CHAP. I. All agree, that Reason is to decide controversies of Faith. The objection, that Faith is taught by Gods Spirit, answered. What Reason decideth questions of Faith. The resolution of Faith ends not in the light of Reason, but in that which Reason evidenceth to come from Gods messengers.

THe first thing that we are to question in the beginning is, Whe­ther there be any means to resolve, by the use of reason, those controver [...]es which cause division in the Church? Which is all one, as if we undertook to enquire, whether there be any such skill or knowledg, as that for which men call themselvs Divines: For if there be, it must be the same in England as at Rome. And if it have no principles, (as no principles it can have, unlesse it can be resolved what those principles are) then is it a bare name, signifying nothing. But if there be certain principles which all parties are obliged to admit, that discourse which admits no other will certainly pro­duce that resolution, in which all shall be obliged to agree. And truely this hope there is left, that all parties do necessarily suppose, that there is means to resolve by reason all differences of Faith: Inasmuch as all undertake to per­swade all, by reason, to be of the judgment of each one, and would be thought to have reason on their side, when so they do; and, that reason is not done them when they are not believed.

There are indeed many passages of Scripture, which say, that Faith is only taught by the Spirit of God: Mat. XVI. 17. Blessed art thou Peter son of Ionas, for flesh and blood revealed not this to thee, but my Father which is in the heavens. II. 25. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. 1 Cor. I. 26, 27, 28. For, Brethren, you see your calling, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. But, the foolish things of the world hath God chosen to shame the wise: The weak things of the world hath God chosen to shame the strong: The ignoble and despicable things of the world hath God chosen, and the things that are not, to confound the things that are. John VI. 45. It is written in the Prophets; And they shall be all taught of God. Heb. VIII. 10. Jer. XXXI. 33. This is the Cove­nant that I will make with the house of Israel in those dayes, saith the Lord; I will put my Laws in their mindes, and write them in their hearts. These and the like Scriptures then, as [...]ribing the reason why wee believe, to the work of Gods Spirit, seem to leave no room for any other reason, why wee should believe.

But this difficulty is easie for him to resolve, that di [...]inguishes between the reason that moveth in the nature of an object, and that motion which the active cause produceth. For, the motion of an object supposes that consideration, which discovers the reason, why wee are to believe. But the motion of the Holy [Page 2] Ghost, in the nature of an active cause, proceeds without any notice that wee take of it: According to the saying of our Lord to Nicodemus, John 111. 8. The winde bloweth where it listeth, and a man hears the noise of it, but cannot tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth: So is every one that is born of the spirit. For, wee must know, that there may be sufficient reason to evict the truth of Christianity, and yet prove ineffectual to induce the most part, either inwardly to believe, or outwardly to professe it. The reason consists in two things: For, neither is the mater of Faith evident to the light of reason, which wee bring into the world with us; And, the Crosse of Christ, which this profession drawes after it, necessarily calls in question that estate, which every man is setled upon in the world. So that no marvel, if the reasons of believing fail of that effect, which, for their part, they are sufficient to produce; Interest diverting the considerati­on, or intercepting the consequence of such troublesom truth, and the motives that inforce it. The same is the reason, why the Christian world is now to barren of the fruits of Christianity: For, the profession of it, which is all, the Laws of the world can injoyn, is the common privilege, by which men hold their estates: Which, it is no marvel those men should make use of, that have neither resol­ved to imbrace Christ with his Crosse, nor considered the reason they have to do it: who, if they should stick to that which they professe, and when the pro­tection of the Law failes; or act according to it, when it would be disadvantage to them in the world so to do, should do a thing inconsequent to their own prin­ciples; which carried them no further than that profession, which the Law, whereby they hold their estates protecteth. The true reason of all Apostasy in all trials.

As for the truth of Christianity; Can they that believe a God above, refuse to believe his messengers, because that which they report stands not in the light of any reason to evidence it? Mater of Faith is evidently credible, but cannot be evidently true. Christianity supposes sufficient reason to believe; but, not standing upon evidence in the thing, but upon credit of report, the temptation of the Crosse may easily defeat the effect of it, if the Grace of Christ and the operation of the Holy Ghost interpose not. Upon this account, the knowledg of Gods truth revealed by Christ may be the work of his Grace, according to the Scriptures; (for, that so it is, I am not obliged, neither have I any reason here to suppose, being to come in question hereafter, for the Principles, which here wee seek, to decide) but supposing sufficient reason propounded, to make it evidently credible. And hee that alleges Gods Spirit, for what hee cannot show sufficient reason to believe otherwise, may thank himself, if hee perish by be­lieving that, which hee cannot oblige another man to believe.

Here wee must make a difference between those men, whom God imployes to deal with other men in his name, and those which come to God by their means. For, of the first, it is enough to demand, how it appears that they come from God. To demand, by what means hee makes his will known to them, (supposing they come from him) is more than needs, at least in this place. For, if it be granted mee, that the Apostles and Prophets were the messengers of God, suppose I cannot tell, how Prophesies are made evident to the souls of them, to whom the Spirit of God reveals them; No body will question; Whe­ther or no hee ought to believe these, whom hee acknowledges Gods messen­gers. And therefore it will be no prejudice to my purpose, to set aside all curi­ous dispute, how, and by what means, God reveales his messages to those, whom, by such revelations, hee makes Prophets. But, those that derive their knowledg from the report of such as are believed to come from God, must as well give ac­count, how they know, that which they believe to come from such report, as, why such report is to be believed. For, if wee believe, that God furnished those whom hee imployed, with sufficient means, to make it appear that they came on his message, wee can dispute no further, why their report is to be believed. If wee believe it not, there will be no cause, why those, who pre­tend themselves to be Gods messengers, should not be neglected as fools, or re­jected as impostors; Nay, there will be no cause, why wee should be Christi­ans, [Page 3] upon the report of those, that show us not sufficient reason to receive them for Gods messengers. But this being admitted and believed, unlesse evidence can be made what was delivered by them that came on Gods message, it is in vain to impose any thing on the Faith of them, that are ready to receive, what­soever comes upon that score. The resolution then of all controversies in Re­ligion, which the Church is divided about, consists in making evidence, what hath been delivered by them, whom, all Christians believe, that God sent to man on his message.

And therefore there will remain no great difficulty about the force and use of reason in matters of Faith, if wee consider, that it is one thing to resolve them by such principles as the light of reason evidenceth; another, to do it by the use of reason, evidencing what Gods messengers have delivered to us. For, all dispute, in point of Faith, tends only to evidence what wee have received from the authors of our Faith. Till that evidence come, doubt remaineth; when it is come, it vanisheth. Without the use of reason this evidence is not made, though not by that which the light of nature discovereth, yet by those helps which rea­son imployeth, to make it appear, what wee have received from those, from whom wee received our Christianity; Which, without those helps, did not ap­pear. But, if competition fall out, between that which is thus evidenced to come from God, on the one side, and, on the other side, the light of reason, seeming evidently to contradict the truth of it: First, wee are certain that this competition or contradiction is only in appearance, because both reason and revelation is from God, who cannot oblige us to make contradictory resoluti­ons: Then, there is no help, without the use of reason, to unmask this appea­rance. I will not here go about to controule that which may be alleged on either side, in any particular point, by any general prejudice; chusing rather, to referre the debate to that particular question, in which, cause of competition may appear, then to presume upon any thing, which the truth of Christianity (the only supposition which hitherto I premise) appeareth not so contain. On­ly this I will prescribe; It is not the exception of a Christian to say; That which the light of reason evidenceth not to be possible is not true, though commen­ded to us by the same reasons which move us to be Christians. For, the nature of God, the counsails of God, the works of God, being such things, as mans un­derstanding hath no skill of, till it be enlightened by God from above, That sense of Gods oracles, which the motives of Faith do inforce, is no lesse undis­putable, then it is undisputable, whether that which God saith be true or not, who inacts his revelations by those motives.

CHAP. II. The question between the Scripture and the Church, which of them is Judge in mat­ters of Faith. Whether opinion, the Tradition of the Church stands better with. Those that hold the Scripture to be clear in all things necessary to salvation, have no reason to exclude the Tradition of the Church. What opinions they are, that deny the Church to be a Society or Corporation by Gods Law.

THe cure of all diseases comes from the sound ingredients of nature, when they get the upper hand, and restore nature, by expelling that which was against it. Neither can the divisions and distempers of the Church be cured, but by the common truth which the parties acknowledg, when the right understan­ding of it clears the mistakes, which mans weaknesse tainteth it with. There is a sufficient stock of sound Principles left all the parties, which I mean, when all of them acknowledg the Scriptures, that is, so much of them, as all agree to contain the word of God. But, supposing the truth of them to come from God; First it remaines in difference, how the meaning of them may be deter­mined, when doubt is made of it? And then, because nothing but the true meaning of the Scripture can be counted Scripture, (if there be a way to determine that) Whether any thing over and above it, is to be received [Page 4] for the word of God with it? Concerning which point, it is well enough known what opinions there are on foot. When Luther first disputed against the Indul­gences of Leo X Pope, those that appeared in defense of them, (the Master of the Popes Palace, and Eckius) finding themselves scanted of mater to allege out of the Scriptures, betook themselvs to the common place of the Church, and the Power of it; the force whereof stood upon this consequence; That, whatsoever the Church shall decree, is to be received for unquestionable. Afterwards, certain Articles extracted out of Luthers Writings being condemned by a Bull of the Pope, Luther interposes his appeal to a Council, that should decree according to the Scripture alone. This is the rise of the great Controversie still on foot, be­tween the Church and the Scripture; between Scripture, and the Tradition of the Church; of what force each of them is, in deciding controversies of Faith. They that hold the Church to be the onely infallible Judge of all Contro­versies of Faith, necessarily suppose, that the Church is, by Gods appoint­ment, that is, Jure divino, a Corporation, Society, or Body of men, visible though not Civil; because standing upon Gods will, revealed in order to the happinesse of the world to come: In which Society, (because, in no Society, all that are Interessed can act for themselvs) it behooveth, that there be a publick Authori­ty vested in some persons or Bodies, the Act whereof may oblige the whole. And, thus it may and must be understood, that the Church is maintained to be Judge in Controversies of Faith, by the definitive sentence of those, that have authority to oblige the Body; Whether Pope or Council, wee dispute not here, or what else may be imagined: For that, as all other Controversies in Re­ligion, is to be decided by the resolution of the point now in hand, what is the means to determine by reason all such differences. Which, if it could not be decided without supposing whose authority is to tye the Church, there could be no end of differences in the Church, whatsoever there will be. Here is then an opinion famous enough, that the Church is indowed with a gift of Infallabi­lity; by virtue whereof, whatsoever sentence is passed by them that are authori­zed on behalf of the Church, becomes matter of Faith, and obliges all men to receive it, by the same reason, for which they receive the Christian Faith.

Now they, who, in opposition to this opinion do maintain the Scriptures to be the onely Judge in Controversies of Faith, do involve, in this opposition, an equivocation manifest enough: For it is manifest, that their intent is to render a reason, by this position, why they submit not to that sen­tence, which condemneth their positions in the name of the Church; To wit, because it is contrary to the Scriptures: And further, why they with-draw themselves from the communion of that Church which condemneth them, and joyn in communion grounded upon the profession of the positions condemned, maintaining themselves thereupon to be the true Church of God, and those that condemne them the corrupt and counterfeit. Whereby it appeareth, that, in effect, they do maintain, that there is no Judge provided by God, to be visible in his Church, with the gift of Infallible: But, that they are themselves, and ought to be Judges, to condemne all sentences given against the Scripture, by any authority established in the Church. By which means, the Scripture becomes no more the Judge, but the Rule, or the Law, by which men are to judge; Whether they are to stand to such sentences, as are given in the name of the Church, or not: Now, if the Scripture be the Law, or the Rule, by which Controversies of Faith are to be judged, there will be no pretense to exclude any means, that may serve as evidence, to clear the meaning of it. And there­fore, there will be no cause, why the Tradition of the Church should not be joy­ned with the Scripture, in deciding Controversies of Faith; Not disputing hither­to, whether or no it contain any thing that the Scripture containeth not, to clear and to determine the sense of the Scripture. Whereas, they that maintain the sen­tence of the present Church to be the reason of believing, can no way resolve their belief into the Tradition of the Catholick Church: Because, that suppo­ses only the act of our Lord and his Apostles, delivering to the Church that which it holdeth; Which who so supposeth, can allege no other reason why hee be­lieveth: [Page 5] And therefore, the sentence of the present Church cannot be the rea­son, why any man should believe that, which, there was reason from the be­ginning, to believe, without it.

They, who, to exclude the Tradition of the Church, state this position upon these terms; That all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures; pretending to limit the generality of the question, put it upon an issue not to be tryed, till wee have resolved, what means there is to determine the meaning of the Scripture. For, to be necessary to salvation, is, to be true, and something more: So that, nothing can appear necessary to salvation, till it can appear to be true: Nor appear to be true, untill it can be resolved, what means there is, to distinguish between true and false. Besides, how unlimited this limitation is, may appear by this; Because, whatsoever is clear, is said to be clear in relation to some sight; And there is so much difference between the sight of several Christians, that nothing can be said to be clear to all, because it is clear to some. And, that which is not clear to all whose salvation is con­cerned in it, what availes it those to whom it is not clear? Now, I suppose, those that advance these termes, will not grant, that nothing is necessary to sal­vation, that may be questioned, by an argument out of the Scripture, which all Christians cannot answer; Knowing, that such things, as themselvs hold neces­sary to salvation, may be assalted by such reasons out of the Scripture, as they do not think all Christians fit to resolve. Besides, they do not pretend that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scripture of themselvs, but, by con­sequence of reason, which may make them clear. Now hee that would draw true consequences from the Scripture, had need be well informed of the mater of that Scripture, which hee drawes into consequence. And, to that informa­tion, how can it appear, that any thing is more necessary, than the Tradition of the Church? Therefore though I say not yet, whether it be true or false, that all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures; yet, at the present I say, that this is not the prime truth, which must give a reason of all that followes upon it, but demands a reason to be given for it, by those princi­ples, upon which, the resolution of all maters of Faith depends.

All this while wee agree upon the supposition, that the Church is a Society of men subsisting by Gods revealed will, distinct from all other Societies. Be­cause, as I said, those that have departed from the Church of Rome, have hitherto pretended, their own communion to be the true Church. For if it be said, that they do not, or scarce ever did agree in communion one with another, so that they can pretend to constitute all one Church; That is not, because they do not think, that they ought all to constitute one Church, but because they agree not upon the conditions; Each part thinking, that the other doth not believe, as those whom they may communicate with ought to believe. But this is now manifestly contradicted by two opinions among us, though the one can be no [...]ect, the other as yet appears not to be one. The first is that of them that think themselves above Ordinances; the Communion of the Church onely obliging proficients, and every perfect Christian being to himself a Church. Of these, I said, there can be no sect, as communicating in nothing visible, as Christians. But, I need not have recourse to such an obscure Sect as this: For, the same is necessarily the opinion of all the sect that makes every Congregation Indepen­dent and Sovereign in Church maters. For, if particular Congregations be not obliged, to joyn in communion to the constitution of one Church, wee may perhaps understand, the collection of all Congregations to be signified at once, by the name of the Church; but wee cannot imagine, that the Church, so un­derstood, can be obliged by any sentence that can passe in it. And if this opi­nion be true, it must be acknowledged, as of late years it hath been disputed a­mongst us, that there is no crime of Schisme, in violating the unity of the Church; but, when a breach is made in a Congregation, obliged to communi­cate one with another in Church maters. For, where there is no bond of unity, what crime can there be in dissolving it? This is then the ground of all Inde­pendent Congregations, that there is no such thing as the Church, understanding [Page 6] by the name of the Church, a Society or Corporation founded upon a Charter of Gods; which signification, the addition of Catholick and Apostolick in our Creed hath hitherto been thought to determine.

But there is a second opinion in the Leviathan, who allowes all points of Ec­clesiastical Power, in Excommunicating, Ordaining, and the rest, to the Sove­raign Powers that are Christian; Though, before the Empire was Christian, hee granteth, that the Churches, (that is to say, the several Bodies of Christians that were dwelling in several Cities) had and exercised some parts of the same right, by virtue of the Scriptures. As you may see pag. 274-279. 287-292. Making that right, which the Scriptures give them for the time, to eschete to the Civil Power, when it is Christian, and dissolving the said Churches into the State or Common-wealth, which, once Christian, is, from thenceforth, the Church. And this, I suppose, upon this ground; (though hee doth not expresly allege it to that purpose) Because the Scripture hath not the force of a Law, obliging any man in justice to receive it, till Soveraign Powers make it such to their subjects, but onely contains good advice, which, hee that will, may imbrace for his souls health, and, hee that will not, at his peril may refuse. Thus hee teacheth, pag. 205. 281-287. If therefore the act of Soveraign Power give the Scripture the force of Law, then hath it a just claim to all rights and Powers founded upon the Scripture, as derived from it, and therefore vested originally in it. Hence followeth that desperate inference, concerning the right of Civil Power in mater of Religion, (not for a Christian but for an Apostate to publish) that, if the Soveraign command a Christian to renounce Christ, and the faith of Christ, hee is bound to do it with his mouth, but to believe with his heart. And therefore, much more, to obey whatsoever hee commandeth in Religion besides, whether to believe, or to do. The Reason; Because, in things not necessary to salvation, the obedience due by Gods and mans Law to the Soveraign, must take place. Now there is nothing necessary to salvation, saith hee; but to be­lieve that our Lord Jesus is the Christ. All that the Scripture commandeth be­sides this, is but the Law of Nature, which, when the Civil Law of every Land hath limited; whosoever observes that Law, cannot fail of fulfilling the Law of Nature. These things you have pag. 321-330.

The late learned Selden in his first book de Synedriis Judaeorum, maintaining Erastus his opinion, that there is no power of Excommunicating in the Church by Gods Law, grants, (that which could not be denied) that the Church did exercise such a Power before Constantine, but, not by any charter of Gods, but by free consent of Christians among themselves. pag. 243, 244. Which, if hee will follow the grain of his own reason, hee is consequently to extend to the power of Ordaining, and, to all other rights which the Church, as a Corpo­ration founded by God, can claim by Gods Law. And upon this ground, hee may dissolve the Church into the Common-wealth, and make the power of it an eschere to the Civil Power that is Christian, with lesse violence than the Levi­athan doth: Because, whatsoever Corporations or Fraternities are bodied by suf­ferance of the State, dissolve of themselves at the will of it, and resolve the powers which they have created into the disposition of it. And that this was his intent, whoso considereth what hee hath written; of the indowment of the Church in his History of Tithes; of Ordinations; in the second book de Syne­driis of the right of the Civil Power in limiting causes of divorce; in his Ʋxor Ebraica; hath reason to judge, as well as I, who have heard him say, that all pretense of Ecclesiastical Power is an imposture. I say not that hee, or the rest of Erastus his followers make themselves, by the same consequence, liable to those horrible consequences which the Leviathan admits; But I say, that they are to bethink themselves, what right they will assign the Civil Power, in deter­mining controversies in Religion that may arise; And, what assurance they can give their subjects, that their salvation is well provided for, standing to their de­crees. Besides, I was to mention these opinions here, that those, who take the sentence of the Church to be the first ground of Faith, into which it is lastly re­solved, may see, that they are to prove the Church to be a Corporation by di­vine [Page 7] Right, before they can challenge any such power for it. For, that which is once denied, it will be ridiculous to take for granted, without proving it. And, whatsoever may be the right of the Church, in deciding controversies of Faith, it cannot be proved, without evidence for this charter of the Church, as you shall see by and by more at large.

CHAP. III. That neither the sentence of the Church, nor the dictate of Gods Spirit, can be the reason why the Scriptures are to be received. No man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit, without knowing that hee is a true Christian; Which supposeth the truth of the Scripture. The motives of Faith are the reason why the Scriptures are to be believed: And the consent of Gods people the reason that evidences those motives to be infallibly true. How the Scriptures are believed for themselves. How a Circle is made in rendering a reason of the Faith. The Scriptures are Gods Law to all, to whom they are published, by Gods act of publishing them; But Civil Law, by the act of Soveraign Powers, in acting Christianity upon their Sub­jects.

IT would not be easie to finde an entrance into such a perplexed Question, had not the dispute of it started another, concerning the reason why wee be­lieve the Scriptures, whether upon the credit of the Church, or for themselves, or whether nothing but the Spirit of God speaking to each mans heart, is suffi­cient to evidence, that it is the word of God which they contain. This if wee can resolve in our way, perhaps wee may discover ground to stand upon, when wee come to the main. Hee that sayes the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves, exposes them to the scorn of unbelievers, by tying himself to use no other reason for them, least for that reason, they should finde that credit, which, the seeking of it showes, they had not of themselves. Hee that sayes they are to be believed for the authority of the Church, is bound to give account how wee shall know, both that there is a Church which some persons may ob­lige; And who is the Church, that is, who be the men whose act obliges the Church; And that, without alleging Scripture, because hitherto wee have no rea­son to receive it: And being but men, how their Act obliges the Church, which cannot be showed, without showing, that God hath founded a Corporation of his Church, and given power to some men, or some qualities or ranks of men in it, to oblige the whole: Which, how it will be showed, without means to de­termine the sense of the Scriptures, the parties agreeing in nothing but the truth of Christianity, and of the Scriptures, is impossible to be said. This position then induces that stop to all proceeding by reason, which Logicians call a Circle: When a man disputes in a round, as a mill-horse grindes, arguing this power to be in the Church by the Scriptures, (without which hee can say nothing to it) and arguing the truth of the Scriptures back again, by alleging the authority of the Church. Which destroyes that supposition upon which all dispute of reason proceeds, that nothing can be proved, but by that which is better known than that which it proveth. But, are those that allege the spirit for the evidence upon which they receive the Scripture lesse subject to this inconvenience? For, is it not manifest, that men may and do delude themselves, with an imagination, that Gods Spirit tells them that, which their own Spirit, without Gods Spirit conceives? How then shall it discerned, what comes from Gods Spirit, what does not, without supposing the Scriptures, by which the mater thereof is discer­nable? And is not this the same Circle, to prove the truth of the Scriptures by the dictate of Gods Spirit, and that by alleging the Scriptures?

To make the ground of this inconvenience still more evident, I will here insist upon this presumption; That the gift of the Holy Ghost presupposeth Christi­anity, that is, the belief and profession of the Christian Faith; And therefore, that no man can know that hee hath the Holy Ghost, but hee must first know the truth of Christianity, and of the Scriptures. Not that it is my meaning, ei­ther to suppose or prove in this place, that, whoso hath the Spirit of God, doth [Page 8] or may know that hee hath it; For, that is one of those controversies, which wee are seeking principles to resolve. But, that no man can know that hee hath the Spirit of God, unlesse, first hee know himself to be a true Christian. That is to say, that, supposing for the present, but not granting, that a man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit, and that it is Gods Spirit which moves him to believe this or that; hee must first know what is true Christianity, and by consequence, the means to discern between true and false. And this I propose for an assumption necessary to the evidencing of that which followes, but not questioned by any party in the Church, because it is a principle in Christianity, that the Grace of the Holy Ghost is a promise peculiar to those that undertake it. Who were they on whom the Holy Ghost was first bestowed? Was it not the Apostles and the rest of Disciples assembled to serve God with the Offices of the Church, that is to say, already Christians? When Philip had converted the Samaritanes, came S. Peter and S. John to give them the Holy Ghost by laying on their hands, till they were baptized? Concerning the Disciples at E­phesus, Acts XIX. 1-6. there is some dispute, whether they received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of S. Pauls hands, (by virtue of the Baptism of John, which they had received before they met with S. Paul) or whether they were ba­ptized over and above with the baptisme of Christ, and thereupon received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of S. Pauls hands. But of this, they that will have them to have been baptized only with S. Johns baptisme, make no dispute, that they were fully made Christians by it. Can any thing be clearer than S. Pauls words, Gal. II. 2-5. That, by the hearing of Faith, (that is, obeying it) they had received the Holy Ghost, which by the works of the Law they could not re­ceive? And 2 Cor. XI. 4. If hee that cometh preach another Jesus whom wee preached not, or yee receive another Spirit, which yee received not, or another Go­spel which yee admitted not; Another Jesus, another Gospel, inferreth another Spirit. So Gal. III. 14. That the blessing of Abraham may come upon the Gen­tiles through Christ Jesus, that yee may receive the promise of the Holy Ghost by Faith. The promise of the Holy Ghost then, supposeth the condition of Faith. And Gal. IV. 6. Because yee are sons, therefore God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying, Abba, Father. Heb. VI. 6. It is impossible for those that were once inlightened, and tasted the heavenly gift, and became partakers of the Holy Ghost; Upon inlightening, that is, baptisme, followes the participation of the H. Ghost. And, seeing the resurrection of the flesh unto glory is ascribed by S. Paul, to the Spirit of God that dwelt in it, while it lived upon earth Rom. VIII. 10, 11. as the resurrection of our Lord Christ is ascribed to the Spirit of holi­nesse that dwelt in him without measure Rom. I. 4. John III. 34. of necessity the Holy Ghost dwelleth in all them that shall rise to glory. But Baptisme assureth resurrection to glory; Therefore it assureth the Holy Ghost by which they rise. Nor can it be understood how wee are the Temple of God, because the Spirit of God dwelleth in us, 1 Cor. III. 16. but because the promise of the Holy Ghost de­pendeth upon that which distinguisheth Christians from other people. In fine, when our Saviour promiseth, John XIV. 23. If any man love mee, hee will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and wee will come to him and abide with him; Seeing the Father and the Son do dwell in those that love God, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, the gift of the Holy Ghost, of necessity supposeth the love of God in them that have it. And yet his discourse is more effectual Rom. VIII. 1-9. That, there is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus, that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. For, as hee inferreth, that, if any man have not the spirit of Christ, hee is none of Christs: So hee had premised Rom. V. 1-5. Being justified by Faith, wee have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the joy of hope, by the love of God, poured out in our hearts through the Spirit of God which is in us. The Kingdome of God consisting in righteousnesse and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. XIV. 17. If it be here objected, that the Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to bring a man to Christianity, and therefore can­not suppose it; Supposing this for the present, but not granting it, because it is [Page 9] in controversie, and must be resolved by the grounds which wee seek; It will be easie to distinguish between the grace of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of the Ho­ly Ghost. For, hee that is converted to believe the truth of Christianity, may ac­knowledge it to be of Grace, but must not presume of the gift of the Holy Ghost, that it is bestowed on him for his own, till his conversion be complete, by undertaking the profession of Christianity. If it be further alleged, that Corne­lius and his company received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized: The answer is ready, from that maxime of Law; That, every exception against a Rule, establishes the Rule in cases not excepted. Cornelius, no Jew, but converted from Idols to worship the true God, under the promises which the Jewes expe­cted, with his company of the same Faith, being in the state of Gods grace up­on that account, receives the Holy Ghost before Baptisme, because God knew him ready to undertake the profession of Christianity, so soon as it could appear to be commanded by God. And this, for the satisfaction of S. Peter and the Jewes, in that secret, which hereby beg [...]n to be declared, that the Gentiles, as well as the Jewes, belonged to the Church.

It is true, the graces of the Holy Ghost are of two kindes: For, some of them are given for the benefit and salvation of those in whom they are: Some for the benefit and edification of the Church. And it is true, that, both kindes are meant and expressed by these Scriptures. But it is no lesse true, that neither of them is to be had, but, supposing the truth of Christianity, and of the Scri­ptures. For, the first kinde is granted to none, but those that imbrace Christia­nity, with a sincere intention of living according to that which they professe: Being indeed, the help that God, by his Gospel, promises and allowes them, to go thorough with that high and difficult profession which they undertake. Wee see the Apostles forsake their Lord, and make a doubt of his resurrection, before the coming of the Holy Ghost; Whom having received, they are ready to pro­fesse Christ, in the midst of utmost dangers. And S. John, as hee giveth the rea­son why the righteous sin not, because their [...]eed abideth in them, that is, the word of the Gospel by which they were ingendred anew to be Christians; 1 John III. 9. So hee giveth the reason, why they were not to be seduced by the Here­sies of that time, because the unction which they had received from the Holy One taught them to know all things. 1 John II. 20, 27. Thus the Unction of the Spirit supposes the seed of the Word, and the seed of the Word inferres the Unction of the Spirit. And as, when the Word of God came to the Prophets, they were withall possessed by Gods Spirit, moving them to deliver it to the people: So, when the word of Faith is established in the heart of a Christian, (as David saith) the Spirit of God possesseth him with an inclination, both to professe it, and to live according to it. As for the second kinde, it is true, they are granted to those that are not heires of Gods promises, as it appeares by the instances of Saul, surprised with the Spirit of Prophesie, when hee intended the death of David, 1 Sam. XIX. 23, 24. Of those that have prophesied and cast out Devils and done miracles in our Lords name, to whom hee shall say; I know you not: Mat. VII. 22, 23. Of Caiaphas, who prophesied of our Lords death, when hee was compassing of it, John XI. 49,-52. And of Balaam in the last place, as all know. But, as the former kinde supposeth true Christianity in him that hath it, so doth this, correspondently, suppose the profession of it, as, under the old Law, the profession of the true God. The tryal of a Prophet under the Law was, not the doing of a miracle alone; If hee seduced from God, in stead of taking him for Gods messenger, they were to put him to death, Deut. XIII. 1-5. So, the tryal was, the doing of a miracle, under the profession of the true God. Under the Gospel; No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus anathema, nor can any man call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. XII. 3. Supposing, that a man speaketh such things as must come, either from Gods Spi­rit, or from evil Spirits, the tryal is, whether hee professe Christ or not. And 1 John IV. 2, 3. Every Spirit, that confesseth Jesus come in the flesh to be Christ, is of God. And every Spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ, that is come in the flesh, is not of God. Every Spirit, that is, every inspiration which a man of [Page 10] himself cannot have. God will not have his people so tempted, that, under the profession of the true Religion, the Devils instruments should have power to work miracles, to seduce them from it. Upon these terms prophesied Saul un­der the Law, and upon the same terms prophesied those under the Gospel, whom our Lord will not own, having done miracles in his name. As for Caiaphas, it doth not appear that hee spoke those words, whereby S. John saith hee prophened of our Lords death, by revelation, or inspiration from God: For, the reason is given why hee prophened, because hee was High Priest that year. Now, when the High Priests declared Gods orders to his ancient people, there is no appea­rance that they were inspired by revelation with that which they declared: But that, putting on the Pontifical robes, Gods will appeared by the brest-plate of Urim and Tummim, though now wee know not how. Accordingly, to were Caiaphas his words ordered, (this gift being ceased many ages afore) as to con­taine a Prophesie of our Lords death by Gods intent, but without his. But Ba­laams case is farre otherwise. Arnobius advers. Gent. I. tells us, that Magicians, in their operations, met with contrary Gods, whom hee calls Antitheos, that would not suffer them to proceed. Balaam met with the true God, and knew him to be so, and all his Inchantments controlable by him, and yet sacrifices to false Gods, that, by their help, hee might curse Gods people. In this case, Ba­laam, though commanded as a subject, is not, as a friend, inspired by God, when God forces him to speak what hee would not.

If any man, then, resolve the credit of the Scripture into the inward witness of Gods Spirit, dictating to his Spirit, that they are the word of God, it will be utterly impertinent to our purpose. For, seeking, as wee do, the means to re­solve one another, it will be impertinent to allege that, which, though a man is inwardly satisfied with, yet outwardly to another cannot appear. And certain­ly, if there be no reason to satisfie another man, of the truth of the whole, that is, of Christianity, or of the Scriptures; It cannot be expected, that there should be satisfaction, why this or that should belong to the truth of Christianity, or the intent and meaning of the Scriptures. For, of necessity, whatsoever evi­dence can be made, for this or that truth contained in the Scriptures, must de­pend upon the reason, for which Christianity is received as Gods truth. In fine, the reason why controversies in Religion may, and are to be ended by dispute of reason is this, as hath been premised, because that the Holy Ghost, which ef­fectually moveth us to believe, supposeth sufficient reason, moving, in the nature of an object proposed, to believe. Therefore, neither the truth of Christiani­ty, nor the Scripture is admitted upon the dictate of Gods Spirit, but, suppo­sing the reasons which convict us that they are to be admitted. And correspon­dently, the gift of the Holy Ghost, that inableth to continue in the profession and exercise of Christianity, supposeth the belief of that Christianity, which a man from his heart professes; And, by consequence, the reason why hee is to be­lieve, which will not fail to inferre the truth of the Scriptures. But if it be said; That any person or persons, as Rulers of the Church, have the promise of inspiration or revelation from God, for a ground, upon which others are to be­lieve; It hath been showed, that all such grace supposeth the profession of Chri­stianity, and the truth of the Scriptures, and therefore the grounds of the same. If any man should say, as, I perceive some have a minde to say, that the gift of Infallibility in the Church, supposes no such inspiration or revelation, but onely the qualities of such persons as have power to conclude the Church, and that they do visibly proceed to determine; It will be evident, that they can no more challenge this right, not supposing Christianity, and the foundation of the Church, than the High Priest of the Jewes could proceed to give answer by U­ [...]im and Tummim, not supposing, that God had given the Law, and appointed the Priest so to do.

The resolution of this Question may make it appear, that Christians, falling out among themselves, maintain themselves upon such grounds, as would leave no room for the truth of that Christianity which both suppose. Had wee to do with the enemies of it, it would easily appear, wee must allege such reasons, for [Page 11] the truth of Gods Word, as might convince the enemies of it, and not sup­pose the truth of it, when the question is, how it may appear to be true. It were therefore fit to consider, whether a man can reasonably be a Christian, and yet question the truth of the Scriptures; or rather, not fit to consider that, which there can be no doubt in. The whole content of the Scripture is, either the motives, or the mater of Christianity. They that professe Christianity, suppose the motives of it true, which they admit to be sufficient. Supposing them true, they cannot question the Scriptures that record them: Supposing those Scri­ptures, they cannot question those motives for true; Whether sufficient, is re­solved, by admitting Christianity. Alwaies, the same reason that moves a man to be a Christian, resolves him to believe the Scripture; neither would hee allege any other, had hee to do with the enemies of Christianity. What those motives are concernes not us, proceeding upon supposition of common Christianity, to determine differences within it. Yet, that I may be the better understood, my meaning is; That the miracles, done by those from whom wee have the Scri­ptures, is the onely motive to shew that they came from God, and therefore, that wee are obliged to receive what they preached, and, by consequence, the Scriptures that containe it. Not intending hereby to quit the advantage which the Law hath of Heathenism, and the Gospel of the Law, in regard of the rea­sonablenesse and holinesse of the mater of each above other respectively, justi­fied by the light of nature. But because the businesse is, at present, onely to shew the evidence wee have, that God did send, (whatsoever reason may be gi­ven why hee would send) which, without other evidence, had remained unknown, though never so probable or reasonable. Not intending hereby to balk that witnesse, which the Scriptures of the Old Testament yield to the truth of the New. But because that witnesse depends upon the miracles done by Mo­ses and the Prophets, to evidence their Commission from God: And so, the cre­dit which the New Testament hath from the Old, is resolved into those miracles, which evidenced the sending of Moses and the Prophets, and consists in the miracle of fore-telling those things, by the one, which, by the other are full­filled. I know the Jewes expresly deny the credit of the Law to depend upon any miracles done by Moses and the Prophets, but onely upon the appearance of God at giving the Law, to all that people, and speaking to them mouth to mouth: The like whereof not having been done, nor to be done, in giving Christianity, (belonging to all nations, who could not meet at once to receive it) they think themselves grounded thereupon, that the Law is not, nor could be reversed by it. Thus are they content, that God, sending Moses on his am­bussage, with the miracles which hee gave him for his letters of credit, shall be thought, not to have convicted Pharao: That the Law provided no legal tryal, God no evidence to the conscience of his servants, distinguishing true and false Prophets, which cannot be imagined, but by their sayings and doings, predi­ctions and other miracles. Well may the delivering of the Law have circum­stances which no other miraculous action recorded in the Scriptures can com­pare with; Shall that obscure the glory of Christs resurrection, fore-told by him expresse, to witnesse the truth of his message? Shall it make an Ocean of miracles, done by him and his Apostles, to stand for nothing? Shall it disable God himself, to do any thing competent to make faith of a message, the na­ture whereof bore not those circumstances, which hee had used afore?

