amend his life; and the Church may be pre­served from the like contagion of sin. For notorious offenders being ex­cluded from the Communion, were not restored to it until such satisfaction as this was made.

Another satisfaction, much of the same nature with this, is that which ought to be made to the utmost of our power, to them whom we have wronged by unjust words or deeds against them; which is necessary for the obtaining of Gods mercy and pardon to us. For if we must forgive the injuries done unto us, if we would have God forgive us our trespasses, ought we not much more to give every man his due in point of justice? The first seems to be a Law purely Evangelical; but the second Natural; supposed to the Gospel, as imperfect, yet most necessary: The Rule there­fore amongst Divines is most certain, The sin is not pardoned until the thing Non remittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ab­latum cum re­stitui potest. Aug. Epist. 54 taken away be restored. Now we take away a mans Good name, and we take away his Estate unjustly; and before we can say we have repented, we must be careful to our utmost to make this Satisfaction or Restitution. Where we take away a mans life, we cannot indeed ever satisfie the Party, no, though we should dedicate our own lives to him: yet so far as we can even outwardly humble our selves, by afflicting our bodies and purses; and especially endeavouring by extraordinary acts of bounty and Charity, to preserve the lives of such who stand in need of our assistance and relief. It was no satisfaction to him whose eye was put out, or tooth broken, to have the eye, or tooth of his Adversary to be struck out for it. Yet it shewed in the Moral sense thus much, that our utmost indeavour must not be wanting to make satisfaction to them we have wilfully spoiled, oppres­sed, defrauded, or otherwise injured. For otherwise, it doth not appear how a man dying conscious of such apparent injustices as these, can escape the damnation of hell: A new stupifying notion of Faith freely justify­ing, may perhaps be so ministred to him, as to quiet his Conscience, but save his Soul it cannot; where it is in a mans power to make recompence, and satisfie injuries and injustices.

But because man is naturally so partial unto himself, as for his ease and self-love, to make the best construction of Gods mercy inconditionate to him, and his sins against God: It was never in open notorious scandalous sins, permitted to the offender to judge for himself, but his actions were subject to Ecclesiastical censures, and proper punishments imposed upon him, to bring him, by those outward censures to inward remorse. Which severe censures, when they were observed to have a great effect upon the Penitent, were divers times remitted in part, lightened, and shortened by the favour of the Church, which were called therefore Indulgences: Follow­ing herein the precept and example of St. Paul in the like case, of the ince­stuous [Page 191] Corinthian excommunicated out of the Church: who demonstrating sincere and extraordinary repentance for such his fact; St. Paul with a2 Cor. 2. 6, 7. fatherly affection puts a stop to the utmost process of his Penance; saying, Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise, ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow, &c. Lest the pu­nishment imposed on grievous offenders, meeting with a tender spirit, should break the heart rather then humble it; and cast him away, whom they intended to save thereby, a seasonable relaxation was alwayes at hand to the restauration of such an one. But as for that sense and gross abuse of Indulgence, whereby it is turned to remit sins aforehand, without due hu­miliation passed; and not only so, but to reach the torments supposed to be inflicted on Christians after this life in Purgatory, it is so absurd in it self, so unknown to all ancient Christian ages, so inconsistent with the do­ctrine of the Gospel, and nature of Repentance, that as it is impudence in that Church to pretend any of these to favour it, so is it stupidity in any person to lend any credit to it, or have any relvance upon it.

It is usually said, That few souls going out of this life so pure and tho­rowly cleansed, as to be fit presently to enter into the holy place of heaven, where no unclean thing shall come; it is requisite there should remain some place to perfect the purgation of the Soul begun here. And that the power of the Church especially the reputed Universal Father of it, extendeth in like manner to the mitigating and shortning of those purgative torments, as to the penances inflicted upon Penitents on earth. Truly, if they could but prove, what they as yet have not taken the boldness so much as to say: that they, or the Church inflicted the torments of Purgatory upon sinners there detained, I should be apt to believe they could take off the Rod they laid on: but never pretending to that, I marvel they should pretend to this, any more than they dare to the removal of a Fever by an indul­gence only; because they judged the Party so ill affected to have suffered, and been sick long enough. There being not the least ground in holy Scrip­ture to enable them so far, nor any argument out of Scripture to perswade themselves of this power, so great as temporal gain, and filthy cursed lucre, more like to damn the pretenders to it, then save the tormented out of mi­sery.

But this is upon supposal made of such a Purgatory; but that it is only supposed and no real existence, appears from most ancient Tradition re­tained to this day in the Church of Greece: which indeed taking occasion from Origen's singular opinion, doth affirm a Purgation, and that by fire, at the last day of the general Resurrection, when by an unknown manner, God shall cause a purgation and change of the corruptible body of man into an incorruptible condition, more fit for heaven and glory. Austin sometimesAug. Civ. Dei: lib. 21. c. 24. doubted whether any such place or state after death were, wherein Souls were detained for their emendation and preparation for Heaven: He grants it possible, and that it is all: but actually and positively so to be, he no where affirms; but saith expresly, I do not therefore affirm, because I oppose it not: But the supream folly of cutting off scores, hundreds, and thousands of years of torments, by Indulgences upon earth, was such an imposture as could never enter into the head of any of the sober Ancients; and not to be en­dured amongst Christians.

Many are the Suffrages of the Fathers to that of the word of God, Bles­sed are the dead which dye in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, Rev. 14. 13. [Page 192] that they may rest from their Labours, and their works do follow them. Imply­ing a direct and comfortable passage from this miserable, to that happy life in heaven. And whereas they say, That they who go to Purgatory may be said to dye in Christ, because they shall at length be delivered by Christ: How can that stand with such excessive pains there suffered, to which none on earth are equal either in degree or continuance? How can these wretch­ed souls be said to rest from their labours and sorrows? Must they not make God a mocker of his servants in comforting them against their affecti­ons in this world, by telling them they shall one day be delivered from them, and go to greater in Purgatory? Besides, What grounds do they find in the Word of God, or the word of the primitiye Fathers, which makes a a twofold state in Christ: One of them who by Saintly lives pass immedi­ately to bliss: Another of them who are in a middle state, and are partly mi­serable and partly blessed? But to their prime argument the Answer is ea­sie. We are not generally purged wholly from sin, nor have we made full sa­tisfaction of punishments for our sins in this Life, unless by Martyrdom, or some heroical and eminent Sanctity: Both are false which are here suppo­sed. First, That Martyrdom for Christ, or the most holy and exemplary life lead here in this world, do so perfectly purge us, that we need not further cleansing. Again, it is denyed that true and sincere repentance acted in this life, both in forsaking sin, and in true conversion unto God, sufficeth not to purge us from all our sins in this life, as to the guilt and penalty of them, and the odious stain rendring the soul unaccepted to God, though men arive not to the perfection of Martyrdom, or the eminencie of Sanctity attainable here, as St. John witnesseth: But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, 1 John 1. 7. we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son clean­seth us from all sin. He doth not here intend to speak of the supreamest san­ctity only, but of that general state of grace and holy life, in which who­ever is, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth him from all his sins; and dying in that state, needs no more cleansing to make him capable of entring im­mediately into everlasting bliss, which is far from all torment, though not so consummate, as to be capable of no addition at the Resurrection, when the Body shall be re-united to the Soul.

Nor doth this take away what of prerogatives is justly due to Martyr­dom or eminent Holiness in this Life; because there remains proper to them, first a greater measure of comfortable assurance of Gods favour and bliss hereafter; and a much greater and higher degree of glory when possessed, than inferiour degrees of holiness here can lay claim to. And this is suf­ficient encouragement, next to the pure intention of holiness it self, and Gods glory, to any Christian to abound in good works; knowing that his 1 Cor. 15. labour is not in vain in the Lord. And thus much of those we call Aequivocal Sacraments, and improper. For though all true Sacraments are ordinarily necessary to salvation; yet all things ordinarily necessary to salvation are not Sacraments; as Repentance, which in its nature consisting of true Con­trition of heart, and conversion unto God, and thereby putting us into ca­pacity of mercy from God, is not pretended to be a Sacrament until the Priest acteth his part towards the Penitent. And if Contrition thus under­stood, or Repentance be no Sacrament, surely neither can Confession or Sa­tisfactions which are said to be parts of Repentance, be Sacraments: nothing being in the parts which may not be in the whole But so moderate & soundConsecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops. a course hath our Church taken as to call them Sacramentals: as being above the order of general acts and duties of Piety, and not amounting to the dig­nity of the two proper ones, Baptism and the Eucharist.

CHAP. XL

MANY Acceptations are found of the word Baptism in Ho­ly Scripture which I leave to others who have collected them: and betake my self to the thing it self commonly understood by it. And thus Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ, consisting of the out­ward signs of Water and the Word, and the inward Grace of Regeneration and remission of sins, and outward Communion with the Church of Christ: all which I conceive to be contained in our Church Catechism, where it is first described by its outward Sign to be, Water wherein the Party is bapti­zed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And by its inward Grace to be, A death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin, we are hereby made the Children of Grace.

This Sacrament then of baptism is said truly to succeed that of Circum­cision: and to have the same Spiritual effect upon the Spiritual and inward man, which that had over the Outward. The agreement and diffe­rence between which two will sufficiently appear from the comparing of this, as we now shall explain it, with that, which we shall do by con­sidering the Form, the Matter, The Subject, The Efficacy, and the Mini­ster of Baptism.

The Form we have propounded to us by Christ, when he first instituted the same, and commanded his Disciples to go and teach all nations, baptizing Mat. 28. 19. them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: tea­ching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you. From whence it doth appear that taking Baptism simply, for the Act, it consi­steth in that form of words here prescribed by Christ; and the outward Action of baptizing with Water. But taken more Concretely and com­plexly for all things concurring to that Sacrament essentially, It is a Co­venant made between God and Man, whereby is promised on Gods part re­mission of sins and salvation, and on mans part, Faith and Observation of the terms of the Gospel: as St. Mark more expresly hath it, He that be­lieveth Mar. 16. 16. Eph. 2. 12. and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be dam­ned. This Covenant was typified by the Sacrament of Circumcision made between God and Abraham, with his seed; thus, This is my Covenant Gen. 17. 10. which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every Man­child among you shall be circumcised, &c. And this was yet more cleerly pro­phesied of, by Ezekiel saying, Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and Ezek. 36. 35 ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your Idols will I cleanse you. [Page 194] And as with men, that is no sure Covenant which doth not consist of pro­per matter mutually passed from one Party to another: and of due form of words thereunto required; So neither is that proper Baptism which makes no express or implicite stipulation between God and man, and that with that form of words and Action by Christ enjoyned.

And the Matter of this Sacrament is expressed already to be water, by many places of Scripture: as Mat. 3. 6, 11. Joh. 1. 26. Joh. 3. 23. Act. 8. 36, &c. And having none other mentioned by Christ, we are not so much to argue presumptuously of insufficiency of that Element to effect so great matters, upon the soul, and thence conclude; That it is unlikely God should be so rigorous to exact indispensably a little water, or cause the party to perish in his sins: for 1. This way of reasoning holds no less against Gods severe imposition of Circumcision which was the cut­ting off of a small pitifull piece of Flesh: and yet that omitted, God threatneth positively to cut off the soul of the child from his people.Exod. 17. 14. 2. This takes away the Liberty and power of God to dispose of his Graces upon what terms he pleases: for the manner of conveying whereof, he may choose what means he pleases, though never so improbable to sense, to attain such ends; that it may appear the vertue is not in the thing so much as God. 3. God in such Cases doth not so much tye himself, as tie us. He doth indeed oblige himself to those means himself hath ordained: but not confine so himself to them that he cannot or may not work the same effect without them: Yet as he so restrains that, he threatens wrath, and makes no promise at all, but upon our dutiful observation of such his Prescrip­tions. But as when a man, not by any wilful neglect, or disesteem of the usefulness of this Sacrament, shall, by invincible necessity, be detained from it, with a fervent desire to be partakers of it, God by his abundant Grace may supply the want of it. In like manner, where there is no pro­per natural water to be had, rather then the solemnity should wholly be o­mitted, and denied to one earnestly craving the same, Use may be made of that which comes nearest to it, so of a nature cleansing. But this needs farther determination to put out of doubt, than any private Doctour can give. For we read in Scripture of no other element (though in Ecclesi­astical History we do) than water. And there appears no greater inconveni­encePallad. Lau­sic. Historiâ. or ill consequence for men to be brought to that extremity for want of natural water, than to want the general means of Christianity itself: or Chil­dren to die unbaptized.

But the manner of applying this water to the party baptized by Immer­sion or dipping into the water, or by Aspersion or Sprinkling, and that thrice, or once only, is not much to be insisted upon. For though 'tis unde­niable, that it was a general Ablution by sinking the Baptized into the wa­ter as St. Paul intimateth when he speaketh of being buried with Christ in Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. Math. 3. 16. Act. 8. 38. Baptism, that as Christ was laid under the earth, after his death, so Chri­stians under the water, and were buried unto sin: And other phrases of Scripture which speak of ascending out of the waters, and descending into the waters. Yet that any washing by aspersion or sprinkling suffi­ced, appears from the Analogy between the Sacramental Purgations of the Old Law and the New: For as infinite places certifie us, the blood of the Sacrifices, and waters of Purification were to be sprinkled on the Persons therein concerned: And so the end of the Sacrament of Baptism is to sig­nify, and conferr Grace on the baptized by such outward Elements: toExod. 29. 2. Levit. 14. 7. which, the vertue of the Sacrament, not consisting in the nature of the [Page 195] thing, but in the Institution of God, greater quantity can conduce no more then less, provided so small quantity be not taken, which should hide and hinder the significancy of the Elements. And besides, Gods rule being, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice, and never intending to save the Soul by such means as in common probability may destroy the Body, the condition of some persons being so frail and weak: and of some Climates so hard and hurtful, he is pleased to accept the most safe way, the substance of the duty being entirely observed. And such persons are not only Infants, but the Sick and very Aged too, who were baptized with water: and that upon a necessity of entring into the Kingdome. For could scarce any thing betray Calvine with his Followers such as Perkins and Cartwright more to suspicion of insolence and singularity than his seeking to elude the plain precept of Christ concerning Elemental, not Spiritual waterJob. 3. 5. 6. and washing only, contrary to the universal consent of all Catholicks, and Hereticks before him: as if he had taken the rise of his Fancy from these two famous Anabaptists Balthazar and Satelare in Germany: whoCassand. Prae­far. ad Ana­baptist. Mat. 19. 13. 14. reading in the Scripture one Ground of Paedobaptism to be Christs saying, Suffer little Children to come unto me, for of them is the Kingdom of heaven; interpreted the same of Children in Spirit, and not in Age: with the like probability both.

And of the subject of Baptism or the persons to be baptized, and capa­ble of that Sacrament, this in sum may be said out of the Scripture, as the foundation of all, as even now out of St. John, Unless a man be born Tit. 3. 5. of water and the Holy Ghost he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God. And St. Paul to Titus saith, that According to his mercy he saved us by the wa­shing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. And to the Corin­thians:1 Cor. 12. 13 Cap. 12. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body, &c. And the like is comprehended in that General Law of Christ given to his Disciples to be Executed, Matthew 28. 29. Now from these general Rules laid down by Christ in his word, a just and particular inference may be made to the entitling Children to a Right in this Sacrament: it being a Rule which holds no less in Divine, than Humane Laws, That where the Law doth not distinguish there men ought not to distinguish, or limit. For if it be alleadged that Instruction and Faith ought to go before this Sacra­ment, according to Christs Intention and institution in St. Matthew. It is sufficiently answer'd; that, seeing the Law General by which baptism is made necessary to Salvation, hath no exception or condition annexed to it, which may concern Infants, Infants are therein contained. And this implies an exemption from that naturally impossible preparation of Instru­ction, and Faith properly so called: And as Calvin well notes, BelievingCalvin Institut. to infant-Baptism is no more requisite than working to their eating and drinking, by vertue of the Apostles precept, If any will not work, neither 2 Thes. 3. 10. should he eat. Faith and repentance both are required necessarily of such who are capable of them, or able to oppose them: but of them who are not capable; and have no actual sin to be repented of, the Act of them who have the Care of them and Tuition, joyned with the passiveness or non-re­mitency of the Infants, found a capacity in them. But where a Personal power of Willing is found, there is exacted a personal knowledge and con­sent to that Sacrament. This will appear from those several reasons built upon the Scriptures.

First, That the Primest antiquity ever so understood the Scripture and practised accordingly. Not that Baptism was presently as now administred [Page 196] to Children at their coming into the world: seeing Antiquity gives us ma­ny instances of such who were not baptized till they came to years of discretion, though they were born of Christian Parents: For some con­tinued Catecheumenes together with them who were young, and Converted from Heathenism unto Christianity. Others, of purpose and design pro­tracted the time of their baptism, upon an opinion that all their Actual as well as Original sins were washed away in Baptism; and concluded they had the less to answer for, if they were baptized towards the latter end of their dayes. Yet though this abuse of Baptism prevailed not upon that opinion only, but upon the occasion which was taken of educating and instructing Infidels in the Faith, for some good time before they were bap­tized, which custome divers born of Christian Parents imitated; yet we find none that the Church wilfully suffered to die without Baptism, who were descended of true believers, or had been competently instructed in the Faith of Christ: which was alwayes, according to Christs words, intended towards them who had None to resign them up to God, and com­promise for their due perseverance in the Faith. So that there is not the least evidence of Autority ancient in the Church rejecting the baptism of children or denying them to be subjects capable of it. And none oppo­sed the same until the year 1030 when Guimund Bishop of Aversa in Cam­pania accused Berengarius Deacon of Anjou, for denying Infant-baptism; though that opinion was not found directly to be Berengarius's. But about the year 1130 this Heresie began to discover it self in France and Germany and was Headed by Peter Bruis and Henricus his Scholar. From whom that Faction was called Petrobrusians and Henricians; denying withal a Ca­pacity of Childrens entring into the Kingdom of Heaven; affirming, That only they who were baptized and believed could enter into Heaven. But the Waldenses, who succeeded them in many of their opinions, rejected this their Dogme; and so the controversy ceased, until the year 1522. when one Nicolas Stork and Thomas Muncer (two desperately Phanatical men) stir­redSleiden Com­ment. up this opinion, and other wicked fancies concerning Civil Govern­ment: wherein this Latter perished miserably. Yet this error was not so soon or easily suppressed, but spread farther and continued by the great industry and zeal of Melchior Rinck and Balthazar Hebmaier; until about the year 1532 it received its complement from the tongue and hand of Melchior Hofman, a Leather-dresser of Germany; and so hath been pro­pagated to other places, and to this day. But not only did none of the ancients oppose Pedobaptism, but have declared and proved the use of it: As did Irenaus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and others downward, were this a proper place to shew so much. We shall rather proceed to those Scriptural reasons inferring this. [...]. Athan. cont. Arium. pag. 147. Tom. [...].

Secondly, either all Children must be damned dying unbaptized, or they must have baptism: The consequent is plain from that Principle in Chri­stian Religion, which Anabaptists have been constreined to deny, to uphold their other, That all sin not washed away or expiated, exposes to damnation: and the Principle in Christian Religion, is, That Children come into the world infected with Original [...]sm: and therefore if there be no remedy a­gainst that provided by God, all Children of Christian Parents, which St. Paul sayes are Holy, are liable to eternal death, without remedy. Now there is no remedy but Christ; and his death, and Passion are not commu­nicated unto any but by outward Signs and Sacraments: And no other do we read of but this of Water in Baptism. And the invitation of Christ of [Page 197] infants, in St. Mathew doth imply a capacity in them of Grace. ForMat. 19. when Christ saith, Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them Mar. 13. 14. not, for of such is the Kingdome of God: he doth not mock, meaning lite­rally that Infants who are not able to go, or stand, should come unto him, on their own leggs: So neither doth he mean in the spiritual sense, that Children who have neither reason nor Faith, should come unto him by Faith, before they be baptized; but be brought to him by the Faith of o­thers, which may profit them who resist not, though they seek not that Grace.

Thirdly, They that are of the Covenant, and of the Body of the Church really, ought also to be formal partakers of that Body; and this they on­ly can obtain by being admitted solemnly into the congregation of Christs Faithful and Elect Church: As the children of the Israelites were of ne­cessity to be admitted into the number of that Church, by circumcision,Gen. 17. 14. or be cut off in wrath, from them. For St. Paul telleth us, how the chil­dren of the Believers, are sanctified by their Parents. And how are they1 Cor. [...]7. 14. holy but by being separated from unbelievers, and solemnly dedicated to God by the Laver of Regeneration? And as in the same place the Apostle saith to the Romans, If the first fruit be holy, the Lump is holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches; drawing this Literal to an Evangelical sense; and meaning thereby, that the Parent being of the Election, the Child is so: and being so, ought to receive the sign of Evangelical cir­cumcision.

Fourthly, The Analogy and apt correspondence between the Sacra­ment of the Law called Circumcision, and that of the Gospel, warranteth this. For that is not true which they say against this, That the Precepts of the New Testament necessary to Salvation, are as clear as those under the Old: But this is not so clear as Circumcision: To which we answer, That this is as true, taking in the whole manifestation of Gods will: For the clearness of the Sacraments enjoyned in the Old Testament do con­duce to the clearness of them signified by them. And there needs nothing more be said for the clearing of the necessity of these, than to admit them to have succeeded those two in the Old Testament: And we find not such necessity particularly imposed upon us of receiving the Eucharist, as was upon the Israelites of receiving the Paschal Lamb, but general necessity, without determination of time or place, the Gospel expresseth unto us, upon the hope of salvation; which is sufficient.

The vertue and Efficacie of this Sacrament above-touched proves this farther: but it needs it self be proved according to those extravagant o­pinions brought by Modern Divines into the Church, that it is only a seal of our Faith, and eternal Favour of God in Predestinating us to Glory. As if, First, all (according to their judgements) that were baptized were ordained to Glory, and this were assured them by that Seal. Or Second­ly, that God had Predestinated any to Life without the necessary means to it: Or that remission of sins Actual, and the expiation of Original, were not necessary to the entring into Life, or that God had so simply and absolutely ordained us to heaven, that he had not ordained these two as Means to ob­tainPerkins on Gal. 2. v. 15. [...]. The­od. Haret. Fabul. 5. c. 2. this. For what can be a more horrible prophanation of this Sacra­ment, then to say with one upon the Galatians? We are born Christians if [Page 198] our Parents believe, and not made so in Baptism. Which is contrary to the Doctrine of our Catechism and the whole stream of Primitive Doctors of the Church, from whom we may Gather this threefold Effect of Baptism. First, it is not only a sign as the same Persons say, of our Covenant, but it is the Covenant it self made between God and Man. For God indeed doth make a Promise, but he maketh no Covenant otherwise than by Baptism. God made a Promise to Abraham that his seed should be blessed before Circumcision, but he made no Covenant with him, but by Circumcision; nor is any actually in the Covenant of Faith, but by being baptized. Doth not the Scripture expresly say, that God gave Abraham the Covenant of Act. 7. 8. Circumcision. Circumcision then, was not only a Sign of that Covenant, (though that it were) but an Essential part of it. Circumcision therefore was a sign in a twofold sense; First, in respect of the Covenant under the Law; as words whereof the Covenant consists, are signs of the Will of the Covenanters, to the ear: and works outward are in like manner signs of the same to the Eye: which sort of signs are not distinct from the thing it signifies. For God Covenanted with Abraham that he should use those Ce­remonies. Now this outward visible Covenant was a sign of an inward and invisible, relating to the righteousness of Faith, as St. Paul saith of Abraham: And he received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righte­ousness Rom 4. 11. of Faith. So that is the Second way in which Circumcision may be said to be a sign, viz. As the whole Sacramental Covenant of which it was a part, signified the Covenant of Faith: into which we are entred by Baptism, as the Jews into the other by Circumcision.

A Second effect of Baptism is, to wash away all sins, as well Origi­nal, as Actual: of which that Prophesie of Zacharie is generally under­stood. In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and Zechar. 13. 1. to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; For sin and for uncleanness. To which St. Paul agrees, in his Epistle to the Ephesians speaking of the Church: That Eph. 5. 26. he might sanctifie it and cleanse it by the washing of water, by the word. Where the Word sanctifieth the Water, and the water sanctifieth the Person: which it can no otherwise do then by washing off the sins of the Soul. As St. Peter hath it, Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer 1 Pet. 3. 21. of a good Conscience towards God: That is, at the time of baptism, where­by the filth of the Spirit necessarily implied to make up the correspon­dence, is put away. And St. Paul telleth the Corinthians; They were wa­shed, 1 Cor. 6. they were Sanctified, viz. By Baptism.

But whether Original sin be so far extinguished in the baptized, as no more remains should be found, is much doubted: to which we briefly and clearly answer from the distinction of Sins. For sometimes the Cause of sin is termed sin: Sometime the Effect of Sin is called Sin: whereas Sin is properly the Evil Act it self, or the omission of an act due from us. Ori­ginal Sin in us is not so properly called Sin, as it was in Adam who actually sinned, and that with a consent of his own will. But it is rather the Effect of his Actual transgression which doth originally adhere to us, and is cal­led sin upon this threefold account. First, because it is the necessary effect or consequence of Adams Sin: as we find Moses to speak in Deuteronomy. And I took your sin the Calfe which ye made: The Calfe was the fruit of their Sin, andDeut. 9. 21. not their sin it self. So is that evil Effect, the Sin Original, because it is the evil consequence of it. Secondly, It is Sin, because it doth partake of the nature of sin in one of the principal parts making up sin. They are two, The Obliqui­ty of the Act, or Deformity and disagreement to the accurate Law of God, [Page 199] and the disobedience of the will, and pravity thereof: This latter, ori­ginal sin as it was actual in Adam, had as well as the former; but so is it not with us. There can be no such disobedience in the Will, where there is no Will. There is no will in Infants besides the remote faculty it self; and therefore, all sin, yea all humane acts requiring consent of the Will, original sin cannot be sin in this sense: But taking sin for a dissonancy from1 Joh. 3. 4. the Law and Rule, as St. John doth; and that conformity as is justly re­quired by the Law; certainly that Original depravation and corruption found generally in our natures at our first entrance into the World, may truly be called sin, because it makes us to differ so much from that God made us, and intended us to be. Thirdly, Original sin hath this likewise denominating it sin, that it is the cause of sin; that original inclination to sin being that which moves us all unto the actual commission of sin; which St. Paul surely aimeth at, where he saith, Now then it is no more I that do Rom. 7. 17. it, but sin that dwelleth in me: meaning by that, sin dwelling in him, the pronity natural which impelled him to sin, with such particular dissent and reluctancy of judgment, that he could scarce be accounted the prin­cipal author of it. To these we may add a fourth general event of this original pravity, Viz. An hatred and indignation conceived in God against the person so depraved, contrary to his institution and mind. Now Bap­tisms efficacy may have relation to all those, but not in like manner. For it washes away the filthiness of the soul, original and actual. Second­ly, It reconciles to God, and obtains remission of sin. Thirdly, It doth not remove or wholly redress the depravation of the soul, and the evil tendencies and disposition of it to sin; which is the effect of Adams sin, and cause of our own actual transgressions. This is not destroyed by Bap­tism, but lurks in the soul; and like fewel is apt to take fire upon the least spark of temptations, which shall be cast into it from outward ob­jects and occasions. And though it be so far done away that until such new risings and agitations of the mind, it be not imputed; yet upon such kindlings it putteth on a new guilt.

Another effect it hath in reference to actual sins. For first, by weak­ning though not destroying absolutely the principle of sin in us, a stop and curb is put to sin in its future progressions: And not only so, but proper means of which by and by are provided in Baptism for the resist­ing and putting away all actual sins too. For repentance being, accor­ding to the Doctrine of the Ancients, a second Plank to save such as are shipwrackt, after Baptism, either in their holy Faith, or holy Life, doth effect this no otherwise than by vertue of that principle of life remaining in the soul, infused at first by Baptism. For, as Baptism hath no power to procure mercy at the hands of God towards them that sin after they are so washed and sprinkled, without repentance: So neither hath repentance sufficient vertue to restore us to innocency, and Gods favour, unless Baptism goes before; because all remission of sins depends upon the Co­venant made in Baptism; which on our part is either to absolute holiness without sinning after Baptism, or to true Repentance for the same.

A third Effect of Baptism is our Regeneration and new birth, or being born again by this Water and the Holy Ghost. For as St. Paul saith, Ac­cording Joh. 3. Tit. 3. 5. to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renuing of the Holy Ghost.

A fourth Effect is an incorporating into the body of Christ, as well vi­sible as invisible, which together with the former is declared in the form [Page 200] of baptism contained in our Liturgy, where it is said, Seeing now, dearly Beloved, that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christs Church, let us give thanks, &c. Which the Apostle intimates when he saith, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Gal. 3. 27. Christ.

And upon both these followeth a Fifth Effect, which is, an intitling the Baptized unto an inheritance in heaven. For as St. Paul saith, If Children, Rom. 8. 17. then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs of Christ.

Lastly, As we in baptism are all baptized into one body of Christ, so are we into one Spirit. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body—saith St. Paul. And again, There is one body, and one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12. 13. Eph. 4. 4. 5. even as ye are called in one body of your calling: One Lord, One Faith, One Babtism. For the Baptism of our Saviour Christ being the Patern of ours; what in a more glorious, and visible manner followed upon his Baptism, in an inferiour manner attendeth our Baptism. It is said by St. Mark, And straitway coming up out of the water, he saw the Heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: Which Spirit doth likewise upon the moving of those waters of New Life, descend and inspire the person Bap­tized. In which sense is St. Paul to be understood when he saith, If any Rom. 8. 9. man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his: That is, if he be not partaker of the Spirit given in common to all Christians, at the time of their Baptism.

From the foresaid necessity of Baptism, is inferred the opinion of the Minister of Baptism, making it a work in it self common to all Christians. For all things most necessary, as in Nature, so in Grace, are most easie and common. As therefore Water is the most necessary thing in the world, next to air, (without which no man can live so long as without water) to mans natural substance, (and therefore is made by God most common to all persons, and cheapest of all things to mans Life,) so doth it agree well with Gods divine Goodness in Religion, to make that most common, and freest to be attain'd, which he hath made so necessary to Life and Salva­tion.

The first thing that is necessary to our Salvation is the breath of Gods mouth (as the Scripture teaches us to speak) the word of God: whichPsal. 33. 6. sanctifies both the person, and the Element of Baptism, Water; which is the Second. Therefore I make no great question but as it was free at the very first Publication of the Gospel, and so at this day is still, in some Ca­ses, and in some manner, for those called Lay-men, to declare the word of God and instruct Unbelievers in the truth of the Gospel, (which afterward, it was restrained to the Sacerdotal Office;) So upon the foundation of Faith before laid, by preaching, in all capable persons; and incapable, by others in whose power they are, that it is lawful for them who are no Priests to baptize. And the answer to this doth rather explain and confirm than deny it. For the Opposers of Lay-mens baptizing, say, That Prea­ching is twofold, Private, and Ministerial: and that a man may in Private, as Master of a Family, instruct others, but not Ministerially. The distin­ction it self is ill set together; for surely both are Ministerial Acts, and more especially, that which is denied to be so; Private Baptism: as ha­ving less of Visible power so to do; or authority: and therefore of an inferiour Ministration. But this is just the Case of Baptism. For we say not that Lay-men may baptize as Publick and Legal Ministers out of Of­fice, but as Private ministers, and in extraordinary Cases. We bring the [Page 201] example of Zipporah circumcising Moses his son, justifying the like powerExod. 4. 28. of Baptizing under the Gospel: And they reply nothing hereunto, but what makes more against themselves. For if she did it (as they say,) in the presence of her husband, when there was no need, she did it in haste, that she might prevent her husband; she did it in anger. And yet this Circum­cision held good and was accepted: How much more might it have been ac­cepted, if done by her more soberly, and seriously, as it ought by all whether Minister or otherwise? And that this Act of Zipporah was not so exorbitant in the manner of doing as vulgarly supposed, more learned Men have shewed at large.

And secondly, That is was not so extraordinary, doth appear from the practice of the Jews, who, as P. Fagius hath observed upon Deuteronomy Fagius in Deu­teron. C. 10. 16. Cap 10. v. 16. do believe, if a Man be wanting, to whom it belongs; one Uncircumcised, as a Servant, a Woman (so not an Heathen or Infidel,) a Youth may circumcise an Infant. Neither was Circumcision to be repeated made by what man soever, though an Heathen or Infidel. And in brief, We find no person excluded by the Catholick Church from doing this office, for one desiring it or capable otherwise of it, but a Mans self. And yet we are told by searchers into the ancient practice of the Jews, that a man might circumcise himself. And thus much of the First Proper and Generally ne­cessary Sacrament to Salvation, Baptism; adding only one thing more for a conclusion, and that is, about the Repetition of Baptism, or Anabaptism. Of which prophanation of that solemn Sacrament, I find many really guil­ty; but not so much, nor upon those grounds they are Generally charged. For, I have not met with any that directly affirm it to be requisite or lawful to reiterate Baptism, though in fact they do so. For the Novatians, the Donatists, the Arrians, and they of Late years, who are called from the Renewing of their Baptism, Anabaptists, have none of them (that we find) declared it reasonable that Baptism once truly performed should be acted over again: but all these suppose it not done, and therefore they do it. It was always the opinion of the Catholick, as well as Heretical, and Schismatical Churches, That all outward words or washings sufficed not to the due effect of baptism. There were three several incapacities which render'd pretended baptism void, so far, that the Person so baptized was held obliged to be again baptized. The incapacity of the Minister or Baptizer: The incapacity of the Person or subject to be baptized: Third­ly, the incapacity of the Form used in Baptism. If the Minister had any time fallen from, or denied the Christian Faith, or was of impure and Scandalous manners, he was reputed by the Novatians and Donatists uncapa­ble of such a sacred Office; and consequently in that (though a Priest) did not effectually administer that Holy Sacrament, imagining that he who was so defiled himself could not by his Ministration cleanse another; and there­fore he was baptized not as repeating former baptism, but as not being baptized at all. The Arrians being enemies to the second Person in the Trinity, and judging the Catholicks to be so too, in ascribing too much unto Christs divine nature, looked on the form of baptizing as corrupt and insufficient to such an end; and therefore thought another, necessary. And our modern Anabaptists as they are called, not thinking Infants capable of that Sacrament, for want of Faith and Repentance, (which they hold ab­solutely necessary to Salvation, and that in the properest sense) deny any effect to follow upon those Actions used. So that we see there are no pro­per Anabaptists; such I mean, who hold it so much as needful to baptize [Page 202] any persons above once. Though in Fact they stand guilty of this pro­phanation, upon the grounds of others not hard to be made Good against them, as we have against these last, shewing the Capacity children are in of receiving Baptism, as also that the unworthiness of the Person ministring Sacraments doth not impede the effect of those Sacraments, while he hath a proper subject to work upon; and observes the proper form requi­red. Now this form, according as the Arrians excepted against at, doth depend upon the disputation of the Divine Nature of Christ, proper to another place.

It may here be doubted, whether the zeal of some of the Ancients, but of most of the Schoolmen hath not too far transported them, who damn all such as repeat Baptism once rightly administer'd; it being impossible in their opinion, that Baptism should be twice acted, but the Former must be renounced: and truly, if Baptism once truly performed be renounced, that which follows is also renounced being in it self good: For there is but One Baptism, as St. Paul saith. But this can never be proved, as necessa­rilyEphes. 4. and perpetually true. They indeed, of whom now we have spoken; who were so engaged in heretical opinions and societies as to believe the imperfection and insufficiency of that Baptism they received, could not admit of another, but they must reject the first. But then, whether abso­lutely they rejected true Catholick Baptism, may be a doubt: For he only renounces his Baptism properly, who rejecteth the Form it self, and the Faith therein implied. And this is the One Baptism of which St. Paul is certainly to be understood: that is, necessarily One in nature, but that it should be also so One in number, as multiplied both should be made void, no reason is given. And surely St. Paul intended no such thing: though he may be said much less to have intended the multiplication of it. The more probable opinion therefore of the two is, That the Second Baptism is void rather than the first: As if two married persons being joyned to­gether in Lawful Matrimony once, should presume a Second time to go, through the same Ceremony, it may be, only to confirm them in that state; this were to baffle and prophane such Ordinances, but it were not to make the former Vows and Rites void.

And for the reasons given against Iteration of Baptism, though I yield the Conclusion, that it ought not so to be, I do not hold them convincing, used to this purpose: Not that taken from the indelibleness of that Cha­racter supposed to be imprinted in the soul, by that Sacrament. 'Tis true, Circumcision had a visible character made in the body, which could scarce be altered or removed: But that therefore, to answer this, there must be a proportionable impres [...]on the soul, which is invisible, follows not. St. Paul calls Circumcision a sign, and a seal; and it is Baptism in a Me­taphorical sense: And the Fathers, who many times mention such things, intended nothing more than an immutable Obligation on our part to God, and an infallible communication of Gods grace to them who duly are par­takers of his Sacraments. It is also true, a Man can be born but once spiritually, as naturally; and therefore supersluous and prophane are all attempts to a Regeneration a second time; the principles of spiritual life being preserved intire in themselves, though in a way to be extinguished upon pertinacy in sin, and dying in impenitency. And for those places of Scipture where St. Paul tells us, we are sealed by Gods spirit, alledged,2 Cor. 1. 21, 22. Eph. 1. 13, 14. Eph. 4. 30. to prove that we have a Character made in Baptism upon us; it is evident, that they are to be understood not of the ordinary Baptism, by Water, [Page 203] but the extraordinary, of the Holy Ghost, sometimes preventing Baptism; as appears in the Acts more than once: Other reasons out of ScriptureAct. 10. 41. brought to this purpose do prove only that to repeat Baptism is needless, but not damnable. For the Ethiopians, who are reported to BaptizeBreerwoods Enquirit. themselves once a year, on the same day that Christ was Baptized, do it as the History of them tells, not so much implying an invalidity in one Ba­ptism, as a convenience to bring to mind the Baptism of Christ, on Epi­phany; perhaps reckoning the precept of Christ given to Communicate in Remembrance of him, might hold to the obliging them to repeat Baptism in remembrance of his Baptism.

CHAP. XLI.

VVE now come to the Second most proper and ne­cessary Sacrament, known by several names, as that of The Supper of the Lord, in our Church Catechisms; not because our Lord Christ made his Supper of it, or ever intended we should, but be­cause at his Last Supper upon the Paschal Lamb, and the conclusion of it, he instituted this, for his Apostles, and all Faithful peoples spiritual benefit, as a Spiritual Repast or Supper, nourishing them to eternal Life. In an­swer to which, we read of the Promise of Christ in the Revelations, Be­hold Rev. 3. 20. I stand at the door and Knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come into him and will Sup with him and he with me. And St. Paul more expresly, to the Corinthians: When ye come together therefore 1 Cor. 11. 20. into one place, this is not to eat the Lords Supper; distinguishing hereby this Sacred Supper from the more ordinary communion which those first Chri­stians had in their Charitable meetings to eat and drink together to their mutual edification and comfort. From whence their Cavils seem to be groundless, who with some scorn reject this name in use much amongst the Reformed, fearing somewhat derogatory to those Sacred Mysteries.

And upon the same grounds likewise, do they shun the name of the Lords Table, lest the word Altar, which seems to them more sacred, should be less accounted of. And yet without reason; For surely where St. Paul calls those holy Mysteries, The Table of the Lord, he speaketh not properly but Me­tonymically;1 Cor. 10. 21. not of the Material Table, on which they were placed, but of the Adjuncts which were the Sacramental Elements. Though it be plain that from this Supper of the Lord, the Table furnished with it, took its [Page 204] denomination of the Lords. And that not only in Scriptures, but amongst Primitive writers too. And, Altar of the Lord it was called, only Meta­phorically, not properly, by both: no otherwise than the Lords day was called by way of Analogy, The Sabbath day.

From the Form used at the celebration of those Mysteries, it was called Eucharist, which was Thanksgiving, as Mathew 26. 26, 27. From the Effect, which was double, Communion with Christ, and with the Members of Christs Body, the Faithful, it was termed Communion, 1 Cor: 10. 16. From the Matter of which it consisted, The Body, and Blood of Christ. Corin: ibid. And many more less considerable appellations have been re­ceived in the Church, to be passed over in this short view: wherein we are rather to enquire into the Nature of it in these Particulars, viz: 1. The Author. 2. The Matter. 3. The Form. 4. The Ends and Ef­fects.

For the Author, It is, without controversy, Christ himself; the histories of the Gospels plainly so affirming, Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. Luc. 22. 19. And St. Paul to the Corinthians. 1 Epist. 11. 23. It ha­ving nothing herein peculiar to it: it being necessary to all Sacraments, so properly called, that they be Instituted of God, or Christ: as is above proved.

The Greatest contention of all, is concerning the Subject-matter of this Blessed Sacrament, not in a few words to be opened, or composed. The clearest way to proceed in this disquisition is, First, to consider the Ex­ternal Part, and then the Internal. The External are the Signs or Elements appointed by Christ, to insinuate and represent unto us his Passion; or as his own express words are, to bring to remembrance his death and Passion. This do in remembrance of me. And what is here only recorded by the Evan­gelistsLuk. 22. 19. to have been said of the Bread; St. Paul affirmeth to have been likewise spoken of the Cup, Do this as often as ye drink it in remembrance 1 Cor. 11-25. of me: declaring unto us the use, and end of the Institution of these Signs. But before we go any further, it will be necessary in our way to distin­guish the twofold most principal and common acceptation of the word Sa­crament, here: For sometimes it is taken Complexly, for the whole mi­nistration of the Lords Supper: and at other times, only for the Materi­al Part of it: which again is sometimes taken for the External or signifying Part, the Elements; and sometimes for the Internal, or things by them sig­nified, which are the Body and Blood of Christ, and that not simply and absolutely, but as under the consideration of his Bitter death and Passion, and that for our sakes.

The Elemental and External parts of this Sacrament are to be consider­ed two ways: First, before the celebration, or consecration of the same; and then after. First then it is generally agreed to, on all sides, that our Saviour Christ took natural Bread, and natural Wine, most commonly in use in those Countreys; and therefore in all reason, this ought to be a constant, binding prescription to all that minister, and use that Sacra­ment; and not to vary from the very kind used by him when ever it can with any tolerable care and cost be obtained. But seeing that Christ in all probability, without any scrupulous choice of Wheat or Rye, or Bar­ley or any one single Grain, made use of that which was in ordinary use at Meals amongst them, and there being no express word, which of these he took, there appears no reason why any one, of which Bread may be made, for the service and life of Man, may not be taken to this purpose: And [Page 205] especially, considering that the end of the Institution, which is said to be the representing of Christs death and Passion, and the affecting us thereby, may no less be performed by the one sort than the other. Yet where the constant practice of the Church, confirmed by positive Injunctions, hath determined the kind, it can be no ways free or safe for any unnecessarily to vary from that. It is of much greater difficulty to determine, What is to be done in the cases of such, both extreme Northern, as well as SouthernScaliger exer­cit. 292. ¶ 4. people, who have no such Grain amongst them as we have mentioned. For, 'tis very hard to acknowledg an ordinary necessity of this blessed Sacra­mentPlerosque nos vidimus fru­menti usum et vini penitus ig­norantes. Am­mian: Marcel­linus Lib: 14. Cap. 12. to the having life spiritual in us, to the comfort of our souls, to the strengthening of our Faith, to the resisting the temptations of the De­vil; and, in fine, to the salvation of our souls, and yet supposing what St. Paul testifieth, that God would have all men to be saved, there should be a natural incapacity of the means of the ordinary means of Salvation. And considering withal, that Bread may be easily taken, not for that only which is made of our common Corn, but for that also which supplies the1 Tim. 2. 4. use, and fulfils the natural ends of Bread, and bears sufficient proportion to the agreements between the Natural and Spiritual Bread, as St. Paul hath stated it, We being many, are one bread: for we are all partakers of that 1 Cor. 10. 17. onebread. In the first, he compares the conjunction of Christians in this communion, with the union of the many several grains into one bread: And so though the parts constituting one Loaf, be more distinct than they which may concurr to the compounding one body of this Supplemental bread; yet are the Parts distinguishable so far as to truly denominate that body a Compound. In the latter Analogy of St. Pauls, saying, We are all Ejusmodi esse debet Euchari­stiae, ut multa in unum redi­gantur. Aug. Tract. 26. in Joann. partakers of that one Bread, that is, as we all in the Communion partake of one Loaf outwardly, so we inwardly all partake of that one Bread of God, that came down from heaven, Christ Jesus; no less in some other one body, than in proper bread; I say, (not absolutely determining that so actually it is, but) that the Representation makes no such difference, but so it may be.

And this, methinks, they should be most inclinable to, who religiously observe the mixing of water in the other Element, Wine: which otherwise must needs infinitely and inextricably perplex the minds of the Consecra­ter, and Communicant both. For it being not at all determined in nature, what the Schools in general determine, viz: that so much water may be mixed with wine, till it ceaseth to be truly wine, and yet the Element ca­pable of effectual consecration; I say, it being not determinable in nature by the acutest judgement, precisely, what quantity of water destroyeth a quantity of wine; it may so fall out, that by the undue mixture of wa­ter, the wine ceases to be wine: and then, what becomes of that Sacra­ment which they say essentially, and indispensably requires wine? It is very hard and presumptious to affirm that none but natural (no artificial water drawn from distillations) have any efficacy in baptism, especially if they have a cleansing nature with them; as all, or most in some degree have: seeing they may signify the same for which Natural water was ordained. For otherwise, we may say, that Hot water, being in some sense artificial, was not in any case to be used to such ends. And distilled waters are cer­tainly not absolutely made, for then there might be more reason to exclude it, but is that Elemental water of which the natural Body doth consist; though not distilling naturally but praeternaturally from the body, out of which it is forced; and retaining more mixture than the common sort doth. And [Page 206] so may we affirm much more of Bread, that the commonly known Bread is that which should be preferred without all doubt, yea not without greatest scruple should be neglected; but when that which is in place, and common use amongst some Nations, seems to them more natural, and ours more unnatural and artificial, doth there not appear great reason to admit that? Or can we imagine that Christ whom we find the least super­stitions or scrupulous of all men of his age, in things not directly limited by a Law, but of themselves indifferent, would not have followed the customs and opinions of men in such Regions, had he conversed with them? Is it not a reason rendred by the Ancients, and that a very suffi­cient too, against the Perpetuity and Universality of the Jews wor­ship;Eusebius De­monst. Evan­g. 1. that all Nations could not possibly be concerned in it, or obliged by it, because of an incapacity they were in by the extreme distance from Jerusalem, the place of principal worship, to fulfil the Laws and Pre­cepts of it? And will not it, or at least may it not be alledged as strongly against the proper Catholickness of Christian Religion, that the Laws thereof, and that one of the most solemnand necessary, cannot be observed by all Nations? It will be said, That such things as are so necessarly re­quired, may be imported from other places. Very true. And surely where it may, it ought. But to make any Countrey, which Gods Provi­dence extendeth it self to, of it self uncapable of receiving as good Christians, as any place in the World; or to make the Religion of Chri­stians to depend on Merchandizing necessarily, is more than in modesty can be said, or by reason maintained.

Neither doth the condemnation of the Heresie of the Aquarii of old, or such as solemnized this Sacrament with water alone, condemn absolute­ly the use of all other Liquors besides Wine in it; because they condem­ned the use of all besides Water in that Sacrament, contrary to Christs In­stitution. Christ, without doubt, celebrated with proper wholesome Wine, of the fruit of the Vine: And this argues sufficiently that the like is to be used, and none other, where it is attainable. And the argument of the Schoolmen which say, That neither Sider nor Perry, nor liquor pressed out of Raisins, nor Vinegar, nor such like are apt matter for consecration, because they are not proper Wine, may be allowed, taking apt for proper and convenient; but scarce if taken for Possible; as if they were not su­sceptible of Sacramental consecration, where they are in common use. And though Vinegar seems to draw neerest to the nature of Wine, and in that respect more apt than other Liquors, yet in this it is more unapt, because it is the drink of no people. And yet Alexander Alensis granteth that in some Regions they consecrate altogether of Vinegar, because to them Wine in its pure nature cannot be brought. This they understand rather of Wine degenerated of it self, into such an acidity or sowrness, than of that which is studiously made so. But if nothing which art hath counter­feited and adulterated can be received as the matter of this Sacrament, how many Sacraments in Christendom would be absolutely void, and Commu­nicants deluded of their expectations? And seeing in the corruptions of Wine by other ingredients, as well as Water, the Casuists determine that it ceases then only to be capable of this sacred use when it retains its nature, not otherwise; but cannot determine possibly when the nature first begins to change to a destruction: What infinite and grievous suspitions and scru­ples must evermore afflict the minds of Communicants upon conceit that the matter they so receive may have suffered such strange kind and degrees [Page 207] of composition that the nature of Wine is really lost, and an artificial liquor not much to the eye or vulgar taste discernible, taken in its stead; to the nulling of the effects of the Sacrament, and much worse, where such a spe­cifical Conversion of the Elements into Christs Body and Blood is maintai­ned, and received with answerable Faith and worship. The distinction of Material and Formal Idolatry (of which we may hereafter speak) little redressing that monstrous evil.

And if we are not so indispensably and absolutely tied to the natures of things in this Action, much less ought there to be such warm and uncharita­ble contentions about the condition, form, or qualities of those Elements which in no manner change the nature of them: as Leavening, or Unleave­ning; or forming the bread after the common use, or in such manner as may be thought least subject to prophanation in making the Bread into several Cakes or Wafers, which though it nulleth not the Sacrament, yet it corrup­teth the Institution and End both, in some measure. For First, it is certain Christ celebrated on solid, usual bread; and why should we upon private imaginations, next to vain Superstition, introduce another order than Christ pitched on, and amend by fine contrivances what he but rudely laid down, as we irreverently must suppose? Again, It doth seem more than an indifferent Ceremonie, which, according to St. Paul, and after him the Fathers, signified the Unity of Christ, and his Members, and of his mem­bers one with another by that one Sacramental Body visibly representing, and exhibiting invisibly Christ in that One Bread. And lastly, That Cere­mony of breaking Bread, so much practised by Primitive Christians even in this Sacrament, and thereby expressing Christs own proper Body bro­ken for our sins, a very Fruitful, Reasonable, and significant Action, is altogether laid aside; to the great injury of Christs institution and Christi­ans edification. Surely, if any thing, this is to make our selves wiser than Christ, and to be subtiller and more zealous for his Majesty than he would have us: which cannot be wiped off by that common refuge and reserve at pinching objections, viz: The Power of the Church. For the Church has no Right (what ever Power it may have) to make alterations at pleasure, upon no better grounds than were at the first known and neglected, in Sa­cramental things; though the nature of the Sacrament may remain inviolate. For seeing the Sacramental Signs were ordained by Christ to call to remem­brance the particulars as well as general of Christs Passion, and the manner, as well as the thing it self; to the intent that the more deep and lively im­pression might be made thereof in our Souls, to pare off, (out of presump­tion of the Churches Power, and more reverent ministration and partici­pation thereof,) the Ceremonies so immediately and significantly expressing the End of it, and used by Christ himself, and for ought doth appear, for several Ages after, is to invade the Rights, and call in question the Wisdom of Christ himself. And surely then, The Breaking of Bread signifying the violence offered to Christs Body, and the Powring out the Wine intimating the shedding of his Blood for us, nothing can be more useful; and therefore to abrogate these, and invent and impose others upon pretences not un­known, but rejected at the first Institution, argues more superstitious pre­sumption than sober Devotion.

CHAP. XLII.

BUT thus far of the Signs: The things internal and signified are yet of greater importance to our Faith and worship, viz. the Body and Blood of Christ: The several Disputes about which we shall reduce to these two General Heads briefly to be explai­ned. First, the manner of Existence of them in the Eucharist: And next the manner of Participation: which two do mutually illustrate one another. For as to the Real Presence it self, I find no such real diffe­rence which may deserve discussion. For surely, If Christ or his Body and Blood be at all Present in this Sacrament, they are really present; For imaginary fictitious presence is no better than a Mockery unworthy of any Philosopher to admit, and much more Divine. Whatsoever is, Really is, or not all; according to this account: And therefore to say, We All agree in the thing, though we differ in the Manner of Christs Presence, is to say no more, and to draw no neerer at all to the composing of this difference, than we may have any common Philosopher to joyn with us, upon this gran­ted that Christ is Present there, for that must needs be really. So that no Christian can deny the Real Presence absolutely, but must presently inter­pret himself in some peculiar sense to himself. And they that do so, are wont to begin with a distinction of Sacramental, and Corporal, or as some, Natural Presence. For Sacramental Presence, (it being not at all heard of or known in Logick, or Nature, nor to be explained by any thing paral­lel to it, out of this Mystery it self,) who can be the better for it? Who can understand what is meant by it, before he be resolved of the thing most of all question'd, viz: What is Sacramental Presence? For unless we be cut off here, and must not at all enquire, What it is to be Sacramentally Present, but take the notion at a venture, and presume we know what in truth we do not, we shall be as hard put to it as before. For Sacramen­tally to be present doth not at all express the manner, unless, as some seem to mean by it such a Mystical presence that we know not what to make of, [Page 209] (and in this acceptation every unknown thing should create a new kind of being) but imply all senses possible to a Sacrament. So that if a man holds Christs body to be in the Sacrament Bodily and naturally, this is certainly a Sacramentally, and, If he holds it to be there Spiritually, it is likewise Sacramentally, and so whatever other way we can reasonably conceive to be in the Sacrament it must be Sacramentally: Sacramental Presence being (as is said) no one kind of Presence, but common to all possible to the Eu­charist, if not to nature it self,

It will be more needful to distinguish between Christs Corporal Presence and Christ Corporally Present; and there is good ground for to do so. For if Presence be as Thomas defines it, 1. Qu. 8. Ar. 1. 2. The communica­tion of one thing with another; so many waies as a Body imparts it self to ano­ther, so many may it be said to be Present to it. And these ways are common­ly resolved to be two. First by immediate contact and conjunction. Se­condly by a Virtual or Effectual communication with it, the Substance it self continuing remote. So that though Christs body should be determined to one certain place in Heaven; yet may it by its vertue communicate it self to us in the Sacrament, and be said to be Present really, though not Corporally, after the manner of bodies in their natural state, by conti­guity.

And what we now say of the Subject of this Sacrament will hold no less in the Case of Participation of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist. For as Christs Body may be said to be really though not Corporally Present and immediately: So may it be said to be received Really, and not Phan­tastically only, though not Corporally after the manner that other bodies are received. For they that affirm that Christs body is Corporally, Sa­cramentally, received, do say, if not what they know not themselves, yet what no body but themselves can apprehend: For either these terms are really distinct, or Not. If they be not, then are they either superflu­ous, or at most explicatory one of another: but this latter cannot be said, because Sacramentally is more obscure than Corporally; and Corporally signi­fies a much grosser degree of Presence than the Framers of this distinction will admit to agree with these Divine Mysteries. If they be distinct, whence shall we fetch the nature of this Sacramental Presence? whenas there is nothing to be found in Nature to resemble or explain it; but it must be described by it self: And Sacramentally Present is no more than to be present in the Sacrament: But what it is to be present in the Sacrament, or how a thing may be said to be present in the Sacrament otherwise than in other Cases, we shall ever be to seek, and consequently never learn. There­fore we must be constrained at length to reduce this large and unintelligi­ble Presence Sacramental to one of the two old sorts of the Presence of Influence only, or Presence of Substance it self [or Suppositum.] So that ei­ther the Influence only of Christs Body and Blood should be found in the Eucharist, and the vertue of them be therein communicated unto us: or the very natural Substance also.

We have hitherto spoken of the Presence it self precisely taken from its Causes and manner external: For according to Philosophers there is a Modus Essentialis, and a Modus Accidentalis. The Essential manner is simply to be, af­ter the intrinsique natureof a thing: as the intrinsique nature and manner of a Body is to be Corporally and of a Spirit to be Spiritually: that is, As a Bo­dy, and as a Spirit. But as a Body ordinarily and naturally palpable and visi­ble may remain a true real Body and yet not be seen, or felt; so may a Spirit [Page 210] remain a Spirit in substance, and yet appear as a Body. So that it is possi­ble, Christs Body may be present corporally in the essentials and formal nature of a Body, and yet not appear in the accidental or separable for­malities of a Body; which are actually to be seen and felt at a competent distance. These I call accidental, because they may be wanting, as well by reason of the defect of the senses which should perceive them, as of the sensiblenes, of such objects: For a Divine power may take away the one, as well as the other, by impeding the sense: though seeing the very nature and essence of a Body consisteth in being extended, and quantitative, it cannot be conceived how a Divine Power can divide them which mutually constitute one another; though it may render them imperceptible to out­ward sense. And so Christs Body may be in the Eucharist, so far corpo­rally as to have all real and essential modifications of a Body: but not so Corporally as to appear in the proper forms of a Body. But granting, or supposing rather, that Christs Body were in this Latter sense present in the Sacrament, there appears no great reason, why this should be called a Sacramental Presence more than that presence when he was with his Disci­ples at Supper; and as the Scripture saith, Vanished out of their sight:Luk. 24. 31. that is as the word and sense import, not translating his Body suddainly to another place but disappearing in that place, or ceasing to be seen by them: answerable to the contrary power shewn in his sudden appearing without any previous Act, and standing in the midst of them, before theyV. 36. could be aware of it, or suppose any such thing: which was occasion of their great Affrightment and amazement, supposing him to be a Spi­rit.37.

But it is one thing to be Possibly and another Actually so to be. And yet farther, Actually for Christs Body and Blood so to be present; and to be so Present as there should remain nothing substantial or material be­sides them; and the Signs to be changed into the things signified by them, absolutely and totally, the shew or Accident only excepted. So that the Question is double, First, Whether those Substances of Bread and Wine remain after consecration really the same they were before, or be totally abolished? Secondly, It is inquired, not so much whether Christs Body and Blood be really present in the Sacrament, but whether it be really the Sacrament it self, as it must necessarily be, if so be that they be in such manner really present, as there remains no other substance besides them.

For the former of these, the knowledge of the Real Presence of Signs, Bread and Wine, do exceedingly conduce to the understanding of the Re­al Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ under, or through those Signs. And it should seem that the Roman Advocates of the New sense of a Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood, proceed not in the proper and natural method, rightly to found their Doctrine. For, as according to them, there must be in order of nature, though not of time, a Desition or abolition of the Elemental substances, before there can succeed those Divine substances; so should they have first by sound and sufficient argu­ments, proved the destruction of the preceeding Bodies, and then have inferred the succeeding. But on the contrary, They first presume on the Second (upon what grounds we shall hereafter see) viz: That Christs Body is so really subsisting there; and then conclude, that the Elements are not there subsistent. For he that holds that the Sacramental Signs do not exclude the Body and Blood of Christ, doth likewise hold that the Body and [Page 211] Blood of Christ are not inconsistent with the Real Presence of the Ele­ments. It must not be denied that those texts of Scripture which are com­monly alleadged to Parallel Christs words, and consequently to give a more favourable sense than that of Transubstantiation; do not exactly fit the Case. For when the Scripture saith, Christ is a Door, or Christ is a Vine, or a Lamb, it is not the same formally, as to say, that a Lamb is Christ, or a Door, or a Vine is Christ. Yet if that rigour must be observed in Scrip­ture Propositions to have them true, that without a Trope or Figure, they must be understood, otherwise, we must be reproached to deny Scripture; the foresaid speeches must as necessarily inferr a Transubstantiation of Christ into the Nature of a Door, or Vine, or Lamb; as his bare words at the Celebration, do inferr a Transubstantiation of the Elements into his Nature. And no apparence of disparity can be here shown; if so be Christs Literal meaning must be here urged as they do.

Now, That the Signs which were before, are Really Present in the Sa­crament after Consecration, doth appear from the most-Essential thing to a Sacrament. A Sacrament we have defined to be a Visible Sign, with Austin and infinite others: I say, a Visible and Real Sign, and not Visibly, Apparently or Seemingly a Sign: or a Sign of a Sign, as the deluding Spe­cieses remaining after supposed Transubstantiation, are said to be. And it is an Impossible thing, as is before shewed in the general treating of Sa­craments, that the Sign should be the thing signified. For if some Sign could be the thing signified; then, something signified should be a Sign: and so both wayes the Relate and Cor-relate should be the same too; and two should be one, and one should be two: and if this may be, what may not be? or at least, said to be? For as to the instances given, That in some Cases a thing may be a Sign, and the thing signified, it hath been showed how de­fective they are, in that they are a Sign of the same nature perhaps, or ra­ther some qualification of it, and not of the same thing numerically, as the individual Sign in the Lords Supper is believed to be of that it is. Therefore from hence they are put to their choice, Whether of the two they will suffer: the loss of the Sacrament, or the absence of Christs Body in their sense. For not only the nature of the thing now expressed, re­quire Sacramental Signs as well as the thing signified, but the manifold Au­torities of the Ancientest of the Greek and Latin Fathers have for this rea­son, called the Sacramental Elements, Signs, Figures, Representations, Types, Antitypes of Christs Body and Blood: as might at large be shewed, our Adversaries not denying it. But what answer do they make to them? The Modern Greeks as Cardinal Bessario (who is herein followed by some more modern than himself) Latinizing; answer, confessing that the FathersBessario Do Eucharist. Sa­cramento. often so speak, but (say they) they speak only of the Bread and Wine be­fore Consecration, and not after. Here is some wit in this shuffle and eva­sion, but no truth at all. For before Dedication and Consecration, they are not Signs, or Figures, or Antitypes at all: They have no more relati­on to the Body and Blood of Christ, than the like Elements at our Com­mon tables: and therefore they must be understood to speak of them after Consecration. But the Answer of the Scholastical managers of this con­troversy in the Latin Church, shows less modesty and no more truth. ForAūg. in Psal. 3. they say, St. Austin who calls the consecrated Elements, a Figure of Christs Body: spake not of every empty Figure, but of a Figure of a thing really present. All this we grant willingly, viz: that the Signs Sacramen­tal are not Signs of things future, or Absent: This is nothing at all to the [Page 212] purpose. And the Second answer is notoriously and boldly false, saying, That St. Austin might there speak as Manichee, who denied the Real BodyContra Ada­mant. C. 12. of Christ: For it was in confutation of Manicheans. And of Tertullians words, who likewise calls the consecrate Elements, Signs, they make non­sense; joyning head and tail together, that they may really signifie nothing, least they should signify that for which we alleadg them. Tertullian saies, Hoc est Corpus meum: Id est, Figura Corporis mei. Figura Corporis mei, saies one (after his greater Doctors) is referred not unto Corpus meum, as anFisher Jes. explication thereof, but unto Hoc in this manner: Hoc; id est, Figura Cor­poris mei, est Corpus meum. i. e. This; that is, the Figure of my Body, is my Body. If it be not sufficient conviction of their Errour, and confusion, that they are driven to such unnatural tossing of mens words against com­mon sense and Grammar, and having so done, to affect nothing but what is directly false or unintelligible, (as this Scholie is making the Figure and the Body the very same thing,) I confess I have nothing to say.

For this is the subject we have at present in hand, That the Sign and thing signified must by eternal necessity, be distinct: but this opinion of Tran­substantiation destroys this: and destroying this, destroys the Sacrament. For whereas they say, That the remaining Species supply the place of the Substance abolished, and are Signs: This cannot consist with the impos­sibility of such Accidents without a subject; in that, contrary to their definition, they should stick, and not stick to a thing; in that they are Accidents, their nature requires that they should have a subject; and the nature of this mutation requires they should have none. And where as they argue, That what any Creature can do, the Creatour can much more do; and therefore, if the Creature can sustain Accidents, the Creatour God Almighty can. I answer, If the Creature could sustain Accidents without a subject, then doubtless could God the Creatour; but doth it fol­low that because the Creature can be a subject to them, therefore the Creatour can also? All that a Creature can Do, the Creatour can do: but all that the Creature can Suffer, I trow the Creatour cannot: But to be the subject to Accidents, is a Passion, and imperfection, and no Action: and therefore nothing can be concluded from hence. Therefore they pro­ceed one strain higher, not doubting to say, That, what the Creature can do by its Passive Capacity, the Creatour can do by his Active, which if it did not imply a contradiction in nature itself, I should easily grant: but this it doth. For first, it is to make an Accident, a Substance: For tis the nature of a Substance, to subsist of it self without the aid or support of any other thing, distinct from it. Not that the Secondary being can sub­sist without the First, God himself, but without any thing Created. And therefore seeing that Substance it self cannot continue in its Being without Gods omnipotent hand supporting it; this doth equalize the nature of Accidents to that of Substance, in that it supposeth that Accidents, by a divine power, may subsist of themselves, as well as Substance. For sub­stance cannot subsist at all without a Divine power: and thus Accidents by a Divine power should be of the nature of Substance: but such confusi­on and havock in nature, to bring in an unnatural Dogm, is no ways to be admitted, not out of any defect in the Divine Power, but an incapacity of the Creature to be so order'd, against its nature.

And as this Condition of Species subsisting or existing separately of them­selves, is contrary to their nature: So the significativeness of these Species is contrary to Christs Intention, and Institution; which were to make a [Page 213] representation of his death and passion, by Bread and Wine, and not by the Similitudes of Bread and Wine. And this is to be noted, That when the Ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin do affirm that Christs Body or Blood are present under the Species and Forms of Bread and Wine, they do not mean such Species as the Schools of Aristotle have introduced, (for I find not that they took any notice of them,) distinct from the subject to which they relate: but they took them in a more plain sense, for the thing it self so affected and formed: and Under the Species, signified with them as much as Under the Kinds of Bread and Wine, Christs Body was present. And they never destroyed the Sacrament it self, to give an extraordinary Being to the Body of Christ therein.

CHAP. XLIII.

AND If this be once made good, That there is a Proper Sacrament remaining after Consecration, it will be much less diffi­culty to agree upon the manner of Christs presence in the Sa­crament. For the doubt will not be so much about the Con­comitance, and co-existence of it with the Sacramental Signs; as, Whether that which we See with our eys, and touch, and taste, be pro­perly, and not denominatively and Figuratively only, the Body of Christ. And in effect, Whether it be the very Sacrament it self, or whether only in the Sacrament. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome determines not on­ly that There it is; but directly and expresly, This it is: and this we de­ny, as that which indeed must include such a Transubstantiation as is by them affirmed, and the chiefest grounds whereof we are now to exa­mine.

And First from Scripture, they are wont to argue, and that from the OldBellarm: Lib. 1. Cap. 3. De Sacram. Eucharist. Testament: where are recorded many Types and Figures of Christ, and particularly, his Passion: which were no less, if not much more clear than the representations in the Eucharist; if Christ himself be not there otherwise than Figuratively. For the Paschal Lamb slain, seems to re­present Christs Passion more Lively and expresly than the Sacramental Ele­ments: Therefore, if that the Sacraments of the Gospel might exceed them of the Law, it is necessary that what was done there Figuratively only, should be properly and really performed in our Sacraments. Answ. But first, supposing Transubstantiation, is Christ more clearly in the Sacra­ment, than if there were no such thing? Or can the Sacrament of the Gos­pel be said to be more clear for this, when in truth it is more Mystical and abstrufe? But though it be not more clear to the sense or Reason, yet it is in it self more really present: For otherwise the Legal Sacrament must have been only a Figure of this Figure of Christs Body, and not of theBertramus. Body it self. But the answer of Bertram to this about eight hundred years [Page 214] ago, is sufficient to this purpose; that both the Paschal Lamb, and the Sacramental Elements both Figured and represented Christs body: The for­mer Christs Body future, and its Passion; and the other Instant, (as at the Institution) or Part, and compleated. So that in truth, a great prehe­minence there is in the Sacraments of the New Testament, above them of the Old: which is the thing contended for. But Christ was really re­ceived in both.

The next Argument taken from Christs words in the sixth of John: where he saith amongst many other things, I am the Bread of Life. And again, Ve­rily, Joh. 6. 48. 53. 54. Verily, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you. For my Flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed: Is answer'd two ways. First, from a consent on both sides by some of the Learnedest, That Christ spake not of a Sacramental Eating and Drinking of him; but Ordinary, in receiving him by Faith, preached: But because, as many on both sides affirm that he pointed at the Eucharist, in these words, therefore I think it most reasonable, and equal to take in both senses: and that Christ intended the receiving of him by Faith in the word preached, and in the Eucharist too. And though Christs Flesh be meat indeed, and his Blood drink indeed, it doth not follow at all, that it is pro­perly so: For things Metaphorically such, are really, though not Pro­perly. And Christ doth not say, Caro mea est verus cibus, or San­guis meus verus est potus. i. e. My Flesh is true meat, or Pro­per: My Blood is true Drink: but My Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed: that is, verily and really. And besides the difference before intimated between these expressions and that at the Cele­bration of the Eucharist when he calls the Bread his Body, is very great, especially with the precise stickers to the Letter: For according to these, Christ Transubstantiated Bread into his Body: but here, according to the same Rule of interpretation, he should convert his Body into Bread: the words being alike operative: But if Christ did at no time make a Transubstantiation of his Flesh, or body into bread, though he affirmed his Body to be bread: What reason is there we should believe upon no bet­ter grounds, than he affirming bread to be his Body, should thereby change it into his proper Body?

A Third principal Argument is taken from the words of Christ at the Celebration, viz: This is my Body, and This is my Blood. And upon the proper acceptation of these words, they make no doubt to put to silence all seeming oppositions, and contradictions, and impossibilities in nature. For be it (say they) how it will, Christ saying it, who is truth it self, no doubt is to be made of it: For as they teach the vulgar to speak, If Christ should say that this stone were his Body, we ought to believe it. All which is granted. But we must distinguish, as all sober men do, between Loquela and Sermo. He that rehearses a certain number of Articulate words doth Loqui or [...] but he only who doth deliver the word conceived in his mind (which is his meaning) at his mouth, doth Sermocinari or [...] Now if it can be proved by any certain Circumstance, that Christ meant these words in a proper sense, and not improper, in which he delivered no small part of his doctrine in the Gospel, we have done; the Controversy is at an end; we are to lay our hands on our mouths and freely to conclude with them. But until this be better evinced what make they with so many zealous professions of their believing of Christ, or protestations against others that herein they believe not Christ?

[Page 215]It becomes then the principal doubt of all, not what were Christs words but what was the drift and purpose of them. And surely they must needs grant this to be worthily doubted of, when they consider how sundry of their eminent Doctors do yield such an Indifferency in the words as that they are capable of both senses: as might easily be made apparent: But saying that We ought to take the Scriptures always literally where it will consist with the analogy of Faith, they say no more than we: But if it happens (as here it doth) that our Analogy of Faith differs from theirs, what are we the neerer? For our Faith tells us, Christs words were spiri­tual as well here as in St. John; where he expresly testifies so much saying,Joh. 6. 63. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life: that is, spiritually and not properly to be understood: And Literal sense we un­derstand two ways, First, as being the same as the prime signification of the words according to common use: And this Literal sense we deny of these words. But affirm them literally to be taken, taking Literal, for that which by the same words was immediately and primarily intended by the speaker, in which way all Metaphorical speeches are Literally to be taken. For he that says of a vicious man, He is a Beast, doth literally mean that he is of beastly qualities, and not the very nature of a Beast. So that Metaphorical and Literal are not opposite, but Metaphorical and Natural, and Natural and Spiritual.

We say then, That this Proposition as in the Eucharist, is Metaphori­cal, and yet Literal. But it is a weak and spiteful slander to say, That because we say this, therefore we hold that Christs Body is only Meta­phorically and Figuratively in the Eucharist: For we profess it to be re­ally and properly, and really and properly received in the Sacrament; and not as they would fain perswade the World of us, imaginarily only: But the figurativeness is not so much in the Presence of Christ, as the Pre­dication of Christ, of the visible Elements: We say plainly, the Elements are Christ only Figuratively, and improperly: and as St. Ambrose hathAmbros. de Sacrament. Lib. 4. C. 4. it (or rather had it before a false Cause here, as elswhere, con­strained men to foul practises.) After Consecration that which was, remains, and yet is changed into another. It retains its nature, it is changed to its name, to its use, and ends, and effects; and these are sufficient.

The Fathers who are alledged to prove Christ spake here properly, do speak of many changes made in the Elements; but then they do as often deny the substance to be changed; sometimes they say, The Nature is changed: but we know Nature is somtimes used more largely than to imply the very Being and Essence it self. We say commonly, Such a man is quite of another nature from what he was. We do not mean his very Essence or Being is changed; but his condition. It is said in the first Book of Sa­muel, 1 Sam. 10. v. 9. that after his anointing to the Kingdom, God gave Saul another heart. I hope not in substance but in disposition. But it is neerer to our Case what St. Paul saith of Christ and us, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, We Eph. 5. 30. are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Can any thing be more expresly affirmed than this, to signifie a corporeal unity and identi­ty with Christ, if the Verb Copulative Are, must here be taken Substan­tively, as they say Is must in these words, This Is my Body? As they pro­fess with much ardour and zeal they will believe Christ, say he what he please, and be the thing never so contrary to our common sense and reason, so do we: And no less do we believe St. Paul speaking by the same spi­rit: This he hath said, and therefore we must not dispute, but believe. [Page 216] He hath said as plainly as words can make it, that we are the very flesh of Christ, and the bones of Christ: and that he cannot be understood of the same in Kind, but number is manifest from his argument when he saith, No man ever hated his own flesh; but as his flesh is anothers in nature, we know there is nothing more common. Now the like, if not same inter­pretation will satisfy the Scripture in one place and other.

And not only so, but the Fathers who are urged for the literal significa­tion of the words rather than Literal sense of the Author of them, speak diverse times of a Real change of the foresaid Elements; but saying the same in other cases as in the holy Chrysm after Benediction; and specially the water of Baptism, we would have one give meaning to the other. And the Modern Greeks who are arrived at higher expressions and sense than their forefathers, yet when occasion serves can affirm the substance of Bread and wine to remain; and would never fully receive the term [ [...]] Transubstantiation, as the Latins do: which declare how much they sus­pect an Evil sense in the Roman Church. Again, as they are defective in their characterizing this change to that degree, so are they excessive, ac­cording to the Latins opinions, in ascribing too great a change upon Con­secration. For they make no such distinction, as the other between Na­ture or substance, and the Accidents. And they deny as much, there re­mains any Accidents, as any substance of Bread: wherein they seem to take Christ more Literally than the Papists. For if (as they give out) we must take Christ at his word, and hold him hard to the Letter, we must and ought to do it no less in reference to the Accidents than the Substance: For Christ made no distinction, and then why should we? By vertue there­fore of his words the Accidents must be changed as well as the Substance. And so in truth we believe: and to make our meaning clear will allow no effect of Christs words upon the one, which we will not upon the other. And if they oppose sense to discriminate the Cases, saying, that we see and feel that the Specieses and Accidents are the same: We must tell them in their own words and that without fraud or dissimulation, that we believe Christ rather than our own senses: And were it not so, yet we cannot teil that they are the same individual Accidents which were before consecrati­on, though like them; and appearing so to be. And I could never as yet meet their reason worth the noting [...] remembring, which should move them to be lead by their senses to interpret Christs words, when he saith Positively and with the same Verb Su [...]an [...]ve, This Cup IS the New Te­stament in my blood; and commands them to drink the Cup; and to denyLuk. 22. 20. V. 17. their senses when he saith, This is my Body.

And as reasonles and frivolous are their Answers to St. Augustine who1 Cor. 11. 27. affirms it to be a Prophane and blasphemous sense to understand Christ, ofAug. de Do­ctrina Christ. his proper Body, and to eat it: For can any thing be more Elusorie and ridiculous than to Scholie on him with a That is, As meat is bought and sold in the Shambles? Nam Sacra­mentum Al [...]p­tionis suscipere dignatus est Christus et quando cir­cumeisus est et quando baptizatus est: et potest Sacramentum adoptionis: Adoptio [...]uncupari, sicut Sacramentum co [...]poris et sangui­nts jus quod est in pane & poculo consecrate, Corpus jus & sanguinem dici [...]us. Non quod proprie corpus ejus sit panis, & poculum sanguinis: Sed quod in se Mysterium co [...]poris ejus et sanguinis ejus contineant. Hinc & ipse Dominus Benedi­ctum pan [...]m & Calicem quem Discipulis tradidit, corpuaae: sanguinem ejus vo [...]vit. Quocirea, sicut Christi fideles sacra­mentum Corporis & sanguinis ejus accipientes Corpus et sanguinem ejus recte dicuntur accipere, &c. Facundus H [...]rmia­nensts Pro. 3. Capitulis Lib. 10. Cap. 5.

But if it be possible to express any thing more clearly, Facundus Her­mianensis, and that as set forth by Syrmondus, doth both expound St. Au­stins meaning and our Saviour Christs, yet more irrefragably; writing [Page 217] against the Eutichians in these words, For Christ vouchsafed to take on him the Sacrament of Adoption, both at his Circumcision and at his Baptism: and the Sacrament of Adoption may he called Adoption, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is the Bread and Cup Consecrated, we call his Body and Blood: not that properly his body is Bread, or his Blood the Cup, but that they contain in then the Mystery of the Body and Blood of him. Whence our Lord himself called the Blessed Bread and Cup which he delive­red to his Disciples, his Body and his Blood. Wherefore as Christian believers taking the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of him, are said truly to take the Body and Blood of Christ: So Christ when he took the Sacrament of Adoption of Children, might truly he said to take the Adoption of Children. Thus he, and Syrmondus in his notes upon this place doth confess these to be very harsh expressions like unto some of St. Austins there mentioned.

And to our urging the name fruit of the Vine given to the Consecrated substance; and thence concluding that the real nature of Wine remains; they answer that it is not unusual to give the name to a thing as a little be­fore it was, or seems to be: Which we deny not: And by the parity of reason, return upon them to their loss: For we know it is not unusual for a thing to be called by the name, not which is proper to its nature, but which it represents. And to the eye of Faith, the consecrated ElementsHeb. 5. are the Body and Blood of Christ: and so may not unaptly be so called by those whose senses are exercised (as the Apostle speaks) to discern both good and evil though in nature they be farr otherwise.

Some indeed (as I conceive) have been but too free of the Figures in this question, supposing that the very word Est, or Is must not be taken in its proper sense, but stand for as much as Significat, Signifies: but this is without ground in Grammar or Divinity. For he that saith, as St. Paul 2 Tim. 4. 17. is interpreted to speak, Nero is a Lion, doth not lay the agreement upon Est or Is, but upon the subject, Nero: For the Verb Substantive is equal­ly indifferent to Comparative, and Proper Speeches: and continues so, applied to any thing. The Signification or Similitude lies in the two Terms, Nero and a Lion; and Bread and Wine, and the Body and Blood of Christ. Now there being no difference between a Similitude and a Metaphor, but that the one is at large, and in many words, what the other is in one: To say Christ is a Lamb or This (which is bread) is Christ, is no more than to say, Christ is as a Lamb: and Bread is as Christs Body: For the many agreements between the natural and Spiritual senses. The one, and that principal, is that of Sacrifice which ought here to be briefly explained.

CHAP. XLIV.

GREAT contentions have been about the Sacrifice of the Al­tar; and perhaps, though with just Cause, yet not so great as is generally believed. For these two Terms do much illustrate one the other. For neither is the Altar upon which Christians offer, properly an Altar, any more then (as is said before) the Lords-Day now observed is properly a Sabbath, nor is the Sacrifice thereon performed properly a Sacrifice. Some will have that only truly called a Sacrifice which consisted of living Creaturs slain and offered to God,Dixerunt ali­qui, quia Sacri­ficium non est nisi de Anima­libus: et erra­verunt in hoc, &c. Guliel. Pari­sien. de Legib. Cap. 3. and to this sence do I most incline. For there must be in all things some one thing which is as a Rule and Law and gives denomination to others, according as they agree with it. Now if all offerings to God, as fine Flower, and fruits of the Earth, be called a Sacrifice in an equal sence to the most proper, then have we no Rule to go by in Judging of Sacrifices. And there­fore Gulielmus Parisiensis who rejecteth the former acceptation because we Read in Leviticus 20. of a Sacrifice of fine Flower: and Exodus 31. Sweet Smell, seemeth himselfe to erre, as he saith others do in the Notion of a Sacrifice. For either these things and such-like were more properly called Oblations than Sacrifices, or when they were called Sacrifices they were so called because of the Proper bloudy Sacrifice as the principal thing, to which they were adjuncts.

Five things are said to be required to constitute a Sacrifice. 1 A ProperLessius de Ju. & Just it. Minister, who is the Priest. Heb. 5. Secondly, the Matter must be sensible. 3. The form of that matter must be changed, and that after the nature of it. Thirdly, It must be directed and devoted to a Good end, God. And fiftly, It must be offered in a proper place. But not all these are certain, and constantly true. For Cain and Abel, and Noah and Abraham, and the rest under the Law offered proper Sacrifices; but that they had peculiar Temples, or Altars, is not true. For until that injuction of God in Deuteronomie, Take heed to thy selfe that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in Deut. 12. 13. 14. every place that thou seest: But in the place which the Lord shall choose, &c. it was free for the servants of God, to offer their Sacrifice upon any place theyJacobus Bol­duc. de Eccle­sia ante Legem Lib. 11. should think fit: and make Altars at their pleasures. though I am not ignorant that mystical Bolducius is of another mind without solid grounds. But afterward, the Altar (as Christ intimateth in the Gospel) Sanctified the Gift, so far, that it was not accepted but upon that whichMat. 23. 19. God had ordained for Sacrifices, or offerings to him. The case is not altogether so now under the Gospel, that Christians should be absolutely confined to the Publique Altars (as they may be called) appointed to the Eucharist: For we do not read that ever the Apostles so Celebrated, but have great presumptions to the Contrary. Nor doth it in like manner [Page 219] appear in the Gospel, that those places, on which they did Celebrate, were preserved from all Secular uses; as we do in the Law, that Altars there were. Yet so much ought all, who are good Christans, condescend to the immemoriall practise of the Church separating all such sacred things from common and vulgar uses, and requiring to celebrate upon the Reputed and appointed Altar, that I make question, whether any Sacrifice, not so offered, through contempt or sullenness, can be either so acceptable to God or profitable to our selves as in the other received way.

And there want not as learned men who denie that Consumption is necessary to a true Sacrifice: And I am sure the Roman Cause so requires: unless in this state, they will make Christ passible, and Corruptible; though I know they have many a Sorry shift to evade this too.

Now for brevity sake, to omit many things incident to this dispute, and to apply the Notion of Sacrifice to the Actions in the Eucharist; If we take Sacrifice in Melancthons sense, from which Calvin doth not much vary,Melanct. Loc. Com: Calv. Instit. Lib. 4. C. 73. For every act and thing devoted to God, whereby we give him honour, there are Sacrifices enough to be found in the Eucharist: And there are many known senses of Sacrifice given to God, admitted by Protestants. But passing all them over, the Question here must be stated concerning this Sacrifice, as it was concerning the Body of Christ: Not whether there Really it is, but whether it really and properly be Predicated of the matter of the Sa­crament; and that in as proper a sense, as Christs Body was offered upon the Cross: This we deny, acknowledging only these three things, which fully satisfie the expressions of the Ancient, calling the Host an Incruent Sacrifice. First, because here we call to remembrance Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse, according as he Instituted and required that at our hands, saying, Do this in remembrance of me. Secondly, as it is a SacrificeLuk. 22. 19. Rememorative, so is it a Sacrifice Representative, Insinuating and signifying unto as the death and Passion of Christ: and not as common signes and advertences only to bring to mind: or as Gulielmus Parisiensis hath it, like a String tyed about the singer to put a man in remembrance, and no more; but also to informe the Iudgment, and confirm and encrease the Faith of the Receiver. Thirdly, it is a Sacrifice Representative to God as well as to Man: For though nothing can lie hid from him, or be forgotten by him, yet taking things as he hath been pleased to express them unto us, after the manner of Men; he, by the offering of this Sacrifice and the devout worship there performed to God, is moved to behold, consider, and accept the true Sacrifice which Christ made for us in offering himselfe for us: As it was by Gods own appointment in the Rainbow put for a signe between him and Man of the Covenant for not drowning the earth. And the Gen. 4. 16. bow (saith the Scripture) shall be in the cloud, and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting Covenant between God and every living creature, of all flesh that is upon the earth. In like manner and much more effectually, may we say that the Action of the Eucharist presents to God the Sacrifice of Christs death, and mediation made by him for mankind, especially those that are immediately concerned in that Sacrament: from which Metony­mical Sacrifice, what Great and rich benefits may we not expect? Thus is the Host a Sacrifice, but not essentially as the sacrifices of the Law, or Christs offering himself; but Analogically, and Metonymically, by vertue of the Sacrifice of Christ; and through whose vertue the benefits of Christs death, and Passion are made over unto the worthy Communicats agreably to Christs Institution; and the Title given it by the Ancient and Holy Fathers.

CHAP. XLV.

AND to this duly communicating, is necessarily required the pro­per Form of this Sacrament: Which Form consisteth in two things principally, The Proper Actions of the Minister of it: and the Receiver of it. The Action of the Minister or Priest consisteth in the due consecration and Dedication of those Elements designed for that end: For as Augustin the father hath it, The word coming to the Creature maketh it a Sacrament, it gives being to it, as such; which before was but common bread and wine. And that this is done by the Recitation of the historie of Christs Celebration and Institution of them all at first; and Invocation of God upon the Elements, is certain: but it is not so certain, what special form of words is only and absolutely requi­red to this purpose: nor, whether they are only Recitative, pronouncing the words of Christ at the Institution of this Sacrament, as, This is my Body; Christoph. de Cap. Fontium de Theolog. Scholast. Re­format. and so over the Cup, This is my Blood: or, whether they must be also Sup­plicative. The Greek Church and some of the Learnedest of the Roman hold the Latter to be necessarie, and the Former insufficient: The most common Opinion of the Western Church is, That the Consecration by way of decencie and solemnitie, ought to consist of Benedictions and Invocations of God; but that essentially is required nothing more than the recitation of Christs words over the Elements, for the real Consecration of them. And each side doth rather well prove their own practise, than answer the diffi­culties opposed to each other. For, as the Greeks well say, There is no great probability that an historical narration of what was done by Christ, should of it selfe be effectuall to the Conversion of the Elements from their Common use and nature, to the divine. For it is only expected from him that rehearseth what another said or did, that he be a faithful reporter; and not that he should effectually thereby make a thing true. But on the other­side, Prayer is not so much Indicative, as Imperative and Impetrative. We read indeed in St Paul to Timothie, of things that are Sanctified by the word and [...] Tim. 4. 5. Prayer. But the word and Sanctification there, are no preaching or conse­cration, but only signify that God by the Gospel, which is his word proper, removed the sentence of uncleannesse from things so judged to be, under the Law, and set them as free, as other reputed Clean: But pray­er's proper Act and Office it is to bring down a special Benediction upon Sacramental and Familiar food. On the other side, the difference being so vast and Sacred between Common Creatures of bread and Wine, and the Sacramental, it was lookt upon as a thing of greatest use and concern­ment to all believers to know, whether such consecration was performed or not. But where the form was so loose and indetermined as it must needs be, consisting in the various and Prolix office, belonging thereunto, how could it possible be diserned when the Host was consecrated, and whether; [Page 221] seeing neither the whole Canon could be said thereunto absolutely necessary; nor could it be assigned what part thereof essentially and esse­ctually performed he Consecration. Hereupon the Latine Church hath taken upon them to define the Conversion of the Elements into Christ, (for that they make Consecration) to a very few precise words used by Christ at the First Institution of his Holy Supper▪ viz: This is my Body, and This is my Blood. And I have not found how the Arguments on either side can be well answered; while the Opinion of trans-elementation, or such supposed conversion, stands Good; and is accepted: but otherwise it is no hard matter to answer Both. For (supposing not a change of the proper natures and substances of the Elements into the Body of Christ naturall, What inconvenience would it be, to be undetermined by a cer­tain number of words, when the mystical change was wrought, granting that this change Relative is made by the word and Prayer, as the change of water in baptism is made not by any special number or form of words, but by the Office, whether longer or shorter? And therefore the necessitie of putting the whole virtue in those few words recited, was received pre­sently upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is an argument that the Greek Church never admitted it, in the Latin sense; however, I know, they would not in their Councels, contend with them about that; but kept themselves to the tradition of their Predecessors, who restrained not the Consecration to such number of words; but must have with the like pru­dence, and necessity have done so, had they so apparently and expresly received such a simple conversion as being true, all Christians ought to be so punctually assured of, and venerate, that nothing in their Creed could be more necessary; and not contented themselves with the Relative change only of the things themselves: which precisely to know, stood them not so much in hand; seeing the Reverence given to the Visible objects could not exceed that communicable to Creatures. It may be granted therefore that the words of Christ are so necessary that Consecration cannot rightly be performed without them; but yet denied to be so operative, that upon the plain recitation of them, they should presently effect that great altera­tion of them: as the Story (I make no doubt) feigned to beget belief of this new opinion implieth, telling us, That certain Shepheards while it was the custom to pronounce the Canon of the Mass openly, having learned it,Henorius in Gemma Ani­mae. 1. 103. and recited it over their bread and wine which they had before them in the field as they were at their ordinary Meal, the bread was turned visibly into Christs body, and the Wine into his Blood; and that the Shepheards were struck dead from heaven: Whereupon it was decreed in a Synod that from thence forward, no man should rehearse the said Canon Audibly, or out of Sacred Places, or without Book, or without Holy Vestments, or without an Altar. A tale as likely to be true as the thing they would prove by it: And so let them pass together, while we proceed to the

CHAP. XLVI.

SECOND Thing formally necessary to this Sacrament; which is Celebration in both Kinds; or Bread and Wine. In treating whereof we must do so much Justice to the Cause, as to acknow­ledge a reasonable distinction between the Sacrament it self, and the Communicants in it. To the former, I suppose, it is agreed that indispensably both Elements are necessary, and Essential: and that there can be no Sacrament without them both, whatever solemnity may be acted to the eye, or ear. For the Sacrament no [...] being a thing of natu­ral force or vertue, but instituted, the very formality of the Institution consisting in the joint concurrence of both Elements, the Removing of One is the Adulteration of the Whole, and destruction: neither can that be said to be a Sacrament of Christs Institution; but, if at all, of mans devising. Neither do I see how the argument should not hold in the Parti­cipation of that Sacrament, as well as Consecration, viz: that, as con­secration in one Kind only maketh not a Sacrament; so communication in one Kind, where both are in being, should be receiving the Sacrament. For the natures of things, as Aristotle hath it, are like numbers, which with the addition or Substraction of one, change their kind. We do not make Bread of the Nature of Wine; or on the contrary: but we make them both equally of the nature of that Sacrament, which by Christs own Institution was an Aggregate thing constituted of both: and therefore to withdraw, or deny one is in effect to deny both. And the Evasion to salve this is both ridiculous and prophane, which saith, The blood is con­tained in the Body of Christ; and therefore in taking one, both are received. But 'tis nothing so. For the Blood of Christ in the Sacrament is no more contained in the Body, than the Body in the blood. And besides, we say, that he who not at all receives the Cup, cannot at all receive the signified body of Christ, but only the signifying. Again, How can this assertion consist with the opinion of an Incruent Sacrifice? For either the Sacramen­tal Body of Christ hath Blood in it, or it hath not. If it hath, then is it a Bloody, and not Incruent Sacrifice. (For I think there is no ground for a man to say a Sacrifice was called Bloody or Cruent, because only Blood was shed before it was Sacrificed, and not because, even at that time it con­tained [Page 223] blood in it: For Cruent and Incruent are the same in the Law, from whence the Gospel borrows this Phrase, as Animate and Inanimate Sacri­fices:) If it hath not, how can it be said to have the blood of Christ also? Must not they be necessitated here to slee to an unknown Concomitance the one of the other, and not a coexistence? And if thus: the blood hath the flesh of Christ concomitantly, as well as the [...]lesh the blood: and so for this reason might the Cup be received without the Bread. But we positively deny both such Carnal, Capernaitical Coexistence as is here pre­sumed, and such necessary Concomitance too, that with the receiving of one alone, the other should be necessarily taken also: but hold rather, where both are not Present, both are absent; and no Sacramental Recei­ving of Christ can possibly be hoped for. And though I have been long of this opinion before I found any authority express to this purpose, besides the very intrinsique nature of the Sacrament it self, now touched; Yet am I not alone. For thus speaks a Reverent and Learned Father of our Church. In all compounded things, the moiety of the matter is the moiety of substance: Bishop Whites Reply to, &c. pag. 483. And whatsoever Jesuited Romanists teach, I see not how their Laicks can tru­ly say, that they have at any time in all their Lives been partakers of this Sa­crament: for if half a man be not a man, then likewise, half a Communion is not a Communion.

But were there more colour, (for nothing of reality do we find in their Offers to vindicate themselves) in what is said for the possibility of a Sa­crament in one Kind received: What can be said for their gross abuse of their and our Lords Institution, and their Relinquishing the unanimous practice of the Catholick Church for so many Ages together? Did not Christ equally institute both? Did he not equally communicate both to his Disci­ples? Or supposing that they were then all Priests (which may be well doubted of, seeing they were not compleatly consecrated, then by the de­scent of the Holy Ghost, nor commissioned to Go teach, and Baptise all nati­ons until after this) doth this give any likelihood that therefore it is the sole Right for Priests to receive in both Kinds? Did Christ any where make two Institutions, One For Priests, and another for Laicks? If but one, Who should presume to alte [...] or adulterate his Prescriptions? He said, Drink ye all of Mat. 26. 27. this: which is more than we find he said of the Bread. And the shift is sad, and pitiful which some who have nothing better to say, yet must say some­thing▪ adde, that Christ said This do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of 1 Cor. 11. 25. Fisher against White. me: As if he excepted sometimes from drinking, when he commanded to eat? Ridiculous! The meaning of Christ being as plain as any thing need be, that there should so often be had a devout remembrance of him, as we com­municate, and not imply, as is most boldly insinuated, that sometimes we may not communicate in the Sacramental bloud of Christ. For it follow­eth, As Often as ye eat this bread and drink this cupp ye do shew the Lords death 1 Cor. 11. 26. till he come. Never are they separated in the Scripture. No ground at all for the omitting of one rather than the other. The Church hath power to denie one as much as the other. The Church hath no power to denie ei­ther: or any thing else of such divine Institution. The Church of God for above 1200 years did constantly and universally practise both. And until the Council of Constance about the year 1415 many in the Roman Church so received: but then it was violently taken away. But to this very day all Churches not subdued to the Roman, continue the Ancient form. And do a companie of paltry reasons drawn from possible inconveniences in Lay-mens taking the Cup countervail so great a cloud of witnesses, and so [Page 224] strong arguments to the contrary? What if sometimes the Ancients did per­mitt the exportation of the one without the other to such as were sick or un­able to receive in Publique? Does this come home to the Case which requi­reth that the Publique Ministration should be changed also? And how doth it appear (I am sure not by their demonstrations) that such Persons so re­ceiving in half, were ever reputed to have Sacramentally received Christ? Nay, not half of the Autorities, or Instances common [...]y given of such Com­munications do concern this subject: for most are to be understood of the Panis Benedictus, or the Bread blessed by the [...]ri [...], upon [...] offering of it by the People: which was not all consecrated Sacramentally and so given unto Christians to be imparted to such as were of the same Communion, in token that they were in Communion with them, though absent. This, I grant, was sometimes performed by the sending to such, the Consecrated Element of Bread in the Eucharist: Not with an opinion of the Fathers of the Church, however possibly same vulgar and ignorant Chri­stians might have too high a conceit of it; that such receiving was tan­tamount to the receiving in both Kinds Sacramentally. But to their inconveniences, which are many of them more fit to make sport, than to sway in so grave a Controversie, we shall only reply that all they can al­leadg was no newes to their, and our Predecessours; and yet never could it enter into their hearts to attempt so monst [...]ous a change upon such frivo­lous pretences. But the truth is, the Errour of transubstantiation being throughly received, occasioned this, by way of common prudence, as well as Christian devotion. For it being firmly and clearly believed, the Consecrated Elements became Christs Bodie and Blood, forsaking wholely their own Nature; Common Reason required that all possible respect and Care should be taken, as far as the wit of man could reach, that no detri­ment or indignity should be done to them: and that then became indecent and prophane which before was not. To have the Least Crum fall aside, must be accounted a grand prophanation, though in voluntary and there­fore humane wit invented Wafers and preferred them before bread, accor­ding as Christ used it. In breaking of the Host some possible waste might hap­pen therefore though Christ, and following Christians communicated of1 Cor. 10. 17. one Bread, according to St Paul, For we are one Bread and one bodie: and we are all partakers of one Bread; undoubtedly literally meaning the participa­tion by many, of the same Loaf in the Sacrament; now superstition hath bet­ter instructed us than the holy Spirit St Paul: and there must be no more breaking of bread amongst Christians, of which the Scripture speakes so often (though I confess not alwayes meaning the Eucharist but yet that too, many times) and which is so lively and proper a Ceremony and signification of Christs passion lest somewhat should fall out amiss toward the supposed Body of Christ in their sense. To give Respect, to use reverence to it; to take all convenient and devout Care about it, is verie reasonable and pious, for the Relation it hath to Christ and his Proper Bodie, and the Virtue to us, but nothing could suffice to lay aside the proper cerimonies used at the Institution, or form of it, but such an opinion as that of Tran­substantiation: [...]ellarmin. It now sufficing, according to moderner Judgments, that the several Wafers now in use, were all one when they came first from mill, and are broken by the Teeth in actually receiving them: whereas Christ re­presented the unity of his mystical Members, and Fraction of his Natural Body by the Forms set before his Disciples, the better to affect our hearts and quicken our devotion. To the same end in Ancienter, though not first [Page 225] dayes of Christianity, there was an Elevation of the Mysteries made by the Priest, to shew only how Christ was Lifted up on the Cross, for our sins: but upon the doctrine and perswasion of transubstantiation, this was cor­rupted and perverted to the drawing people to a direct Adoration termina­ted in the Visible objects; and not, as was anciently used from that Action, to take an occasion of worshipping Christ himself, with a seqestration of their mind from their senses. To this likewise pertains the Grosser devo­tion for many hundred years impractised, and unknown to Christians, that not only Adoration to God and Christ should be made by all who approch­ed, as Communicants, to these Holy Mysteries; but that the Host should be on purpose publickly exposed to the view of all enterers into the Church, where it is, with an injunction to exhibit all devout and divine worship to it: which invention the Fathers and all Christian Churches were holy ignorant of, for many hundred years; and never was there so much as a Feast of Corpus Cristi till Urbane the Fourth instituted one, about the year 1263. And the Adoration of the Host, as Christ himself, much later. But if such an opinion had been of any tolerable Antiquity in the Church, how could it be avoided but such direct and open Adora [...]ion should have been given, much more early: it being a most ancient Princi­ple of Christian Faith, that Christ was God: and of common hu­mane reason, that God is to be worshipped. And yet no mention made of such Adorations as are of late introduced and required: which is an argument they never believed, as now the Romanists do▪ for had they, they must have necessarily done as they do. But a stop must be put to this luxuriant Subject, to keep our selves in the Limits presribed to our selves; and here let it be. Only having hitherto spoken of the Prepa­ratories to Christian Faith, the nature, Kinds, Acts, effects, and Lastly subject, which is the Church; and of this again in its Political, and Mysti­cal Capacity and Power, which consists in the due Administration of the Sacraments, as well Properly as Improperly and Equivocally so called; It remains now to conclude and Crown the present doctrine of the Church, with that which is most contrary of all things, to the Nature of a Visible Church; and that is Schism: For by this unnatural state, the true Nature of the Church is more illustrated; and the Unitie of it by the explication of this Separation and Dis-union, called Schism.

CHAP. XLVII.

VVHile we treat of the Church, it must be alwaies remembred that we intend not to speak of the In­visible Church, as it is taken for a select number supposed to belong intimately and inseparably to Christs invisible Body, of which no know­ledg, or account can be had, but by sensible outward things: but we altogether enquire of the Visible Church which though it be not al­waies Actually seen, or discerned from other Societies (especially pretend­ing to be Churches of Christ) yet must alwaies be Visible; though not con­spicious. And it would be a gross mistake in any, so to judge of the Church Visible and Invisible as of distinct Churches, or necessarily distinct parts of the same Church: because the same persons may at the same time be of the Visible, and Invisible Church. This distinction then is to be allowed no farther than as it insinuates to us the Several States of the Members of the [Page 227] same Church: the Church in nature being but One; according to several testimonies of Holy-Writt; and the very nature of all Communities, and much more of the Church, which is to be an Aggregate Body consisting of many parts, by no natural Bond or influence united together, but by divineFalsae Professi­onis Imagine utimur si cujus nomine gloria­mur ejus insti­tuta non sequi­mur. Leo. Mag. Serm. 5. de Je­jun. 7. Mensis. and Spiritual. Which is manifested by certain outward Acts, which ren­ders and denominates such a society of Men, Visible, as a Church of Christ. These Acts are principally two The profession and declaration in word or writing of the true Faith, and the Exercise of those Graces and workes which that Faith requires in Religious worship and Obedience. That, and in what degree of necessitie this Church must be One as well as Visible, is before declared; and here only repeated to give light to the nature of Schisme, now to be explained. For to omit the Criticismes, and various acceptations of the word Schism, as not necessarie; we shall proceed by degrees to shew these two things concerning it, The Nature, and Guilt of it.

For the Nature of Schism; it doth appear from the Unitie and con­junction of Christs Body, of the Church, consisting in two things; Com­munion with Christ the Head, and mutual Communion of the members one with another: the contrary to this must needs be Discommunion and Se­paration. But there being two parts in Communion, a Material, or the things in which men communicate, as faith it selfe, and the substantial Part of Christian worship: And a Formal, the Actual outward exercise of this: The First of these, though it be really, yet is not formally Schism, as may appear more fully by and by: because all Schism doth suppose some agreement with, and Relation to that One Body, the Church: but where the foundation of such Relation is destroyed, there the whole perishes. And therefore a division from the Faith of Christs bodie, the Church, being either Total, and that again either Negatively, when a man never was inser­ted into that Stock, is more properly called Atheism, or Heathenism, or Privative, and then is called Apostasie, which is a professed renunciation of the Faith once received. Or this Division is Partial, and so it takes the name of Heresie upon it. Schism then must needs be an outward Sepa­ration from the Communion of the Church. But when we say Schism is a Separation, we do not mean so strictly, as if it consisted in the Act of Se­parating, so much as the State: For we do not call any man a Schismatique, who sometimes refuses to communicate with the Church in its outward worship, though that done wilfully is a direct way to it, (as all frequented Actions do at length terminate in habits of the same Nature) but it is rather a State of separation; and of Dissolution of the continuitie of Church; in a moral or divine sense, not natural, which we seek into at present.

This Separate State then being a Relation of Opposition, as the other was of Conjunction; the Term denominating and signallizing both, is to be enquired unto: And that is insinuated alreadie, and must needs be, the Church; and that as that is united unto Christ; or the true Church. For there is no separation from that which really is not, though it may seem to be. It must therefore be a true Church from whence Schismatical separa­tion is made. So far do they confute and confound themselves who excuse their Schismaticalness from that which principally constitutes Schism, and Schismaticks, viz. an acknowledgement of that to be a true Church from which they divide themselves, and separate.

Again, We are to note that Separation is either of Persons and Churches in Co-ordination, or subordination: according to that excellent and an­cient [Page 228] distinction of Optatus, saying, It is one thing for a Bishop to communicate Optatus Mile­vi [...]. Cont. Parmen. Lib. 3. Ald [...]. with a Bishop: and another for a Lay man (or the Inferiour Clergy) to commu­nicate with the Bishop. And this, because what may perhaps justifie a Non-com­munion with Co-ordinate Persons or Churches, which have no autority one o­ver another, wil not excuse Subordinate Persons or Churches, owing obedience to their Superiours, from Schism. From whence it is manifest, that though all Schism be a Separation yet all Separation is not a Schism. And though there may be many and just causes for a Separation, there can be no cause to justifie a Schism: For Schism is in its nature A studious Separation (or State Separate) against Christian Charity, upon no sufficient Cause or grounds. It must be af­fected or Studious, because if upon necessity, or involuntary, the Di [...]junction of Churches is rather a punishment than a sin: and an Infelicity rather than Iniquity: as in the dayes of Anastatius the Emperour, as Evagrius relates it, Who so violently persecuted the Catholick Church, in behalfe of the Euty­chianEvagrius Hist. Eccl. L. C. 30. Heresie, that it was crumbled, as it were, into several parcels; And the Governours could not communicate one with another, but the Eastern, and Western, and African Churches were broke asunder. Which farther shews that all Criminal Separation, which we make Synonimous with Schism, must likewise be an Act proceeding from the persons to separated, and not the Act of another. For no man can make another a Schismatick, any more than he can make him a Lyar or a drunkard, without his consent. For if the Governours of one Church expe [...] out of Communion another, upon no just grounds; the Church thus separated is not the Schismatick, but the other: as appears from the words of Firmilianus Bishop of Cappadocia, in St Cyprian concerning Pope Stephen, advising him he should no [...] be too busie or presumptious in separating others, lest he thereby separated him­self: so that if the Schism had broke out, upon no good grounds, he, who was the Architect of it, Separated himself; as all others do: and it is impossible any man should make (though he may declare) another a Schismatique, any more than he can make him erre without his consent, or be uncharitable. Yet do they err also, that from hence conclude that the Formal reason of Schism consists in Separating a mans self; for it is rather the material Cause than formal. The formal Cause being (as in all other things) the very Constitution it self▪ with unreasonableness and uncharitableness. No man can make another involuntarily an Heretick And therefore no man can make another a Schismatick. All the Guilt redounding to the Agent, no [...] Patient in such cases. So that it is scarce worth the Enquiring, Who began the breach of unity, as it outwardly appears, but who is actually and Really First divided from Christs Church: For they surely are the proper Schismaticks, though the name may stick closer to others.

To understand this, we may consider that there is a Vertual Schism and a Formal Schism. A Vertual Schism I call real division from Christs Church; though it comes not to an open opposition to it, or Defiance of it: so that where ever is any heresie or considerable Errour nourished, or maintained in a Church, there is to be found a Schismatick also in reality, though not in formality: the reason hereof is well expressed by, and may best come from, the hand of an Adversary to u, thus judiciously enquiring, It is demanded first (saith he) Whether Schismaticks be Hereticks? Answer, The Common opinion Az [...]rius Inst, Moral. Tom. 1. Lib. 3. C. 20. of the Interpreters of the Canon Law, and of the Summists is that the Heretick differs from the Schismatick, in that, Every Heretick is a Schismatick, but not on the contrary: Which they prove because the term Shismatick, signifies Division. But every Heretick turns away separates, divides himself from the Church. This [Page 229] is very plain and reasonable: and so is the consequence from hence: That where the Body is so corrupt, as to be really infected with notorious er­rors, there it is really (so far as it is erroneous) separated from the true Church; and where it is so far separated from the true Church, so far it is Schismatical. And when a Church is thus far really Schismatical, little or no Scruple is to be made of an outward Separation: neither can a guilt be affixed unto it. And on the other side, if no such real separation, and an­tecedent Guilt can be found in a Church, in vain do diverse betake them­selves to that specious Shift and evasion, that they were cast out, and went not out willingly from a Church: and that they are willing to return, but are not suffered. For undoubtedly the very supposition is insincere and faulty; that they forsook not the Church, before they were ejected; And the ex­pulsion followed separation and dissention from it; and was not rather the Effect than Cause of them; as are all excommunications rightly used. For to those that pretend they were turned out, do not the doors stand open to receive them, and that with thanks, if they please to re-enter, and re-unite, themselves. What do they here alledge in there excuse and Defence? They are readie to return, but they cannot be admitted but upon unreaso­nable Terms and conditions. How does this appear if it should be denied, as without all peradventure it will? Must not the Defendents be here for­ced to take their grounds of Apologie and Justification from the very things themselves, under debate, and put in their exceptions against the terms upon which they are to be receiv'd, or condemn themselves? Neither will it suffice to say, We shall be hardly used, or beaten, if we return to such severe Masters, and therefore we will keep out. For they may deserve it: and though nature teacheth a man, as it did Hagar, to flee from her Mistris Sarahs Tents, for fear of blows, yet God and Justice, and Christian Charity advise us to return to our Duty. It must then be necessarily alledged and made good, That we deserve not to be so ill used; or rather that it is ill usage which we fore-see: shall befall us and that, the case so standing, it is not our duty to return: and all this can no waies possible be made good, but by examination of the matter it self And that which will Justifie us from not returning will also warrant our free Se­paration at first. Tis the cause then that makes the Separation, Schism, or not. An Instance whereof we have in the famous Schism of the Donatists: which almost all Christians now adays confess to have been no­torious Schismaticks, because they could not make good their Reasons which induced them: for could they, they had not been Schismaticks; as a sober Author notes upon Optatus thus; If those things were true which Albaspinus Ob­servat. In Op­tat. pag. 3. the Donatists laid to Caecilianus, and Mensurius and Caecilianus had polluted themselves with Idolatry, The Donatists had offended nothing against the Disci­pline and Canons of the Church, refusing to communicate with Caecilianus and his Companions. That is, they had not been Schismaticks, if so be they could have made good their Principal Charges against the Church.