Now, if the reason why wee believe the Scriptures to come from God, as they pretend, be the motives of Christianity, strange it is that a man should be troubled how to answer the difficulty that may be made, how wee know the truth of those motives, speaking onely to Christians, which have admitted them to be true. But I am sure, neither the witnesse of the Church, nor the dictate of the Spirit, can be alleged to Infidels, but by them that would have themselves and this Gospel laught at both at once. Seeing therefore that Christi­ans do believe for the same reasons, for the which Infidels ought to believe, I shall yield, that it is onely the credit of Gods ancient people, and of Christs Church, that ma [...] evidence, that those miracles were truly done, which I affirm [Page 12] to be the onely motive to believe, being done at such distance of time and place from us. But, let not those that would learn, mistake what is meant by the name of the Church. For, if you suppose the Church to be a Society of men, whereof some, by Gods appointment, have power to oblige the whole, then will the credit of the Scripture be resolved into the authority of the Church, if the truth of those miracles, on which alone the credit thereof is said to depend, be grounded upon such a witnesse of the Church. But my meaning is, to sup­pose no more by the name of the Church, in this place, but the whole number of believers from Christ to the worlds end; And so to say, that there is no o­ther reason, why wee believe, that such men as Moses and the Prophets, as our Lord and his Apostles, did such works as the Scriptures report, to evidence that they came from God, but the consent of all Christians, that have imbraced the Gospel upon that motive. Neither shall the Gospel, hereby, depend more upon the witnesse of man, which may fail, than it depends upon the witnesse of him, who, upon seeing what was done by our Lord and his Apostles, should be mo­ved to imbrace the Faith. For, though they had not taken effect with him; but for the report of his eyes, yet did not the force of them depend upon it. Hee that considers, shall finde, that the consent of all believers, in the whole motive of Faith, more than supplies the use of our eyes, in showing us sufficient reason to believe. There is a distance of place as well as of time; And, God forbid wee should say, those that never saw our Lord and his Apostles do the works for which wee believe, had not sufficient reason to believe. Their ears supplyed to them the use of their eyes, inasmuch as experience and common sense shows, that those things wherein the world agrees are no lesse certain and evident, though morally, than those which wee see with our eies. Hee that should not traffick into the East or West-Indies, or travail to Rome or Constantinople, before hee had seen them, must resolve not to see them. The reason is, because the world can have no common interest to deceive or to be deceived: Much lesse could the Law of Moses, least of all the Gospel of Christ have found credit, (the one imposing such an endlesse morosity of precepts to observe, the other the Crosse of Christ) had it not been originally manifest, that such things were done to evidence that and this. By which it appears, that this reason supposes no authority in the Church, founded upon the Gospel, as a Society communicating in it, because it supposes the same, in the people of the Jewes, as in the Church; The authori­ty of the Church standing upon the Gospel, that which was over the Jewes, on the Law, whereof the one was to be removed, when the other took place. The reason, because it referreth nothing to the Church, but that intelligency which the community of mankinde furnish one another with, for assurance, in those things whereof all cannot be eye-witnesses, by the consent of all, which com­mon reason makes to be as good evidence as our own senses.

And now it will not be difficult to say, how the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves. For, inasmuch as the motives of believing are things recorded in Scripture, it will be necessary to grant, that the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves, which are to be believed for those things which the Scriptures report. But, if wee be further demanded, for what reason, those motives, which, if true, are sufficient to oblige all men to believe, are taken to be true? Hee that saies, because they are recorded in the Scriptures, grants that there is no reason to be­lieve the Scriptures, granting, that there is no reason to believe the motives of faith, but the report of those Scriptures, the belief whereof supposes the truth of those motives. But, if wee impute the belief of that truth, to the common sense of all, who, upon the supposition of them, have submitted to Christianity and hold it, wee have the whole truth of the Scripture evidenced upon such a ground, as shall serve to inforce a resolution of whatsoever is questionable in Christianity, upon it. Whereas they who make the authority of the Church, or the dictate of the Holy Ghost the reason of believing, must either stand still when they are demanded the reason, or give it by supposing Christianity and the Scriptures; the truth whereof they pretend to prove by it, which is the Circle that I spoke of afore, admitting neither principle nor conclusion of discourse.

To confirm that which hath been said, let me demand how the Writings of Homer or Virgil, of Aristotle or Plato, of Tully or Demosthenes, of Hippocrates or Galen, come to be admitted without any question, for their Writings, after some two thousand years more or lesse? Is it not because, ever since they were penned, there have been those that have studied them for paterns of good Lan­guage and Oratory, for the lest authors in Philosophy and Physick? Because, by them, and through their hands, they have been transmitted from age to age? Is not their credit by this means so unquestionable, that a man would be laught at, that should ask other reason for it? And yet, what is this in comparison of that which is to be said for the Scriptures? That, all nations having starred aside to worship many Gods, one people of the Jewes took upon them the worship of the onely true God, according to the Lawes recorded in the books of Moses; and that of so ancient time. That, being planted in the land of Canaan, God stirred them up Prophets from age to age, to keep them close to the service of their God. That, howsoever they kept them, they alwaies professed to be under those Lawes as Gods. That our Lord Jesus, and his Apostles by commission from him, in due time preached both Jewes and Gentiles to be rebels against God; And, that neither the Law of nature nor of Moses was able to free them from sin; Tendering in Gods name the terms upon which all may be reconciled to God, and evidencing their Commission by the works which they did in Gods name. That all parts of the civil world, being by that means convicted of the truth hereof, undertook to professe Christianity, notwithstanding the persecuti­ons to which it was lyable, and do continue in it till this time. Is not this in­fallible evidence, that wee have the very Writings of Moses, and of the Pro­phets and Apostles, and that they who left them us were sent by God, seeing them admitted for Lawes to mens lives and conversations, which nothing but sufficient evidence that they came from God could have brought to passe? Here, if any man should say; I know I have the Writings of Homer, Aristotle or Tully, by the Writings themselvs, he might be convicted by tendering them to one that knowes nothing of Tully or Homer or Aristotle, and asking him, whether hee can say by those books, whether they be Homers or Aristotles or Tullies Writings. Bu [...] he that first understands, what account the world alwaies hath had their Writings in, and studying them, finds the marks in them, may well say, that hee knows the authors by their Writings. So, tender the Scripture in Ebrew or Greek to a sa­vage of the West-Indies, and ask him, whether they be the Word of God or not, who believes not in God as yet, do you believe hee can tell you the truth? But, convict him of that which I have said, how and by what means they came to our hands, how they have been and are owned for Lawes to the hearts and lives of Gods people, and hee will stand convict to God, if hee believe not, finding that written in the Books, which the men own for the rule of their conversa­tions. So, by the same means that all records of Learning are conveyed us, are the Scriptures evidenced to be mater of historical faith. But, inasmuch as the mater of them had never been received but by the work of God, in that regard, they become mater of supernatural faith, in regard of the reason, moving in the nature of an object, to believe, as well as in regard of Gods grace, moving in the nature of an effective cause.

I know there have been divers answers made to assoile this difficulty, by those that dispute Controversies; That the Scriptures authority is better known in or­der of nature, the Churches in that order, by which wee get our knowledg, (as Logicians and Philosophers use to distinguish between notius naturâ and notius nobis, because our knowledg rises upon experience which wee have by sense of particulars, and yet the general reason, being once attained by that means, is in some sense better known than that which depends upon it) That the autho­rity of the Scripture is the reason why wee believe, but, the authority of the Church, a condition requisite to the same, creating in the mindes of men that discreetly consider it a kinde of inferior Faith, though infallible, which disposes a man to accept the mater of that Faith which God onely revealeth, though the reason why we believe is only the act of God revealing that which he obligeth us [Page 14] to believe. But all this to no purpose, so long as they suppose the foundation of the Church in the nature of a Corporation, for the ground of admitting the ma­ter of Faith, not the credit of all believers agreeing in witnessing the motives of Faith. I remember in my yonger time in Cambridge an observation out of Averrois the Saracene his Commentaries upon Aristotle, which as I finde exactly true, so may it be of good use; That, in Geometry and the Mathematicks the same thing is notius naturâ and nobis, to wit, the first principles and rudiments of those sciences, which, being evident as soon as understood, produce in time those conclusions, which no stranger to those studies can imagine how they should be discovered. For, being offered to the understanding that comprehendsthe mean­ing of them, they require no experience of particulars with sense & time brings forth, to frame a general conceit of that in which all agree, or to pronounce what holds in all particulars; Because it is immediately evident, that the same holds in all particulars, as in one, which a man has before his eyes. The like is to be said of the processe in hand, though the reason be farre otherwise. Hee that considers may see, that the motives of Faith, assured to the common sense and reason of all men, by the consent of believers, are immediately the reason, why wee believe the Scriptures in which they are recorded to be the Word of God, without so much as supposing any such thing as a Church in the nature of a Cor­poration, indowed with authority over those of whom it consists; The consent of Christians as particular persons, obliging common reason, both to believe the Scriptures, and whatever that belief inferres. As this must be known before wee can believe the Scriptures, so being known, it must be, if any be, the onely reason why we believe either the Scriptures, or that Christianity which they con­vey unto us. And if it be the onely reason why wee believe, then is it better known in order of reason as well as of sense, to be true, than the authority of the Church, the knowledg whereof must resolve into the reason why wee are Christians. And if this be true, then is not the authority of the Church, (as a Cor­poration to be obliged by the act of some members) so much as a condition re­quisite to induce any man to believe; All men, by having the onely true reason why all are to believe, being subject to condemnation if they believe not: But not if they believe not the Corporation of the Church, unlesse it may appeare to be a part of that Faith, which that onely reason moves us to believe. Neither doth the credit which wee give to all Christians, witnessing the motives of Faith to be true, by submitting to Christianity in regard of them, create in us any inferior Faith of the nature of humane, because the witnesse of man convayes the motives thereof to our knowledg. But serves us to the same use, as mens eyes and other senses served them, when they saw those things done, which Moses and the Prophets, which our Lord and his Apostles did, to induce men to believe that they came from God. For, as true as it is, that, if God have provided such signs to attest his Commission, then we are bound to be­lieve; So true is it, that, if all Christians agree, that God did procure them to be done, then did hee indeed procute them to be done that men might believe. For so great a part of mankinde could not be out of their wits all at once: Let not therefore those miracles which God hath provided to attest the Commissions of Moses and the Prophets, of our Lord and his Apostles, be counted common and probable motives to believe, unlesse wee will confesse, that wee have none but common and probable motives. For, what reason can wee have to believe that shall not depend upon their credit? Unlesse it be the light of natural reason, which may make that which they preach more evidently credible, but never evi­dently true. If these works were provided by God to oblige us to believe, then is that Faith which they create truely divine, and the work of God; Though, had all men been blinde, they had not been seen, and had all men been out of their wits, wee might presume, that they had agreed in an imposture.

And now it will be easie to answer the words of S. Augustine contra Episto­lam fundamenti cap. V. which alwaies have a place in this dispute, though I can as yet admit S. Augustine no otherwise than as a particular Christian, and his saying, as a presumption, that hee hath said no more than any Christian would [Page 15] have said in the common cause of all Christians against the Manichees. Ego Evan­gelio non crederem, saith hee, nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae moveret authoritas. I would not believe, or have believed, the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholick Church moved mee. For, some men have imployed a great deal of learning to show, that moveret stands for movisset, as in many other places both of S. Augustine and of other Africane Writers. And without doubt they have showed it past contradiction, and I would make no doubt to show the like in S. Hierome, Si­donius and other Writers of the decaying ages of the Latine tongue, as well as in the Africane Writers, if it were any thing to the purpose. For is not the Question, manifestly, what it is that obligeth that man to believe who as yet be­lieveth not? Is it not the same reason that obliges him to become and to be a Christian? Therefore, whether moveret or movisset, all is one: The Question is, whether the authority of the Church as a Corporation, that is, of those per­sons who are able to oblige the Church, would have moved S. Austine to believe the Gospel, because they held it to be true: Or the credit of the Church as of so many men of common sense, attesting the truth of those reasons which the Gospel tenders, why wee ought to believe. What is it then that obliged S. Au­stine to the Church? The consent of people and nations, that authority which miracles had begun, which hope had nourished, charity increased, succession of time settled, from S. Peter to the present, the name and title of Catholick so visible, that no Heretick durst show a man the way to his Church, demanding the way to the Catholick. So hee expresseth it cap. 111. And what is this in English, but the conversion of the Gentiles foretold by the Prophets, attested by God, and visibly settled in the Unity of the Church? Whereupon hee may boldly affirm, as hee doth afterwards, that, if there were any word in the Go­spel manifestly witnessing Manes to be the Apostle of Christ, hee would not believe the Gospel any more. For, if the reason for which hee had once belie­ved the Church that the Gospel is true, because hee saw it verified in the being of the Church, should be supposed false, there could remain no reason to ob­lige us to take the Gospel for true. All that remaines for the Church in the na­ture and quality of a Corporation, by this account, will be this; That it is more discretion for him that is in doubt of the truth of Christianity, to take the rea­son of it from the Church, that is, from those whom the Church trusteth to give it, than from particular Christians, who can by no means be presumed to understand it so well as they may do. For otherwise, supposing a particular Christian sets forth the same reasons which the Church does, how can any man not be bound to follow him, that is bound to follow the Church? So that, the reasons which both allege being contained in the Scriptures, the Church is no more in comparison of the Scriptures, than the Samaritane in comparison of our Lord himself, when her fellow-citizens tell her John IV. 12. Wee believe no more for thy saying; For wee our selves have heard and know that this is of a truth the Saviour of the World, the Christ. For, the reasons, for which, our Lord himself tells us that wee are to believe, are contained in the Scriptures.

But by the premises it will be most manifest, that the same Circle in dis­course is committed by them, who resolve the reason why they believe into the dictate of the Spirit, as, into the decree of the Church. For, the question is not now of the effective cause, whether or no, in that nature, a man is able to imbrace the true Faith without the assistance of Gods Spirit or not; Which ought here to remain questionable, because it is to be tried upon the grounds upon which here wee are seeking. And therefore, that Faith which is ground­ed upon revelation from God, and competent evidence of the same, is to be counted divine supernatural Faith, without granting, (whatsoever wee may sup­pose) any supernatural operation of Gods Spirit, to work it, in the nature of an effective cause, which must remain questionable, supposing the reason why wee believe the Scriptures. But, in the nature of an object, presenting unto the un­derstanding the reason why we are to believe, it is manifest by the premises, that no man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit, that knoweth not the truth of the Scriptures. If therefore hee allege, that hee knowes the Scriptures to be true, [Page 16] because Gods Spirit saith so to his Spirit; hee allegeth for a reason, that which hee could not know, but, supposing that for granted, which hee pretendeth to prove; To wit, That the dictate of his own Spirit is from Gods Spirit. Indeed when the motives of Faith proceed from Gods Spirit in Moses and the Pro­phets, in our Lord and his Apostles, witnessing, by the works which they do, their Commission as well as their message, who can deny that this is the light of Gods Spirit? Again, when wee govern our doings by that which wee believe, and not by that which wee see, who will deny that this is the light of Faith and of Gods Spirit? But, both these considerations take place, though wee sup­pose the mater of Faith to remain obscure in it self, though to us evidently cre­dible, for the reasons God showes us, to believe that hee saith it. If any man seek, in the mater of Faith, any evidence to assure the conscience, in the nature of an object, or reason why wee are to believe, that is not derived from the mo­tives of Faith, outwardly attesting Gods act of revealing it, hee falls into the same inconvenience with those, who believe their Christianity because the Church commends it, and again the Church, because Christianity commends it.

As for that monstrous imagination, that the Scripture is not Law to oblige any man in justice to believe it, before the Secular Powers give it force over their subjects; Supposing for the present that which I said before, that it is all one question, whether Christianity or whether the Scriptures oblige us as Law or not; Let mee demand, whether our Lord Christ and his Apostles have showed us sufficient reasons to convince us, that wee are bound to believe and become Christians? If not, why are wee Christians? If so, can wee be obliged, and no Law to oblige us? supposing for the present, though not granting, because it is not true, that, by refusing Christianity sufficiently proposed, a man comes not under sin, but onely comes not from under it, but remains under that sin, which, by refusing the Gospel, hee refuses to escape; The man whom God showes competent reasons to convict him of the truth of Christianity, does hee not thereby oblige to believe? If so, then is Christianity, by those reasons, and, by out Lord and his Apostles advancing them, published for Gods Law, to all them, to whom those reasons become known. Suppose that, not onely the Apostles, but God himself do no more than perswade men to believe, can any Secular Power do more? For, what can it do more, in making a Law, than de­clare the will of the Soveraign, under a punishment expressed? And doth not God declare, when hee sends those that are furnished with means to convict the world of the truth of Christianity, that it is his will that they become Christi­ans? And is it not competent punishment to inact a Law, that, by disobeying, men become incapable of escaping their own sin, and the punishment of it? If Christianity be no Law, because a man hath his choice whether hee will believe or not, hath not a thief his choice whether hee will be hanged or not steal? or is not the mischief that comes by refusing the Faith, as great as that? As for the point of justice, is not gtatitude justice? doth not God oblige them in point of justice, whom hee obligeth in point of gratitude? doth hee not oblige them in point of gratitude, whom, by his Gospel, hee showes the way to come from under sin, to everlasting happinesse? Again, is it not justice that mankinde should be subjects, and not rebels to God? doth not the Gospel preach, that mankinde are become rebels to God, and that they ought to return and become his Subjects? If wee can owe a debt of justice to God or to our selves, the greatest is that, which the Gospel bindeth upon us. But, suppose not onely that which this Dogmatist granteth, that hee who is bound to renounce Christ with his mouth when his Soveraign commandeth, is bound to believe him with his heart at the same time, let mee demand by what Law hee is bound to it, if the Scriptures be not Law? Or how a man can be bound to believe in heart that our Lord Jesus is the Christ, and not be bound to receive, either the mater, or the motives to believe that which Christ teacheth, which is all that the Scriptures containe? Wherefore wee are by no means to admit that which this Author presumes upon as evident truth; That it is one thing to demand, why a man believes the Scriptures, another thing to demand, how a man knowes them [Page 17] to be the Word of God, and a third, by what authority they become Law: Be­cause, saith hee, one man believes for this reason, another for that; But, to know the Scripture to be the Word of God, is a thing that no man can do, but onely hee to whom this or that Scripture was revealed. For, it is true, that one man be­lieves for this reason, another for that, if they believe not for that reason for which they ought to. believe. But there is but one reason for which God requires us to believe, namely, his will, declared by the motives of Faith, which hee, by his messengers or deputies hath presented us with; And hee that is moved to believe for any reason besides that, is but called a believer, for hee is not such in Gods esteem. And hee that by these reasons stands convict, that those mes­sengers came from God, though hee cannot know by the report of his senses, nor by any evidence of the mater which they contain, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, yet may hee reasonably be said to know that they are so, because hee knowes those reasons, by which hee stands convict that they are no other­wise. And I have now further showed, that the publishing of Christianity, that is, the tendering of the Scriptures with this evidence, that they contain the word and will of God, bindes them for a Law upon the consciences of all that receive them so, obliging them not onely to believe all that they contain to be true, but to undertake and do whatsoever they require. Wherefore it is true, that the Scriptures, or Christianity, becomes the civil Law of a State, because the Soveraign Power thereof inacteth it; But wee are further to demand, whether Secular Power is able to do this because it is Soveraign, or because it is Christi­an. For, if, because it is Sovetaign, it will follow of necessity, that those who are not subject to Christian Powers, are not obliged to believe the truth of the Scri­ptures, nor to be Christians, if there be no other Law to require it at their hands but the will of their Soveraign; Because the onely reason, which, this o­pinion saith, obliges them to believe, that is, the act of Soveraigne Power is wanting. If, because it is Christian, the question will have recourse, what it was that obliged the Soveraign Power to become Christian. For, the act of Sover [...]igne Power hath no effect upon it self, but upon those that are under it; And yet, the same reason why the Soveraign Power is bound to believe, will convince all that are under it, that they also ought to believe, because concerning them as men, or at least, as those men whom the motives of Faith are published to, not as of this or that Common-wealth. But, in this businesse I am most ashamed for Euclid's sake, that a man so studied in Geometry, should build such a vast pretense in Christia­nity, upon such an imaginary ground. Forsooth, Abraham, and the Patriarchs after him, and then Moses, had the Soveraign Power of their Families, and of Gods people; the Patriarchs by their birth and estate, Moses, by the contract of the Israelites, accepting of God for their Civil Soveraign, and Moses for his Lieu­tenant. The same Patriarchs and Moses were absolute in maters of Religion, be­cause Gods people inferiors were to be ruled in it by no other Laws, then those which God published to them, by the hands of those Superiors. Hee that will go about to draw the conclusion from these principles, (whether granted, or onely supposed) shall easily see that it followes not. For, half an eye will serve to di­stinguish two qualities, in the Patriarchs, and in Moses, the one of Soveraignes, the other of Prophets, or Depuries and Commissaries, or Interpreters of the will of God to his people; And, this distinction being made, I will not be be­holden to any man to say, which of the two it was, that could oblige their in­feriors to obey, as Gods Lawes, those things, which persons so authorized should declare in his name. For if those, whom God, by sufficient evidence had wit­nessed to be his Prophets and messengers, should falsify his trust, the blame of that which should be done upon such deceit must needs redound upon God. And therefore this author pag. 231, 287. agreeth with that which I argued even now, that revelations and inspirations of Gods Spirit are not granted under the Gospel, but to those who professe the true Christ; Nor under the Law were granted, but to those who professed the true God. And for this cause they are called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII. 7. the manifestation of the Spirit; because they ma­nifest [Page 18] the presence of God in his Church. As 1 Cor. XIV. 22-25. hee saith; that unbelievers, seeing the secrets of their hearts revealed by those graces, were moved to fall on their faces, and worship God, declaring that God is in his Church of a truth. Those therefore who are thus witnessed by God, upon his witnesse are to be received, whatsoever they deliver in Gods name, concerning either the Law of Moses, or the Gospel of Christ. For, how can any man ima­gine, that, upon every new revelation declared by a Prophet, upon every new letter written, or act done by an Apostle, a new evidence should be requisite, to attest a new Commission from God? Especially, the presumption, that God will not suffer his people to be abused by trusting him, being necessary, and not one­ly reasonable. Since therefore our Lord and his Apostles carry this quality, no lesse than did Moses and the Prophets, it followes of necessity, that their wri­tings, and what else they may have ordained, are no lesse the Law of God, no lesse obliging, than the Law of Moses, by virtue of their Commission, which makes their acts in Gods name to be Gods acts: Though civil Law they are not, till civil Powers binde them upon their Subjects.

CHAP. IV. Neither the Dictate of Gods Spirit nor the authority of the Church is the reason of believing any thing in Christianity. Whether the Church be before the Scripture, or the Scripture before the Church. The Scriptures contain not the Infallibility of the Church. Nor the consent of all Christians.

IT is now time to proceed to the resolution of some part of those disputes and opinions, which, wee showed the world divided into, upon occasion of the question, how Controversies of Faith are to be tryed and ended; That is to say, so much of them, as must be determined by him that will proceed in this dispute. For, supposing the premises to be true, I shall not make any diffi­culty to conclude; That, neither the dictate of the Spirit of God to the Spirits of particular Christians, (that is, the presumption of it) nor the authority of the Church, (that is, the presumption of the like dictate to any persons that may be thought to have power of obliging the Church) is a competent reason, to decide the meaning of the Scripture, or any Controversie about mater of Faith, obliging any man therefore to believe it. And by consequence, that the authority of the Church, (that is, of persons authorized to give sentence in behalf of the Body of the Church, here understood) is not Infallible, which if it were, it must be without question admitted for a competent reason of be­lieving all such sentences to be Infallibly true. The truth of this Conclusion is demonstrated by the premises, if any thing, in a mater of this nature, can be counted demonstrative. If whatsoever the Spirit of God can be presumed to dictate to the Spirit of any Christian, presupposeth the truth of Christianity, (as that which must try it, whether onely a presumption or truth) then can no mans word, that professes Christianity, be the reason why another man should believe. For, whosoever it is that gives the sentence, by professing Christiani­ty, pretendeth to have a reason for what hee professeth, which reason, and not his judgment, if it be good, obligeth all Christians, as well as him, to believe. For, being once resolved, that, wee are obliged to believe whatsoever comes from those persons, whom wee are convinced to believe, that God imployed to declare his will to us; Whatsoever is said to come from them, must, for the same reason be received, and therefore, by the same meanes said to come from them, as it is said that they came from God. On the other side, whatsoever cannot by the same means be said to come from them, can never by any means be said to come from God, who hath given us no other means to know, what hee would have us believe, but those whom hee hath imployed on his message. Wherefore, seeing the authority of the Church supposeth the truth of Christianity, of neces­sity it supposeth the reason, for which, whatsoever can be pretended to belong to Christianity is receivable; Because, supposing for the present, though not [Page 19] granting, that the Church is a Body, which some persons, by Gods appoint­ment, have authority to oblige, it is manifest, that no man can be vested with this authority, but hee must bear the profession of a Christian, and, by conse­quence, suppose the reasons upon which whatsoever belongs to the profession of a Christian is receivable. For, that which cannot be derived, as for the evidence of it, from those means, by which wee stand convicted that Christianity stands upon true motives, cannot be receivable as any part of it. And therefore, how­ever the generality of this reason may obscure the evidence of it, to them that take not the pains to consider it as it deserves, yet, the truth of it supposes no more than all use of reason supposes, that all knowledg that is to be had, pro­ceeds upon something presupposed to be known.

In which case, it would be very childish to consider, that the Church is more an­cient in time than the Scriptures, at least, than some part of them, as the Writings of the Apostles for example, &, in some sort, then all Scriptures, if wee understand the people of God and the Church to be the same thing. For, to passe by sor the present the Fathers before the Law, as the people of Israel were Gods people by the Covenant of the Law, before they received the Law written in the five Books of Moses; So was the authority of Moses, (imployed by God to medi­ate that Covenant) both good and sufficient, before they by accepting the Law became Gods people: And upon this authority alone, and not upon any au­thority founded upon their being Gods people, (free, and possessed of the Land of Promise, to be ruled by themselves and their own Governors) dependeth the credit of Moses and the Prophets Writings. In like manner, the being of the Church (whether a Society and Corporation or not) supposing the profession of Christianity, and that, the receiving of the Gospel, which is the Covenant of Grace, and that, the authority of our Lord and his Apostles, as sent by God to establish it; Manifest it is, that the credit of their Writings depends on nothing else, but is supposed to the being of the Church, whatsoever it is. Which if it be so, no lesse manifest it must be, that nothing is receivable for truth in Christianity, that cannot be evidenced to proceed from that authority that is more antient than the being of the Church, as a truth declared by some act of that authority. And therefore, it would be childish to allege priority of time for the Church, (if perhaps it may be said, in some regard, that the Church was before the Scriptures) when as, in order of reason, it is evident, that the truth of Christianity is supposed to the being of it, inasmuch as no man can be, or be known to be of the Church, but as hee is, or is known to be a Christian. And truly those that dispute, the authority of the Church to be the the reason to believe the sentence of it in mater of Faith to be true, are to consider what they will say to that opinion, which utterly denies any such authority, any such thing as a Church; Understanding the Church to be a Society founded by Gods appointment, giving publick authority to some persons, so or so qualified by that appointment, in behalf of the whole; For this all must deny, that admit Era­stus his opinion of Excommunication to be true, if they will admit the conse­quence of their own doctrine. Which opinion I have therefore premised, in staring this Question, that it may appear to require such an answer, as may not suppose the being of the Church in that nature, but may be a means to demon­strate it. But, as it is not my intent to begg so great a thing in question, by proceeding upon supposition of any authority in the Church, before I can prove it to be a Corporation founded with such authority as the foundation of it re­quireth; So is it as farre from my meaning, to deny that authority which I do not suppose. For, hee that denieth the authority of the Church to be the reason why any thing is to be taken for truth, or for the meaning of the Scripture, may take the due and true authority of the Church to be a part of that truth, which is more ancient than the authority of the Church; Inasmuch as it must be be­lieved, that God hath founded a Society of them which professe Christianity, by the name of the Church, (giving such authority to some members of it in behalf of the whole, as hee pleased) before it can be believed, that this or that is within the authority of the Church. For, that there is a [Page 20] Church, and a publick authority in it and for it, and what things they are that fall under that authority, if it be true, is part of that truth, which our Lord and his Apostles, whose authority is more ancient than the Church, have declared. Indeed if it were true, that the first truth which all Christians are to believe, and for the reason of it to believe every thing else, is the saying of persons so and so qualified in the Church, then were it evident, that the belief of that which is questioned in religion, could not be resolved into any other principle. But if it be manifest, by the motives of Christianity, that the authority of the Apostles is antecedent to it, that all Scripture, and the meaning of Scripture, (which signifies nothing beside it own meaning) and Tradition of the Apostles, (if any such Tradition over and above Scripture may appear) is true, not suppo­sing it, (as appeares by the premises) then is the authority of the Church no ground of Faith, and so not Infallible. There are indeed sundry Objections made, both out of Scripture and the Fathers, to weaken and to shake such an evi­dent truth, which are not here to be related, till wee have resolved, as well what is the reason of believing in Controversies of Faith, as what is not. In the mean time, if wee demand, by what means any person, that can pretend to give sentence in Controversies of Faith, knowes his own sentence to be in­fallible, or upon what ground hee gives sentence; Hee that answers by Scri­pture, or authority of Writers that professe to have learned from the Scriptures, or reasons depending on the authority of our Lord and his Apostles, acknow­ledges the authority of the Church not to be the reason of believing; For, what need wee all this, if it were? If hee say, by the same means, for which these are receivable, that is, by revelation from God; It will be presently de­manded, to make evidence of such revelation, the same evidence as wee have for the truth of the Scriptures; Which, because it cannot be done, therefore, is this plea laid aside, even by them, who neverthelesse, professe to imbrace the Communion of the Church of Rome, because they believe the Church to be Infallible. But if it be destructive to all use of reason, to deny the conclu­sion, admitting the premises, then let him never hope to prevaile in any dispute, that holds the conclusion, denying the premises. For to hold the sentence of the Church Infallible, when the means, that depend upon the authority of our Lord and his Apostles, proves whatsoever is to be believed, without supposing any such thing; when revelation, independent upon their authority there is acknow­ledged to be none; averreth Infallibility in the sentence of the Church, deny­ing the onely principle that can inferre it. And therefore, those that speak things so inconsequent, so inconsistent, I shall not grant that they speake those things which themselves think and believe, but rather, that, like men upon the rack, they speak things which themselves may, and in some sort do know not to be true. For, whosoever holds an opinion, which hee sees an argument against, that hee cannot resolve, is really and truly upon the rack, and, of necessity, seeks to escape, by contradicting what himself confesseth otherwise. Which every man of necessity doth, who, acknowledging the reason of believing Christianity to lye in the authority of our Lord and his Apostles, challengeth neverthelesse that Infallability, which is the reason of believing, to all sentences of the Church, the mater of which sentence, if it be true, the reason of it must depend immedi­ately upon the same authority, upon which the authority of the Church which sentenceth dependeth.

But the consequence of this assertion deserves further consideration, because all that followes depends upon it. Suppose, that the Scriptures prove them­selves to be the Word of God, by the reasons of believing contained in them, witnessed by the common sense of all Christians. For this admits no dispute. If the same consent can evidence any thing belonging to the mater of Faith, that will appear to oblige the Faith of all Christians, upon the same reason as the Scriptures do, whether contained in the Scriptures or not. For who will undertake, that God could not have preserved Christianity, without either Scri­ptures or new revelations? And therefore hee chose the way of writing, not as of absolute necessity, but as of incomparable advantage. If therefore [Page 21] God might have obliged man to believe any thing not delivered by writing, whether hee hath or not will remain questionable, supposing the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon the ground aforesaid. Besides, there are many things so manifest in the Scriptures, that they can indure no dispute supposing the Scri­ptures to be the Word of God: Many things are every day cleared more and more, by applying the knowledg of the Languages and of Historical truth to the text of the Scripture: And many things more may be cleared by applying the light of reason, void of partiality and prejudice, to draw the truth so cleared into consequence. No part of all this can be said to be held upon any decree of the Church; Because no part of the evidence supposes the Church in the na­ture and quality of a Corporation, the constitution whereof inableth some per­sons to oblige the whole. Because there are maters in question concerning our common Christianity and the sense of the Scriptures, upon which the great mis­chief of divi [...]on is fallen out in the Church, it is thought a plausible plea to say, that the decree of the present Church, (supposing the foundation of the Church in that nature, and the power given to every part in behalf of the whole, of which no evidence can be made, not supposing all that for truth which I have said) obligeth all Christians to believe, as much as the Scriptures, supposing them to be the Word of God, can do. Which they that affirm do not consider, that it must first be evident to all that are to be obliged; Both that the Church is so founded, and who [...]e Act it is, and how that Act must be done which must oblige it. Seeing then that the Scriptures are admitted on all sides, to be the Word of God, let us see whether it be as evident as the Scriptures, that the act of the Pope, or of a General Council or both, oblige the Church to believe the truth of that which they decree, as much as the Scriptures.

I know there are texts of Scripture alleged; First, concerning the Apostles and Disciples, Mat. X. 14, 15, 40. Luke IX. 5. X. 10, 11, 16. where those that refuse them are in worse estate than Sodom and Gomorrha. And, Hee that hea­reth you, heareth mee; Hee that neglecteth you, neglecteth mee. Mat. XXVIII. 19, 20. Go make all Nations Disciples—teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and behold I am with you to the worlds end. 1 Thess. II. 13. Yee received the Gospel of us, not as the word of man, but as it is indeed, the word of God. Then concerning S. Peter, as predecessor of all Popes, Mat. XVI. 18, 19. Ʋpon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou bin­dest on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Luke XXII. 32. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not, and thou, once converted, strengthen thy brethren. John XXI. 15, 16, 17. Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou mee? Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Again, concerning the Church and Councils, Mat. XVIII. 17-20. If hee heare them not, tell the Church: If hee hear not the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven: whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you; If two of you agree on earth, upon any thing, to ask it, it shall be done them from my Father in heaven, For, where two or three are assembled in my name, there am I in the midst of them. John XVI. 13. The Spirit of truth shall lead you into all truth. Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. 1 Tim. III. 15. That thou mayest know now it behoveth to converse in the house of God, which is the Churchof God, the pillar and establishment of the truth. You have further, the exhortations of the Apostles, 1 Thess. V. 12, 13. Now I beseech you brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you: And esteem them more than a­bundantly in love, for their works sake. Heb. XIII 7, 17. Bee obedient and give way to your Rulers, for they watch for your souls, as those that must give account: That they may do it joyfully, and not groaning; Which is not for your profit. And afore, Rememeer your Rulers which have spoken to you the Word of God: And, conside­ring the issue of their conversation, imitate their Faith. Those that spoke unto them the Word of God are the Apostles, or, their companions and deputies, whom hee commandeth them to obey no otherwise than those who presently [Page 22] watched over them after their death. In the Old Testament likewise Deut. XVII. 5-12. Hee that obeyeth not the determination of the Court that was to sit be­fore the Ark is adjudged to death. Therefore Hag. II. 12. Thus saith the Lord the God of Hosts; Ask the Priests concerning the Law. Mal. II. 7. The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge, and the Law shall they require at his mouth. For hee is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. The answers of the Priests resolved in­to the decrees of the said Court; therefore they are unquestionable. And this Power established by the Law, our Lord acknowledging the Law, allowes Mat. XXIII. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses chair: whatsoever there­fore they command you that do: But according to their works do not.