And this we may bring home to our selves, as now we stand devided from other Churches, and particularly that of Rome. For if the Corruptions in doctrine and Practice be not sufficient to justifie our present posture of op­position: if they had not before we left them, departed from the true faith; if they were not really and materially Schismatiques before we were divi­ded from them; then surely we were, at our separation, and so continue. For to say, We have a willing mind to unity, we have Charity so great that we earnestly desire Reconciliation with them, is to deceive the world, [Page 230] and our selves and encourage and justify Schism in others, who no doubt will all pretend to so much charity as to declare themselves willing to em­brace unity upon their own terms. But in such cases we cannot be said to go to them, though in outward apparence we may seem so to do, as they come to us. The question therefore is to be put under the circumstances as now they are, and as the Case is now with them. And in that it ought, and may be roundly and resolutely answer'd, We neither can, nor ought, nor will re-unite; and yet well enough free our selves from Schism, upon the account of the Justness of the occasions and Causes there found, and given us, to divide from them.

Then ought it to be enquired (for this they passionately call for) what are those errors which that Church is subject to, for which a Separation may be Legitimated, and not participate of the nature of Schism. It is commonly and with general consent averted, (and that even by leaving Schis­maticks amongst us,) That Corruption in Act or manners is not sufficient to warrant a Separation from a Church subject to them, and so infected; no not perhaps though Idolatry it self should be too common amongst them, in it; when no necessity lies upon the particular Members, to be obnoxious to the same; the doctrine of Christ bearing up its head above it, and obeyed truly by others. But when Evil actions, and notorious errours in Fact shall come to that height as to be reduced to doctrine, and formed into an heretical or Idolatrous proposition, as in time it must of necessity be, (it being natural, as well to all Churches, as persons to defend by argument what they choose to practise,) and be taught publickly, then doth that Church become truly Heretical and Idolatrous, and from that Church which hath so far departed from the Faith, any Church or person may law­fully depart without Scruple of Schism, though such separation be not absolutely necessarie: because, though the infection be common, it is not necessarily so general, that all should be obliged to espouse it, and be cor­rupted by it; but when to this degree of doctrine, shall be added a third, which is of Precept, and such unsound and pernicious opinions shall be imposed on others, and exacted of all, there it is not only lawful but neces­sary to salvation, to divide from such a pretended Church of Christ: I mean a necessity of Precept, though not of Means: as if it were not possible that a man should be saved who liveth in an Heretical or Idolatrous Church, though with those many circumstances of a general Right Intention, hum­ble walking with God, and invincible ignorance of the more pure and Christian Faith and worship.

For there is undoubtedly a Mean between these two, Necessity to Salva­tion, and Necessity of Damnation. Well might Athanasius say, Whosoever will be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith: and add yet far­ther; Which Faith except a man do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly; and so give us the particulars of that Faith, so necessary. For he means no more than, that such Errors are in themselves damnable: But heresies do not work after the manner of such natural Cau­ses, which have such effects infallibly, but may be said notwithstanding naturally to tend to such events, which yet may be prevented by various Allayes of Circumstances both inward and outward, impeding such Effects. The Consideration of which possibility of escaping the ordinary danger, can no ways excuse a man or confirm him in such errours, but the common; and, as you may say, natural tendence, of them to ruine and perdition, strongly oblige him to relinquish that Church wherein it is only possible, by vertue [Page 231] of some extraordinarie indulgence of God, to come to salvation; and whose errours are of themselves damnable. So if the Question be put (as generally it is) Whether (for example) a man may not be saved in the Ro­man Church? The answer is abundantly sufficient within Religion and Divinitie; though perhaps not so formal in Logick, That they certainly may be damn'd, and that for holding the Faith and worship there commanded, and received with full approbation. And this is sufficient to call any sober Christian off from that communion; though there may occur so many mitiga­ting Circumstances, as to a Person of that communion, which may detain any man of Christian modesty and Charity from pronouncing such an one to be infallibly damn'd, or out of possibility to salvation.

And if it be hereupon demanded, What difference we put between Infi­dels, and such corrupt Christians, seeing diverse have undertaken to assert a Possibility of salvation to them also, living exactly to the Light and Rule of Nature in them; I answer, not absolutely at present dashing the argument a-pieces by denying the supposition, and their colourable proofs thereof, but demonstrating a vast discrimination between the one, and other condition. For commonly, where Heresies which are so properly called, and not Gentilism (as they are which destroy the first Principles of Chri­stianity) are taught, and maintained, there are to be found all truths ne­cessarie to salvation, in a Christian sense. For the Holy Scriptures (we suppose) are there received, and submitted unto (which are able to make a 2 Tim: 3. 16, 17. man wise unto salvation, and thorowly to furnish him unto all good works:) And the Records of the Church, and ancienter practise; good guides against the rocks way-laying a man in his course to Heaven. And the want of actual communion with a Church doth then only expose our souls to Perdition, when it is wilfully and causelesly slighted and contemned: And then only doth Separation visible, [...] less Visible alienation of mind and affection put on the nature of Schism.

And there are two general defects in a Church which justify Separation, according to those two things we have shewed do constitute a Church: Do­ctrine of Faith, and Divine Regiment, called commonly, Discipline. If a Church errs notoriously in the former, no Separation can be called Schism; o [...] if defective not in Government absolutely (for without some Go­vernment it could not be so much as a Society) but in the Government o [...]dained for it, because then it should not be a Christian Society. For the faith of Christians held, do not make a Christian Society, but the Christian Regiment: Christian Regiment also I call that, not where­by Christians are Governed (for Civil Governments are common to Heathens and Christians) but that which is Proper to Christians as Chri­stians, and was instituted by Christ, for Christians; and not invented out of mens wise brains, and accommodated to the Church, and perhaps called Divine, to give it greater credit, and place amongst Christians. Of which we have alreadie spoken. It being a common rule amongst the Ancients,Clemens Alex­and. Stromal. immutable with me, There can be no true Flock without true Pastours. And there can be no true Pastours where they are not set over the Flock accord­ing to Christs known and received will, but some presumed, tacit and ex­traordinary Vocation (as they term it) when there is an entrance by the Window, and not by the Door.

From hence it doth appear, how uncertain and confused their notion and position is, who without any more adoe, conclude all those to be Schis­maticks (and that upon their own Principles and Concessions) who sepa­rate [Page 232] from a Christian Societie which they acknowledge to be a true Church. For very great is the ambiguity both of Separation and True Church. First, Separation is (as we have before noted) either of Subor­dinates, or Co-ordinates. And of Subordinates, either simply, or with Restriction. Simply subordinate I call them not comparitively with Christs Imperial Power, but with all External power, who by divine Right of Providence, owe direct obedience to their Pastours in all things, not inhibited by the Law of God, to which all Spiritual Pastours are to be no [...]ess subject than the sheep themselves. And thus every Bishop is true Head and Governor of that Flock which, under Christ, is committed to his Care and Custodie: But in like manner is not that Bishop subject to the Metropolitane, and much less, that Metropolitane to his Patriarch. For these are but Ecclesiastical Constitutions, and of no distinct Order, though Degree. According to which obligations of obeying, the refusing to obey, and dis-uniting ones self from the Governours of the Church, doth aggra­vate or extenuate the Division; and the guilt thereof. And without all per­adventure may one Church divide from another, upon less grounds then the Members of one Church separate from the more immediate Head of the same. How thick do instances stand in Ecclesiastical History of Churches, who by vertue of their Respective Governours, have been divided, and yet both remain true Churches. Again, a True Church is said so to be more than one way: viz. As to Being absolutely; and Being perfectly. We know that every Errour in Doctrine, though great, nay though heretical, doth not presently destroy the nature of a Church absolutely, though it takes away from the perfection of a Church. How that opinion was de­livered by the Fathers, viz. That Heresie destroyes the Church, we haveCyprianus Epi­stola 52. [...]. gat Novatianos e [...]e Christianos [...] shewed in part, speaking of Heresie: and now may add farther; that the the same persons of old, or their Co-equals, denied an Heretique to be a Christian also: and therefore they are to be understood of the such foul and unchristian Heresies which rased the foundation of faith it self: as did the Valentinians, the Gnosticks, the Marcionites and such like: For tis now agreed to, That unless a man be a Christian, he cannot be an Heretique; Or if at any time they spake of more tolerable Heresies, not wholly inconsistent with Christianity it self; then they laid the burden of Damnation upon that accessorie, but separable Aggravation, Uncharitableness: which alone, and especially conjoined with such errours, exposed to damnation. But as it is with the Natural Man, it is with the Spiritual: There are some parts Essential, and Vital, which cannot be wanting or corrupted, but the Whole must loose its nature and denomination: and there are others not ab­solutely Essential, which are called Integral, without which the Body may possible subsist, but not be perfect in its material Parts. And so it is with the Body of Faith consisting of so many Articles, or members, as Parts; some Vital and essential; some necessarie to its perfections; but not its Being absolutely. And a Church may be called a true Church which is defective or Excessive in these, though not in them. And yet we need not betake our selves to that explication by some used, of a True-man and a Thief, to ex­press how a Church may be a True Church and an erroneous one, at the same time. For the nature of this truth we ascribe unto the Church con­sisting only in Morality; If the Church failes in that, the Nature of it failes, as it doth not in a man when he is corrupted with falsness and vice: But this we say, That although all Truths are equally true, as to the nature of Truth it self, they are not of equal importance and use to us, or to a Church. [Page 233] Therefore such a Latitude being in the notion of a True Church, how can any man so confidently say that, No Church can separate from the Church of Rome but they must make themselves thereby Schismatiques before God, though before the Church they cannot be condemned for such, qualifying this hard say­ing with this Supposition only, That the Church of Rome alwayes had and hath Salvation in it, as a true Church, though corrupted. For that we may, and do call a True Church, wherein the principles of Christianity are kept intire, as to the most fundamental of them: but withal, this hinders not, but diverse things at the same time, and by the same Church which are damnable, may be found in it. For in the same house saith St Paul, there are Vessels to honour and dishonour: which we may as well interpret of Tenets of faith, as of the Professours of the Faith. And in the same Dispensato­rie, are both Poisons and Cordials: yea, in the same dish may be found Food sufficient to nourish and destroy; shall we therefore not be careful to avoid the whole, because we do acknowledge the wholesomness of so many in it. Who knowes not that there are monstrousnesses in Excess as well as defect? And that it suffices not to keep a man in communion with a Church; that all things necessary are therein contained; when withal many things not only unnecessary, but pernicious are shuffled together with them. If we can therefore shew, (as we suppose we have and can) that the Roman Church alloweth and propoundeth many heretical dogmes, many Idololatrical practises; what will it avail them to have it granted them that all truths are extant there in the Monuments of their Church? It will here infallibly be replied by them, That it cannot be that a Church at the same time can hold all things needful in Faith, and worship, and yet maintain such errours as are charged upon them. To which I say, and grant, That 'tis not possible they should hold the same things as contrary, or appearing so unto them: But really they may, and actually doe. First, as Philosophers should of con­traries In gradu remisso, not Intenso, In the remisser and lower degrees, not the extremest. Secondly, They may hold contraries really, though not for­mally, and as contrary. For instance, They may hold this fundamental opinion, That God alone is to be worshipped with that divine worship which is the supreamest of all: And they may hold that such a thing (for example) the Host is very God, which verily is not God; and consequently may teach the worship of such a reputed God. Their Churches faith if it teaches stri­ctly that only the true God is to be worshipped, is inviolate, and sound in Thesis: But their Perswasion that such this is, is an errour in fact, rather than in Faith; which contradicts the former opinion really. But we hold, That it is necessary to salvation that we erre not in such gross facts, though we abo­minate, detest, and renounce the sin never so solemnly. And the like may we say in many points of difference between us and them: when they hold the proposition in General, sound, and good; but by help of infinite and unintelligible distinctions, word it out, and ware off the imputation, but not the Guilt of Errour. Of the number of which things hard to be un­derstood, is that consideration of Schism before God, and Schism before the Church, with an implication that Separation from a true Church makes men Schismaticks before God, though not before men: because (for example,) The Church of Rome cannot oblige any body to stand to the Autority, which it so abaseth; namely, by breaking the Canons of the Church. It is true, A Church or Man may be a Schismatick before God, and not before the Church. But it cannot possibly be imagined how a man can be a Schis­matique before men and from men, and not before God. But if it could be, [Page 234] were we not in a very fair way to hell, if we had no more to answer for than our Schism before God? Were not our whole Church Schismatical, and as good as lost, though men took no notice of it. It doth not follow therefore, neither is it confessed, that all are Schismaticks who separate from a true Church, unless the separation be from it, As it is true. For we have shown, that a Church true in essentials, may fail in Integrals: And it is no hard matter to show that a Church Erring in doctrines constituting the body of Faith, may be separated from, without Schism. And the reason proving this is, because that such Churches are alreadie really Schismatical, through the said errours: and it is not only lawful, but a duty to separate from Schis­maticks. For so saith St. Paul, We command you brethern in the name of the 2 Thes. 3. 6. Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. And what Traditions, do we think St Paul intendeth there. Only Ecclesiastical Ca­nons, and decrees of Councils for the better Government of the Catholick Church. That this he may mean I denie not; but that no more, I denie. For he that offends against the Faith, offends against the Traditions To the Church; but he that breaks the Constitutions, offends against the Tradi­tions Of the Church only, which are of far inferiour nature. It may well be doubted, whether breaking of the Canons of the Church only can justi­fy a Separation from a Church: because they are not so much the Tradi­tions delivered To the Church by Christ and his Apostles, as the Traditions Of the Church, which in their nature are mutable. But yet if any co-ordi­nate Church shall refuse to innovate, but stick resolutely and firmly to the received Discipline and Lawes of the Church, while others shall violate them and choose new Forms, and impose new Conditions of communion with it, not agreeable to the old, upon which a schism followes; surely the guilt of Schism is to fall only upon that Church which thus innovates. For though I am apt to believe that such alterations may not be sufficient to justifie a renunciation of Communion with such an Innovating Church, (and much less in single persons and private members of the same Church) yet doubtless it fully excuses from the guilt of Schism, if it patiently and pas­sively persists in the more ancient and conformable way to the Churches of Christ in past ages, even with apparent peril of Schism: provided that the said Traditional Laws and practices shall not by the more judicious and conspicious part of the Church assembled freely, and Lawfully in Council be judged inconvenient, and so according to the Right it hath to reverse or establish things in nature alterable declar'd void; and introduce new. For in such cases, disowning of the Power and Autority of the Church, and re­fusing the decrees thereof tending to the General unitie of it, is of it self a Schismatical Act. But in notorious errours in Doctrine or Faith, it is free for any particular Church to divide from another: because such corruption is of selfe damnable: And in such cases we need not say to extenuate, I know not what unkindness, or perhaps incivility, we were driven out from such communion, and went not out of our selves; but may declare Franckly, We voluntarily chose to relinquish such communion, so condition'd. Now such errours we may well charge the Church of Rome with, even while we hold it to be a true Church, in the sense above expressed, viz. Essentially true, but not Integrally. For so a Monstrous man may beget a truly natu­ral son; and out of the Loyns of the Corrupt Church of Rome may pro­ceed a Perfect Church. And he that holds that a man may, even now when it is much more definitive and express in its errours then itwas about seven­score [Page 235] years ago, when it met first with that Opposition which it could never master as yet, be saved in the Church of Rome, may hold there are many damnable errours in it, which in their nature do damn, yet do not alwayes actually damn, as is said. And this doth altogether vindicate such Churches as directly leave them, provided they leave such their errours only; and not extravagantly hurry themselves into contrary errours, out of detestation to theirs. And this doth lay a necessity upon such as com­municate with them to desert them, and a much greater upon such as are at present, alienated from them, to preserve themselves from such imminent dangers, though not infallibly destroying the soul.

Now if it be here demanded, as I know necessarily it must and will be, that, to make this high charge probable, we give some instances of such their errours and Schismaticalness, though I might well decline that so great and Schismaticalness, though I might well decline that so great and copious a subject, in this transient and compendious discourse, re­ferring them to what hath been sufficiently written (though some have, I con­fess,Est s [...]lus in Orle [...] Cha­ [...]act [...]s Epis­c [...]us: suique [...]dimis p [...]inci­pium & [...]nis. Anasiatius Ger­monius D: In­dultis Apesio­licis Praefat. §. Episeopus, & Vide etiam [...]e­trum Gregori­um Syntagm. L. 15. C. 3. quid tribuitur Pop [...] supra Conciliis & [...]rincipilus. weakely and inconsiderately over-acted) to this purpose, yet I shall not absolutely, without this general touch, leave the matter so: reducing their Errours to these two Heads, Schismatical Doctrines, and Heretical. And this alone I look on as a most Schismatical dogm, next to heresie, and which alone suffices to justifie the separation of all other Churches from that of Rome, viz. That they maintain, if not in express termes, which somedo (who perhaps will not be acknowledged when they are pinched hard to speak the sense of the Church) in reallity, That the Pope or See of Rome hath arbitrary power, of himself, to Judge and Censure all Churches, and to institute, or Cassate Lawes for the universal Church: and that he cannot be a Schismatick. There is nothing more fundamental in the Lawes and Traditions of the Catholick Church, than that no one of the Patri­archs should presume to form, or oblige the Catholick Church by their single and private Canons and Decrees, without the consent and con­currence of his Brethren; neither can any meeting deserve the name of a General Council wherein their sentence is not heard or received: But there is nothing more notorious than the Bishop of Rome's invasi­on of a sole Right to Govern the whole Church: of which he hath been often soundly charged by the eminentest of the Later of the Greek Bishops,Nilus Thessalo. nicensis. though their complaint hath generally been received no otherwise than with a deafear, or an insolent stomach; and contempt of the Sacred Ca­nons of the Church, as might be made appear by several instances; were this a proper opportunity so to do: Neither do I know how they of Rome can exempt themselves from apparent Schisme, upon the account which Balsome urgeth against them, viz. That the Popes have separated and are di­vided Balsam. Resp. 1. Jurts Grae­co. Rom. L. 6. pag. 370. from the Four other Patriarchs. Will they say, they are Schismaticks and Hereticks? It is no more then they will pay them with again. And 'tis no harder matter to prove one than the other. But if Four of the Patriarchs of the Church may be Hereticks and Schismaticks and so con­tinue for many hundered years together, What becomes of that argument for the true Church taken from the Universality of its Profession. For put­ting the Case, that those of the Roman Communion were equal, yea Superior in extent of Ground and number of professers (which is hardly to be gran­ted) yet being apparently inferiour in the number of Patriarchs, they can­not pretend universality; unless they beg the question, as too often and importunately they do, that the Roman See is the only Standard to weigh and Conclude all Ecclesiastical controversies and quarrels. This is, as we [Page 236] said, such a fundamental Errour in the outward Politie and Discipline of the Church, that it alone might justifie a Separation from such a Monster.

I shall give but one instance, and that of one Man expressing the sense ofVid. Aus. Bar­bossam de Offi­cio & Potesta­te Episc. Par. 3. Allegat. 57. num. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. the Church of Rome, though some will have it called The Court of Rome only, concerning the Popes Power. He [the Pope] is the Universal Bishop of the Church. He hath the whole World for his Diocess. He is the Bishop of Bishops. The Ordinarie of Ordinaries. In things concerning Benesices he hath free and absolute power. All Benesices in respect of this Holy Prelate are manual, and he may use absolute power in them.

But to this adding such, to us, manifest errours and corruptions in Faith and practise as have been introduced into that Church, there can be no just Scruple made of Separating, and to profess so much, without mincing the matter by certain fine evasions which strictly enquired into will no more satisfie than down-right dealing; which chargeth them with such heretical-Dogmes, which contrary to Charity as well as Verity require Separation. Of the many of which that of Transubstantiation may claim the first place together with its long Train of Gross abuses, and Errours following upon, and flowing from it. For though I know diverse Learned men of our Church do look upon it as a very absurd falsity in matter of Fact, rather then of Faith: yet if it be considered as reduced to Propositions invented and stre­nuously asserted to maintain that Errour in fact, it putteth on the nature of Heresie too. To say that Christ had but one hand, is not an Heresie of it self: but a notorious non-truth in matter of Fact: But so to defend this opinion as thereby to deny Christ to have been of the same nature with us, amounts to Heresie. Granting likewise, that not only Christs Natural Body is in that Sacrament, but it is that very thing which after Consecration ap­peares (though not as it appears) to our senses is but a fowl absurdity, and errour in point of Fact. Yet when it is so defended, as to call in question the truth of Christs divine nature, and to commend and command the direct worship of those objects so mistaken; then certainly it is Heresie, and somewhat more. And so their doctrine of Communicating in one Kind, contrary to all the mention we have of celebrating the Eucharist in the Scriptures, and those deserving the name of Fathers in the Church; may rightly be termed Heretical, when it shall be drawn into such a Proposition as this (as of necessity it must,) viz. That it is of equal vertue and use to receive the Sacrament in one kind alone, as both Kinds: whereas only to de­ny the use of it, is no more than an unjust and sacrilegious piece of Tyran­ny over the Laicks. To these it were easie to add more of like natures as sufficient Grounds to leave such a Church as maintains them.

But for those who are not in Episcopal, nor yet so much as Metropolitan subordination and subjection to that Church, but only Patriarchal (which obliges cheifly, if not only, to a recognition of a Remote Right of Order, and Principle of unity, when the Church is united, in bringing them to Councels and keeping them to those Laws which are prescribed by Gene­ral Consent of the Church) and this not originally, by first planting and forming a Christian Church in a Nation, but restoring and augmenting it, the case is yet more plain, that it is free for such Churches to relinquish communion of any Church subject to less Errours than are properly cal­led Heresies. But for persons educated in a Church and thereby subject to it, and owing Canonical obedience not only (as they most weakly and wic­kedly imagine) to the Rule of Faith therein asserted, and maintained but to the Rule of Unity and Communion outward, for such; I say, to divide [Page 237] from that Church which hath not by falling into notorious Heresies or Ido­latrous practices, first fallen from Christian Faith, is to profess Schism. For to alledg that they would incorporate with the Church, if certain things which may possibly be parted with without destroying the Faith, at least immediately were granted to them, is to demand that their Superiors should bow to them, rather than they to their Superiors, and in effect to make the condition of their obedience and uniting with the Church, to be this, That first the Church should be of their Religion; the difference be­tween them consisting in things in their own nature mutable. For though Faith consisteth in those things which are judged necessary in themselves to be received: Yet Religion is made up as well of the manner of serving God, as the material grounds of it. And therefore it is according to the manner of their treaties of peace in other Cases, to require the thing in debate to be granted them, before they will bear of a commodation or re­conciliation. This senseless Charity is that of most Desperate Schisma­ticks.

Yet not absolutely to despair of reducing some few of them, and much less of preventing the like ruine of souls in others, we shall now conclude with a few words concerning the Second thing in the beginning of this Point, viz. The guilt of Schism. Supposing then, what is above said, that Schism is a Causeless Separation from the Church of Christ, meaning by Cause­less, not want of all reasons, or causes, but Sufficient, as are errours now mention'd in Faith; we farther understand by Separation, not that of the inward and hidden man, but outward and Visible; answerable to that we have called, and acknowledged to be properly called a Church, i. e. Vi­sible. For possible we grant it is, what we do scarce believe to be actually true, (though we hear such things sometimes spoken) that dissenters may have a tolerable good opinion of a Church, as that it is a true Church in their private senses; they may pretend some general kindness and Charity to the Members of it: Nay they may hold it no grievous sin to communicate with it, for some persons especially: and yet for all this be rank Schisma­ticks. For Schismatizing in its remoter Cause may spring from evil opi­nions and dispositions of the inward man; but its formality is altogether in outward profession of averseness, separation, and opposition to a Church. This is it which hath raised so much just clamour of the Ancient, and even of those very modern Persons who stomach nothing more than to be reduced to their own general Rules; and have worthily brandished their swords and pens to bring people to the unity of that Cause, which never was the true Faith, and to that Visible Company which never was a Church; and yet cannot understand their own language nor receive their own reasons and ar­guments in Cases infinitely more capable of such vindications, than the Party they created and asserted. Herein surely they have exceeded all o­ther Factions in immodesty and undauntedness, that whereas those have been very scrupulous and sparing in delivering doctrines of coercion and constraint to unity, and therefore may (though with no reason, with some little colour) stand out against Unity, and oppose all Coaction thereunto: They of the Presbyterian Sect have preach'd, spoken, and written so much, and expresly against Schism, and the Liberty which tends necessarily to it, that it is beyond not only reason, but admiration, they should neither be af­fected with what other men have said against them, nor what they have un­answerably said against themselves, but proceed no otherwise than brutish­ly to hold their Conclusion, and stick to their invet era [...]e errours, as if they [Page 238] could find no Church to unite to, or had no souls to save, or did not even according to their own principles run the apparent hazard of loosing them, by that sin which they confess is one of the Greatest Size, viz: unnecessa­ry division. And unnecessary division themselves call, what is not for to avoid Idolatrous practises, or Heretical errours; and yet in their Apolo­gies for themselves alledge none but frivolous instances tending, as they judge, to Superstition, wherein they prove themselves much more super­stitious, by such religious opposition as they make against them; and deep­ly concerning their best Consciences, than they possibly can be, who for order sake, solemness of worship, and conformity to the ancient Customs of Christs Church, and to avoid offence unto other Churches sticking in­separably unto them, retain rather than invent such adjuncts to Divine Re­ligion.

It is hard to search out any new Topick from whence to draw out rea­sons against this hainous sin of Schismatizing, wherein I am not prevented by them disputing upon the false suppositions, that they at any time were a Church: and if they had been, that they who opposed them could be said to Divide Schismatically from them, of whose communion they never were, nor ever were obliged to be. They are therefore with others to consider, How solemn and severe a command of Christ they slight and contemn, who divide from a Church without more weighty exceptions than hitherto, have been offered by them, or heard by us. For passing by that which we now believe they could wish themselves unsaid, and are well content to lay a­side, Antichristianism, Popery, Baalism, Idolatry, and what not of most foul, bitter, and false slanders and reproaches unbecoming the mouth of any so­ber Christian (with which notwithstanding they thriv'd so exceedingly at first into Power and estimation) there remains nothing now but such starv'd allegations and pittiful exceptions as may call in question their discretion, as well as conscience, to urge them. Will all the Prophecies and Prefigu­rations, and descriptions of the Old Testament concerning the unity of Christs Church under the Gospel; all the Predictions, Injunctions, Obte­stations of Christ and his Apostles: All the solemn and Sacred Acts and Endeavours of Apostolical Postours to keep up unity in the Church: All the detestations of Discord and Disuniting: All the Denunciations of the most severe Judgements of God against causeless breakers of the Churches peace, be put off, and made void upon such sorry grounds as are of late found out to countenance separation. They are so well and generally known by frequent use, that, aiming at brevity here, I hold it not neces­sary to enlarge upon them, especially after so many who out of the Anci­ents have dissected this Monster, to the horrour of any truly conscientious. Yet one or two I shall instance in Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria, as Nice­phorur Nicephor Ca­lixt. Lib. 6. Cap. 4. Calixtus relateth, affirmeth it to be no less glory, yea greater in his Judgement not to divide the Church, than not to sacr [...]fice to Idols. Which in plain terms is to say, It is as great a sin to be a Schismatick as to be an I­dolater, or yet more home to our Case, to be a Papist St. Augustine tells us that it is manifest that he who is not a member of Christ, cannot have the DeƲnitate Ec­cles. C. 2. salvation of a Christian. But the Members of Christ (he goes on) are conjoined together by the love or Charity of Unity, and by the same do stick to their Head, which Head is Christ Jesus. Now if it be impossible that any man should be a member of Christ the Head, who is not a member of his Body the Church also; and that it is impossible a man should be a member of the Body from which he is divided; and that Schism doth [Page 239] so divide a man from the Body: How can a man that is a Schismatick be sa­ved? Will they say by being of the Mystical Body of Christ, though not Visible? In this excuse they fall into many dangerous absurdities: First, in conceiving of Christs Visible Church as not the Mystical Body of Christ. For it is called Mystical not because it is internal and invisible, but be­cause it is not a Natural, but a Spiritual Body: It is not a Political, as Po­litical signifies Civil or Humane Society, but a Divine Body. It is not ad­ministerd so much by Lawes of humane and common Invention as Spiritual. Secondly, In that it is supposed here, what we have before disproved that they are two distinct Bodies, the Invisible and Mystical, as they speak, from the Visible: So that a man may be of the one and not of the other: which cannot be understood: For though a man may not be Visibly of the outward Church, yet he must be and may be of the Visible Church. They are not Visibly of the Visible Church; who by far distance of Place and time are involuntarily separated from the Communion of the Church: but they who live within the communion of the Church and uncharitably divide from its communion are not of the Visible Church at all; nor yet, for ought can be made appear, of that they call Invisible, any more than an Heretick: For as the same St, Austin saith in another place, Neither the Heretick pertains to the Lib. De side & Symb. C. 3. Catholick Church, because he loveth not God, neither the Schismatick because he loveth not his neighbour. And Luther, in his Colloqules tells us, thatColloquia Men­salia. The Heathen sins against God the Father, The Heretick against God the Son, And the Schismatick against God the Holy Ghost. Therefore if there be such notorious guilt on the part of him that sinneth against the Holy Ghost, a­bove that of him who sinneth against the Son, what mercy can they expect who thus wilfully offend? For who (saith Austin) sighteth with such evidence Aug. Exposit. in Rom. inch [...] ­ata. To. 4. against the Holy Ghost, as he doth who rageth against the Church with such proud contentions. Sectaries and Schismaticks have made way to their divisions, and alienations of mens minds and affections from the Church by reproa­ching it with Antichristianism, which if they could have many sober or tollerable manner have made good, they needed nothing more to excuse them: but alas, they have the good Nature now to blush at such gross fol­lies, and give over such foul slanders, though not the Grace to repent, which they can never do without a recognition of their errour. But now they have almost done with that wicked lye, they must expect we should be­gin to tell them a manifest truth, That the Antichristianism is on their sides, upon many accounts: of which this of Schismatizing is a principal proof: as we and they both are taught by Cyril of Jerusalem thus, Hatred of our Cyrril. Hieron. Cat [...]c. pa. 161. brethren doth open a Gap to Antichrist: For the Devil doth preapre Schisms of the people (or Laity) that be who is to come may be more readily received. These, and such like intollerable, if not unpardonable Evils of Schism made St. Hierome say plainly, that Schism was worse than Heresie. And soHieron. contra Luciferanos. indeed it is, in this respect: that Heresie of itself, and own nature, rui­neth only the person so infected: but Schism sweepeth away many from the truth, and Charity of the Church: As therefore it is better for a Ci­ty that one man in it should die of the plague, than that through the infecti­on of any one, the whole City should be troubled with the Itch, or some such disease which should make them all keep their beds, though possibly they may at length recover: so an Heretick in a Church not so divulging his errour as to infect the Church in general, and thereby divide it from it self and others shall undoubtedly find an easier Judgement at Gods hands, than the Schismatick who dissolves the members of it from the Head, and one another, and doth far less mischief.

[Page 240]And whereas two things are popularly alledged in their Vindication, The one, that they would have lived in peace might those things have been granted which might have been yielded them, certain indifferent things, ac­knowledged to be so: And that they have done no otherwise than was done by the Church against the Church of Rome to reform against, their consent. The First of these is in part very ridiculous, as we have shewed, and in part very false: Ridiculous it is, because it implies as much as to say, Give us but our demands and then we will be quiet: by which Rule no man should defend his own right in lesser matters, which to part with, perhaps would not utterly undo him; but he must be lookt on as accessary to, and guilty of his own destruction, if the Invader shall have power enough to bring it upon him, because he will not peaceably satisfie his unjust desires. A man may be (and our Saviour in the Gospel saith expresly, Luk. 16. 10. is,) unjust in the least, as well as in much. And so undoubtedly are they, who, having no Autority but what they frame to themselves, shall by violence and aggressions attempt to extort the least thing belonging of right to a­nother, though haply better spar'd than kept; For it is a Case of Justice, rather than Christianity. In justice and common equity, the inferi­our members of a Church and state, owe obedience to their Su­periours, in all things not contrary to the Law of God, the Church, or the Nation: but at most, they can claim such things that are (as they say) indifferent to be granted them, out of Courtesie or Charity only. And whoever was so wilfully stupid as not to perceive that Injustice, is much more a sin than Uncharitableness; and so, whatever mischief or guilt shall fall out in such contentions, must necessarily light upon the heads of the unjust Aggressour, and not indiscreet Resister, were it indiscretion to withstand, to deny such bold and insolent demanders; or uncharitableness: both which are denied in the present Case. For there can be nothing more unjust on the one side, and unwise on the other, than so rudely and unrigh­teously to require of another all that may be granted; or to grant all such things as are so demanded. And if they urge still The peace of the Church to require such concessions: I shall answer, Let them first (as all good Christi­ans ought to do) observe the Peace of Nature, and the Peace of Nations, which is not to offer violence, nor to be unjust, nor to go out of their Rank and Order, but with good Autority, and then take care for the Peace of the Church. But what can be more absurd, than that men should break the Peace of Nations and Nature it self, yea the Law of God and Scriptures, which require to obey all that are in autority over us, as well Ecclesiasti­cally as Civilly, and then so much as to mention the Peace of the Church? especially calling that only the Peace of the Church which puts them into quiet possession of their desires. But to this we add, that it is also very false which is here supposed to be true. For there is nothing more manifest than that with diverse things of indifferent nature they mix many things of indispensable use to a Church: and such is that so much reproached and de­rided Hierarchie; which all the earth sees they have made it their business to Destroy utterly. And when we plainly see, as we do, that those things in na­ture indifferent are demanded chiefly as an introduction to a farther aboliti­on of things we hold necessary, we hold them no longer indifferent; nor can we in common prudence or Christianity part with them to such person; a­ny more than we can in a neighbourly manner lend away an Ax or Hammer, when we are assured, they will be made use of to break open our houses and spoil us, though we know they may possibly be made use of to other purpo­ses.

[Page 241]The Second Obstacle, rather than Objection cast in our way is the parity of their Case with the Church of England, with that of the Church of England with the Roman: wherein whether they show more Spite or Po­licy, may be a question: Their Policy imitates them, who finding the war to lie heavy upon them at their own doors, contrive by all means pos­sible to translate it into another Country: as was particularly seen in Hin­dersons Letter to his late Sacred Majesty, who finding the ability of his pen and weight of his discourses, advised him rather to turn himself against the common enemy, the Papist: And thus these men would needs oblige us to make our quarrel good against the Romanists, that they may be the les, mo­lested in the pursuance of their most Schismatical designs against the Church in which they were educated. And this being discovered, we might well excuse ourselves from such a task as they would set us. But this we have be­fore resolved in good part: and had we not, might, and shall in a very few words dispatch, as somewhat out of its proper place. We grant then, there is a Schism between us and the Romanists. And we grant that there can be no cause to be Schismaticks, though for a Separation there may: and that they are truly Schismaticks who have ministred just Cause of Separation. Some we know, out of an ancient Father, have urged against us, That there can be no cause to divide the Church: which is true in two senses only: First, when that Church is not before really divided from other Churches of unquesti­on'd integrity; Realy I say, by deserting some considerable point of Faith, or introducing some unchristian manner of worship, though not Openly and Formally, as hath been said. Again, it is true only in such junctures as the Fa­ther spake those words in, which was an apt and orthodox agreement within itself, both in Faith and manners: in such Cases there can be no cause to di­vide the Church, as did the Novatians and Donatists. But it was never his purpose to say that no case could happen in which it was not lawful for one Church to leave the Communion of another; when it was so often done. So still the point is wholly, whether cause was given or not, and not whe­ther such outward, and wilful Separation was made. For undoubtedly, how­ever some would mince the matter, Separate we did, and that wilfully from the Church of Rome; and chose, rather than were forced to go out. And up­on those very grounds we still stand out and refuse to return, The gross cor­ruptions there maintained and not lurking: and the fear of the loss of our souls in there continuing, and much more thither returning. What those are, hath been even now touched; and we here add, that notwithstanding 'tis confessed such senses are found of their doctrine and superstitious worship in some private authors amongst them, which they offer at first to them they would seduce, which may put persons into a possibility of their continuing, without incurring damnation; yet the Publick autority of that Church (which I suppose they will call their Church) having evermore of late years, censur'd, purged, and expunged such more tollerable constructions; and ap­peared for the most harsh, and uncatholick, there can be no great regard had to the fairer opinions. Again, it is not sufficient that a Church hath a true sense of Christian Faith, if it alloweth and commendeth a false and a wicked sense. 'Tis little to the purpose, or to their advantage, to say (for instance sake) as the more sober, especially when they would gain upon the good o­pinion of men, That Images may be worshipped relatively and as instru­ments to devotion and helps, but when there are found, and generally known to be such doctrines as teach a veneration of Images for their own sakes, and directly, and that with the same sort of worship that the things they re­present [Page 242] are capable of; (though perhaps they upon a pinch can insert a di­stinction which neither can be understood nor profit) such a doctrine as this known to be delivered by the Principal Doctors of their Churches and maintain'd, not being condemned by that Church (however not generally embraced) may subject a Church to a censure of Heresie and Idolatry of both: and so in other things, whereof tolerable senses are given in the Church of Rome; or else they could not be said so much as to be a Church at all; but intolerable and Heretical are also uncondemned, and so are no true Church: and so may be separated from, without Schism, but not with­out peril of damnation united to. And do not our brethren (for such they were before they professed Schism, and I hope may be after they have re­nounced it) see now plainly enough the vani [...]y and spitefulness of their E­vasion? Are not the Cases infinitely different, and that in their own eyes? Hear they what Perkins saith to our, and their purpose; So long as a Church Perkins on Gal. C. 5. V. 20. or people do not Separate from Christ, we may not separate from them. 2 Pro. 24. 21. Fear the King and meddle not with them that vary, i. e make alterations against the Laws of God, and the King. Indeed Subjects may signifie what is good for the State, and what is amiss; but to make any alteration in the State ei­ther Civil, or Ecclesiastical, belongs to the Supream Magistrate. And [...]n ano­ther place the same Author hath these words, Great therefore is the rashness Id. Galat 1. V. 2. and want of moderation in many that have been of us, that condemn our Church for no Church, without sufficient conviction going before. If they say, we have been admonished by books published, I say again, these be grosser faults in some of those books, than any of the faults that they reprove in the Church of England, and therefore the books are not [...]it to convince especially a Church.

Thus we see how the cases in the matter difier. And no less may we see the difference in the manner. For 'tis apparent that Schismaticks against the Church of England never had any Legal autority to warrant their vile and Scandalous practices: but were forced to give names to things uncapable of them, to excuse themselves; or else by an unnatural course to entitle the People to a Power Supream, who have none at all, but what is given them from another fountain: neither did the people concurr with such misde­meaners, as was pretended they did. But thirdly, another difference is to be noted from the Rights of a Patriarchal Power over a Provincial Church, not properly of its Diocess, and that of a Metropolitan with his Suffragans over the members of the Church which they altogether make. For, accor­ding to the constitutions of the Church, though a Patriarchs Power was Intensively equal to Episcopal, over his proper and immediate Diocess, and Extensively much greater than the Metropolitans or Bishops in relation to other Diocesses: yet was it never so Intensive i. e. so particular and great in those Bishops Diocesses over which he had only an Order of Unity ra­ther than Intrinsick power to dispose matters therein, though in process of time this also was invaded much by him, and might be recovered to the proper Bishop by the Laws of the Church. But the Bishops of this Church had the sole and immediate disposing of the affairs of it, and nothing could be concluded without obligation of obedience out of Conscience, with­out their Concurrence, as desparately as Schismaticks then did and still do rage at this truth. But then, as Hinderson saith with others, They would ne­ver reform themselves. It is very likely so, meaning, as they would have them; but that, not to the better Rule of the Ancient Churches, and the Scriptures, is more than they knew, or would acknowledg when they saw; because still they would have done otherwise, and invented a new Rule of their own.

[Page 243]But seeing the grounds and Cause of separation are they upon which the Guilt of Schism is avoided or contracted according to the nature of them, and obscure and difficult, and tedious is the method leading to the tryal of the sufficiency of them, to justifie a Separation; therefore it were well contrived, if, as in the search of a true Church, they may, being very long and uncertain and grievous to most, proceeding upon the points of Faith and Parts of worship themselves, certain infa [...]lible obvious and plain Cha­racters could be produced to convince the Schism, and distinguish it from simple and innocent Separation. A Fair attempt to which hath been made by Austin, who dispu [...]ing against the Donatists denies that any man can sepa­rate from the Universal Church, innocently. So that although it should be doubtful as most things are managed by Learned Partisans) whether, con­sidering the grounds of Separation in themselves, the Separation be Schis­matical, or lawful and laudable; yet by such an outward Characteristick, it might be competently discerned. And so farmust I needs comply with that Judicious and Holy Father, and such as urge this out of him against us, as to yield it a most probable outward Note of Schism, for any man, or num­ber of men, not a Church, but in Fieri (as they speak) only, and in bree­ding, to divide from the Universal Church: not only as comprehending all Ages, but of any one Age: the weight and evidence of which Concession will appear from the esteem of the Church Catholick, and the wrath and extent of Christs promises to preserve it in All truth. For this is certain, That Christ directed his promises and restrained them to no one time or Age. And it is not probable there should be such an Intercession or intermission of Faith or Christianity, that the universal Church should mortally err in any one thing necessary to salvation; nay, though we take it not in such a large sense as sometimes it is wont to be used, for all individual persons in it, as well as Churches of which the whole is constituted. And therefore to desert the communion of all Churches, not of persons (for this is scarce to be supposed to happen at any time) doth argue shrewdly, That the sepa­ration hath much of Schism in it; without examination of particular grounds which are pretended sufficient. For it will be said That it ought not to be supposed that Christ should deliver over his whole Church to such hereti­cal errours, which only can exempt a Separation from Schism. From such notorious suspicions as these we may clear our selves thus. First, by putting a difference between the Church so united as is here supposed to rightly de­nominate it the Catholick or Universal Church, and the Church disunited and divided long before any Reformation came to be so much as called for in these western Parts, with attempts to put such desires into practice. The division or Schism between the Western and Eastern Churches happened about the years 860 and 870, under Nicholas the first of Constantinople, and Adrian the Second, Bishop of Rome. Where the guilt was, is of ano­ther subject. But the Schism rested not here, but infested the Greek Church also, subdividing the Armenian from the Constantinopolitan. Now in such Case as this, which is as much different from that of the Donatists who di­vided from all these entirely united together, as may be, who can conclude a Division from the Church so divided long before, a Schism ipso facto, be­cause a Division was made from one Part of it calling itself indeed the Ca­tholick Church? Had therefore Reformers so divided from the Catholick Church united, as did the Donatists, it were more than probable that their division might from thence be known to be Schism without any more ado: but it is certain it was quite otherwise. And therefore some other Conviction must be expected, besides that Characteristick.

[Page 244]And what must that be? The Infallibility of any one Eminent Church, which like a City on a Mountain, a Beacon on a Hill, a Pharus or Light­tower to such as are like to shipwrack their Faith, may certainly direct them to a safe Station and Haven? And all this to be the Church or See of Rome? But alas, though this were as desirable as admirable, yet we have nothing to induce us to receive it for such, but certain prudent inferences that such there is, because such there ought to be for the ascertaining dubi­ous minds in the truth; and therefore so (say they) actually it is: and lest humane reason should seem too malapert to teach what divine Autority ought to do, therefore must the Scripture be canvas'd and brought against the best Presidents in Antiquity, to the Contrary; to Patronize such ne­cessary Dogms. The matter then returns to what we at first propounded: viz. the Judging of Schism from the Causes, and of the Causes, from the Scriptures, and the more Genuine and ancient Traditions of Christs Church, before such Schism distracted the same. These two things therefore we leave to be made Good by Romanists, in which they are very defective: First, that there is any One Notorious infallible Judge actually constituted, whereby we may certainly discern the Schismaticalness, or Hereticalness of any one Church varying from the truth: and this because, It were to be wish'd a Judg were somewhere extant. Secondly, that what ever Security or Safety of Communion is to be found in the Visible Church, properly and insepara­bly belongs to the Roman Church; because some of the Ancients tell, the time when it did not actually err. But if our proofs be much more strong and apparent, which declare that actually it doth err, and wherein it doth err, what an empty and bootless presumption must it needs be, to invite to its communion upon her immunity from Erring? or to condemn men of Schism for this only, That they communicate not with it? which is the bold method of Roman Champions.

CHAP. I.

AND Thus far have we treated of Religion in General: and specially of Christian Religion or Faith in its Rule, the Scriptures; Its Causes, its Effects, its Contraries, its Subject, the Church, in its several Capacities: Now we are briefly to treat of the Par­ticular Object, Christian Faith.

That as God is the true and proper Author of Chri­stian Faith, he is also the principal Object, is most certain and apparent; and is therefore, by the Schools called the Formal Object, that is, either that which it immediately and most properly treats of, or for whose sake, other things spoken of, besides God, and Christ, are there treated of. For other Religions as well as Christian, treat of God, and the works of God; but none treat of God or his works, as consider'd in Christ his Son, but the Christian. For the two Greatest Acts which have any knowledge of, of God, being Creation and Redemption, both these are described unto us in Holy Writ to be wrought by God through Christ Jesus: as the Book of Proverbs and of Wisdom intimate to us, when they shew how God in Wisdom made the Worlds: Christ being the true Wisdom of the Father. And more expresly in the entrance into the Gospel of St. John, Joh. 1. 2, [...] the Word of God, being Christ, is said to be in the beginning with God, and All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made. And St. Paul to the Ephesians affirmeth, All things to be created by God, Eph. 3. 9. Col. 1. 15, 16. by Jesus Christ. And to the Colossians speaking of Christ the Image of the In­visible God, addeth, For by him were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in the Earth Visible and Invisible, &c. This therefore discrimi­nates [Page 246] the treating of things natural in Christian Theologie from all other Sciences and Theologies, that all is spoken of in relation to Christ Jesus.

Therefore having in the beginning of this Tract spoken of God in Gene­ral, as supposed rather than to be proved in Divinity, viz. of his abso­lute Being: his Unity, being but one; His Infiniteness, being all things in Perfection and Power; we are here to resume that matter, and continue it by a more particular enquiry into the Nature, Attributes, Acts, and Works of God: here supposing what before we have spoken of the First notion of Gods Being, and those immediately joined with them, His Unity, and Infi­niteness: which Infiniteness necessarily inferreth all other Attributes proper to him, as of Power, Prefence in all places, and all times, and Omnisci­ence: and therefore here we shall speak only of the Nature, or Being of God in the more peculiar sense to Christians, that is, being distinct in Per­sons, as well as One in Nature.

CHAP. II.

FROM the Unity or singularity of Gods nature as to number, doth flow an Unity and Simplicity of that one Individual Nature in it self. For as the Nature of God cannot be found in several and separate Persons subsisting by themselves, as may the nature of man: so neither ought we to imagin that there is multiplicity of natures constituting the same God. For as there are not many Gods dif­fering Generically, as there are Bodies Celestial, and Podies Terrestial; and again, of Terrestial, some Bodies Elemental and uncompounded na­turally; Other Mixt and compounded: and such are Fish, Foul, and Beasts; neither can there many as different in kind, as Man and Beast are distinct; nor in number, as men differ one from another, so neither can there be One differing as it were from it self, in Parts, or other like com­position of nature, as man doth. For seeing (as Boetius hath observed) GodBoetius Conso­ [...] ▪ Lib. 3. [...]os. 10. is that which is most absolute and perfect; and than which nothing more excellent can be conceived by the mind of man: If more than one could be in nature, or number, there could not be one most absolute: but One more absolute and simple might by the Understanding of Man, be conceived, which necessarily must be thought to be God rather than those diverse ones. And if we should suppose the Nature Individual of God to be made up of seve­ral sorts of things, and naturesas the Body of man, then did we not pitch upon the true Notion of God: which we must alwayes suppose to be most perfect: But we have more than conjectural knowledge that some things in the world are not compounded, at least as we are; but of a more pure and simple substance: such as we call Spirit. And we ma [...] well believe that all of that nature are not of equal perfection: or if possibly they should, that [Page 247] still there is a possibility of a more transcendent purity of subsisting than they are of, until we come to the most absolute, pure, and perfect Being, than which nothing can be, or conceived to be more Pure, and Perfect: and that must of necessity be God. Again, such a composition would destroy the nature of God, because such it must be that nothing either in act or Co­gitation, can possibly precede it: but where there are distinct parts, or humors concurring to make one Entire thing, there a real priority at least of nature, must needs be: because it cannot be supposed but the Cause must in some manner go before the Effect, and such supposed compositions have of the nature of a material Cause to such a thing, as they so constitute. Thirdly, all things of a differing nature concurring to make One, cannot move themselves, nor of themselves meet with such concord as to make one thing without the power and wisdome of some third Superiour Agent brin­ging them so together. So that to suppose such a God, is to suppose one Above, and before him; who should Effect all this which is repugnant to the nature of God. Lastly, nothing can be so well set together but it may be supposed to be undone and dissolved again, either by the nature of things themselves tending to separation, or by the same power, or, if they will, fortune (as some have called it) which brought them together.

This is yet further confirmed unto us from the Holy Scriptures: which were best able to reveal the nature of God unto us so far as was expedient, or perhaps, for us in this life, possible to understand: where God most admirably describeth himself thus, I am that I am: which is his name forExod. 3. 14, 15. ever, which no created thing can claim to it. The like to which is that name Jehovah, whereby he calls himself, signifying an absolute essential Being. For nothing besides God can define God. Every thing but he, is defined by another thing, which differs in some manner from it: but God is defined by himself, because nothing can be Higher than he, and nothing in him is really distinct from him, as in other things. And therefore truly may it be said of God, The Lord thy▪ God is one Lord, i. e. One in number, na­ture,Deut. 6. 4. and Simplicity of Being. And therefore, such definitions of God asJoh. 4. 24. 1 Tim. 1. 25. Psal. 90. 2. Jer. 23. 23. 34. Psal. 130. v. 7. 1 Tim. 6. 16. this, God is a Spirit or Substance, Spiritual, Uncreated, Most Pure, Eter­nal, Infinite, Incomprehensible, Immutable, Everliving, &c. Are rather to be understood Negatively than Positively: that is, that God is so a Spirit that he is infinitely above the nature of Corporeal Beings: though he be not so a Spirit as to be of the Nature of Angels or such like Spirits, but much more transcends them in excellency, than they do the most gross and earthly Bodies: And said to be Infinite because no limitation of his Being, or Power, or Presence can be supposed: which is commonly called the Ne­gative way of attaining knowledg of Gods nature, viz, by removing, or excluding all imperfections of the Creature from God the Creatour. And Positively ascribing all things to him, which appear to humane understan­ding most Perfect, and Excellent.

CHAP. III.

BUT against the fore said Simplicity seem to make several things ascribed unto God and believed of him: as First, Attributes of God, as Most Holy, Most Wise, most Just, Most Merciful, and such like. Secondly, the descriptions made of God in Holy Scripture. Thirdly, The Existence of God in a triplicity of Persons. Of the first we shall here speak most briefly, as no difficulty. For we are to un­derstand them, not as really distinct things from the Nature of God himself; which is most simple, but only Relatively, and after the manner of mans con­ception: who being able no otherwise than from sensible and natural occa­sions, to understand God, must of necessity frame to himself such affections; and severally distinguish them, for to exercise the several Acts of Service due to God: For if Man consider'd God altogether under one manner of Being: then could he not sometimes humble himself under his wrath, and displeasure conceived for his sins: Then could he not, at other times, re­joyce in his mercy, and express his thankfulness for his grace and Goodness received. Then could he not implore his aid against unjust dealings and in­juries suffered in the world. Then could he not Pray unto him, to relieve him in his necessities, and straits: none could crave supply from his boun­ty and fulness in his wants. These distinct conceptions therefore of God are requisite, though God be absolutely the same. And God having vouchsafed to express himself in such manner in his Word, doth thereby give warrant for us to be affected: alwayes provided that we proceed not to any gross imagination of him as really so affected and compounded; but according to a Metaphorical or Metonymical sense, familiarly used in all authors as well as in the Scriptures. For it is to be noted, the Scriptures do choose to speak [...]. Chrysost. Homil. 15. in Joann. in compliance with mans capacity, not according to the dignity of the sub­ject, of which it treats, nor according to the Splendour and illuminated state of the Understandings receiving divine Revelations, but according to the proportion of mens ordinary apprehensions, to which they are di­rected; as Philosophy hath observed that All Agents do work agreeable to the condition of the Patient or thing that suffereth, not according to the full force and vertue which it hath in it self. For fire doth not equally prey up­on stone and wood: nor doth the Physitian give the same strong Physick to a weak body as he doth to a strong, nor are Men informed of God, after the manner of Angels, who behold much more purely and cleerly the Nature of God. But mans knowledge is generally taken from the Effects. And so comparing those works of God, and Acts of God, which have some simili­tude with those of men. For as all works of note do imply some care and pains to produce them by men; So is God said to labour when he created all things in this world: and to rest, when he had finished and ended all: because this is the manner of men: And to be Angry when either just cause is [Page 249] offered by offending him, in breaking of his holy Laws, or the effects of wrath commonly seen, when men are so affected appear by the severe pu­nishments inflicted upon offenders.

And what is said of the inward affections ascribed unto God, may be easily applied to those outward descriptions made of God in Scripture, under the form of Man, as of Hands, Arms, Head, Heart, Eyes, and such like; which the ancient Fathers against the Heresie of the Anthropomor­phites, who (as Epicurus in Tully) took God to be of the same fashion and [...], often mentioned by St. Chry­sostome. Suidas. form with Man, do affirm to be by Condescension to Man; which Conde­scension is thus described by one [ [...]] Condescension is when God doth seem to be what he is not, but so declares himself to be, as he that is to conceive of him, is best able to behold him, proportioning the revelation of him­self to the imbecillity of the contemplator.

CHAP. IV.

BUT to the exception taken from the Mystery of the Holy Trini­nity, greater regard ought to be had, as well for the explicati­on and confirmation of that Doctrine, as for the satisfaction of humble enquirers into the same. And for more clear and gra­dual proceeding herein, it will be requisite first to explain such terms as this Doctrine much depends on, as Essence, Substance, Nature, Person and Trinity it self.

Essence is of somewhat larger extent than Substance, because Substance signifies properly only that which is opposite to Accident, or that which adheres or inheres to Substance: but Essence signifies all kinds of Beings, as well of Accidents, as Substances. Nature is the restraint of Essence and Substance both, in their general Being, to some more special kind of thing; as there is the Nature of Man, and the Nature of Beast, the Nature of Accidents, and the Nature of Substances, the Nature of Colours, and [Page 250] the Nature of Quantities: so that Nature is not that whereby a thing simply and absolutely is, but whereby it is what it is. Hence we say also, the Nature of God or the Creator, and the Nature of the Creature; Nature be­ing that by which, as is said, a thing is what it is, and distinct from others. And as for the word Trinity, it is true what hath been objected by some of old, that it is not in terms t [...] be found in Scripture; for the word doth not import any one or more things absolutely, but rather the manner of such things being, the better to settle the mind in the apprehension of that great Mystery. Now the Holy Scriptures doth very often only propound the Article of Faith to be believed by us, but leaves the manner of expres­sing and conceiving the same to the holy prudence of Men, whom he hath for the instruction of inferior persons ordained in his Church, which have agreed so to term that three-fold personal Relation, in the Deity. A Person is defined to be an entire and absolute Being, of reasonable nature. Man in general is not a Person, because he subsisteth not by himself. A Beast in particular is not a Person, because void of knowledge and reason. The soul of Man, though endowed with reason, is not a Person, because not of it self entire and perfect, being part of another thing, i e. Man. But Peter and John are Persons, because single Substances, absolute in them­selves, and rational.

To collect therefore, and conclude from what is thus briefly premised, we say, that these Notions of Essence, Substance and Nature, are some­times taken more strictly and properly; according to which we must al­wayes hold it as a most fundamental Truth in Christian Religion, as it is in the Religion of all civilized People, that God is but one in Essence, Sub­stance, or Nature, i. e. the Being and Nature of God, as God, are but one. But if we take the said Notions more largely, for that which ex­presses the manner of Being, as well as Being it self, then may we speak of the nature of a Person; as when we say, that the nature of a Person is diffe­rent from the nature of things simply taken. And if Nature be taken, as sometimes, for the condition of a thing or Person, we may truly say, that in the Trinity, the Three Persons, as Persons, are of a different nature, though they differ not in the nature of the Deity: For, that they really, and not imaginarily, or by mans fancy and conception different from one another, is a received Truth by all, reputed true Believers; but nothing can be distinct from another, but by somewhat peculiar to it, and what­ever is peculiar to a thing, and ingredient into its Being, may be, and is commonly called the nature of it; in which sense we may say, Three Per­sons are of a different nature, because the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Ghost Father or Son; for the nature of the Father, as Father, is to beget; the nature of the Son, as Son, to be be­gotten; the nature of the Holy Ghost, as Holy Ghost, to proceed. But all this hindereth not in the Nature of God they should be one and the same, and so but one distinct God; and this makes the Trinity in Unity, and the Unity in Trinity: For were not the Persons distinct by somewhat real, and not so notional as to be fictitious, there could not be said to be a Tri­plicity or Trinity of Persons. And again, if in nature they were not the same, there could be no Identity worthy of that Mystery: For other Crea­tures differing one from another in subsisting distinctly, agree in the unity of a general nature, as three men agree in the common nature of man. But 'tis otherwise in the sacred Mystery of the Persons and Nature of God; for the Nature of God is numerically the same, and yet is without inequality or [Page 251] division, communicated totally and entirely to every Person. Again, other Persons are of a distinct subsistence, that is, subsist apart; but theVide Ruffin [...] Histor. Eccles. l. 1. c. 29. Persons in the Trinity subsist not distinctly, because all equally have their subsistence in that Divine Nature; but they may be said to exist distinctly, or have a diversity of existence, as they are so many Persons.

From the Point thus briefly opened and stated, these four things are to be asserted and believed: First, That God is but one in Nature. Second­ly, That there is a three-fold Personality in that Divine Nature. Thirdly, That these three are distinct, and how. Fourthly, That they are the same in subsisting. Of the first it hath in the beginning been sufficiently spo­ken, and may well here be taken for granted. The second is now to be ex­plained, and that in these following Enquiries: First, By the Grounds of Natural Reason. Secondly, The Grounds of the Old Testament for the same. Thirdly, The Opinion of the Church of the Jews concerning the Trinity. Fourthly, The Grounds of the Gospel founding this Do­ctrine.

The reason why the first is called in question, is because God is general­ly affirmed both by the Histories of all Ages and People, to be known to the Gentiles naturally, i. e. by a connatural Instinct; and that many of them did worship the true God, according to that Law and State of Na­ture in which they lived. But if God essentially and immutably consists of three Persons in one Nature Divine, they that worshipped God otherwise than in the Holy Trinity, worshipped him not as he is, and they that wor­ship him not as he is, worship a false God, and they that worship a false God, worship an Idol. And hence it is that divers learned men have said, They who worship God out of the Trinity, worship an Idol, and not the true God; which severe Argument concludes as well against the Jews, as Gentiles; if, as some believe, they understood not God in the Trinity, but worshipped him in the simplicity of a Deity only according to the way of Nature. But if this only men were taught by nature, (for that men were by a light of nature led to worship not only God, but one God, Rea­son and the Scriptures inform us) that they should worship a God, and him alone, and did not intimate withal so much of the true Nature of God, as was absolutely necessary to be known, to the worshipping the true; what benefit could it be to man, to have such an imperfect knowledge of him, whenas still he must worship an Idol, God being the same under the Law of Nature, as he is under the Gospel of Grace? For as that man who acknowledgeth but one God, should commit Idolatry, who should strong­ly imagine and firmly perswade himself that God was of the fashion and fo [...]m of Man, and worship him as such a one, sitting in a fair and glorious room in Heaven: So no less in reason doth it seem, that he should in like manner offend, who doth believe no distinction of the Deity into the Trini­ty of Persons, but acknowledges but one Person in the Divine Nature. The reason of both is, because he worships him neither way as he is, and that not in relative Attributes in order to us, but absolute, essential manner of Being. Now no man that thinks of another otherwise than he is in Es­sence, thinks really of that, but some other thing.

To vindicate then both Jew and Gentile from such gross error, even in the Object of Worship, and not only them, but Nature it self from misin­forming them; it is said, that the Gentile had some light apprehension of the Deity under this notion: And that first from Tradition of the most ancient Patriarchs, who undoubtedly were sufficiently instructed in that [Page 252] Deity. And that this Tradition was so conveyed to the ears of some prime Philosophers, or exposed to their view in the monuments of ancient dayes, that they have committed the same to writing, as divers of their Books still extant intimate unto us, though obscurely. Secondly, The many footsteps of this great Mystery found in the course of Nature, do (ac­cording to many wise men) suggest to an attentive mind the Nature of God, as now received, which others have at large pursued; imitating herein St. Augustine in his Book of the Trinity, wherein he endeavoureth to de­scribeLib. 10. & 11. the manner of this Mystery from the internal senses of Understand­ing, Will and Memory; and external, of Apprehension, Imagination and common Sensation, all which agree in one, and proceed from one. But in this method no sure footing can be found, for more serious and solid certi­fication of a man, though we should yield some glimpses of that divine light to shine from thence; for the Book of the Creature wherein God is to be read, doth not deliver all things equally clear to us: But first, having plainly made known the thing it self, leaves us to seek from what we know imperfectly of God, to procure by due worship and Petition a farther in­sight into that mystery, which being in some measure better instructed in from above, things below may confirm us in the same.

Thirdly, It seems to me that naturally (not taking Nature strictly for a necessary and full assurance, but tacit, at least, intimation) there is impli­ed somewhat of the Trinity of Persons, from the too common error of ac­knowledging more Gods than one. For (as we have said) it being a Do­ctrine of Nature no less apparent that God is one, than that he is simply, it could scarce become so general an error, that men should contrary to such natural light, worship a plurality or variety of Gods, but that there was somewhat received together with that Principle, which might incline and expose them to error; and that was a general Notion, whether by Tradition or Nature, that the Divine Nature was diversified: But how this could consist with the other Principle, not being capable to under­stand, they easily fell from their first, and more sound Notion of the Unity of the Divine Nature, and took up the opinion of many Gods distinct, as well in Nature it self, as Persons. And do we wonder that they should forsake the truest notion of a Deity in this abstruseness, when in those things that are confessedly clear to ordinary Reasons by nature, they de­generated to a little less than brutish stupidity, being, as the Scriptures tell us, of some things willingly ignorant. 2 Pet. 3. 5.

But it were much more absurd, that the peculiar people of God, the Jews, should be ignorant of this so necessary a Point; and yet we find that now-ada [...]s they declare against it expresly, denying withal this to have been any branch of the Faith professed by their Progenitors. But we need not be very anxious about their Authority now adayes, it being most easie to be made apparent, in how many and great things they have degene­rated in their Doctrine and Worship, since it pleased God to withdraw his holy Spirit from that Church, upon their rejecting of the true Messias sent them, and to translate it to the Church of the Gentiles. And no won­der that they who observe not that now, should argue against it, as a thing not to be done; and moreover deny that ever it was believed or practised by their Forefathers, for there remains no other way to excuse themselves in their present error, but to maintain that it was never otherwise held. This is a common evasion of all Hereticks and Sectaries: But that the Scri­ptures of the Old Testament contained this Doctrine in substance, though [Page 253] the more perspicuous and glorious manifestation of the same was reserved for the New, is not to be denied; especially if we consider how that many of their own Doctors and Rabbies have so interpreted the same. And some have admired the Hebrew Language as the holy Tongue, not so much (as some of moderner standing amongst them have given out) because of the neat and modest expression of things of impure and obscene nature; for it is very plain, that the most obscene things are there as broadly and manifest­ly expressed as elsewhere, but from the matter which it treats of generally, very divine; and particularly from the nature of that Tongue, in every word of which being a Radix or original, the Mystery of the Trinity is im­plied, in that it consists but of three principal Letters, which Letters make but one word. But there are more sure words of Prophesie than they, and such are these, together with the Comment and approbation of the Chaldee Paraphrast, Gen. 3. v. 8. it is said, They heard the voice of the Gen 3. 8. Lord God walking in the Garden; which words Onkelos renders thus, And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God; where we see that Voice and Word are distinguished, the one being taken for the Word spoken, the other for the Word subsisting, or personal. And again, v. 22. where the Hebrew hath, And the Lord God said, &c. Jonathans, or as some more properly, the Hierusalem Targum hath, The Word of the Lord said. And the same Hierusalem Targum on Deuteronomy the 33. 7. hath, The Word of the voice of the Lord heard Judah, where the Original and other Translati­ons have, Hear Lord, or receive Lord, the voice of Judah. And so in other places; which doth argue a Personality ascribed unto the Word of God: Which doth farther appear, for that the action of Creation, extending the Heavens, and Repenting, is attributed unto the Word of God.

But I leave the asserting of the Mystery of the Trinity from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, interpreted by the learnedst and most renowned of the Jewish Doctors, to such who have made it their design to convince them from testimonies of their own Authors, as Petrus Galatinus, and more exactly, Josephus de Voisin, in his Comments on Prigro Christianae Fi­dei, and especially, de Trinitate. I shall only add here that memorable passage in Bibliander, out of the Jewish Rabbies, upon that place inBibliander de Paschate Is­rael. Gen. 28. 11. Gen. 28. And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, be­cause the Sun was set, and he took of the stones of the place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. Where some Rabbies (saith Bibliander) do understand, that he took two stones; but others, as Rab­bi Nechemias, that he took three, and in this manner prayed to God; If God shall write his Name upon me, as he did his Name upon mine Ancestors, let all these become one, and he found them all one: By which type of the stone they give to understand, God to be the Original of all things; for the word [ [...]] which in Hebrew is a stone, implies in a mystery, the Trini­ty; for in Aben Ab intimates the Father; Ben signifies the Son; and [...] or N. Neshanna or Spirit: Thus they. Which their interpretation, whe­ther it hath not more of wit than solid Argument, I am not here to deter­mine, it sufficing our present purpose, to shew that the Doctrine of the Tri­nity is no invention of Christians, as moderner Jews vainly give out; for if their forefathers mention the same, though their grounds may not be of the soundest, it argues they knew and received it.

Other Texts from the Old Testament implying this Mystery, are chiefly these; 2 Sam. 23. 2. Isa 48. 16, 17. and chap. 61. 1. and chap. 63. 9. Psal. 33. 6. compared with Joh. 11. 1, 2, 3. Haggai 2. 5. compared with Gen. [Page 254] 1. 26. Isa. 6 3, &c. Concerning all which it is to be observed; First, That it is not to be expected the testimonies of the Old Testament, whose design it was to deliver all things more covertly and obscurely, should be altogether so literally and expresly taken, as that none other may be found as proper as that sence given by Christians; but it may suffice, that an apt accommodation may be made to the confirmation of our Faith, and that by the chief enemies to it. Secondly, That the Tradition of the Jewish Church differed from the historical or literal sence. Hence our Saviour Christ proves the Messias to be God, out of Psalm 110. v. 1. The Lord said Psal. 110. Matth. 22. 42. unto, &c. arguing to this effect, He who was greater than David himself, from whom the Messias should come, must needs be God, David calling him, in Spirit, Lord; but David, in Spirit, calls the Messias his Lord, whereas David being himself absolute Soveraign, had no mortal greater than he, therefore he must be God. This was then generally received amongst the wisest of them, That the Messias was there intended, though the words might be capable of a more literal sence. And the like may we judge of the Arguments of St. Paul, drawn out of the Old Testament, to confirm the Doctrine of the New, and particularly this; for it is confes­sed that he bringeth many proofs, as do also the other sacred Pen-men out of the Books of the Old Testament, which have a literal sence much differ­ing from that purpose to which they are alledged. But it is certain that the ancient Jews did maintain two sences, a Literal, and a Mystical; and that St. Paul being educated in the prime Traditions and Mysteries of their Divinity, used them according to the known sence of the learned: For otherwise it had been as easie then for the Jews to have put in their excepti­ons against his Doctrine, as now it is for Jews to cavil at them.

But besides the Autority of the Old Testament, principally to be used against Jews, the Autority of the New must be enforced against the Here­sies of Christians against this great Mystery. Go ye, saith Christ, in St. Matthew, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Matth. 28. 19. and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which plainly distinguishes three Persons. And, Take heed (saith St. Paul in the Acts) therefore unto your Acts 20. 28. selves, and to all the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Over­seers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own bloud. Here we have two persons distinct, expressed, The Holy Ghost, whose act of making Overseers doth infer an Agent, and that Agent a Person. And in that it is said, God purchased the Church with his bloud, there is an express Character of Christ in his Passion, to whom is expresly given the title of God, for that God the Father died, nor Christ as God, though Christ, God, is manifest: Now of God the Father no Christian can make doubt, after so many manifest. Texts expressing the same. And Rom. 9. v. 5. Whose Rom. 9. 5. are the Fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. The Scholie of Socinus and his followers being meerly cavillous, and forced contrary to common reading. The Confession like­wise of Thomas upon the Miracle wrought by Christ, proveth the Deity of Christ, crying out, My God and my Lord. And in the Epistle to the Co­lossians, Jo [...]. 20. v. 28. Col. 2. 9. the God-head is said to dwell in Christ bodily, i. e. in opposition to figuratively or improperly. To these bare Testimonies add we these ratio­nal proofs from the Attributes proper to God, given to Christ: 1. Eter­nity, Micah 5. 2. His goings-out are from everlasting. 2. Omnipotence,Micah. Joh. 3. 31. Joh. 3. 31. He that cometh from above is above all; but only God is above all. An instance likewise of Christs Omnipotency is given us by St. Paul to the [Page 255] Philippians, where speaking of Christ, he saith, Who shall change our vile Phil. 3. 21. body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the work­ing whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. 3. Immensity, ano­ther property of God, is given to Christ, Mat. 18. 20. Where he promi­seth, Where two or three shall be gathered together in his Name, he will be in the midst of them; which is not possible for him that is not God, Christs Church being in all places diffused. 4 Divine worship given to Christ implies a divine nature in him, but both Old and New Testaments agree herein, that Christ the Messias is to be worshipped. In the Psalms thus itPsal. 72. is written of him, Yea all Kings shall fall down before him, and all Nations shall worship him. And in the second Psalm, David adviseth to kiss the Son, Psal. 2. (that is) worship him, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the right way; when his wrath is kindled but a little, blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Now we know the same Psalmist saith, Put not your trust in Princes, Psal. 146. 3. nor in any Son of man, in whom there is no help. And believing in Christ is a special part of worship; but this is required by Christ of his Disciples, saying, Ye believe in God, believe also in me. Prayer likewise is made toJoh. 14. 1. Acts 7. Christ by St. Stephen; for in the Acts it is written how Stephen was sto­ned, cal [...]ing upon Christ and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit.

The third Person in the holy Trinity is the holy Ghost, which we have shewed in part, that the learnedest of the ancient Jews were not ignorant of, though more obscurely delivered in the Old Testament than in the New. The first thing then we are to prove is, That the holy Ghost is a Person; for that it is, there needs no other proof than the words themselves so often used in Scripture: And that it subsists personally, and not only as an Act or Grace, will appear from these two general heads, The Acts of it, an the Attributes given to it. And first, In what sense the Scriptures use evil Spirit, in the same sense may it be said to use the good Spirit; but evil Spirit is frequently used for a Person, who is the author of mischief to mankind, and therefore the good Spirit must be a Person, the author of1 Joh. 4. 6. Rom. 11. 8. Eph. 2. 2. 1 Sam. 16. 14. 2 Chron. 18. 20, 21. good to man. We read in Scripture of a Spirit of error, and the Spirit of slumber, and the Spirit of disobedience, and of an evil Spirit that possessed Saul, and of a lying Spirit that entred into, and moved the false Prophets; and in the New Testament as well as humane Authors, of divers who have been infested with evil Spirits. Now all these were real and personal Sub­sistences, and therefore in parity of reason so should the good Spirit, of which we so often read both in the Old and New Testament, under the ap­pellation of the Spirit of the Lord; as the Spirit of the Lord moved upon the waters at the beginning, and the Spirit of the Lord fell upon such per­sons. And if it be here replyed, That we are to understand the good Spi­rits after the same manner we understand the evil; and that the evil Spirits being evil Angels, the good Spirit should be good Angels only: We an­swer, not denying, That Spirit may be so used in Scripture divers times; and that by the same parity of reason that it is insinuated unto us, that the evil Spirit hath one Prince and chief amongst them called Lucifer, so the good Spirits have one supreme over them, that good Spirit of God. Se­condly, That where Scripture speaks of Spirit absolutely, there the di­vine Spirit is constantly to be understood, as St. Hierome hath ob­served.

Again, We read from the Acts of the Spirit as interceding for us, beingRom 8. 26. Eph. 4. 30. Mat. 3. 16. grieved; and descending upon Christ in a bodily shape at his Baptism; and Christs speech to his Disciples, saying in St. John, I will ask the Fa­ther, [Page 256] and he shall give you another Comforter. Christ was the one Comfort­er, not only by his Graces, but personal presence among his Disciples; and answerable to this, must the holy Spirit be also, here promised.

And that this divine Person is distinct from the other, appeareth from the general Doctrine of the Trinity above, and specially out of St. Mat­thew, where Christ saith,—Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Mat. 28. and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost; which must imply a distinction. And St. John, Chap. 1. He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto Joh. 1. 33. me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost. And so Joh. 14. 16. Joh. 15. 26.

From the same place of St. Matthew appeareth the equality of all these three Persons; and especially from the immediate operation the Spirit had upon Christ, who was God and Man; for of it, Isaiah thus prophesi­eth,Isa. 61. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for that he hath annointed me to, &c. which Christ himself applied to himself.Luk. 4. 18.

Secondly, The Attributes of the same Spirit infer a Deity, as Omnisci­ence, 1 Cor. 2. The Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. And lest this should be understood of a search without success or full know­ledge, it followeth, For what man knoweth the things of man, save the spi­rit of a man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. Creation: The Spirit of God hath made me, and the Job 33. 4. breath of the Almighty hath given me life, saith holy Job. And Christ cast­ing out Devils by the Spirit of God; and the Apostles miraculous acts, de­monstratingMat. 12. 28. 1 Cor. 2. 4. the Spirit of God in them; the preaching of St. Paul being in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, i. e. being so powerful in outward acts and miracles, that it was sufficient conviction that he spake and wrought by the Spirit; but miracles cannot be wrought by any thing less than a divine Power. And by St. Peter it is called, The Spirit of Glo­ry 1 Pet. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 3. 16, 17 and of God. By St. Paul it is called God himself, where he saith, Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the Temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the Temple of God is holy, which Temple are ye. Here we plainly see, how the Temple of God and the Temple of the holy Ghost, are the same thing.

And thus we see confirm'd, what St. John very plainly and positively1 Joh. 5. 7. asserteth of this Mystery, That there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one. And this may suffice to have spoken (according to our purpose) compendi­ously, as well of the Unity as Trinity of these Persons in the God-head; only adding, without any long or curious enquiry, the several Notions and Idioms, whereby they are distinct in our Faith. The Property of the first Person is to be the Fountain, and after the manner of first Principle of the other, to whom therefore some ascribe a dignity of order, above the other two, though not of time or duration, being all co-eternal, and the one not to be conceived anterior to the other: Nor of Nature, as if the di­vine Nature were unequally communicated to them, but that they are co­equal in Being and in Power, or Acting externally. Another Property of the first Person is to be a Father in respect of the Son, the second Person; and together with the Son, to bear such a relation to the third, the holy Spirit, for which no proper name hath been yet found out, and whether it be possible to express the same aptly in one word, I much question. It [Page 257] is commonly called Procession, on the part of the holy Ghost; and in ge­neral, on the parts of the other two Persons▪ Production, which yet is [...]i­mited to the excluding of such a Production as answers Generation, and much more of Creation, besides which, natural Reason can comprehend no other: But Christian Faith obliges us to contain our selves modestly in the general Notion of Proceeding. Some have indeed presumed to distin­guish the production of the Son by the Father, from the production of the holy Ghost by the Father and the Son, in that the Son proceeds from the Father Intellectually, as a word is conceived in the mind; but the holy Spi­rit as act of the joynt will of Father and Son, by way of Love: Of which explication I shall suspend all sentence, leaving others to judge.

CHAP. V.

THAT God is the proper Object of Christian Faith or Divi­nity, not only as principal, but as all other things therein treated, relate to him, is before shewed. Now therefore we proceed from the Creator to the Creature, to which the two hands of God are more visibly and eminently extended or stretched out: The first, In the Creation it self; The other, In the Pro­vidence of God over the works of his hands, as the Scriptures phrase is. And first, Of Creation; we understanding it to be after the nature of an Act, must find out the proper term or object of it, which is contained in that received definition thereof: Creation is the production of a thing out of nothing; or more plainly, a making something of nothing. In which we are not so grosly to conceive of Gods Act, as if he made the world so of nothing, as a man makes a Statue of something; but of nothing, or out of nothing, is as much as from nothing, or nothing concurring by way of pre-existent matter, to produce such an effect: For if any thing had been, which had not its first Being from the first Cause of all, God, that must have been God also, or there could not be said to have been any God at all, because there could be no order, where was no first and second; and where matter is supposed to have been eternal, there no priority of time can be admit­ted: So that either such thing must have been God, as we have seen in the Relations in the Trinity, or no God at all; because that is not God, to which an equal in any respect, distinct in nature from him, may be found; for Gods Nature is to be above all.

Neither can any reason be possibly alledged, whereby it should appear, [Page 258] that, if simple matter (as some call it) might have subsisted, before it was made simply by God, the Sun and Moon, and other compound bodies in Nature, might not have pre-existed and prevented Gods workman­ship; or why an imperfect Being should have the dignity denied to a more perfect, but at the pleasure and will of the supream Agent disposing all things? For that which was not at all produced by another, must necessa­rily [...] Athanasius d [...] Incarnat. spring out of nothing, or of it self: And why might not a Man, or Horse, or any other thing do so, as well as infamous Matter?

Furthermore, Unless there were a productive Power in God, of some­thing out of nothing, the Power of God would not answer the Nature of God. The Nature of God is infinite, so therefore must his Power be; but the Power of God could not be known to be infinite, if such an infinite effect were not producible by him.

Lastly, This denial of Gods Power to produce even the first imaginable matter, would also destroy his Power in creating any thing not consisting of such matter; and so should the production of Spirits utterly be denied him, as having no pre-existent matter, out of which they can be said to be fram'd.

It must be consessed, the word Create and Creation in Scripture, is not so strictly used as in Philosophers Books, but imports any notable pro­duction, as well as that simple one without pre-existence: Yet the thing it self is affirmed; as where it is said, All things were made by God; for there nothing is excepted or exempted from his Power; as Heb. 11.Heb. 11. 13. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear; and he only can preserve all things, who maketh all things: But God in Christ, or Christ through God upholdeth all things by the word of his Power.Heb. 1. 3. Rev. 4. 11. And in the Revelations it is said, Thou hast created all things, and for thy plea­sure Chap. 10. 6. they were and are created. And in the tenth Chapter, the Angel swear­eth by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created Heaven, and the things that are therein, and the Earth, and the things that therein are, and the Sea, and the things that are therein. And aptly do the words of the Psalmist answer the History of the Creation, who speaking of the particu­larsPsal. 148. 5. of this natural world, saith of God, He commanded, and they were cre­ated; this being the only means and method, that we read all things to have been produced, viz. the word of his Power, Let there be Light, Let there be the Firmament, &c. which being a demonstration of his immedi­ate will, most wisely implieth (as some eminent Philosophers have with great admiration observed) the proper Power of God Almighty, to whom nothing is difficult that he willeth should come to pass. Now where there is no limitation upon an agent, but what proceeds from its own will, there nothing is impossible, and if it be possible for God to will (as must be, see­ing man may desire) to produce somewhat from nothing, it must be possi­ble to come to pass what so is willed by him; otherwise God should be disappointed and frustrated in his intentions, than which nothing can be thought more absurd, or repugnant to the Nature of God.

And thus at the same time it appears, as well what God made, as how, viz. That there is nothing extant, whether visible or invisible, but what was fra­med by him, and that absolutely, as the Apostle more expresly testifieth to the Colossians, By him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in Col. 1. 16. earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by him, and for him. By which we under­stand, [Page 259] that all the Angels and several orders of those invisible Spirits in Hea­ven, were the effect of his Power, no less than were inferior and visible Crea­tures. And though there be no particular mention of the time, order, place, or manner of the Creation of Angels, yet that they were so created, general assurance we have from the Word of God; the holy Ghost advisedly omitting (and mens wits only conjecturing at the) other things, to prevent pride and curiosity in man, to whom it was sufficient to make a description of those things, which related to this visible world, and concerned him to know: So that the Heavens themselves, with the glorious and numerous Lights thereof, are no farther explained unto us, than as their influences concern the nature and actions of Man. It is a true Axiom, that all things were made for man, but it is not true, that they had no other end why God created them, namely, Heavens, heavenly Bodies, and heavenly Spirits, but for to serve the uses of man, next to the ultimate end of all, his own Glory. For though it be said of Angels, (and we take the word in the properest sense, and not as it may be for the several Messengers and Dispensers of Gods will and Word, to the several Ages of men) Are they not all ministring Spirits, Heb. 1. 14. sent forth to them who shall be heirs of salvation? Yet we look on their atten­dance in such cases, as an honorary command and tuition over us, and secon­dary end to their first Institution, rather than any thing of subjection or ser­vility. For when the Shepherd looks to his Flock, and when the King is said to be for the People, we are not in reason or sobriety to imagine a worth in the governed above the governour, as some have sondly, wretched­ly, and dangerously concluded: For that Rule, The end is more excellent than the means, or thing ordained to that end, holds true only, when the thing is so ordain'd, that its own end and good is not equally, or more eminently in­cluded in the same; or when the end is the principal agent in instituting such a thing to such an end. But the Sheep never appointed the Shepherd to serve, to rule, and protect them, nor did men oblige Angels to wait upon them; nor, as is above demonstrated, the People fir [...]t erect, or constitute Governors or Governments over themselves, these were done by a superior Power over them; neither at this day can they, that is, ought, by any imaginary [...] Theodoretus Haeret. Fa­bular. lib. 5. cap. 7. Charter alter the Archetype of Gods Institution. And they that do attempt, and have pretended to confer Power sometimes on Governors, can at all do it directly and validly: But they seem and are interpreted by many so to do, when they unwarrantably and unreasonably deny it to others, and submit to their own favourites; though how lamely and improperly these acts of strength, and not of right, are carried on, is also elsewhere shewed. For no question, but if the common sort of men could extend their presumptuous Power to Spirits, as they do to Princes, they would take such offence against their tutelary Angels, as to put them out of office, when they find themselves crossed in their inclinations or designs by them, or perswading themselves they are neglected by them, choosing others in their places, and justifie such their acts from a dignity supposed in themselves, from being the end of their care and ministration. If indeed we appointed Spirits or Princes over us, as men do choose servants to do their work for them, and serve them, then sure­ly we might as justly turn them off again, when ever they became unservice­able and prejudicial to us; but seeing both are appointed by God, we are to know our distance, notwithstanding the good offices they do for us: And that considering, secondly, That their own ends are no less princi­pally and primarily served in such ministrations, than the ends of others.

[Page 260]And yet I make no doubt, but many persons to whom God hath given holy and righteous Spirits to protect and preserve them, being ungovern­ed and refractory, lewd and licentious, contrary to the mind and motions of them presiding over them, do in effect dismiss them, the holy Guardian refusing such an unprofitable and servile office, and at the same time in effect invite evil Spirits to joyn with them in their dissolute courses, and to ma­nage them therein. To the confirmation of which, I shall only translate the words of St. Hierom upon Habbacuck: As Christ is the Head of his Church Hieron. in c. 3 Habbac. and every man, so is Belzebub the Prince of Devils, the head of all such De­vils as rage in this world, and every company of them hath their Heads and Princes. For example, Spirits of Fornication and Uncleanness have their Head; the Spirits of Covetousness have their Prince; the Spirits of Vain­glory; the Spirits of Lying, the Spirits of Infidelity have their Presidents of mis­chief. This I say, supposing the great opinion which asserteth the Ministrati­on of good and evil Angels, as is here intimated from the grounds given in Scripture, and such a cloud of ancient and modern witnesses, againstCalvin in Act. 15 & Psal. 90. & Mat. 18. 10. whom it pleased Calvin to interpret Scripture in this point, with additi­on of scoffs and derisions, which I here leave to them that like them well, and proceed to this visible and inferior World.

CHAP. VI.

IT is plainly affirmed in the entrance of the History of the Creation, that, In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. ByGen. 1. 1. which two general Bodies, we understand all particular, reducible to either of them; and that there is nothing so pure, perfect, or no­ble, above which we call heavenly Bodies, but God first gave it a Being; neither is there any earthly Substance so imperfect, base, or impure, but his hand descended to the framing of it: For first, Nothing is ab [...]o­lutely evil, but only as there are s [...]me more excellentand divine things made by God, which eclipse their glory, which otherwise would be seen and noted in the most vile thing of all. And secondly, Nothing is so base, but that an infinite Power is requisite to the first production of it; neither did the divine hand labour more in produ [...]ng an Angel, than the first deformed Matter, out of which other things were made. So that the error of such Hereticks as the Marcionites and Manichees, who constituted two Gods, from the diversity of things appearing to them, good and evil, was no less sottish than blasphemous, and derogatory to Almighty Gods Nature and Providence. For as the Scripture tells us, after a particular view made by God of every days work, he pronounced all things to be good; so at [Page 261] the consummation of all things, he passeth this sentence upon all his works together, And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was Gen. 1. 31. very good.

And to the general Objection against this, taken from the contrariety andVide Petrum Comestorem in Genesim. [...] Chrysost. in Gen. Serm. 7. enormities one thing hath to another in the world, and especially the great evil that many things bring unto man, for whose good they seem principal­ly to be intended, such as are ravenous wild Beasts, venemous Serpents, and deadly poysons lurking in Plants: The answer is ready and fair, viz. That God made not any thing absolutely for anothers, no not for mans good, but for his own Glory, and the manifestation of his Power, Wis­dom and Goodness, to all. And therefore, though by nature some things are repugnant to one another, nothing is contrary unto God: all the con­trariety to God found in the Creature, is meerly accessory, and not natu­ral, and that only in such Creatures as were at first endued with so much freedom of will, that they might persevere in that natural perfection given [...]. Aeneas Ga­zaeus in The­ophrasto. them, or fall from it. Again, After the chief of Gods ways, as the prin­cipal order of Angels and Man, were degenerated into evil, the Universe continued notwithstanding, perfect, and God provided for the evil it self crept into it. For as in a Dispensatory, all things are not sweet, but some sharp and bitter; all things are not lenitives, but some corrosive and cutting, and there are poysons and counter-poysons: So is it in this great World; God hath disposed every thing in its proper place, and to its pro­per end, and one contrary to counterwork another; to the benefit of the whole, and constituting of all, a most excellent harmony. As in a well­tuned Lute or Harp, the strings stand many times of themselves in discord, but being toucht by the skilful hand of the Artist, do render to the ear ex­cellent harmony: In like manner, the discord of the Elements, and other compounded Bodies, being most wisely ordained and moved by the hand of the all-ruling Providence, do make an excellent consort, to the praise and glory of God. Lastly, As it is no less necessary, to the preserving of the common peace and tranquillity of a Nation, that there should be Pri­sons [...]. & Chry­soft. To. 6. Serm. 102. p. 895. Psal. 8. 1. 3. Psal. 19. 1. as well as Palaces, and whips and halters, as well as honours and rich­es: So is it in the world, the Commonwealth over which God alone pre­sides, necessary, that for the deterring of evilly-inclined persons, for the repressing of seditiously and rebelliously-disposed persons, and malefa­ctors against God their Soveraign, there should alwayes be at hand, Gods Instruments to ch [...]stise and punish them; and this is done, by commission­ing and arming the Creature to seize upon them, by afflicting the body, or estate of the contumacious, or meliorating them to an higher degree of per­fection: So that though some things to man in some one capacity, may be found to be evil, yet is it not in all respects, and in it self, not at all. And thus is resolved, as well the evil aspects and influences of the Heavens, as the violences of inferior bodies against man, nay, the reason of Hell it self, as Chrysostome saith.

For that the Heavens are the work of Gods hands, hath been shew­ed before in the general Discourse, and may yet farther, from the Authority of the Psalmist, which saith of God, He hath set his Glory above the Heavens. And, The Heavens are the work of thy fingers, the Moon and the Stars which thou hast ordained. And, The Hea­vens declare the Glory of God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy­work.

[Page 262]1. That God therefore made the Heavens, and all the Hosts thereof, is most plain, and as most plain, so most necessary to be believed; but con­cerning the nature and number of them, it is rather a Philosophical curiosi­ty, than Christian duty, to enquire. And that little which we may draw from Scripture, hath more of reason in it, than all the presumptuous imagi­nations of men; for such I call their defining them to be solid, o [...]bicular bodies, moving like wheels about the earth, and consisting of eight Sphears, with a Primum Mobile, or First Mover, and an Empyreal Hea­ven, and a special Court, as it were, where God sets more especially en­thron'd, arched over with the roof of another Heaven; for all which there is no more solid reason than Scripture to be found, though some for want of soberness and better proofs (as the Jewish Rabbi) have presumed to determine the number of the Sphears, from the expression in the eighth Psalm, where it is said, The Heavens are the work of thy fingers; ten fin­gers,Psal. 8. 3. ten Heavens; but the Scriptures speak of no more than three, 2 Cor. 12. 2. And that they are rather to be understood, as so many Regions di­stinguishable in the air, than such superior bodies, appears from the sy­nonymous use of the Fowls of the air, and the Fowls of Heaven, as in Psal. 79. 2. and Psal. 104. 12. Jer. 7. 33. Ezek. 31. 6. Gen. 1. 26, 28.

Yet as no man can, out of Philosophy or Scripture, determine the na­ture or number of Heavens, is it not to be peremptorily denied, that there are distinctions of places of Bliss? And though it be little otherwise than blasphemous to confine God to the highest, largest, fairest room, call­ed2 Chron. 2. 6. an Heaven, as that there should be any [...]imits set to his Court or Throne of Glory, yet may we well believe God is somewhere more gloriously re­vealed, than commonly he is in all places, though he be in all places: and where he displays his Glory, and beatifies his more immediate servants, there is Heaven; as we say, There is the Court, where the King is.

It is true, we gather reasonably from the position and motion of celesti­al Lights, a distinction in distance and motion of them, and that a peculiar tract there is for most of them; but that this space should be roof'd over round with a pellucide, solid, aetherial substance, is an absurd collection of Philosophers, no ways favoured by Scripture, which, as it hath touched things of this nature with greater simplicity, so with much more probabi­lity; inviting us rather to an admiration of the divine Power, and adorati­on of its Providence, in ordaining so admirably those bodies, as for his Glory, so for our instruction and edification in his service. The same reason doubtless there is of Time and Place, as we [...]l [...]n respect of the Crea­tor as the Creature: It is impossible but the Creature should be limitable by time and space both, and it is impossible God should by either be so; and therefore no less derogatory to his Being is it, to imagine God termi­nated by space, than by time.

The other part of this visible World, is that which we call Earth, with the several bodies pertaining unto the same, as Water, Fire and Air; all which, though of very different nature or use to us, are pro­perly earthly. The solid part and grosser, which we signally call Earth, and that liquid, fluid and purer substance, we ca [...]l Water, being the two most principal parts and elements out of which all things here proceed: Fire and Air being no distinct bodies of themselves, but subsisting upon their grounds; and especially, Air being nothing else, but a purer com­position of the substance of Earth and Water flying about the earth, and ministring continuall refreshment to all earthly, living things. [Page 263] Fire indeed is of a wonderful subtil nature, and operation most active, but whether any thing in substance, distinct from the other, and not only in qua­lity, is scarce to be understood. And though Philosophy busies it self to the losing of its way, in the search after these things, and presumes to determine and impose upon others its uncertain Conclusions; yet the modesty of Reli­gion contents it self to keep a mannerly distance, where God, by the Myste­ries of Nature, and much more of Theology, seems to say, Stand off; which we shall, contenting our selves at present, with that brief narration of the man­ner and order of the Creation of all things, found in the first Chapter of Ge­nesis: where we note, the way of Gods working to be most like himself, without any pains or trouble, but by the simple and absolute word of his command given, Let there be Light.

It is said indeed, that God in six days made all things in Heaven and Earth, as if the Creation took him up both time and pains to compleat it; whence some fearing to make the matter too gross on Gods part, have (as Austin) introduced an Evening and Morning, relating rather to the Angels, than Men, making that the Morning, when those holy Spirits beheld things to be Created in the divine Nature and Vision; and that Vespertine, when they were actually seen in themselves existing; which interpretation hath not been received in the Church as solid: But rather this Morning and Even­ing, which could not be natural until the Sun was created, (which it was not at the first) is understood of a competent distance of time, which it might please God, not out of necessity, but free choice, to work in, to declare his order, and give us a more distinct knowledge of things, and especially to pre­vent that error to which man was too inclinable, in conceiving all things were eternal, which we now see. For if they were so, then could there be no distinction or distance of time between one thing and another; but where there is such a diversity of time, there of necessity must be posteriority and priority, and so no eternity.

For that which some bring out of Ecclesiasticus, to prove the productionEccles. 18. 1▪ of all things in one moment, viz. He that liveth for ever, created all things together, is a mistake in the Latin Translation only, which renders [...] in the Greek so, which is better translated as we do, In general; intimating, that nothing subsisted but by him. Or it may be said, All things were created to­gether, or at once, meaning, that what God did produce, he did it not after the manner of men, who bring their work to perfection by degrees and many acts, but every thing that was made by him, was made at once in an instant.

And this general consideration of the six dayes Work of God, may suf­fice here, not descending to each, particularly; only we shall speak of the Creation of Man in particular, as the chief of Gods wayes, and the Rule and end of other Creatures.

CHAP. VII.

CREATION (we have shewed) is the production of a thing from nothing, and so the first man was not created immediate­ly; for it is said, God formed man of the dust of the ground, and Gen. 2. 7. breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And St. Paul like­wise to the Corinthians, saith, The first man was of the earth, 1 Cor. 15. 47. earthy. And the like may be said of other Creatures, which yet together with man may be said to be created, because they were produced of that which was immediately created by God, the first matter: Where likewise we are not to understand the word Earth so strictly, as not to imply water also, for the word Earth doth comprehend all things of, and pertaining to this Globe, called Earthly, from the principal part of it, Earth.

And as Adam was made out of the Earth immediately, we read Eve to be made immediately out of Adam, God causing a deep sleep upon Adam, Gen. 2. 22, 23. and then taking one of his ribs, and closing up the [...]lesh instead thereof, of which rib he made the woman. And there is no such difficulty as Schola­stical wits would frame, when from hence they would infer, That, if God took one rib from Adam, he had either more at first than were natural to man, or fewer afterward, and so must have something of monstrousness; a strange argument to perswade such a man as Cajetan, That God did not this really, but that the Scripture here speaks Metaphorically, when as this is a direct History which is given us here of the Creation. For suppose we that God had made man at first otherwise than now he is by himself altered, might it not be well said, that both the one and the other were natural to him? It is impossible that God should do any thing monstrous, or unnatu­ral, through an whole species: and therefore no scruple ought to be made of allowing God, who is the Nature of Nature, to dispose his works as he pleases, and change nature; so that if it should seem good to him now to take away one of mans legs, and cause him generally to go upon one only, this would be no more monstrons than his going now upon two is.

And in like manner, is it very frivolous, that is given as a reason by the Schools, of Gods causing such a deep sleep upon Adam, lest he should be sensible of too much pain, at that act of taking out his Rib; when as the same miracle that cast him into a sleep, and pre­served him from waking, under such supposed pain, might as well have preserved him from pain, waking, as sleeping. It may be ra­ther to teach us, that he would not have us privy to his mysteri­ousChrysost. de Fide, Lege, Naturae, & S. S. acts, nor pryers too nearly into them. And therefore a reason is given by Chrysostome both acutely and soberly, why God first [Page 265] made Adams Body before he created his Soul, or breath'd into him [...]. Chrysost. To. 5. pag. 649. the breath of Life: Least he should see how himself was made, which might be a reason, why at the framing of Eve he was cast into a sleep, which is the very reason the same Author, or, as it is thought, some other under his name, doth give in another place: whose words, because I judge to deliver the manner of mans Creation more aptly, plainly, and sin­cerely than the Schools, (who are very busie and curious here) I shall thus translate. God (saith he) first framing Man, made the Instrument of his Body, and then put into it the Soul. Why so? To the end he might thereby declare the Excellency of Man. For seeing, other Animals, and Beasts being dissolved by death their soul and Body perish together, he speaks of the production of them, as of those things which were to perish absolutely. God therefore, about to fashion man, takes his Body out of the earth, and then breaths in his Soul. Stay but a little, that I may shew to you the manner of this breathing into man, so far as I am able. For from what went before, and from hence he describeth, as it were, the hope of Resurrection. He makes the Body first: and Man first received a dead Image, and then the quickening vertue of the soul. He was first shown dead, then living. First he made a dead Body, into which he was again to return: and thus when he had finished that, he added the Character or form: and did not make his soul first, that he might not be a Spectatour of what was made. He would not suffer the soul to be present when he made man, lest it should glory as an assistant to God in that work: and not only that it might not boast, but might not so much as behold the manner how it was done. And thus doth God still. For he frameth every one of us in the womb: But how he so frameth us, he hath granted no man to see. We are sown, and we are fashioned, nature perfecting the course, but the manner no man compre­hends. O, the wonder! A Temple is made in a Temple; an House in an House is framed: and the outward house perceives it not. First then, he makes man according to a dead Image: and then he saith, God breathed into the face of Adam the breath of Life, and man became a living soul. Some have been of opinion that this Breath was his very soul: and that it was given him of the very Essence of God: But that saying is not only very mild, but ab­surd also. For if the soul were the very substance of God; It could not be, that in this man it should be wise, in another it should be foolish, and igno­rant; and in this man a just soul, in that man an unjust. For the Essence of God is neither divided nor changed, but immutable—Nay, not only are the souls of men mutable, but liable to condemnation. For so saith the Gospel, Mat. 10. 28. Fear not them that can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, but fear ye him rather who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. If therefore the soul be of God, then should God condemn himself. Therefore it is necessary we should see what this is. The Breathing. This breathing is the Power of the Holy Spi­rit. For as our Saviour breath'd on the faces of his Apostles, and said, Receive Joh. 20. 22. ye the Holy Ghost: so this divine breath heard after the manner of men, is that Venerable and Holy Spirit. And this Holy Spirit too present, was not the soul it self, but made the soul: it was not it self changed into the Soul, but fra­med it. For the Holy Spirit was the Author: it was concerned in the making both of the body and Soul. For the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost made this work: And do not imagin that the Father contributed one part, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost a third. But this I say, that though the Fa­ther made it, it is the work of the Son, and the Fabrick of the Holy Spirit. &c. Thus far that Elegant and Learned Author: However some inconsiderable difference is found amongst ancient and Modern Doctours, some saying that [Page 266] the Angels were created: but when that was, there is nothing besides con­jecture, only they say, upon such a supposal, that it affords a good argu­ment against the opinion that holds the So [...]l of man to be educated out of the matter of the Body, as are Brutes Souls. But that is not here nor there: because certain it is that the way of producing the Soul at first differ'd much from what it doth in the course of Natural generation. For then were there no natural Causes concurring with God in the production of the Soul, but now there are; God now not so absolutely creating humane souls, but that there should be some pre-disposing and preparatory acts on mans part conducing thereunto: For it seemeth not to be inconsistent with proper Creation, that such Acts are required thereunto, so that the Soul of man is never now created, but by them preceding (according to the order of Nature, though not of time, because in so concurring, the Natural A­gent doth not concurr with God in the very act of Creating, but to the oc­casion rather, which God hath by a Law made freely to himself decreed to work by in this matter: But at the first of all God purely made the occasi­on it self, and simply and solely acted of himself.

There are therefore these three errours to be avoided in the doctrine of the Soul: The first is that of Epicures and Infidels, that the Soul of man was no otherwise produced than the souls of Brutes: but that they are in Substance the same with brutes, differing only from them in the finer tem­perament of the body; and the nobler aspect which it informeth. But this cannot stand good: because, though we grant that the evil disposition of the humors of the Body, and incommodious frame of the Parts thereof, may impede the due exercise of such Acts which are proper to that Kind, yet such perfection cannot at all give ability to act so: and therefore ano­ther Principle must be found out, whose nature it is so to act; and to which such things are only Organical and subservient. For, it being acknowledged that the Soul is of an Active, and more noble nature than the Body, as Spirit is than flesh; it cannot be imagined that the Soul should follow the fashion or nature of the Body, but that the matter or the Body should be accommodated and suited to the nature of the soul: as no man can say, that the hand should be fitted to the Instrument by which it works, but the In­strument to the Hand: And no man can with reason affirm that an house being to be built, the Inhabitant or owner is to be brought to that; but that surely is to be modelled and framed according to the mind and Ranck of the Owner: So no reason is there to suppose the body should give Law to the soul, in the nature (I mean) of it, and its actions: though it may have some force upon the manner of its actions: As the Hand makes the Pen to write, and not the Pen the hand, absolutely: but a good and well­made Pen may be an occasion to the Hand to write well or ill. And there­fore it is not the body of Brutes which makes the Soul brutish, nor the Bo­dy of man which makes the Soul humane: but on the contrary so, that as their natures are different, should their original likewise differ; And this difference cannot be taken from the matter, because the diversity of the matrer ariseth from the Form. And besides, the Scripture telling us that God breathed into man the breath of Life, declareth withal that the Soul of man (as the Philosopher himself speaks) came from without doors and not from with­in. But this is said of no other Creature.

A Second mortal Errour is that imputed to Origen, viz. That Human souls were created, but not singly and separately, according to the con­ception of particular persons, but all at once, and that together with the [Page 267] Angels. That the Angels; as all other things (God excepted) were created, is to be received as an Article of Faith, but there is neither any thing re­vealed unto us by the Scripture or discovered by reason when they were so created: How then can any man positively say, that the souls of men were then created? this being then a groundless supposition, light and vain must needs be the inference from thence. Nay, not only is the Scripture silent in that Case: but expresses on the contrary the time when the Soul of man was made and that it was at his first Constitution according to the order of the Historie, which first describes the manner how Man was made, and then adds, how God not put the soul into it which he had before made, but brea­thed into it the breath of Life. So that as the breath, is not at all until it be actually breathed, no more was the Soul before it was thus infused by way of breathing. Again, the absolute ignorance of the Soul of any such pre-existence: which it is not possible, if we may suppose it in one or two, that all Souls shouls be subject to. And I call this ignorance and stupidity rather than oblivion, as some Philosophers the Authors of this opinion would have it. For though a man may forget what he did at such a time, and that once he was in such a place, and such, and such things befel him: yet who did ever forget that he had a Being? A man may through the strong invasion of some sickness or distemper, cease to understand any thing, as also in a profound sleep: yet he is not properly said to forget these. Some have forgot their own names, but never any that they were simply. And therefore some ancient defenders of this opinion seeing the incredibleness of this Forgetfulness, have with infinite impudence introduced persons professing they remembred what they were, and did some hundreds of years before they were in those bodies they spake of these things in. Lastly, How is it credible that that soul which is the fountain of Life, Sense, and Know­ledg to the person where it is, should so inform a thing distinct from it self, and yet be ignorant of it self? Surely it must be because there was nothing to be known of it before it inhabited the Body.

A Third Errour depending upon this last, is that of Origen likewise, who affirmed that Souls being Spirits before they were committed to the body, were put into them as to so many prisons for their former disobedi­ence and wickedness, for their punishment. But against this (amongst o­ther reasons) Isidore of Pelusium argueth well, thus, How vain and absurd Isidor. Pelusior. Ep. [...]. 4. Ep. 163. would it be to suppose Providence to Chastise any sinful person or Spirit, by offe­ring greater and more occasions of Sinning than before? Prisons are made chiefly for restraint: but the body of man rather disposeth the soul to sin, and ministreth many more occasions and temptations than it could have be­fore, to dishonour God and break his Laws. Again, as Parisiensis hath it, That cannot be said to be a punishment to man of which he is no wayes sensi­ble. Guli. l. [...]eris. [...] Ʋniverso. How can any man be said to be afflicted for his loss of a great empire, or riches, unless he knew that he once was possessed of them, or they were at least his by Right? How can any pain trouble a man which he feels not? And if he feels it not, how can it be a punishment to him? And to this I add, the Scripture saying, God made man according to his own Image, in Ge­nesis: Gen. 1. 26. Jam. 3. 9. and in St. James's Epistle, After the similitude of God: How is it less than blasphemous, that a sinful guilty creature, such as man must needs be, having a wicked Spirit put into him, should be said to be according to Gods Image or likeness? And how can it consist with the Scripture else­where saying, God made man upright; but they have found out many inven­tions? Eccles. 7. 29. For though the Evil Spirit, supposed to be put into man, were the [Page 268] Author of its own wickedness, yet when once that was so wicked, for to put it into man is to make man wicked.

Now this Image of God, so much spoken of in Scripture, and treated of by Divines, to the great honour of Man, we may understand to consist in these five things Principally. 1. Wisdom and Knowledg 2. Liberty of Will. 3. Justice and Holiness. 4. Immortality, 5. Dominion. For when we speak of the Image of God in Man, we must be sure not to confound it with that proper to Christ, the Image of God. For first, that of man was made as we have heard, that of God, Christ, was neither made nor created, but begotten; and that not by way of Carnal Generation, but purely divine and Spiritual. Secondly, That was as well Eternal in res­pect of what is past, as what was to come: But the Image of God in Man, only everlasting, as to the future time. Thirdly, That of Christ was im­mediate: but that of Man mediate: So that he is not the Image of God, but as he is the Image of his more express and Natural Image, Christ: and that first, as is said in Wisdom. Christ being primarily called the Wisdom of his Father, and deriving of the same to us: For as St. John saith, Of John. 1. 16 his fulness have all received, and Grace for Grace. And God creating all things through his Natural Word, his Son, signified by that Metaphorical word expressed in the Book of Genesis, did in particular through him com­municate that Wisdom unto Adam, which he excelled in, at his first Insti­tution: whereby it was natural to him to understand the natures of all Crea­tures Earthly; as well from their Causes, from whence they proceeded, as from their effects proceeding from them: which latter is the principal means of attaining that remainder, and as it were ruins of a more perfect Body of knowledg in Adam, which we are capable of in the state we now are. And not only Natural things but Supernatural also, as God, and the Holy Spirits, were much more perfectly known to him than to us. So that the knowledg of the First man exceeded all after him (Christ the Second Adam only excepted) in these three things. First, in the manner of enjoying that knowledg which he had: it being not acquired by tedious and expe­rimental discursiveness, observations, or reasoning within himself, but by a divine illumination: which was not given him after the manner of Re­velations given by God to some of his eminent Servants, transiently; not to continue, or to descend to others, but it was by way of a connatural habit; which should have passed to his posterity. Secondly, the object of this knowledg or extent of it transcended that of Man now adayes, stretching it self to heavenly, as well as Earthly things, and the minuter things lying hid from us. Thirdly, It differed in the manner, and per­fection as being more accurate, and less Fallible than ours.

The Second thing shining eminently in Adam was Liberty of will, where­by he resembled his Creatour, who is the only absolute and Free Agent: For there was no natural inclination nor temptation in him to err or offend in choosing the Evil, and refusing Good: according to that of Syracides God himself made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his Councel, &c. Leaving it equally in his power and choice to turn to theEccles. 15. 14. Right hand, or to the Left, to stand or fall. And not only freely to do what he did, though propelled thereunto; but freely to Act or not to act: which is the perfectest and most proper freedom of all.