This is that which is alleged out of the Scriptures for that Infallibility which is challenged for the Church. If I have left any thing behinde, it will prove as inef­fectual as the rest; In all which there are so many considerations appear, why the sense of them should be limited on this side, or extended beyond the body of the Church, that it is evident they cannot serve for evidence to ground the Infalli­bility of it. For, is it not evident, that the neglect of the Apostles, in question­ing their doctrine, redounds upon our Lord, who by sending them, stamps on them the marks of his Fathers authority, which hee is trusted with? Not so the Church. For who can say, that God gives any testimony to the lie which it telleth, seeing Christianity is supposed, the Infallibility thereof remaining questionable? Is it not evident, that God is with his Chu,ch, not as a Corporation, but as the collection of many good Christians; Supposing that, those who have power to teach the Church by the constitution thereof, teach lies, and yet all are not car­ried away with their doctrine, but believe Gods truth, so farre as the necessity of their salvation requires? If there were any contradiction in this supposition, how could it be maintained in the Church of Rome, that so it shall be when An­tichrist comes, as many do maintain? Besides, is it as evident as Christianity, or the Scriptures, that this promise is not conditional, and to have effect, supposing, both the teaching, and the following of that which our Lord lud taught, and nothing else? Surely, if those that refuse the Gospel be in a worse state than those of Sodom and Gomorrha, it followeth not yet, that all that refuse to hear the Church without the Gospel are so. For the truth of the Gospel supposeth that there is no means but the Gospel to save us. But if wee be saved by believing the Gospel, wee may be saved, not believing that which the Church teacheth without it. For, that which the Gospel obligeth us to believe unto salvation, it is agreed already, that wee cannot be saved without believing it. Suppose now the Church to continue till the last day, not as one visible Body, but broken into pieces, as wee see it, so that alwaies there remain a number of good Christians, (for, whe­ther or no they that communicate not with the Church of Rome may be good Christians, is the thing in question, not to be taken for truth without proving) shall the gates of hell be said to prevail against the Church all that while? Besides; Grotius expounds those words to signifie no more but this; That death and the grave (which [...] or Hell in the stile of the Old Testament signifies) shall never prevail over Christians; That is, that they shall rise again. And I suppose, it is not so evident that this exposition is false, as, that the Gospel is true. As for the Keyes of Christs Kingdom, let him that saith they argue Infallibility, say also, that they cannot be abused; But hee will have more shame, if not more sense, than to say it. The Thessalonians received the Gospel as the Word of God, be­cause they supposed it to be [...], the Word which God sent them newes of. Would they therefore have received the decrees of the Church with the same reverence, not supposing them the Word of God, till some body prove it? But, suppose the promises made S. Peter to import as much as the power of the Apostles, is it as evident that the present Pope succeeds S. Peter, as, that Christianity is from God? That hee succeeds him in the full right of that Power which is given the Apostles? Certainly, wheresoever two or three are assembled in the name of Christ, there is not the Infallibility of the Church. Therefore it cannot be founded upon the promises made to all Assemblies of Christians as Christians. It is very probable, that the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem [Page 23] had a revelation upon the place, signifying how they should order the mater in question, because there are many instances in the Scriptures, of inspirations at the very Assemblies of Gods people, as I have showed in the Right of the Church. Therefore it is not evident that all Councils may say the like. Therefore, they cannot presume that the Holy Ghost will lead them into all truth, whatsoever they take a humor to determine, because it was promised, that hee should lead the Apostles into all truth concerning our common Christianity. But if the Church be the pillar and foundation that upholdeth the truth, then must that truth first be evidenced for truth, before the effect of the Churches office in up­holding it, as pillars uphold an house, can appear. The exhortations of the A­postles, 1 Thess. V. 14, 15. Hebr. XIII. 7, 17. to yield obedience to the Rulers of the Church, are certainly pertinent to this purpose; But it is evident, that this obedience is limitable by the grounds and substance of Christianity delive­red afore, as it is evident that all Power of the present Church presupposeth our common Christianity. As for the obedience required in the Old Testament to the Governors of the Synagogue and Priests confirmed by our Lord, Mat. XXIII. 2. I am very willing to grant the Church all Power in decreeing for truth, that can appear to have belonged to the Rulers of the Synagogue, because I am se­cure, that those who could put malefactors to death, as they could, were not therefore able to tye men to believe that which they say to be true. But the great subtilty is the Prophesie of Caiaphas, John XI. 48-52. who, because High Priest, could not but truly determine, that our Lord must die least the people should perish, even in resolving to crucifie him. Indeed, at the beginning, God was wont to conduct his people by Oracles of Urim and Tummim in the High Priests brest-plate. And though this was ceased under the second Temple, as wee have reason to believe the Jewes, yet was it no marvail, that God should use the High Priests tongue to declare that secret which himself understood not, being the Person, by whom hee had used to direct his people in former ages. But hee that from hence concludes the Church infallible, must first maintain, that Caiaphas erred not in crucifying our Lord Christ.

Now, if it be said, that the consent of all Christians, though not as members of the Church, (because as yet it appeareth not that the Church is a Corpora­tion and hath members) determines the sense of these Scriptures to signifie In­fallibility, which they may, but do not necessarily signifie; Let him consider the disputes that succeeded in the Church upon the decree of the Great Council at Nicaea, the breaches that have succeeded upon the decrees of Ephesus and Chal­cedon, the division between the Greek and the Latine Church, between the Reformation and the Church of Rome. For is it imaginable, that all Christians holding as firmly as their Christianity, that the acts of the Pope and a Council, (that is the greater part of the present Church) is to be believed as much as the Scriptures, not onely the decree of Nicaea should be disputed again, but breaches should succeed rather than admit their decrees, retaining the common profession of Christianity? What disputes there have been betwixt the Court of Rome and the Paris Doctors, whether it be the act of the Pope or of a General Council that obligeth the belief of the Church, is as notorious to the world, as that they are not yet decided. And yet the whole question is disputed onely concerning the Western Church; The East which acknowledgeth not the Pope, appeareth not in the claim of this Infallibility, were both East and West joyned in one and the same Council. Now, among them that maintain the Pope, it is not agreed what acts of the Pope they must be that shall oblige the Church to believe, as it believes the Scriptures. For it is argued that Popes have decreed Heresie, Libe­rius, Honorius, Vigilius, and perhaps others. And though I stand not to prove, I may presume that the contrary is not so evident as our common Christianity, or the Scriptures. And that some of them have held Heresie, seems granted without dispute. Is it then as evident as our common Christianity, what act of the Pope obliges us to believe? That hee cannot decree that error to be held by others, which, it is granted, himself holdeth? Besides, how many things are requisite to make a true Pope, (whose Power, unlesse it be conveyed by the [...] [Page 24] act of those that are able to give it, the acts thereof will be void) which it does not appear that the present Pope is qualified with, as it appeareth that the Scri­ptures are true. And may not the same question be made of a General Council, whether constituted according to right or not, whether proceeding without force and fraud or not? Is it as evident to all Christians as their Christianity or the Scriptures, that it is not? If it be said, that all Catholicks agree that the Pope with a General Council, or a General Council confirmed by the Pope cannot erre; First, what shall oblige them to agree? For, if they agree not, their In­fallibility is not evident to all Christians, nor if their agreement appear casual, can it be taken for a ground of Faith that is undefeifible. Then, to set aside all the East, which, contesting the Power of the Pope cannot concurre to this In­fallibility, about the Councils of Constance and Basle, when the dispute between the Pope and Council was at the hottest, there lived divers Doctors of repute that have maintained this Infallibility to be the gift and privilege, not of the pre­sent but of the Catholick Church; By name Ockam, Alliacensis, Panormitane, Antoninus, Cusanus, Clemangis and Mirandula: Whose words you may see in Doctor Baron of Aberdene his dispute de Objecto Fidei, Tract. V. Cap. XIX, XX. Further, I demand, if there be in the Church a gift of Infallibility ind [...] ­pendent upon the Scripture, (that is, obliging to believe the decrees thereof, which our common Christianity evidenceth not) can it appear without the like reasons, for which wee believe the Scripture? Where is the evidence that Gods Spirit inspires them with their decrees? Nay, when wee see Popes and Coun­cils imploy the same means to finde the truth of things in question which other men do, would they have us believe that they shall not fail by Gods providence, when they use no means but that may fail, nor have themselves any reason in them to evidence that they do not fail? For if they had, they might make it ap­pear. But of all things the str [...]ngest is, that they should undertake to per [...]wade the world this, when as the Church it self never determined it. Of all things that ever the Church of any time took in hand to decree, it will never appear that ever it was decreed, that the decrees of the present Church are to be admit­ted for Gods truth. And therefore, there is not so much appearance of any opinion the Church of Rome has, that it is true, as there is of humane policy, in breeding men up in such prejudicate conceits, which education makes them as zealous of as of their Faith, though meer contradiction to the grounds of it; That being intangled in their own understandings, to hold things so inconsi­stent, they may be the fitter instruments to intangle others, in that obedience to the Church which they hold necessary, though upon false reasons. For, as Antony disputes in Tully de Oratore, that no man is so fit to induce others into passion, as hee that appears really possessed with the same, so is no man so fit to imbroile the true reason and order of believing in another mans understanding, as hee that is himself first confounded in it. There is indeed a plau [...]ble incon­venience alleged, if it be not admitted, to wit, that differences cannot be ended otherwise. But, to object an inconvenience, is not to answer an argument, say Logicians; Nor is it, say I, to demonstrate a truth. It is requisite the Church should be one; (Suppose wee this, for the present, for it is not proved as yet) but it is not therefore necessary, that the unity thereof should depend upon the de [...]ision of all Controversies that arise, what true, what false. It is a great deal easier to command men not to decide their own opinions, than to be­lieve their adversaries. For to decide, is nothing else, but to command all men to judge one part to be true, when it appeareth, that a great part have already judged it to be false. But, not to offend him that hath declared a contrary judg­ment, is a thing to be attained of him, that cannot see reason to judge the same. Charity may have place in all things in question among Christians, though Faith be confined to the proper mater of it, though wee cannot yet determine what that proper mater is, and upon what termes it standeth. It remains there­fore; that all presumption concerning the truth of the Churches decrees pre­supposeth the corporation of the Church, & the foundation thereof, nor can any way be evidenced by supposing onely the truth of the Scriptures, and the con­sent [Page 25] of Christians as Christians, which conveyes the evidence thereof unto us. So that, the belief of the Scriptures, and of all things so clear in the Scriptures, that they are not questioned in the Church, depending upon the evidence of Gods revelations to his messengers; But, the belief of the Churches decrees, inasmuch as not evidenced by the Scriptures, upon the presumption of the right use of the Power vested in them that decree, by the foundation of the Church; (if that foundation may appear) they do not allow us the common reason of all men that require us to yield the same credit to both.

CHAP. V. All things necessary to salvation are not clear in the Scriptures to all understandings. Not in the Old Testament. Not in the Gospel. Not in the Writings of the Apostles. It is necessary to salvation to believe more than this, that our Lord is the Christ. Time causeth obscurity in the Scriptures, aswell as in other Re­cords. That it is no where said in the Scriptures, that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scriptures. Neither is there any consent of all Chri­stians to evidence the same.

IN the next place, to proceed by steps, I must negatively conclude on the o­ther side, that, all things necessary to the salvation of all are not of them­selves clear in the Scriptures to all understandings. Whereby I say not, that all such things are not contained in the Scriptures, as if some thing necessary to the salvation of all were to be received by Tradition alone: Nor, that, being in the Scriptures, they are not clear and discernable to the understandings of those, that are furnished with means, requisite to discern the meaning of the Scriptures: But, that which I stand upon is, that it is not, nor ought to be a pre­sumption, that this or that is not necessary to salvation, because it is not clear in the Scriptures: Which if it were admitted, whosoever were able to make such an argument against any Article of Faith, as all understandings interessed in salvation could not dissolve, (such as, it is plain, may be made against the truth of Christianity) should have gained this, that, though it may be true, yet it can­not be an Article of Faith. To my purpose indeed, it were enough, in this place, to prove, that this is not the first truth in Christianity, to wit, that all things necessary to salvation are clear by the Scriptures. For, having obtained, that there is no Rule to conclude those doctrines which may be questioned not to be Articles of Faith; so that it cannot thereupon be disputed by degrees, that they are not true; There would be nothing in my way, to hinder the resolution of a positive Rule, to distinguish between true and false, in all things concern­ing the Christian Faith. Notwithstanding, because, by that which already wee have said, and that which appears to all men in the Scriptures, there is sufficient means to conclude so much as I have proposed, and that the proof of it will be an advantage to that which shall follow, I shall undertake it, supposing no more than I have said.

I do remember the Argument made against Tradition, by Marinaro the Car­melite, at the Council of Trent; Which, as it was thought so considerable there, that order was taken, that hee should appeare no more in the Council, so, seemed to mee, when I reade it, not easie to answer. Now, upon further considerati­on, I make it my ground, to prove the conclusion which I have advanced. Hee argued; That it was not possible to give a reason, why God should provide, that some of those truths which are necessary to salvation should be recorded in Scri­pture, others, equally obliging, not. For if you interpose the terme clearly, and argue; That there is no reason why God should deliver some things clearly by writing, others not; the argument will be the same. To mee it seems manifest, that hee who once holds, that all things necessary to the salvation of all are clear­ly contained in the Scriptures, (adding onely clearly to his terms) to all under­standings, ties himself, by giving the reason why they ought to be clear, because necessary, to maintain, that all truths are delivered by Scripture, in the same de­gree [Page 26] of clearnesse to all understandings, as they are in degree of necessity to the salvation of all souls. For, that every cause, every reason should inferre the consequence, produce the effect, answerable in degree, to that degree which the reason or cause is supposed to hold, is a thing that all reason inforces, every un­derstanding justifies. But that all things are not clear by the Scriptures, in the same degree as they are necessary to salvation, is clear to all in point of f [...]ct: Inasmuch as there are infinite truths, which Christians diff [...]r not about, in the Scriptures, because they think not their salvation concerned in the mater of them, those which are thought to concern it remaining in dispute, because not so clear. Neither is it for a Christian to prescribe a reason why it ought to be otherwise, because that were to prescribe unto Almighty God a rule, not de­pending upon his will declared otherwise. This is the issue upon which I de­monstrate my intent. Neither Gods act in general, of decl [...]ring his will in writing, not his particular acts, of declaring his will in such several maters, as the several writings of the Prophets and Apostles, which make the Body of the Scri­ptures, contain, do any way import the declaring of an intent in God, thereby to manifest all things necessary to the salvation of all clearly to all understand­ings; therefore, that any thing is necessary to salvation, is no presum­ption, that it is clearly declared in Scripture to all understandings; In­asmuch as it is manifest, that no man can give Law to God, what hee ought to declare, but all men may presume, that, and that onely to be declared, which, by dealing with m [...]n under such or such a profession, hee hath, of his free goodnesse, tied himself to declare. For, it being in the free choice of God, whe­ther to declare any will concerning mans salvation or none, and that choice be­ing made, it remaining yet in his choice, whether hee would declare his will by writing, or not, (as it was in his power, for so many years before Moses, to save men without Scripture) it cannot be said, that, either before declaring an intent to save men, hee was bound to declare all that was necessary unto it by writing, or by declaring it. And this I hold enough to demonstrate to all understand­ings, that the declaring of an intent, to deliver us by writing things concern­ing our salvation, imports not in God an intent, to declare thereby all things necessary to the salvation of all, clearly to all understandings. Which will yet be cle [...]rer, by proving the other part of my proposition, that, by the intent of writing the several Books whereof the Scripture consists, clearly declared, God hath not clearly declared the intent so often said. The proof of this by the particulars, I hold the sufficientest satisfaction that can be tendred here, where the pretense is, to proceed onely upon that which all Christians receive. The particulars consist in the writings of the Prophets, the sayings and doings of our Lord, recorded in the four Gospels, and the writings of the Apostles. For, the Gospels pretending to contain the doings and sayings of our Lord, but to be written by his disciples; It followes, by the nature of the bus [...]nesse, that they must contain some thing as from the person of the Writer, and of his sense, o­ver and above what they pretend to record; Which, properly will belong to the writings of the Apostles, though contained in the Gospels: And thus farre, to avoid cavil, I have thought fit here to distinguish.

Now, that all mater of salvation is not clearly contained in the writings of the Prophets, that is, in the Old Testament, written by Moses and his Scholars the Prophets, I prescribe upon that which all Christians suppose, as the ground upon which Christianity is justified against Judaisme; That the Old Testament delivereth but the figure and shadow of the New. For unlesse a man will have the figure and shadow to be all one with the body and substance, hee must con­fesse, that the substance of Christianity, which is shadowed in the Old Testa­ment, is not clearly declared by the same, unless he will have, to be shadowed and unshadowed, that is, clear, to be all one. Let mee demand, if Christianity be clearly declared by the Law, to be that profession which God would have all to be saved by, that should be saved, from the time of prescribing it, what need the miracles of our Lord and his Apostles, what need the Resurrection, and so his Sufferings, as to the account of evidencing the truth of his Doctrine? For, the [Page 27] Law being once received upon necessary reasons, it is impossible to say, why any new reasons should be requi [...]ite, to inforce the truth or the obligation of the Gospel, if it were clearly declared by it? Again, it is manifest, that our Lord, being risen again, and giving the Holy Ghost unto his Disciples by breathing on them John XX. 22. gave them also a spiritual grace of understanding the Scri­ptures, as you finde Luke XXIV. 32, 45. Where first, the Disciples that went to Emmaus confesse with admiration; Did not our hearts burn within us, when hee talked with us on the way, and opened us the Scriptures? declaring unto them, how hee was foretold in the Old Testament, as you have it afore: Then, having per­swaded them all, that it was even hee that was risen again, it followes; Then opened hee their mindes to understand the Scriptures; which were onely then those of the Old Testament. Surely, Justine the Martyr, in many places of his dispute with Typho the Jew, as truly as manifestly professes, that the understan­ding of Christianity in the Old Testament was a grace given to the Disciples of Christ, among the rest of distributions of his Spirit, (upon his ascension into heaven) shed forth upon the Church Eph. IV. 8—. which being showed the Jews, their eyes were darkened, as their hearts hardened, that they could not under­stand the truth in them. Now, it is not my purpose to say, that thereby hee challenges to himself the same miraculous grace of the Spirit, and that the Pro­phesies that concern Christ are by that grace interpreted by him in his writings, and therefore as truly, as those in the writings of the Apostles. It is enough, that the true meaning of the Scriptures, in that behalf, was first revealed to the Disciples of Christ, by the immediate and extraordinary operation of Gods Spi­rit; Though Christians, building on that which they received from persons so in­spired, may have added many things inconsequent to those principles. Now, I suppose it is manifest to all mens reason, that those things are not clear in the Scriptures to all understandings, that could not be discerned in it, without a mira­culous operation of Gods Spirit. But, nothing can be more manif [...]st, than those particulars of the Law, which, our Lord and his Apostles in the New Testa­ment, have, by way of allegory, expounded to be meant of his Person, and Gospel, and Kingdome. That the first Adam was to be the figure of the se­cond, though to a contrary effect, of life by Christ, in stead of death by Adam, and, that hee took our flesh to be the Lord of all things in it, (as to the effect of the Gospel) which the first Adam was made, as to the dominion of the crea­ture, is clearly declared by the Apostles Rom. V. 12-14. 1 Cor. XV. 45-49. Ebr. II. 6-15. That Noe, and what befell the world hy the deluge under him, was the figure of what befalls the Church under Christ by Baptisme, is no lesse manifestly the doctrine of the Apostle 1 Pet. III. 20, 21, 22. And not onely this particular, but all the rest that befell the Fathers, and Prophets, and Martyrs, under the Old Testament, is evidently made a figure of what befalls the Disci­ples of Christ under the Gospel, Ebr. XI. As it is also evident, that the pil­grimages of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their posterity the Israelites, from Aegypt through the Wildernesse into the land of Promise, is there declared, and of all Christians received, for the figure of that Journey which all professe to travail, from sinne wherein it findeth them, to the King­dome of heaven and happinesse. How else should the argument hold, which the Apostles draw, from that which befell the Children of Israel travailing through the Wildernesse to the land of Canaan, to the duty of Christians in their Journey toward everlasting happinesse? 1 Cor. X. 1-11. Ebr. III. 7.-IV. 11. But, after their coming into the land of Promise, as the persecutions which the Prophets indured Ebr. XI. 36, 37, 38. Mat. XXIII. 34—. evidence them to be the figures of Christs Crosse; as the expiation made by all High Priests, is evi­dently expounded by the Apostle to the Ebrewes, to shadow the taking away of sinne by Christ; So it is no lesse evident, that all the Judges and Kings and High Priests and Prophets of Gods people, anointed by God, were figures of our Lord, both in regard of his Church, and the enemies of it, than it is evident, that our Lord Jesus is the Christ foretold by the Prophets. Which things, un­lesse wee say, (as no man in his right senses will say) that they are manifest to [Page 28] all that reade the Old Testament, though they never heard of Christianity, or the New, wee cannot imagine, that the substance of Christianity, neces­sary to the salvation of all Christians, is clear to all understandings in the Old Testament.

No lesse clear is it, by the sayings and doings of our Lord recorded in the Gospels, that it was not his intent, freely and openly, at least all waies and e­very where, to declare the truth and substance of it, by the said sayings and do­ings. Manifest indeed it is, that hee did publickly and freely declare himself, to be that Christ whom the Prophets had foretold, and the Nation expected, and of this no doubt can be made by any man, that with common reason examines all that is written in the Gospels: Though not all times so free in declaring e­ven this truth; As it is evident by the words of the Jewes to him John X. 24. How long holdest thou our mindes in suspense? If thou be the Christ, freely tell us it. And wee see, Mat. XII. 14, 20. what difference of opinions there were about it in his life time, forbidding his Disciples to declare it till his death. But gran­ting this to be manifest by the Gospels, neither is it manifest by them, that no­thing else is requisite to salvation to be believed, concerning his Person and Kingdome, nor, that thereby hee intended to make manifest, what hee knew requisite to be believed of them that should imbrace it, when it was be­come requisite? This is enough to answer the Leviathan with, pretending, that it is not necessary to the salvarion of a Christian, to believe any more than this, that our Lord Jesus is the Christ. Which if it could appear by the Gospels a­lone, then would I not dispute any further, that all the truth that is necessary to salvation is clearly delivered by the Gospels. I do for my part believe, that the substance of Christianity, necessary to salvation, is contained in the badge and cognisance which our Lord hath marked it with, by his Commission to his Apostles, Mat. XXVIII. 19, 20. Go, make all nations Disciples, baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. But shall I say it is clearly contained in these words, about the intent and effect whereof, there hath been, and is so much dis­pute? The Church, it is well enough known, hath alwaies rejected those that acknowledge not the Holy Trinity, Father Sonne and Holy Ghost, subsisting in one and the same Godhead. At this day Socinus and his followers will have us believe, onely, that wee are to professe (whether wee be baptized or not) that our Lord Jesus is a man that was born of a Virgin, by the power of God which is the Holy Ghost. And, for undertaking, or for doing Gods message, tendring reconcilement with God to mankinde, hath, by Gods gift, the same power with God to govern his Kingdome, and is to be honored as God for it. Whether or no they would have us to believe this sense of theirs positively, or would not be tyed to believe positively the sense of the Church, in time perhaps they may de­clare, I have not hitherto understood. Shall I say, there is not sufficient argu­ment for the sense of the Church in the Gospels? It is no part of my meaning. Shall I therefore say, it is clear of it selfe in the Gospels, (that is to say, by the sayings and doings of our Lord recorded in the Gospels)? Doth not our Lord plainly make himself equal to the Father, John V. 17-23? Doth hee not an­swer again, being questioned for this John X. 33, 34, 35. by the words of David spoken of meer men Psal. LXXXIII. 6. I have said yee are Gods? Doth hee not say plainly again; My Father is greater than I, John XIV. 28? Which things, as it is plain by argument, that they may stand with the sense of the Church, so, that those arguments are plain of themselves to all understandings, is as much as to say; That a seeming contradiction argues an intent in our Lord, that, all men should see the resolution of it. Again, that all that will be saved by our Lord Christ must take up his Crosse, and professe him to the death, is plaine by the Gospels: But, so long as the Disciples might and did believe, that they should raigne with our Lord, in his Kingdome over that people, which should destroy their enemies, was the intent of suffering death for Christ to raign with him in heaven plaine by the Gospels? That the Law should stand for ever, is it not plainly delivered by our Lord in the Gospel, and is it not as plainly of [Page 29] the necessity of salvation, to believe, that wee are saved by the Gospel and not by the Law? I appeal to S. Pauls Epistles; Though I dispute not, whether this be abrogating the Law, as Divines commonly speak, or derogating from it. Certainly, though I know not whether the Socinians would be content, (with the Leviathan) that no thing be thought necessary to salvation to be believed, but that our Lord is the Christ; Yet I know they would be astonished to hear, that hee who believes that, and lives according to the Lawes of his Soveraign, hath done the duty of a Christian, and may challenge his share in the kingdome of heaven for it. But, this I must not dispute further in this place; Onely, here I must answer his reasons out of the Scripture, and show you, upon what a weak pinne hee hath hung all this waight. Christ is the foundation, 1 Cor. III. 11. Mat. XVI. 18. which all the Gospels pretend to induce us to believe, John XX. 31. as also the exhortations of the Apostles, Acts XVII. 2, 3, 6. by this the good thief was saved, believing onely our Lord anointed by God, to his Kingdome, Luke XXIII. 42. Everlasting life is to be had by believing this, and the Scri­pture, because it witnesseth this John V. 39. and XVII. 3. XI. 26, 27. Which is all blown away with this breath; That hee that admits our Lord to be the Christ, cannot refuse any part of his doctrine. And therefore, salvation is just­ly imputed to that, which, whoso receiveth, shall be bound to admit and under­go whatsoever his salvation requireth. This is eternal life, to know thee the onely God, and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ, John XVII. 3. These things are writ­ten that yee may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing yee may have life, John XX. 31. How, have life believing? Because hee that believes will be baptized, and hee that is baptized, must undertake to live as Christ teacheth, professing to believe in the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost, which, believing in Christ, coming from the Father to send the Holy Ghost, implieth; And there­fore the Eunuch Acts VIII. 36, 37. is baptized upon this Faith, as others into it, Acts II. 38. VIII. 16. XIX. 5. The belief of the Creation of the world, of Providence, the Resurrection and Judgment to come, not being introduced by Christianity, but found in force among the Jewes, when our Lord came. So, that limitation, by which the Leviathan inlargeth his sense of that, which the belie­ving of our Lord to be the Christ implieth, is not worth a straw. It is not one­ly necessary to salvation to believe all that the Messias was to be or to do, to be verified, and to have been done by our Lord Jesus; Unlesse we believe, that wee are to believe, and to do whatsoever hee taught us to believe and to do. And that, as I have showed, is not determinable by any means, but that, which Christ, by himself or by his Apostles, hath provided us, neither whether so or not, and much lesse whether necessary to salvation or not.

That which hath been alleged to show; That, the substance of Christianity necessary to the salvation of all under the Gospel is not clearly contained in the Old Testament, nor in the sayings and doings of our Lord related by the Evan­gelists; Holds not in the writings of the Apostles. For, being directed to Chri­stians already reduced into Churches, constituted upon supposition of the know­ledge and profession of Christianity, there is no reason why they should be spa­ring in declaring the truth of it to those to whom they write. True it is, and evident by their writings, that they used great reservation, in declaring to those that were of Jewes become Christians, the discharge of their obligation to Mo­ses Law. But whatsoever their proceeding was in that case, not onely the reason of the truth, but also the reason of that proceeding, is clearly declared by their writings. But, if all their writings suppose, in them to whom they write, knowledge sufficient for the salvation of all Christians, and none of them pre­tend to lay down the summe and substance of that, whereof the salvation of all Christians requireth the knowledge, evident it is, that the perfection of none of them, (nor the whole Scriptures, consisting of them and those which wee have spoken of hitherto) requireth, that they clearly contain all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians. For, the Perfection of every writing consisteth in the sufficience of it, for the purpose to which it is intended: If therefore the occasions of the Apostles writings, and so the purpose of them, evidently [Page 30] express not an intent to lay down clearly to all understandings, the whole sub­stance of that which is sufficient to render all Christians capable of salvation, (as, evidently, neither any nor all of them do) then, neither doth the perfection not sufficience nor clearnesse of the Apostles writings require, that all things necessary to the salvation of all, be clear in them to all understandings. For, let no man object; That they were all of them necessary to the salvation of all or most of them to whom they were sent; Unless it could be said; That whatsoever was necessary to the salvation of those to whom the Apostles writ, is necessary to the salvation of all Christians; Which, so long as there is a difference between necessity of means and necessity of precept; (That is, between that which is necessary to the common salvation of all, and that which becomes necessary to the salvation of some, by reason of their particular states and conditions) can­not be said. The writings of the Apostles are, their Epistles, with their Acts, and S. Johns Revelations, if these may not be referred to the rank of their Epi­stles. The chief of their Epistles, that to the Romanes, that to the Galatians, that to the Ebrewes, with the greatest part of the rest, are either occasioned by the reservation which they used, in declaring to those that were become Christi­ans of Jewes, their discharge from the Law, as justified by Christ, or by the se­cret indeavors of Hereticks, pretending Commission from the Apostles on one side, on the other, practising compliance with the Jewes, to seduce those that inclined to the Law, to the damnable inventions of Simon Magus and his Suc­cessors. But none of them pretendeth more, than preventing or avoiding those particular disorders, which appeared in the respective Churches. For, what the Apostles did in setling Christianity at Jerusalem, or propagating it by S. Paul, especially so farre as the book of the Acts relates, what S. John saw touching the state of Christianity to come, I suppose, is something else than the summe of all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians. And though, in discre­tion, every man may presume, that, upon occasion of the expresse purposes of these writings, there is nothing necessary to the salvation of all, that is not tou­ched in some place of them, yet it is one thing to be touched upon the by, an­other thing to be delivered upon expresse purpose. For, those things that are but touched upon occasion, referring to the knowledge which they presuppose, cannot, must not containe the clear understanding of those things, which they onely touch; Unlesse wee will have the Writer so impertinent, as, upon every occasion, to turne aside, and instruct him that hee writes to, in such things, as hee supposes him to know afore. So, the reason why the summe or substance of Christianity is not clear in the Old Testament, and Gospels, is, because it was not then clearly preached; Why not in the writings of the Apostles, is, because it was clearly delivered afore, the clear delivering of it being seen, in the cate­chizing of them, that came to the profession of the Gospel, and the communion of the Church.

Beside this reason, particular to the Apostles writings, there is another that is seen, not onely in the Law and Prophers as well as in them, but in all anci­ent records of learning, arising from the distance of time between us and the writing of them, and the change which such a succession produceth in the stare of things, necessarily inferting obscurity, answerable to that difference, in the condition of those things which they expresse. There is no record of Learn­ing so flight, that any man, who knowes what belongs to Learning, can pre­sume of a cleare understanding of it, till, by comparing it with other writings, nearest to it in nature and time, hee get satisfaction in it. For, such a change of language followes the changes that come to passe, in Times, and Places, and Lawes, and Fashions, and the condition of persons consequent to the same, that, till they be understood by reading, (seeing and hearing not being available in languages out of use) the meaning of Writers is not to be had from their words. How much more in writings of such consideration as the Scriptures are to the Church, of such antiquity, as the Law and Prophets, and the primitive Church of the Apostles, of such difference from the present state of things, as between the Law, either flourishing under the Princes of Gods people, or to­lerated [Page 31] by their Soveraignes; between the Gospel, springing up in the midst of the Empire professing Heathenisme, but protecting Judaisme, and the Gospel, professed and protected by Christian powers, and people; So little record remaining otherwise, either of things done under the Law, or under the Apostles, (so farre from priding themselves in writing books.) How much more, I say, must we be in the dark, for the clear meaning of that, whereof every tittle is con [...]derable? That the Apostles writings were no way obscure to those they were directed to, is to mee unquestionable. For, though it is reasonable, that they should, as wee see they do in some passages, rise above the pitch of the common capacity, even of them they were writ to, least they should become subject to neglect; So, that, for the most part, they should not be understood of the most part, would be a manifest inconvenience. But, it is no inconveni­ence, that, by distance of time, they should become liable to the same difficulty of being understood, which all other ancient writings necessarily become sub­ject to. And that reason appeareth no lesse, in those things which concern the necessary salvation of all, than in maters of lesse consequence. It will therefore be hard, to reconcile to any capacity of reason, that which is advanced, for the first truth, towards the deciding of all Controversies of Faith, that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scriptures, to all understandings; Those Scriptures, which onely can be pretended to deliver the truth of Christianity clearly, neither professing to deliver the whole summe and substance of it, and, being directed to those, who are supposed already instructed in all things neces­sary to the salvation of all Christians. Therefore this unreasonable presumption, is not to create any difficulty, to that reason of deciding Controversies of Faith, which wee proceed to settle upon the premises.

I cannot tell whether or no it was requisite to say so much against a presum­ption meerly voluntary, and which common experience contradicts. For if, all agreeing in the truth of Christianity and the Scriptures, there remain dispute a­bout things, which some count necessary to salvation; others not; It is enough that the truth of Christianity inferreth means, sufficient to clear the truth of what remaines on dispute. But, first it is manifest, that, what remaines in dis­pute, is not of it self manifest, to all that acknowledge the Scriptures, but may become manifest, to them that use such means, as the truth of Christianity in­forceth. Neverthelesse, since, they that are in love with their own presumpti­ons, though never so dangerous to the supreme Majesty, take whatsoever crosses them for a derogation to the Scriptures, let thus much be said, to show, that, by giving the Scriptures, no man may presume, that God intended to declare in them, whatsoever is necessary to the salvation of all, clearly, to all understand­ings. But, if this must have been supposed, as a principle or ground, whereupon wee are to resolve all Controversies of Faith, it would have been requisite to have showed us, that this truth is, of all other, so much more clearly laid down in the Scriptures, as, that which concurres to the clearing of all, ought it self to be the most clear. Now, if wee consider, that this privilege, of containing all that is necessary to the salvation of all, belongs not to any part, but to the whole Body of the Scriptures, it would first have been said, what Scripture, speaking of the whole Body of the Scripture, hath established this property or [...]rivilege of it. For my part, upon the best consideration that I can take, I am at a stand to finde any text of Scripture, any letter or syllable of the whole Bible, that sayes any thing at all, good or bad, of the whole Bible. So farre is it from delivering this property or privilege of it. So farre further from delivering it as the first truth, in termes so clear and unquestionable, as to make it a presumpti­on, to the deciding of all that is or may become questionable concerning the Scripture. The words of S. Paul 2 Tim. III. 16, 17. All Scripture, inspired by God, is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect; Being fitted for e­very good work; Cannot be said of the whole Body of Canonical Scripture, being written before it was: That is, when, evidently, many parts of the New Testament were not written, probably all, and evidently concernes every part [Page 32] of Gods Word, not the whole Body of the Scriptures. Therefore with Origen I conceive, they are meant of the Scriptures of the Old Testament: To this effect; That, that instruction which is necessary to salvation being had by the Gospel, which the Church teacheth those whom it maketh Christians, the right understanding of the Old Testament, according to the mystery of the Gospel, is that which rendereth him whom God imployeth in the propagation of his Gospel, and the edification of his Church, able to convince those that withstand, to edifie those that admit it. Which, if it be farre short of that which I deny, the rest of those pitifull lame consequences which are usually made from the Scriptures, to prove the same purpose, will easily appeare to come short of it, though I take not in hand to determine at present the full meaning of them, but onely to show that they import not, that all things necessary for the salva­tion of all Christians, are clear to all Christians in the Scriptures. The fashion is, to allege Deut. IV. 2. XII. 32. Yee shall take heed to do all the Word that I com­mand you. Yee shall adde nothing to it, nor take any thing from it. And, You shall adde nothing to the Word that I command you, nor take any thing from it. That you may keep the commandement of the Lord your God which I command you. And, that it is threatned for a conclusion to the whole Scripture, Apoc. XXI. 18, 19 If any man adde to the words of the Prophesie contained in this Book, God shall lay upon him the plagues written in this Book. God shall take away his share out of the book of Life and the holy City, and the things that are written in this Book. For, is not all that is requisite sufficiently clear, if nothing may be added or taken from the Scriptures? Therefore is S. Paul also alleged pronouncing anathema, if himself, or an Angel from heaven, or any man should take upon him to preach any other Gospel than that which they had already received, Gal. I. 8, 9. And, that therefore are the Beraeans commended Acts XVII. 11. that they did not admit even those things which S. Paul, so great an Apostle, preached to them, without examining them by the Scriptures, whether so as hee said or not. To the same purpose John XX. 30, 31. Many other miracles did Jesus, which are not written in this book. But, these are written, that yee may believe, that Jesus is the Christ, and that, believing, yee may have life through his Name. Adde hereunto the Psal­mists commendations of the Law XIX. 7-31. as giving wisedom to the simple, as inlightning the eyes, and instructing the servants of God; which, how should it do, if it be not first to be understood? For the precept is a candle, and the Law light saith Solomon, Prov. VII. 22. And Psalm CXIX. 113. Thy word is a candle to my feet, and a light to my paths. Further; the Scriptures tell us how they come to be obscure, & what makes them clear. They shall be all taught by God saith the Prophet, Isa. LIV. 13. speaking of the times of the Gospel, and the children of the Church. And Jeremy XXXI. 33, 34. promiseth, that God will put his New Covenant in the hearts of his children, and write it in their entrailes, so that they shall have no need to teach one another the knowledge of God, be­cause they should be all taught by God to know God. And is not this that for which our Lord gives thanks to the Father Mat. XI. 25. because, having concea­led the mystery of the Gospel from the wise and understanding, hee had revealed it to babes and sucklings. Which the Apostle expoundeth 1 John II. 20, 21, 27. You have an Ʋnctien from God, and know all things. I have not written to you be­cause yee know not the truth, but because yee know it, and, that no lye is of the truth. And; But as for you, the Ʋnction which yee have received of him remaineth in you, and yee need not that any man teach you. But, as that Ʋnction teacheth you of all things, and is true and not false, and as it hath taught you, so shall you abide in it. Whereupon afterwards IV. 1. Believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits, whether of God or not; To wit, as those who were possessed of that by which they were to be tryed. Therefore S. Paul 1 Thess. V. 23. Try all things; Hold that which is good: To wit, by that means which hee intimateth 1 Cor. II. 15. The spiritual man is judged by none, but himself judgeth all things. In fine, I must not forget Cart­wrights argument from the words of the Prophet Jeremy VII. 31. XXXI. 35. where hee reproveth the Jewes Idolatries by this argument, that it never came into Gods minde to command them any such thing. For if the grievousnesse [Page 33] even of their Idolatries consist in this, that they were done without warrant of Gods word, how can it be questionable that hee hath provided us instruction sufficient to clear us in all that wee are to do, by the Scriptures?