From this twofold perfection of the Understanding and Will arose a Third, which was perfect Innocency and Holiness: which by some is cal­led Original Justice: and by others Original Grace; both ayming at the same [Page 269] thing: For Original Justice or Righteousness it may be called because it was not acquired, but connatural and simultaneous to the Being of Man: Again, It was Grace, because though it pleased God to create man with it, yet he might also have created him without it, and it was separable from him, and so not intrinsick to his very nature. Which is yet thus further to be understood, that it were most absurd and blasphemous to believe that God could make a man a sinner without any precedent or concurrent act of his own will, or without this original innocency and Justice; for as nothing but God can proceed immediately and directly from Gods hand; so nei­ther could man, as he was the effect of God, be any otherwise than Good. This then may be called his natural and Original Justice, and Goodness, and Original Grace also in some sense, because though all the works of God must needs be good, as his: yet man (for example) might not have been so perfect either in his understanding and will, and yet have retained inno­cency. And this was the Grace of God: Besides which may probably be asserted another Grace, which to the bare stock of Nature thus put together by God, superadded a more special and Free Grace called (though not very properly) the Grace of Sanctification, not as it is in us, purifying and restoring us in some competent manner to what hath been decayed or depraved by the fraud and power of the Devil in us, or our own vile hearts and affections; but by way of Preservation, pre­venting the evils and dangers unto which we were subject. Now this, as it is called Grace because it was not necessarily due to nature; So was it called Natural or Original, because God conserred the same at our first being, and would so have continued it, had we not abused and forfeited the same.

And from hence sprang a Fourth beam of the bright Image of God in man, viz. Immortality, as an appendage to the said Natural Justice, and a reward of the perseverence in it. For God saying, In the day thou eatest Gen. 2. 17. thereof [the tree of the knowledg of Good and Evil] Thou shalt surely die, did imply that so long as he persevered in due subjection and obedience to his will, he should not dye. So that Adam was not simply and in his own nature immortal, as were Angels, and immaterial Spirits, but by this Supernatural Priviledg, and Grace of Justice given of God: where­by he was well able to persevere in that state of Holiness, and secure him­self from falling into sin; And a sufficient argument of the former is, that Man before his fall, did, or was to eat and drink, as appeareth from the indulgence of God to him, saying, Of every tree of the Garden Gen. 2. 16. thou mayst eat. Now eating and drinking do necessarily of themselves inferr such an alteration both in the body eating, and eaten, as tendeth to corruption, and therefore a more immediate hand and power of God was required to obviate that propensity. And the manner of propagation being contrary to the imagination of some of the Ancients by that natural way that now it is, though much purer, prove the same inclination to dissolution, and the necessity of a Divine Grace to secure man from Cor­ruption. And thirdly, it is proved from the manner of the Fall, which spoiled us not of any thing natural, in a proper sense to us: but lost to us the Supernatural Aids, which otherwise should never have for­saken us.

Lastly, a Fifth Beam of the Image of God in man was▪ and is the Do­minion he hath over the inferiour Creatures, and the subserviency of them to him: For this an express Charter is given to him as Gods Vicegerent on [Page 270] Earth, in Genesis in this manner, And God blessed them, and God said unto Gen. 1. 28: them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the Sea, and over the foul of the air, and over every living thing, that moveth upon the Earth. Which Right of Rule was not altogether extinguished after the Fall, but as experience sheweth that man partly by strength, and partly by wit and understan­ding bringeth all things under him; so the Scripture affi [...]meth, Every Jam. 3. 7. kind of Beasts and of Birds and things in the sea is tamed, and hath been tamed of Mankind. And after the Flood, God in especial manner re­enstated man in his right of dominion, saying, The fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every Beast of the Earth, and upon every Foul Gen. 3. 2. of the Air, upon all that moveth upon the Earth, and upon all the Fishes of the Sea, into your hand are they delivered.

CHAP. VIII.

THUS far of the Power of God exemplified chiefly in man: It follows now that we speak of the Second General Act of God towards the Creature, and specially Man, known to be his Providence. The Providence of God is one of those things,Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. pag. 547. Vid Theodor. Haereticar. Fa­bul. L. 5. C. 10. saith Clemens Alexandrinus, of which to desire a demonstration or proof is most absurd, it so manifestly displaying itself over the whole Universe. And therefore next to that opinion of Epicurus denying God to take any Care of things in the world (lest it should trouble him too much) is that of Aristotle in absurdity and impiety that his Care and providence extended no farther than the Heavens; committing, as it were, the management of this inferiour world to inferiour Officers: both so unworthy of wise men to affirm, that we shall bestow no other confutation of them, than what obliquely may be inferred from the positive assertion of this divine Attri­bute of God. For God being in Being and Power infinite, and as the Apo­stle saith, upholding all things by the word of his Power: that is, meer willHeb. 4. 3. and pleasure declared, it were ridiculous to conceive any toil or labour in Gods conservation and administration of all the things in the world. As it were most absurd to say, that the glorious body of the Sun and the influences thereof should be be disparaged in giving vertue unto Gnats and Nits, and pittiful weeds growing out of the earth, and not confining it self to more high and excellent Offices. But Providence is (as Boetius defines it) that Boetius de Con­solat. Lib. 4. Pros. 6. Highest Reason residing in that Supream Prince of all things, which disposes all things. And surely, if God did not foul his fingers or degrade himself in making man as well as Angels, and Beasts as well as Man; and Earth, and Water, and Air, as well as Beasts; (and that to us there may be such things which we call clean and unclean, but to God there is no such di­stinctions in the natures of things) then truly could it be no blemish to him to regard them being made. And if to make them was no labour properly so called (though it is so termed by the Scripture for our instruction) to preserve them can be nothing of molestation to God: My Father worketh Joh. 5. 17▪ hitherto and I work saith Christ of God and himself, in St. John; meaning [Page 272] nothing more than a continued Creation; as Conservation is well called by Philosophers, or an Act of Providence proportionable to the Act of Creation infinitely [...]asie to God, as well as Effectual towards the Crea­ture.

The thing then being thus declared and supposed, we shall consider it in this threefold manner. First, in the foundation and Ground, or Prepara­ration of his Divine Providence. Secondly, in the Execution of it. Thirdly, in the Object of it.

And concerning the First, Providence being an Act of infinite Supream wisdom, as Boetius saith; doth suppose knowledg in God. And the ex­ercise or Execution hereof implies a Will in God so inclined. And the Object; the Effect of both. For, as the Apostle saith, Who hath resi­sted his will? Rom. 9. 19.

And as to the Knowledg of God, it hath been before shewed, how it must be commensurate unto God himself, and that is Infinite. He must be and is Omniscient. And therefore well hath Lactantius said, If there be Lactan. de I [...]a Cap. 9. a God, certainly he is Providential as God: neither can Deity be otherwise ascribed to him, but as he retaineth things past, knows things present, and fore­sees things future, or to come. And truly, I cannot but here insert, besides my General purpose, the most excellent saying of the Heathen Salust; It Salust ad C [...] ­sar de Repub. Ordinan. appears to one as a certain truth that the Divine Nature inspects the life of all Mortals: and that neither the Good, nor Evil Acts of men go for nothing, but naturally there follows different rewards for Good and Evil men. This Re­ward is that outward ground inferring Providence: but the Inward taken from God himself, is his Knowledg or Omniscience: which the better to judge of, we may distinguish according to the Object of it, into knowledg of it, into knowledg of things within himself, or of himself, which is more Internal; and things without himself, external.

For if we should speak more Properly, God knoweth nothing by an ab­absolute direct knowledg, but himself; and all other things, Relatively, rather; according as they bare relation to him in being or not being; in be­ing [...]ike him as that which is Good, or dislike him, by which manner he understandeth Evil. And nothing but God himself can perfectly know God, no not the highest and most divine Spirits attending him more immediately in the state of Glory: because perfect knowledg doth not consist in an Apprehension that God is, or that he is infinitely glorious and Perfect: but in comprehension to know him as he is. True: St. John saith,1 Joh. 3. 2. We shall know him as he is: meaning that in the state of glory we should have a much nearer and clearer access unto his divine nature, than we can have here by the Organ of our Faith: And that so we shall see him, that there will be no more use of Faith, or outward information from revealed do­ctrines, but Inward Revelations and illuminations shall immediately flow into us from God, to the fuller apprehension of him, and satisfaction of the restless mind of man. But to know him, as he is, is the Property of himself incommunicable to any Creature. For to comprehend a thing, saith Austin, is nothing else but so to know it, that nothing of it should be unknown to the Knower. As a Vessel is said to contain such a quantity of liquor, that no­thing should be left out. And thus God only, and no Created being con­ceiveth God comprehensively.

The Relative knowledg of God in order to things external, is to be esti­mated according to the Variety of things so known by him: yea not only the knowledg, but even the very Being of God is described unto us; [Page 273] according to the manner of outward things: All things of reality, and not merely imaginary, are by general consent divided into three sorts, accord­ing to the three distinctions of time: Into things Past, Future, and Pre­sent. And therefore God is said to be, He which is, and which was, and Rev. 1. 4. 8. which is to come. Therefore surely the distinction of Gods knowledge most agreably to the nature of God and things known too, is, into that of things Past, Present, and to Come.

And there being no great difficulty or difference among Christians con­cerning the two former; viz. Knowledge of things past and present, all con­curring that the knowledge of things passed, never passes with God, nor of things present, nor of future, but the Knowledge of all these being im­mediately and immoveably present with God, so that many more warily, will have all understanding in God to be rather Science, than Prae-science; and Knowledge, rather than fore-knowledge: It were needless, as well as end­less, to enlarge thereupon.

The third, about things to come, deserves more accurate enquiry. For, as to the distinction of Gods knowledge into that of Vision, whereby he beholds all really existent things; whether in themselves past, present, or future: And that of Intelligence, it may be questioned, as common as it is. For we speak not of possible, but actual knowledge: but that which may possibly be, but never shall be (the object of the supposed Intelligence of God) is only a possible knowledge, and not a real: and therefore, not to be matched with real knowledge. For to say, God knows the possibilities, is no more than to say, not that he knows the things, but himself, in whom, and to whom all things are possible.

Therefore confining our Discourse only to things future, we are to ob­serve such to be, either necessary or contingent; there being no mean be­tween these two. And here first, What is that which denominates a thing necessary? and what contingent, or accidental? and then, in what respect they are so called and distinguished? And here, first, we are to distinguish of necessity it self, with the Schools. For there is a simple and absolute Ne­cessity; the contrary to which is altogether impossible, and so nothing but God is of Necessity. For God being absolute and supream over all things, as nothing can, by way of anticipation, lay a necessity upon him; so nei­ther can any thing afterward obstruct or necessarily impede his will: For as St. Paul saith, Who hath resisted his will? It neither hath been at any time, nor can possibly be, That Gods resolute Will should be opposed so as not to obtain its designed end. But there is a conditional Necessity which they call Hypothetical, which hath no such simple and original certainty, but dependent upon somewhat else. And this Dependance or Conditional­ness is either upon The first Cause, which is God; or some second Cause, the Creature. For there was no such absolute Necessity that this visible world should have a Being, but this Being depended upon the Will and Pleasure of God. And this world being, there was no necessity that it should consist of so many parts, or several kinds of things, but this depended upon the wisdome and pleasure of God also. The other Hypothetical Necessity was founded by the First Cause, God, in the Creature; upon supposition that it had a Being, that such should be the nature of it: As that, supposing the Sun, it necessarily followed it should give light; and supposing there be such a thing as Fire in the world, there is a necessity it should heat and burn: Of all which there can no other reason be render'd but that which Scotus gives, Because this is this, and that is that: And because the Creatour of them and all things else hath imposed such a Law unalterable upon the very na­tures [Page 274] of things themselves; that upon supposal they have a Being, such, and such it should be. And this I take to be that Necessity which Philoso­phers call a Necessity of Consequent: viz. that which is immediately conse­quent to the being of a Thing: that of Consequence (as they call it) being nothing else but a rational Inference following upon some Particular suppo­sed: As the Genus is alwayes supposed to the Species, and not on the con­trary. For example; He that runs, must of necessity move: and he that moves, must of necessity be: but not on the contrary. And the ground of these and all such things, Necessity, is taken from the immutable decree of God, who hath so determined that things should be: And not only is this true in things apparent and visible to us, but must necessary be no less true in things invisible, and to us obscure and uncertain: viz. That upon sup­posalNihil est ad [...]o contingens quin in se ali­quid necessari­um habe it. Thom. 1. Q. 86. art. 3. co. of such a peremptory Decree and Cause from God, that which seems to us most contingent and casual must have a most certain and inevitable e­vent; even not inferiour to any of those necessities we have touched: and the reason is plain, because here is supposed the same will, and same power to effect this, as them: and the variety and uncertainty of the means, where­by a thing is brought about, makes nothing at all against this; because this proceeds only form the relation such means have to our understanding, and apprehension: which not being able to descern any connexion natural be­tween the Cause and the Effect, do look upon the effect as meer chance. For instance, that a fly should kill a man by choking him is as contingent a thing as can ordinarily happen: And who could believe it, that should be told that such a fly moving lightly and wildly it knows not whether it self, perhaps a mile off from the place where this falls out, and many dayes before the fact, should certainly be the death of such a man: yet no man of reason and conscience can deny, but Gods providence and decree may im­pose an inevitable necessity upon this creature so opportunely and fitly to move as that it should certainly kill him, and that at such a time, and in such a place. And if any should hereof doubt, the express asseveration of our Saviour Christ in the Gospel may satisfie him herein, saying; One Sparrow shall not fall on the ground without your Father. If any should soMatth. 10. 29. contrive our Saviours words as to understand without Gods will, to be con­trary only to Gods will, and not of Gods will concurring and his know­ledge noting the same, St. Luke will instruct him otherwise, who rendersLuke 12. 6. the same speech, Not one is forgotten: which implies Observation, and Providence.

That therefore those things which seem to us most free, irregular, and contingent, may have a tacit and unknown determination from God, which should fix and infallibly limit them to some special ends, I may presume no man can piously doubt: and especially after that great Opposer of Gods Providence over humane actions, hath been constrained to acknowledge so much, I mean Socinus: who granteth God the liberty and power so to de­terminePrael [...]ct. car. 6. the Salvation, as well as the acceptation and improvement of Grace offered to Peter and to Paul, that the effect should inevitably follow: which being allowed, all the arguments usually brought by him and others (not of his rank) of the inconsistency of such inevitable decrees with the freedom of Mans will, will lie as heavy upon him to solve, or answer in his cases, as on any other, who should extend the same to many more than he pleases to do. For can we any more conceive that Gods good will to them should first make them brutes, before it made them Saints in limiting their choice and determining the same to one side, rather than others? or that he should ex­tinguish a natural humane principle in them, to bring them to salvation; but [Page 275] secure it to others? I hope not. Therefore if a necessity destroyed not their humane Liberty, how can it be concluded that it doth it in others? O [...] that there is no possible concord between Necessity and Contingencie. Indeed in the same respect, it must necessarily be true; whether we regard God or Man: For neither to God, nor to Man, can the same thing be allowed to be necessary and contingent at the same time: but there appears no reason, why the same thing, which is necessarily to follow on the part of God, may not be said, on the part of man, to be fortuitous, free, and chance, as it is called. For we indeed vulgarly call that only necessary, where there ap­pears a necessary connexion in nature, between cause and effect: and ac­cording to the degree of evidence and assurance to us, we hold a thing ne­cessary or contingent; in which sense we hold it necessary, that an heavy body, out of its natural place, should (left to it self) descend to it and possess it. And we hold it not so necessary, that the Sun going down in a cleer red evening towards the West, should portend the day following to be fair and cleer: Our Saviour, when he affirmed this, spake after the ob­servations and opinion of men, which generally herein fail not. So that the being of a thing rea [...]y, and the appearing of it so to be, being so far dif­ferent in nature, it follows not at all, that so it is intrinsecally, and of it self; because we can make no other judgment of it than in such a manner: and that because we perceive no natural connexion between the cause and effect necessitating it, therefore, there neither is, nor can be any. Some things God hath ordained so openly, inseparable one from the other, that we easily and readily infer the one from or by the other: and this is all we call necessity, in nature. But if God more covertly and subtilty hath like­wise ordained the like connexion, not by a Law of constant Nature, but his singular will (for which we can find out no reason) this we presently call Contingent; though it be as certain as the other. And names being given to things by man, according as they are apprehended, the distincti­on of things into Necessary and Contingent is very reasonable, and service­able to man; as signifying to him such a diversity of Effects in the world, that some have apparent natural necessary cause to produce them: and these things we call Necessary; and some things have no such natural cau­ses, but more immediately are ordered by God bringing causes by his spe­cial Providence together, besides their nature, to produce such an Ef­fect; and that certainly, though not naturally; and this we call Contin­gent.

That this manner of proceeding of the Providence of God, is possible; is impossible to be desired. And in many things seeming to us as casual as may be, that actually they are all granted. For to us, considering all cir­cumstances, it was a thing meerly indifferent and undetermined, whether Peter should believe unto Salvation or not? but considering the resolute Providence of God disposing certainly outward causes, it was certain and infallible. The great question must then be about the General; viz. Whether God hath two immutable Laws whereby a necessity doth attend all effects, as well such as we tearm free and contingent, as such as are necessary; with this difference only, that on some things he hath laid a Law natural which ordinarily and necessarily moveth to one certain effect and end, as are seen in natural generations and corruptions, as that, as St. Paul saith, Every seed should have its own body; i. e. produce it. And1 Cor. 15. that whatever is so generated should, by a Law of Nature also incline to dissolution again. And that by a private invisible Law which reserves to him, or particular decree he certainly bringeth to pass even those things [Page 276] of which we can give no reason, and there appears to us no connexion or order of causes; but causes are by his special hand brought to effect such things, as in their general nature they had no tendencie unto? The distinction common amongst Philosophers of Fortuna and Casus; i. e. For­tune and Casualty; and calling that Fortune which contingently falls out to free Intelligent Agents acting: and that Casualty, which besides natural intention, happens to fall out, may seem to clear this. For if we should affirm that in natural things there were no such indifferencie really, but all things were precisely and particularly determined by God in his private counsel, however a wide latitude seemeth to us to be left them, to move, and act; or not to act; or to move and act thus; or not thus, but contra­riwise; no great absurdity or inconvenience would follow. For what ab­surdity could be inferred, if a man should say, That the Eagle letting fall a Tortoise upon the bald head of the Philosopher of Syracuse walking in the field, and so beating out his brains, was determined necessarily so to do of God: or that the tree that fell down in a wind and killed him that walked out to preserve himself from the fall of his house, which he feared, was inevitably appointed so to do? These effects did not proceed from the nature of these causes themselves, but a Superiour hand: and yet might be no less necessary than such effects, of which the common reason of man can give an ordinary and easie account. And if this be granted in some things, it doth lye upon them who deny it in all, to render a reason of the difference, and not on them who affirm a paritie, by infinite instances to prove: it being sufficient to say, There can nothing be shown to the con­trary. But in things rational, and endowed with a power of Election and Rejection, it must be confessed, that the difficulty is much greater, because there seems to be a repugnancie to free will, in such tacit necessity, and God should seem to take away with one hand, what he had given with the other. And therefore, of this in a more convenient place; after we have spoken somewhat preparatory thereunto, concerning the Decrees of God; which are internal acts of the Providence of God.

CHAP. IX.

IF the Holy Scriptures leaving us many precedents, have thereby warranted, or at least permitted us to speak of God after the man­ner of Mans body, ascribing unto him head, eyes, mouth, hands and feet; and, the better to perceive the things of God, much more may we be allowed (if at all to search into Gods nature) to regulate our enquiry of God from the nature of mans mind, and the more supream acts of his soul. The first Act of which is his apprehension and knowledge; with judgment following thereupon. The next in order is the Act of his will; and this Order we may best follow in the enquiry into Gods Provi­dence, which is constituted (according as we can judge) of knowledge and will, whose proper act it is, to decree.

And here first, It is requisite that we take notice of the folly and gross impiety of Vorstius, a late Pragmatick in Divine Mysteries: who would needs distinguish God from himself, and taking him at his word, wherein, speaking after the manner of men, such diversity is mentioned, concludes that God and his Attributes, are really distinct in nature, one from another. And why did he not, by the same rule, conclude that Gods very Being, his Essence was distinct really from it self, as well as from the supposed Accidents he (Epicurean-like) feigns to God. For God is no less affirm­ed to have heart, hands, and feet, than to have Understanding and Will? And if it be granted, there is a figurative and no proper sense in the one case, why may it not be in the other? And that God is all these things Eminently, but not after the formality of mankind.

The matter will be cleared better by examining his prime arguments ta­ken from the Decrees of God, our present subject. First, sayes he, The decrees of God are various and many: but the Essence of God is but one: [Page 278] therefore they must be really distinct. To which the answer is as obvious, as the argument presumptuous: That if the Decrees were really many, they must of necessity be really distinct as well from themselves, as God. But their plurality is rather Relative than Absolute. All the Acts of God be­ing but one pure simple Act, as in him; but denominated divers from the event, or relation they bear to the Creature. This is one of the first prin­ciples in his Christian Catechise; and why did he (pretending to reason) leap over this, and not first disprove it; and then proceed to his argu­ments? It was a great piece of folly therefore in him to prove a real di­stinction of Gods Attributes before he had proved that the Nature of God was compounded, or would admit of any such opposition. For they who deny this, will certainly deny that.

Another of his reasons is, The decrees of God are free; because they might have not been, as well as have been. But Gods nature is not so. Answ. There is a twofold freedom in the Decrees of God. The one in respect of the Nature of God, as God is precisely considered, which, ab­stracting from all Acts, was indifferent to others, as well as those Decrees made: And the other in respect of the Creature or object, which was ca­pable of other Decrees; and therefore were Gods Decrees said to be free▪ but we all know that distinction of Instants in Order and Nature, do not infer a necessary distinction in duration: but that both Nature and Decrees might be coequal in eternity. Now all things that are eternal are in some case necessary. And the Schools have such a distinction of Decrees, as they have of nature; viz. Decretum Decretans, and Decretum Decretatum, meaning that the Decrees of God are sometimes used for the Act of God decreeing, and sometimes for the thing decreed: And of this latter it may be said, That the Decree of God is produced and made (which is a third special argument of Vorstius:) but of the other, it cannot so be affirmed: but it may flow from him by an eternal Law, or Volition within himself, and not at all occasioned by the Creature. And it is therefore said to be free, because it was not imposed upon him, and therefore necessary, be­cause not accessary to him or contingent; but proceeding from him, as a natural and necessary, yet voluntary Agent. For we must not look upon God as subject to the condition of the Creature, in whom natural necessi­ty is not compatible with voluntary freedom; but with God it may: be­cause no Creatures natures and wills are the same really, or formally; but the Nature of the Creatour and his will are formally distinct, and admit deservedly of a diverse conception, but really are the same: so that not­withstanding it is harsh to the apprehension to conceive, yet the thing it self may be, and really is so. Which ground laid doth resolve that doubt also, concerning the generation of Christ, which is said to be both voluntary and natural, and necessary: Voluntary and free, because not constrained; and again necessary, because not indifferent, or possible to be otherwise: for as much as it is not possible that God should not have been, and Christ is God. Yet must we here put a wide difference between the Decrees of God in reference to the Creature; and the Paternal Act in reference to God the Son. For in this latter, we cannot so much as suppose an antecedent Decree; but only a natural Volition: In the former, we may conceive both a Decree going before, and a Prescience anticedent to that De­cree.

Now as to the nature of Gods Decrees themselves, we are to consider that a Decree being an Act principally of the Will, and the Act of the Will in order of Nature posteriour to the Acts of the Understanding; it ought [Page 279] first be enquired what Relation the Knowledge and Decrees of God bear one towards another. And here we must resume the received distinction of Knowledge of Simple Intelligence, as they call it, or pure Understanding; and the Knowledge of Vision in God: By the first is meant the understand­ing of all things possible to come to pass by the Divine Power, to which nothing is impossible: By the Second, the understanding of all things fu­ture. And because things future are so various as we have shown, that some are future necessarily, and some unnecessarily; therefore hath there been invented, and with much applause offered to the world, a Third kind of Knowledge of God, termed [Media Scientia] the Mean Knowledge; as comming between both the former; and having for its object, neither that which by a simple necessity shall come to pass, nor that which is simply un­certain and contingent; but though in nature of outward causes contin­gent, upon supposition made, certain and infallible to God. To all which, I offer these exceptions, first that this last distinction seemeth altogether superfluous, or gives occasion altogether as just to introduce innumerable other, no less reasonable than that. For if from such small variety in the object, as we shall show this to be founded on, new distinctions are to be coyned, there will never be any end of distinguishing Gods Knowledge. For if for conditionate things, a conditionate knowledge ought to be in­vented and acknowledged, then likewise according to the discrimination of conditions found in the Object, a different knowledge is to be imagined and distinguished in God: which were confusion and not distinction. Se­condly, this mean or conditionate Knowledge cannot be entertained by sober men as a distinct Species from the other two more ancient, but as a Part of that called the Science of Vision, whereby all future things are known to God: as being it self, about future things though with a condition. For all things are either future, or not future: If they be not future, but only possible to come to pass, then are they the objects of that Simple Intelligence, though very improperly, as is said: If they be future, then are they▪ the object of Vision in God. Again, if of future things, some being absolute­ly necessary, and s [...]me conditional only; ought we not rather to conform the Act of Vision to the Object; and distinguish Vision into that of things certain and absolute▪ and of things certain only upon a supposed condi­tion, then to frame a new nothing to explicate something, which was clearer without it? The thing we oppose not, nor forty such more, as might be no less reasonably imposed on the world; but the impertinencie, vanity, fraud of the terms, occasioning greater obscurity and contention than the world was acquainted with before. Thirdly, the very supposition here made to found this distinction will not hold the tryal; that is, that there is any thing so absolutely future, that it should come to pass without a Conditi­on: or that there were any knowledge in God not conditional, in reference to created things, unless we should peradventure except the first matter of all, made of nothing, and to which no outward or natural Cause did con­cur, but the immediate will and decree of God produced it: but to all other effects from the beginning of the world to the end of it, somewhat of the nature of a condition was required to bring them to pass; even to man was required earth. And God did not so absolutely, by his Prescience or Vision see man future, but a Condition was taken into that knowledge; viz. matter preceeding: however he might have produced him without it. And not to multiply Instances to this purpose, God doth not fore-see, or see that any natural or necessary Cause should take effect, but upon the condition of the due application of Actives and Passives. Therefore the [Page 280] sum of all, and the best end we can make here seems to me to be this: That we distinguish Conditional Knowledge in God, into that of Natural Agents, and Free Agents. For as God sees some things future upon supposition of a capacity nature is put into, to Act, as that a Stone should move down­ward upon supposition that it be first removed from the Centre, and then that Impediments be with-drawn (for otherwise he sees only that it is mo­veable down-ward,) so doth he see some things future, upon supposition that Free Agents be put into a capacity to exert themselves: As that, at St. Pauls preaching at Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite, and Damaris should cleave to him, but the far greater number of Auditors should forsake him, at his preaching of Christ.

The main doubt here to be resolved will be this, What certainty there can be in Free Agents to found an infallible knowledge in God, seeing if they be not certainly known determined, they cannot be certainly known as determined? for this were to know them a-miss, and would be an error. And to be determinable, is quite another thing from knowing them actual­ly determined. Again, If they be determined, and that certainly; (For uncertain determination is no determination, in truth) how can they be said to be free, and have the power of Election? To this it was wont to be re­plyed by vertue of Media scientia, or middle kind of knowledge in God: That God doth not see effects infallibly to flow from such Free Agents, because of any antecedent influence inclining certainly the will to one way; but by vertue of that general stock of liberty with which he hath endowed Rational Agents to act freely, he sees, upon such and such circumstances and proposals, the Will of it self to move one way; which such self-de­termination being known to God renders him truly Prescient and Omnis­cient, and that without errour.

But this will not stand the encounter. For Gods knowledge about the Creature, being wholly conditional, as we have shewed (supposing the ap­plication of natural Causes in natural Effects, and free Causes, to free Ef­fects) there will be no Cause to be found, or imagined in nature, why two equally by nature Free, shall extreamly differ in their choice of the same object: How can that be known which neither hath a being in it self, nor its Causes? But the Case in hand is such. For the Object being the same to both, and the Subject being the same in both, Freedom of Will to chose: it is not intelligible how it should be fore-seen, that one will certainly tend this way, and the other, the Contrary. And if there be a difference in the Wills, St. Augustines question so often and pressingly urged against the Pelagians, out of St. Paul, will put them hard to it to answer; viz. Who made thee to differ? and, what hast thou that thou hast not received? Comes it from a mans self, as free? If so, then it should come from all alike, where all are alike free: and if all be not alike free, then there is difference made to their hand, and not by themselves. Again, the common Argument will be of no ordinary force upon them, which layeth this undeniable and un­shaken foundation, That God is the Cause of all Causes, and the First mover in all natural actions and motions: but here (as some of the Schoolmen, and amongst others Suarez by name hath it) God should stand still, look on,Suarez in 1. 2d [...] Thom. Disput. 6. Tract. 4. and await for a time▪ the first self-motion of the Creature, without any prae-moving vertue effectual to the end; and see whether he will turn to the right hand, or to the left, before he knows any thing of certainty concern­ing that.

But they proceed farther, and say, That God having indued the Free A­gent with sufficient abilities to Act, the original cause of Acting must be [Page 281] himself, and so his universasity of Cause [...]a [...]ved to him. But to this we re­ply, That three things are to be considered in indifferent Actions; The Power to Act, which is indifferent: The Determination of this power to one, which takes off the indifferencie; and the Action it self, which in the execution, is necessary: because as the Ax [...]ome hath it, Every thing when it is, necessarily is. Now the latter indeed may be ascribed to God, as like­wise the first; as the true Author, upon general concessions of power; but the second cannot: because (what I think hath not been considered) there is a distinction to be made between the power of Acting, or not Acting, and Acting this or the contrary to it; and the power of determining it self to one, rather than the other. For if, as in an equal ballance, the two Scales of mans Free-will are so evenly posited, that they are no more propense to one, than the other side, the Affirmative, or Negative; doth it not neces­sarily follow there must be the help of a finger, or such thing, to make a difference, though the least touch will do it? So that the power of moving up or down is plainly one thing, and the power of determining the same, quite another here, and so likewise in mans Free-will made free, and thus indifferent by Grace; which they call sufficient: though this will not be allowed by such as require a particular and immediate converse of God to all Actions; as did likewise the most Philosophical Heathens, as I could show. From whence we may collect that God seeing nothing but what has a real being, in it self or Causes; and the Power of Acting being not suffi­cient to give a being to an effect, but the Execution of that Power: if this Execution hath no cause, it cannot be known; and it hath no immediate cause until man hath actual being, according to that opinion that makes man the absolute cause of determining his actions, and not God: For sure­ly man cannot determine before he hath existence, and therefore it cannot be, and therefore neither known to be, so much as future: For man before he is, can give no causality to this determination; and they say God doth give none; Therefore it is not at all, and cannot at all be known of God. Neither can it be said, That things future are Real Beings, though not Actual and Present, and so may be known of God: because that which is future cannot be actually known but as it is actual, and not simply future; and therefore is the knowledge of God by more accurate speakers truly cal­led Vision, rather than Praevision. And those things that are future as to their proper Existence, are present as to their Causes in Gods counsels, but if there be no such to be found with God, then can there be no such Causes at all: For that cannot be said to be the Cause of a thing which at the same time is the Cause equally of the contrary, or contradiction to that thing: but the undetermined will of Man is indifferent to both sitting still or walking, at the same time; no cause inclining to one, more than other: which should found a certain knowledge of one, and not of the other.

CHAP. X.

TO the vindicating the former Discourse from just reprehensi­on, it will here be expected that we explain our selves in answer to these following Quaeries. First, Whether the knowledge of God be the Cause of things future; or things fu­ture the Cause of his knowledge? or otherwise, Whether God knows a thing because it shall come to pass; or, It shall come to pass, because God knows it?

In answer to which, we must distinguish a twofold knowledge in God. An Ideal knowledge and a Real knowledge (as we may be allowed to speak after the manner of Men, reserving still to God his absolute simplicity.) The Ideal knowledge of God is that, whereby he perfectly knows all things in their proper forms, which are possible, and intelligible: And this doth not depend at all upon his Decrees, which we make the Cause of all Ex­istence in the Creature; but the Decrees of God depend upon this: God decreeing nothing to be future, which he first by simple intuition beholds not in its proper Nature and Circumstances; as men of Contemplation first weigh the nature, means, and ends of things, before they resolve upon them. But the Real knowledge, which we signally so call because it relates to the Real Existence of the thing so known, does certainly depend upon the antecedent Decree of God: no possible reason being to be rendred, why God should know a thing to be, but because it is certainly, and not fallibly to him, to be: And no possible reason being to be found, why a thing should so infallibly be to him, but because he hath resolved & decreed that so it shall be. From whence may be reconciled the frequent sayings of the Ancient, and some Modern Divines, who have said, That God fore-sees a thing because it is to be: and not that it is, because God sees it. For the seeing of a thing absolutely and the seeing it to be, are vastly distinct notions. And most true is that observation to be found (as I remember) amongst Phi­losophers concerning the difference between the Understanding of God, and its Object; and the Understanding of Man, or Angel, and its object. For in the Intellectual Part (for I use the word Understanding now, and not for the Act, as even now) of the Creature, Understanding is caused from, and by the Object, to the faculty represented; and the Object makes the knowledge, and not the knowledge the Object: But on the contrary, the Understanding of God is many times operative, and makes its ob­ject.

[Page 283]A Second capital Doubt will be, How such a perpetual and infallible Causation in the Creatour, upon the very Understanding and Will of the Crea­ture Rational, can consist with the native Prerogative of Liberty of Will, gi­ven by the same hand to it?

The Answer to this hath cost many a Volume, with no great satisfaction: and therefore how little may be expected from this Compendium, every equal Judge will easily see. I shall forbear Citations of other mens o­pinions and autorities, for brevity sake: And endeavour first by a de­scription of Liberty of Will; and next by a Distinction of Necessity (which is commonly lookt on as the cut-throat of Liberty) to contri­bute something to the easing this difficulty.

And first, we are to distinguish of Free-will, as in Mankind, in Gene­ral, from that which may be found in any one Individual man. For when the noted place of Ecclesiasticus (which I will not quarrel at because it is only Ecclesiasticus) tells us, God made man from the beginning, and Eccles. 15. 14. left him in the hand of his Counsel. What doth it more say, Then that God dealt not so straitly with mankind as with other kinds of Creatures inferiour to him? He left it undetermined in the nature of man, to do this or that. And humane nature had such a measure of Wisdom, Understand­ing, Reas [...]n, and Counsel put into it, of God, that there was such a power of choosing and refusing, as no other Creature could claim; and there was not the like natural restraint upon Mans will, as upon Beasts will, considered still in the general Notion. And surely, this is no small difference, whereof man may glory above beasts: which is not wholly lost to man, though in particular there should be found a determinati­on of Mans will to one. Secondly, Liberty is made up of two things necessarily, the Acts of Reason, and the Acts of Will. If any such de­termination were made of Mans actions in the Individual, that Reason were lockt up, and could not stir, or move in man; or when reason out of its native power, remaining, did argue and debate things variously, there were no power left in the Will to follow the Dictates of it, but was driven like an horse in a Cart, by the fierce voice and whip of the stander-by, then indeed all pretense to true Liberty must needs perish, because here were a Co-action of the Agent moving him to one thing. Co-action, as hath been granted by the strictest defenders of Grace, is a­gainst Liberty, and they show by most numerous Autorities, and suffici­ent Reas [...]ns that this is the only enemy to Freedom. For as St. Austin hath it, This a man is said to have in his Power, which if he wills he may do; Aug. de Spiritu & Litera, cap: 31. If he wills not, he may not do. And Hugo de Victore doth yet more expres­ly define Liberty to be, An Ability of the Rational Will, whereby, through the Co-operation of Grace, it chooseth Good; and it deserting it, Evil. By which it should appear that there is no inconsistencie with the Co-operati­on of God though infallibly moving to one, and the Election of the Will: as will yet be more clear in the second thing here principally to be distin­guished; viz, Necessity, which I make either in Co-ordinate or Subordi­nate Causes: and directly deny, That Necessity in Causes subordinate one to another, doth quite destroy Liberty or Free-will: especially if we sub­divide Necessity of things in subordination, into subordination to the first Cause of all, and of second Causes. I grant that in Causes co-ordinate, as Man and Beast; or Man and Man acting upon distinct principles, and ends, Necessitation from the One, quite ruins the Freedom of the other; and is unnatural and violent, being purely an external cause, giving no power to [Page 284] the Will to move, but exciting and impelling it against the judgment and more rational conclusion of the understanding, to accept the terms given. But Necessity proceeding from the First and Supream Cause, God himself, to whom all inferiour Causes are subordinate, doth not take away the na­tive Freedom of Man. The Reason whereof is, because the concurse of the First Cause is not extrinsecal to the Natural Agent, but really intrin­secal to it, and essential. And therefore the division of Causes by Logicians, into Internal, as Matter and Form: and External, Efficient and end; holds good only in secondary Efficients, and not in the first, and universal Agent. For though it be most true that the Absolute nature and Being of God is quite distinct from created being, and extrinsecal: yet it is not so, as he is a Cause. The reason of this will make it undenyable: because, as is a­greed by Christian Philosophers, the act of Creation in God is essential to the Creature, so produced; and the act of Conservation is a perpetuation of that act creative in God; and therefore, also must needs be intrinsecal to the Creature; and the act of Gods concurse moving the Creature and so determining it, is no other but a branch of that conservative act in God, and so is intrinsecal to the Creature, that what the Creature doth, by ver­tue of such influence, it may no less be said to do, of it self (there being a Coalition of both acts, created and increated in one) than it may be said to subsist of it self, by its matter and form, of which it consists. And this St. Pauls doctrine declares to us, where he puts no difference between our living, moving, and having our being in God, all alike depending on him,Acts 17. 28. and be equally intrinsecal to all. And therefore Gods action terminated in man, becomes his, as much as those which we conceive to proceed from his own being: and notwithstanding to this act of God primarily may be ascribed the turning, as it were, of the Scales of the Will, yet may man also be said herein to determine himself: the reason whereof is, That both the first Cause and the second are here total Causes. But here I call to mind a Maxime amongst Logicians, and others teaching of Natural Cau­ses: That it is not possible that Two total Causes should be subordinate, as prin­cipal and instrumental Cause, one to the other; but must alwayes be Co­ordinate: as two horses moving a Chariot, no otherwise than one might well do alone; and two Candles giving but one light to the same place. I might question this Axiome, and the Instances both, because in the first, though both Horses are the Causes equally of such a motion, and so total: yet the immediate causes are not total: For it is certain, that the same force which is used by one, not rising to that of both, would not in like man­ner move the Chariot, that both actually do; though there be nothing more easie then for one so to move it. Neither are two Candles total Causes of that degree of light which is in the Room, though of light they may be: But whethen these mine exceptions against the presumed Rule be rational or not, it matters not at present; it being to me certain that it holds only in secondary Causes jovntly working, and not in the concurrent motions of first and secondary Causes; because of the essential dependence the se­cond Cause hath upon the first. So that St. Basil saith highly and truly, The [...] Bas. in Hexaen. Hom. 8. Divine word (and that is here as much to say as the Divine vertue) is the nature of things produced.

There remains yet one more difficulty to be here touched, to which many may be reduced, and that is, That Man being thus determined and lying under this necessity of Acting, he cannot in justice be responsable for his Actions, whether good or evil. He cannot be the subject of praise or dispraise. All [Page 285] preaching by Exhortation and Dehortation; All reward of Punishment and Benefits; Lastly, All Prayers, and the use of it, must needs cease.

To these in order briefly; And first in general, denying the reasonableness or validity of such consequences, upon this common ground. That if indeed this were a necessity from a Co-ordinate Cause, not natural to the Agent moved by it, then it were to be lookt on as no act proper, and free in the Creature, but strange to it, and violent, and by consequence refunding all praise and dispraise upon the unresistible impulse of that external Cause: but this is internal, natural, and one act really, of the first and second Mover: and so properly, principally (as any Creature can be said to be principal Agent under the Creature) and totally is the act of the second Cause; which in external motions, otherwise than from God, it is not. And if it be said, that from hence would follow, The Creature acting evilly, that this Evil might be equally imputable, unto God, and to the Creature; It may be replayed, that two things are to be consider'd in Actions the nature of the Action it self; and the morality of it. And that all things being good in nature, the act it self is good and may be imputed to God, though the morality of the act be otherwise. But it may be demanded yet further: Have not this morality it self a Nature, and consequently upon the grounds laid imputable to God, as well when the act offends against justice and honesty, as when it agrees with both? To this. Nature indeed (as hath upon another occasion been shewed) is sometimes taken very largely for any thing that hath a being, but here we take it only in the physical sense, whereby things are said to have a proper being But Good and Evil are rather modi reales (as they speak in Me­taphysicks) then res; Manners of Being rather than proper Beings of them­selves. Again we must, and do hold with Austine that, Evil morally taken hath not such a real being as Good hath: but is only the absence or priva­tion of Good; being no real Entity; and we pity, rather than fear such an argument as we have found against this, that if Evil be nothing, then God should be angry for nothing, when he is offended at sin. For surely there is a great difference between Gods being angry for nothing, and Gods being an­gry with nothing. What would they say, I marveil, when the Father in the Gospel commanded his Son to go work in his vineyard, and he would not go? might he not be angry, even because there was nothing done? And must this be called, being angry for nothing? So surely, God may be angry with mans doing nothing. Here in order to a more full account may be given of the ob­jection, we leave in pawn this distinction, of the Act of Sin; and the Sin of the Act: And that God may concur to the former constantly, and never have a singer in the latter, which is properly the sinfulness.

Now to the matter of praise or dispraise: of which they are only said to be capable, who act freely and upon election, and not upon necessity; I make no seruple directly to deny the truth of it, as famous as it is amongst the Fa­thers & Philosophers, absolutely taken. Nothing is more plain than the con­trary, every day: For we praise handsome Horses, and handsome Men, and infinite other things when there was not the least concurrence of the will, but God and Nature did all, to such a laudable state; much less any act conducing thereunto. And do we not in our Judgments discommend the disproportions of natural monsters and creeples, though we out of affecti­on and pity, declare not so much to their reproach? And this seems to have deceived Aristotle in his Ethicks (who laid it down for a current Rule) that he distinguished not these two. For certainly, Commendation and Discommendation rightly used, are the effects of our Judgment, and Will, [Page 286] and Affections. But more nearly to the case, we answer, That such Praise and Dispraise are only vacated by such a necessity as is extrinsecal to, and contrary to the will. but where the Act is affectedly done, there a supposed necessity doth not exempt from such Rewards of Praise and Dispraise, or Punishment or Benefits. But it is certain a man may strongly affect that which he cannot choose but do.

And the like may be answered to that of Instruction, Exhortation, and Dehortation; all which, they say, ought to cease, and would become unneces­sary if mans will were so immoveably determined to one thing. Yea all Pray­ers and Deprecations were to no purpose. And why so? because it is not in mans power to relieve himself: and whatever he saith, believeth, or doth, nothing can do any good, if the Decree be so against him: and nothing of all these omitted, or the contrary committed, hurt or endanger him; such a Decree being for him. And what grounds of comfort to a troubled mind may be laid, the Case thus standing? This is the sum of all we are (here at least) bound to take notice of. And this were much more than it seems to be, were it so, that they, who hold the contrary opinions, were not obliged as really (I say not in the same respects) to answer these difficulties. For who is there that doth not held an Intuitive knowledge of God of all things future? but they deny what the other, affirm, That such knowledge is operative or de­cretory upon the will of man, to infallibly determine ti; but will have Man be the Author of such his resolution only, and God to look on, and see it done, but not to do it. Well, be it so for once: yet still the Will is certainly and irrevocably determined, or God could have no knowledge of it, but what is conjectural, and as unworthy of God, as the Creature is unworthy of Omniscience. And if such unalterable state of the Will and Actions be al­lowed in man; it is not material, at present, to enquire from whence this Determination proceeded; from God, or from Man: we granting here, That if God had no hand in it, but Man, exclusively to God, was the cause of it, then the account would seem more grievous, and case more foul on mans part. This I say, is not much to our present purpose, which is to enquire of the Fact, whether so it be, or not determined: and that so it is, appears, that God sees it is so. And if it be so, do not all those fore-mentioned inconve­niencies come strongly upon them? Mans destiny is certain by his own Act: he is unalterably now determined, he cannot go back: God sees it is to be so with him, and therefore so it shall certainly be: And therefore what do we trouble our selves, or such an one with instructing him, exhorting, threatning, promising him. It is too late, now: This should have been done many thou­sands of years before he was born, and before it was known by God for certain, that he will go this way: For God now by the vertue of his condi­tionate middle knowledge doth infallibly know it shall be thus & not thus. And as the servant in the Gospel said of Jairus his daughter, Thy daughter is Luke 8. dead, trouble not the Master. Thy lot is read, trouble not God with your Pray­ers and impertinent services, nor your self with unprofitable cares. I would gladly learn (for as yet I profess I know nothing of) what they would an­swer to these things, to which with such considence, and courage, and im­portunity, and a great deal more, they demand satisfaction from others, as if they were not at all concerned to unriddle this Mystery, or could do it with the turning of an hand; both which I deny, unless they recurr to what we have insinuated here, that man is by their grounds made more the Authour of his own ruine, and God more cleared and vindicated in his Justice. But this I may grant; [Page 287] and yet still have no satisfaction in that under question, How, without, va­nity and idleness, a man may take any pains about such an one, or minister any comfort to him? accuse him, and confound him he may a great deal more, by upbraiding him with his own ruin. Socinus indeed, that great wild Boar in Christs vineyard, who hath to his power rooted up the first Principles of Christianity, and sometimes (as in this case) of some natu­ral Reason and Philosophy, to plant his bastard slips, comes off very round­ly and easily, by denying any certain knowledge in God, whether condi­tionate or inconditionate, of things contingently future, as especially those of the Free Will: and thus to set man up-right upon his leggs, he brings God upon his knees.

Now because it is not so much my drift to show what cannot be said, as what may; I shall attempt to give some answer to the Objection upon the grounds I rest on, and here choose; desiring and expecting more clear and full satisfaction to them, when they shall have removed the obstructions they are obliged to clear this point of, who are of another judgment. And first we must remember, That according to our Grounds, man doth deter­mine himself to Good or Evil, notwithstanding God doth it too. Second­ly, we hold that there is no such absolute determination of Man by God or Man, which taketh not so in with it, the proper conditions and means conducing thereunto. God nor Man do not resolve upon good or evil withour the proposal of the allurements of both, and the means conducing unto both. And 'tis generally agreed, That the Will of man cannot tend towards God (since his Fall) without the first Grace freely and irrespe­ctively given, and that it is of the same nature and order to the restitution or recreation of his soul; as was the first Matter to the framing of his Bo­dy. And therefore, as that first matter was such that man could not be made in Gods order, without it; and yet was not so necessarily made by it, but that he might never have been; or any thing else might have been made of it, had God so pleased: So the first Grace to Regeneration is absolute­ly necessary, but it is not absolutely necessary that where this first Grace is, Regeneration should follow; or the will of Man certainly incline to embrace it: For to embrace it, is an act of Spiritual life, and no Vital act can be exercised, but by a Vital Principle. And the first Grace is not so much a Principle of Actual Life, as a necessary Preparation to it. And therefore is required by all, that second Grace, which giveth life: and a power of acting answerable to that life. Which power is actuated by the sweet concurrence of God, and the Will of man determining to one. Now, as where many things may equally come to pass, yet one thing eventually doth necessarily happen, and not the other: So is it in this self-determina­tion of Man: Inevitable it is, that one way be chosen, and there is an E­ventual necessity that one takes effect, but this is not from the Nature of the will of Man, necessary. And being from the nature of the thing unneces­sary; it must needs be unknown to man. And being unknown to man, can never oblige him to adhere to one part more than the other: and conse­quently, being thus free, common reason will direct, and almost constrain him to act and carry himself, as undetermined and free. For 'tis as cer­tain and true a Rule in Divinity as other Faculties. Not to appear, and not to be, is in effect the same thing to a man. Now it is impossible, without supernatural Revelation (above the Scripture) which we never read, was ever heard of, and have no grounds it shall ever befall any man, that any man should know that he hath conspired so irreversibly with the Justice of [Page 288] God, as never to move to Good and be saved. For when the Scripture hath laid down this as a fundamental Rule: The Son of man is come to save Luke 18. 11. John 12. 47. Acts 2. 38, that which was lost. And again, Christ came not to judge the world, but to save the world. And St. Peter in the Acts sayes, not only to them present but to all men indifferently, Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 39. of the Holy Ghost: For the promise is unto you and your Children, and to all that are far off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call. And St. Paul to the Romans, Now the Righteousness of God without the Law is ma­nifested, Rom. 3. 21, 22. being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. Even the Righ­teousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference. And to these many other like pla­ces of Scripture may be added, declaring no man destined to incredulity or impenitency aforehand, until such time as he hath declared against both, and that to the end of his Life. But on the other side rather, that God puts no difference. Now if St. Pauls argument held good (as certainly it did) that a wife should not put away her husband who was an Infidel, nor the believing husband his wife, upon the grounds of ignorance of a good event: Should a man put away his Soul? For what knowest thou, O wife, Rom. 7. 16. whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? So, what knowest thou, O man (who doubtest of Gods Decrees) whether thou shalt save thy soul? Whence we may con­clude, That it is no ground of discomfort that the event is determined: for it is equal on our side, as much as against us: but it is the ground of all reasonable satisfaction from the General Law requiring obedience E­vangelical, and from the Promises made without any discrimination: which a man cannot apply to his disadvantage or discouragement, without being first guilty of unreasonableness and unnaturalness to himself. Now Re­ligion, and the designs thereof, do suppose a man a true natural man to himself, before it attempts to draw him to an higher good, or nobler ends. So that if a man will deny his own natural reason, and self-love due to himself, such a man is indeed no fit person to be treated with, any more than a direct mad man: but this natural reason suggests to him, that where he knows it not to be an invincible Evil which he is to contend with, and knows not but that the way is as easie, the door as open, the means as ef­fectual to him as any man living, to attain happiness, he is to take heart and courage, and resolution to effect his desires. For to omit a certain du­ty of Faith and Hope, upon an obscure and uncertain ground is monstru­ous and ridiculous. I conclude therefore, that, as almost all the actions of mans life, yea and his life it self, which are no less determined with God, then the state of Grace or Wickedness, Glory, or Misery, do not cause him to suspend endeavours leading to the end propounded to him­self; so neither in the Concernments of his soul, keeping his natural Rea­son to himself entire, can he obstinately refuse to act according to the ends of Religion. Yet I might adde this also, which is most true; that if it were revealed to a man that he should never escape damnation, do he what he can, or what he will; yet that desperate carelesness and loseness could not be but greatest stupidity, because God doth certainly propor­tion salvation and damnation, as to the degrees of them, to the degrees of Holiness and Sins in this Life; and therefore it were more than worth a mans time and diligence, by a more restrained and Christian conversati­on, to obtain a mitigation of the evil he so fears. And yet that part of the [Page 289] argument commonly used, which saith, That it is in vain for a man who is so determined to strive to free himself, and to abound in religious acts; is directly false, and to be denyed. For no good works shall go unre­warded: And this is no less infallibly true, That to him that hath, shall Matth. 13. 20. Rom. 2. 8, 10. more be given, and to him that doth righteousness: and to them who by pa­tient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and honour and immortality; e­ternal life. And that the external acts and means are effectual to these great ends, Christ tells us saying, To you that hear shall more be given, thanMark 4. 24. that Gods Grace is necessarily required to all true Conversion and Holy­ness.

I know those of Dort following Calvine and Peter Martyr, and such of eminencie in Reforming, answer otherwise; But in truth their Reply is no Answer. For granting an invincible state of unregenerateness, and a total insufficiencie in Man to free himself, without the effectual Grace of God, yea, and an irreversibleness in Gods Decrees, so that all endeavours and acts should be frustrated to the obtaining the blessed end generally pro­mised, and the terrour of those under this Necessity; they oppose only good counsel to this, and much more; and reprove them lightly at least that meditate too much on the severer part of Gods Decrees, the abstruser Counsels of him, and determinations to the taking them off from those good duties, which God without exception requires of all. But all this and the like to this, is very little or nothing to the purpose: For they certainly hereby betray their Cause, and grant the whole argument to be good, and duly to infer all that is intended by it: only they oppose barely the Con­clusion, and would not have it take place, though they can find no fault with that it is grounded on: What a miserable shift is it for any, who are not able to deny that, upon their own reason, such a thing follows; to say, Yea, but this ought not to be, and to perswade contrary to conviction of themselves, as well as others: But occasion will be given of these matters more fully, in what follows.

CHAP. XI.

GOD having in his secret, mysterious Counsels, ordained all things according to his Divine will and pleasure, without be­ing lyable to that saucie expostulation of any Creature, Why hast thou made me thus? or, What doest thou? (For 'tis as cer­tain,Rom. 9. 20. Job 9. 12. as there is a God, that God neither doth nor can do a­ny injury to the Creature, though man may, and often doth injure him, and himself too, in mis-representing him) he proceedeth next to the executi­on of his Decrees and Counsels, which are so many acts of his Providence: And because it would be much too long and extravagant, to turn to the more [...]. Protagoras apud Laertium in Vita. diffused acts thereof, considerable in all his Creatures, we shall confine our selves to those specially concerning Man, the measure of all other Crea­tures, as the Philosopher said; and, as Christian doctrine tell us, the Head and Crown of all; and these, as to the religious capacity of Man, chiefly. In which are eminent, Predestination, Election, Vocation, Salvation. And Reprobation and Damnation, on the other side.