But these Scriptures are as easily wiped away as they are alleged, if wee go no further than to show, that they inforce no such principle as is pretended for the ending of all Controversies, that all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians are clear to all Christians in the Scriptures. For what a pitifull incon­sequence is it to argue, that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scri­ptures, because Moses forbideth to adde to or take from his Law? For, if the Gospel be not clearly contained in the Old Testament containing the Law and the Prophets, and therefore much lesse in the Law alone, then is it not lawfull to adde to or take from that Scripture in which all things necessary to salvation are not clear. And surely when they are commanded to stand to the determina­tions of their Judges in things questionable concerning the Law, Deut. XVII. 8-12. that which was questionable was not clear to all concerned in the Law, and the determining of it was neither adding to nor taking from the Law. In like maner, hee that should adde to or take from the book of S. Johns Revelations (take it if you please, for the complement of the whole Bible, and say as much, either of the whole, or of any part of it) deserves the plagues written there to be added to him, and his part taken away out of the book of Life; For who doubteth that falsifying the Scriptures is a crime of a very high nature? But so it will be, whether all things necessary to salvation be clear in the Scriptures or not. Nay, falsifying the sense of the Scriptures, not altering the words, may de­serve the very same, because the true sense might and ought to have been clear­ed in the Scriptures, as not clear to all that are concerned in it. And may not S. Paul bid Anathema to whosoever shall preach another Gospel than that which hee had preached to the Galatians, unlesse all things necessary to salvation be clear in the Scriptures? First let it appear, (which cannot appear, because it is not true) that the Scriptures of the New Testament were written when he preached it: Or, if not, that whatsoever is clear in the Scriptures which wee have, is clear in the Scriptures which they had when S. Paul preached. The Beraeans had rea­son to examine S. Pauls preaching by the Scriptures, who alleged the Old Te­stament for it, and demanded to be acknowledged an Apostle of Christ accord­ing as his preaching agreed therewith. But what needed his preaching, if the means of salvation which hee preached were clearly contained in the Old Scri­ptures? The miracles related by S. Johns Gospel are written, that believing wee may have life: Why? because there is nothing else requisite to salvation to be believed? Or, as I said to the Leviathan, because, hee that comes to believe, shall be instructed in all things necessary to his salvation, whether by the mira­cles there related or otherwise? And cannot the Law be a light to the steps of them that walked by the Law, can it not inlighten their eyes, and give wise­dom to the simple, unlesse all things necessary to salvation be clear in the Scri­ptures? I do maintain, for a consequence of the grounds of Christianity, that the New Testament is vailed in the Old,, that David and Solomon being Pro­phets, and the doctrine of the Prophets tending to discover the New Testament under the Old, by degrees, more and more, the Law is called by them a light, because it taught them who discovered the secret of the Gospel in it and under it, the way to that salvation which only the Gospel procureth. And in this con­sideration it is said, Psalm XXV. 8, 11, 13. Them that be meek shall God guide in judgment, and such as be gentle them shall hee teach his Law. What man is hee that feareth the Lord? Him shall hee teach in the way that hee shall chuse. The secret of the Lord is among them that fear him, and hee will snow them his Cove­nant. And, though I cannot here make this good, yet will the exception be of force to infringe a voluntary presumption, that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scriptures, because the Law, forsooth, is a light to the actions of him that lived under it. Now, to all those Scriptures, whereby it is pretended that the Scriptures are clear to them that have Gods Spirit, but obscure to them that have it not, I conceive I have settled a peremptory exception, by show­ing [Page 34] that the believing of all things necessary to salvation, is a condition requi­site to the attaining of the Grace or gift of Gods Spirit. For, if that be true, then can no presumption of the right understanding of the Scriptures be granted up­on supposition of Gods Spirit, and the dictate of it. If that exposition of the Scripture, which any man pretendeth, be not evidenced by those reasons which the motives of Faith create and justifie, without supposing it to be made known by Gods Spirit to him that pretends it, in vain will it be to allege, that the Spi­rit of God is in him that sets it forth. Neither do wee finde, that they who pre­tend Gods Spirit do rest in that pretense, least they should be laught at for their paines. But do allege reasons for their pretense, as much as they, who pretend the Church to be Infallible, do allege reasons whereby they know that which they decree to be true. Which were a disparagement to the Spirit of God, if the dictate thereof were to passe for evidence. I grant therefore, that true Chri­stians have Gods Spirit, and that thereby they do try and condemne all things that agree not with our common Christianity, and that this is the Unction whereof S. John speaketh. But, not because the gift of the Holy Ghost import­eth a promise of understanding the Scriptures, in all Christians, but because it supposeth the knowledge of that which is necessary to salvation, which is our common Christianity, and therefore inableth to condemne all that agreeth not with it. If there were over and above, a grace of understanding the Scriptures, & of discovering the Gospel in the Law, extant in the Church under the Apostles, (to which our Lord opened their hearts Luke XXIV. 45. and which Justine the Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. affirmeth that the Church of his time was indowed with) first, it was given in consideration of their professing Christianity; Then it tended onely to discover those grounds upon which the Church now proceeds, in the use of ordinary reason, to exponnd the Old Testament according to the New. As for Cartwrights argument, I relate it not because I think it worth the an­swering, but that you may see how prejudice is able to transport even learned men from their senses. It had been easie for one lesse a Scholar than hee to have said, that when Jeremy saith it never came in Gods minde to command their Idolatries, hee meanta great deal more, that hee had forbidden them under the greatest penalties of the Law: Which, all that know the Law, know to be true. When hee forgetteth such an obvious figure, you may see hee had a minde to in­ferre more than the words of the Prophet will prove.

It is to be observed in this place, that there is no mention of things necessa­ry to salvation in all these Scriptures: Nor can it be said, that this limitation of the sufficience and clearnesse of the Scriptures, is as clearly grounded upon the Scriptures, as it were requisite, that things necessary to salvation should be clear to all that seek to be saved. And this shall serve for my answer, if any man should be so confident, as to undertake to prove the sufficience and clearnesse of them so limited, by the consent of the Church. For it is manifest, that, hitherto, the authorities of Church Writers cannot be considered any otherwise, than as the opinions of particular persons, which no wayes import the consent of the whole Church. For, whereas hitherto, there is nothing to oblige the Faith of any Christian, but that which is plaine by the Scriptures and the consent of the Church; It no wayes appears as yet, how the authorities of Church Wri­ters can evidence the consent of Church. I will not therefore be curious here to heap up the sayings of the Fathers, commending the sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures: One or two I will take notice of, because they are all I can remember, in which, the limitation thereof, to things which our salvation requires us to believe, is expressed. S. Augustine de doctr. Christian [...] II. 9. In eis quae aperte in Scripturis posita sunt, inve [...]iunt [...]r illa omnia qnae continent fide [...] moresq vivendi. In those things which are plainty set down in the Scriptures, is found whatsoever that Faith or maners by which wee live doth containe. S. Chryso­stome in II. ad. Thessal. Hom. III. [...] All things are plain and plain and straight in the Scri­ptures, all things that are necessary are m [...]nifest. Whereunto wee may add [...] the words of Constantine to the Council of N [...]a, in. Theodore [...]. E [...]clef. Hist. [Page 35] l. 7. [...]. For the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, and the Oracles of the ancient Prophets plainly teach us what wee are to think of God. But I will also take notice, that the same S. Augustine de doctr. Christ. III. 2. saith, that the Rule of Faith, (which hee had set forth in the first book) is had, from the plainer places of the Scripture and the authority of the Church. And the same S. Chrysostome in the same Homily sayes, [...]. Those things (which the Apostles writ) and those (which they delivered by word of mouth) are equally credible. Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church deserves credit. It is a Tradition, seek no more. And Vincentius in the beginning of his Comm [...]nitorium, or Remem­brance, confessing the Canon of the Scriptures to be every way perfect and suf­ficient, requires neverthelesse the Tradition of the Church for the steddy under­standing of it. And therefore I have just ground to say, that all that is necessa­ry to salvation is not clear in the Scriptures to all that can reade, in the opinion of S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine: But to all that reade, supposing the Rule of Faith received from the Church, to bound and limit the sense and exposition of the Scriptures. And therefore may more justly suppose the same limitation, wh [...]n they speak of the perfection and sufficience and clearnesse of the Scripture at large, without confining their speech to that which the necessity of salvation requires us to believe. And this is already a sufficient barr to any man, that shall pretend the consent of the Church, which concurreth to evidence the truth of the Scripture, for the perspicuity thereof in things necessary to be believed, to all whom they may concerne. For so long as Tradition may be requisite be­sides Scripture, that cannot appear. When it shall appear, whether requisite or not, then will it appear how farr the sufficience and perspicuity of the Scripture reacheth. And this I come now to inquire.

CHAP. VI. All interpretation of Scripture is to be confined within the Tradition of the Church. This supposeth that the Church is a Communion instituted by God. What means there is to make evidence of Gods Charter, upon which the Cor­poration of the Church subsisteth. The name of the Church, in the Scri­ptures, often signifieth the Whole or Cathelick Church.

THis presumption then, which is able to prejudice the truth, by disparaging the means God hath given to discover it; And that, by possessing men, that, things pretended to be necessary to salvation would have been clear of them­selves to all men in the Scriptures, if they were true; But, nothing conducing to clear the doubtfull meaning of any Scripture, that is never so true; This presumption I say being removed, and the authority of the Church, as the rea­son of believing, taken away, it remaines that wee affirm, whatsoever the whole Church, from the beginning, hath received and practised for the Rule of Faith and maners, all that to be evidently true, by the same reason, for which wee be­lieve the very Scriptures; And therefore, that the meaning of them is necessa­rily to be confined within those bounds, so that nothing must be admitted for the truth of them, which contradicteth the same. Wee saw before, that the Scripture consisteth of motives to Faith, and mater of Faith; That, in the mo­tives of Faith, supposing them sufficient, when admitted for true, a difficulty may be made, upon what evidence they are admitted for true; That the convi­ction of this truth, consisteth in the profession and conversation of all those, who, from the beginning receiving Christianity, have transmitted it to their suc­cessors for a Law and Rule to their beliefs and conversations: Wherefore, there can remain no further question concerning the truth of that, which stands re­commended to us by those same means, that evidence the truth of those [...] for which wee receive Christianity. Had there been no [...] Christianity [Page 36] to have been read, in the profession and practice of all that call themselves Chri­stians, it would not have been possible, to convince the enemies of Christiani­ty, that wee are obliged to believe the Scriptures. If the professing and practi­sing things so contrary to the interest of flesh and bloud, be an [...]vidence that they are delivered and received from them, who first showed reasons to believe; It must first remain evident, that there are certain things, that were so professed and practised from the beginning, before it can be evident, that the motives upon which they are said to be received, were indeed tendred to the world for that purpose. This is that common stock of Christianity, which, in the first place, after receiving the Scriptures, is to be admitted for the next principle, to­ward the settling of truth controverted concerning the meaning of them, as flowing immediately from the reason for which they are received, and immedi­ately flowing into the evidence, that can be made, of any thing questionable in the same. It is that sound ingredient of nature, which, by due application, must either cure all distempers in the Church, or leave them incurable and everlast­ing.

And truly, if it were as easie to make evidence what those things are, which have been received, professed, and practised from the beginning by the whole Church, as it is necessary to admit all such for truth, I suppose there would re­main no great difficulty in admitting this principle. But, in regard it is so easie to show, what contradiction hath been made within the pale of the Church, to that which elsewhere, otherwhiles, hath been received; I cannot tell whether men despaire to finde any thing generally received from the beginning, and therefore lay aside this principle, not as false, but as uselesse, and not to be put in practice. Wherein, that men mistake not themselves, they must take notice; That it will not concerne my position; (That all original Catholick Traditi­on is to be supposed for unquestionable truth, in deciding what is questionable concerning the truth of the Scripture) that, concerning most maters, there is no Catholick Tradition, or consent of the Church. For I do professe, that, were not the Church, or had it not been one Society, one visible Body, Communion, or Corporation of men from the beginning, the communion whereof alwaies confined the profession and conversation of Christians to some certain visible▪ Rule; I should think it impossible to make evidence, of any common truth re­ceived of all Christians. But, if it can be made to appear, that the Church was from the beginning such a Society, then may such Rules as reasonably appear to be original and Catholick, as it can appear reasonable to any man, that hee ought to be a Christian. Here I must note, that, concerning the State of the Church, whether it be such a Society as I have said, distinct from all Civil Societies of Christian Kingdomes and Common-wealths, there may be two questions made; The one of Fact, whether indeed the Church hath been such a Society, since the first being of it, and the conversion of believers to Christianity; The other of Right, whether by the appointment of God, or by humane consent of such, who, being converted to Christianity, agreed to live in communion, by whatso­ever Rule it may appear they have admitted. But these two are so near one an­other, that, if the question of Fact can be voided, and it appear, that such was the Church from the beginning, it will be a presumption in a maner peremtory, of the Churches Title by divine right; Though there is difference made be­tween them, as appe [...]rs by the opinion related afore, that the power of Ex­communication was settled in the Church afore Constantine, by humane consent, not by Gods appointment. Which, by consequence of like reason, extends to all other points wherein the power of the Church consists. For my present pur­pose it were enough, to make it appear, that the Church was, de Facto, such a Society from the beginning. But, the proving of the point of Right, will be on­ly making the same inference, which hath been alwaies concluded, out of that e­vidence which resolveth the point of Fact. And the conclusion thus inferred, will be both necessary and effectual, to cl [...]are the positive right of the Church in deciding Controversies of Faith, which will be the best satisfaction, why, nega­tively, it cannot extend to create the ground upon which wee are to believe. [Page 37] I will therefore wrap them up both together, in the processe of my dis­course.

In which I finde that difficulty, which S. Augustine observeth in proving any of those things which are most manifest to common reason and sense; For, it shall be hard to bring arguments, that are much clearer, than that which they intend to prove. That the Church had been from the beginning one outwardly, by visible Communion, as well as one inwardly, by invisible Faith and love, could not be questioned so long as it prevailed. Neither was it foreseen, at dissolving the Unity of the Western Church, for the Reformation, that it would ever come to this dispute, whether there had been alwaies, and ought to be one Ca­tholick and Apostolick Church; For, each party hoped well to be so themselves, as being perswaded that their adversaries ought to unite themselves unto them, upon acknowledgment, that the truth was on their side. And truly I acknow­ledge, that there is no clear mention of a precrpt of God, commanding all Christians to hold the unity of the Catholick Church, by outward communion with it. For, the intent of God to call the Gentiles to Christianity, seemeth to be the utmost of that which is clearly declared by the Scriptures. That his in­tent was to unite all Christians in one visible communion of the Church, there is evidence by consequence to be had from the Scriptures. But, what the form should be, before the materials were prepared, it were as strange to think, that the stones and timber, particular Christians ought to know, as, that the Surveyors, the Apostles and their fellowes should not know. That therefore the Church was from the beginning, and ought to be one visible Communion, must be showed, by the ingredients, and principles, or elements of all visible Societies; Which, in the Society of the Church, will appear proportionable to the nature and pretense of it. Supposing from common sense and experience, that all Civil Societies or Common-wealthes, (unto which the name of Societies or Communities principally, because most visibly, belongeth) are constituted and founded upon certain Rights of Soveraigne Power, which some call in Latine Jura Majestatis, being indeed, the particulars, wherein the Right and Power of Soveraignty consisteth. For, when it is once resolved, in what hands that Power is to remaine, then is the State and Form of Government constituted, and thereby distinguished from other formes of Common-wealth, according to the qualitie of those persons in whom this Power is established. That, being ruled by certain Lawes, acknowledging certain Governors, being subject to the Power of the Sword, by which those Governors execute those Lawes, are the effects of Soveraigne Power, being the principal of the said ingredients or particulars, the certain and necessary marks of a distinct Common-wealth, is that which I sup­pose from common experience. There are Societies which subsist by the Law of Nature and Nations; As that which Aristotle observes, among those that are im­barked in the same bottome for the same voyage; That which the Jewes Law supposes among the Caravans of the East, consisting of subjects and members of several Common-wealthes. There are Communities and Corporations which subsist by the Act of Soveraigne Power in each Common-wealth, allow­ing that Power over the Members, to the whole, (ihat is, such persons as are al­lowed to act for the whole) as they think fit. If the whole Church, from the be­ginning, have acknowledged certain Lawes, by which they were governed in those things wherein the Communion of the Church consisteth, certain Gover­nors, to whom they ought to give respect according to those Lawes, a Power of putting out of the Church, (answerable to the Power of putting to death by the sword) into which the co [...]ctive Power of Common-wealths is resolved, then is the Church and alwaies was such a Society, wherein the same Rule of Faith might be, and was alwaies from the beginning, preserved by Tradition and Custome, which is my present businesse to show. And if the Church alwaies was so, de Facto, then is it so alwaies de Jure; If it did alwaies hold unity in the Faith, and communion in the service of God, by the meanes of certain Lawes, certaine Rulers, certaine Power of granting or refusing this Communion; Then was there a precept of God delivered to the Church, by the Apostles, commanding [Page 38] them so to live. For, that which was as difficult, as impossible to have been intro­duced, without conviction of the will of God, as the rest of Christianity, of ne­cessity must go for a part of it. But, that, in such variety of mens fannies, rea­sons, and inclinations, the Church, consisting from the beginning of all Nati­ons, and dispersed all over the world, should of their own inclination, not swayed by any information of Gods will received with Christianity, agree in the same Lawes and Rulers, submitting to the exercise of the same Power upon themselves, is as impossible, as that the world should consist of the casual con­curse of atomes, according to Democritus and Epicurus.

The name of the Church, without peradventure, was first used, to signifie the whole body of Gods people in the Wildernesse, when they might be, and were called together and assembled, upon their common occasions, which the word [...] or [...] signifies. After which time, the people continuing still one and the same, by virtue of the same Lawes then received, and the Pow­ers placed in their Ruler; Not onely the whole people, but such parts of it, as resorted to the same Government, have still born and do bear the same name; The Synagogue of Libertines, Cyrenaeans, Alexandrians, Cilicians and Asians by example; Acts VI. 9. which name first belongs to the respective Bodies of Jewes, that subsisted at Rome, Cyrene, or Alexandria, in Cilicia or Asia; And consequently, by Metonymy, to the Places, where such of those Bodies as chan­ced to be at Jerusalem might assemble themselves; And, to so many of those Bodies, as, being at Jerusalem, did assemble at those Places. Now, no Christi­an can doubt, that the Body of Christians succeeds in the stead of Gods anci­ent people. And therefore, the name of Gods Church, when it stands without limitation, signifies no lesse. As, when our Lord saith, Mat. XVI. 18. Ʋpon this rock will I found my Church. Whatsoever the Disciples then conceived the Church should be, our Lord, that knew all, by the name of it, meant all that duly beares the name. And therefore, when hee saith once again; Mat. XVIII. 17. Tell it to the Church; It is strange there should be Christians, that should think hee means the Jewes and their Rulers; And, that the precept concernes Christians no longer, now they have left the Jewes. Though it is true, a man cannot tell his cause to the whole Church, but to that part of it to which hee can resort, which is called by the name of the Whole, as I said even now of the Synagogue. S. Paul to the Colossians II. 24, 25. calling the Church the Bo­dy of Christ, saith; That hee, by the dispensation of God towards them, which hee is trusted with, is become the minister of the Church; to wit, as Angels are ministers of the Church, because ministers of God towards it. And there­fore minister of the whole Church, which is the Body of Christ, not of any par­ticular Church, as if an Apostle could be bound to execute his office according to the discretion of any Church, which, for Gods cause hee attends; As all Ministers are bound to execute their Office, according to the will of them whose Ministers they are. It is therefore the whole Church in which God hath set Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, and the use of the Graces rehearsed 1 Cor. XII. 28. Eph. IV. 11. Because the Office of these Graces can by no means be confined, either to any particular Church, or to any part of the whole Church. The name of the Church signifies the same thing again Eph. I. 22. III. 21. V. 23-32. While all Christendome was contained in the Church at Jeru­salem, the name of the Church is so used, Acts II. 47. V. 11. VIII. 1, 3. that it is no mater whether wee understand by it the whole Church, or the Church of Jerusalem. The reason; Because all right and power, that can at any time be found vested in the whole Church, was then as fully in the Church at Jerusalem, as it can be at any time in the whole Church, though in respect of a Body never so much greater than it: As a childe is as much a man the day of his birth, as the day of his death, and a tree as much as a tree when it growes one, as when it is come to the height. But, Christianity being propagated among Jewes and Gen­tiles, as wee reade of the Churches of Judaea, Samaria and Galilee, Acts IX, 31. and must needs understand the Epistles to the Ebrewes to have been written to Churches consisting onely of Ebrewes, as those of S. Peter, and that of S. [Page 39] James, which mentions the Elders of the Church James V. 14. So the Churches of the Gentiles in S. Paul Rom. XVI. 4. wee easily understand to be the Churches of Asia 1 Cor. XVI. 9. Apoc. I. 11. the Churches of Gal [...]ia 1 Cor. XVI. 1. the Churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. VIII. 1. and the rest that were visible in S. Pa [...]ls time. Now, suppose for the present, that these Churches mentioned by the A­postles were no more than so many Congregations, as our Independents would have it; Seeing they deny not so many Churches to be so many Bodies, what reason can they give, why the name of the Church, when it stands for the whole Church, should not signifie the like? There is a prerogative attributed to the whole Church by S. Paul, 1 Tim. III. 25. when hee calls it the base and pillar of Truth. For, that this should be said of any particular Church, it were too ridi­culous to imagine. Can the Church bear this attribute, if it be not capable of doing any act that may verifie it? And, if it be not a Body, what act can it do? In fine, the correspondence between Gods ancient people, and his new Israel according to his Spirit, seems to require; That, as the Religion of the Jewes, and not any Civil Power of the Nation, makes them all one Body at this day, in point of fact, by sufferance of Soveraignes, because they were once so in point of right; So the Religion of Christians should make them one Bo­dy in point of right, how many Bodies soever they are burst into, in point of fact, by their own wantonnesse.

For, the Independents exception which I spoke of can be of no force, unlesse they will make it appear, that all those Churches that are mentioned in the wri­tings of the Apostles did assemble in one place. Not that if this could be made to appear, they had done their businesse. But because, if it do not appear, their plea is peremptorily barred. Wee reade then of M M M soules added in one day to CXX. of the Church at Jerusalem, Acts I. 15. II. 41. To these were ad­ded, or with these they became VM Acts IV. 4. To whom were added multi­tudes of men and women, Acts II. 47. V. 14. These assembled daily in private to serve God as Christians, as well as in the Temple, to serve God with his then people, Acts II. 42, 44, 46. V. 13. VI. 1, 4. And shall wee think that all the Christians in Corinth, where God had said to S. Paul that hee had many people Acts XVIII. 10. could meet in one room, because S. Paul sayes 1 Cor. XI. 20. when yee meet together in one place—? For they must not onely meet together, but sup together, as the Apostle showes, which would require a great room if God had many people there. And all the believers at Jerusalem met together, and supped together Acts II. 44, 46. VI. 1. but not VIM. in one room, as I suppo [...]e. Therefore at Corinth also there might be more Congregations than one, where the Church was but one, and all might meet together, though in se­veral places several assemblies. In the mean time, I do not hear what they say to that which I have alleged, in my book of the Right of a Church in a Christian State pag. 44-50. to show, that wee never read of more Churches than one in one City, but every where of more than one in one Province, in the writings of the Apostles. And therefore I will here plead further; That, from the time of the Apostles, to the Reformation, (which, wherein it consisteth, my businesse is to inquire, and therefore not to suppose that it consisteth in every thing that hath been done) all the Independents in the world shall never be able to show mee any thing called a Church, but the Body of Christians that lived in one City and the territory of it. Indeed, at the first preaching of Christianity, it must needs come to passe, that the number of Christians in a very great City might be so little, that they might meet all at once. And the name of Cities might be exten­ded to Townes and Villages that could make but few Congregations, when the question was made, whether they should make several Churches, or resort to one; As I have instanced there. But because wee have yet extant antient lists of all the Churches of the Romane Empire, and the Soveraignties into which it is dissol­ved, punctually agreeing with the records of all Church Writers, in comprising the whole summe of Christians within and under one City in one Church. It may perhaps be found that all the Christians in a whole Nation might resort to one Church, which was the Church of the Head City. But that ever there were [Page 40] any Christians, that took it for a Law, that every Congregation is to be a Church, before the Reformation, it can by no means appear, whatsoever hath been done since. And therefore I challenge, that all reasonable men must allow, all Chri­stians that succeeded the Apostles, understood the meaning of their writings by their acts, when they cast all the Christians in & under one City every where into one Church, then those, who now challenge for a Law of God, that all Congre­gations are to be Churches. And thus farre it appears, by the same evidence upon which wee accept of our common Christianity, that is, by the Scriptures, and by the consent of all Christians, that the Apostles so founded the Churches of their planting, that they might be fit to concurre to the constitution of one whole Church.

CHAP. VII. That the Apostles delivered to the Church a Summary of Christianity, which, all should be baptized were to profess. Evidence out of the Scriptures. Evidence out of the Scriptures for Tradition regulating the Communion of the Church, and the Order of it. Evidence for the Rule of Faith, out of the records of the Church. For the Canons of the Church, and the pedegree of them from the Or­der established in the Church by the Apostles. That the profession of Christianity, and that by being baptized, is necessary to the salvation of a Christian.

BUt I will grant, that this were not evidence enough out of the Scriptures, for a point of such consequence, as it will appear to be of, when it ap [...]eares to be true, were it not for the general inference that I made afore. Here I chal­lenge; having proved against the Leviathan, that, whosoever acknowledges our Lord Jesus to be the Christ, must acknowledge, whatsoever hee teaches and de­livers, either by himself or the Apostles his Deputies, to be Law to the Church; That, whatsoever it may appear any way, that the Apos [...]lhs delivered to the Church to be observed in it, is of that nature. I say further, it is evident by their writings, that they delivered to the Church, a certain Summary of Christi­anity, which, whosoever was admitted into the Church, by Ba [...]tisme, under­to professe and practise. Indeed this is the main point now in hand, that all interpretation of Scripture is to be confined within this Summary, as the Rule of our common Christianity. And therefore it may seem, that I go about first to prove the Corporation of the Church by this Rule; And then to prove the Rule by the consent of the Church, whereby I pretend to evidence, what the Apostles delivered to the Church for the Rule of our common Christianity. But I can easily answer, that it is one thing to question, whether the Apostles did deliver any such Rule to the Church from the beginning or not; Another, what it containes, and, what belongs to it as part of it, what not. If it may appear, by the writings of the Apostles that delivered it, and by the acknow­ledgment of the Church that received it, (for what oth [...]r meane can there be to make it appear?) that such a sense the Apostles did deliver to the Church, it will be a great part of the evidence, that they did found the Church, for a Corporati­on, wherein the profession of it might be preserved, and wherein God m [...]t be served according to the profession of it. And if this may appear, then, the con­sent of this Corporation will be as good evidence as the subject mater allowes, whether any thing questionable be part of it or not.

Let us then heare the Apostles: Thanks be to God (saith S. Paul Rom. VI. 17.) that, being once slaves to sinne, yee have obeyed from your heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Had hee onely said, it was d [...]livered, they had not ac­knowledged themselves obliged, but when hee sayes, they obeyed it, hee shows they were under the obligation that God cast on them by delivering it. 2 Pet. II. 21. It had been better for them not to have owned the way of righteousnesse, than, having owned it, to return from the holy commandement delivered. What is this holy commandement, what is this way of righteousnesse, but in one word Christi­anity? Which when hee saith it was delivered, hee means, by Metonymy, that [Page 41] it was received, because hee saith further, that they had owned it. The same is called by another Apostle Jude 3. the Faith once delivered to the Saints. And S. Paul 2 Tim. I. 13, 14. Hold fast the form of wholesom words, which thou hast heard of mee, in faith, and love which is through Christ Jesus. Keep that good thing which was deposited in trust with thee, through the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in us. II. 2. And those things which thou hast heard of mee under many witnesses, deposite with trusty persons, who may alsobe able to teach others. Would you have any thing plainer than this, to show, that the Summe of Christianity was delivered for a Rule by the Apostles, by which, their Successors were to examine all Do­ctrines? Therefore 1 Tim. II. 20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane novelties of termes, and oppositions of knowledge falsly so cal­led, which some professing, have failed of the Faith. By the Rule of Faith, which he had deposited in his trust, he will have him exclude the pretenses of the Gno­sticks, which, every man might see, were inconsistent with it. Whereupon S. John calls it the Unction 1 John II. 20-24, 27. by which they knew all things; (To wit, that belong to the common Faith of Christians; And therefore the inconsistence of it with the pretenses of the Antichristian) They continuing in that which they had heard from the beginning, when they turned Christians. And you, saith the Apostle, have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things. I write not to you because you know not the truth, but because you know it, and that no lye is of the Truth. Therefore, let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you, then shall you also abide in the Sonne and in the Father. It is plaine enough why this truth which they have heard from the beginning of their Christianity is called the Unction, because the anointing of the Holy Ghost, (the gift whereof, as I have showed you, presupposeth Christianity) is granted upon consideration of being baptized into the profession of Christianity. Wherefore it followeth in S. John; As for you, the Ʋnction which you have received of him abideth in you: And yee need not that any man teach you: But as the same Ʋnction teacheth you of all things, and is true and no lye, and as it hath taught you, abide in it. The Uncti­on teacheth all things that a Christian is to avoid, because it teacheth to avoid all that agreeth not with the truth which the same Unction had taught him afore; When, according to that which hath been said, being moved by the Holy Ghost to become a Christian, hee was taught that truth, upon profession whereof hee received the gift of the Holy Ghost for an habitual indowment. And the same is the Apostles meaning, when hee saith again; 1 John III. 9. Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sinne, for his seed abideth in him. The seed of which a Christian is born, is the Word of the Gospel, which begetteth children to God, when it prevaileth with sinners to become Christians. This Word, obliging Chri­stians upon their salvation not to sinne, abideth not in him that sinneth, neither sinneth hee in whom it abideth. So, whether you call it Ʋnction or Seed; In regard it is the Rule of our conversation as well as of our belief, as hee that a­bideth in the truth, must needs reject Heresies contrary to it, so, in whom the seed which hee is born of abideth, hee cannot sinne. And in his second Epi­stle 6, 7, 9. with S. Paul, hee calls it the commandement which they had received from the same beginning, to preserve them from the impostures of that time, in­ticing to transgresse it. In fine, that this Tradition is the Law whereupon our Christianity standeth, you may see by the Apostle 1 Pet. III. 20. when hee saith; that Baptisme saveth us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the examina­tion of a good conscience to God. That is to say, the answer that is made out of a good conscience, to the interrogatories, that were even then propounded to them that were baptized, by which answer, they tied themselves to professe the Faith, and to live according to it; Which S. Paul therefore calls that good profes­sion which Timothy had made before many witnesses, 1 Tim. VI. 12, 13, 14. to wit, when hee was baptized; and therefore conjures him by the good profession which our Lord made before Pilate, of his Kingdome, for which hee suffered death, to preserve it unspotted. Which if it be so, then must no Christian imagine, that the receiving of this Tradition, or Rule of Faith, upon which men [Page 42] were admitted to Baptisme, and made Christians, consisted onely, in professing to believe that which is necessary for the salvation of all Christians to be belie­ved, but also, in undertaking to live as Christianity requireth. Therefore S. Paul sometimes, in his writings, referres himself to the precepts, not onely which hee had delivered them, but also which they had received of him, charging his flock, not onely with their duty, but also with their engagement, 1 Thess. IV. 1, 2, 11. 2 Thess. III. 6.

But, besides the Rule of Faith, there is another sort of Traditions, concerning the outward order in the Church, (by which Unity is preserved, in the commu­nion of those Offices, which God is to be served with by Christians) which Christians come to be subject to, by receiving their Baptisme from the Church, and, consequently undertaking to serve God with the Church. For, it is mani­fest, that this communion cannot be maintained without certain Rules, limiting the maner and circumstances of Gods service, for time and place and the per­sons, both which are admitted to communion with the Church, and which are inabled to minister the Offices of the same. Baptisme is the door to all Gods Ordinances that Christians are obliged to serve God with. The praising of God, the reading and hearing of the Scriptures, and the expounding of them, the common prayers of Christian Assemblies, are all Offices, which, no Christian doubts that God is to be served with under the Gospel, though there be no ex­presse precept of the New Testament, what Offices the publick service of God is to consist of; because, before the Gospel, they were alwaies in use among Gods people. The Sacrament of the Eucharist, being instituted by Christ to be frequented by the Church, at their Assemblies for the service of God, must be reckoned among the positive Laws of God to his Church, obliging only because commanded. Hee that supposeth the Church a Corporation founded by God, to maintaine the communion of those that believe, in these Offices, must conse­quently maintain a Power of settling good order in the exercise of them, as for all other circumstances, so especially, for the qualities of persons concurring to the celebrating of them. Hee that shows by the Scripture, that this order was provided for by the Apostles, in the Churches of their founding, shows that they intended the Church for a Body, indowed with Power of limiting the like Rules for the future. And this is to be showed by many passages of S. Pauls Epistles. 1 Cor. XI. 2, 3-16. 20-34. having commended them, for observing his Traditions as hee had delivered them, hee is fain to argue very hard, that their women ought, their men ought not to be vailed at divine Service; Conclu­ding, that, if his reasons would not prevail, the contentious must rest in this; That wee have no such custome, neither the Churches of God. Why so, if parti­cular Churches be not tied to keep unity with the whole? And by and by, pro­posing another disorder, in that they received not the Eucharist in commune poore and rich, hee reproveth it, as contrary to that which hee had delivered to them from the beginning; Concluding, that; The rest will I set in order when I come. So 2 Thess. II. 25. Stand therefore, brethren, and hold fast the Traditions which yee have been taught, either by word of mouth, or by any letter of ours. Nei­ther can it be imagined, that all Christians should be bound to heare the Apo­stles, and not be bound to hold those things, for Lawes to their conversation in maters of Religion, which the Apostles should teach them to that purpose. Of this nature is the decree at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 20, 28. that the then Churches of the Gentiles should abstain from things strangled and bloud, as well as from fornication, and the pollution of Idols. For, what is the ground or the purpose of it, but to preserve them in unity, with the Churches of Jews become Christians? Of this nature is that blessing or Thanksgiving mentioned by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV. 16, 17. 1 Tim. II. 1. being, as I have showed in a Discourse of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church pag. 350-370. a form of Prayer or Thanksgiving delivered in substance by the Apostles, for which the Sacrament of our Lords Supper hath been alwaies called the Eucharist, because it is to be celebrated with it. Of the same nature is tha order which S. James gives, of praying for the sick, anointing them with oile; aswell for the forgivenesse of their sins, as for [Page 43] the recovery of their bodily health; James V. 14, 15. Which, I suppose, no man will deny, that it concernes all Churches alike.