Predestination and the Decree of God, if in any thing they differ, it may seem to be chiefly in this, that use hath made Decree of a more large signi­fication, conteining the act of Gods supream Providence over all his Crea­tures; but Predestination is more properly appertaining to Man. Some have thought good yet farther to proceed in limiting the tearm Predestination, to the Elect only, and such as shall be saved; but St. Austine, and others that follow him, make it common to both the Saved and Damned. And Augustine speaking of the two Cities in the world, that of God, and that ofAug. in Civ. Dei, lib. [...]5. c. 1. the Devil, saith, One is predestinated to▪ reign for ever with God: the other to endure eternal punishment with the Devil. And so in several other pla­ces, which here I omit. Calvine is famous for the like freedom of speech in the Predestination of men to Damnation, and to Beza, and Martyr, and Aretius, and almost who not, that were of that Reformation? but the [Page 291] opinion of these must not pass for Austins opinion, without this remark­able distinction. Austine, and such Fathers as followed him (and it was some hundred of years before any Father of repute in the Church pre­sumed to confront him in his known doctrines, in this point) affirmed an infallible Predestination to Life and Death: but he did not so affirm it, that this should be done absolutely, without any consideration of the way and means leading thereunto: this those Divines now named held, and those of Dort generally, called the Supralapsarian way, very irrationally and impiously. Their main reason is this, That God could not be sub­ject to so much inconsiderateness, and imprudence, as no man of ordi­nary reason could be guilty of: viz. To make a thing before he knows what to do with it. First therefore they conclude, That God must pro­pound to himself a certain end, and that not common and general, which is his Glory: but special, to each man in the last state of all: and thence infer, That he must (as men call for several tools, or instruments for seve­ral works, and ends) predestinate the means thereunto. This argument was used long before Calvine, by Scotus, and in effect the same, though minc'd a little by him: who declares plainly that God must first propound to him­self an end, and then order the means agreeable to that end. Yet is Sco­tus suffer'd to pass, and little said to him: But Calvine bears all the blame. And surely blame-worthy he is. As on the other side, that later, rank, and careless Pen which would, by no means suffer that there should ine­vitable destruction attend any man of Gods making, because, forsooth, this were to make God like to a foolish workman, who should make a cu­rious work, only to destroy it, and break it to pieces. But setting aside the odiousness of the comparison, the thing it self supposed is false, and that many wayes: First, that it would be such a piece of impardonable fol­ly in a man to make a thing which he resolved to destroy again, when he had done his will with it. It is indeed hard to conceive that any man should be so stupid as to have no end of a thing, but that it might not be, so soon as it hath a beginning: for surely, either profit or delight intermediate was the principal, and rational Motives thereunto; and therefore secondarily he might ordain the very dissolution of his work: as a man doth, who having made a curious mould, breaks it to pieces, and so at first intended, before it was made; so soon as he had perfected his more principal intention. But were it so that this could not be done without extream folly on mans part; yet the same might be done without the least just suspicion of mistake on Gods part. For man is certainly a fool who studieth or laboureth about a thing which bringeth him no real advantage, or destroyes a thing which doth. But God receiving no such advantage from the saved, or such disadvantage from the damned; where is the imprudence? But last of all, Damnation is indeed destruction in the vul­gar, but not proper sense. The Person of the damned is as entire as to hisSi enim de ni­hilo creavit omnia non id­circo fecit, ut perderet quae creavit: sed ut illius mise­recordid quae creata sunt salvarentur. Hieronymus in cap. 12. Za­chariae. state of natural being as is that of the saved. And God may have his ends of glory, and certainly hath, from the misery of the Creature. But both this opinion and that of Calvine seem to make the ultimate tearm of Man the ul­timate end of God, though it be but for this arguments sake, and cannot do it generally or really. But the contrary is plainly the truer: that God pro­poundeth no other ultimate end than himself in his acts of Creation and Pro­vidence. And therefore, though God hath revealed himself (an act of his free Grace) in his holy Word, that he willeth not the death of a sinner: and much less of a person that is innocent before him; and it were most blasphemous [Page 292] to Gods truth and mercy to affirm, That, as the case stands between him and man, he will, or may condemn to everlasting pains, Man not justly de­serving them, yet there appears not any reason, considering the absolute dominion of the Creature belonging to him, that of himself he might not so have disposed of him. They may say, That God in justice can take a­way no more than he gave to his Creature: be it so. The capacity of the beatifical Vision God gave man: and therefore may take it away: And what is that but extream misery? Chrysostome makes the loss of Gods glorious pre­sence to be greater than the pains of sense suffered by the damned. And do we not see thus much before our eyes frequently, That God causes many to come into this world, who wear-out a miserable life without any good day, in continual languishings and sicknesses? Surely this is not without cause going before: But yet no more cause then is common to others, living in prosperity and ease.

This may be disputed, and perhaps, better omitted; but not so that opi­nion which makes irrespective Predestination to glory and misery, because God must first propound his end: making no great difference between the Predestination to the means of a good end, and the means towards a bad one: but that God, to bring about this, as well as that, doth with like concurse, and will, design evil means to evil ends, as he doth good to good ends; or that he is the direct Authour of sin to prepare men to damnation as he is of good acts leading to life and glory. These contain two great errours to be liked of no good Christian, for any mans great name, in Re­ligion or Reformation. For it is first, certain, that though sometimes in Scripture, the same name may be ascribed to Gods Providence in both, yet it is in a far different sense: as the Relation that Gods hand and powerQuia universa ista Massa me­ritò damnata est, con [...]umeli­am debitam reddit justitia, honorem inde­bitum reddit gratia. Aug. in sixto Epist. 105. hath towards things of a Positive, and real Nature, differs much from that, it hath towards things of nature Negative and Privative. Supposing then at present, the Fall of Man into sin and his liableness to the due wages or reward of sin, which necessarily follows thereupon, and the Mass (as they call it) of mankind to be corrupted, throughout; (whatever is excepted to the contrary) there appears no reason why God out of his absolute Right and Liberty might not have neglected the whole, and suffer'd it to perish ra­ther, than design'd it to ruin. Here then cometh in the discriminating will and hand of God: Some part of this he leaves, and some he chooses. Some part he ordaineth especially and directly to Life and Grace; and o­thers suffering to fall into deserved ruin, he is said to destine or predesti­nate to perish; and sometimes not only upon the stock of original pravity, odious sufficiently unto God, to provoke to that: but by actual and per­sonal impieties and errours, naturally tending to such ends. So that as it is necessary there should be an hand to lift a man up, who is fallen down and maimed, but no necessity that any hand should keep him down, or cast him lower: in like manner, to the raising of any part of that depraved Lump, it was absolutely necessary Gods Divine assistance should put to its saving hand; and these are said to be ordained, especially to Grace and Life: but suspending only, and denying the like grace and favour to others, he is said sometimes to ordain to death and sin, such; though speaking strict­ly it be no more than not ordaining to the contrary. For it is much the like case, as to form of speech, which we use in Humane and Di­vine matters. He (saith Christ) that is not with me is against me, Matth. 12. 30. and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. And our Saviour Christ rebuking the superstitious and morose Jews preferring their Sabbath [Page 293] before the life of a man, saith, I will ask you one thing. Is it lawful Luke 6. 9. on the Sabbath dayes to do good, or to do Evill? to save life or to destroy it? implying hereby, that it had been to destroy this impotent Creature, not to deliver him from the evil he was in: So likewise, speaking after the phrase and opinion of men (which the Scriptures do no less than hu­mane Authours) God is said to be against a man, when he is not for him, and to destroy him, when he saveth not his life, as Lactantius in a cer­tainQui succurrere perituro potest si non succur­rerit occidit. Lactan. place writeth thus. He that may help one that is ready to perish, and doth not help him, he slayes him. And if God may be said actually to destroy such, by withdrawing, or with-holding his saving Grace, deny­ing his favour; may he not be said reasonably and soberly to or­dain such to destruction, when only he doth not ordain him to Sal­vation?

There are two things which may seem to cross this: One that an im­putation may seem to fall on God, that he doth not that himself (being much more pitiful and good by nature, to his Creatures, than they are to one another) which he requireth, under pain of his displeasure, that men should do to one another; viz. relieve in necessity. This is no hard matter to answer, seeing the case is quite different; and we know no such law that is or can be upon God to do all the good he can, unto the Creature; as there is upon man to do so to his brother. But Man himself is not ty­ed by God to do a favour to other, whereby dammage should ensue un­to himself: And much less, God obliged to shew mercy in such manner, that he might suffer in his Justice, or dominion over his creature; which are more conspicuous; yea and his Mercy too, as to the Degree, though not extent of it, in adjudging some to their demerits, while he rescues o­thers from the like misery.

The other objection, which is principally Calvines above touch­ed, is, That by this God should act unreasonably, not propounding a certain end to himself, if he did not directly design the punish­ment of his Creature; but, as we have said, indirectly and obliquely: as if God had in some Actions no direct and peremptory intention▪ but this doth not follow. For no doubt but God had a direct and positive end in creating every particular thing, and especially man: And that intention was agreeable altogether to his own Nature, and his own Works, which were all good, good to both one, and other. And to glorifie man, and be glorified by him, in giving him immor­tality and life, and that without exception; but yet not without con­dition: which condition being on mans part violated; What hinders but Gods secondary end and intention should be to return the fruits of mans doings upon himself, and that without exception? For as St. Paul saith,Rom. 3. 23. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. And all were in a state of Desertion and Reprobation. But what if God pleases, seeing his Creature fallen to decay, to make it over again in Christ Jesus, and pro­pound2 Cor. 5. 17. to himself a new, and another end? A man hath a fair, handsome, and well-going horse: he chooseth him to himself to ride on: but he falls lame, and is turn'd off. He recovers him and puts him to his former use and ends: Is here any lightness or inconstancie in the owner? Are not all these things very reasonable? Could there be any such unreasonableness as to make one general and positive decree, that, come what will, his horse shall serve him to ride on? So undoubtedly, the general Decree, and first in nature and order, next to Gods glory, was in the creation of man, that he should serve [Page 294] him to his glory, and to the benefit of himself. But Man mutilating himself and becoming unserviceable to God, his Owner, and Master, was not the Decree of God very wise and just ordaining him to be a cast-a-way, so long as he continued in that state? And then recovering him by the Mediation of Christ, to ordain as many as took their cure, to life everlasting, and glory: and those who were incurable, or not cured, to everlasting death: this latter is plainly attributed to God by St. Jude, telling us of some, who were before ordained to condemnation: that is, in the sense even nowJude 4. explained, given over to condemnation by God: If we may make humane methods of any use to us in arriving at the knowledge of Gods proceed­ings (as hath been generally received) why may we not judge thus of Gods order of Causes? Especially having the consent of the Scripture, which thus speaks frequently, according to the several occasions given? And if it be said to be absurd, thus to judge of God, as unsetled in his knowledge and judgment, and being regulated by emergencies, We can well answer, as in other points of Anthropapathie, or Gods complyance with Mans ca­pacity in speaking after humane manner. And if God condescends, on purpose, that we should understand something of him to our edification, shall we transcend unnecessarily the limits of modesty, and content our selves with no other order, or less knowledge than God himself hath of himself and wayes? Gods acts, several in respect of us, may be simple in respect of himself, and one: but denominated and discriminated various­ly from the divers habitude of the Object. The simple eternal Will and Law of God is this, that the Righteous shall be saved, and the Unrigh­teous damned: This is his Predestination in general of all mankind: subordinate to this, are the several intermediate changes, the first being immutable. And it concerneth not to enquire, What kind of Righte­ousness this is, or whence, or how man comes by it? Whether he hath it as original Justice given him immediately of God at his first institution? or whether he hath it superadded and derived from Christ? This is certain which St. John saith: He that doth righteousness is righteous, even as he is [...] John 3. 7. righteous: whether this Righteousness comes by Nature, or Grace. And this is another infallible Rule which St. Peter delivereth in his Sermon toActs 10. 34, 35 Cornelius, That God is no respecter of Persons: But in every Nation, he that feareth him and worketh Righteousness, is accepted of him. Which is his most immutable Counsel and Decree of saving men: and the con­sideration whereof we should firmly and immoveably stick to and put in practise.

But because it is one principal part of our Righteousness, to agnize the Author and ground of it, that famous doubt ought here to be touched. Whether Righteousness be an effect of Predestination and Election, or the Cause thereof, with God.

The answer to this doth require that we be first satisfied in these three things, Predestination, Election, and Vocation, and the importance of them: and principally to note in order hereunto, that however later Au­thours (especially from St. Austins time downward) have invented, and that usefully and reasonably enough, several significations and impor­tances of them, which are not to be neglected; yet the Scriptures use them promiscuously: as may be seen from these instances; amongst many, Ephesians the first, the fourth and fifth, the Apostle saith, According as he hath chosen, i. e. Elected us in him, before the foun­dation Ephes. 1. 4, 5. of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in [Page 295] love. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. Where Beza him­self in his Annotations will allow Election in the fourth verse, to signifie the same as doth Predestination in the fifth. And that Vocation is taken for both1 Pet. 1. 10. may be gathered from St. Peters words, saying: Who hath called us unto his eternal glory. And it is as certain that St. Austine also so confounds them, diverse times: nevertheless they have their distinct conceptions, which may be these. For first, Predestination or Fore-ordination, ac­cording to Scripture it self, will admit of a contrary object; And there is a Predestination to Evil as well as to Good, but in a different sense. For as we have shown, when God is said to ordain to Evil, it must be rather understood in the Negative sense, when he ordains not to Good, but deli­vers over men to the commission of sin. But Election is alwayes in a good sense, as is also Vocation: and are but so many progressions of Divine Pro­vidence in the salvation of the Faithful: and not specifically distinct Spe­cies, or kinds of acts: as doth appear from St. Pauls accurate use, andRom. 8. 25, 30 placing of them in his Epistle to the Romans. Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to—Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them be also glorified. Where the Apostle explain­ing the order of Gods proceeding in the saving of man, makes a commu­tation of tearms expressing it. For here Fore-knowledge is not that simple Intuition whereby he knows all things, but that effectual knowledg, founded on a precedent Decree; which is the same with Predestination, as now commonly used. And that Predestination here is the same with Election, is probable from that it is added to be conformed to the image of his Son: and Calling is actuating of that Election and Predestination. So that Predestination is alwayes understood as an act of Gods counsel; and Election (when taken properly as distinct from that) is an act outward, whereby it pleaseth God to take to his special favour, certain persons, and pass over others: And Vocation seemeth to be nothing else strictly taken, than that outward means, or ministry whereby such are chosen to God: As a man first propounds several objects to himself, next he pitches upon one, and determines to take it; thirdly he actually makes choice of the same, by some special signal of his will. And this God commonly doing by word of mouth, calling him to him, hath given ground to that form of speech in Scripture of being called, and calling: the pub­lication and ministration of the Gospel of Grace being that word of Gods mouth, by which a man is selected from the rout and refuse of the World, to the means of Grace, Justification, and Glory. This I take to be the simplest and soberest state of this perplexed mystery: In which I suppose it necessary to be advised how we stick too religiously to the tearms Predestination, Election, and Vocation, because of their mu­table signification in Scripture: which must needs confound an immutable adherer to any one sense precisely: and that such words must be under­stood rather from the relation they have one to another, and the matter treated of, as also the occasions, than according to any simple sound of them.

And therefore to return to the Question moved concerning Righteous­ness as an effect, or cause of Predestination, Election, and Vocation, it must be answered from the distinct consideration of these tearms. For when all these (as sometimes) are Synonymous, and the same with that [Page 296] Pre-determination of Almighty God to Grace (For there is a Predestina­tion and Election and Vocation to Grace, as the means, as well as to Glory, the End,) then it can be, in no tolerable sense, said, That grace is the cause of such special acts of God. Neither doth any prevision in God of accep­tation of grace, of complyance with, and obedience to Gods will, move to Elect, or Call any man: and that upon that sure ground of Thomas: be­cause,Thom. 3. Q. 2. 11. c. there can be no possible way of meriting without Grace, for Grace is the first Principle or beginning of all merit: and nothing can be a cause, or so much as conduce to its own being: But the inclining of God to such a thing must come under the notion of meriting, or to speak more agreeably to our ears, doing well before God. And therefore they much more truly may be said to be the direct cause of Grace. And this not as some Pelagian Hereticks supposed, at last by constraint of argument; for the more ready and easie operation of mans will; but simply to will that which is good. Nay St. Austine saith, and that truly, the same of mans Under­standing,De Spir. & Li­tera. ca. 7. as Will. For he holds forth his mercy not because they do know, but to the end they may know: Neither because they are of a right heart, but that they may be right of heart, doth he hold forth his Righteousness where­by he justifieth the ungodly. So that provision of good Works, or Faith, as the reason inclining God to confer Grace, simply, is altogether inconsi­stent with the Holy Scriptures, and the freeness of Gods grace asserted plentifully therein.

But there is another and farther tearm of Gods Predestination, Electi­on, and Vocation, which is to his Kingdome of Glory, and the Reward not of the merit, but work of Faith and Holiness. And to these no doubt, but we are ordained and elected, and called as the end, by those means. This is that St. Paul intended in that place to the Romans above quoted: and in the second chapter; telling us, God will render to every man accord­ing Rom. 2. v. 6. 10. to his deeds.—and glory, honour, and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentiles. Christ tells us in the twentieth chapter of St. Matthew, that to set on his right hand and on his left in Matth. 20. 23. Matth. 25. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. his Kingdom, shall be given to them, for whom it is prepared: and in the 25th, who they are for whom it is so prepared, from the foundation of the world; viz. the Righteous; and moreover, who are the Righteous: namely, such who abounded in good works there particularly mentioned. And to this may be referred most of those speeches at large, falling from the most eminent Fathers of the Church, before the time of Austine; wherein they affirm, that God elected some and not others, upon the fore-sight of good works in them, and obedience; others rejecting for their disobedience. Thus spake Origen, thus Chrysostome, Nazianzene, Ambrose, and Hierome too, who wrote as expresly as Austine, against such a freedom of the will which should give any occasion to God to confer his first Grace on man; all mean­ing no more than the election of man to glory, upon the intuition of Grace. Now if this opinion should be strained to the highest, it would not rise to this, that God did choose any man simply and primarily for his works sake, or his faith fore-seen; for, as is shewed, God elected simply to that, and not for that: but the most may be wrung out of it, is too great a pro­pinquity to Merit: But neither doth this follow; seeing they, who say, God in such an order, i. e. after grace, & upon such an occasion, as those good works of which God is no less a principle cause than Man, doth choose to confer glory on a man, or ordain him to life, do not say, that such fore-seen works bear a proportion to such glory or reward. The Scriptures, which plainly [Page 297] affirms the former, exclude the latter, making it a matter of free promise in the original, and the gift of God, together with mans work; as especi­ally to the Romans St. Paul doth; Now being made free from sin, and be­come Rom. 6. 22, 23. servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ. There is nothing therefore more consonant to reason, no­thing better reconciles the seeming jarrs of the ancient Fathers before, and about the time of Austin, with that more wary and exact state and de­fence of the Question concerning Gods election of man, upon pre-vision of Faith and Obedience, (alwayes including Christs obedience and merits) and the freeness of his Grace in electing. And nothing reconciles the Scriptures more clearly, than the opinion which allows God to be the sole reason of his own will, and the author of his Grace of Sanctification and Salvation also; and yet holdeth such an order between these, that God doth not choose any man to his free and immerited Grace of Salvation, but through and upon consideration (I do not say, valuable and proportio­nable in weight and worth, but in nature) of the state of Sanctification, going before. Does not St. Paul render it as a reason, why God was to be glorified in his Saints, when he came to take vengeance of his adversaries; Because our testimony among you was believed? And did not the Master of2 Thes. 1. 10. Mat. 20. 2. the Vineyard, who is Christ, fore-ordain a penny to the Labourers, in consideration of their labour foregoing? Doth not St. James say the veryJam. 1. 12. same, in these words? Blessed is the man that endureth temptations, for when he is tried, he shall receive the Crown of life, which the Lord hath pro­mised to them that love him. Surely, that which man promiseth upon a condition, he doth not ordinarily bestow, before that condition be per­formed, but ordains it to follow upon it. And to the same purpose speaks St. John too in the Apocalypse, Be thou faithful unto death, and I will Rev. 2. 10. give thee a Crown of life.

But perhaps they think, there remains some force in Calvins argument, still, against this; and that God must be obnoxious to that imprudence, that ordinary men are not, if he did not first propound the end, and then make all means to conform, and conduce to it; so that man should first be ordian'd to his end of glory or misery, before he is. All this I grant, and yet grant them nothing; and this is all they are like to get, from con­founding the inward and secret acts of God, with his outward, or the De­crees of God, with the execution of them; as Twiss notoriously doth, inTwissius Ani­madvers. in Collat. Arm. cum Jun. p. 1, 2. his entrance to the Animadversions, on the Conference between Arminius and Junius. It is certain, that God doth decree a man to his end, before he is; but doth he ordain him to such an end, before he ordains him to be at all? or doth God give him possession of Glory, before he gives him ca­pacity?

The summe of what I am to say, is this, That, First, Gods Providence ordaineth that man shall be, and then ordaineth that he shall be of such a condition, and to such an end; and then he giveth him an actual Being; and then according to the state he is found in, brings him to his proper end; and not in that unnatural, preposterous, and irrational method, de­termines him absolutely to an end, before he determines his Being at all. And those places of Scripture alledged to defend this presumption, do ra­ther overthrow it; as that amongst others, The children being not yet born, Rom. 9. 11, 12. neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to ele­ction might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, [Page 298] The elder shall serve the younger. I readily here grant a parity be­tween Gods electing to spiritual and temporal ends, which this ar­gument supposeth; but I do not grant, That it was Gods purpose, that the elder should serve the younger, before it was his purpose that they both should be; or that the execution of this Decree did not depend upon the execution of means leading unto it. So that, when it is said, God first, as man, ordains the end, and then the means conducing unto it; it is true only, when it relates to the end of the Ordainer, not of the thing ordained, which hath its end really di­stinct from that general one. Man propoundeth to himself profit, and then ordains some proper means tending to it: He purposes to make a Statue, and then purposes to make him a Tool proper to that piece of work. He purposes indeed first that such work shall be done by a Tool, but he doth not purpose that this individual Tool shall do it, before it hath a Being: So God first purposeth his Glory, as the ultimate end; next, he decreeth that man shall contribute to that end, in the several methods of accomplishing it; but he doth not purpose, that any individual man, as Jacob and Esau, shall proceed this way, or that way, before he hath con­ceived a purpose to give them a Being. And thus farre of the first part of Gods Providence, in ordaining acts of Grace and Mercy.

CHAP. XII.

AS the former proceedings of God with mankind declared his Mercy, so do these here celebrate his Dominion and Justice, in order to the Creature. And as St. Chrysostome well ob­serves in a certain Homily: As in a well-ordered City, it is as necessary there should be Prisons, and places of Executi­on, as places of honour, and bountiful rewards, propounded; so is it in the world: Gods wisdom, nay (Chrysostome in another place sayes) his [...] &c. Chrysost. Homil. 7. Antioch. mercy is as truly seen in ordaining Hell as Heaven, in that upon the thoughts of its torments many are reduced to sober and good life, whom vertue or promises of happiness would not reclaim. But here we are to consider the manner and reason of Gods severity towards his Creature, in these two formidable acts of his just Providence.

Before we can make any tolerable description of which, it will be very necessary to distinguish them. For the total neglect hereof, (as with the author of Gods Love to Mankind, in the very entrance of his Book, con­founding miserably these two) or the mistake in the due division, which error Petavius falls into, where he tells us, Divines are commonly wontPetavius Dog­mat. Theolog. l. 9. c. 9. To. 1. to make a two fold Reprobation; One, negative, as they call it, (which is as much as Praeterition) or, not electing—The other, Reprobation, is Positive, whereby he not only passes by those persons, and relinquishes them, but also adjudges them to eternal punishment. And this displeases him so far, as to the ground of it, that he strains hard by the help of Tertullian, to make this a branch of Marcions Heresie, but in vain; for the things are in themselves really and worthily by many learned Divines, distinguished; but who are they that bungle so in the framing of such a distinction, I be­lieve he no more can, than he doth tell. Reprobation we do indeed make Positive and Negative, but we make Damnation none of them; for we may distinguish a two-fold act in God and in Man, the one opposed to good, wanting in the object to be chosen, and that may be called, Reprobation, or refusal Negative, which refuses the object either upon meer absolute pleasure, or some such absence or want of good, which might make it eli­gible. The other is more Positive, when there is found somewhat in the object, which addeth unto the want of good, the presence of evil opposite and odious unto the chooser. Now taking Reprobation, as it is opposed to Predestination (as some do) then, as they say, Predestination supposeth nothing in the object to move God to ordain a thing simply, or respective­ly▪ [Page 300] to such an end. So may it be said of Reprobation, that it necessarily supposes nothing in the object, causing God to turn from it; whereupon Picus Mirandola determines thus, according to Thomas: A reason may be Joan. Picus Mirandol. Co [...] ­ [...]lus. 6. secund. Thom. given from the divine goodness, of the Predestination of some, and the Re­probation of others; and the divine will is the only reason, that those he rejects, and chooses others unto glory. This may well be allowed, from the supream and absolute dominion of G d over all things, so far especially as may amount to a denial of beatitude to the Creature capable of it, and a with­drawing of not only the Grace, but common influence of God from the Creature, upon which it should return, from whence it came to nothing. But it grates hard upon the natural goodness of God, to affirm, that the divine will should indulge so much to its absolute Soveraignty, as, no cause preceding, to conceive an hatred or indignation against the work of its own hands, as to sentence it directly to everlasting, or indeed momenta­ny pains; seeing God cannot be unjust, or properly cruel one moment, any more than he can be eternally. Neither can he unreasonably afflict the body, or damnifie a man in his estate, any more than he can punish the soul in Hell. Of all these therefore, the Question is but one, What ground can be assigned of Gods pleasure, or rather displeasure herein?

To this therefore according to the distinction mentioned, answer may be: That of the negative will of God, seen in Preterition, or not electing some to some high ends, (which we also call here negative Reprobation) no reason can be given, or ought to be sought, out of Gods divine will, as Picus hath rightly determined. But as commonly it is seen, when the Master of the Family is gone out, the house falls into disorder, and so finding it, he sentences his servants to their several punishments, or may turn them out of doors: So God having the liberty to depart from his Creature, at his pleasure, in this way of Preterition, whether Supralapsa­rian, or Sublapsarian, there doth, upon that, spring up from it, evil, and disorder in the soul, contrary to Gods will revealed, which he refle­cting upon, may safely and justly decree to entertain it in his favour no longer, but reprobating it, adjudge it to the punishment deserved. God doth not therefore primarily (as some have boldly delivered) propound to himself the positive pains and ruine of any Creature, no inducement, no grounds going before, but he may very well in a negative sense, be said to reprobate it, not affording those preservatives needfull to its se­curity.

This doth sufficiently appear, in the first act of his Reprobation of men and Angels, whom, without all doubt, he could have preserved in their original state; but he freely refused, and they both freely chose to leave him, and expose themselves to his severest judgement, which was by this positive Reprobation, to bring them under the effects of their sins, dam­nation. So that they who deny any cause out of God, of his first Repro­bation, do not deny a cause sufficient of his second, and positive; but the Devils, and those men as are signaliz'd Reprobates, are undoubtedly the free and full authors of Gods reprobating them, and condemning them in this manner. Of the Angels, St. Peter and Jude speak expresly, ren­dring2 Pet. 2. 4. their offences, a reason why God proceeded so against them, and not the simple will of him. God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down to Hell, and delivered them to chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. And the same is repeated by St. Jude. And when God saithJude 6. Gen. 2. 17. in hie Covenant with Adam, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely [Page 301] dye: he implyeth the reason of his Decree to punishment, to be sin. And when the Wise man exhorteth saying, Seek not death in the error of your life, Wisd. 1. 12. and pull not upon your selves destruction with your own hands: he doth ne­cessarily imply a direct cause in Man of his own ruine. And the words13. following exempt God from any hand in such things, as the Author. For God (saith he) made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the li­ving. And here come in that, in its due place, though it were not intend­ed of a spiritual or eternal destruction, O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self. For though without any supposition taken from the Creature, God may pass him over, and deny him grace and glory, yet doth he not design any man directly to damnation, but upon supposition of sin going before.

And from this state of things, may competent reconciliation be made to the seeming oppositions of Scripture, and to St. Austin himself. The Scri­ptures say, Because thou hast rejected knowledg, I will also reject thee. AndHos. 4. 6. Mat. 23. 37. Luk. 8. 18. by St. Matthew, How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a Hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not? And Who­soever hath not, from him shall be taken, even that which he seemeth to have. And St. John, Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. And in theJoh. 5. 40. Act. 13. 46. Acts, Paul and Barnahas, It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken unto you, but seeing ye put it from you, and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life. And St. Peter, God—is not willing that a­ny Note: 2 pet. 3. 9. Isa. 5. 3, 4. should perish, &c. And amongst others, that of the Prophet Esay must not be forgot, And now O Inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my Vineyard: What could I have done more to my Vineyard, that I have not done in it? All which places, and divers more, do charge man altogether with his own misery. On the other side, in thatGen. 1. 26. the Scriptures tell us, how God made man according to his own image, whereof freedom of will was no small portion. And in Deuteronomy, Ye Deut. 29. 2. have seen all that the Lord aid before your eyes in the land of Egypt, unto Pha­roah and unto all his servants, and to all Land.—Yet the Lord hath not 4. given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And in Jeremy; Turn thou me, O Lord, and I shall be turned. And Eze­kiel, Jer. 31. 18. Lam. 5. 41. Ezek. 36. 26. I will give you a new heart also, and a new spirit will I put into you, and will take away the stony heart of your flesh, and will give you an heart of flesh. And St. Matthew, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it Mat. 19. 11. Joh. 6. 44. Joh. 12. 39, 40. is given. And Christ in St. John, saith, No man can come unto me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And elsewhere, Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts. And the whole ninth Chapter to the Romans migh­tilyRom. 9. 16. favours this side, of which the substance seems to be contained in this one Verse, So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. And to the Philippians, To will and to do is of Phil. 2. 13. God. These with others seem to deny liberty of will to man, and to as­cribe the reason of good and evil, to which man is subject, to God, as the author, making man rather passive under both.

To that of Free-will, we may speak by and by. To the present case, taking in also what St. Austin saith, God doth not forsake but where he is for­saken; which may ill consist, with what he so largely and often delivers on the other side; we answer, by the help of the former distinction of sim­ple Preterition, and direct Reprobation, and the effect of it, damnation, viz. That the foresaid places suppose an evil affection in the parties so rejected by God, and are to be interpreted of his just determination to punish sin, [Page 302] and hard-heartedness in them. But the incapacity of Grace and Conver­sion, and Salvation, are meant by the latter Texts, proceeding from the sole Preterition of God, refusing to prevent the evil and malignity of mens wills, which for want of that preventing Grace do certainly tend to evil, and are incurable of themselves.

But upon this I see divers shrewd Objections to arise; as, First, That by this with-holding of Gods Grace, his Preterition, there is brought a necessity upon mans will to evil, and his indifferency to life and death quite taken away, as all use of the means of Grace.

To this we have in good degree answered before, and there shewed, how that the fore-knowledge in God of mans fixed estate, whether by his own will electing, as they say, freely, or Gods will determining, (which fore-knowledge is yielded to God by these Objectors) doth oblige them, as well as me, to shew what profit it would be to man, to move or endea­vour towards Grace and Life, when he is already determined; only this is the difference between them: The one seems to hold, That God by an an­tecedent act drives the nail, whereby man is immoveably fastned to one thing; and the other holds, That by a subsequent act of knowledge, he clincheth it, which man himself drove, so that it can never stir. St. Au­gustine Aug. Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 5. confuting Tullies opinion of Fate impending over all things, doth notwithstanding confess, and affirm plainly, They are much more to be tole­rated, who hold a Sydereal Fate, than he that takes from God the praescience of things future; for, says he, it is most apparent madness for to grant there is a God, and to deny he foresees things future. And they that put the cuestion to this issue, have mended the matter very little, or reliev'd themselves, all necessity and certainty being a direct enemy to their design of setting man free to do what he list, and change his fortune (as we say) at his pleasure.

I find in a very grave and learned Author, a distinction which I find no where else, designed to ease this doubt, between Inevitable and Infallible, which in truth are not distinct; and therefore he is constrained contrary to the agreed way of speech, to make Infallible the same with Necessary, whereas the distinction is between Necessity and Infallibility, or Inevita­bility, which is the very same: For what is infallible, but that whose act or object shall have a certain event; and this event not to be avoided or de­clined, is called, Inevitable. But whether the Necessity of Causes be such, that this event must in nature succeéd, is the question; and that notwithstanding the Inevitableness or Infallibility of the event, there may not be free motions in the Cause, tending to that event. So that, for in­stance, a man may freely choose and will to do that which he certainly shall choose; and consequently be properly and truly said to be author of the same, be it his damnation or salvation.

But you will say, If Gods Preterition be such, that a man is unable to move himself to saving good without it, then must he infallibly fall into sin, and necessarily, and after this, all counsels and comm [...]nations, and exhor­tations, come to nothing, and are in vain. Nay, unless there be unrigh­teousness with God, man cannot be judged for not doing that which he can­not do, is not in his power.

To this St. Augustines Answer is this, Because the whole Mass was Aug. Epist. 105 sixte. damned deservedly [in Adam] God repays its deserved reproach, and bestows an undeserved honour, by Grace, not by any prerogative of merit, not by necessity of Fate, not by the unsteadiness of fortune, but by the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, which the Aposile doth not open, but admires concealed, crying out, O the depth of the [Page 303] wisdom! &c. But if this yet doth not absolutely satisfie, as I know, it doth not some, because, say they, it is to delude man to offer that and exhort to that, which it is impossible to attain to; (so that though God by his absolute and divine Prerogative, might have deserted man, yet it stands not with his natural equity or simplicity to­wards his Creature, to exhort and threaten, when there is such inevitable necessity upon him, and condemn him for not doing that, which he knows he cannot do without him, refusing effectually to assist him.) I answer, It might very well call in question, the fair dealing of God towards his Creature, if so be he should make an act for him, after he was disabled to observe and perform the same, not assisting him to the performance of his will. But God doth not so; for though the Command stands in force against him, yet it was not prepared for him in his destitute condition; and no reason, that Gods right of ruling should change with the vanity of the Creature. It suffices, that once it was proportionable to him, and that the impotency now pleaded is owing to himself, and that Gods Laws now are rather recited and propounded to him, than made for him, in the condition he is in. But secondly, Gods Commands indeed though but urged anew, should be ludicrous and in vain, did they totally miss of their ends, in being thus repeated and inculcated, if they had no success. But so it is not, as though the Word of God had taken no effect. For they are Rom. 9. 6. not all Israel wh are of Israel, as St. Paul hath it; that is, the case is not the same with all men. For as St. Paul afterwards, What then? Israel Rom. 11. 7. hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. It sufficiently answers the purpose of God, in giving his Law, and admonishing, and threatning, and promising there­upon, that it obtaineth its ends upon the election. For how many things else might we accuse God and Nature for sending▪us, when they do no good at all, that we can perceive, but rather mischiefs? As deluges of waters in a wet time; and in droughts, great showers of rain, emptying themselves into the Sea, or sandy deserts, from whence nothing springs answerable to such divine bounty? But we are taught, that God and Nature made things and ordained them in their kind, useful for the Universe, and never by a particular purpose, that every single act or part should have the same vi­sible and proportionable effect, that the whole hath. And so in the di­spensations of his spiritual Graces, it suffices to acquit and justifie divine providence, that they have their due ends, though not the same that man may expect, who certainly would never have it rain (might he order matters and choose) but at such times, and in such places, as he thinks fit, and then, alwayes. Again, It would go harder against this opinion, if so be that the only end why God published his Word, and gave his Laws, we [...]e to convert men, that they might be saved. This is indeed a principal, but not the only intent God hath, but the publication of Gods holiness, and justice, and righteousness, and mercy, and the like glorious attributes, in which publication God is much more known, admired, and glorified by wicked men, and reprobates, than otherwise, though they oppose and dislike the same, even against their own wills, giving such like glory to God on earth, as they shall in Hell hereafter: And we know, that no accession of real good being possible to be made to God, the out­ward manifestation is of principal concernment. Last of all, Could there be an infallible discriminating note, made between the incorrigible repro­bates destined to destruction, and the corrigible offender ordained to life, [Page 304] then indeed much more colour would appear, to justifie the refusal of di­spensing the means of salvation to such, and the denial in the reprobate, to give ear to such offers; but flesh and bloud cannot reveal this to us, and the Spirit of God hath not. Doth not God send his Prophet Ezekiel, withEzek. 3. 4. 7. express commission to warn the house of Israel, though he expresly assures him, They will not hearken unto thee, for they will not hearken unto me. If the child in the womb, being certainly determin'd to one sex long before it is brought forth, yet this certainty being hid from our eyes, (though but for such a small time) is thought by Parents a matter of prayer many times, that it may be a Son: How should not we much rather, take the just occasion of applying our selves to acts of Religion, though possibly the event with God is determined? The summe then of this Chapter comes to this; That God by his soveraign dominion, and by his inscrutable coun­sels, doth, out of the corrupted and forlorn mass of fallen man, elect whom he pleases, to effectual Grace, and from thence brings them to infalli­ble Glory, but never without their own acts of embracing his offers, and persevering faithfully in his service. So that though he purely chooses them to the means of Grace, without consideration of their worth or fruit­fulness, yet he never ordains any, or elects them to Glory, but upon an in­tuition of faith, and obedience to his will. And on the other side, he pas­ses by others, leaving them in great part as he found them, from whence spring works of wickedness, freely invented and acted, and tending in­fallibly unto damnation. So that God doth not in like manner influence the wicked, as he doth the righteous, that is, for no other cause but his own will, taking occasion justly from that common deformity, wherein he finds them, but never simply destinates any man to damnation, but upon beholding the deserts of their sins. But how it can come to pass, that God thus ordaining the end, damnation, should not also appoint the means, sin, without which he condemns no man, shall be answered in a more proper place. Here only I add, for their sakes, who measure opi­nions by famous Patrons, to which they are addicted, that as I have said nothing to comply with, or spitefully to oppose Calvin and his followers, so neither to cross Arminius: But this I must say, that though I look upon Arminius as a much more modest man, and more judicious Disputant than Calvin, in these deep points; yet in their followers, we shall easily see a great disparity, to the disadvantage of the Remonstrants: For very many of Calvins followers have mitigated, and fairly interpreted his too harsh and scandalous expressions and opinions, and I think, none have gone be­yond him. But on the other side, what Arminius with much modesty and gravity delivered erroneously, his abettors and followers have pursued and improved, many of them, to such an intollerable height, that they fall often into direct Pelagianism, and from thence, which is much worse, into Socinianisin, as experience plainly sheweth.

And to that Dutch Physician, Emperick in this part of Divinity, whoBeverovicius. protested against all ministration of Physick to sick persons, unless he could be assured of a mutability in the term of his Patients life, (for I must openly profess the same reason of Gods Providence, and pre-deter­mination to temporal life and death, as spiritual and eternal, and they are equally fixt, and moveable both of them) it suffices to answer, Then he may let it alone; and no absurdity follows. But because a very learned and grave Divine of ours, seemeth to have given some weight to the argu­ment, by citiug him to our present purpose, I answer further, That no [Page 305] such thing is said to be so precisely and simply [...]ecreed, [...]ut it is as necessa­ry the means should be determined as the end: God hath determined no effect, but he hath determined the proper cause thereto conducing. And it is as false that God hath determined that such a man should recover his health, as that he sha [...]l do it without such proper means. The means comming under the decree as well as the end. It will be said, that this takes away all liberty from man, as well in the way, as to the end: And probably, Beverovicius if he had thought on this, though he had been as­sured that the tearm of mans life was moveable, but the means-thereto un­moveable, would never have read book about physick, nor stir'd off his seat to any patient: because whatever he did; or not did, the means should have been applyed, and succeeded to the sick party. But because we are sure we cannot go out of our Island on foot, shall we not stir out of doors at all? Because we cannot do what we would, and go as far as we would, shall we not do any thing at all? Because our Liberties do not reach beyond Gods Mannor, and priviledge the second cause from the autority and influence of the first, shall we be sulle in and dogged, and re­fuse that which we Certainly, whatever plausible suggestions may of late have been instilled into the common peoples minds of a free subje­ction; it can never be rightly and honestly understood of a freedom from the Supream Power and Justice: And so, whatever liberty of will may be claimed to man in his actions, must be interpreted rather in relation to his fellow creatures, and subjects, and outward causes, which cannot impose upon his will; but the first cause may, in that cannatural way we before mentioned: and in the next place shall have occasion offered, farther to explain.

CHAP. XIII.

THE near respect that Sin hath to what is passed, and the aspect it hath to what is before us, concerning the Provi­dence of God in the Fall of Man from his native Righteous­ness, oblige us here to enquire farther into the nature of it. And slightly passing over that doubt of some Philosophers and Ancient Hereticks, How, if there were a God, who is supreamly and infinitely good, and no more but one, Evil should find any being amongst the beautiful works of God, its nature being so foul, monstrous, and con­trary to God? because it is touched above, and in truth do adde rather a greater beauty and lustre to God works than if no such thing were to be found, and because as the glory, so the power of God is much more mani­fested thereby, in that he curbs and checks its excess and exorbitancie, at his pleasure, and forces it by his providence to a good event in general, if not particular; we are now to satisfie our selves, What that we call E­vil and Sin, is: And what relation God hath to it?

First then we are to note that Evil and Sin differ only as Genus and Species, so that all Sin is Evil, but all Evil is not Sin. Evil is that which is contrary to nature or natural Good. Sin is that which is contrary to grace and moral good. And that which is contrary to the order, rule, and form of Nature is called Monstrous; that which is contrary to the Rule of Justice and Holiness, is called Sin. And as monstrosity in nature is divided into defects and excesses: So Sin in morality is divided into O­missions and Commissions. And of neither of these can God be said to be the Authour; or Nature under him: For if Nature, according to Philoso­phers, which is but Gods Instrument, doth not intend monstrous effects, much less may God be said so to do, whose acts are alwayes more constant and steady, the higher they are, and nearer to himself. For (to give an instance) when we see a want of a limb in a monstrous birth, it may so far be imputed to Divine Providence, that it could not so happen with­out the knowledge and consent of the Supream Cause in whose power it was to have disposed outward and second causes to the effecting of a re­gular and perfect work: yet directly, and with a positive purpose to have assisted in the production of such a Monster, we cannot safely nor wisely [Page 307] say, seeing the denyal of that ordinary and more necessary concurrence to such an end is altogether sufficient to it: and such defects arise not from Gods positive Will to have them so, but from his not willing to have them o­therwise.

There may seem somewhat more difficulty in Monsters in excess, when any Creatures have more parts than are naturally proper to them, as four hands, or three leggs, and the like: But this proves not any direct in­tention to this, but only an intention not to keep things in their proper limits, and to their Rule. A Master or Father when he holds not a severe hand over his child or servant, cannot but by inference and consequence, be said to be the cause of the exorbitant carriages of them; because though he wills not to prevent such mischiefs, he doth not will they should be. God in like manner willeth redundance of matter, as a thing real and posi­tive, but that it should meet together as to constitute such an unnatural effect, is rather the suspence and with-holding his Providence then the ex­ercising of the same.

This I premise as leading to the due apprehension of Moral Evil: which to hold as such to have a positive Existence in the world, is inevitably to become Manichean, and to make God the Authour of sin: as St. Austin in these words declareth. Here we are to be careful that we fall not into the Herisee of the Manichees, who said there was a certain Nature of Evil, and a certain people of darkness with their Princes: And afterward; So they erre, so they are blinded, so they make themselves the people [Gentem Te­nebrarum] of darkness, by believing that which is false, against him who created them, for every Creature is good, but it is corrupted by the depraved will of Man. Thus he: and were it so that Evil had a positive being, from whom could it proceed but from God? And it is repugnant to the Nature of the good God to be the Author of any thing simply Evil, so far the Manicheans were in the right: therefore they that hold this, must with the Manichees invent and introduce another God. I know the modern defenders of the positive nature of sin alledge several School­men and some Fathers, for the same: but I know there are more ex­press testimonies of the Ancient against it, and the Modern of any ac­count had either another sense than we now state the doubt in, or must be rejected with their Relater: It is not a place here to examine and encounter all: nor to alledge the Reasons or Authorities to the contra­ry, which might easily be done. Only that Argument taken from the distinction of Sins of Omission and Commission, deserves to be consi­dered. For, say they, if Sins of Omission consist only in defect of duty, and are thereby distinguished from of Commission (which are such as not only fall short of what is due, but act the quite contrary, as when a man instead of praying, and praising God contumeliously abuses his Name and Worship) this hath more in it than a meer negation or pri­vation of good. Thus indeed it seems, but thus it is not. For both these are evil upon the account of privation and the absence of good: the difference only is in this, that in sins of Omission, the privativeness or negation is immediately seated in the Subject owing such an Act, and in such a manner; and here, in no Action at all, but the ab­sence of it, which renders a man and denominates him immediately evil, or defective. But in sins of Commission, the case is far other­wise, for here privation or defect relateth not immediately to the Subject, as the Man himself, but to the Action it self; and by that [Page 308] is the Man made guilty, and evil: because though the act be in its nature positive, yet is defective as to its circumstances; according to which it ought to be performed. For when God hath appointed, and Justice and Reason directeth that a man should observe in his action such a time and sea­son, and such a place, and have respect to such a person, such a manner, and measure; and he neglecteth all, or any of these, doth he not plainly offend in the negative, though the act it self be in nature positive? But in the case we are about, the Nature (as we said) of things is not to be valued, but the Morality: and the Morality may be evil, when the Nature is good: and the Morality may be privative, when the Act is positive. Hatred of God is an act of Man, than which none can be instanced in, to contain more evil or malice. Therefore as this is an act Natural and Vital, it is good, and hath God for its direct and first cause; but as this act is directed to God, and so relates to a wrong object, so it is evil, and hath neither countenance nor concurrence from him. For as is above-touched, we are to distinguishOmne bonum viva substantia est, & vita est. Vita autem Christus. Omne autem malum sine substantia est, & nihil est—& tamen perdere protest. Opus Imperf. in Matth. Hom. 41. [...]. Chrysost. Ho­mil. 2. in Act. Apost. Anselmus de Casu Diaboli. Tom. 3. the Act of Sin, from the Sin of the Act: and that upon the received Maxime amongst the Philosophers, That all Evil is in somewhat that is Good: for ha­ving no subsistence of it self, it must rest upon some other thing that hath a real being; as a ruinous and crased house resteth upon a sound foundation. And it is distinguished from it, as the matter from the form: for though evil hath no such proper matter as other real Beings have (for if it had, it should it self also be real in nature, and of it self,) yet hath it somewhat propor­tionable and answerable thereunto, in that it affecteth such a Person im­mediately, as sins of omission or such an act as proceedeth from him: where­upon Aristotle saith well in a certain place, Privation is a certain habit, though taken properly nothing is more contrary to habit than Privation, whose na­ture it is to be the absence and want of Habit: and nothing by that Philo­sopher opposed more to habit than Privation.

I might here set down the opinions and testimonies of diverse Philoso­phers and Fathers expresly declaring against the positive nature of sin: but I shall rather compose the disputation, by giving Anselmes judgment of the case, than whom none have disputed the matter more acutely, of his Age. In his eleventh Chapter of his Dialogue concerning the fall of the Devil, he asks, How Nothing and Evil should signifie any thing; whereas Evil is altogether Privative: and there he answers, Although Evil and Nihil signifieth something; yet that which is signified, is not Evil or Nothing; but some other manner whereby they signifie something. And that which is signifi­ed is somewhat, but yet not really somewhat, but, as it were somewhat. Ma­ny things are spoken after a certain form, which are not in very deed. And to fear, according to the form of the word, doth signifie somewhat Active, when as it is Passive according to the thing it self. And so Blindness, &c. And after­ward in the 26th Chapter of that Treatise he speaketh thus; Evil which is called unrighteousness is alwayes, Nothing: But Evil which is Incommodi­ousness, sometimes without doubt, is Nothing, as Blindness. Aliquando est aliquid, Sometimes is something, as Sadness and Pain. And Chapter the 27th; He gives the general reason why Evil cannot be Any thing, viz. Because if it were any thing, it must be of God. Thus he: who we see distinguisheth Evil, first into that of sin, and that of punishment, or In­commoditas, as he calls it. And that of punishment he again distinguishes into meerly Privative, as blindness: and Positive, which is in sufferingP [...]na Damni, and paena Sen­sus. pains: which is the same with the common distinction of Punishment of dammage or loss, and punishment of sense so well known in the Schools: [Page 309] And we may easily yield that all Evil of Punishment is positive, though it be not, and yet retain our opinion, which runs only upon the Evil of Sin. I know Augustine, than whom it is well known no man speaks more expres­ly for the privative nature of all Sin, and Thomas and Cajetane, and others are alledged to have asserted a real Being of Concupiscence in man, which undoubtedly is Sin. But they may be interpreted, according to our for­mer ground, where we allowed all sins to have a subject in which they are, and when this subject is somewhat active and positive, as such acts of Ori­ginal Concupiscence are, and of our other Passions and Affections, then is the Evil of them taking its denominations from its matter to which it re­lates, said to be positive, for distinction sake, from those sins we call Sins of Omission.

From these grounds laid we may now adventure farther into the causa­lity God may be said to have in reference to the Evil of Sin, for as to that of Punishment, the difficulty is not great. There are two Parties in the Ro­man Church which go contrary wayes, making two several Propositions which joyned together do make God directly the Authour of Sin. So that a man may with better Reason make it a reason against communion with the Roman Church, than Companion against the Reformed, one of whose ten Reasons against the Reformed, that they made God the Authour of sin: For this, by the confession of some of the Romanists must follow. For the Do­minicans do directly profess, That God doth concurr to the act of Evil, and with the Will not only determined by it self, but determining it self to an evil. On the contrary, The Jesuits affirm that God awaiting and expe­cting the inclination and self-determination of the will, doth not concurr to the very act of sin, but follows that motion which is evil: adding, and professing as in particular doth Suarez, That if God should first, according Suarez in Thom. 22d [...]. Disputat. 6. Tract. 4. to nature, move and apply the will to an act which is sin, before it had deter­mined it self, He should then in very deed be the Authour of sin: This we make the major Proposition. The Assumption is made by the Dominicans, who constantly affirm, That God doth concurr to a sinful act: as doth Medina. Medina in Thom. Quaest. 79. Art. 2. Therefore by these two joyned together, God should be the Author of Sin. Nay Medina goes farther, and of himself will do the work before he is aware. He denies, I grant, that God is the Authour of Sin: and so will Calvine, and Beza, and Zuinglius, and such others, who are so warmly char­ged by their Enemies with that pernicious Errour: But he by consequence (and they do no more) doth thus plainly inferr so much, in the place cited, saying, When God is the cause of any act, he is also the Cause of the Privati­on which naturally follows upon that Act. But yet (saith he) concurreth not to the deformity of sin. Here is a mystery, if any man could find it out. The deformity of Sin consisteth only in the privation of the act, or, which is the very same, want of conformity to the Rule of Actions, and the will of God: And yet it is here said, That God may be the Author of the Act, and the Author of the Privation that is found in that act, which Privation is nothing else but a want of due conformity, and yet not the Author of the deformity of that Act. This is a contradiction.

The true and simple account then of this matter may be this, That God is never any direct cause of Privations or Deformity of any Act, though he be the true Cause of the Act it self. And his not willing to prevent by his effectual concurse, such an Evil in the Act, is all can be imputed unto him, and that is far from being the Cause of sin: unless it could be proved that there lay an obligation any time upon God, as many times there does upon [Page 310] man, That he should exert his Divine power to the utmost, for the preven­ting all the mischiefs he can; and hindring sin.

And here if querulous man (as 'tis often seen) doth repiningly reply up­on God for hard dealing towards him, in that he punishes him for that sin which he foresees cannot be avoided by him, Gods grace withdrawing it self from him: St. Paul commands him silence, whether he understands the rea­sonRom. 9. 20, 21. or equity of it or not: saying, Nay, but O man, What art thou that re­plyest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? No man that ac­knowledges (and every Christian must acknowledge) the like, and greater power and prerogative in God over Man, than the Potter hath of his clay; can deny that God may order the work of his hands, as he pleases: neither can he deny but the drift of the Apostle in this comparison was to show the absolute power and dominion of God over all Creatures: and therefore let them see how they aggravate matters of this nature, and multiply fond ra­tiocinations, which they cannot but know agree not with St. Pauls stating and decision of this Question.

I do freely grant the adverse Party, that St. Paul doth not at all concern himself with that kind of Predestination, Election, or Vocation, as very ma­ny confidently presume he doth, in his Eighth and Ninth Chapters to the Romans: I mean, not particular or personal Prae-determination, and the like: the whole letter and the occasion of his discourse there, being concerning the Election of the Gentile Church, and the uncessant protection thereof, against all threatnings and Oppositions, and disputing the equity of Gods deserting the Jewish Church: yet thus far his argument, being general, holds good in particular persons; that if it be free to God, without any just ex­ceptions, to choose and leave a Church or Nation at his pleasure, and ac­cording to the counsel of his own will, it is also reasonable and just for him, to favour, or show disfavour to any single person in like acts of his Provi­dence; without being called in question for what he doth, or not doth.

CHAP. XIV.

BY what is said, competent satisfaction may be had in that my­stery of Gods Providence, in the fall, and sin of the first Man created (as we have shewed) in such perfection of natural Fa­culties, and divine Grace: the reason absolute and demonstra­tive whereof, cannot be rendred by the wit [...] of Man; viz. Why God should make such a fine and exquisite piece, and deliver it o­ver presently to ruin and loss. It may suffice, that God was not the di­rect cause of such his Fall, by impelling him, though his Free-will embra­cing the Temptation, he was privy to his errour. As it was in that me­morable case of the death of Benhadad King of Syria, in the second of the Kings, when Hazael was sent to enquire, Whether he should recover 2 Kings 8. 10. of that Sickness; The Prophet Elisha answered, Go say unto him, thou mayest certainly recover: how be it, the Lord hath shewed me, that he shall surely dye: And this was the true case of Adam; whom God knew to have full power certainly to stand, and yet he knew he would surely fall. As therefore God in that case, spake after the method and manner of mans ap­prehension, so he here acted. In that he first said the King might surely recover, and this was according to the common order of natural Causes, which then were upon him in his sickness: which were such as were easily resisted, and like to have no such effect: But then God withal beholding that which was not seen of man (perhaps not thought on by the Actour himself, at that time) he saw withal a necessary dependencie and connexi­on between another cause, and that effect which followed; and so decla­red surely, the contrary to the other. In like manner, God beholding A­dam in that integrity and vigour of gifts and Graces with which he had fur­nished him, saw him in a certain condition to persevere in that state; but seeing withal the future outward cause of Temptation, he might well see the effect, what it would be infallibly. So that, when we say, a thing is contingent, we cannot say so in respect of all causes, but in respect of some special cause, to which, in our opinion and observation, such an effect may seem properly to belong. For it is a true Axiome amongst Logicians, All causes accidental, are reducible to proper and direct causes. So that there was no necessity, by Gods appointment, of Adams Fall, as he was framed of God, but somewhat might occurr outwardly, which by [Page 312] Gods permission, might have as certain effect upon the will of Man, though Free of it self and indifferent, as had the wet cloath laid by Ha­zael 2 Kings 8. 15. upon the face of Benhadad, this only excepted, That what natures simple Act did in this, the will of man combining freely against himself, with those outward causes, suffered in that.

The thing therefore principally to be here enquired after, is rather about the Nature of this Sin in Adam, and the Effects thereof. And as to the former, it is to be observed, That what was in him an Actual sin, be­came in us an Original; and what was free to him to be subject to it, or void of it, becomes necessary to us, and inevitable. It might be called in some sense an Original sin in him; as it was the first in nature and time, he stood guilty of; but not as if his Nature was from the beginning so cor­rupt, as to dispose him unto it. Again, in him, it was of it self purely sinful, and a transgression of Gods Law, upon which followed evil effects; but in us, it seems to partake originally of both sin and punishment: but chiefly of this latter. For though they speak truly, in the larger sense, who make three things proper and inseparable from Sin, Guilt, Stain, and Punishment, yet restraining our selves to the true Nation of it; there are these two things only essential to it. The matter it self which is the evil act committed against the Law of God; or which commeth to the same, o­mitted contrary to the same: And the manner, or formality of it, which consisteth in the perversness and pravity of the will, which is so essential to it, that it both distinguishes the errours of rational men from them of beasts and mad-men, and them of the same Man, from one another: so that what was done voluntarily and freely, differs wholly from that done with incogitancie, so not affected (for then the will concurs with it and infects it) and without any intention so to do, as to point of moral Goodness or Evil. And according to the bent or averseness of the will to evil, com­monly are estimated the degrees of evil. But though in Adam all these things concurred to the heightening of his Actual sin, yet in those that inherit that evil from him, the sin must needs be much less in Nature, and lighter; because of no personal concurrence to such deformity. Yet not so neither, but that it justly is denominated Sin, from the very nature and effects of it. For seeing whatever is in the Will, must be good or evil, and if the Will be found crooked, perverse, or averse to that it ought to incline to, this is contrary to Gods institution and Law, and whence ever this proceeds, from an immediate act of our own, or by tra­duction from others, seeing it is found in the Will, it must needs be con­trary and consequently odious to God, and in conclusion sinful.

Again, as the fountain poisons and corrupts all streams flowing from thence, so the Will being thus corrupt, and naturally thus ill inclined, all the other defects, even in his body as well as soul, contracted by this fall, are as so many deformities in man, which render him deservedly hated of God; seeing such disparity and unlikeness to the worse, to that which he first fram'd. Thirdly, Original sin in Man hath this more of disorder in it, that it not only is a corruption of the will, and thereby a deformity and vitiosity in the inferiour parts and faculties, but it is of ill conse­quence. For if this depravation went no farther than that evil born with us, if it stand there, and wrought no more evil, the nature of it had been less sinful, and more tolerable; but being of an active nature, and having taken up the chiefest room in the soul of Man, it disposeth and impelleth to more mischief, in actual transgressions. As a Garrison held by a Rebel [Page 313] doth not only offend Sacred Majesty by standing out against him it self, but when it finds it self strong enough, and hath opportunity, sallies out and makes invasion upon its proper Soveraign, and offers actual and a­ctive violence against him: So by this Original Evil first possessing the Soul, doth Concupiscence stir, and act by outward practises, contrary to the Law and Will of God. And therefore when St. Austin saith, al­ledged by the corrupters of this Doctrine of Original Corruption, They are born not properly but originally evil; he no wayes contradicts his own Doctrine, whereby he most of all farther explained and maintained this Original sin, being the first that gave the name Original to that Pra­vity in man. For true it is, that that only is called properly Original Sin, which Adam and Eve in person committed, and were not subject to by nature, as their Posterity are: because it was the first, in respect of mankind, as well in order of time, as nature and causality. Again, though this be traduced unto us his Off-spring, and be the cause and fountain of all other sins actually committed afterward, and for the same causes may rightly be called Original: yet considering that this Evil thus vitiating our nature, had no consent of our personal will, we neither understood it,. nor any wayes affected it, it cannot be so properly called sin, as others which we act knowingly and willingly our selves: For nothing is in strict way a sin which we do not consent unto in some manner, either immediate­ly, or in its remoter causes. And this doth yet farther appear, because no man is bound to repent properly of Original sin: Proper Repentance being an Act contrarying and reversing, so far as in us lyes, some evil by us done, and not suffered involuntarily: But Original sin is rather suffered than acted by the children of Adam. Yet though in the se­verst sense, we cannot be said to repent of Original sin, we are bound to exercise some Act of Repentance for the same: As grief, and sorrow of mind and heart for the evil we lye under, Confession and Recognition of our sad state before God, Imploration of his mercie and favour, to remove the same from us, and restore us to our pristine innocencie and integrity. For this, those many places of Scripture describing this Evil, do seem to require at our hand.

And no where doth the Scripture more fully declare this unto us, than in the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; which because Socinus, and such as plough with his Heifer, and are tickled with his pretty phansies in eluding the Apostles meaning, and the con­stant interpretation of the most Ancient and Modern Expositours, we shall more particularly consider. It is undeniable, that St. Paul Rom. 5. amplifying the grace of God and benefits unto mankind, even the Gentiles, by Christ Jesus, doth there make a comparision from the Twelfth verse to the end of the Chapter, of the first and second Adam: and of the Evil we sustained by the first Man, Adam; and the benefits we receive by the second Man, Christ. To this he supposes the ground of his Comparison; which is this, that By one v. 12. man Sin entred into the world, and death by Sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. This is made no more of than that Adam being the first Man in the world, and sinning, Sin must needs enter first into the world by him, if he sinned first; and that death followed upon that sin of Adam: But if this be all, how come the effects to exceed the cause, and [Page 314] death to extend farther than sin? For it is not only said, that death entred into the world, in seizing upon that single Malefactour, Adam: but So death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: where two things are to be noted. First, the note of dependance and consequence, So. For if St. Paul had meant that Adam, by himself and only for himself, introduced death, wherefore serves the tearm So, which is a certain in­dication of the manner how death came into the world, upon all persons: and as much as if it had been said, Adam first sinning, and bringing death into the world, so it was, that this death fell upon all men, for that all have sinned. Now, it is certain that all that dye have not sinned perso­nally: and therefore Secondly, the Note So must also ralate to the Cause of that death, which was sin: and is as much as, Adam sinning his Po­sterity also sinned, and became obnoxious to death. For to say as some eminently learned, and useful otherwise in their Doctrine of Repentance, Death passed upon all, i. e. say they, Upon all the whole world, who were drowned in the floud of Divine vengeance: and who did sin after the simi­litude of Adam: is as much as if another Scholia [...]t like him had said, That is, upon all Senacheribs Armies before Jerusalem in the dayes of Hezeki­ah, or, Upon all the Romans in the battle of Canna with Hannibal. For it is certain that all men dye, and it is no less certain that all men without exception died not in the floud. And therefore what is added upon these words, In as much as all have sinned, that by them is meant, All have sinned upon their own account: we have already shown, that it is not absolutely true, and therefore cannot be St. Pauls meaning: For all that dye have not, as did Adam, or following Adams example, sinned: Infants dying prove the contrary. Yet I cannot deny but [...] may have another signification, than is given by some, who would have it as much as [...], in whom, and not as our Translation hath it faithfully, In as much. This the Apostles doctrine is confirmed by what follows. For until the Law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no v. 13. 14. Law. Nevertheless, sin reigning from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression. These words, as by very many, and in diverse manners, so by the same hand are thus hal'd to this erroneous construction. St. Paul does not speak of all mankind, as if the Evil occasioned by Adams sin did descend for ever upon that account, but it had a limited effect, and reached only to those who were in the interval between Adam and Moses. But the more exact and literal enquiry into the Apostles meaning, will quite overthrow this presumptuous conjecture, which is occasioned from a mis-translation or mis-understanding of the words [...] and [...]; both which signify­ing the same thing, i. e. Until, are thought to be intended exclusively of the time to come, when they, as the like, do but intend such a tearm signally, as a most considerable Period, and not as the ulti­mate they drive at. As 'tis commonly understood of Josephs notMatth. 1. ult. knowing Mary until she had brought forth her first-born. And this will be evident to him that compareth the use of those words in the thir­teenth and fourteenth verses, and the drift of the Apostle: which plain­ly to discover, will satisfie any doubter, and answer all objections, and other glosses. It is this, here (as generally) to lay before the Jewes (to whom St. Paul principally designs his discourse) the imperfection of that Law, which was by Moses delivered unto them, and upon which they so confidently rest, that neither the Law of God written in mens [Page 315] hearts before Moses, nor the Law then lately delivered by Christ was of any account with them; but Moses his Law must carry it from all: Justi­fication must be by that, and the Vertue of the Messias himself depended on that. So that, in effect, they thought nothing sin but what transgressed the Law of Moses. St. Paul argues against this, saying, For until the Law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no Law: which is as much as to have said, Ye ought not so much to stand upon your Mosaical Law: For that is not the only judge, or tryal of sin; seeing sin was in the world until the Law, that is, all the time from Adam to your Law; but sin is not imputed when there is no Law: but sin was imputed, and punished too. For (v. 14.) death reigned from Adam to Moses. Now if there was such pu­nishment as death, then surely there must be a Transgression, and if there be such a Transgression, there must be also a Law, which is so transgressed: And therefore if such a Law, then surely Moses his Law was not that only Law, nor most ancient. Now (to draw nearer to our present Case) on whom fell this punishment of death? the Apostle answers, On all, without excep­tion, Even on them (which could only be doubted of) that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression. What is meant by this? That is, saith our Authour, Who sinned not so capitally. For to sin like Adam is used as a tragical and high expression, Hos. 6. 7. They like men have sinned, in the Hebrew it is, Like Adam. Of this I grant thus much, That Adams sin was the greatest that ever was committed since, all things duly weighed, and therefore it may well stand for a most heinous sin: and therefore Job like­wise saith, by way of abhorrence and purgation, If I covered my sin as A­dam: Job 31 33. One main circumstance aggravating Adams sin was, that he would have hid it, as himself, out of Gods eyes, and defended himself, when he was convinced; but how he repented the Scripture is silent. But that the de­gree of sin cannot be the ground of comparison, but the very nature of sin, and kind, is plain from the subject thus punished by death. For had they been only men of years, who could choose the good, and refuse the evil, then indeed less might have been objected against that interpretation: but it being manifest that death reigned over Infants also who committed no sin, as did Adam, therefore another sense must be found, which answers the full intent of the Apostles argument, and it can be no other than this, That by similitude here he means, the like in nature, and not only in degree: For Infants, who are punished with death, have not sinned as did Adam: Adams sin was a sin properly so called, and Actual: but Children, who dye, sin not so, but are subject to that we call Original sin: which being such a corruption as defaceth the Image of God, and as it were clips his Royal Coyn, and allayes it with baser mettal than he ordained man to consist of, may cause him justly to be rejected. Nay, which is much more, and gran­ted (surely unadvisedly, as inconsistently with the principles of this Au­thour) the guilt of Adams Actual sin, as in himself, was such, that it di­scended to the sons of him before the Floud: For sayes he, They indeed in rigour did themselves deserve it, but if it had not been for that provocation by Adam, they who sinned not so bad, and had not been so severely and expresly threatened, had not suffered so severely. This is more than what the strict­est defenders of Original sin dare affirm: viz. That God should take an occasion of punishing one man for anothers fault, when he did in no manner partake of the sin. Surely, if nothing of the Offence had descended to the Posterity of Adam, nothing of the punishment should have touched them.

[Page 316]Next to the comparison here made by the Apostle between acts of A­dam, and the acts of Christ, and the effects and events of one and the o­ther, is the comparison between the persons to whom these on both sides extended: and sheweth that the remedy by Christ was proportionable altogether to the mischief occasioned by Adam. For, saith the Apostle, As by the offense of One, judgment came upon All men to condemnation, even so by the Righteousness of One, the free gift came upon All men unto justifi­cation Rom. 5. 18, 19. of life. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. There seems in these two verses to be some contrariety, in that, first it is said that Judgment came upon all, and the Free gift upon all: and yet afterward, there is a restriction unto many, and not all concerned in the sin. Therefore it is to be observed, That, in the first place the Apostle speaks of the state of Evil or Condemnation: in the next, of the state of Restitution and Ju­stification: For as all persons were included in the Condemnation of A­dam, so were all included in the Justification of Christ: But as of all them, only some, many were, through his disobedience, made Sinners: that is, became such sinners as not to return to actual Righteousness and Salvation, so by the obedience of Christ, not all who were called and chosen came to Life and Holiness, but many only were made Righteous actually, and not all. Or if we take the word Sin as he, of whom we speak, doth, not so much for the real inward vitiousness of the soul, but for any outward defect; and, which is yet more, for the Punishment of Sin (in which sense the Sacrifice for sin was called Sin in the Old Law: and Christ in the New Testament is said to be made Sin for us; that is, a Sacrifice for Sin) so that to be made sinners, should import as much as to be made lya­ble to the punishment of sin, the matter is the same.

But because this Authour not only inclines to the Opinion of Pelagius, and of Socinus after him, making the corruption of nature nothing, and therefore exempting Infants from any such natural infection as we here sup­pose, but uses the same evasion of Imitation of Adams sin, and not propa­gation, as the original of all Evil to us; therefore let us hear what St. Au­stins argument was against that Opinion. If (saies he) the Apostle spake Aug. Epist. 87. of Sin by imitation, and not propagation, entring into the world, he could not have said that by one Man Sin entred into the world, but rather by the Devil: for he sinned before man: and as the Wiseman saith, Through envie Wisd. 2. 24. of the Devil, came death into the world. And Christ tells us, how aptly the Devil may be said to propagate sin by imitation, as well as Adam, thus reprehending the Jews. Ye are of your Father the Devil, and the Lusts of John 8. 44. your Father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth; because there is no truth in him: when he speaketh a lye, he speaketh it of his own, for he is a lyar, and the Father of it.

And when St. Paul saith, We were by nature the children of wrath as well Ephes. 2. 3. Psalm 51. 5. as others: And the Psalmist, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in Sin did my mother conceive me; that these places must be accounted hyperbo­lical, and not to have a proper sense, is the special evasion of Modern Wits, not comparable to Ancienter Judgments, more simply understanding them. I know a more colourable interpretation is made by others, who interpret Conceiving in sin as relating to the Parents, and not to the Chil­dren. But this is less probable than the ordinary and obvious sense, ap­plying it to David. For though it may be probable enough that Parents may offend in acts of Procreation, and so the child may be said to be con­ceived [Page 317] by them in sin: yet David being at the speaking of these words in deepest repentance for his own sins, cannot be said to leave off that subject, and to confess the sins of others, and charge his parents with that which concerned him not. Again, when he says He was shapen in iniquity, nothing could he say more intimately to signifie his proper state, at the time of his first conception.

But the Scriptures do not only barely say, we are originally thus infe­cted and sinful, but, by the effects and certain other indications, declare the same. The first and chiefest of which may be Death, and punishments sticking close to infants at their birth, and even before they come into the world: Now the Law of God being unalterable, that punishment should follow, and not go before sin; it must be that somewhat of the nature of sin must prepare the way for such sufferings.

Secondly, That all men come to years of discretion are effected with A­ctual sin, few of the opposers of Original sin, deny; But according to Reason and Scripture both, the fountain being so infected and corrupted, whatever flows from it must, of necessity, partake of the same evil. For Job 14. 4. Jam. 3, 11, 12. [...], &c. An [...]ae Gazaei Th [...]hrastus Biblioth. P P. pag. 392. To. 8. Non eni [...] es ex [...]lis qui modo nova quaedam gannire c [...]pe­runt, dicentes nullum reatum esse ex Adam tractum, qui per baptis [...]um in infante s [...]l­vatur. Aug. E­pist. 28. Hie­ronymo. Ad neminem ante bona mens [...]enit, quam mala. Omnes pr [...]ccupati sumus. Sen. Ep. 50. Nemo difficulter ad naturam redu­citur nisi qui ab [...]a defecit. ibid. who (saith Job) can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. And St. James: Doth a fountain send forth at the same place, sweet water and bitter? Can a fig-tree, my brethren, bear olive-berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain yield both salt water and fresh. From whence it follows, by way of just Analogy, That the Fountain being corrupt, there must be derived to the Rivolets the like unsoundness.

And thirdly, we see this by experience, that both bodily and mental infirmities and disorders, are traduced from Father to Son in actual Evils: as the Gout, Stone, and Leprosie are transinitted to posterity from the Fa­ther; and Anger, and other passions in like manner. It may as well be said That the Son hath the Gout, and halts by imitation, and not by propaga­tion, as that such other affections, which are common to Father and Son, so proceed.

Fourthly, The Argument which St. Augustine could never, by the Pela­gians, be answered, taken from Baptism. For this they could not deny, but the Church universally practised Paeda-baptism (that is held an opinion manifested in practise that Children were capable of that Sacrament, and received the benefit of it, however some particular persons deferred the same) and held it of use unto them, for the entring into the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore surely there must be some impediment, and that im­pediment could be nothing but what hath the nature of sin in it; therefore they bring sin with them into the World. Pelagius had a good mind in­deed (as Austin observed) to have denyed the use of Baptism, but as bold as he and his great second Julian of Capua was, the general Judgment of the Church declared in the practise of it, put a stop to his inclinations: but Socinus, bolder than any Heretick before him, sticks at no such thing, but flatly denyes the use of it to all but such as are converted newly to the Christian Faith, as in the times of the Apostles. This was freely and roundly invented and uttered; and which suffices alone to convince us of the former errour, denying Original Sin, which was alwayes held a princi­pal cause of Baptism.

Lastly, Thus much may be observed by natural Reason to the confirma­tion of Original Sin, which Seneca noted, but could give no reason of. No man (saith he) is of a good mind, before he is of a bad one: we are all pre­vented. And in the same place he saith, No body is with difficulty reduced [Page 318] to Nature, but he that hath made a defection from it. Now, supposing that God made all things perfect, and instituted the nature of man more inclina­ble to acts agreeable to that perfection, than to the contrary, whence can it come that contrariwise, Man naturally inclineth to that which is base, and unworthy, and is hardly taken off that corrupt way of acting contra­ry to reason and vertue, and reduced to a perfection becoming his Institu­tion and End, but that the very principle of his nature is hurt, and the root corrupt? And because nothing can be Author of its own Principles, by which it subsists, no man can be said by his own act, to have corrupted them. Indeed we say, a Man is of corrupt Principles, when he hath con­tracted some evil habits disposing to wickedness, but that is accessorie, and not innate to him.

And if it be farther urged, That no man can be guilty by anothers fault, nor corrupted by anothers principle; it is answered as before, so long as it is only that others, and not his own in some degree: For as Thomas hath distinguished, There is a Principle of Nature, and a Principle of a Person: and a Sin of Nature, and a Sin of a Person. Adam had not only princi­ples whereby he himself subsisted, but also was the principle of all his Successours. So that Original sin was as well the sin of the one as the other. So that from the depraved will of Adam as the first principle of all, came the corruption of the Will of all: Whereupon speaking strictly (as we have said) this Original sin is not properly sin in the Infant; but, a want of Original Justice seizing him, and exposing him to destruction: as Thomas and Catharinus also have taught: which two are the effects of the sin of A­dam, upon himself and children: but the very formal Reason of sin in his Posterity.

For where, as some say, It is natural Concupiscence moving to Evil: and others, That it is the absence of Divine Justice and Grace, they differ rather in the niceties of speech, than in the matter it self. For to me it seems that the loss of Divine Perfection and Grace, superadded to the na­ture of Man, whereby he was abundantly able to secure himself and glorifie God in that state of happiness, most neerly expresses the nature of it, as in the sons of Adam. (For in Adam himself it was actual disobedience) but Concupiscence inordinate doth rather express the consequence of it: For upon that desolation in the soul of Man, quickly arose a disorder of the inferiour Affections, which by a general name is called Concupiscence or Lust by the Apostle, in his Seventh Chapter to the Romans. And Natu­ral it is called, because, as out of the cursed ground sprang up briers, thorns, weeds and thistles, where more useful fruit of the earth was in­tended, so upon this curse of mans soul, Evil motions arose to the hurrying him to Actual sin, being themselves really sinful.

Again, it is observable, for the true resolution of the Question, That there is commonly an ambiguity in this tearm, Concupiscence; it being sometimes taken for the act, and exercise of that vitious principle in man fallen; and sometimes for the Pravitie, and degenerate temper of the soul, making it prone to actual sins. This latter is that which is properly cal­led Original Sin; though more properly Original unholiness, or want of that instituted Integrity, with which man was at first endowed: and in it three things are to be considered; First, the privation of Supernatural Good. Secondly, Proneness to unnatural Evil, against God. Thirdly, Odiousness and Culpableness before God, who must needs be offended at the sight of so much deformity in his Creature, contrary to his first Insti­tution [Page 319] of it and Intention; though this evil habitude should never break out into actual Rebellion against him, by the exercise, or putting it in exe­cution, by actual Concupiscence, against the Law of God: St. James seem­ethJam. 1. 14. to justifie this distinction, where he saith; Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts, and enticed: This gives us the original Lust or Concupiscence, which inclines and moves to sin, and to this is it to be imputed, that a man so easily is withdrawn from truth and righteous­ness, and noble acts becoming his high nature. He goeth on: Then when Lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth Sin, &c. that is, when the Radical Concupiscence, or Concupiscibleness in man becomes impregnated and matured by outward opportunities and occasions of sinning, it bringeth forth into outward act, sin: and the event and consequence of this sin, is death. So that the innate Lust lurking in the Soul, and not actuated by outward occasions either inwardly to effect and desire, or outwardly to act sin, is not properly sin, but metonymically only; either as it is the effect of Adams sin, or the cause of our sins, but it is properly odious to God, and exposing us to his heavy wrath, so far at least as is seen in the depriva­tion of that be atitude, to which man was at first designed. And this ex­actly agrees with the nature of that sin: For as that which was in Adam was actual disobedience, in his Posterity is only want of that perfection which was due to their nature: So Adam not only incurred the loss of that bliss he was capable of, and in the ready way to enjoy, but likewise the punishment of Sense, answerable to his Sin of Commission: and his Poste­rity was made subject to the punishment and loss of Gods favour, and that bliss they were, in Adam, once ordained unto. But when their Sins become Actual, they are subject to punishment of Pain, and torment for the same.

And by this, the way is well prepared to make answer to that common doubt concerning the effect of Baptism, and the state of the Regenerate, in reference to Original sin, and Concupiscence; viz. whether Concu­piscence remaining after Baptism in the Regenerate be sin or not. Scrip­tures are alledged with great colour on both sides. It is observed by Bishop Davenant, that St. Paul calls Original Concupiscence, sin in four­teenDavenant. De [...]rm. [...]. several places, in his sixth, seventh, and eighth Chapter to the Romans▪ which if so▪ Original sin it self must needs be oftner mentioned in Scrip­ture than will be granted by many: For mine own particular, I see none of those places so exprest in the description of it, that the law of Sin, the Body Lex Peccati est violenti [...] consuctudinis qua trabit, & tenetur etiam invitus animus [...] merito quo in cam volens illabitur. Aug. in Confess. Lib 3 c. 5. of Sin, the Law of the Members, the Lust of the Mind and Flesh, and some other expressions to the same effect, may not be understood as well of an evil habit, and inveterate custome acquired of sinning, which is wont to give Law to the Reason and Mind of Man, as of Original sin we now speak of, contra-distinct to it, were it not that the stream of Anci­ent and Modern Interpreters hath given another sense, not with modesty to be opposed. Therefore, yielding those many places to be meant of Concupiscence natural, we are to distinguish, answerable to what is above­said, with the Bishop, between Inhabiting Concupiscence and Actual Concu­piscence: And herein a little vary from him, if he doth mean that those pla­ces are to be applyed to Concupiscence resident only, and not actuated: But of this latter he seems to speak; and no doubt so is St. Paul to be un­derstood, and not of the other. And without all doubt, Concupiscence coming to act inwardly in the mind, by coveting only inordinately, or outwardly, by executing the evil purposes of the mind, are sin, even in the [Page 320] most Regenerate. And when this becomes a habit, then it is called by St. Paul to the Romans, The Old Man, and the Body of Sin. But when theRom. 6 6. remains of that inhabiting Concupiscence, which only can be properly called Original, never come (after the death and burial with Christ in bap­tism, as the Apostle speaks often) to recover new life and motions, byRom. 6. 3, 4. Colos. 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. conceiving new warmth from outward temptations (as in Infants dying before they come to be actual sinners, and in those of riper years imme­diately after their baptism) it cannot properly be said to be sin, or to ex­pose to damnation, as all sin properly so called, doth. St. Austin quoted by that learned Bishop, plainly affirmeth thus much; saying, Tale & Aug. lib. 6. c. 5. In Julian. tantum malum, and such and-so great Evil [as that Original] only be­cause it is in a man, would oblige us to death, and drag us to the last death, but that its chain was broken in baptism. All this we subscribe to, and do profess that the hold Original sin had over us, is loosed by Baptism. Yet we profess with Thomas also quoted, that when ever such Concupis­cence comes into the Will, be it of Regenerate or Unregenerate, it puts on the nature of sin. But we suppose the remains of that Original Evil to contain themselves, where Baptism left them; and not to proceed far­ther. For this God certainly hates, (I mean progress of Concupiscence) and as it is well argued, God cannot hate any thing but sin. But after Regeneration by Baptism, or restauration to the vertue and power of Bap­tism, and the benefit thereof, by Repentance; the Sin in kind, as Lust, Envie, Murder, Malice is odious unto God, but as it relates to the Per­son once guilty of it, it is no longer odious unto God: why? because it is covered, it is pardoned, it is not imputed, it is as if it had not been. For otherwise, it could not be said, Blessed is the man whose transgression Psal. 32. 1, 2. is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. But St. Paul to the Corinthians having recited those notorious sins unto which unmortified and unregenerate men were subject and guilty of, adds; And such were some 1 Cor. 6. 11. of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sactified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of his Grace. Meaning, that upon their conversion unto Christ, their washing in Baptism, their having received the Holy Ghost, they were acquitted from their former sins, and judged innocent and pure before him. And the Author to the Hebrews tells usHebr. 9. 26. how Christ, as an High Priest, once in the end of the world hath appeared to put away sin, by the Sacrifice of himself. And to what end should any man multiply Texts to prove this, to them, who will affirm that all sin is damnable, and grant that the Regenerate are not in a state of Damnation? then surely they are not properly sinners or guilty. I speak of the state of Remission and Absolution, and as such, as all Infants baptised are: And the grown Christian, because he may, and is most prone to incur new sins, after such absolution and purgation, is not therefore to be said, not to have been truly absolution and purgation, is not therefore to be said, not to have been truly freed from the guilt of sin passed before his baptism, and thorow repentance. For that this may happen, experience and the testimony of St Peter witnesseth, For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world 2. Pet. 2. 20. through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are again entangled there­in and overcome; the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

And what do they but in effect come off from their opinion of sinfulness in that Concupiscibleness, rather than Concupiscence in the Regenerate, who after all, plainly grant that there is no guilt remaining in it, of it self, and thus answer the argument, which proveth that it is no such sin as they [Page 321] hold, because, Original sin is the death of the soul, and makes a man an ene­my to God: but Concupiscence in the Regenerate doth not this; thus: Original sin doth not cause spiritual death, but only as it is linked with guilt; but pardon being obtained in Baptism, the guilt is taken away, and makes not any man lya­ble to wrath, but as he is found in the old Adam: so soon as a man is of the num­ber of the Regenerate, he is found in the new Adam, i. e. in Christ. Now would it be known, how any thing of the true nature of sin, may be sepa­rated from guilt: which is too hard for me to apprehend; they being so intimately coupled together, and convertible; that, as there cannot be con­ceived any guilt without sin, so neither any sin without guilt. And if they say, the guilt is done away in Baptism or Repentance, I will say, the sin is done away too, and maintain it. If they had distinguished between the effects and fruits of Original sin, and the sin it self, the matter had been much plainer and easier▪ and by their manner of proceeding in this Que­stion, it should seem they only drive at this. For I grant what they allow, that Baptism doth not free from all corruption of Original sin, such as are blindness of the Mind, and debility of the Will, to embrace good entirely, and infirmities of the body, which by a Metonymie are called sin sometimes: but the guilt, it must necessarily, or do nothing at all; but what Calvine and Perkins and Cartwright, and many dancing after their Pipe (to the scan­dal of the Sacraments and the Reformation) admit us into the outward communion of the Church, and signifie the pardon of our sins from all eter­nity, without including Baptism or Repentance, which is made no more then a sign too. I conclude this point with that sentence of St. Augustine a­gainstNeque enim ea nobis volumus, quae dimissa non dubitamus in baptismo, sed illa uti (que) quae human [...] fragi­litate: quamvis pa [...]va tamen, crebra subre­punt. Aug. Ep. 108. them; who, by their own confession doth expresly affirm, That that clause in the Lords Prayer, Forgive us our trespasses or doubts, used by the Regenerate in Baptism, doth not concern the inhabiting Concupiscence, but the sins committed after Baptism. Which agrees with what we delive­red before, that, though we may give, and lament for the misery of dam­nified nature in us, by our fall in Adam; yet we are not bound to pray for the remission of it, after our regeneration. It may be inserted into our confession, as a part of our misery, thereby to move God to a more full re­stitution of the loss sustained, but not as to the obtaining of forgiveness of the guilt. It may serve for our humiliation and aspiration to a fuller delivery from the infelicity we are under, by the remains of it, not from the guilt of it, which is the sinfulness, wholly extinguished by those waters.

For as it is with a son to whom his father hath committed a greater mea­sure of wealth, of money and rich cloathing than he could well expect, during his minority, which money and rayment he hath in riotous living & wretch­ed company, lost and imbezelled; though he returns so far into the favour of his father, as to have his offence pardoned, and is taken into his family, and hath the promise of being heir of his Estate, notwithstanding his former mis­carriages, yet hath not at present the like affluence and ornaments restored to him as he was once possessed of: So God dealeth ordinarily with his chil­dren, made such by Baptism, the crime is remitted to them, which they were guilty of, they are accepted into his favour, and become part of his holy fa­mily, the Church; they are assured of the future inheritance in Heaven. Yet doth not God thereby presently restore all that in Adam was prodigally lost by them, and mis-spent; but ordains that they should, by their future good and dutiful behaviour, and his ordinary allowance of Grace given them, Occupie [Page 322] until he comes, and by daily improvement in Grace, arrive at last, by little and little, to the perfect consummation in Glory. After Baptism, therefore, there is that Lucrum cessans, as they call it, that want of benefit which was once enjoyed fully and freely, and continues of the nature of punishment, after pardon sealed to us: But the Damnum emergens, or positive damage or evil doth cease; God forbearing further to vindicate himself than what naturally springs from the foresaid defects remaining in the Regenerate: and this too, not so much with an evil eye, as a good intention to his chil­dren, to reduce them nearer and nearer to him, by such exercises. And hereby I suppose is competently answered also that Scholastical doubt mo­ved chiefly in reference to Actual sins, viz. Whether God doth properly punish his children for those sins which he hath pardoned unto them before. The Scripture, which is not wont to speak Logically, precisely, or Scholasti­cally but popularly & familiarly, doth many times call that punishment from God (because nothing can happen without his order and dispensation) which is rather to be imputed to the imperfect state of Regeneration in this life, and the unrestored integrity in man, than the unpardonedness of of­fences. And again, it declareth so full satisfaction made by Christ for the sins of the Penitent, and freeness of Gods Grace, that without calling in question the justification of a sinner, and the justice of God, no more can be exacted of the pardoned than what is paid. But, as is said, a son re­conciled to his father may be fully forgiven and assured of the inheritance expected, yet through want of that plenty denyed him, not good affecti­on, may fall into many wants and troubles, which should not have touch­ed him, had he at first persevered in his duty and felicity.

CHAP. XV.

AND thus have we passed one great Period of Gods Divine Providence, in relation to the fall of Man: For (as hath been said) the Providence of God consisting of his Power, Justice, Wisdome and Goodness, is seen no less conspicuously in the due disposing of Evil to the general good of the Uni­verse, as likewise to his Glory, than in dispensing of Good to his Crea­tures; though this latter affects us most. Now therefore we are to proceed to that Second most eminent Act of Gods more than Paternal Providence to Mankind, in his Restauration. And here we are to consider, first the Motives inducing God to such a benign acceptation of him to favour: Then the Means whereby this was accomplished.

And the former we may soon dispatch from what we before noted out of Chrysostome: that the first Original of Gods great design, and fountain of favour towards lost Man, did, and must needs spring from his own good will and inclination to Mercie, immediately; without any conside­ration whatever. For neither Mans misery, nor any of those many at­tempts of Schoolmen, Fathers, or Postillers to render a reason why God should be more inclined to favour Man than the lapsed Angels, can be of any tolerable account to incite or invite God to Mercy in this case; no, nor the consideration of Christ: For Christ was not the first reason which prevailed with God to have mercie, but his own natural Grace (as I may so speak) disposed him first in general, to the end: And the end, Mans restitution, being thus propounded and determined by himself, Christ was in order of causes, elected as a Mediatour and Means designed to bring to pass that end. And this the holy Scriptures affirm. St. Peter in his Sermon recorded in the Acts, thus speaks of him: And he commanded us Acts 10. 42, 43 to preach unto the People, and to testifie, that it is he which was ordained of God, to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the Prophets wit­ness, that through his Name, whosoever believeth in him should receive re­mission of sins.

Christ then is not the first Motive of Gods favourable Decree to Man; but Christ is the first Means whereby that Decree was executed and brought to effect. And this being granted and premised, the doubt concerning the absolute or hypothetical necessity of Christs becoming incarnate, and ne­gotiating [Page 324] Mans salvation; that is, more plainly, Whether so necessary it was that Christ should appear a Mediatour between God and Man, as there were no possible salvation without it, or that only upon, or because God had so decreed it, that none should be saved but by Christ; may seem half ended. For it is out of question, that as the case now stands (as they speak, in Acts 4. 12. sensu composito) God having determined that no other name under heaven be given whereby men must be saved, that there is no salvation in any other, but in Christ Jesus. But secluding that Decree, it doth not appear why God out of the Abyss of his Counsels, and Immensness of his Wisdome, and absoluteness of his Free Grace, might not have compassed Mans sal­vation some other way. My Reason, besides those I find used by others, is that now intimated. If God could entertain such favourable thoughts towards Man as to decree his Salvation without intuition of Christ: sure­ly, he might have effected it without Christ. For 'tis neither just nor rea­sonable to imagine that God could decree any thing absolutely, and not ab­solutely bring it to pass, for we cannot so judge of Gods Counsels, as we do of Mans; who alwayes determines with supposition of means, and a­bility to bring to pass what he determined: but all causes out of himself, being, without exception, subject to his will, nay his will needing no out­ward means to attain its purpose or resolution, it is sufficient argument that such a thing may be, that God without consideration of any means de­crees it, and at his liberty chooses those means he pleases.

Neither upon this supposition is the advantage such as the Socinian He­retick expects to his cause. It is one of his pernicious heresies, That Christ satisfied not by his Passion, he expiated not the offense of Man thereby, but left him many a good lesson to direct and instruct him in the way to hea­ven; set him an excellent and fair example to follow: Makes now at last, being in heaven, (not before) intercession, and mediates for man: but his death was no satisfaction for the wrath of God conceived against the sinner. And to make way to this opinion, he says, that God might without any sa­tisfaction, have freely remitted mans offence: and therefore it was not ab­solutely and indispensably requisite, that Christ should dye. If we should yield all this which is here taken for granted, which yet if it be not gran­ted, is not so easie to be demonstrated; there appears no great advantage to their cause. For if it be assured unto us out of holy Writ, that God hath determined that no salvation should be attained, no recovery had without the mediation of Christ, and his satisfaction, what availeth it them that possibly it might have been otherwise? I confess the advantage to the other side would have been much greater, if it could be proved that Gods justice of absolute necessity, must have been satisfied by fulfilling the penal part of the Law: but however, there remains evidence enough from the conditio­nal will of God, which, according to Scriptures, admits of no other way now. For so saith St. Paul to the Colossians, It pleased the Father that in Col. 1. 19, 20. him should all fulness dwell: And (having made peace through the bloud of his Cross) by him to reconcile all things unto himself, by him I say, whether they be things in heaven or things on earth. And Christ himself in St. Luke saith,Luke 24 46. Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his Name among all Nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And St. Peter; 2 Pet. 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead unto sin, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we were healed. And what can be more plain than that of the Epistle to the Hebrews; Without Heb. 9. 22, 23. [Page 325] shedding of bloud is no remission. And lest some may presume to restrain the Apostles words to the state of the Old Law, it is added, It was therefore necessary that the paterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better Sacrifices than these. And what doth the Apostle mean by the better Sacrifices, but the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross? St. John declares so much exprefly, where he saith, If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with ano­ther, 1 John 1. 7. and the bloud of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. And in the fore-cited place of the Hebrews, more fully and expresly making a com­parisonHebr. 9. 14. between the expiations of the Law and Gospel, sayes thus: For if the bloud of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the bloud of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? If therefore God under the Mosaical Law might have passed over the errours and uncleanness of his people Israel, but never would remit them without expiations and sacrifi­ces to that end ordained; how can it be imagined, that the moral errours and impurities of the soul of Man by sin should be expiated or passed over without that Sacrifice and shedding of the bloud of Christ appointed to that purpose? Surely therefore, a sense there is wherein it is impossible God should remit sins without due punishment for the same inflicted; and the least and lowest is that which we call conditional, supposing that God hath so decreed that no sin should be expiated but that way. A way, which, be­sides the excellent agreement it hath with the Justice of God, and Mercy also, is full of pregnant advices and instructions to the Offender, partly informing of the foul and mortal nature of sin, which cannot otherwise be pardoned than by such satisfaction of bloud: partly by humbling him, and moving him to cry God mercy bitterly and heartily; and lastly, by posses­ing his mind with a dread and terrour of the nature of sin, so as to avoid the same for the time future.

CHAP. XVI.

THUS far of the necessity and use of Mediation between God and Man, for the reconciling them at this great di­stance: Now it remains to speak more particularly of the Person or Mediatour himself, whom Christian Faith acknow­ledges to be Christ Jesus: who, as the Scripture tells us, came unto the world to save sinners, and to save them by his Mediation:1 Tim. 1. 15. And that this is a faithful saying, that is, a truth to be embraced by true Faith, without which there is no Salvation.

But of the Condition of this Mediatour we find no small differences a­mongst such who are called Christians. They are of three sorts. Some profess him to be God, but deny him to be true and real Man: Others be­lieve him to be Man, but deny him to be God: But the Faith truly Christi­an professes both; viz. That Christ was God and Man. We shall remit (for brevities sake) the Reader to what hath been said before, proving the mystery of the Trinity out of the Scriptures, and that Christ the se­cond Person in the Trinity is the Son of God by natural Generation, super­natural to us. And to prove the second out of the word, now there is scarce one such Heretick who denyes it, may seem superfluous. That which is to be demonstrated, is, That there was time of union of that second Per­son in the Trinity with Man, and that this union was such that it constitu­ted not two Persons, but one; as St. Paul plainly writeth to Timothy: There is one God and one Mediatour between God and man, the Man Christ 1 Tim. 2. 5. Jesus. And therefore, whatever doctrine so speaks of this Mystery, as to divide the Natures into two Persons, as if there were two Mediatours, two Saviours, two Christs between God and Man, destroyeth the Faith of a Christian, no less than that doth which denyes these two Natures to concur in one Person: the Eternal and Divine Nature and Person assuming, in the fulness of time, humane Nature inconfusedly into the Divine.

To the proving this, we take that as a sure ground and founadtion which St. John hath laid to build his Gospel on: That there was an Eternal Divine Nature, in, and from the beginning, and that this Divine Nature was diversi­fied by three distinct Persons: that one of these Persons is called the Word: [Page 327] For he saith, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with John 1. 1. God, and the Word was God. Ridiculous are the violences offered to these words by Hereticks, who first take here Beginning, not for that highest (and higher than the Creatures comprehension can mount to) of all dura­tions, which none is afore, and none come properly after, but for a tearm of time properly fixt; and for want of more remarkable, do pitch upon the first publication of the Gospel as that beginning; answerable (forsooth) unto that speech of Moses, In the beginning God created the heaven and the Gen. 1. 1. earth: but the agreement is too little to make such interpretation: because it is plain that heaven and earth not only had a beginning, but gave begin­ning to time it self, measured and observed by them. And it is plain, that the Gospel did not begin so soon by almost thirty years as Christ began, according to his humane nature. And if it be taken of the Person of Christ, What can be more absurd than to say, In the beginning was the Word? that is, Christ began when he began. Therefore the word here, can neither be taken for the Gospel, or Word preacht, but it must be meant of a word superiour and anteriour to both: as doth yet more plainly appear from the phrase used, The Word was with God, and the Word was God: For the heavens and earth which are said in Genesis to be made in the beginning, can­not be said either to have been with God, or to have been God: nor can the humane nature of Christ, not extant till some thousands of years after the first Creation be said to have been in the beginning with God: and much less to have been God: And the like may be said of the Word spoken by Christ and his Apostles: which the Scriptures do not reckon to have be­gun at Christs birth, nor many years after. For thus saith St. Peter in his Sermon to Cornelius, That Word ye know which was published throughout all Acts 10. 37. Judea, and began from Galilee, after the Baptism which John preached. The Word therefore, according to this account, was not at the beginning, but after Johns Baptism. But this is not all, this is nothing in comparison of what is added, The Word was God: The humane nature of Christ precisely taken was not God: therefore another Word must be allowed to be God: And that must be the Word Eternal and Personal. And if this be doubted of, I thus argue from the words following. In that sense, that Christ is said to be Light, is he said to be the Word, but Christ is said to be Light, and the Light is said to be Christ, and St. John Baptist disavows that Light,John 1. 7, 8, 9, 10. and ascribes it to Christ. And therefore, as the Person of Christ is sig­nified by the Light, so is it by Word.

And how can we possibly make sense of Christs words in St. John, if Christ prae-existed not, before he came into the World, in the flesh? And now glorifie thou me, O Father, with that glory which I had with thee, be­fore John 18. 5. the foundation of the World. It may be said, that before the founda­tion of the World, such decree of glory might be given to one future; but thus it cannot be said of him who is described to be actually possessed of it, before the foundation of the World: and that a man is said to be posses­sed of, which he is said to have had, as here. And how could Christ say truly, Before Abraham was, I am? when he was not Fifty years old, accord­ingJohn 8. 57, 58. to the Jews account? And that he puts a distinction between his comming from the Father, and his seeing the Father otherwise than any before him, or of his time, proves a prae-existence and presence singular with God. Not any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the John 6. 46, 62. Father. And to this, adde what follows: What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? Doth not this plainly imply, that as [Page 328] Christ did really ascend after his Resurrection, and sate at the right hand of God in his humane nature; so he was there before, some way or other; and no way can be thought of but his Divine nature: as St. Paul intimated to the Ephesians, He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above Ephes. 4. 10. all heavens—. Now if any will be so captious as to except against this, because the Divine Nature cannot properly be said to descend, because it filleth all things; it is true in rigour of speech, what they say, but not ac­cording to the form of speech frequent in Scripture: which then affirmeth God to descend, when, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrha, he appear­ethGen. 18. 21. and revealeth himself more sensibly, as Christ did, taking humane na­ture on him.

And this prae-existent Nature of Christ to his humane being proved, that these were so united together, must be also shown. And to this, the single express testimony of St. John may suffice an equal mind. The Word John 1. 14. was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us: And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. And when St. Paul saith, that God sent Rom. 8. 3. his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh: he implyeth that there were two tearms considered in Christ, as in all o­ther things sent. First, there is the Person by whom, or from whom the Party is sent; and that here was God: Secondly, there was the Party, or tearm to whom, and that was either to the World in general, or to that in­dividual substance of Flesh so assumed by him, and which is here intended. Now it cannot be that the Act of sending should be the same with making: but first a Thing is, before it is sent, and the rearm to which, must be di­stinct from that which is sent. Therefore Christ, according to the Phrase of holy Scriptures, being sent to take Flesh, must have, of necessity, a subsistence before; which subsistence must be of a Divine Nature: as is al­so witnessed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For as much then as children Hebr. 2. 14. are partakers of flesh and bloud, he also himself took part of the same. That is, the person of Christ took part of the mass of humane Flesh and Nature, when he was formed of the substance of his Mother in her womb. And in that it follows, Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels, but the seed of Abra­ham. v. 16. What can be more necessarily implyed than a Person prae-existing, to whom (according to the nature of the thing) it was indifferent to have taken the nature of Angels, or the Flesh of man: and that it pleased God to send his Son to man; and it also pleased his Son to elect humane nature to dwell in: so that the manner of Christ thus consisting of two Natures, is matter of difficulty, rather than the thing it self; i. e. how two Natures can be, and how they were, and are actually united in Christ.

Suidas observes ten sorts of unions to be found in the World, of whichSuidas in [...] 3. Qu. 2. 1. we cannot stay here to speak. Thomas reduces all unto three. One union is of things that are absolute and perfect in themselves, as many stones make one heap. Another is, when things in nature perfect, are so united that they cease thereby to be perfect of themselves; as when the Elements con­curr to make one perfect mixt body. Thirdly, when diverse things being in nature imperfect not absolutely, but in that they are naturally capable of greater perfection, and tend thereunto: as the soul and body, and the several members of the body constitute one man. But after none of these, exactly, can Christ be said to consist of two natures united. Not the first way, because such things are rather relatively and denominatively one, than really. Not the second; because it were to suppose that the Divine Nature could be alterable and mutable: and because, if such a composition [Page 329] were made, both the Divine and Humane nature must loose their natural being and kind, and so neither of both remain, but a third thing. Not the last, because both Divine and humane nature are perfect of themselves in their kind. So that in truth, speaking strictly, no precedent in Nature can be found answering this Union, called Hypostatical, or Pers [...]nal: be­cause it is the union of two intire Natures into one Person; and that, the Se­cond person of the Trinity, God blessed for evermore. But of the former, the last representeth this Mystery most clearly, and is often used by the an­cient Fathers to express the same; and especially by Athanasius in his Creed, who thus declareth this mistery sufficiently to the sober and modest, and not curious mind. [Christ is] God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds, and man of the substance of his mother born in the world. Perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul, and humane flesh subsisting. Equal to God, as touching his God-head; and inferior to his Father as touching his Manhood: Who although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God: One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ. Now the ground of this great mistery, is taken partly from the testimonies and descriptions of Christ the Mediator made in the Scrip­ture: where, besides those already given, diverse proper to God are ascri­bed to him; and many which are proper to humane nature are attributed to him: and because there can be nothing more absurd in nature or Chri­stian Religion, than to imagine that Christ is more than one Person, one Son, one Mediator; therefore it follows necessarily that this one Person must consist of more than one nature: and partly because the end of Christ being Incarnate, seemed to require this most necessarily. As First, there was all reason that the nature which sinned and offended should suffer, and satisfie; but none but humane nature had so sinned. Secondly, that he should be a Prophet to instruct and teach his Church. Thirdly, that he should be a King to rule and direct his Church, according to the Prophesies of old concerning him. For Moses truly said unto the Fathers, a Prophet shall Acts 3. 22. the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; which must be of humane condition.

Now according to this union of the Divine and Humane nature in one Person, may Christ in some sense be said to be a Mediator Essen­tial, being a Mean Person, not simply God, nor simply Man: but this is not the proper Mediation of Christ between God and Man; but this rather consisteth in Acts performed, and Offices of Christ. And these acts of Christ may be distinguished into two sorts, Preparatory and Consum­matory. The former I call preparatory, because they were ordained as useful expediencies, not as essential to Reconciliation between the par­ties at distance. And the first act of this nature was after the manner of Civil Arbitrements, to take the Case into serious consideration, and to deliberate with himself about the most proper means of attaining an amicable composure of differences on foot. And (as the ScriptureHeb. 2. 14. saith) forasmuch then as the children (of God to be redeemed) are par­takers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the Devil. It appearing unto him that there was no such proper or convenient means to Arbitrate between God and Man, as the taking upon him humane nature. For by this means, as Moses is said to be [Page 330] the Intercessour (medius et sequester) between God and the People of Is­rael (and therefore the Law is said to have been given in the hand of a Me­diatour,Deut. 5. 5. Gal. 3. Hebr. 9. 15. 12. 24 who was Moses) in like manner, Christ is called the Mediatour of a New Covenant, in the Epistle to the Hebrews: because the tearms of that Covenant were obtained of God by Christ; and that Covenant was delive­red unto him to manage and transact. Another Act of Christs mediation was by Prayers and Supplications, as it is in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Who in the dayes of his Flesh, when he had offered up Prayers and Supplications, with Hebr. 5. 7. strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, was heard in that he feared. And in this respect he is called our Advocate by St. John, saying, If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus 1 John 2. 1. Christ the Righteous. A third Act of Christ in his mediation related to Man, by offering to him the tearms and means of Reconciliation in knowledge and sanctification, and moving him to accept of so favourable, free, and gracious tearms of Reconciliation, as the doctrine of the Gospel presented to him; thus fully expressed by St. Paul. All things are of God, who hath 2 Cor. 5. 18. reconciled us unto himself in Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation: To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto him­self, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are Embassadours for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christs stead, be ye reconciled unto God.

But the second way of Mediation and Reconciliation is that which is most proper to Christ, the former being communicable to man in some sense; namely, as the received power and authority from Christ, as is even now shewed, to minister in Christs stead, as inferiour Instruments under him: And this is by making himself a Sacrifice and Satisfaction for sin: accord­ing to that of St. Paul to Timothy, There is one God, and one Mediatour be­tween 1 Tim. 2. 5, 6. God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. And to the Ephesians he saith; And walk Ephes. 5. 2. in love as Christ also hath loved us, and given himself for us, an Offering and a Sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour. And when he saith, For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin: it is manifest that sin, in the2 Cor. 5. 21. first place, is used according to the Hebrew word, for a Sacrifice for sin. Now nothing can be more frivolous in the ears of rational men, or more sacrilegious in Gods ears, than to draw this to such a kind of figurative speech as Socinus and his Fellows do, as should imply an occasionalness and exemplariness only in Christs death to take away sin, and not to satis­fie Gods Justice for them: And so to satisfie, as a Doctour showing us the way, and as a President leading us the way towards peace with God. This, I say can, in no propriety of speech, be the meaning of holy Writ, assuring us first, That Christ was a Propitiation for us, as Romans 3. Whom God hathRom. 3. 25. 1 John 2. 2. Ephes. 2. 16. set forth as a Propitiation, through Faith in his bloud. And St. John, He is the Propitiation for our sins. And St. Paul to the Ephesians tells us, how he became such a propitiation for us. That he might reconcile both unto God, in one Body, by the Cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Is Reconciliation of God and Man, and that by delivering up his body to death upon the Cross, no more than to give us good instructions how to serve God, so as to recon­cile our selves to him? Is slaying the enmity, or extinguishing the enemy to us, the Devil; or the Enmity which was between God and us, no more than by good example to direct us how so to do? Saint Paul likewise to the Romans plainly affirmeth that he reconciled us to GodRom. 5. 10. by his death. Secondly, Who by purging us, or any man else, could un­derstand, [Page 331] before these dayes, no more than good words and counsels? But St. Paul sayes he By himself purged our sins. And that we may see that St.Hebr. 1. 3. Paul was far from any such intention and forced sense as is modernly impo­sed on him, he writes thus also, It was therefore necessary that the paterns of Heb. 9. 22, 23. things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better Sacrifices than these. For Christ, &c. The meaning of which words must necessarily be this, that, whereas the errors and sins under the Law which were paterns or types of the Gospel were expiated by bloud and sacrifices: But the heavenly things were purged by better things, i. e. The Sacrifice of Christ. Therefore if it cannot be said that such things were purified only by good precepts and documents given, but real bloud was shed for that purpose: Real, though much better and more precious bloud was shed for the expiation and purification the sins of the Gospel: which bloud was Christs. And thirdly, how most abusively must the tearms Redeeming and Redemption and Redeemer be used by the Scripture, beyond all other writings or speeches, if it signifies not a real recovery or purchase of somewhat lost, or necessary to one? Now such expressions applyed to Christs mediation, are so plain and frequent, that it may seem superfluous to recite them. St. Matthew saith, The Son of Man came to give his life a Matth. 20. 28. Titus 2. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19. ransome for many. St. Paul saith, He gave himself for us, that he might re­deem us from all iniquity. St. Peter by his comparison used, sheweth what manner of purchase it was, saying; Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your Fathers: but with the precious bloud of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, without spot. But redemption with silver and gold is proper, and expiation by the bloud of Lambs was proper and real: therefore also must the redemption by the bloud of Christ be so too. And in the EpistleHeb. 9. 12. 13, 14 to the Hebrews is the like comparison used most aptly, and at large. Fourth­ly, the tearms Offering and Sacrifice so often ascribe unto Christ, must needs import more then verbal, or exemplary mediation: divers of which places we have noted before: to which we may adde what in the Hebrews is di­rectlyHebr. 7. 27. spoken of Christ. Who needed not daily, as their High Priests, to offer up Sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples: for this he did once when he offered up himself. And St. Paul to the Corinthians, Christ our Pass­over 1 Cor. 5. 7. John 1. 29. is offered for us. And St. John? The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the World. And elsewhere to this effect.

CHAP. XVII.

BUT from the Evidence of the evidence of the Fact, that so it was, that Christ suffered to satisfie for our sins, let us pass to the Manner, how it was; and the Effects and Extent for whom he so suffered and satisfied; because no small stir and contention hath been touching both; but briefly. For there seems not to me to be such great cause, as is apprehended for such diffe­rences.