If there be this evidence in the Scriptures, for the beginnings of Church Law, the practice of the Church, from this beginning, will afford much more. Hee that would deny the Tradition of the Rule of Faith, what will hee say to the Creed of the Apostles? Not that I would have the words and syllables of it to containe whatsoever it is necessary for the salvation of a Christian to believe; But because the Creed is not the words of the Creed, but the sense and meaning of them, together with that coherence and dependence of the parts thereof one upon and with another, which the reasons and grounds of them inforce. But first let it be understood, that I make a difference between the Rule of Faith, and the substance of Christianity: Supposing Christianity to consist partly in mater of Faith, partly in mater of maners; Partly in things to be believed, partly in things to be done, though the Creed extend onely to mater of Faith. There is nothing more evident in the practice of the whole Church, before the world had admitted the profession of Christianity, than this; That there was a time allowed and required by the Church for those that professed themselves converted to believe the truth of Christianity, to give trial of their conversati­on, before they were admitted to Baptisme. The Constitutions of the Apostles VIII. 32. name three years, but with this limitation, that if any man demonstrate extraordinary zele to Christianity, hee be received without so long trial. There­fore if Clemens Alexandrinus require five, it makes no difference. For what marvail if several Churches at several times had several customes, when as upon extraordinary occasions they were dispensable? The Constitutions require ex­traordinary trial of those that had practised any sort of Magick, judging by the experience of the times, that it was hard to part with such superstitions. It is enough for my purpose, that, during this time, they might learn to behave themselves as Christians, by conversing among Christians, by coming to Church, and bearing a part in the praises of God, and hearing the Scriptures read and expounded. And what is more notorious in the practice of the ancient Church, than the difference between Missa Catechumenorum and Missa Fidelium; Be­tween that part of the Office of the Church, which Pretenders to Christianity were admitted to, (or Hearers, that is, Scholars and Learners of it) and that which was peculiar to Believers, that is; those that were Baptized and made Christians? It is the designe of Clemens Alexandrinus his Paedagogus, to show, how the Word, (whether our Lord Christ or his Gospel) is the Pedagogue of mankinde, in bringing them to be Christians. Not as wee mistake that word to signifie the Master of a School, but as the fashion was then, for men of qua­lity to appoint a sonne a Governor, to conduct him to School and home againe, to attend on him at his exercises, and upon all occasions, to put him in minde how it might become him to behave himself, and to report to his Father if hee proved untractable. Thus hee maketh Pretenders to Christianity to be condu­cted by our Lord Christ and his Gospel, in the conversation of Christians, till they come to demand their Baptisme of the Church: As it is manifest by the end of the Book, where this Governor, conducting his charge to the Church, gives him up into his own hands (so hee saith expresly) as no more Governor of children, but Master of men in the School of his Church. Supposing then the point of maners and godly life to be part of the substance of Christianity, it is evident, that the Church alwaies acknowledged a certain Rule of Faith, in that those who were thus prepared, were alwaies taught their Creed, that is, required to repete it, and heare it expounded by those whom the Church trusted for that purpose. It is not my intent here to insist, that the words of the Creed were delivered by the Apostles themselves, or, that the Rule of Baptisme delivered by our Lord, in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, is not a sufficient Symbole or cognizance for a Christian. For what is there necessary to the salva­tion of all Christians that is not contained in the profession of him, that desires to be baptized into this Faith? But it is enough for my present purpose, that it was alwaies requisite, that whosoever is baptized, should be instructed upon what [Page 44] termes hee is to expect to be saved by Christ, and, that which all were required to professe for that purpose, to be the Rule of Faith. For, whether it may appeare that this or that is of that nature must come to trial, though the question be on­ly of the sense of the Creed, supposing that the very words were delivered by the Apostles themselves. For example: It is not possible to render a reason of the coming of Christ, not mentioning the fall of Adam; nor of that, not mentioning the Devil and his Angels; nor of that, not mentioning the creation of Angels. The knowledge then requisite to save a Christian containeth the Apostasy of the evil Angels, whether it be in the Creed or not, because neither the Creed as it is, nor Baptisme in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, can be understood to have any sense, without supposing it. And therefore I­renaeus I. 2. could not deliver this Rule without mentioning the Devil and his Angels, though I intend not thereupon to argue, that it was contained in the words of the Creed at that time. By S. Cyrils Catechises you shall understand, that those who pretended to Baptisme at Easter, were to be instructed in the sense and grounds of their Creed during the Lent. And S. Augustine in his book de Catechizandis rudibus, where hee acquaints his friend that had writ to him a­bout something of that office, with the form that hee was wont to use, instructs him to begin with the beginning of Genesis, and, setting forth what course God had taken with mankinde before and under the Law, to bring down his discourse to the coming of Christ, and from thence to his second coming to Judgment. Which is to the very same purpose, onely taking opportunity to mixe the mo­tives of Faith, which the Old Testament containeth with the mater of Faith which the New Testament requireth. Whatsoever then is said of the Rule of Faith in the writings of the Fathers, is to be understood of the Creed; Whereof, though it be not maintained, that the words which Pretenders were required to render by heart were the same, yet the substance of it, & the reasons and grounds which make every point necessary to be believed, were alwaies the same in all Churches, and remaine unchangeable. I would not have any hereupon to think, that the mater of this Rule is not, in my conceit, contained in the Scriptures. For I finde S. Cyril Catech. V. protesting, that it containes nothing but that which concerned our salvation the most, selected out of the Scriptures. And therefore in other places, he tenders his Scholars evidence out of the Scriptures, and wishes them not to believe that whereof there is no such evidence. And to the same effect, Eucherius in Symb. Hom. I. Paschasius de Sp. S. in Praef. and af­ter them Thomas Aquinas secunda II. Quest. I. Art. IX. all agree, that the form of the Creed was made up out of the Scriptures; Giving such reasons as no reasonable Christian can refuse. Not onely because all they whose salvation is concerned have not leisure to study the Scriptures, but because they that have, cannot easily or safely discern wherein the substance of Faith, upon the profes­sion whereof our salvation depends, consisteth; Supposing that they were able to discern between true and false, in the meaning of the Scriptures. To which I will adde onely that which T [...]rtullian and others of the Fathers observe of the ancient Hereticks, that their fashion was to take occasion, upon one or two texts, to overthrow and deny the main substance and scope of the whole Scriptures. Which, whether it be seen in the Sects of our time, or not, I will not say here, (because I will not take any thing for granted, which I have not yet principles to prove) but supposing it onely a thing possible, I will think I give a sufficient reason why God should provide Tradition as well as Scripture, to bound the sense of it; As S. Cyril also cautioneth in the place aforenamed, where hee so li­berally acknowledgeth the Creed to be taken out of the Scripture; [...]. For (saith hee) the Faith was not framed as it pleased men, but the most substantial maters collected out of the Scripture do make up one doctrine of the Faith. For, I beseech you, what had they, whosoever they were that first framed the Creed, but Tradition, where­by to distinguish that which is substantial from that which is not? Heare Origen in the Preface to his books [...]. Cùm multi sum qui sentire se putent quae [Page 45] Christi sunt, & nonnulii eorum diversa à prioribus sentiant, servetur verò Ecclesia­stica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita, & usque ad praesens in Ecclesiis permanens; Illa sola credenda est veritas, quae in nullo ab Ecclesiasticâ dis­cordat traditione. Illud tamen scire opor tet, quoniam sancti Apostoli, fidem Christi praedicantes, de quibusdam quidem, quaecun (que) necessaria crediderunt, omnibus cre­dentibus, etiam his qui erga inquisitionem divinae scientiae pigriores videbantur, ma­nifestissimê tradiderunt; Rationem scilicet assertionis relinquentes eis inquirendam, qui Spiritûs dona excellentia, & praecipuè, sermonis, sapientiae, & scientiae, per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum percipere merebantur. De aliis verò, dixerunt quidem quia sint, quomodo autem aut unde sint siluerunt, profectò, ut studiosiores quoque (l. quique) ex posteris suis, amatores sapientiae & scientiae, exercitium habere possent, in quo in­genii sui fructum ostendere valerent; Hi videlicet, qui dignos se & capaces sa­pientiae praepararent. Species verò eorum quae per praedicationem Apostolicam mani­festè traduntur, hae sunt. There being many, that think their sense to be Christian, and yet the sense of some differs from their predecessors; But, that which the Church preaches, as delivered by order of succession from the Apostles, being pre­served and remaining the same in the Churches; That onely is to be believed for truth, which nothing differs from the Tradition of the Church. This, notwithstand­ing, wee must know; That the holy Apostles, preaching the Faith of Christ, delive­red some things, (as many as they held necessary) most manifestly to all believers, e­ven those whom they found the duller in the search of divine knowledge; Leaving the reason why they affirmed them to the search of those, that goe to receive the emi­nent gifts of the Holy Ghost, especially of utterance, wisedom, and knowledge by the Holy Ghost. Of other things, they said that they are, but how, or whereupon they are, they said not. Forsooth, that the more studious of their Successors, loving wise­dom and knowledge, might have some exercise, wherein to show the fruit of their wit; To wit, those that should prepare themselves to be worthy and capable of wise­dom. Now, the particulars of that which is manifestly delivered, by the preaching of the Apostles, are these; Which hee proceedeth to set down. But Vincentius Lerinensis hath writ a Discourse on purpose, to show, that, this Rule of Faith, be­ing delivered by succession to the principal, as S. Paul requires Timothy to do, and by them to those that were baptized, was the ground, upon which all Here­sies, attempting upon the Faith, were condemned. So that, so many Heresies, as historical truth will evidence, to have been excluded the Church from the A­postles time, for mater of belief, so many convictions of this Rule; Which, because all agreed that they transgressed, therefore they were excluded the Church. But, Vincentius besides this, advanceth another mark to discern what belongs to the Rule, that is, what the ground and scope of our Creed requires. For it might be said, that perhaps something may come in question whether con­sistent with the Rule of Faith or not, in which there hath passed no decree of the primitive Church, because never questioned by that time; Wherein, there­fore, wee shall be to seek, notwithstanding the decrees past by the Church upon ancient Heresies. Which to meet with, Vincentius saith further, that whatsoever hath been unanimously taught in the Church by writing, that is, alwaies, by all, every where, to that, no contradiction is ever to be admitted in the Church. Here the stile changes. For, whereas Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others of former time, appeal onely to that which was visible in the practice of all Churches; By the time of the Council at Ephesus, (the dare of Vincentius his book) so much had been written upon all points of Faith, and upon the Scriptures, that hee presumeth, evidence may be made of it all, what may stand with that which the whole Church had taught, what may not. I know this proposition satisfieth not now, because I know Vincentius proceedeth upon supposition, that the Church was and ought to be alwaies one Body, in which, that which agreeth with the Faith might be taught, that which agreeth not might not; Which is the question now in dispute. For, upon other termes, it had been madnesse in him to allege and maintain the Council of Ephesus, condemning Nestorius as infringing the Rule of Faith, upon this presumption, because ten received. Doctors of the Church had formerly delivered the contrary of his doctrine. It is well enough [Page 46] known, that there are many questions, in which, though there may be ten Fathers alleged on one side, yet there may be more alleged on the other side. And it were a piteous case, if Vincentius or I could tell you no wiser a way for the end­ing of Controversies in Religion, than by counting noses. The presumption lies in this; That the witnesles that depose being of such credit in the Church, as the quality which they beare in it presupposeth, it cannot reasonably be i­magined, that they could teach that for truth, which is inconsistent with Christi­anity, but they must be contradicted in it, and their quality and degree in the Church questioned upon it. And that the Church having been alwaies one and the same Body from Christ, whosoever should undertake to teach that for the Christian Faith, which from the beginning had been counted false, hee would have been questioned for contradicting that profession, which qualified him for that rank which hee held in the Church. It is the case of Nestorius, who, vent­ing his Heresie in the Church, gave the people occasion to check at it, and the Council of Ephesus to condemn it. Now Vincentius his discourse presupposeth, that the doctrine of those ten whom hee allegeth had not been contradicted. A thing which must needs be presupposed by him, that supposed the Great Council of Nicaea had decreed no more than that which had alwaies been taught in the Church. For it is plain, that without questioning the Faith setled at Ni­caea, there is no room for the opinion of Nestorius. But otherwise, should ten of that quality which hee allegeth be so considerably contradicted, that it must be presumed, their doctrine was suffered to passe, not as not taken notice of, but as not contradicting the common profession of Christians, it will appear a presum­ption, that neither part is of the substance of Faith, but both allowed to be taught in the Church. And if it appear further, that the fewer in number, and the lesse in rank and quality in the Church hold that which dependeth more ne­cessarily upon the Rule of Faith, which containeth the substance of the Scri­ptures, it will be no way prejudicial to the Unity and authority of the Church, as a Corporation founded by God, that a private man as I am should conclude it for truth, against the greater authority, in maters depending upon the founda­tion of the Church.

If it be said, that this evidence supposeth the necessity of Baptisme to the ma­king of a Christian; Which, not onely the Leviatha [...] is farr from granting, who professeth himself bound to renounce Christ at the command of his Soveraign; But the Socinians also, and some of our Sectaries hold indifferent to salvation, whether baptized or not; I answer; That the question here is not, what be­longs or belongs not to the Rule of Faith and Christian conversation, necessary to the salvation of all Christians, but, whether there be any such Rule or not. That the original and universal custome of Carechizing all Christians evidenceth such a Rule, by the consent of all Christians, as you have seen it evidenced by the frequent mention thereof in Scriptures. That therefore it stands recom­mended to us by the same means, and upon the same grounds, for which wee re­ceive the holy Scriptures. And that, though, when the World was come into the Church, and many more were baptized infants then afore, it cannot be said that this order of Catechizing was so substantially performed as afore; Yet the mater and theme of it remaining in the Tradition of the Creed, and the sense of it, in the writings of the Fathers and the decrees of the Church against He­reticks, it remains still visible what belongs to it, what not, as I shall make ap­pear, in that which is questioned within the subject of this book. Onely this is the place, where I am to allege against the Leviathan, why the profession of Christianity is necessary to the salvation of all Christians: Whereupon it will follow without further proof, that it is necessary to salvation, to believe more than that Jesus is the Christ; To wit, whatsoever this Rule of Christianity con­taineth, the profession whereof is requisite to Christianity. Heare our Lord, Mat. X. 32, 33. Luke XII. 8, 9. Whosoever shall renounce mee before men, him will I renounce before my Father which is in heaven. And, whosoever shall acknowledge mee before men, him will I acknowledge before my Father which is in heaven. And S. Paul Rom. X. 9, 10. If thou confesse with thy mouth that Jesus is the Lard, and [Page 47] believe with thy hea [...]t that God raised him from the dead, that shalt be saved. For with the heart a man believes to righteousnesse, and with the mouth hee professeth to salvation. And a Tim. II. 12. If wee deny him, hee will deny us. Our Lords Commission to his Apostles is, Mat. XXVIII. 19. Go make disciples all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Who are then Christs Disciples? That wee may know, what the Apostles are to make them whom they make Christs Disciples. Y [...]e are my Disciples (saith our Lord) if yee do whatsoever I command you. And John. XV. 8. Herein is my Father glorified, that yee heart [...] fruit: And yee shall be my Disciples. And Luke XIV. 26, 27. Whoso cometh to [...], and hat [...]th not father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, yea and himself, cannot be my Disciple. And whose taketh not up his Crosse and followeth [...]ee, cannot be my Disciple. To the same purpose M [...]. X, 38. XVI. 24. Mark VIII. 34. X. 21. Luke IX. 23. And S. Paul plainly declareth the Gala [...]ians fallen from all benefit of the Gospel, if, to avoid the Crosse of Christ, they should [...]alk the profession of their Chri­stianity to be circumcised G [...]l. V. 11. VI. 12, 14. S. John charges the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira Apoc. II. 14, 15, 20. to have some that hold the doctrine of Bala [...]m, who taught Balak to lay a stumbling block before the children of Israel, of things offered to Idols and Wh [...]r [...]dome; which is the doctrine of the Nicolai­tanes. And, to suffer the woman J [...]zabel calling her self a Prophetesse, to teach and lead the servants of God into the error of whoredome, and eating things sacri­ficed to Idols. S. Peter 1 Pet. II. 15. and S. Jude 11. charge the Gnosticks, whom they write against in those places, that they go the way of Balaams, that brought the Israelites to joyn with B [...]l Pe [...]r, taking the invitation of their mistresses to the sacrifices of their Idols; Whom Ireneus, Justin the Martyr, Origen, Cl [...]mons Alexandri [...]us and Tertulli [...] witnesse, to have made the outward act of Idolatry, in eating things sacrificed to Idols an indifferent thing, that they might avoid persecution, by complying with the Gentiles in that, as with the Jewes in be­ing circumcised. And now, after sixteen hundred yeares, Wee are told, that all that ever suffered for Christianity since the Apostles, (who were to witnesse what they saw our Lord doe, and heard him say) were mutinous sooles, in laying down their lives to testifie that which they were not obliged to witnesse. or rather, which they were obliged not to witnesse, the secular power requi­ting them not to witnesse it. Wee have found one that calls himself a Christi­an, wiser than our Lord and his Apostles, (as they called themselves Gnosticks, because they pretended to know more than the Apostles) that can tell Christi­ans a way to escape the Crosse of Christ by renouncing Christianity, and not fail of the promises thereof, by believing the truth of it. But they were the Disciples of Simon Magus and not of Christ that did so, nor did they expect salvation by the Christianity which they counterseited, but by that secret know­ledg which they pretended to have discovered, beyond that which all Christians had learned from the Apostles; Though they went for Christians among the Gentiles, who knew not what Christians were, so that the Name of God was blasphemed because of them, as the Apostle saith 1 Pet. II. 2. because their mon­strous abominations were thought to be the practices of Christians. Whether any man besides, before this new Dogmatist, pretending to be a Christian, pro­fessed a freedom to renounce Christ in any case, I am yet to learn. Sure I am, the Jewes under Antiochus Epiphanes died freely rather than eat Swines flesh, or give any occasion to think, that they fell from their Law, and from God that gave it, as the Prophet Daniel and his Fellowes had left them example to do. And therefore, by the same means, and upon the same grounds, for which wee receive our Christianity, it stands evidenced to us, that wee are bound to profess it, that is to say, by the Scriptures, and the consent of all Christians that receive the Scriptures.

As for Traditions regulating the order to be observed in the communion of the Church, there is so little question to be made of the consent of all Church writers, that it shall serve my turn, to produce the noted words of T [...]rtullian, de Cor. cap. III. Pla [...] n [...]gabimus (traditionem) recipiendam, si nulla example pre­judicent [Page 48] aliarum observationum, quas, sine ullius Scripturae instrumento, solius tra­ditionis titulo; & exinde consuetudinis patrocinio vindicamus. Denique, ut à baptis­mate ingrediar; Aquam aditnri, ibidem, sed & prius, in Ecclesiâ, sub Antistitis. manu; contest amur, nos renunciare Diabolo, & pompae, & angelis ejus; dehinc ter niergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes, quàm Domintes in Evangelio determina­vit. Indè suscepti, lactis & mellis concordiam praegustamus. Ex (que) eâ die lavacro quotidiano per totam hebdomadam abstinemus. Eucharistiae sacramentum, & in tempore victlus, & omnibus mandatum à Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec de aliorum manu quàm praesidentium sumimus. Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis, annuâ die facimus. Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adora­re. Eâdem immunitate, à die Paschae ad Pentecosten usque gaudemus. Calicis, aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terram decuti, anxiè patimur. Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnem aditum & exitum, ad vestitum, ad calceatum, ad la­vacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quaecunque nos conversatio ex­ercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus. Plainly wee must deny to receive this Tradition, if there be no examples of other observations for a prejudice, which, without any instrument in writing, the onely title of Tradition and plea of Custome from it, maintaineth. In fine, to begin with baptisme; Going into the water, not onely there, but somewhat afore, in the Church, under the hand of our President, wee take witnesse, that wee renounce the Devil, his pomp and Angels. Then wee are drenched thrice, answering somewhat more, than our Lord in the Gospel hath limi­ted. Being taken up from thence, wee fore-taste a mixture of milk and honey. And from that day, wee forbear our daily bathing all the week. The Sacrament of the Eu­charist, which our Lord commanded at the time of meat, and all, wee take also at our assemblies before day, but at no mans hand but our Presidents. Wee offer for those that dye, and again, upon the anniversary of their birth. Wee count it unlawfull to fast, or worship kneeling upon the Lords day. The same privilege wee injoy from Ea­ster to Whitsuntide. Wee are troubled to have any thing, even of our ordinary cup or bread, scattered upon the earth. At all going forth or advancing, at all coming in and going out, at putting on clothes or shooes, at watching, at lying or sitting down, or to table, at bringing in light, whatsoever conversation wee exercise, wee rub our fore­heads with the sign of the Crosse. I must here take notice of an exception to this authority of Tertullian, that hee was a Montanist, or inclining to the Montanists when hee writ it; And marvail, that prejudice in Religion should transport learned Christians so farre, as to deny the records of the Church that credit, which common sense allowes all records of hi­storical truth, and which all Learning allowes the writings of Mahume­tans, Jewes and Pagans. And this consideration I interpose the rather here, to prevent the objection that may be made, that I ground my selfe upon the authority of men, when I allege the testimonies of Church Writers. For, those that may abuse themselves with such a fond imagination as this, are to consider, that I claime as yet no other credit, not onely for Tertullian, who af­ter hee turned Montanist, was not of the Church, but, for the Fathers of the Church, but that which common sense allowes men of common sense, in wit­nessing maters of historical truth. To wit, that they who published writings that are come to posterity, would not have alleged things for true, which every man might see to be false, in point of fact; Because, by so doing, common sense must needs tell them, that they must of necessity utterly discredit the cause which they meant to promote. As in the case in hand. If wee say that Tertullian, be­ing a Montanist, alleged against the Church things so notoriously false, that all the world might see and know them to be false, wee refuse him the credit of a man in his right senses. For what were hee but a mad man, that would tell the Church, that such or such Customes, you know, are practised among Christians, knowing that they were not practised by the Catholick Church, though they might be, among the Montanists? Therefore, though I put a great deal of diffe­rence between the authority of Tertullian and S. Basil in regulating the Church, yet, in witneshng mater of fact, I can ascribe no more to S. Basils testimony, in his book de Sp. S. cap. XXVII. than I do to this of Tertullian. His words are these. [Page 49] [...]; Of things decreed and preached that are kept in the Church, some wee have from written doctrine, some wee have received as delivered in secret down to us from the Tradition of the Apostles, both of the same force to godlinesse. And this will no man contradict, that hath but a little experience in the rules of the Church. For if wee go about to refuse unwritten customes as of no great effect, wee shall, unawares, wound the Gospel in the dangerous part, or rather turn the Faith preached into a bare name. As, first to mention the first and com­monest; Who taught us by writing, to mark with the figure of the Crosse those that have hoped in the name of our Lord Christ Jesus? What Scripture taught us to turn to the East when wee pray? Which of the Saints left us by writing the words of invocation, upon discovering the bread of Thanksgiving and the cup of Blessing? For wee are not content with those which the Apostle or the Gospel menti­ons, but promote and inferre others as of great force toward the Sacrament, which wee have received by unwritten doctrine? Wee also blesse the water of Baptisme, and the oile of anointing, and besides, the man himself that is baptized, from what Scri­pture, and not from silent and secret Tradition? And indeed what written word taught the very anointing of oile? And that a man is drenched thrice, whence comes it? And other things about Baptisme, renouncing Satan and his Angels, from what Scri­pture come they? And not from this unpublished and secret doctrine? I will not here dispute the saying of S. Basil, that these orders are of the same force, toward Chri­stian piety, as the Scriptures; And, that Christianity would be but a bare name, were it not for these unwritten customes; how the truth of it holds. Nay, it were easie to instance against him, as well as against Tertullian, that, among the particulars which they name, there are those which never were in force through the whole Church, but onely in some parts of it. My present purpose demands onely this, that Christians had rules which they observed for Lawes in the ex­ercise of their communion; And therefore, by the intent of those who inforced those rules, do constitute a Society or Corporation by the name of the Church. Which Corporation, Tertullian, whether a Montanist or not when hee writ the book which I quote, claimeth to belong to, in reckoning himself among those that observed the Rules of the Catholick Church. If wee suppose the Church to be one Body, consisting of all Churches, which are all of them several Bo­dies, it will be not onely reasonable, but absolutely necessary by consequence to grant, that some orders there must be, which shall have the force of the whole, others onely in some parts of it. And though S. Basil or Tertullian mistake local customes for general, yet had there not alwaies been a Body, capable of being tied by general customes, there had been no room for this mistake. No prejudice shall hinder mee, to name here the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles; Not as if I meant to maintain, that the writings so called, were indeed pen­ned [Page 50] by them: But because they contain such limitations, of customes delivered the Church by the Apostles, as were received and in use, at such times and in such parts of the Church, where those who penned those writings writ. For, though I should grant, that those limitations are not agreeable to that which was brought in by the Apostles, no man would be so ridiculous as to demand, that there were never any orders or customes delivered the Church by the Apostles, which succeeding times did limit otherwise. The book of Canons which was acknowledged by the representatives of the whole Church, in the Council of Chalcedon, if it be survayed, shall be found to contain, onely, particular limita­tions of general orders, held by the Church, before those Canons were made by the several Councils, either the same with those in the Canons and Constituti­ons of the Apostles, or differing onely according to several times and places. For, wee have yet extant a book of Canons made out of the Africane Councils, containing the like limitations of the same customes and orders, which, though not the same, yet served to preserve the Churches of Africk in unity with the rest of the Church. This Code, wee finde added to the former, by Dionysius Ex [...]guus, in his translation of the Canons, together with the Canons of the Council at Sardica. And Cassiodore, who lived the same time with Dionysius, af­firmes, that this collection was in use in the Church of Rome at that time, Divin. lect. cap. XXIII. But there is extant a later Collection of Canons, under the ti­tle of the Church of Rome, consisting of the same Canons, together with some of the Rescripts of Popes, which were come into use and authority in the We­stern Church, at such time as the said Collection was made. Of the same Ca­nons consisteth another Greek collection, printed by du Tillet, and commented by Balsamon, which addeth hereunto the Canons of the sixth and seventh Sy­nod, in use in the Greek Church, but not acknowledged by the Latine. Where, instead thereof, the collections of Martinus Braccarensis, and Isidorus Mercator, of Burchardns Bishop of Wormes, and Ives of Chartres; where, last of all, the collection of Gratiane the Dominican Monk was in use, till the Rescripts of the Pope took place, and excluded the Canons of the whole Church. The succession of which Law is so visible, that hee that may say, that, the order pre­sently in force, can no way agree with that, which was established by the Apo­stles, shall not have the face to asfirm, that there never was any order establish­ed by the Apostles instead of it, so visible shall the impressions be, of that cor­ruption, by which it declines from the order first established by the Apostles.

And therefore, I allege here in the last place, the consent of those of the Reformation, who, in answering this objection, (when it is argued, that, there­fore Tradition is necessary as well as Scripture) do not deny, that there was a Rule of Faith, that there were Orders delivered the Church by the Apostles, to preserve the Unity of the Church. But, to answer for themselves, why they stand not to the present Church of Rome in them, do allege; That the Rule of Faith, delivered the Church by word of mouth, is also delivered by writing, and contained in the Scriptures: Tnat the Rules of good order, which the A­postles delivered, were never intended, to be unchangeable, as you may heare Tertullian say de Velandis Virginibus cap. I. For, in making this answer, they do acknowledge, that the Church had a Rule of Faith, which it had received for a Law from the Apostles, and therefore delivered for a Law to all that became Christians. But, whether this Rule be contained in the Scriptures or not, con­cernes not my present purpose, seeing it will be as much the cognizance of Christians, and foundation of the Society and Corporation of the Church, (ten­ding to maintain unity in the profession and exercise of Christianity) whether so or otherwise. Onely no man will deny, that it may be not so easie to discern by the Scriptures alone what belongs to it, what not, as it may appear to be, by the Churches delivering of it. Nor do I pretend here, that the orders delivered by the Apostles are all unchangeable. For who knoweth not, that the Lawes of every Common-wealth do change from age to age, the state of Government re­maining the same, because those rights in which Soveraignty consisteth remain the same? And therefore, it is enough for my purpose, that the Church had [Page 51] certain orders, regulating the proceeding thereof, in maters wherein it is to com­municate, as well under the Apostles, as in succeeding ages. Nor requiring, that they should be alwaies the same, but, that they should come alway from the same power, which they left in the Church, that so the Body may appear to con­tinue alwaies one and the same. And, that I proceed to prove, by showing, that the power of those publick persons, which did alwaies act in behalf of the Church, in admitting into and excluding out of the Church (whereby those Laws were in force, and wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth) is derived from our Lord, by the act of his Apostles.

CHAP. VIII. That the Power of Governing the whole Church was in the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, and those whom they took to assist them in the parts of it. The Power of their Successors must needs be derived from those. Why that Succession which appeares in one Church, necessarily holdeth all Churches. The holding of Coun­cils evidenceth the Ʋnity of the Church.

FOr, this I must presume of, in the first place; That, as the Church is, and was to be, the true spiritual Israel of God, when his ancient people depar­ted from him, by refusing the Gospel; So, to signifie this, did our Lord chuse out XII. Apostles and LXX Disciples, answerable to the XII Princes of Tribes, and the LXX Elders, which, with Moses, were to govern Gods ancient people. Neither do I mervail, that wee finde in the Scriptures no further use made of these LXX, no further power exercised by them, under that title; The diffe­rence between Gods ancient and new people appearing straight after our Lords Ascension, and making that order uselesse for the future. For Israel, dwelling all in one Land, might easily be governed by one Soveraign Court, in maters of the Law, answerable in power to that of Moses and his LXX Elders: But Chri­stianity, being to be dispersed all over the world, those LXX with our Lord chose for his present service, could not serve for the like purpose, in time to come. It is therefore enough, that the number of them signifies unto us the foresaid pur­pose, their office, for the time to come, being swallowed up in the offices of the rest of our Lords Disciples, besides the XII Apostles, remaining alwaies the Judges of the XII Tribes of Israel, here and in the world to come. I am sen­sible that some, both of our Presbyterians and Independents, have been nib­bling at this point, as if they had a minde, if they durst, to say; That the A­postles had no authority in the Church but as writers of Scriptures: As for the Goverment of the Church, that the people, or their buckram Elders were to give them checkmate in it. But, having met with this pretense in another place, and heard no man open his mouth to maintain it, I shall, at present, rest con­tent to have showed afore, that their authority is the ground of the authority of their writings, & here, that their Traditions were Law to the Church, and that by their writings, which mention not so much as what the Traditions were. Where­by it appears, that they took place, as acts of their perpetual authority over the Church, not as revelations of Gods will, sent by those Epistles, wherein some­times they are not so much as named.

Besides the Apostles then, at such time as the Church of Jerusalem contained all Christendome, as I observed afore, you have mention of the Elders at Jeru­salem, Acts XI. 30. XV. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23. And again, after the propagation of Chri­stianity, XXI. 18. Of leading men also among the brethren, who were also Pro­phets, Doctors and Evangelists, XV. 22, 32, 35. These then had not their com­mission from the Apostles because other disciples, as well as the XII, received at our Lords own hands the power of remitting sins, by the Holy Ghost, John XX. 18-23. But there was never yet any doubt made, that their authority was limitable by the Apostles, because of the eminence of the XII among the Disci­ples. And therefore, hee that would say, that the LXX were contained in the number of those Elders and Leaders, could no more be contradicted, then some [Page 52] of the Ancient Fathers can be contradicted, in reporting, that some of them were of the number of the VII that were chosen to assist the Apostles, Acts VI. S. Paul, further, rehearsing the graces that our Lord hath granted for the edification of his Church, reckoneth Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors and Doctors Eph. IV. 11. 1 Cor. XII. 28. Now, it is the whole Church that the Apostle speaks of here, as I observed afore, and therefore, the authority here mentioned extendeth to the whole Church. But it is manifest, that the authori­ty which S. Paul giveth Timothy and Titus, as his Epistles to them evidence, is respective to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet, or at the most, those Churches which resorted to them; Yet are they inabled thereby to constitute Bishops for the service of the said Churches, as also their Deacons, and to govern the same 1 Tim. II. 5. Titus I. 6-9. The Elders of the Church which S. Paul sent for to Ephesus, had authority respective to the Church there meant, but received from S. Paul, as his directions and exhortations intimate Acts XX. 17, 28-21. So did the Elders which hee and Barnabas ordained in the Churches Acts XIV. 28. The like wee finde in the Churches of the Jewes Heb. XIII. 7, 17. James V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 1-5. and of the Thessalonians and Philippians, 1 Thess. V. 12, 13. Phil. I. 1. And the seven Churches of Asia have their seven Angels, which, the Epi­stles which the Spirit directs S. John to write them do show, that they were to acknowledge his authority, Apoc. I. 20. II. III. So, as long as the Scriptures last, it is evident, that there was a common authority, whether derived from, or concurrent with the authority of the Apostles, which must needs make the Church one Body during that time, whatsoever privilege can be challenged on behalf of the people, and their concurrence to the acts either of each particular Church, or of the whole.