For first, surely Christs mediation was an Act of his Person, and not of his Natures, either of them separately considered: So that there seems the same reason for this, as for all other Acts and Attributes given to him: some whereof are naturally proper to the Divine Nature, and some to the Humane: and yet both these, predicable of Christ personally considered, by that received rule amongst Divines, which maintaineth a communication of Idioms; or the ascribing the property of one nature to the entire Per­son, and so denominatively to the other. In which sense Christ is said to dye, to suffer, to hunger, to thirst, to be weary: and Christ is said to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent: yet not according to both Natures, but as they are united into one Person. So that all Acts and Offices of Christ as Mediatour, have a twofold consideration, Formal and Real, or Vertual and Interpretative, as they speak. Some Acts are so formally Divine in him, that they pertain to the Humane Nature only Vertually; and some Acts are so formally and properly Humane that they pertain to the Divine Nature, only by way of imputation or interpretation; and not immediately or pro­perly. So that the Word Incarnate, Christ, is the immediate cause of his Mediation, and our Reconciliation, but all the Acts in particular tending tending to Christs mediation, as his preaching, and travelling, and Passion, [Page 333] did not proceed equally, or alike from both Natures. For two things are to be distinguished in the Actions or Passion of Christ mediating for man­kind. The Act it self, and the value and vertue of that Action, in order to the reconciling of man to God. That the Acts conducing hereunto are only proper to the Humane Nature, is true according to Stancarus his opi­nion,See Melan­cthon. Epist. ad Mathesium. though called Heretick, for the same; and opposed by Calvine and many of his Equals, who held that Christ was Mediatour according to his Divine and Humane Nature: And that Calvine and his Company must needs erre, is proved because they reject Lombard and those that follow him, who are the Romanists. Lombards Opinion was, That Christ was Media­tour as the Word Incarnate, but not according to both Natures. For they distinguish Principium Quod, and Principium Quo, That Principle or Cause of mediation from that Whereby he mediated. The first they confess to be the Person of Christ, consisting of Divine and Humane Nature. The second they make the Humane Nature alone. And that Calvine and the rest meant any more, it is past the power of their Adversaries to make good; however, according to their wont, they strain all they can, and more than honestly they can, to make their Opinions foul and odious: For in substance, they speak the same thing with Lombard, though not altogether after the same manner: but the Deformer suspected him as justly for restraining Christs mediation and the value thereof to his Humanity, as the Romanists do them, for comprehending the Divinity in it. And rightly do they distinguish between the Thing, and the Efficacie of the thing: and that according to Lombard himself, whom they dislike, because he restrained (to their appre­hension) the whole business of mediation to the Humane Nature: whereas though the Divine Nature did not formally act, or suffer to that end, yet it was by vertue of the Hypostatical Union with the Divine Nature, that the Humane Nature was in a capacity to mediate and merit for man: as St. Au­stin hath taught us in these words. It was requisite that the Mediatour be­tween Mediator autem inter Deum & homines opor­tebat ut habe­ret, & Aug. Confes. 10. c. 42. Nec tamen ob hoc Mediator est, quia Ver­bum maxime quippe immor­tate. Id. Civi­tat. Dei lib. 9. cap. 15. 1 Tim 2. God and Man should have somewhat like unto God, and somewhat like unto Men: lest being like God in all things, he should be too far from men; or being like unto Man in all things, he should be too far from God. And yet indeed in another place he doth determine the mediation more properly to the Humanity of Christ, than to the Word, thus speaking: Yet he is not for this a Mediatour, because he is the Word, and that especially, because he is immortal: and the most blessed Word is far from miserable Mortals: But he is Mediatour, in that he is Man; showing thereby, that we ought not to seek a­ny other Mediatours to that, not only blessed, but beatifical Good, by whom we should have access, &c. And to this agrees that of St. Paul to Timothy, There is one God and one Mediatour between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus. And this is the chiefest place founding this Opinion, yet not simply, seeing it is an easie matter by a distinction to avoid the same, if one would be con­tentious: but if Charity, nay if Justice were done to each side, the ground of contention might fairly be removed, in this.

But with much more difficulty do we meet in the effect and extent of the mediation of Christ by his Death and Passion, viz. Whether it concerns all Mankind in general, or Whether all those who are called to the knowledge, faith, and profession of Christ and Christian Religion: or lastly, Whether it was properly and specially so designed and intended for such as were to be infallibly saved, that others were capable of no benefit of the same; but rather were determined to hardness and impenitencie, and persistance in unbelief.

[Page 334]Concerning the last and harshest part of this doubt, we have heretofore an­swered, that though the Holy Scriptures (which cannot be denyed) do as­cribeExod. 4 21. & 14. 17. Rom. 9. 18. Isa. 6. 10. Deut. 2. 30. Isa. 63. 17. unto God in positive tearms, hardening of some, yet the meaning can be no more than that from certain persons, he so withdraws his mollifying and maturing Grace to Repentance and Faith, that an effect of Obduration doth thereupon, in such manner follow, as if God himself were the proper and direct Author of it. For all egregious things are, according to the phrase of Scripture, often ascribed unto God. As where we read a Sleep from the Lord was fallen upon the servants of Saul: that is, a prosound, or as it1 Sam. 26. 12. is there said, a deep sleep: though I deny not, but this might be literally ve­rified. And we read according to the original, of Oaks of God, and Hills of God, which import no more than exceeding high and stately ones. And I make no doubt but when it is said, The sons of God saw the daughters of Genes. 6. 2. men, that they were fair, &c. Angels are not thereby intended; and doubt, whether, as is commonly conjectur'd, The children of God, or holy Seed, be there aimed at. For no reason can be given why Gyants should be ra­ther born of them than wicked men; but rather that they were a race of Men of extraordinary stature, called therefore the Sons of God, because of their excessive greatness, as all other mighty things are said to be of God: in which sense egregious hardness is imputed unto God.

But to the main difficulty we must answer from the various manifestations of Gods love to Mankind. And where can we better begin to judge hereof, than from the first and second state of Man, his Institution and Restaurati­on? It is here taken for granted, That whole Mankind fell at once in A­dam, from its pristine perfection. And it is no less apparent, that God pur­posing to restore Man again, and recover him, treated as it were, and con­cluded with the same person Adam, and in the same capacity that he fell in. He fell, as is said, equally to all men future, without any discrimina­tion of worse, or better: higher or lower: and God treated and covenan­ted with him, without any clause of distinction, or exception of any one single person: For in truth, though all actions relate immediately to per­sons, yet the substance of the Treaty concerned principally the nature in general of Man; the promises of God being made with the Seed of the Woman, and Man, without any restriction or limitation: as St. Paul teaches, thus saying; God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself: by which2 Cor. 5. 19. is signified a general and indistinct gift of God towards the lapsed mass of Mankind: which gift likewise is expressed in the same latitude by St. John. For God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son: that whosoever Joh. 3. 16. believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. But if there were in the first intention of God, any disparity in exhibiting his son to the world, of that nature, that thereby certain persons should be excluded remedilesly from the number, for whom Christ dyed, then could it no more be said that Christ became incarnate for them, then for the Devils, whose nature Christ took not. But surely there was a distinction made between repro­bate Men, and reprobate Spirits. But this is not answered by the distin­ction in general, of Sufficiencie and Efficiencie, or efficacie of Christs death, used by Perkins, saying; That Christs death was sufficient for all, but became not effectual to all. This is notoriously true, and undenyable; and that, as he sayes, it was sufficient for the redemption of many worlds if case re­quired. For so it might be said, It was sufficient for the redemption of Devils too, for ought we know. And what of this? But Perkins seems to make a little bolder and farther step, where he grants a kind of efficacie [Page 335] too: but somewhat of the harshest sense: For distinguishing between Po­tential and Actual Efficacie, he addeth, Christ dyed potentially effectually for all men, but not actually effectually. But this potential efficacie rightly un­derstood, amounts to no more than a simple Sufficiencie; in regard that this Vertue, according to him, was never intended by God to be actuated in the behalf of the unpredestinated to life and glory.

A second prejudice against that interpretation is, That the Scripture speaking of the death of Christ and his Passion, doth not speak of it as of a sufficient rate and price in general, but a payment also actually made for all: for such is the importance of the words [...], [...], [...]: Which signifie an actual payment, in relation to an obligation of Debt or Bondage; which places of Scripture we have before given. Thirdly, the Decree of exhibiting Christ actually and effectually in special manner to some elect persons, who receive him by Faith, being thereunto moved and enabled by Gods inspirations, is altogether posteriour to the exhibition of Christ to Mankind in general; and therefore can be no real cause of Gods distinct intention then: or that God should at his first propounding, put a difference in the manner of exhibiting Christs Persons. For all this while we must allow two distinct Periods of Gods favourable Providence toward Man, in restoring him: the one, in his general Ordination of his Son to re­deem him: the other, in the special collation and application of that be­nefit to man. God gave his Son; and in him, his Obedience both in life and death to All men: But the effect and benefit of these redounded actual­ly only to some select persons: This latter is undenyable by all sides. For who did ever say that all men were actually saved by Christ? I know the former, i. e. That Christ was [...], a Payment made for all, is rejected by Perkins and his Assertour and Apologist Twisse. And true it is, that in ve­ry tearms above-mentioned, it is scarce to be found that Christ gave himself without a note of Restitution and Limitation, such as Many, or To them that receive him, and believe in him. But then as the Scripture saith not in ex­press tearms, that Christ was a Ransom or Payment made for all; so nei­ther doth it say, Only for the Elect, exclusively. And when it saith, Christ was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World. And that God John 1. 29. John 3. 16. 1 John 4. 14. so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son. And elsewhere, That the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World. We shall not need to shew how the Scripture doth frequently use the word World in opposition to true Believers: as where St. John hath these words, The World knew him John 1. John 17. 9. not. And again, I pray for them, I pray not for the World, &c. and so in other places; which do imply a Right the very Wicked and Reprobates have in Christ.

And whereas a principal argument is drawn from the words in St. John, last cited, to prove an inequality of interest in Christs death and media­tion, thus: Christ only dyed for them he prayed for, but Christ prayed not for the World, i. e. the Wicked; Therefore he dyed not for them. If this were true, that Christ never prayed for the wicked; or for those that were not then given actually to him, as were his Disciples, for whom he there parti­cularly prays, the argument would be of the greater force; but it is not so, any more then it is true in all respects, what Christ saith of himself in St. Matthew, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. SoMatth. 15. 24. that as Christ before his resurrection shewed himself very nice, how he dealt the Word of Life to the Gentiles, so might he, at the same time, de­clare a more special desire of the salvation of his elected Servants, than of [Page 336] others. For we know (which is another answer) how the Scripture fre­quently, by a note of Denyal, doth not intend an absolute exclusion of a thing, but comparative only: as where God says, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. Christ prayed not for the world, so intensly and particularly, or at that time: Therefore he prayed not at all, is no good consequence. And no more is that which is made from an adequateness of the Death of Christ to the actual application of the merits of the same death, by such intercession as Prayer. So that though Christ did not actually pray for all, yet he might dye for all: according to the distinction of a twofoldQuantum in Medico est, s [...] ­nare merit ae­grotum. Ipse se interimit qui p [...]aecepta Me­dici [...]servare non vult. Aug. in Joan. cap. 3. 17. Exhibition of Christ abovesaid. For Christ was exhibited as an efficaci­ous Means of Salvation: and as an efficacious Cure. A precious Antidote or Salve is, in its own nature, and the intention of the Compounder, equal­ly operative and effectual to all Persons in like manner affected. All men naturally were involved in the same evil, alike affected and infected: And Christs Death and Passion alike soveraign to all persons, and ordained for all: And the difference in the first Case and the second, is only in the actual Application thereof: For as many as receive that, are certainly cured. And the Scripture tells us, As many as receive him (Christ) to them gave John 1. 12. he power to become the Sons of God: to them that believe in his name. There­fore the main enquiry is much more about the difference and variety out­ward, then in the means it self: And how, and whence it comes to pass, that the Death and Passion of Christ are so applyed to one above another, that to one they become actually efficacious, and to another in aptitude and ge­neral institution only.

If in answer to this doubt we shall say, That by Faith and Repentance we are made partakers of Christ, we shall answer most truly, but not sufficiently; because the same difficulty returns upon us, How some believe, and embrace Christ, and are made partakers of his benefits, and not others; seeing so great salvation is tendered to all?

Here it is absolutely necessary to take in the Grace of God, and his free love towards Mankind, in some sense at least, by all that will be accounted Christians; and not by wisdome make void the Cross of Christ. For supposing that God hath made a free and general Covenant with Mankind, which Covenant neither is, nor can (as it is a Covenant) be simple and in­conditionate, so far, as nothing should be required thereby of Man, to the being capable of the benefit of it; it will of necessity follow, that the knowledge of this Covenant of Grace, must be had by such as receive any benefit thereby: For else, how is it possible that they should fulfill, in any manner, the Condition required; were it no more than some will make it, to receive it by Faith, without any more ado, then to believe themselves into Gods Grace and Favour by a tacite internal act.

And this, and no more being supposed, that such love and gracious pur­pose (for which no natural Cause can be found out to certifie or satisfie any man in the truth thereof) were ordained for any specially, it must be known by Revelation and not Ratiocination: And all extraordinary Re­velations, besides and above what Nature can discover, are purely Acts of Grace, and not of Work, And therefore, why God doth reveal his Go­spel to one people or person, and not to another, can have no other origi­nal Cause then the [Beneplacitum] Good pleasure of God; as is plainlyMatth. 11. 27. affirmed by Christ himself. Neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son▪ and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him: And before; I thank v. 25. thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because thou hast hid those things [Page 337] from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. And in St. Peters Matth. 16. 11▪ 1 Cor. 2 14. case; Flesh and bloud hath not revealed this unto thee. And St. Paul saith, The Natural man cannot know the things of God, because they are spiritually discerned. From whence it is manifest that though God hath decreed the Salvation of a man by Christ, yet this general intention cannot possibly take effect without a super-added Act of Free Grace, whereby this Repa­ration is made known. Again, it follows, That there is no obligation up­on God antecedent to his own will and inclination, moving him to reveal the same; and that only, out of Congruity, not of Justice or Necessity; as supposing a decree given to Man, which would be wholly unprofitable and vain, without such revelation. But why one Man or Nation should be bles­sed with this gift rather than another, there is not so much as congruity to be fairly alledged, or reasonably offered.

And as this is the first act of God on the understanding of Man, towards his restitution; so is the second act of Man flowing mixtly from his Will and Understanding both, altogether owing to Gods Grace; and that is be­lieving what before he knew. For that this is necessary, no doubt can be made, or that this is the true cause of being profited, or not, by Christ; St. Paul thus writing: For unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them: Hebr. 4. 2. but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with Faith in them that heard it. This diversity is very great, but what is the cause of it, is not agreed upon. For if any shall say, It comes from the difference found in Christ as Mediatour, he is known to be mistaken by what is said. If any one shall say, It proceeds from the will and free Election of Man, he falls into a worse absurdity, for the will of man, as free, acts or works nothing at all, but as determined either by its self, or by some other: And if by it self, either simply and absolutely, or joyntly with another cause. And this cause must be either taken from somewhat outward, as the object duly propounded, or inward, by way of efficiencie. But it cannot be any outward object presenting it self, only as a final cause, which hath only a moral and not natural influence: For if it be demanded to what end such an inward act of the will is exercised, it may very properly and truly be said, because of the good discerned, and affected in the object: But if it should be asked, How the Will is moved, and by vertue of what ability it so moves to that object? there could be no greater incongruity than to affirm, That the object was the cause of it: For here the efficient cause is sought after. As when a man goes to Church, if doubt should be made why he goes to Church, it were easily answered, because he apprehends a spiritual good in that act; this is the final cause: but doth this give his leggs strength, and his nerves and sinews power to walk? Sure no man will say so. This then is that we enquire concerning the wills inclination to and election of spiritual things, not why? or to what end (for the end is the same to all mens wills) but, by what means it is fitted and enabled to move thitherward, rather than the contrary ways. The answer to this must (if a man will speak appositely) be taken from the efficient cause.

Now this sufficiencie or efficacie in the will, is either natural and com­mon to all, which all modest Divines explode, or adventitious, and of free, undeserved, and undesired Grace and Gift of God. Hence another ascent is made towards the Question, of the manner of acceptation of grace and mercy, objectively taken. For as it is plain, that God putteth a difference, and not Man, between the understanding of one man and another, re­vealing that to one, which he doth not to another: And of those that know the truth, putting a difference between the wills of men, in that [Page 338] some, that have known the saving truth, have rejected it; and others em­braced it: as is yet farther manifest from St. Paul to the Romans. What Rom. 11. 7. then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for: but the Election hath obtained. To some then, who know the truth, God gives Grace, to some he doth not, or scarce discernable.

A third step to this then, must be about the degree and essicacie of this first Grace of God preventing and preparing the will to such noble ends; which it could never of it self affect or desire: And whether God doth give the like Grace, at least in proportion, to all he hath so far called, illuminated and affected as to have spiritual principles of Life and Moti­on, or not? It were too curious to enquire here about the Arithmetical proportion or quantity; because that all mens constitutions and dispositi­ons are not alike: and therefore, like more even timber or plyant clay, may be wrought into due form by less forcible means: but Whether, consider­ing all disparities and disproportion in the matter, the influence fashioning the same, be of it self sufficient to any one called and outwardly elected to the truth: Or whether there be any sufficient Grace which is not effica­cious and consummative of the end? which is the thing denyed by Janse­nius against a stream of Adversaries. But Thomas, who next to Augustine ruled these Disputes most of all, and that upon Austin's doctrine and grounds, sayes no less; and so do such as stick close to him; notwith­standing the strong opposition made by a Modern Order, who think to change the world, and make it take all doctrines from them to the con­tempt of their Predecessors, and the recalling the exil'd Tenets of Pelagi­ans, and such as serve, though at a distance, under him. They profess a­gainst him, and hold for him: They deny his Conclusions, but approve and justifie his Principles and Premisses, from which they certainly follow. Neither can they give St. Augustine a good word, whom none openly, be­fore them, ever presumed to confront in that manner. Or, if they do speak kindly of him, yet they take their own course, and speak their own up­start sense. For do they not place God as an idle Spectatour, yea a servile Attender of the wills self-determination first, and then bring him in as Auxiliarie to its Actions? This is rancide Divinity, yea and Philosophy too. Do they not fall directly into that Opinion of Origen confuted by Thomas, against the Gentiles, thus. Certain men not understanding Thomas cent. Gent. l. 3. c. 89. how God causeth the motion of the will in us, without prejudice to the liberty of the will in us; have endeavoured to expound these Autorities [above­mentioned in his former Chapters] amiss; as to say God causeth in us To will and to do, in that he giveth us power to will, but not so, as to cause us to do this, or that, as Origen expounds it in his Third Periar­chon, defending Free will against the foresaid Autorities. And from hence the Opinion of some seemeth to have proceeded, who said, Providence was not concerned in those things which related to Free will, that is, Elections; but ex­ternal matters only—who are confuted by that one place of Esay, Thou Isaiah 26. 12. also hath wrought all our works in us. Whether these words of the Prophet may not be eluded, I will not dispute, but they plainly declare that, accord­ing to Thomas his mind, All our inward motions as well as outward acts and effects, are governed by God. For the immediate concurse of God being generally granted by Philosophical Divines, necessary to the Act of limited and necessary causes, whose principle is more certain and o­perative then Free Agents are; What honest or sober doubt can be made of the immediate hand of God in moving the will free, and void [Page 339] of such natural Laws and Propentions, as irrational Agents are compelled by? There seems much less use of it here, than there. It may be, they fear Gods hand should light so heavy upon the will of Man, as to hurt the Free­dome of it. Which were to be feared indeed, if God so concurred with Free Agents, as with Natural; and proportioned not his Influences agree­able to the subject; but surely God worketh not so rudely: Or if the Act of God, being as natural to the Creature, as its own, yea unseparable from that of the Creature, were not a Total cause together with the Creatures, of such Elections. But, as Thomas saith, It is apparent that not in the like [...] l. 3. c. 70. manner an effect is ascribed to the Natural Cause, and to the Divine Power, as if it proceeded partly from God, and partly from the Natural Agent: but it is wholly from both, in a diverse respect: as the whole effect is attributed as well to the Principal Agent, as the Instrument. Thus he. From whence we conclude, the Grace of God is not given in a common manner, or compe­tently, to leave the will still separately, without particular excitations and prae-motions, effectually and immutably (as Thomas speaks) inclining it to embrace Christ exhibited in the Means of Grace: And that no man ori­ginally causes himself to differ from another in electing good: But suppo­sing the like proportion of Grace given to two persons equally, otherwise qualified, the reason why one refuses the Good and chooses the Evil, is not to be taken from the meer use of the Freedom of Will, by one better than another, of himself; and improving that stock of Grace given of God, by his own strength better than his Fellow, but because the Grace of God, besides the common stock, moves one more particularly than it doth the other.

How the will of Man is salved, we have before shown in part; in that we put an immense difference of influences between outward and intrinsick mo­tions; and between the impressions made upon it by a created and increa­ted Agent: Neither have we passed over that other common and obvious objection against such absolute necessity of Gods concurse, taken from the Commands, Exhortations, and Communications which should (they say)Exi [...]it & p [...] ­si [...]lat a nobis [...] ut hab [...]at occasio­n [...]m d [...]andi▪ ut ipsi t [...]buat quad [...]ro [...]vi [...]. Origen. Hom. 35. in Lucam. be all to no purpose and illusorie, if there remained no power in man to do as he is commanded, or not to do what he is forbidden: For surely, Gods commands and dehortations are binding most of them, where he gives no such general aids of Grace, as he doth to many persons who are unfruitful under it. Therefore it becomes them who object this no less then us, to an­swer the difficulty. Again, there is nothing more plain in Scripture than that God requires that of the Creature which it is impossible for it to do without his immediate power. When God said at the beginning, Let there Gen. 1. be Light; when it wholly lay upon him to produce Light: When Christ said to the Creeple in the Gospel, Take up thy bed and walk. When he saidMark 2. 9. Matth. 12. 13. John 11. to the man with the withered hand, Stretch out thy hand: Yea when he said unto Lazarus dead and buried, Lazarus arise, did he suppose an ability antecedent and prae-existing to his Commands or Exhortations? No man surely ever phansied so much. How then comes it to pass, that those were not absurd and irrational, but these, whereby man is brought to spiritual life, must be condemned for such? But to this purpose we have spoken before.

But to excuse God from double dealing with Man, in that he exacts that of reprobated persons who cannot act obediently to it as they are required, for want of his necessary assistance, there is brought into great use, and not lately neither, the distinction of [Voluntas Beneplaciti and Signi] a will of Good-pleasure, and a will of Sign; or a will Signified, and a will Concealed: [Page 340] a secret will, and revealed: which indeed are very untowardly and impro­perly devised. For if they would speak intelligibly, they should rather have called that revealed Will Signum Voluntatis, than Voluntas Signi: because it can be no other then an intimation of Gods Will. And if sin­cerely they would speak, they should not have made the manifestation of Gods Will by signs or otherwise, a distinct will from his secret Will, of which it is an Indication. Dr. Twisse therefore perhaps supecting this in­conveniencie distinguishes to the same effect, but more artificially, between Voluntas Praecepti, and Voluntas Propositi, a Will of Precept, and a Will of Purpose in God answering the contradictions contained in the Objection above made by the help of it: For, sayes he to Arminius against Perkins, the opposition were plain and real if God had decreed and purposed with himself one thing, and decreed another thing to Man; but this we find not. But it is no contradiction for God to decree one thing, as that Peter should deny his Master, and to give out a command to the contrary, that he should not deny him. By this means indeed he answers the Logical contradiction of terms and proposition, very sufficiently, and no more: but he does not take off the moral opposition and inconsistencie of the things themselves. For may not a man be said to cross and contrary himself, who shall resolve to revenge himself on his Adversary, and in the mean time gives him good words, and perhaps advise to beware of him? As when a man sayes to him he owes and intends a mischief, Take heed, look to your self, I shall meet with you, I will be even with you. These words spoken seriously would be very ridiculous, viz. That a man at the same time, should kindly admonish con­trary to his resolution and purpose: and taken otherwise, agreeable to the false nature of Man who may dissemble, but not to the Majesty and Simpli­city of God: who needs no such arts to fetch in his enemies. Certainly therefore God doth seriously intend not to punish when he threatens, as Chrysostome hath observed, and intend seriously to save when he warns. But whom? All those that are in the noise of such Precepts or Communicati­ons? If indeed Gods Word were preached, and his Will revealed as dire­ctly to impenitent and incorrigible men to whom he hath no such real pur­pose as to save them, then might he be subject to like accusations, as men are, who particularly apply themselves to their enemies: but so God dealeth not with the wicked, whom he rejecteth, or denyeth efficacious Grace to. For (as hath been said) the Promises of God, and Precepts, and Exhortati­ons were not in the secret or express Will of God ordained for the repro­bate primarily, but indirectly only, and as mixed and indiscernible to the Messengers of God, from the Righteous. And however the success in mini­string to the wicked answers not the intention of the Instrument, Man; yet such zealous endeavours by Man, never go unrewarded by God: and so it is not in vain in the Lord. For as St. Paul speaks appositely, What if some Rom. 3. 3. did not believe, shall their unbelief make the Faith of God of none effect? The means of Faith are not in vain, though the Non-elect profit not: Seeing as St. Paul saith again, The Election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded. Rom. 11. 7.

To recollect therefore what hath passed on this subject: the several Gra­dations of Gods favour to lost Man may be said to be these. First, by an absolute irrespective Act of Grace, he determined to re-enter into Covenant with Man for his Restauration. Secondly, he ordained this Covenant to be in the hands of his Son, as Mediatour. Thirdly, that his Son by taking humane Nature, should accomplish in Mans behalf, whatever was required by Gods Justice of him. Fourthly, that the effect and benefits of Christs [Page 341] Death and Passion should not inconditionately and immediately be made over unto all, but by the means and conveyance of Faith working by Love and Obedience. Fifthly, that this Obedience of Faith should not neces­sarily follow upon the propounding of Christ crucified to the Ear, but by the inspiration of Grace into the soul, opening the door of the heart as it did Lyddia's, to let in Christ as well with his sanctifying as satisfying Graces. For as Jansenius hath well observed our of Austin, there is aJansen. Au [...] To. 3. lib. 2. [...] [...] twofold Grace of God in Christ Jesus, necessary to a Christian, Sanative Grace, and Operative; or Healing and Helping Grace. The soul of Man being maimed and disabled by his Fall, must have a Grace to cure and restore the broken state thereof, before outward means can avail to the enabling it to be obedient, and to perform acts of a new and spiritual Life: adding, That it would be all one for to offer Grace to the soul of man so diseased, as it would be to offer a pair of Spectacles to a blind man, or a staff to him whose leggs be broken. And I wonder much to find him charged by a very learned Authour of late, that he hath not given us the true efficient cause of the wills of obedience, wherein (as he well ob­serves) consisteth the principal difficulty of all, but only the Formal, and wherein the efficacie of Grace consisteth. For he that shall consult his Fourth Book De Gratia Christi, cap. 1. and so on, will easily perceive, heId. Tom. 3. lib. 3. c. 1. makes it to be, The Grace of God sweetly and unutterably delighting, by which the Will is prevented, and bowed to will and do whatever God hath or­dained it should do and will. Surely this is much more than a formal Cause, whereby a thing actually is whatever it is. And in this manner is the true Believer made partaker of the benefits of Christs Death and Passion, to his Sanctification and Justification.

CHAP. XVIII.

OF the Justification and Sanctification of a man by Christ, we have heretofore spoken: it remains now, for the Conclusion of this First Part, that we here speak of the most perfect, and noble effect of Christs mediation seen in the salvation of Man, or his state of perfect Restitution in bliss; to which, Grace here in this life is but a Prelude and an Introduction. And to this end, the immediate way hereunto, the Resurrection, is to be explained, as a principle Article of Christian Faith. For this also is an effect of Christ our Mediatour, as St. Austin witnesseth in these words; The Resurrection Aug. Tract. 23. in Joann. John 6 54. of souls is effected by the eternal and immutable substance of Father and Son, but the Resurrection of the Body is by the temporal, and not co-aeternal Di­spensation of the humanity of the Son. And St. Ambrose speaks well to thisAmbros de Fi­de Resurrect. Illi quidam qui dicunt animas, &c. purpose: They who think that souls are immortal, do not sufficiently pacifie me; while they redeem me but in part: For what great favour can it be to me, when I am not wholly delivered? What life can that be, if the work of God in me must perish? Where is Gods justice, if the same natural end be to the just and wicked in common?

They that would therefore make sure work against infidelity, bring their grounds for this point, from the Gentiles themselves; whom they would convert to this opinion. But both the artificial and inartificial ar­guments, reason and testimony of the most famous Philosophers, not taken from, and grounded upon Divine Revelations, will certainly be found in­sufficient. For surely it may be said of the profession of this Article of Faith, what Christ saith of Peters confession of him, Flesh and Bloud hath not revealed it unto thee. For what the Heathen invented of their own heads, concerning the Immortality of the Soul (if that they invented, and not rather received from others, better informed) they soon corrup [...]ed into an opinion of Transmigration, and shifting of Possessions, as men do Farms, when their Lease is expired; or as Liquor is transfused from vessel to vessel: For so much one of their principal words imports, used to sig­nifie [...]. their meaning. And of the Bodies Resurrection, little or nothing do we read amongst them. But this is the chief point in our Christian Faith: and this is that which the ancient Fathers contend for; proving there is no [Page 343] proper resurrection but this; as particularly the Constitutions of the A­postles. [...], &c. Cons. Apost. Lib. 5. c. 6. Epiphan. Lib. 2. Haeres. 64. [...], &c. Theodoret. Haeretic. Fa­bular. lib. 5. cap. 19. [...]. Athanas. de Incarnatione. 2 Macch. 7. 9. Heb. 11. 35. 2 Kings 4. Wisd. 3. Resurrection say they is of things that were fallen. Which solid argument is also used by Epiphanius; shewing that because the Body only properly falls to earth, therefore it is the body chiefly we are to believe shall be raised again: And therefore the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds as supplements to the Apostolical, express the body in particular, and the flesh to be restored.

And however fair and laudable attempts are made by the Ancients to per­swade rather then prove a Resurrection, from the several prettie Analogies found in nature of things perishing, and after a while returning again to their pristine beauty and perfection; yet not to except against them particular­ly, How can we suppose they, who knew little of the true God, should understand so much as Gods people, who had not this revealed in direct terms, but in types and shadows, and resemblances; which have a more litteral and historical sense than this would be? And it hath exercised the Pens of learned men both wayes, to enquire, Whether the Jews generally believe any more than Pythagoras, or Plato might have learnt of them, a life after the dissolution of the body, and a state of bliss, after a just and mi­serable life and death in this world: all which, as they prove not the Re­surrection of the body, which is the chief point of Christian Faith. The expressions in the Book of Maccabees, of the Mother expecting to have her children raised again; especially taking the Comment of St. Paul up­on that Text (as is generally believed) along with it (though it may well be understood of those more Canonical Histories relating how the Shuna­mites son was restored to Life again by Elisha). And the many divine say­ings in the Book of Wisdome do declare a great and glorious prerogative belonging to the Just and Righteous above the wicked in the world to come; but what is said may be restrained to the Immortality of the Spirit of men; little or no mention being made of the Resurrection of the Body. Yet in Esdras we have these words expresly; Wheresoever thou findest the 2 Esdr. 2. 23. dead, take them and bury them, and I will give thee the first place in my Re­surrection. But this Book is not received by the Romanists themselves, and in all probality was much later then the rest: however it may be said to deliver the current opinion of that Church then. And in Maccabees there2 Macc. 7. 14. is mention made of being raised again, and of a Resurrection, which (as is said) must relate to the Body fallen. And in the same Book, He that offer­edChap. 12. 43. for the dead is commended, in that he was mindful of the Resurrection. But none convince us more of a Catholick opinion amongst the Jews, recei­ved doubtless as a Tradition from their Fathers, and supposed to their more express prescriptions in Gods worship, then that of Martha to Christ, I know that he shall rise again in the Resurrection at the last day. And now-a­dayesJohn 11. 24. the Jews are so well settled in the Doctrine of the Resurrection, that they envie the faith of it to any but themselves, saying, as Buxtorf hath it;Buxt. Synag. cap. 3. There are four things which the Isralites have from God in especial manner, a­bove other Nations: The Land of Canaaenan; The Law; Prophesie, and The Resurrection of the Dead. But in my judgment, St. Paul puts it out of all question that the Jews believed of old a Resurrection, and that of the Bo­dy; of which we now speak. For thus in the Acts of the Apostles heActs 24. 15. speaks; And have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow that there shall be a Resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

And this Doctrine seemed so essential to St. Paul, that without it all Christian Faith were lost: as appears out of that most sublime and eloquent [Page 344] Chapter concerning it to the Corinthians: where, first he layes down his1 Cor. 15. ground of Christian Faith, Christs Death and Resurrection, as that, upon which all other Articles are founded, and without which all preaching andv. 2. all Faith would be in vain. And from hence he infers at least a possibility that our bodies being of flesh and bloud, of the same nature, shall also rise again: And that Christs Resurrection was but as the first fruits to the har­vest20. or vintage; which in order must necessarily follow. And having as­serted and confirmed the truth, he answers the objections which may seem to disprove it; which method we here choose briefly to imitate and follow.35, &c. Tertul. Adver. Marc. l. 5. c. 9.

And first, we argue from the term Resurrection which must needs imply somewhat fallen or dossolved, as is said: as Tertullian against Marcion doth affirm.

Secondly, From the Example of Christ, the exemplary cause of our Re­surrection. For according to St. Pauls disputation at large, there is thev. 12, 13. same reason for the Resurrection of us, as of Christ. But Christs body was raised up in that individual substance that was laid in the Grave, and therefore must ours likewise: And this is it which is affirmed and promi­sed by the Apostle to the Thessalonians. For if we believe that Jesus dyed 1 Thess. 4. 14. and rose again, even us also, which sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him. And no doubt can be made but Christ had flesh and bloud, after his Resurrection, the signs and marks show'd to that purpose, convincing not only incredu­lous Thomas, but all of like difficulty of Faith.Luke 24. 19. John 20. 27.

Thirdly, It appeareth from the comparison made by St. Paul to the Co­rinthians, As in Adam all dye, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But 1 Cor. 15. 22, 23. every one in his own order, &c. But in Adam all men died corporally, there­fore in Christ shall all be raised corporally, or in their own bodies: as Tertullian. Tertull. ubi supra.

Fourthly, If immortality be promised to this body, then must this body arise, and not another: But to this mortal body is promised immortality; therefore, it must rise, because there is no imaginable way to have that veri­fied, but by a Resurrection. And St. Paul saith, This corruptible must put on ib. v. 53. incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. And what can we suppose the Apostle aimed at in those words, but his own flesh and others? And how shall they that are in the Graves hear Christs voice, as he saith in St. John, unless they be raised by him? John 5. 28.

Sixthly, An argument may be drawn from the truth and justice of God, copiously prosecuted by the ancient Fathers and their Followers, ground­ing themselves upon the word of God, which saith, We must all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ, that every man may receive the things done in his 2 Cor. 5. 10. body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil. But withoutIniquu [...] enim Deus si non per id punitur quis, aut juvatur, per quod opera­tus est. Id. Tert. cap. 12. the Resurrection of the body, this distribution of Justice cannot be made. And so, what will become of those new and bold Philosophers, and their Dogmes unchristian, who liberally grant (and this is more than we have reason to expect from them) that there shall be a special time of Restitu­tion of all things (and so the soul shall enter again into a body) but not that individual substance, which before was united to it; but yet one, making the same individual Person which was before: And how so? Why, the Form, according to Aristotle is, all and all, as to the constituting the same thing: and therefore, it alone can denominate a man the same, though the matter be various. But how then can it be said with any truth, that every man shall give an account for what he hath done in such a body, when, according to this sacrilegious phansie, it is not the same, but another body?

[Page 345]Lastly, Such as was the Resurrection of men miraculously wrought in the Old and New Testament, is to be the Resurrection, in substance, the last day. But the child raised by Elisah; and that other by Elisha: And the1 Kings 17. 23 2 Kings 4. 34. cap. 13. 21. Matth. 27. 52. man rising to life, who was cast upon the bones of Elisha; and all those raised by Christ, in his life time, and at his death: When the dead bodies of the Saints arose out of their graves, arose all in their bodies in which they dy­ed. Therefore surely such is our Resurrection to be.

Now because there remain some sore objections to be cleared before Faith can have its perfect work on Christian minds, I shall not expatiate, contrary to my general purpose to answer all; but only that which is all; and that out of St. Chrysostomes words thus rendered: But there are some Christ. in 1 Thess. Sern. 7. Eth. (saith he) that disbelieve this thing, because they are ignorant of God. For pray tell me, which is the easier of the two, to bring a thing out of nothing, or to re­store again things that have been dissolved? But what say they? They say, such a man hath suffered shipwrack and is drown'd, and so fallen, many fishes have de­vour'd him, and every one hath eat some part of those fishes. Afterward, of those very fishes some were taken in one haven, and some in another, and eaten of others. And again, these men that have eaten these fishes which de­vour'd the man happen to dye in other Countries, and that perhaps devoured by wild beasts. Such a confusion and dissipation being made, how shall that man rise again? Who is he that reduces the dust again? But why, O man, dost thou thus speak? and patches a long train of tales together, and offerest it as insolu­ble? For answer me: What if that man doth not go to Sea, and be not drownd? If no fish eat him? nor the fish be afterward eaten of infinite men, but that he be laid decently in his Coffin, and neither worms nor any thing else molest him: How shall that dust and ashes be compacted together again? Whence shall that body flourish again? Is not this unanswerable? If they be Greeks [Heathens] who doubt of these things, We can answer a thousand things. But what? Be­cause there are some amongst them who put souls into Plants, and Fruit-trees, and Doggs. Tell me which is easier for a soul to recover its own body, or ano­ther? Again, there are others who says that fire shall catch them, that their garments shall arise, and their shooes; and no body laughs at them. And some introduce Atomes. But we have nothing to say to them. But to Believers, if we may call them believers who thus doubt, we shall say with the Apostle, All life is subject to corruption, all plants, all seeds. Seest thou not, &c. Here that eloquent Father expatiates in the mysteries and subtilties of nature, shewing how little we understand of them, and concludes this point thus: But these things humane reason is to seek in. But when God works all things yield to him. In another place he doubts, whether he be an Infidel or Christian, who calls in question the Resurrection: and the reason hereof is, because, as the power of God is infinite, so infinite wayes there are for his infinite wisdome to bring to pass his own pleasure, and to make good his words, in which he hath caused his servants to trust.

CHAP. XIX.

SAint Paul, where he disputes the manner of Gods free Election of his people to the grace of the Gospel, doth also declare unto us the end of such Election to be another Election, and that to glory, as in these words, That he might make known the riches of his glory Rom. 9. 23. [of Grace] on the vessels of mercy which he had before prepared un­to glory. This is yet more fully expressed by St. Peter in this order: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope, by the Resur­rection 1 Pet. 1. 3. of Jesus Christ from the dead: To an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time. But before we engage far in this subject of Salvation, it is requisite we observe a twofold Salvation frequently mentioned and pro­mised in Scripture: A Temporal and Eternal. For herein common mi­stakes have surprised many, who willing to amplifie and extend all the promises of Gods deliverance, equally to us of this last Age of the Church, and to them of the former, and Apostolical, do willingly interpret many places of Scripture peculiar to them, as concerning us to: which cannot be literally done; though figuratively it may. For the Church of Christ being in those first Ages in continual conflicts with her enemies, Jewish and Gentile; and most violent persecntions harrassing and wasting the tender body of the Infant-Church, many weak Christians were of desponding minds, and looked upon the same as Job upon natural man, as having a short time to live, and full of sorrows: Which moved the Apostolical Writers to confirm the Hope and Faith of them by the assurances of deli­verances [Page 347] and salvation. And none can deny this to be the literal meaning of St. Paul in his eighth Chapter to the Romans; from whence so many draw an Argument to prove the innumerable purpose of God towards particular persons, in predestinating and electing and glorifying them; when, upon faithful examination, nothing more was primarily intended then as­surance of Gods temporal preservation of the Church, and making it out­wardly glorious in despight of all its adversaries: so that none should se­parate the flook of Christ so far from the love of Christ, by persecution, tri­bulation, distress, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword; but that, at length, it should be more than conquerer, through him that loved it. And that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things pre­sent, nor things to come, &c. should cause God to forsake it. And no o­ther is the meaning of the same Apostle in his thirteenth Chapter to the Romans, where he saith: And that knowing the time, that now it is high Rom. 13. 11. time for us to awake out of sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed; i. e. having continued thus long in the faith, the time now draw­eth near, we should be secured and saved from our enemies. And the Sal­vation to be revealed in the last times spoken of by St. Peter, was the De­liverance, which, at last, should be manifested to the Church; in constant expectation of which they were kept by Faith and confidence of Gods mercy. And if we shall consult the Apocalypse, we shall scarce find the word Salvation used in any other sense then that of temporal deliveranceRev. 7. 10. 12, 10. 19, 1. of Gods Church. But withal, most certain it is, that by Salvation, is ve­ry often indended by Gods word, the deliverance from the miseries of sin, and suffering in this world, into a state of such perfect bliss, as man is ca­pable of: in which sense St. Paul saith, The Gospel is the power of God un­to Rom. 1. 16. salvation. And that, with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation; which salvation was, in those dayes, the destruction of them that confes­sed Christ. For St. Paul, to animate the weak Believers to a stout and resolute profession of Christ, against the terrors of death, threatning those that were known to be Christians, tells them; that if they so boldly con­fessed Christ with their mouth as to dye in that profession, they should be saved. And when St. Paul advises the Philippians to work out their sal­vation Phil. 2. 12. with fear and trembling, he means, without doubt, Eternal Life. And that Eternal Life which, to the Romans, he calleth the Gift of God. Rom. 6. ult. 1 John 5. 11. Col. 3. 3, 4. Of which Life St. John speaks thus, This is the record that God hath given unto us eternal life; and this life is in his Son. And St. Paul more expres­ly to the Colossians: For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ: When Christ who is our life shall appear, shall ye also appear with him in glo­ry. So that nothing is more frequent in Scripture then that Christ is the Authour of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him: as it is in the E­pistle to the Hebrews; and that he is the Authour and finisher of our Faith; Hebr. 5. 9. 12. 2. The Authour of it, in Grace; and Finisher of it, in Glory; the perfection and consummation of Grace. Of the thing therefore, no dispute can be justly raised, but of the manner, some differences there are; and they prin­cipally about the possession of that bliss, or the fruition of it; or, the time when it first entred into, and, when it is in its full perfection.

And as touching the latter, it is with greatest probability affirmed, That, although there be such a free and full participation of the Divine Vision, whereby the Spirits of the deceased and truly and abundantly happy, yet there remains somewhat to be added thereunto, from the conjunction of the body, once companion to the soul, in all good and evil, of the passed Life. [Page 348] For as at the general Resurrection the souls of the damned shall have their torments augmented upon the re-union of the body, once combining with the soul in sin; so at the same time, there being a conjunction of the soul and body of the just, there shall likewise be an increase of felicity and glory. St. Paul intimateth thus much where he saith, Knowing that whatever good Ephes. 6. 8. thing a man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And yet more particularly to the Corinthians: For we must all appear 2 Cor. 5. 10. before the Judgment Seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. So that the body, as well as the soul, shall have the like proportion of reward or retri­bution, as they had in sinning, or doing well together. Of which we forbear here to enlarge, as not at all questioning the vertue and sufficiencie of Christs merits, as the sonner seems to do.

For if the Grace of Gods Spirit, the course of righteousness duly run, by the servant of God, the Merits of Christs Death and Passion be not effi­cacious to the throughly purging of the soul and conscience of the faith­ful in this life, somewhat derogatory, not to the person only of man, but performance of Gods Spirits, and Christs merit applyed certainly to the soul, seems to be reflected. The sufficiencie of Christs salvation is such, that, by confession of all, it may avail to the acquitting from all the affections and circumstances of sin, such as pollution, guilt, and punishment; but it will not be granted that this actually is done in this life, or were ordained to such an end generally: For I suppose that they who have raised and maintained such an opinion, do not deny the sufficiencie of Christs merits, and Gods mercy to sanctifie every faithful person, to the putting him into a capacity of heaven, and that immediately after this life; for they directly affirm, that some eminent Saints, and particularly Martyrs for Christ, do forthwith pass from hence to absolute bliss; but they deny that all that are in a state of Grace, and are predestinated by God unto everlasting life, are so fully cleansed from the contagion and impurities, which even Venial sins taint them with, that they need not another expurgation before they can be admitted into the presence of God.

The faith of the ancient Churches (as in few words we shall shew) and of all, but such as profess subjection unto the Roman, hold that though no man ordinarily lives without sin, nor at the instant of his death is so absolutely pure, as to be fit to behold the face of God, who can endure no iniquity, and with whom no unclean thing shall dwell; yet by passing from this life into another, so far is the evil remitted by Gods mercie in Christ, so far accep­ted in Christ, is that person that dyes in a state of Grace, and reconciled to God, that he passes immediately from this mortal and miserable state here, to an immortal and less miserable, yea blessed, though not to the height, yet far exceeding all happiness competible to the children of God, during this life.

The demonstration of this our opinion, though very true, we must confess to be difficult, by reason of an evasion and shift always at hand, to elude our proofs. For when we bring testimonies direct out of Scripture of the hap­piness of Gods servants after this life; they answer presently, that they are to be understood either of eminent Saints, which are presently accepted in­to Gods presence; or of their designation to bliss, though they be not pre­sently possessed of it; which must be acknowledged to be a kind of happi­ness, compared at least, with the wickeds condition, which after death is ir­reparable. But these notwithstanding, and certain others, we shall take notice of by and by, we declare positively, that for this doctrine of Purga­tory, [Page 349] there is not any ground of Scriptures, Reason, or Antiquity: but on the contrary, all these are sufficient evidences to the contrary. For if the thing be so material a point in our Religion, as it is said to be, we hold the Scripture to be so entire a Rule of our belief, as that it must of necessity have been contained in it: but there is no foundation in it for that, as we shall see by and by. And on the other side, there are these ar­guments in it, against it.

First, saith Solomon, Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy Eccles. 9. 16. might, for there is no word or devise, nor wisdom nor knowledge in the grave, whether thou goest. Doth not this place plainly speak of the fixt and im­moveable estate of the life to come? And can that be connted less than ri­diculous which is answer'd at the best rate, That there is nothing that a man can better himself in; but others, by their piety, may better them? Or that though in Purgatory they cannot help themselves, yet by the good works done before they came there, they may be benefitted? Who denyes but the Faith and Good works of men in this life, have singular influence upon mens future life, to the encrease of happiness?. But all this, we say, takes effect immediately upon the change of this mortal into immor­tal state. For who told them, that, to the application of the work to the wages are required the suffrages of the living, or passions of the dead?

Secondly, St. John in the Revelations clears this, saying, Write, blessed Rev. 14. 13. are the dead which dye in the Lord from henceforth, for they rest from their labour, and their works follow them. Their works follow them, without the least mention or insinuation of being vegetated and enabled so to do with the prayers of the living. And they rest from their labours, without being toyled, wasted, and tormented with worse miseries than ever they suffered upon earth. The evasion which is here borrowed from Anselme, upon the words (which yet in truth are no more Anselm's than the Comments under his name upon the Epistles, but Herveus Natalis his, living above two hundred years after Anselme) that here we are to understand the time of the Resurrection, might be accepted (for true it is, then shall the due reward be rendered to every mans works) if this excluded the other: For let our ad­versaries say whether all consideration of good works be deferred until the Resurrection? Is it not in reference to them that some men are commit­ted to Purgatory only, while others immediately go to hell? That some mens pains in Purgatory are gentle and light, others more grievous? and some mens shorter, and some longer, even of themselves without the help of their friends upon earth? Why then must we needs understand this follow­ing of good works to be at the day of Judgment only, and not in just pro­portion, the whole time going before? And therefore is that elusion we touched, of being meant of perfect Men and Martyrs, only rested on as the surer of the two, and that from De Victore and Haymon. It is true he doth speak of such: but it can only be said, and not proved, that he speaks of such only. Dying in the Lord being of far greater extent, and not upon mens pleasures, and the exigencie of a corrupt cause limited. But distrust that these devises will not satisfie, hath driven a great Champion of this Purgato­ry into another plainer, but much more absurd answer of his own; viz. That some men dye absolutely in the Lord, as Martyrs, &c. and some men partly in the Lord, and partly not in the Lord: This is congruous indeed to the opinion resolved to be maintained; and belike, St. Augu­stine gives ground hereunto: who in a certain Epistle saith that some men in this life are partly the Sons of Christ, and partly the Sons of this [Page 350] world. This Augustine might speak, in reference to the imperfection of the state of Grace and Sonship here, which will admit of some mixture of worldliness and weakness, with Grace and Sanctification; but doth St. Austine any where say, that, upon this any man is partly the child of God, and partly the child of the Devil, at the same time? or that at the same time he is in a state of Grace and a state of Sin? or reconciled to God, and not reconciled? This is a new invention; but very suitable to the third state after this life, Purgatory, and both of equal truth.

The place of Ecclesiastes—Where the tree falleth there it shall be, brought against a middle state, I confess hath besides the most natural sense, a sense which may be aimed at, besides the denyal of any middle state, but that by indifferent interpreters it hath been applyed to the im­mutableness of mans state, at his death, is certain. For in truth Purgatory, as commended to us, is a quite different state from that of bliss: as a state of torment must be from a state of bliss.

Fourthly, The Holy Scriptures teach us that; The bloud of Jesus Christ 1 John 1. 7. John 5. 24. cleanseth us from all our sins: and that He that heareth Christs word, and believeth on him that sent him, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into death, but is passed from death unto life. And we may note, that Life sim­ply taken, is never used for any other state but that of happiness, in holy Scripture: and therefore these two states only being mentioned in Scrip­ture, it is sufficient to conclude that no more are to be added. For were it so, that nothing in Scripture were directly spoken against this opinion, it would no more avail the defenders of it, then it would any other Here­tical Invention, which might be yet framed without any direct opposition from thence.

Now the Scriptural reasons against this we make to be these, in brief. First, that as well Scripture, as Philosophy, to which they assent who intro­duced these Purgative Flames, truly hold that all spiritual purgation and sanctification must have the consent and co-operation of the will, to produce any spiritual effect in the soul: but the Will after death elects not, merits not, nor demerits, i. e. deserves neither good nor evil, but is fixed to the state in which it is. But if sin be remaining in the separate soul, it must necessarily have its seat principally in the will; which is the formal principle of all good and evil. And there can be no change in the will of the deceased, as to the choise of good or evil simply; but only as to the more full and absolute captivating of the same, in the admiration of good or pertinacie in evil. Therefore the Prayers of the living not having, any influence upon the will or affections, at that time, to change them for the best, or correct the pravity of them, cannot avail to the meliorating of the soul in reference to its san­ctity or impurity.

Again, No corporeal cause can be effectual upon the spirit of Man imme­diately, while it is disjoyned from the body, to the cleansing of spiritual stains: But the relicts of sin are spiritual and not corporal pollutions; and therefore no flames of Purgatory can mundifie the soul, so as to render it more innocent and fit for heaven. But the flames of Purgatory are sensible and properly material. And it is not said that the suffrage of the living obtain remission of sins for the afflicted in Purgatory, but only deliver them from punishments there suffered.

Thirdly, All sins being committed in the person of a Man consisting of body and soul, must be accounted for as they were acted in the Person, and not only in the one Part of him: neither can any [Page 351] sin be said to be forgiven the soul, without the body, which was committed in soul and body together: nor can the soul be purged, and not the person, nor the person and not the body; but the body lies unconcerned & untouch­ed all this while, by such tormenting remedies; and therefore there is no pro­bability of any such semi-purgation of the soul, which should avail to the be­nefit and salvation of the whole. And therefore the souls of the damned suffe­ring the pains of Hell fire, immediately after their departure from the bo­dy, are not awhit the better for what they suffer. Neither can this be alledged to invalidate the other, because, that in God punishing the souls of the Reprobates without their bodies, is no unjustice, but rather a favour, deferring the punishment of it (who might have in­flicted it upon both presently) until his own appointed time. But it can neither be understood nor believed, how that pravity, shot, or guilt, which equally infflicted both parts of man, should be removed and cleared upon the suffering of one, or applications made to it only.

Fourthly, All satisfactions must be proportionable to the wrong and offence in the subject, at least, if not manner of them. But Of­fenses are committed in the body as well as soul: Therefore must the satisfaction likewise be answerable, if at all made; and there is no ground to suppose that God should assign any such remedy of personal errour, which concern one part of man only.

Fifthly, Either a man dyes in Repentance or Impenitencie: If in Impenitencie, then he hath no benefit of Purgatory, according to Ro­manists: If in true Repentance, then are all his sins so far cleansed and remitted, that there is no need at all of Purgatory: which is apparent from the very nature of Repentance: which is generally agreed to be a Second Baptism: Now, as Baptism washeth away all sin originally, so that the person dying instantly upon it, directly passes to Heaven; in like manner must it be in the Baptism of Repentance; all actual sins must be forgiven, and none remain to be punished or purged.

This is granted with this exception, provided we take Repentance entirely, in all its parts; whereof satisfaction (they say) is one; which being not thoroughly made on earth, must be compleated in Purgatory. But to this (passing by the dispute of satisfaction which is corrupted no­toriously by the same persons) we answer as before, that all satisfactionIn Purgaterio non posse ani­mas mereri aut peccare. Bel­larm. de Pur­gat. lib. 2. c. 2. which can be accepted, must be attended with the change of the Will of the person, and be an act of the person; and therefore this called Satis­faction, in Purgatory being no act, and having no concurrence of the Will of the Person, the body being separate from the soul, can no wayes supply the defects of satisfaction in this world: and therefore if there be any, it must be before the divorce of body and soul. Whereupon St. Au­gustine, Aug. Epist. 54. (who is confidently, but vainly alledged as a Patron of this Pur­gatory fire) saith thus: Furthermore there is no place of amending man­ners but in this life: for hereafter every man shall have what he in this life procured to himself.