And for the continuance of this authority after the Apostles, I see no cause why I should seek farr for evidence. It shall susfice mee to allege the Heads of the Churches of Rome, Alexandira, Antiochia and Jerusalem, recorded by Eu­sebius in his Ecclesiastical Histories, from the time of the Apostles. Adding thereunto thereunto the protestations of Irenaeus III. 3. that hee could reckon those rhat received their authority from the Apostles, in all Churches, though, for brevities sake, hee insist onely in the Church of Rome; And of Tertullian de Praescript. cap. XXXII. who also allegeth, the very Chaires which the Apostles sate upon, possessed by those that succeeded them in his time, as well as the Ori­ginals of those Epistles which they sent to such Churches, extant in his time. I will also remember S. Augustine Epistolâ CLXV, and Optatus lib. II. alleging the same succession in the Church of Rome, to confound the Donatists with, for departing from the comminion thereof, and of all Churches that then commu­nicated with it. For what will any man in his right senses say to this? That this authority came not from the Apostles? Or that it argues every one of these Churches to be a Body by it self, but not all of them to make one Body which is the Catholick Church? Hee that sayes this, must answer Irenaeus, alleging, for a reason, why hee instances onely in the Church of Rome; Ad hanc enim Ec­clesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique sideles. For, to this Church, it is necessary that all Churches, that is, the Christians that are on all sides, should resort, because of the more powerfull principality. What is the reason why it is enough for Irenaeus to instance in the Church of Rome but this; That all Churches do communicate with the Church of Rome, when they resort to Rome, and all resort thither be­cause it is the sear of the Empire? So, that which is said of the Faith of the Church of Rome, is said of the Faith of all Churches: And potentior principali­tas is not command of the Church over other Churches, but the power of the Empire, which forces the Christians of all sides to resort to Rome. Again, the cause of the Church against the Donarists stands upon this ground; that, the Church of Rome, which the Churches of Africk did communicate with, communica­ted with all Churches besides those of Africk: But, that Church of Rome which the Donatists communicated with, (for they also had set up a Church of their own at Rome) the rest of the Church did not communicate with. How [Page 53] this came to passe, you may see by the cause of the Novatians, being the same in effect with that of the Donatists. By the IV Canon of Nicaea it is provided, that every Bishop be made by all the Bishops of the Province, some of them, (as ma­ny as can) meeting, the rest allowing the proceedings under their hand. This provision might be made, when there were Churches in all Cities of all Provin­ces, but the I Canon of the Apostles onely requireth, that a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops. For, when Christianity was thinner sowed, if two or three should take the care of providing a Pastor for a Church that was void, their proceeding was not like to be disowned by the rest of the neighbouring Churches, nor, in particular, by that of the chief City, to which the Cities of the rest resorted for justice. The Churches of these chief Cities holding intelli­gence, correspondence, and communion with other Churches of other princi­pal Cities, those Churches which they owned, together with their Rulers, (or whosoever they were that acted on behalf of them) must needs be owned by them in the same unity and correspondence. The Bishop of Rome being dead while the question depended, whether those that had fallen away in the perse­cution of Decius should be readmitted to communion or not; And the neigh­bour Bishops being assembled, sixteen of them ordain Cornelius, three of them Novatianus, who stood strictly upon rejecting them, whatsoever satisfaction they tendered the Church. Whether of these should be received, was for a time que­stionable, especially in the Church of Antiochia, and those Churches which ad­heered to it. Untill, by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria, they were induced to admit of Cornelius without dispute. All this, and much more, you have in Eusebius Eccl. Hist. VI. 42-46. Which being done, there remained no further question, that those who held with Cornelius were to be admitted, those that held with Novatianus remaining excommunicate. Whereby it appeares, that, by the communication which passed between the greatest Churches, and the adherence of the lesse unto them, whatsoever Church communicated with any Church communicated with the whole: And in what quality soever a man was known in his own Church, in the same hee was acknowledged by all Chur­ches. And therefore, the succession of the Rulers of any Church from the Apo­stles is enough, to evidence the unity of the Catholick Church, as a visible Cor­poration consisting of all Churches.

I must not here omit to allege the authority of Councils, and to maintain the right and power of holding them, and the obligation which the decrees of them regularly made is able to create, to stand by the same authority of the Apostles. Which if I do, there can no further question remain, whether the Church was founded for a Corporation by our Lord and his Apostles, when wee see the parts ruled by the acts of the whole; That is to say, when wee see persons authori­zed in behalf of their particular Churches, do an act which shall oblige those respective Churches. For by the same reason, persons authorized on behalf of all Churches, shall be able to do an act that shall oblige all Churches; Which is all that I claim, when I maintain, that, by Gods Law, all Churches are to make one Church. When Matthias was Ordained an Apostle in stead of Ju­das, I demand, why that Assembly of Apostles and Disciples at which this was done, should not be counted a General Council; having showed, that this Church of Jerusalem was then the whole Church, and the creating of an A­postle, whom all were to acknowledge in that quality for the future, being an act concerning the Whole. I will not say, that the act of creating the seven, Acts VI. concerned the whole Church, being content that it remaine in question, whether the intent of it were such or not. But in as much as those that do not allow, that they intended to create an Order of Deacons which all Churches were to make use of afterwards, do not question, that, if they did intend it, the whole Church must needs stand obliged by it, I am not afraid, to reckon this Assembly also in the rank of General Councils. As for that of Acts XV. it appeareth sufficiently, that, those who founded the Church of Antiochia, had their first commission from the Apostles, not onely by the first preaching of the Gospel there, and the sending of Barnabas Acts XI. 19-26. but chiefly, in that [Page 54] those which taught the necessity of observing Moses Law are disowned, as ha­ving no commission so to teach Acts XV. 24. For, as for S. Paul, who challen­geth an immediate commission from our Lord, Gal. I. 1. it is easily granted, be­cause hee was made an Apostle; Yet, in that hee allegeth the verifying of it to S. Peter and S. James, and the Churches of Judaea, (who, having never seen his face, glorified God for him Gal. I. 18-24.) in that hee is brought by Barnabas (who acted by commission from the Apostles) to Antiochia, and upon this be­ginning was sent by the Holy Ghost, that is, by Prophesie, to do the office of an Apostle with Barnabas Acts XII. 1, 2, 3. in that hee is owned by the Apostles afterwards Acts XV. 12. Gal. II. 1, 7-10. (which makes it more than probable, that both these Texts speak of one and the same time of S. Pauls coming to Jerusalem) in these regards, I say, it appeares sufficiently, that the Church was to own him for an Apostle, upon the owning his immediate calling from hea­ven, by the rest of the Apostles. Wherefore; when wee see those that were trusted on behalf of the Church of Antiochia, and those Churches which had been founded by those that were sent by the Holy Ghost from thence, resort to the Apostles and Church at Jerusalem, for an end of the difference in debate, well may I, with those that have gone afore mee, reckon this meeting among the General Councils, the cause of it concerning the whole; & no part concern­ed that it obliged not. I will not say so much of the meeting of S. Paul with S. James Acts XXI. 18. (though the Elders there mentioned are thought to be those, that had the chief authority in the neighbouring Churches, as well as in that of Jerusalem; And though S. Paul, by this time, was become rhe Head of many more Churches of his own foundation than afore) Because of the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles, and the founding of other Churches by this time, which could not be tied by the result of this meeting, further than the mater of it was inforced by the decree formerly made, of which, among the Apostles, there ought no doubt to be made. Let no man expect that I inferre upon these premises, that the Church is bound by a positive Law of God to call Councils, and to decide all emergencies by the vote of them, much lesse, that it is not able to do this otherwise. I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation, founded by God, upon a privilege of holding visible Assemblies for the common service of God, notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same, must needes maintain by consequence, that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies, as shall be requisite to maintain the common service of God, and the unity in it, and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it, but especially, that profession which it supposeth. But I intend not therefore to tye the Church to inflame persecution, by holding such Assemblies, as may give occasion of sinister suspicions, to secular Powers that protect not Christianity, when the effect of such Assemblies is to be obtained without assembling. For, whosoever they be, that ought to be authorized in behalf of particular Churches, to constitute a Council, they can have no other authority than their respective Churches do chal­lenge. It cannot be imagined, that, being present in one place together, and seeing one anothers faces, can purchase them that authority which they cannot have at home, to conclude the whole by the consent of the Council. The pre­sence of Representatives affords infinite opportunities, of better information, one from another, by debate one with another, which distance of place allowes not otherwise. But yet, in maters concerning the state of the Whole, or any great part of it, means of information, for the maintenance of that confede­racy, wherein I maintain the Society of the Church to stand, is to be had, by daily intercourse, intelligence, and correspondence between Churches, without those Assemblies of Representatives which wee call Councils. A thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning, that, thereupon, I con­ceive, it may be called a standing Council, in regard of the continual settling of troubles, arising in some part, and tending to question the peace of the whole, by the consent of other Churches concerned, had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence. The holding of Councils is a way of farre greater dispatch, but the expresse consent of Churches obtained [Page 55] upon the place, is a more certain foundation of peace, in regard of the many questions that may arise, as well in the discharge of that trust which Repre­sentatives are charged with, as in the respect allowed their votes by the Council; As it may easily appear, by the difficulties that have risen about exe­cuting the decrees of Councils. And therefore the power of them is meerly de­riv [...]tive from their respective Churches, tending to supply those difficulties of bringing the whole to agreement, which distance of place createth. That there­fore which I allege here is this; That the succession of Pastors alleged by Ire­naeus and Tertullian, to convince the Hereticks of their time, by S. Augustine and Optatus, to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks, proceed wholey upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches, as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole. Which is the true reason of the visibility of the Church, and the assurance that every particu­lar Christian might have, during this intelligence and correspondence, that, hold­ing communion with his own Pastor, hee held the true Faith, together with the Unity of the Catholick Church; Neither putting trust in man, which God cur­seth, nor in his own understanding for the sense of the Scriptures, but trusting his own common sense, as well for the means of conveying to him the mater, as the motives of Christianity. For why is it enough for Irenaeus and Tertullian, for S. Augustine and Optatus, to allege the Church of Rome, and the succession from the Apostles, for evidence, that the Faith of those Hereticks was contri­ved by themselves, that the Donatists were out of communion with the Church? Because, supposing that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord all communicated in the same Faith which they taught the Churches of their own founding, other Churches founded, and the Pastors of them constituted by the authority of those Churches, must needs be founded and settled upon condition of maintaining and professing the same Faith. So that if any Christian or Pastor should attempt the unsettling of any part thereof, the people to stand bound, rather to follow the original consent of the whole, from whence they received their Christianity, than any man that should forfeit his ingagement to the whole, in the judgment of the whole. This, being the true ground for the au­thority of Councils, might and did take effect without assembling of Councils. S. Cyprian directs his leters to Steven Bishop of Rome, to write to the Churches of Gaule, to ordain a new Bishop in stead of Marcianus in the Church of Arles, because hee had joyned with the Novatians. To the Spanish Bishops, owning the Deposing of Basilides and Martialis, and the Ordaining of those whom they had put in their places, notwithstanding that, upon false suggestions; they had gained Steven Bishop of Rome to maintain them, Epist. LXV, LXVI. Could any man in his right senses have attempted this, had it not been received among Christi­ans which hee alleges, that the people of particular Churches are bound not to acknowledge those for their Pastors, whom the communion of the Church dis­owneth, whether assembled in Council or not? The acts of Councils them­selves, (such are the creation of a Bishop of Arles in stead of Marcianus, of Spanish Bishops in stead of Basilides and Martialis) depending upon the autho­rity of the Churches of Rome and Carthage, that concurred not to them in pre­sence.

If this be imputed to any mistake of Gods appointment in the ancient Church, it will be easie for mee to allege Tertullians reason to as good purpose against our Independent Congregations, as hee used it against the Hereticks of his time. For, if the chief Power of the Church be vested in those that assemble to serve God at once, without any obligation to the resolution of other Con­gregations, then is the trust that a Christian can repose in the Church resolved into that confidence which hee hath of those seven, with whom hee joyneth to make a Congregation, that the ruling part of them cannot faile. Or rath [...]r, into that which hee hath of himself, and of the Spirit of God, guiding his choice to those that shall not faile. They, presuming themselves to have the Spirit of God, without declaring, what Christianity they professe, for the condition upon which they obtain it; need no provision of a Catholick Church to preserve that Faith, [Page 56] which the Gift of the Holy Ghost supposeth. God, who requireth the profession of a true Faith, in them upon whom hee bestoweth his Spirit, hath provided the communion of his Church, for a means to assure us of that which it preserveth. That it is presumption in them to oversee this, no imposture in the Church to challenge it, Tertullians reason determines; The Hereticks pleaded that the Churches had departed from the Faith which the Apostles had left them: To this, after other allegations, hee sets his rest up on this one, that error is infi­nite, truth one and the same; That no common sense will allow that to be a mistake, in which all Christians agree. They all agreed in the same Faith against those Hereticks, because they all agreed in acknowledging the Catholick Church, provided by God to preserve and propagate it, against our Independent Congre­gations. Thus Tertullian, de Praescript. XXVIII. There have been some Dispu­ters of Controversies that have claimed the benefit of Tertullians exception a­gainst the Hereticks of his time in behalf of the Church of Rome. Hee plead­eth, not that the Catholicks ought not, but that they are not bound to admit them to dispute upon the Scriptures, being able to condemne them without the Scriptures. And they plead, that, the Reformation not standing to those Pa­stors, whom they acknowledge to possesse the place of those that derived their authority by succession from the Apostles, may be condemned without Scri­pture, as not holding the truth, who hold not that which is taught by the said Pastors. Which is to demand of those of the Reformation, for an end of all de­bates, first to acknowledge those Pastors, and that which they teach, then to take that for the true meaning of the Scripture, which, that which they reach allow­eth or requireth. But this supposes the sentence of the Church to be an infalli­ble ground for the truth of that which it determineth; And therefore to be ac­cepted with the same Faith as our common Christianity, or the Scriptures: Which I showed you already to be false. It shall therefore suffice mee to say, that those men consider not the difference, between the plea of the Reformation, and that of those Hereticks. For they, acknowledging our Lord Christ and his Apostles, no otherwise than the Alcoran and Mahomet doth, where they served their turn; made no scruple to say, when it was for their purpose, that they knew not the depth of Gods minde, which themselves, by some secret way having attained to know, were therefore called Gnosticks; That they im­parted not the utmost of their knowledge to all alike, when that served their turne; That therefore the Scriptures were unperfect, and revealed not that se­cret, whereby they promised their salvation, but by incklings. These things you shall finde in Tertullian de Praescript. XXII. and Irenaeus, III. 1. as well as that plea which I mentioned afore, that the Churches were fallen from that which they had received of the Apostles. Whereas, those of the Reformation allege against the Church of Rome, that those Hereticks pretended Tradition as they do. Without cause indeed; For, what is Tradition pretended to be delivered in secret, to them, and by them who tender no evidence for it, to that which the visibility of Christianity, and the grounds upon which it is settled justifieth? But so as to make it appear that they no way disown the Apostles, or their wri­tings, nor can expect salvation by any other meanes. And therefore are mani­festly to be tryed by the Scriptures acknowledged on both sides, provided the trial may have an issue, which, I pretend, requires the Tradition of the Church, and that, the communion and Corporation of the Church, as the onely meanes to maintain and propagate Tradition in it. This our Independent Congregati­ons cannot allow, but must stand upon the other plea of those Hereticks, that it came in beside, if not against Gods appointment; which the Donatists questio­ned not. And therefore you shall finde S. Austine, in the place aforenamed, al­lege against them the Scriptures, fore-telling the calling of all Nations, which hee supposeth fulfilled in the Catholick Church then visible; and therefore sup­poseth the communion to be ordained by God, wherein the visibility thereof consisteth. Otherwise it had been strange to tell the Donatists, that they, commu­nicating with the Catholick Bishop of Rome, communicated with all the Church that acknowledged him, but the Donatists, acknowledging the Donatist Bishop [Page 57] whom they had set up at Rome, were therefore disowned by all the Church be­side. I do not deny, that those of the Reformation are to give account of those things which the Donatists are charged with; Nor do I imagine, that their account cannot be sufficient, because that of the Donatists was not. But I say, that, the trial must be by the Scriptures which both parts acknowledge. And I say further, that the rest of the Reformation may and ought to admit the Unity of the Church in visible communion as the Donatists did, because otherwise they can­not pretend that others are bound to b [...] what they are: But our Independent Congregations cannot, because if all were as they, there could be no one Church obliged to that communion which makes it visible.

Now I must here caution, that I intend not here to inferre, that these Rulers succeeded the Apostles by a title of Divine Right, as if it were Gods Law that this succession should alwaies continue. For I demand, for the present, upon the exception of those of the Reformation, that, succession of Faith and doctrine is of more consequence than succession of persons; And therefore, that there can be no Law of God, whereby the right which men hold by personal succes­sion can or ought to hinder the Reformation of Faith and doctrine of Christia­nity, if it may appear, that the succession of persons hath not been effectual to preserve the succession of Faith. That which I demand from the premises is this; That no man in his right senses can imagine, that all Christendome should agree, in acknowledging those for lawfull Rulers of the Church in the times next the Apostles, that had usurped their places contrary to the will of the A­postles, and those Disciples which concurred to the work of the Apostles, and those who derived their authority from either of both, during the time of the Scriptures which I spoke of afore. For, those of the Reformation that make this exception, by making it, do acknowledge, that there was such a visible suc­cession of Pastors, the correspondence of whom, as here I argue, maintained the unity of a visible Corporation in the Catholick Church. And, how many re­cords of historical truth, undeniable of all that would not be thought to re­nounce their common sense, do testifie unto us visible acts of the Apostles, gi­ving power to them whom they left behinde them, as those whom they gave it to have transmitted the like power to their successors? But, when it once ap­peares, that they were owned by the consent of all Christians, communicating with them in that quality which they held in their own Churches, it can no more be imagined, that they could attain those qualities by deceit or violence, con­trary to the will of their predecessors, than it can be imagined, that the com­mon Christianity, which wee all acknowledge, could prevail over all, by impo­sing upon their belief, such motives to believe, as never were seen, because ne­ver done. And therefore, whatsoever change may have succeeded in those qualities, from that which the Apostles instituted from the beginning, or, by abuse of the same, in the Faith which they were trusted to propagate without adding or taking away, (which changes may be the subject of Reformation in the Church and the belief of it) yet that this point is not of that nature; That all lawfull authority in the Church is derived from that which was in the Apostles, propagated by some visible act of theirs; I will presume upon as proved by the premises.

CHAP. IX. The Keyes of the Church given the Apostles, and exercised by Excommu­nication under the Apostles. The ground thereof is that profession, which, all that are baptized are to make. That Penance and abatemeut of Pe­nance hath been in force ever since and under the Apostles. In particular, of excluding Hereticks.

IN the last place, the right of Excommunication consists in the power of re­mitting and retaining sins, given by our Lord to his Church with the Keyes of it. First to S. Peter alone our Lord saith; Mat. XVI. 19. I will give thee the Keyes of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed there; But af­terwards, to the Body of his Disciples; Mat. XVIII. 17, 18. If hee heare thee not, tell the Church: If he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publicane. Verily I say unto you; Whatsoever yet binde—as afore. And to the XII. breathing upon them; John XX. 22, 23. Receive yee the Holy Ghost. Whose sins soever yee remit they are remitted, and whose sins soever yee retaine they are re­tained. By virtue of this Commission S. Peter saith to Simon Magus, discover­ed a counterfeit Christian, Acts VIII. 20-24. Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought to purchase the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this Word, for thy heart is not right before God. Repent thorefore of this thy malice, and pray God, that, if possible, this device of thine heart may be forgi­ven thee. For I see thou art in the gall of bitternesse, and the bond of unrighteous­nesse. And Simon answering said; Pray you to the Lord for mee, that nothing come upon mee of that which you have said. Where, having excluded him from the benefit of Christianity, what hee is to expect, hee leaves to the trial of fu­ture time. But most manifestly S. Paul 1 Cor. V. commandeth them to deliver the incestuous person to Satan, adding directions and reasons why they are to abstaine from the conversation of such Christians. And pursueth this discourse with a charge, of ending the sutes of their Christians, within the Church, 1 Cor. VI. which either signifies nothing, or inforces the power of Excommunication to oblige the parties to stand to the sentence. But, the case of the incestuous person is made still more manifest, by the reason of the sentence in joyned upon his repentance, and the sorrow testified by the Church 2 Cor. II. 4-11. VII. 8-11. In the Epistle to the Ebrewes VI. 4-8. X. 26-29. the Apostle, de­claring, that they who fall away in time of persecution, are not to expect to be restored by Penance, makes their Excommunication without release, which therefore hee granteth may be released ù on repentance, in the case of other sins. To which purpose the Apostle, 1 John V. 16, 17. If a man see his brother sin a sin not unto death, let him ask, and hee shall give him life; To such as sin not to death. There is a sin to death, I say not that yee pray for it: All unrighteousnesse is sin, but there is a sin not to death. The meaning of these Scriptures, I have ar­gued, and cleared more at large, in my book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State pag. 17-40. by such reasons as have not been disputed, by those that have questioned this power of the Church, since the publishing of it.

But I will remember, in this place, that which I have also pleaded there pag. 13-16. that all this power is grounded upon the power of baptizing to for­givenesse of sins, because of the evidence lately produced for the interrogato­ries of baptisme, and the profession of Christianity, which the Church did in­joyn, and all that were baptized undergo; The promise of everlasting life in the world to come, and the gift of the Holy Ghost inabling to performe so great an undertaking, depending upon it, according to such termes as the preaching of the Gospel importeth. For if the Church be trusted by God, first to induce men to believe Christianity, then to instruct them wherein it consisteth, is it not proper­ly said to forgive the sins of them, who, upon that instruction, undertake that profession, with a good conscience and a heart unfained, which God requireth of [Page 59] those that seek his promises? And this is the ground of that which is there ar­gued, that the power of the Keyes is first seen in granting baptisme, though not in ministering of it, other acts of the same power depending upon this. I will not here omit S. Cyprian Ep. LXXIII. Manifestum autem est ubi & per quos re­missa peccatorum detur, quae in baptismo, scilicet, datur. Nam Petro primum Do­minus, super quem aedificavi [...] Ecclesiam, & unde unitatis originem instituit & osten­dit, potestatem dedit, ut id solvere [...]ur in coelis quod ipse solvisset in terris. Et, post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur, dicens; Sicut misit me Pater & ego mitto vos: Hae cum, dixisset, inspiravit, & ait eis; Accipite Sp. Sanctum. Si cujus remiseritis peccata remittentur illi: Si cujus tenueritis, tenebuntur. Ʋnde intelligimus, non nisi in Ecclesia praepositis, & in Evangelicâ Lege ac dominicâ ordi­natione fundatis licere baptizare, & remissam peccatorum dare: Foris autem, nec ligari posse nec solvi, ubi non sit qui ant ligare possit aut solvere. Here, it is plain, that the Keyes of the Church, and the power of remitting sins is exercised in baptizing, according to S. Cyprian: For thus hee writeth. Now it is manifest, where and by whom remission of sins is given, which, forsooth, is given in baptisme. For first our Lord gave power to Peter, (upon whom hee built his Church, and in whom hee settled and declared the original of Unity) that it should be loosed in hea­ven, which hee should loose on earth. And after his resurrection, hee speaketh also to his Apostles, saying; As my Father sent mee, so I also send you. And having said so, hee breathed on them, and said; Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose sins yee re­mit, they shall be remitted, whose sins yee retain, they shall be retained. Whence wee understand, that it is not lawfull, but for those that are set over the Church, and foun­ded upon the Evangelical Law, and the Ordinance of our Lord, to baptize and give remission of sins: But, that without, nothing can be either bound or loosed, where there is no body that can either binde or loose. This is then the ground of Excom­municating out of the Church. The profession of Christianity is as necessary to obtain the promises of the Gospel at Gods hands, as baptisme at the Churches. The Church is trusted to allow or to refuse the profession tendered, and accord­ingly to receive into the Church or exclude out of it. And, shall not hee that transgresses the profession of a Christian, as visibly as hee made it, (which not onely Hereticks and Schismaticks, but Adulterers, Murtherers, Apostates, and the like do) shall hee not forfeit the communion of the Church, which hee attained by it?

Adde hereunto the consideration of that which I observed afore out of the Constitutions of the Apostles VIII. 32. specifying what professions and trades of life there were, which then were refused Baptisme, unlesse they would pro­fesse to leave them, as inconsistent with Christianity. For example, all that li­ved by the Stewes, by the Stage, by the Games and by the Races of the Pa­gans, all Soothsayers, Diviners and Fortune-tellers, all that kept Concubines, and refused to conforme themselves. For, let no man think this book the onely witnesse of this truth. You have it in many other writers of the Church; But especially in S. Austines book de Fide & Operibus. The subject whereof con­cernes those, who, having put away wives or husbands and married others, were refused Baptisme for it. This, some plain Christians marvelled at, and thought it reason, that all should be baptized that would, & then taught their duty; Which, whoso regarded not, might neverthelesse, as they thought, be saved so as through fir [...], according to S. Paul. And this is that which S. Austine disputes from the be­ginning to the XIV Chapter of that book, that no man is to be baptized till hee undertake to live like a Christian, marvailing afterwards, cap. XVIII where those Christians had lived and spent their time, who, seeing every day before their eyes, Whores, Players, Fencers, Panders, and the like refused Baptism, found it strange, that those adulteries, which Christianity no lesse condemned, never to inherit the kingdome of heaven, should not be admitted into the Church, without a pro­mise to leave them for the future. Certainly, if the Church have power not to admit those who undertake not this, then is the power of excluding those who undertake it and perform it not well grounded.

I shall not repeat here the reasons that I have elswhere, to show that Pe­nance, [Page 60] and by consequence Excommunication is to be counted in the number of Traditions introduced with the force of Lawes into the Church by the Apo­s [...]les. It is enough, that they remaine intire. I confesse they inferre an opinion th [...] is not so common; That, under the Apostles, some sins of the deepest dye were not admitted to Penance, nor to regain the Communion of the Church by the same: But referred to the mercy of God, whereof, it was not alwaies thought fit that the Church should become surety or warrant. And this brings in an in­terpretation of some very difficult texts of Scripture which is not received. But hee that complaineth of that will be bound to advance some other meaning of those texts, which may be free from contradiction, both to the Rule of Faith, and to Historical truth which common sense justifieth; And yet admit no men­tion of publick Penance in the Church, no intent to speak of it; in all the Scri­ptures there alleged: Which perhaps will be too hard to do.

Further I labor not. I will suppose no man so wilfull, as to dispute the right of excluding from the Communion of the Church, granting a power of limit­ing the conditions, upon which it is to be restored to them who forfeited it. And this is visible. It was but a mater of LXX years after the decease of S. John, according to Eusebius his Chronicle, that Montamis appeared to demand, that Adulterers might not be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon Penance. That those that had married the second time might not communicate. That the rule of Fasting might be stricter than was in use. That it might not be lawfull to fly from persecution for the Faith. It is manifest that these were his pretenses, by Tertullian that maintaines them, being seduced with the opinion of inspirations and revelations granted him and his partizans to that purpose. These pretenses were afterwards in part revived at Rome by Novatianus, to get himself the Bishoprick there, by excluding from Penance and reconciliation, those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius. It appeareth also that those men alleged for themselves the very passages of the Apostles which I al­lege to my intent. Neither can it appear, that ever any son of the Church did contradict them, by saying, that the Apostles meant nothing of Penance, as they imagined. And now let all men judge, whether the Church have reason to hold this evidence of Penance, and by consequence of its own being a Church. Was Epiphanius, and all that writ against the Novatians troubled to no purpose at the VI of the Ebrews, when those Schismaticks, alleging it for themselves, might have been silenced, by denying that it concerned Penance? Why did not the Church allege, that, the sin unto death 1 John V. 17. is no such thing as Apostasy from Christianity, when the Novatians alleged it to prove, that Apostates were not to be reconciled to the Church? How came it to passe, that there was so much doubt made in the Church of Rome of admitting the Epistle to the Ebrews for Canonical Scripture, (witnesse S. Jerome Epist. ad Dar­danum) as thinking that it did absolutely contradict the re-admitting of Apo­states, which had been practised in that Church before Montanus? Tertullian, of all men, was troubled without cause, that the incestuous person, whom hee supposes to be excommunicated at Corinth by S. Pauls Order, 1 Cor. V. should be re-admitted by his Indulgence 1 Cor. VII. De Pudicitiâ, cap. XIII, XIV, XV. because hee saw this was a peremptory exception against Montanus, that a crime equal to Adultery should by S. Paul be admitted to Penance. How easie a thing it had been for him to say, that there is nothing of Penance, nothing of Excommunication (which Penance presupposes, and therefore inferres) in deli­vering to Satan the incestuous person, in commanding them, not so much as to eat with those that are called brethren, that is Christians, but are indeed such as the incestuous? But hee, being some fourteen hundred years nearer the begin­ning of Christianity than wee, and being satisfied by his five senses, of those things, which new Heresies and Schismes oblige us to argue by consequences, found that his Patriarch Montanus could not answer so: And therefore, thinking that the Church could not answer their arguments, forces an answer to this, by saying, it was not the same man that is excommunicated by the Apostles Order 1 Cor. V. and restored by his Indulgence 2 Cor. VII. Because hee saw the recon­ciling [Page 61] of a sinner to the Church by Penance as lively described and signified by S. Pauls Indulgence there, as by any record of the Church, at such time as it was most in use. And can there remain any doubt of this Excommunication, because the Church cannot now deliver to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus? Surely, all the writings of the Apostles do bear witnesse, that the miraculous graces of the Holy Ghost (which they had then, but all Christians see the Church hath not now) served not onely to witnesse the truth of Christianity, but the authority of the Apo­stles in behalf of it. This authority having taken effect, by those Ordinances which the Church hath received at their hands; It is no longer requisite, that God should bear witnesse to his own Ordinances, by such miraculous effects, seeing hee doth no longer bear witnesse to the truth of Christianity by the like. Hee that believes, that, whosoever is not in the Church, is in the power of Sa­tan, needs no reason, why hee is delivered to Satan, that is put out of the Church. Hee that believes it not, is not to be perswaded, that there is a power of Excommunication granted the Church; But, that the Christian saith which the Church preacheth is true, for that, without peradventure, preached the Church. At least, till some body show us that this reason is insufficient, hee must not demand, that wee give an Article of our Creed, and all the help to salvati­on which the communion of the Catholick Church pretendeth, for such an ob­jection as this. Chuse now whether you will say as I say; That, under the Apostles, difficulty was made of re-admitting some sorts of sins, but never any peremptory order against it, (and, so, that Montanus and Novatianus were Schis­maticks, for seperating from the Church, when the whole Church was agreed that there was a necessity of it) or look about for a more reasonable sense, to assoile the great difficulties of these passages; Provided, that you offer not vio­lence to common sense and historical truth, by imagining, that, so near the A­postles time, there could be so much question about Penance, they having neither meant nor ordained any thing about it. To this argument, all the most an­cient records of the Church, wheresoever mention is made of reconciling by Penance, all the Penitential Canons of later ages will bear witnesse. For, who can undertake to answer, or rather to obscure the evidence made in the place a­forenamed, that, some sins were refused Penance and reconcilement in the first ages of the Church; When wee have a whole book of Tertullian, contending, with Montannus, to impose a Law upon it, of re-admitting no Adulterers? When wee know a whole sect of Novatians, that left the Church, that they might re­admit no Apostates? As for the Penitential Canons of later ages, it is mani­fest to any man, that shall peruse and compare them with that which hath been said of the primitive times, that they are nothing else, but the abatement of that rigor of Discipline, which, during the primitive heat and zele of Christiani­ty, was in force; And therefore as visibly derive themselves fromt the Apostles, as the corrupt Christianity of this time can derive it self from that which they planted pure from the fountain.

But there can be no such evidence of this point, or of the whole mater in hand concerning the Corporation of the Church, as the excluding of Hereticks and Schismaticks out of it. S. Paul 2 Thess. III. 6-14. orders them to withdraw from every brother that walkes disorderly, and not according to the Tradition, which (saith hee) yee have received from us: To mark them, and not to converse with them, that they may be ashamed. But with the excommunicate, not so much as to eat: 1 Cor. V. 11. So likewise, having exhorted the Romanes XVI. 12. to mark those that cause divisions and scandals beside the doctrine, which (saith hee) yee have received of us, & to avoid them; hee hath thereby given us to understand that hee would have Christians abhorr all conversation with those that declare them­selves Hereticks. I have in another place allowed S. Jeromes exposition of that Text of S. Paul, Titus III. 9. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid; Understanding it of Schismaticks, who, as it followes, do condemne themselves, when they voluntarily forsake the communion of the Church, which other sinners are excluded from whether they will or not. But, [Page 62] considering there is no admonition against Schisme, which is declared as soon as it is done, as there may be against Heresie, which may lurk before it is profes­sed; I count is as properly said that Hereticks condemn themselves, when [...]oever they professe to believe the contrary of that which they professed when they were made Christians, as Schismaticks, when they excommunicate themselves. The Apostle indeed seems to use a moderate term, when hee saith, A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid: So the original [...] is to be translated, according to Cyrils Glosses, where wee reade, [...] ex­cuso, recuso, evito, which last sounds in English, to avoid. But, in Vulcanius his Glosses, evito signifies [...], To have in horror, as well as, to take heed, and to avoid. And it is to be understood, that S. Paul prescribes that to Ti [...]us which hee intends all his flock should practise; Supposing that, being Christians, they would be carefull to avoid the infection of those whom their Pastors should avoid, because they counted them dangerous, not to themselves, but to their flock. To this purpose S. Jude 22, 23. [...]; (the Copy at S. James reades, [...], reproue some that preferre themselves before others; But nothing so pertinently to the opposition between pity and terror that followes) And some truly take pity on, putting a difference, (or behaving your selves with a difference towards them) others save through feare (of the judgment of God, or of the Church) hating even the gar­ment that is spotted with sin. It appeares, that the Gnosticks, whom hee writes against, could counterfeit themselves Christians, to seduce the simple from the Faith to their Heresies. Therefore, Jude 11, 12. They perished in the contradi­ction of Core. They are spots in your Feasts of love, banqueting with you, and feed­ing themselves without feare. And 1 Pet. II. 14, 18. they are said to bait unstable soules: And, They bait with fleshly concupiscences, through wantonnesse, those that had truly escaped from them that live in error. They were not afraid to commu­nicate with Christians at their Feasts of love, (where the Sacrament of the Eu­charist was also celebrated) that they might get means and opportunity of se­ducing the simple to separate with them from the Church. And therefore S. Jude 19. These are they who separate themselves, as S. Peter saith, that they perish in the contradiction of Core. So then, those that are curable, either by pity, or by terror, hee exhorts them to save: But, when hee charges them to hate even the garm [...]n [...] th [...]t is spotted with sin; hee charges them much more to abhorre the communion of those that were discovered to be uncurable. For, with what zele they taught to avoid the Hereticks of that time, let S. John be Judge John II. 10, 11. If any man come to you that brings not this doctrine, (but transgresses it, and abides not in it, as hee said just afore) take him not into your house, (as you do them who bring testimony that they hold the Christian faith) neither salute him, for hee that salutes him is accessory to his evil works. Certainly, hee requires great demonstration of a minde detesting Heresie, that affirmes those, who af­ford them the ordinary civility of salutation, to be accessory to their evil works. But it is to be considered, that the Apostle speaks of the Heresies which Simon Magus and Cerinthus had then set on foot, when hee sayes there II John 7. Ma­ny impostors are gone out into the world, who professe not Jesus Christ come in the flesh. For, though they wore the name of Christians, yet they professed not, that Jesus of Nazareth then come in the flesh, was the Christ; But, Simon Magus, and his disciple Menander both pretended themselves to be the Christ: Saturni­nus and Basilides some of their invisible principles; Valentinus one of his Aeo­nes: and likewise Marcus; Cerinthus, the power that came upon Jesus of Naza­reth at his Baptisme, and left him at his Crosse: So the rest untill Cerdon and Marcion, who, pretending that Jesus of Nazareth was not Son of the God of Israel, denied, by consequence, that Christ was come in the flesh.

S. Cyprian Epist. LXXIII. having disputed that these Heresies do not hold the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Ghost with the Church, comes down to the Marcionites, strongly arguing, that, they who made one God of Israel, another̄ the Father of our Lord Christ, and his Manhood onely in appearance, cannot be said to believe in Christ as Christians do. Adding very plainly, that [Page 63] they are those of whom the Apostle speaketh, 1 John IV. 2. that they are of the Spirit of Antichrist, and that the Spirit of Antichrist hath possessed their breasts. But there is no such commentary upon S. [...]ohns words as that which is related of hi [...] by Irenaeus III. 3. from the mouth of Polycarpus, that hee would not indure to be in the bath with Cerinthus, the enemy of Gods truth. And of Polycarpus, that, being desired by Marcion to own him, hee answered, that hee did own him for [...]he first-born of Satan. Which actions Irenaeus thus construeth; Tantum A­postoli & horum, discipuli habuerunt timorem, ut neque verbo tenus communicarent alicui eorum qui adulteraverunt veritatem: Quemadmodum & Paulus ait; Hae­reticum hominem post unam & alteram correptionem devita: Sciens quoniam per­versus est qui est talis, & à seipso damnatus. So great fear had the Apostles and Disciples not to communicate so farr as in words, with any of those who corrupted the truth: As Paul also saith; A man that is an Heretick, after one reproof, and a second, avoid: Knowing that such a one is perverted, & condemned by himself. Where you see, it is not I, but Irenaeus that expoundeth those words of S. Paul to this purpose. The same Irenaeus III. 4. Cerdon autem qui ante Marcionem, & hic sub Hygino, qui fuit octavus Episcopus, saepe in Ecclesiam veniens & exomologesim faciens, sic consummavit; Modò quidem latenter docens, modò verò exomologesim faciens, modò verò ab aliquibus traductus in his quae docebat malè, & abstentus est religiosorum hominum conventu. But this same Cerdon also that was before Marci­on under Hyginus who was the eight Bishop, many times addressing to the Church, and confessing, ended accordingly; Sometimes covertly teaching his Heresie; some­times confessing: And sometimes, being detected by some in those bad things which hee taught, was excluded the assembly of the Religious. Tertullian de praescript. cap. XXX. informes us, that Marcion though hee was at the first refused Pe­nance by the Church of Rome, (as I shall show you out of Epiphanius) yet after­wards was cast out of the Church there, (which supposeth him admitted afore) with Valentinus the Father of another Heresie, and, having been received once & again, at the last, for good and all. For, having obtained to be re-admitted upon this condition, that hee should reduce with himself all that hee had seduced, at length hee died before hee was able to accomplish the same. These things coming to passe so soon after the Apostles as they did, and the same course being held, in separating those Heresies from the Church, which sprung up in their several ages afterwards, there is no room left for any pretense, that the Church never had power to do that, which, there never was any time that shee did not do. For, it is to be noted, that these Heads of Heresies, being condemned and cast out of the Church in which they first appeared, and which they attempted to di­vide, were thenceforth disowned by all Churches, being certified of the proceed­ing that had passed against them upon the place. And therefore Vincentius Le­rinensis Commentario I. expounding S. Pauls words Gal. I. 8, 9. Let him be Ana­thema; Anathema sit, inquit, id est separatui, exclusus, nè unius ovis dirum con­tagium innoxium gregem Christi, venenatâ permistione contaminet. That is, saith hee, let him be separated, set aside, shut out, least the direfull contagion of one sheep with any mixture of poison stain the innocent flock of Christ. And again after­wards, handling the words of S. Paul 1 Tim. VI. 20. Keep that which is commit­ted to thy trust, avoiding profane novelties of words; What is it to avoid? With such one not so much as to eat. What is avoid? If any come to you, saith hee, and bringeth not this doctrine, receive him not home nor bid him God speed. Where you see these are none of my collections gathered out of the Apostles words, but that exposition of them which the practice of the Catholick Church infer­reth.

CHAP. X. Evidence of the Apostles act from the effect of it, in preserving the Ʋnity of the Church. Of the businesse of Marcion and Montanus. That about keeping Easter. That of the Novations, of rebaptizing Hereticks, of Paulus Samo­satenus, of Dionysius Alexandrinus, and Arius. Of communicatory leters, and the intercourse of the Church under and after the Apostles.

THis is indeed the true demonstration and evidence from the effect, that the will of God and not the consent of men is the ground upon which the Corporation of the Church subsisteth. The whole number of Christians, dispersed over all the Empire, and beyond the bounds of it, continued for divers hundred years, in one communion, and in the unity of one Church; Those that indeavoured to alter the Rule of Faith, or to impose such Lawes, as were found by the greatest part, not to stand with the end for which the Church was found­ed, being, by the consent of the whole, excluded the communion of it for He­reticks and Schismaticks. Hee that sayes this was not the work of God, or, the means of effecting it none of his declared will, why should not hee say the like of Christianity? Indeed since the Council of Ephesus, the Churches of Mesopota­mia and Assyria are fallen from the Unity of the whole, since the Council of Chalcedon, those of Aegypt and Aethiopia. Since that, the Eastern Churches, under the Patriarch of Constantinople, have been divided from the Western, under the Pope of Rome. And these from one another, into so many parties, since the Reformation, that wee are now come to dispute, whether they ought to be united or not. That ever they will be, is so hopelesse, that no man would under­take to dispute that they should be, were it possible, to preserve that little of Christianity that remaines, without re-uniting the Church. I allege here the most eminent passages that fell out in the Church, from the Apostles to Constan­tine, to show, that it is a question whether the evidence be more; That, by Gods appointment, there was from the beginning, and ought to be alwaies one Ca­tholick Church; Or the hope lesse that ever it will be so again. I cannot be­gin with a better evidence than that of Irenaeus, because it containes the effect of the aforesaid ordinances of the Apostles, for the separating of the Heresies set on foot by Simon Magus and Cerinthus, from the Communion of the Church, that the Unity thereof might be preserved, by remaining distinct from them. Wee understand by reading his first book, that Basilides at Alexandria, Saturni­nus at Antiochia, Valentinus, first in Aegypt, then in Cyprus, afterwards at Rome, Cerintbus in Asia and elsewhere, others in several parts of the World, indeavo­red to adulterate that Christianity which the Apostles had delivered. That they were so unanimously rejected and excluded out of the society of the Church from East to West, that hee is able to affirm, I. 3. that, though dispersed all over the world, yet it preserves the doctrine once preached, as if it dwelt all in one house, believing the same faith, as if it had the same soul and heart, and preach­ing and teaching the same, as if it had but one mouth. And can common sense imagine, that the remotest parts of the world could remaine united to one ano­ther, separated from Heresies sprung in the remotest parts of it, (which they could not have intelligence of but by communication of it with those parts of it where they sprung) without that continual correspondence wherein the actual communion of the Church consisteth? But the words of Irenaeus are so vigo­rous, that I cannot leave them out here, as they stand in his original Greek. [...] [Page 65] [...]. The Unity therefore of the Church was visible; Otherwise it had been senslesse for Irenaeus to assume it, as an evidence of the truth of that Faith, the unity whereof became visible, by the unity of the Church which pro­fessed it. Thus then writeth Irenaeus. This preaching, and this faith the Church having received, as I said afore, though dispersed all over the world, carefully keep­eth, as if it inhabited one house: And believeth these things alike, as if it had one soule and one heart; And harmoniously preacheth and teacheth and delivereth them, as if it had but one mouth. For there be divers languages in the world, but the Tra­dition signifies the same. Nor do the Churches seated in the Germanies believe or deliver otherwise, nor those in the Spaines, nor among the Gaules, nor in the East, nor in Aegypt, nor in Africk, nor those that are seated in the middle parts of the world. But as the Creature of God the Sun is one and the same in all the world, so shineth the preaching of the truth every where, inlightning all men that will come to the knowledge of the truth. And neither will any of those that Rule in the Chur­ches, though powerfull in speaking, say things diverse from these, (for the Disciple is not above his Master) nor hee that is weak in speech abate of that which is delive­red. For to the same Faith, neither hee that is able to say much of it addeth, nor hee that is able to say little abateth of it. Hee that acknowledges this to be Gods doing, must of necessity acknowledge the means of it, (the concurrence of all Churches to the maintainance of unity in the same Faith, by disowning those that pretended to break it) not left to mans will, but injoyned by Gods. And Irenaeus his instance in the Church of Rome serves to good purpose, to make out this evidence. For all Churches, (that is, as Irenaeus sayes, Christians of all Chur­ches) having necessarily recourse to Rome for all occasions, because it was the seat of the Empire, might there inform themselves, and their Churches, of the perverse doctrines that might be on foot, and of the consent of the Churches in refusing the same.

In the next place, I will not forget the relation of Epiphanius concerning Marcion, in the beginning of his Heresie, because it is next in time, and of great consequence. Hee, being put out of the Church by his Father Bishop of Sinope in Pontus, and making sure to be admitted by the Church of Rome, received this answer; That they could not do it without his Fathers consent, because the Faith is one, and the Unity the same. Compare herewith the proceeding of Synesius against Andronicus Ep. LVIII. & LXXIX. (though so much distant in time) which in the first book de Synedriis Judaeorum, pag. 304. is said to be of a high strain. Hee saith, that if any Church, neglecting his Church of Ptolomais, as a poor Church, being the Church of a small City, shall receive to communion those whom it had excommunicated, hee shall be thereby guilty of dividing the Church, which Christ will have to be one; And tell mee how this proceeding differs from that which, in Marcions case, Epiphanius sayes was done at Rome, so near the Apostles. Certainly, if one Church should receive into communi­on those whom another Church excommunicates, there could remaine no unity in the whole Church, because no distinction from those that are not of the Church. When therefore it appears, that the Church held it for a Rule from the begin­ning, not to do so, shall not this be evidence, that the reason is that which was alleged to Marcion at Rome, which Synesius alleges; To wit, the Unity of the Church?

For the same reason, Montanus, having, as it seems, by pretended revelations and inspirations, (such as, at that time, there can be no question but the Church was graced with) brought the Churches of Phrygia to his intent, but being re­jected by the Churches of Asia, went or sent to Rome, to induce that Church, to undertake and prescribe the same Rules to all that adheered unto it. For why [Page 66] otherwise should hee labor for the consent of that Church, before others, but in hope, that, having induced it to receive his Rules, the authority thereof might in­duce other Churches to do the like, because they found it necessary for them to hold correspondence with the Church of Rome. Now, I beseech you, were all Christians utterly out of their five senses, to contend about the communion of the Church, if there were no such thing in point of fact? Were they all from the beginning possest with a frenzy, that they were bound to maintain it, by voiding all questions that might impeach it, if there were no such obligation in point of right? Is it not plain, that the issue of such questions was this, whether the Unity of the Church, or the advantage of such Rules to the common cause of Christianity wayed most? How is Tertullian otherwise counted a Montanist, that is, as I suppose, a Schismatick? Wee may believe Tertullian, in a mater which all Christians at Rome then might know, when hee tells us, that Zephyrinus, then Bishop of Rome, was about to admit unto his communion, the Churches of Asia and Phrygia that had acknowledged Montarus and his Prophets and Pro­phesies. Contr. Prax. cap. I. Though Pope Soter afore Zephyrinus, had writ against Montanus, as well as Apollonius Bishop of Ephesus, if wee believe Sirmondus his Praedestinatus Haer. XXVI. When hee sayes, that afterwards the contrary was resolved, upon informations brought from Asia by Praxeas an Heretick; That which appears, that the Montanists were disclaimed, wee must admit; That which appears not, upon what information it was done, wee need not dispute. Tertullian hereupon drawes after him a company which called themselves a Church at Carthage, and subsisted there after Tertullian, till they were reduced by S. Augustine, as wee learn by Sirmondus his Praedestinatus Haer. XCVII. and S. Augustine de Haeresibus. This makes Tertullian a Schismatick; That, rather than rest content with those Rules, which the rest of the Church satisfied them­selves with, hee departed from the Unity of it. Otherwise, those blasphemies, for which the followers of Montanus are counted Hereticks, preferring their own revelations above and against those of the Apostles, hee is not chargable with.

Proceed wee now to the businesse of keeping Easter, and the debate about it, between Victor Bishop of Rome and the Churches of Asia; These resolutely adheering to the custome, which, in all appearance, they had received from their founder S. John, to keep the Passion when the Jewes kept it, that is, upon the fifteenth day of the Moon that was the next equinoctial, and the Resurrecti­on the third after that; The Church of Rome, and almost all Churches beside, keeping thc Passion on the Friday, the Resurrection on the Ladies day follow­ing. The one aiming at winning the Jewes, when it was first set on foot, the other, to protest against them as incorrigible. It is well enough known, how Victor, intending to withdraw his Communion from the Churches of Asia, was reduced to tolerate them by the perswasions of Irenaeus then Bishop of Lions. Certainly, had not the Communion of the Church been in possession, and pra­ctice at that time, the Bishop of Rome had been a mad man to think, that refu­sing it would be the means to reduce those of Asia to his judgment and practice. If this possession and practice had no ground of right, is it possible that none of either party should discover the sandy foundation of the dispute, and perswade the parties (which were so much in love with their own way on both sides) to give no heed to other Churches, the Communion of the Church having no ground, and therefore being of no consequence? What meant Irenaeus so to trouble himself, to perswade Victor, to hold communion with those of Asia, though not condescending to keep Easter by the same Rule, but that hee saw, if the Church of Rome should break with the Churches of Asia, that hee must break, either with the one or the other of them, who desired to hold commu­nion with both? Were the Disciples of the Apostles, or at least of their Disci­ples, cousened into a humane Tradition of the Unity of the Catholick and A­postolick Church, when hee so earnestly labored, that, holding with the Church of Rome, hee might not be constrained to forbear the intercourse, which, for the advancement of Christianity hee held with the Churches of Asia?

But S. Cyprians time affordes divers passages of great consequence; The Schisme of the Novatians in the first place. It is a thing manifest by Eusebius his Histories VI. 44, 46. VII. 4, 5. that the Church of Antiochia, together with the Churches of Pontus, (which then seem to have either resorted to Antiochia, or in consideration of neighborhood to have held great correspondence with that Church) and Cilicia, made very great difficulty in admitting the election of Cornelius, and condemning the Novatians, for refusing to receive into commu­nion those, who, in time of persecution had sacrificed to Idols, and so renoun­ced the Christian Faith. In time, by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexan­dria, moved, it seems, with the consent of the rest of the Church, they were also induced to disclaime the Novatians, and to concurr to restore the Unity of the Church, which, for the time had remained in suspense. And it is a thing very much to be observed, which the Council at Antiochia in Encoeniis Dominicae aureae pleads to the Church of Rome, in the dispute they had with Pope Julius, about admitting the Acts of it, in Sozomenus III. 8. and Socrates II. 5. They had taken upon them to make a new provision, in that which the great Council at Nicaea had taken order in afore. Which was in effect to make void the acts of that Council. The Pope, I suppose, had reason to except, that this could not be done without his consent, (including in it the consent of the Churches which adheered to him) unlesse wee imagine, that the Synod of Antiochia, being but a part of those who had decreed at the Council of Nicaea, had power to dissolve the acts of the whole. What is it then toat this Synod allege for themselves? Even this; That, having preserved or restored the Unity of the Church of Rome, by disclaiming the Novatians, they expected the like compliance from them, in the present businesse. Whereby it appeareth, that the consent of the whole Church did make, and was to make good the acts of part of it, though not assembled with them in Council, no lesse than if they were. And indeed, what made the second general Council of Constantinople under Theodosius to be general, (none having appeared at it for the Western Churches) but the consent of Damasus and his Synod ex postfacto, the rest of the West adheering to the same. Which if it be so, I do not think I need any other evidence, that, from S. Cyprians time, all Christians did believe, that they are bound to maintain themselves in commu­nion with the Church, when they believe, that the consent thereof is able to do such acts as these. I cannot here omit the words of Dionysius of Alexan­dria, out of a leter to Novatianus, recorded by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. VII. 45. [...]. If you were carried away against your will, as you say, you may show that, by returning with your will. For you should have indured any thing, rather than smite asunder the Church of God. And to suffer martyrdome, rather than divide the Church, had been no lesse glory, than, rather than commit Idolatry, but greater in my judgmene. For there, a man suffers martyrdome for his own soul alone, but here, for the whole Church. And now, if you can perswade or constraine the brethren to return to concord, your fall will not be so great as that exploit. But, if they will not be ruled, and you cannot, by all means save your own soul.

It is easie, to observe, that the same Churches, which had made so much diffi­culty in disclaiming the Novatians, were they, who joyned with S. Cyprian, in standing upon the rebaptizing of those, that had been baptized by Hereticks. As appeares, not only by Firmilianus his Epistle to S. Cyprian, but also by Dio­nysius of Alexandria, de bapt. III. (alleged by Euscbius VII. 7.) even before S. Cyprian. Whereby wee see, how much Eusebius contradicts himself, when hee sayes, VII. 3. that S. Cyprian was the first that called in question the Tradi­tion received in that case. In this businesse, the XIX Canon of the Council of Nicaea makes it evident, that neither S. Cyprians party, nor their adversaries [Page 68] altogether prevailed. For it is there inacted; That those who had been bapti­zed by the Samosatenians should be baptized again. And must not the same needs hold much more of the Gnosticks, and of almost all the rest of those Heresies which S. Cyprian nameth in his LXX. Epistle? Besides, it is manifest by the second Council at Arles, can. XVII. that of Laodicea, can. VII, & VIII. Gen­nadius de dogm. Eccl. cap. LII. and others, that the practice of the Churches, af­ter this dispute was ended, was not every where the same. And, which is most remarkable; Not onely the great Council at Arles Can. VIII. makes a Rule for the Africane Churches (which the first Council at Carthage followeth) to the like purpose with that of the Council of Nicaea; But also Optatus lib. I. demon­strates, that hee rebaptized the Sabellians, which the foresaid Rule alloweth not. Whereby it appeareth, that the extream opinions, held by Steven of Rome, that none were to be rebaptized; and by S. Cyprian, that all; were moderated by the succeeding practice of the Churches, though diverse in divers parts of the Church. Now let mee ask, by what means this moderation came to prevaile over that vehemence of contention, which you may see the parties transported with, in S. Cyprians Epistles. What could it be, but the conscience of that obli­gation which both parties owned, to preserve the Unity of the Church, and the respect of those other Churches that were not ingaged in the dispute as they were?

The businesse of Paulus Samosatenus is of the same time. Was the Synod of Antiochia mad when they writ the Leter which you may reade in Eusebius VII. 30. in the name of the Churches represented by that Synod, to the rest of the Churches in Christendome, signifying the sentence of deposition pronounced a­gainst Samosatenus, and requiring them to joyn with it? If it be madnesse to think them so mad, as to summon the rest of the Churches, upon an obligation which they did not acknowledge, what shall it be to think, that this obligation was but imaginary, or at least voluntarily contracted, not inacted by the will of our Lord declared by his Apostles? The Emperor Aurelian being appealed by the Council, to cause Samosatenus to be put our of his Bishops house by force, who maintained himself in it by force, against the sentence of the Synod; de­creed, that possession should be given to him, whom the Christian Bishops of I­taly and Rome should acknowledge for Bishop, by writing to him under that ti­tle. Certainly this Heathen Emperor, in referring the execution of the Sy­nods decree, to the consent of those remarkable parts of the Church, (where­upon the consent of the rest might reasonably be presumed) understood the con­stitution of the Church by his five senses, better than those learned Christians of our time, who argue seriously, that this Paulus Samosatenus was not excom­municated by the Synod of Antiochia, but by the Emperor Aurelian. For this is the course by which all the acts of the whole Church ever came in force, those parts of the Church, which were not present at the doing of them, concurring, ex postfacto, to inact them, and the civil power, to grant the execution of them by secular power.

Perhaps it will not be fit here to let passe that which Athanasius relates, libro de sontentiâ Dionysii Alexandrini; That this Dionysius, writing against Sabellius, gave occasion to the Bishops of Pentapolis, (who resorted to the Church of A­lexandria, as wee see by the VI Canon of Nicaea) to suspect him of that which afterwards was the Heresie of Arius. And that, Dionysius of Rome being made acquainted by them, with a mater of that consequence to the whole Church, this Dionysius writ him an Apology, on purpose to give satisfaction of his Faith, wherein S. Athanasius hath great cause to triumph, that the Heresie of Arius, which arose afterwards, is no lesse condemned, than that of Sabellius presently on foot. Grant wee, that it was an office of Christian charity, to tender this sa­tisfaction, where it was become so requisite; The example of Samosatenus shows, that their addresse tended to question, if not to displace their Bishop, by the authority of the rest of the Church, ingaging the consent of his own, had hee been discovered to harbor the contrary Heresie to that of Sabellius. And indeed what was the rise of all those contentions about Arius, that succeeded in [Page 69] the Church after the Council of Nicaea, but this question, whether Arius should be re-admitted one of the Presbyters of the Church at Alexandria, or remaine excommunicate? And those truly, that do not believe there is any Church, but a Congregation that assembles together for the service of God, must needs think all Christendome stark mad for so many years together, as they labored, by so many Synods, to attain an agreement through the Church, in this, and in the cause of Athanasius that depended upon it. But those, who believe the power of the Church to eschere to the State, when it declares it selfe Christian, must think the Emperors Constantius and Valens mad, when they put themselves to that trouble and char [...]e of so many Synods, to obtain that consent of the Church, which, in point of right, their own power might have commanded, without all that ado. In the decrees of divers of those many Synods that were held about this businesse, you shall finde, that those Churches which the said decrees are sent to are charged, not to write to the Bishops whom they depo [...]e. That is to say; Not to give them the stile of Bishops, not to deal with them about any thing concerning the Church, but to hold them as cut off from the Church. Just as the Emperor Aurelian, afore, commanded possession to be delivered to him, whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should write to as Bishop. This little circumstance expresses the means by which the communion of the Church was maintained. To wit, by continual intercourse of leters, and messengers, from Churches to Churches, whereby the one understood the proceedings of the o­ther, and, being satisfied of the reason of them, gave force and execution to them within their own Bodies.

And this course, being visibly derived from the practice of the Apostles, suffi­ceth to evidence the Unity of the Church established, by the exercise of that communication which maintained it. When wee see the Apostles, from the Churches upon which they were for the time resident, dare Leters to other Churches, signifying the Communion of those Churches one with another, by the communion of all with the Apostles, (who taught, and brought into force the termes and conditions, upon which they were to communicate one with an­other) have wee not the pattern of that intercourse and communion between several Churches, by which, common sense showeth all them that look into the records of the Church, that the Unity and Communion of the whole was conti­nued to after ages? The words of Tertullian de praescript▪ haeret. cap. XX. must not be omitted here. Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes, Sic omnes prima, & Apostolicae, du [...] unà omnes probant veritatem: Dum est illis communicatio pacis, & appellatio fraternitatis, & contesseratio hospi­talitatis. Quae jura, non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem Sacramenti una traditio. Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one primitive Church from the Apostles, out of which all come. So, all are the primitive, and Apostolical, while all agree in proving the truth: While they have the communication of peace, the title of brotherhood, the common mark of hospitality. Which rights, nothing but the same tradition of the same mystery ruleth. It is to be known, that, among the Greeks and Romans, if a man had made acquaintance and friendship in a forrain City, the fashion was, to leave a mark, for a pledge of it, with one ano­ther, (which was called tessexa) upon recognisance whereof, hee that should come to the place where the other dwelt, was not onely to be intertained by him, (whereupon these friends are called hospites, signifying both hosts and guests) but also assiisted in any businesse which hee might have in that place. Such a kinde of right as this Tertullian saith there was between Christians and Christians, between Churches and Churches. Hee that produced the cognisance of the Church from whence hee came, found not onely accesse to the communi­on of the Church to which hee came, but assistance in his necessities and business in the name of a Christian. Thus S. Paul calleth Gaius his host and of the whole Church Rom. XVI. 23. signifying, that, as hee intertained him S. Paul, so hee was ready to intertaine any Christian as a Christian. And addeth to that E­pistle a recommendation, whereby Phaebe might be acknowledged and received as a Deaconesse of the Church at Cenchreae Rom. XVI. 1. Whereas otherwise, le­ter [...] [Page 70] were written expresse to that purpose, which S. Paul himself calls [...] or commendatory, 2 Cor. III. 1. The termes in which S. Paul recommends Phabe are these; That yee receive her in the Lord as it becometh the Saints, and stand by her in any businesse where shee may stand in need: For shee also hath stood by ma­ny, and by mee. [...], saith S. Paul; [...] at Athens was stran­gers patrone. For, at Athens, a stranger that came to live there could not act for himself, but by his patrone. The same S. Paul thus chargeth Titus, III. 22. Send away Zenas the Lawyer and Apollos with care that they want nothing. That is, put money in their purse, as their journey shall require; As the Aegyptians sent away the Israelites with care, when they furnished them with all that they demanded, Wisedome XIX. 2. But the passage of S. Johns Epistle III. 5-10. is very remarkable. You saw, how, in his second Epistle, hee forbids them so much as to salute Hereticks, much lesse to intertaine them, or any that should not bring with him the true Faith; That is, a cognisance that they professed it. Here hee commends Gaius, for assisting some Christian strangers, that travailed for the name of Christ, that is, upon the businesse of the Church, taking no­thing of the Gentiles, because themselves were Jewes turned Christians. These, hee saith, had born witnesse to Gaius his love before the Church, by writing le­ters, to acquaint the Church from whence they came, with their intertainment: Wishing him so to dispatch them as may be fitting towards God, because by so doing, a man assists the truth. And whereas Diotrephes had prevailed with the Church, not to receive them, and did labor particular men to that purpose, (up­on pretense, it seemes, of some strangenesse between the Jewes and Gentiles that were turned Christians) forbids him to be ruled by his factiousnesse. Wee heare S. Paul, in the end of his Epistles, relate the saluations of the brethren, (that is, of the Church from whence hee dates) and also of particular persons eminent there, to the Body of the Church hee writes to. What ground had there been for this intercourse, had not the Apostle taught them, that they were all of one Body, and so ought to preserve themselves? How often do they charge them to salute one another with a holy kisse, or the kisse of love, Rom. XVI. 16. 2 Cor. XIII. 12. 1 Thess. V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 14. which the Constitutions of the Apostles showes was done before the Consecration of the Eucharist, to signifie the love of one another in Christ and for Christ, wherewith they professed to rceive the same. Though Origen upon Rom. XVI. sayes it came after Prayer. And Tertullian therefore calls it signaculum orationis, de Orat. XIV. the seal of prayer. To wit, of that prayer which the Eucharist was celebrated with. There­fore chose salutations, joyned with the charge of saluting one another in token of this love, signifie no lesse, than the expression of the same love from for­rain Churches, which they professed among themselves, in the communion of the same mysteries. That is, that they who absent, thus saluted them, did no less communicate with them in the same Sacrament, than they did with one ano­ther, who saw one another communicate with one another face to face.

This is then that communication of peace, that title of brotherhood, that re­cognisance of the marks of hospitality which Tertullian allegeth, for the means, whereby all Churches make one Church, the same with that primitive and origi­nal Church, which was first founded by the Apostles; The unity whereof, be­ing grounded upon the same Faith, delivered and received at the Sacrament of Baptisme, is able to make evidence of the same Faith. Do not all the re­cords of the Church, from the Apostles time, justifie the same visible com­munion in Christianity, by the same intercourse and communion of coun­sailes and businesse, which were trouble to no purpose, were not the in­tent of it to maintain the Unity of the Church? Look upon the Epistles of Ig­natius, and observe in them two things for the present purpose. The first, that Ignatius, being carried in bands from Rome to Antiochia, the Churches by which hee passed, (not onely those hee writes his Epistles to, but divers others) send de­putations of the principal persons among them, to conferre with him about their present estate: Which are the occasions of the leters hee directs to them. The second, that hee desires them to depute and ordaine certain persons to go to [Page 71] Antiochia, to his Church there, to congratulate with them, that, since hee was taken from them, they were returned, from persecution, into their wonted bo­dy; The preservation whereof, I suppose, every man will imagine, this confe­rence, advice, and comfort of so many Churches, was the means to advance. The same is to be seen by that of Clemens, (or rather of the Church of Rome, in whose name hee writes it) to the Church of Corinth, divided within it self in­to factions, to reduce them to peace and unity. For, I suppose, the premises will show the reason, that must oblige the parties to respect the advice of the Church of Rome; To wit, the obligation of communicating with the whole Church: Seeing reason requires, that the party which should refuse to return to unity, must be refused the communion of the Church of Rome, and those Churches, (by consequence) that should adhere to it. Look now upon S. Cypri­ans leters, look upon the leters of Dionysius of Alexandria, out of which, for the greatest part, Eusebius hath compiled the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical Histories, look upon the rest of the intercourse, by which the unity and commu­nion of the Church was maintained distinct from all Heresies and Schisms, from the Apostles time till Constantine, and let mee know, what probable reason can be assigned, to move forrain Churches, to give that respect to strafigers, which was effectual to the purpose intended, had not all sides been perswaded, that this was the end with the Apostles, after our Lord, had ordained, this the meanes to procure it. Take for an instance the leter of tha Synod at Antiochia about Paulus Samosatenus, in the place afore quoted. There, showing, that, having deposed him, they had made a new Bishop in his stead, they write further: [...]. This wee have given you notice of, that you may write to him, and receive from him communicatory leters. But let him that is deposed write to Artemon, and let them of Artemons sect communicate with him. These leters then were a mark and cognisance, that they acknowledged him that was ordained, true Bishop of An­tiochia. And; the sending of them from the Bishops of Italy and Rome, the Emperor Aurelian maketh the condition, upon which the decree of the Synod was to be executed by secular force. In like maner Optatus lib. II. having brought down his Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome to Damasus; Damaso Syricius hodie, saith hee, cum quo nobis totus orbis, commercio Formatarum, in unâ commu­uionis societate concordat. To Damasus succeeds this day Syricious, with whom, the whole world together agreeth with us, in one fellowship of communion, by the in­tercourse of leters of mark. These leters of mark, which wee speak of, con­cerned not onely the publick businesse of Churches, but were usually given to private Christians, whether of the Clergy or people, that, when they travailed into forrain Countries, they might certifie, of what rank rhey were at home, and to be received and communicate accordingly; whatsoever Church they came to, all over the world. A thing so manifest by all records of the Church, that it were injury for the Reader to go about to evidence it. I said nothing afore, in order of time, concerning the sect of the Dohatists. The reason was, because they broke out of the Unity of the Church, upon that quarrel which had been debated before in S. Cyprians time, concerning the baptizing of Hereticks, and, by the Christian moderation of that time, had been appeased without dissolving the Unity of the Church. But I showed you before, that S. Augustines refutati­on of them proceeds very much upon supposition of that Unity of the Church, which wee are now put to prove. Neither said I any thing of the Schisme of Meletius in Aegypt, because it proceeded upon the same ground with that of the Novatians, that those who had fallen away in the persecution of Diocletian ought not to be re-admitted to communion with the Church again. But hee that shall consider the decree of the Council of Nicaea, for the uniting of them to the Church again, shall finde, that they held themselves obliged to abate of their right, to regain the Unity of the Church; So farre they were from imagining, that God had not commanded it. For, to incourage them to return, they allow­ed those, who had been ordained under Meletius [...], the [Page 72] title, rank and ministery competent to their respective orders, and, to succeed in­to the places as those that should die: In the mean time, not to act in Ordina­tions of those of the Clergy should do. This you have in Theodoret and Socra­tes, Eccl. Hist. I. 9. in Sozomenus, I. 24. And thus, I conceive, I have demon­strated the Unity of the Church, by the same reasons for which wee hold our Christianity; That is, by the Scriptures interpreted by the consent of all Chri­stians: Having showed by the proceedings in the Arian persecutions under Constantius and Valens, that this Union was of force to defeat all the designes of those Apostates, who, having the power of the Empire on their side, sought the way to introduce their own Faith. For what appearance is there, that succeed­ing Emperors should not acknowledge that, which had preserved their Faith in despite of their predecessors? Or that Constantine, from the beginning of his Christianity, did not acknowledge the Church in that quality, which manifestly defeated the de [...]gnes of his successors to poison Christianity? But the Lawes of the Empire are extant, and so are the Lawes of most of those Soveraignties in­to which the Empire stands divided, and I shall have occasion to say something of them in the processe of my discourse, where I shall finde something objected for mee to dissolve. Which when I have answered, then shall I make account to have completely demonstrated my purpose. In the mean time, I desire those that have seen what hath been alleged for and against the Infallibility of the Church, to tell mee, whether ever they found it alleged, that there never was any such thing as the Church, in the nature of a Corporation of Gods found­ing; Which, had it been the ground of Reformation, as now Erastians and Independents are founded upon it, there had been no such barre to all pretense of Infallibility in the Church, as to say, that there is no such thing as a Church in the quality of a Corporation, that is, with power in some to oblige the whole. On the other side, having demonstrated, that all things necessary to the salvation of Christians are not clear in the Scriptures to all whom they concern, I have also showed, how necessary it was, that the Corporation of the Church should be provided, as well to preserve that Faith, upon the profession whereof I have showed it was founded, as to maintaine that service of God in unity, which is the end for which it subsisteth.

CHAP. XI. Ʋpon what grounds the first book de Synedriis holds that the Church cannot excommunicate. Before the Law there was no such Power, nor by it. Christians went for Jewes under the Apostles. His sense of some Scri­ptures. What the Leviatha [...] saith in general concerning the Power of the Church. Both suppose that Ecclesiastical Power includeth Temporal, which is not true. Of the Oxford Doctors Paraenesis.

TO much of this great opposition is made by the first and second book de Synedriis Jud [...]orum, and the Author of the Leviathan; The first preten­ding to maintain the position of Erastus that Excōmunication may be a temporal punishment, if secular Powers think fit to use it, but, that the Church hath nothing to do, to exclude from the communion of the Eucharist those, who, professing Christianity, live not according to it. To this purpose hee produces all the evi­dence that can be made, to show, that, under the Law of Nature, as Ecclesiasti­cal Writers call it, (that is, from the beginning of the world to the Law of Moses) there was no precept, no practice of Excommunication, for the Jewes, under the Law, to receive it from thence. No precept of the Law, upon which it can be thought to have been established by divine Right, so as to take place under the Gospel upon that Title. Here hee showes at large; That, when the precept of Circumcision is inacted by this sanction; That the male childe which shall not be circumcised on the eight day, shall be cut off from his people; When many precepts of Moses Law have this penalty, of being cut off, annexed to the transgression of them, the intent is not, that they shall [Page 73] be excommunicate; But, that their lives shall be forfeited to Gods vengeance in case hee please to exercise it. Inferring, that, when the Soveraign Power was taken away from that people in their captivity and dispersions, being neverthe­lesse privileged to live by their own Lawes; By their own consent they submit­ted to this penalty, as the means to inforce the sentences of their own Gover­nors, by whom their Lawes were dispensed. This being that Excommunication, whereof wee have remembrance in Esdras and in the Gospels; As it appears, by the original, to have been a meer humane Law, so did it no way concern the service of God, which the Excommunicate, among the Jewes, were not exclu­ded from by it: But was a meer civil punishment, tending to change and abate the estate and condition of him that was under it, in his freedom and intercourse with his own peole. By all this hee seemes to fortifie the argument which Era­stus had made, showing, that there is no such thing as Excommunication com­manded or established by that Law, and therefore that there is no such power in the Church. But further, seeing that there was no other company of men extant in the world, for the Apostles to understand by the name of the Church, when our Lord commanded him that was offended among his Disciples; Tell it to the Church, Mat. XVIII. 16-20. hee insists strongly, that neither the Church of Christ, nor any Consistory or Assembly of men, or particular person, claiming or acting in behalf and under the title of the Church can be understood by those words of our Lord: But that the name of the Church must necessarily sig­nifie the Body of Jewes, as well as Christians as unbelievers, or, that Consistory which was able to act in behalf of them, in their respective times and places; such as wee must also understand the witnesses there mentioned to be. For it is manifest, that, at the beginning of Christianity, onely Jewes were admitted to be Christians, in so much that, the dispute was hot about Cornelius and his com­pany, Acts XI. 1. being no Jewes in Religion, but yet, such as believed in the true God, and had renounced the worship of Idols. Whereby it seemes, the command of our Lord to baptize all Nations Mat. XXVIII. 19. was then under­stood to concern onely those of all Nations, that had made themselves Jewes by being circumcised, afore. Accordingly, wee see, that, by virtue of Claudius his Edict, commanding all Jewes to depart from Rome, Aquila and Priscilla, be­ing Christians, came to Corinth, Acts XVIII. 2. to show, that Christians at that time must needs use the Jewes fashions, who were therefore reputed Jewes by the Law of the Romanes, and injoyed the benefit of their Religion by the Jewes privileges, granted, or confirmed by the same Claudius, in Josephus, An­tiq. XIX. 4. Whereupon it seems necessarily to follow, that the Excommuni­cation then in force was that, which the Jewes had introduced by humane Law, confirmed by the Law of the Empire. Though, it is to be thought, that the Christians, upon particular agreement among themselves, (such as wee finde they had, by Pliny, Epist. X. 97. Tertul. Apolog. cap. II. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. III. 33. S. Hierome Chron. 2123. Orig. contr. Celsum I. pag. 4.) had limited the use of it, to such causes and termes as their profession required. Therefore, when our Lord in the next words commands, that hee which will not heare the Church, be ac­counted as an Heathen or a Publicane; As it is manifest, that hee gives the Church no power, but onely prescribes what hee would have the party offended to do; So, neither Heathen nor Publicane being in the condition of an excom­municate person among the Jewes, how can it be understood, that our Lord would have him to be excommunicate, whom hee commands to be held as a Heathen man or as a Publicane? The effect then of this precept of our Lord will consist, in limiting the precept of the Law Levit. XIX. 17. to the publishing of those offenses between parties, the private complaint whereof should be neglected; So that, if the opinion of Gods people should be no more esteem­ed by the osfeuder, the party offended freely to return his scorn, by avoiding his familiarity, as Jewes were wont to avoid the familiarity of Heathen men and Publicanes. Now, when our Lord adds in the next words; Whatsoever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; The sense must either be general, to signifie the [Page 74] obligation of all Law, and the right and Power which one man may have, by the act of his will to tye and limit another mans; Or particular to the Law of Moses: Whereby, what was declared unlawfull by the Doctors and Professors of it, was said in their language to be held or bound, that which was permitted, loose: Which signification our Lord also uses, Mat. XXIII. 4. Luc. XI. 46. This later sense, concerning things and not persons, will be farre from signifying, that any man should be excommunicate. And though Excommunication be a bond, and was so among the Jewes, yet, how should wee understand, that the Church is inabled to tye this bond by a commission, the termes whereof containe all that superiors may do to oblige their inferiors? This Author then acknowledges, that S. Paul threatens Excommunication, Gal. I. 8, 9. 1 Cor. XVI. 22. and that hee wishes himself that estate which it imports, Rom. IX. 3. Not, as it hath been falsly imagined among Christians, to be cut off from the communion of the Eu­charist, and other offices of Christianity; But as it was used among the Jewes, to inferre the abridgment of a mans freedome in publick conversation, as vile and subject to the curses of the Church. But when the same Apostle gives or­der that the incestuous person be delivered to Satan, 1 Cor. V. 5. As also when hee saith, that hee had delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus, 1 Tim. I. 20. when hee ordereth them not to converse with such persons, 1 Cor. V. 11. this hee takes no more to concerne Excommunication, than those verses of the Psalms; Blessed is the man that bath not walked in the counsail of the ungodly; Or, I have not sate with vain persons, nor will have fellowship with the deceitfull; That is to say, that it is bad counsail towards God, but neither ground nor signe of any commission to excommunicate, in the body of the Church. Whereas the Leviathan, (to show here, out of order, his sense of that place) though hee acknowledge, that both ancient and modern writers have understood it, as if, by the extraordinary graces which the Apostles then had, to evidence the presence of God in his Church; the excommunicate became subject to plagues and diseases inflicted by evil An­gels, (to show, that they came under the power of Satan, when they were put out of the Church) yet hee satisfies himself by saying, that other learned men finde nothing like the excommunication of Christians in it, pag. 209. and, that it depended upon the singular privilege of the Apostles.

These are the grounds upon which the power of the Keyes, and by conse­quence, the charter and corporation of the Church, and all Ecclesiastical right and power grounded thereupon, are taken away, in the first book de Synedriis, to the same effect, as in Erastus his positions. But the Leviathan comes up close to the point in general, and, following the supposition which I have refuted; That the Gospel, or Christianity, and the Scriptures that contain it, are not Law, till the secular Power that is Soveraign inact it; By consequence must needs deny, that any Act of the Apostles could be Law to the Church, whose office was one­ly to publish the newes of the coming and rising again of Christ, and to induce men to submit themselves to his kingdome of the world to come. Much lesse can there be any Power to give Lawes to the Church, but that which is in the Soveraigne of each State, which therefore, when it is Christian, is called the Church of such a Kingdome. Though hee acknowledge also, that, before the Em­pire was Christian, the Body of Christians in every City is called in the Scri­ptures the Church of such or such a City, pag. 275; But denying, that there can be upon earth any such universal Church as all Christians are tied to obey, because they are lyable to other Powers of this world, according to the States of which they are, pag. 248. and before, pag. 206. As for the Power of bunding and loo­sing, very properly hee understands it to be a consequence of the Apostles commission to baptize unto forgivenesse of sins. But so, that, supposing they have nothing to do either to loose them that repent not, or to binde them that do, and that no mans repentance is visible but by our outward signes, there must be some Power to judge of the truth of those fignes, because they may be counterfeit. And this Power, as it is expresly given by our Lord to the Church, Mat. XVIII. 16. when hee saith, Tell the Church; So doth S. Paul 1 Cor. V. 11, 12; and, 3, 4, 5. acknowledge the power of casting out the in­cestuous [Page 75] persons and other finners to be in the Congregation, reserving to himself onely the pronouncing of the sentence. Supposing this Church to be now the Soveraign Power that representeth the people, but when S. Paul writ, the Body of Christians in such or such a City, pag. 275. In like maner, the ap­pointing of Persons, either to officiate the Service of God, or to wait upon the necessities of the Church, hee also gives unto the Church, that is, then, to the re­spective Bodies of Christians, but now, to the Soveraign Power into which all Rights of the People resolve by the establishment of it. But, the consecrating of them by Imposition of hands, as to the Apostles for their time, so, to the worlds end, to their Successors. For thus were Ma [...]thias, Paul and Barnabas made A­postles Act. I. 15, 23. XIV. 1, 2, 3. XIV. 14. Thus the seven Deacons, thus the Elders of Churches were constituted, Acts VI. 3. XIV. 23. the Congregation chusing, the Apostles declaring the choice, as in binding and loosing. As for the maintenance of Persons thus appointed, it is no marvail if hee make it meer almes and benevolence, without any Law of God to make the purses of Christians lyable to it, who acknowledgeth not Christianity to be any Law; For, how shall hee be bound to contribute towards the maintenance of such persons, that is not bound to be a Christian? But, that Tithes, under the Law, were due onely by the Civil Power which God had upon the people, having made God their Soveraign, by their Covenant with him, in which right Moses and Aaeron, and the High Priests that succeeded him, were but his Lieutenants, (so that, when this Power was translated and settled upon their Kings, it held meerly by their sufferance) this is an imagination that no mans brain ever teemed with till now. And truly in the point of giving Law to the Church, by determining Controversies of Faith, and by interpreting difficulties of Scripture (call it what you please) as also by deciding that which becomes questionable in any thing that concerns the community of Christians; It had been a necessary con­sequence of this opinion, that, as hee owneth the Soveraign Powers right to de­cree, so hee should assign the Persons thereby appointed for the Church, a Right to declare, publish or pronounce the same, as in Excommunicating and Ordain­ing hee doth; For which hee hath found no ground, no pretense in the Scri­ptures. Besides, whereas, by the Act of the Apostles, laying a burden upon be­lievers, Acts XV. 28. and by the practice of their successors, practising the hold­ing of Councils, (which common sense would make ridiculous, if they had no ef­fect upon the Church) hee is convinced to acknowledge that they were able to binde themselves, though not the Church; It will be impossible for him to render a reason, either why this power should cease, or how it should continue when the Soveraign Power becomes Christian, and all right in the Church is resolved into it.

I must not leave this point, before I have taken notice of one presumption, wherein both these Authors seem to agree. For the Leviathan, in several places pag. 285 286, 282, 205, 206, 322. taketh for granted, that there is no Law in the world, but the Law of Nature, and the Civil Lawes of Commonwealths. And therefore, that hee which makes Ecclesiastical Power not to depend upon the Civil, must indow it both with right and means, to constrain men to obey it; and thereupon inferrs all the inconvenience which hee so much aggravates; That then all Civil Power must of necessity be swallowed up and resolved into the Power of the Church, in as much as all Christians, even Soveraignes are members of it. Which to avoid, it is necessary to grant, that the Church is no­thing else but a Christian Commonwealth, and the Clergy ministers of the So­veraign Power, deriving all their authority from it, pag. 209, 249, 296. In like maner, the first book de Synedriis Ebraeorum, in defining Excommunication, pag. 105. takes it for granted, that those who challenge the power of it in behalf of the Church, would have the Civil estate and condition of him that is excommu­nicate, in regard of his reputation of freedom, changed and abated by it. Which must needs inferre the Church to be indowed with such a power, as is a­ble, by outward force to constrain obedience. For otherwise, the estate of no man, that is protected in all right by the Civil Power, could be changed or aba­ted [Page 76] by it. Accordingly, in several places hee presumes, that those who maintain the Power of the Church, and the right of Excommunicating, which is a prime part of it, to stand by Gods Law, are obliged by consequence to maintain the Power of the Church in maters of the world, in Ordine ad spiritualia. And hereupon follow the reasons, whereby these Authors have disputed, the one à priori, that this constitution of the Church is destructive to the peace and safety of all States, Kingdomes, and Commonwealthes, (in as much as a Power not depending upon them, may lawfully be used against them, by giving the people a title of executing the commands of it by force) The other à posteriori, from the practice of all Christian States, Kingdomes, and Commonwealthes; Who, by limiting the exercise and effect of all kindes of acts which the Church hath done, or pretended to inforce by Excommunication, have sufficiently demon­strated, that they grant the Church no Title to any part of the Power it chal­lengeth, but their own grant, thinking fit to execute their will in Church ma­ters by Church men, no otherwise than they execute their will in military ma­ters by souldiers, in maters of publick or private right by Judges and Lawyers. As you may see at large in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. By which it may appear, that I do this Author no wrong, when I inferre; That the Church is no Corporation, nor hath any Power but from the State, according to his opinion, because it hath no Power to excommunicate. For, if those di [...]ferences of per­sons, whereby, some are qualified to act in behalf of the Church, are grounded originally upon the act and will of the State imploying them to that purpose, then can no act that they do be referred to any Power estated upon the Corpo­ration of the Church, founded by God upon any charter of divine right. Now, it is well enough known, that there is such an opinion maintained in the Church of Rome; And it is manifest, to him that shall peruse what hath passed in the Scottish Presbyteries, that the effect of the same position hath been practised by them, when the ground of it hath been disclaimed; which is, to my judgment, the more dishonest course of the two. But it mvst be acknowledged, because it cannot with truth or sincerity be either denied or dissembled, that there are ve­ry many of that Church that think otherwise, and think that the Church allows them so to think and to professe. And it is reported with likelyhood enough, that Cardinal Bellarmine himself, (though then a Jesuite, and imployed to dispute all Controversies upon the highest termes that are tenable) was not, of his own choice, willing to have maintained it, had hee not writ under an Imperious Pope Sextus V, that refuted passeport to his books de Romano Pontifice, till hee had added the fift, concerning this point. Which, what contradiction it hath found from those of his own profession, ought to be notorious to all, that give a judg­ment in this point, and would not judge of they know not what. It is there­fore manifest, that there are enough of those, that believe the Church to be, by the Charter of God, a Society, Corporation, or visible Body; And yet, by this Charter, not protected by the power of the Sword, but exposed to be persecu­ted by the same; That is to say, called by God, to the profession of Christia­nity, (part whereof is, to believe the Catholick Church, and (by consequence) to be a member of it) but to maintain this profession, not by force, but by suf­fering rather than renounce it. Thereupon it follows, that, by the original in­stitution of the Church, to be excommunicate, inferres no manner of losse in this world, unless it be to the Church that excōmunicates, as the Leviathan very truly and pertinently observes, pag. 276; In as much as, by being excommuni­cate, a man may be moved to seek a course of revenge upon the Church that did it; And yet neverthelesse, upon supposition of Christianity, it may well be counted the punishment, of not performing that Christianity which a man pro­fesseth. For, hee that does not believe Christianity to be true, or submits not to it, cannot think it any penalty for himself to be shut out of the Church. But, hee that professeth Christianity, and liveth not according to it, though the pe­nalty which hee incurres by transgressing that profession is already incurred in respect of God, yet, hoping that God will not take the forfeiture which hee may take, may count his Excommunication, as indeed it is, the losse of the [Page 77] meanes of salvation, which the communion of the Church importeth. If then it be demanded, whether the Church, by the original Charter of God, have power to constrain men by punishment to obedience; The answer is, that, abso­lutely it hath not, but, upon supposition it hath. For, to him that thinks the Com­munion of the Church no gain, Excōmunication is no punishment; And there­fore no censure tending to Excommunication, which is the utmost constraint that the Church can use. But, to him that believes the Communion of the Church to be the means that God hath ordained for the salvation of particular Christi­ans, as the losse of it is necessarily a punishment, so is the expectation of that losse a constraint, to imbrace the condition of retaining it. But, as this con­straint depends not upon outward force, but upon a perswasion of the minde which goes afore; So doth it not originally inforce any punishment of this world, but onely upon supposition of privileges granted by secular Powers to the pro­fession of it, or penalties upon not professing it. Which, being accessory to the original constitution of the Church, (because all the world knowes, that, from our Lord to Constantine, there were no such privileges or penalties) it is manifest to all understandings, that hee who pretendeth the Church to be a Society or Visible Body by Gods appointment, is not obliged to grant, that it is indowed with any temporal Power of this world, to constrain those who are of it by outward force, because hee pretends, that it hath Power to refuse the communi­on of those offices which God is to be served with by Christians, to those that performe not their Christianity; Which it granteth to those who undertake it. As therefore, whatsoever is a condition of obtaining salvation under Christiani­ty, is Gods Law, so, whatsoever, by virtue of Gods Law, is a just condition of obtaining or holding Communion with the Church, that is a Law of the Church, supposing the Church to be a visible Society of Christians by Gods appoint­ment; though wee grant not, that the losse of this Communion imports any change in the worldy quality of any man, by the original constitution of the Church, as it was founded by our Lord and his Apostles, but, by the privileges necessarily accruing to it, when the Powers of the world, professing Christianity, undertake the protection of it.

But having named these two Authors for my adverse parties in this dispute, I am obliged to take notice of the Oxford Doctors late Paraenesis, ad aedificatores Imperii in Imperio, published since the penning of this. For the whole book proceeds upon the same oversight which the other two have made, and the very Title of it contains. I demand of any man in his right senses, whether hee can be said to build the Church into an Empire, within that Empire or Sove­raignty which maintains it, that challenges no maner of temporal effect for that Excommunication, which is the utmost means the Church hath to inforce the sentence of it. They that oblige Subjects to depose their Soveraignes if the Pope excommunicate them, I confesse, make both Soveraignes and Subjects the Popes Vassals, them to rule, and these to obey at the discretion of him that can excommunicate them if they do not. That the Scottish Presbyterians have done the like, it were easie to show, were it worth the while, as also from whence they took their rise to do it. And if he please to step over the water again into France, I can show him a more lively picture of an Empire erected within an Empire, when the Reformed Churches their had there Civil Assemblies, to order the businesse which should arise upon the privileges which they had pur­chased by their arms, for the maintaining of their Religion by force. Whether by right or by wrong I say not here: But this is the thing which hee calleth Imperi­um in Imperio, the Popes temporal Power making him rather Soveraign above, than within other Soveraignties. But, I have showed you already, that this opini­on never was the Faith of the Catholick Church, but the position of the Papal Fa­ction, disclaimed at this day by the farre greater part of that communion, though the contrary, being countenanced the more, make the greater appearance. For my own opinion, I have delivered it so clear in my book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State, that these Authors might, if they pleased to oversee all other Divines that deliver the same, by that alone have seen what [Page 78] they had to refute. And truly, I do not believe, that any of them can allege a more convicting reason against those that build a Soveraignty within a Sove­raignty upon the Title of the Church, than that which there is alleged from the Unity of the Church, prophesied of in all the promises of the calling of the Gentiles, which the constitution of one visible Church of all Christians fulfilleth. For, if the Church of several Soveraignties is to be one and the same Body, by communicating in the Service of God, upon supposition of the same Faith, then cannot the foundation of it create any title of tempo­ral right, to the prejudice and disturbance of those Soveraignties, from whence all force, within their respective territories, is derived. If it be said, that the sup­position is impossible, to wit, that the Church should have power to Ordain, Ex­communicate, decree, and yet be indowed with no force to constrain those that are obliged to stand to the acts thereof; The reason now alleged to the contrary is evident. For, if the obligation of the inward man be of force to resolve a Christian, to part with his life to maintain the profession of it; If it be part of that obligation which Christianity createth, to hold communion with Gods Church; is not this obligation enough to inforce the acts of the Church, and that excommunication which inforces the same? And for experience from the effect, it is but alleging the subsistence of the Church, till the time that Gregory II and III Popes withdrew their obedience, and the obedience of those parts of Italy that followed them, from the Emperor Leo Isaunus, upon pretense of his erring in the Faith, in putting down Images. For that is the first example which Christendom hath brought forth, of temporal freedom from allegiance due to the Soveraigne, founded upon the Title of Christianity. If yet it be evident that this was the case, in which, I see, there is some difficulty made. But, before this time, it can neither be said, that the Church was not the same after Constan­tine as before, nor that the power of it ever produced any rebellion against the Soveraign, upon this Title, more than when the Martyrs suffered for their Chri­stianity, without defending themselves by force.

And therefore, when this Doctor, for the ground of his opinion, (as visible to his imagination as the common notions in Euclide) alleges, that all Power, all Jurisdiction, all Lawes, all Punishment, all Government, all Appeales, all Councils are derived first, and do lastly resort to the Secular Power, no lesse in Ecclesiastical than in Secular Causes, and concerning Ecclesiastical as well as Se­cular Persons, because all force which constrains obedience is vested in it; his imagination is meerly imbroyled with equivocation of words. For all Power is nothing else but a moral quality, consisting in the right of obliging other mens wills, (those in respect of whom the Power holds) by the act of his or their wills that have it. And what shall hinder God to create such an obligation upon the consciences of Christians, by virtue of their Christianity, not allowing them any force to inact it, but the denial of the communion of the Church? Whether the Rules of the Church be called Laws or Canons, hee that is tied to hold com­munion with the Church, is tyed to observe those Rules by which it subsists, and, if hee do not, deserves to be set aside, rather than the Unity thereof perish. Whether yee call them Magistrates or Elders that are appointed to govern the Church, it maters not; if by virtue of Gods Law, the obligation of obeying them be evident in the Scriptures. Whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not, when a Christian is censured to be put out of the Church, it shall have the same effect, with that Jurisdiction whereby a malefactor is put out of the world, according as the correspondence between the Church and the State will bear it. How this may be counted punishment, how not, I will not say again, having said it already. In all causes and concerning all persons, I acknowledge there lies an appeal to the Soveraign, the Church having to do onely in Ecclesia­stical causes, concerning men as they are members of the Church, and so acci­dentally, (when the Church is as large as the State, all acknowledging the same Church) the Jurisdiction thereof, whether properly so called or not, extending to as many as that of the State. For, the last appeal is one of those Jura Ma­jestatis, or Prerogatives wherein Soveraignty consisteth, neither is it alienable, [Page 79] though it is limitable by those termes which Christianity, when it is acknowledg­ed to come from God, establisheth. On the other side, the Power of the Church, though never so evidently settled by Christianity, may be abused, not only when it is extended to some temporal effect, but also when it is extended beyond the ground and reason of that Christianity which it presupposeth. Instances you have of both, in the claimes, of temporal Power and Infallibility in behalf of the Church. And, as there lies an appeal to a Heathen Soveraign, professing not to persecute his Subjects for their Christianity, but to protect them in it, upon pretense that it is extended to a temporal effect; so may there by an appeal to a Christian Soveraign, upon pretense that it is extended beyond the bounds which Christianity alloweth. So the Council of A [...]tiochia appealed Aurelian, because Paulus Samosatenus protected himself in his House, belonging to the the Church, by power derived from him. But hee alloweth them that trial which Christianity settleth. So Constantine received the appeal of the Donatists, but referred the trial to the Church, in a Council at Rome, and again another at Arles, representing all the West. But of the bounds of Secular and Ecclesiasti­cal power I must speak again. That the Ecclesiastical may be from God, though limitable by the Secular, hitherto this is evidence. As for the holding of Councils, I mervail to see this Doctor so securely to dream, that the calling of them all be­longs onely to the State, and that it were an usurpation in the Church to hold any but by commission from it; For hee is not ignorant how many Synods were held by the Church afore Constantine, and that, upon the same right as those meetings of the Apostles, which, I have showed, had the power and force of General Councils, without asking leave either of Jewes or Romanes. Which is enough, for the present purpose, to infringe the argument made by this Do­ctor in the former part of his book; Not, that there is no Church, but that there can be none where there is a State. Wherein hee out-vieth the first book de Synedriis his Master, who, having granted, that the Excommunications of Christians were taken up by the voluntary consent of Churches, hath, by conse­quen [...]e granted, that the Church was a Church, that is, a Corporation, before Constantine. And therefore I referr the consideration of the time after Constantine, till I speak of the bounds of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power in Church maters; Where, it will as easily appear, as it is easie to look into any record of the Church, that the holding of Synods was a mater of course and Canon and custome, al­lowed indeed by the Empire, but constituted and limited by the Church. Not because the State might not have forbid them; Had they gone beyond the bounds of that right which the constitution of the Church establisheth, justly; unjustly if they had not; So that, the power of forbidding to be just, the use of it unjust; But, that the Church was yet unacquainted with the motives of trans­gressing those bounds, and so the State had no just cause to interpose. Of Ge­neral Councils I say not the same. Not as if the Church afore Constantine had usurped a right not due, had it assembled by representatives in a General Coun­cil: But, whether such assemblies were forborn, as mater of more jealousie to the State, than either ordinary meetings for the service of God, or Synods; Or of more charge to the Church; It must be acknowledged, that the first General Council of Nicaea could not have been assembled, without the command, as well as the charge of Constantine. That other General Councils were never as­sembled without the concurrence of the chief Powers of Christendome. That every Soveraign hath a Power to command the presence of every subject, where and when hee shall please. And that Constantius, when hee constrained the Council of Ariminum to sit against their will, to the prejudice of the respective Churches, (on purpose, by this duresse, and the opportunities of time, to bring them to his will) abused his Power indeed, but usurped it not. For, if the consti­tution of the Church be no ground for any temporal Right, then can no quali­ty in the Church exempt any man, from the service, which, as a member of the Common-wealth, hee owes his Soveraign. But, whether they acted by commis­sion from Constantius, or by the quality they held in the Church, the successe of his designe witnesseth. For, as I have showed you, that without being assem­bled, [Page 80] they had both right obliging them, and means inabling them to maintaine the Faith by mutual intelligence and correspondence: So, being assembled al­ters nothing in the case, saving the opportunity it giveth, to imploy their right, to that end which their quality pretendeth; Their assembling upon his command signifying no trust which they undertook to him, prejudicial to that which their quality in the Church importeth. Having said this in general, to that general Argnment, upon which this Doctor pretends to build his opinion, I am content to turn my Reader loose to him, provided hee be content to consider also, that which shall be found requisite to be said, when I have done with his two prede­cessors.

CHAP. XII. That the Law expersly covenanted for the Land of Promise. A great Ob­jection against this, from the Great precept of the Law. The hope of the world to come under the Law, and the obedience which it requireth, was grounded upon reason from the true God, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Doctrine of the Prophets. The Love of God above all by the Law extendeth no further than the precepts of the Law, the love of our Neigh­bor onely to Jewes. Of the Ceremonial, Judicial and Moral Law.

SO much difference as there is between these two or these three opinions, and the reasons upon which they proceed, it is manifest, that the issue and pretense of all is the same; That there is no such thing as a Church: Under­standing by that name, a Visible Society or Corporation of all Christian peo­ple, subsisting, or that ought to subsist by a Charter from God, one and the same from the first to the second coming of Christ. Which therefore remaines di­stinct from all States and Soveraignties that professe Christianity, by the Rights upon which it subsists, though the persons of which both consist may be the same, if it so fall out, that Christianity be professed by all the Soveraign Pow­ers under which there are Christians. But, that is the reason why I am forced to quote both Authors and Opinions by name, which in other points I shall avoid: Not onely because I would be as short in this abridgment as my designe will bear; But because nothing seemes to mee more odious, or further from the pro­fession of a Christian, than the affectation of contradicting the opinions of men in repute for Learning; which therefore I would have avoided by silencing the names of these, had I not found so much difference in the means from which they would inferre the same consequence. And truly the Leviathan hath done like a Philosopher, in making the question general that is general indeed, and giving that resolution of all the branches of it, without which, whatsoever is said to some parts of it, leaves the whole unresolved, while any part so remaines. Those that onely dispute the power of Excommunication, are neverthelesse to give account, what Right the Secular Power can have, to appoint the Persons, that shall either determine or execute maters of Religion, to decide Controver­sies of Faith, to minister the Sacraments, (which they may do themselves by much better Title than by their Deputies) than if they resolved and maintained all this as expresly, as the Leviathan hath done. It may be indeed hee hath made his resolution more subject to be contradicted, by so freely and generously declaring it; But whosoever shall undertake the same pretense, will stand no lesse obliged to God and to his Church, to give account, how every part of that Power, which, as well before as since Constantine hath been exercised by the Church, should henceforth be exercised by Secular Powers, without prejudice to Christianity, before hee go about to void it; Though hee give not the truth so much advantage against himself, because hee expresses not so much of his mea­ning. For my part, as I found it necessary, so I finde it sufficient to have quo­ted these opinions and reasons, advanced against the right of the Church, because I finde, they oblige mee to digg sor a foundation, upon which, as the true ground of that right which the Church claimeth, I may be inabled to dissolve whatsoever [Page 81] reasons, wit, and learning, impregnated by passion or interest can invent to con­tradict the same.

Here then I must have recourse to a position, which some men will count ha­zardous, others prejudicial to Christianity, according as their prejudices or en­gagements may work; But will appear in truth, to them that shall take the pains to look through the consequences of it, in the resolution of Controversies which divide the Church, to concern the interest of Christianity, and the peace of the Church, more th [...]n any point whatsoever, that is not of the Foundation of Faith. In as much as, there is no question that is started, or can be started, (as the case is now with the Church, so as to call in question the peace and unity there­of) but the interpretation of the old Test [...]ment, or some part of it, in relation and correspondence to the New Testament, will be ingaged in it. Concerning which, the position that I intend to advance is this; That, by the Law of Moses, and the Covenant between God and the people of Israel upon it, nothing at all was expresly contracted, concerning everlasting life and the happinesse of the world to come. Not that I intend to say; That there was not, at that time, suffici­ent ground for a man to be competently perswaded of his right to it, or sufficient means to come to the knowledge of that ground, (for hee that should say this; could not give account, how the Fathers should attain salvation under the Law) which, I finde all that maintain the truth of Christianity against the Jews so ob­liged to do, that without it they must give up the game. But, that the thing contracted for between God and the people of Israel, by the mediation of Mo­ses, was the Land of Promise; (That is to say, that they should be a free people, and injoy their own Lawes, in the possession of it) upon condition of imbracing and observing such Lawes as God should give. As for the kingdome of heaven, which the Gospel of Christ preacheth, the hope of it was so mystically intima­ted, that there was sufficient cause to imbrace it even then, but not propounded as the condition upon which God offered to contract with them, as hee doth with Christians. And this, though I cannot say that the Church hath at anytime expressed to be a part of the Rule of Faith, yet, that the Church hath alwaies implicitely admitted it for a part of the reason of Faith, which wee call Divini­ty, I must and do maintain.

Before I come to prove this, I will here propound one objection, because it seems to contain the force of all that is to be said against it. For, when our Lord sayes, Mat. XIX. 19. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandements; When hee resolves the great commandements of the Law to be the love of God above all things, and of our neighbor as of our selves, Mat. XXII. 36. In fine; wheresoever hee derives the duties of Christianity from the Law of Moses, hee seems to suppose, and so do his Apostles, that the same life everlasting which hee promiseth by the Gospel was proposed by the Law, as the reward for observing it. And indeed, what can the Gospel was propound, for a more suitable way or meanes to salvation, than the love of God and man, in that order which the Law of God appointeth? It is not for nothing, that S. Augustine observeth; The first commandement of the Decalogue, to acknowledge God, and the last; not to covet that which is another mans, to contain in them the utmost office of a Christian: And all Divines have distributed the precepts of Moses Law, into Moral, as well as Judicial and Ceremonial; The Moral precepts containing in them no lesse than the duties of Christianity, when they are done with such an intent, as God, who by giving Moses Law declareth himself to see the most in­ward of the heart, requireth.

Here, in the first place, (supposing that God, entring into Covenant with that people, intended to establish their Civil Government by the Law of Moses) I will proceed to argue, that all Civil Lawes, that are not contrary to the Law of Nature, and the actions by them injoyned or prohibited, may be done or not done for two several reasons: For, if there be reason enough for the Nations that know not God, nor ground their Lawes upon any presumption of his will, or expectation of good or evil from him, to unite themselves in Civil Society, then is their reason enough for them, to observe the Lawes upon which the be­nefit [Page 82] of Civil Society is to be had, though they suppose not themselvs obliged by God to them, nor to oblige God by keeping them. And if it be evident, that all Civil Lawes, not contrary to the Lawes of God and Nature, do come from God, as Civil Society doth, it will be as evident, that the keeping of them in that re­gard, and for that consideration, is obedience to God. The Jewes Civil Law hath this privilege above the Civil Lawes of other Nations, to be gronnded upon those acts, whereby God, revealing himself for their freedom by Moses, ten­dereth them the Land promised to their Fathers upon the Covenant they then had with God, upon condition of undertaking the Lawes which hee should give them for the future. And no reason can deny, that this was sufficient to con­vince them, that God required of them, not onely the work which the Law spe­cified, but that it be done in consideration of his will, and in reference to his honor and service; Though on the other side, it is not necessary to grant, that so much is expressed by the Civil Law of that Nation, expresly tending to their Civil freedome and happinesse, in the possession of the Land of Promise. It cannot be doubted, that the immortality of the soul, and the reward of good and bad after death was received among that people, from and before the time of receiving the Law: Otherwise, how should the Patriarchs obtain it, which the maintainance of Christianity requireth that they did obtain? It is also evi­dent by the Scriptures, that the same conversation which Christ and his Apostles preached, was extant in the lives and actions of the Fathers before the Law, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Moses, and the rest, as the Fathers of the Church are wont to argue against the Jewes, that Christianity is more ancient than Judaisme. It is also manifest, that the same conversation was extant, and to be seen under the Law, in the lives of the Prophets and their Disciples, by the words of our Lord to the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. XXIII. 29-36. when hee chargeth them, that, professing to honor the Prophets by building their monu­ments, but hating himself and his Apostles, they made themselves the heirs of those that killed the Prophets; And pursuing the same discourse, addeth; That hee would send them Prophets and Scribes and Wisemen, (which were his Apo­stles and Disciples) whom they should crucifie, and scourge, and persecute from City to City, that all the righteous bloud that had been shed from Abel to Za­charias son of Barachias might come on their heads. The same is testified by the Apostle Ebr. XI. 36, 37, 38. where, having through the whole Chapter showed, that the Fathers before and under the Law were saved by Faith, as Christians are, hee addeth; Others had trial of mockings and scourgings, and bands, and im­prisonment, were stoned, were sawed asunder, were tempted, died by the sword, went about in sheeps and goats-skins, wanting, afflicted and distressed, (of whom the world was not worthy) wandring in deserts, upon mountaines, in caves and holes under ground. Which being the condition of the Christians to whom hee writes, (ex­horting them, by all that Epistle, to indure persecution of the Jewes, rather than to deny Christianity by turning to the Law, which the Jewes indeavored to force them to, by raising them trouble) makes it manifest, that the same righteousness, for which the Jewes then persecuted the Christians, was that, for which their Fathers had persecuted the Prophets and other righteous men under the Law. And, hee that shall make trial to maintaine the truth of Christianity against the Jewes, that acknowledge all the Old Testament as well as wee, shall finde, that the Fathers of the Church have reason, when they allege this against the Jewes, to show, that the salvation which the Patriarchs and Prophets and other righte­ous men before and under the Law obtained, was not by Judaisme, but by Chri­stianity, Eusebius by name de demonstr. Evang. lib. I. There was no need then, that the Law should condition that this should be believed, and it was agreeable to the immediate intent of the Law, onely to suppose it. For, at that time, by reason of their deliverance out of Aegypt, they did acknowledge God to be the onely true God, searcher of hearts and Judge of the world to come. Though formerly they had been tainted with the Idolatries of the Aegyptians; as by the Prophet Ezekiel XX. 7. and their often relapses to Idolatry, upon occasion of the company that joyned themselves to them when they came out [Page 83] of Aegypt, Exod. XII. 38. Num. XI. 4. Exod. XVI. 2. XXXII. 1. may appear. Therefore this Law being tendred for the Civil Law of that people, it is not s [...]range that hee should covenant with them no further, than that they should expresly acknowledge him for their God, in opposition to all other pretended Gods, and serve him by such ceremonies as hee should appoint; Governing their civil life by such Lawes, as hee should allow an interest in the Land of Pro­mise to those that should observe, having appointed those to be cut off from it, that should not observe the same. Though, this being the immediate intent of the Law, another principal and utter intent of it must be acknowledged, to make way for that inward and spiritual righteousnesse which the Gospel requi­reth. For those, who, by the temporal punishment of the Law should be con­strained to yield outward obedience to it, and abstaine from such evill deeds as should put them out of protection of it, being assured, by the doctrine of their Fathers before the Law, maintained by the Prophets under the Law, of Gods particular providence, and the immortality of the soul, and the reward of good and bad, according to that spiritual righteousnesse which they themselves lived in, were thereby sufficiently obliged to obey God, not onely as their Soveraigne in this world civilly, but inwardly and spiritually, as him whom they expected to be judged by, and remaine with everlastingly in the world to come. For, as the necessity of Christs coming is necessary to the maintenance of Christianity, so it is also necessary to the same purpose, that wee maintain this coming of his to have been fore-told and signified by the Old Testament, and yet the intent of it not covenanted for, because the intent of his coming was to covenant for it▪ Which had it been covenanted for by the Law, hee should not have needed to come, for the purpose of introducing and establishing a Covenant, which was already effectually accepted and in force; Nor to do the miracles which yet serve not to convince the Jewes that this was the intent of the Law, so farre were they from being convinced without them.

True it is indeed, that, though this Covenant had been established by the Law, and accepted by Gods people, the coming and miracles of Christ would have been no lesse necessary to introduce the Faith of the holy Trinity. But it is ma­nifest, that the revelation of that Faith was necessary, as the means to procure this Covenant to be accepted, as obtained by the Son, and made effectual by the Spirit. And therefore, the coming of Christ tending to convince the world thereof, it is manifest, that the end for which the world was to be convinced thereof, (that is to say, that the Covenant of the Gospel might be accepted) was not in effect before, not brought to passe without it. I do therefore much approve of the comparison which Grotius hath made between Moses his Law and the Romane Lawes, which had their rise from the Pretors Edicts; Who, being annuall Magistrates, and having a great Jurisdiction in their hands, were wont, because at the first written Lawes were not provided, to signifie at their entrance, by posting up an Edict, what pleas they would receive and give pro­cesse to; But so, that of course they retained the most points which their pre­decessors had declared, which therefore, being translated of course out of this yeares Edict into the next, were called tralatitia, and thereupon all things that are customary and usuall, are properly called tralatitia in Latine. Wee must un­derstand further, that, the Fathers afore the Law had separated themselves from the Nations, (that had fallen, and were falling away every day from the true God to the worship of Idols) not onely by acknowledging and serving the onely true God, but by very many Lawes and Customes, whereby they ruled their Fa­milies and inferiors in religion and justice among themselves. It must therefore be concluded, that those principles upon which their Religion stood, were not blotted out when they received that taint of Aegyptian Idolatries. But remain­ed in force and virtue among them, at such time as, by receiving the Law be­coming a free State, they undertook to serve God, and to govern themselves ac­cording to the Lawes which hee should give. For it is evident, that divers Lawes and Customes which were in force among them before the Law, are presuppo­sed, and further limited by the Law, and therefore not introduced by it, but de­rived [Page 84] from the Fathers, as our Lord observeth of Circumcision, John VII. 22. Such was the Law of mourning for the dead, so much in force at giving the Law, that, upon the death of Aarons sons, it was necessary, that a Law should pre­sently come forth, incerdicting the Priests to mourne for them upon paine of death, the rest of the people remaining under that Law; Though Aaron there­upon excuses himself, that they did not feast upon the sinne offering upon that day of mourning, and is accepted, Levit. X. 5, to 19. This the Law introduceth not, but was in force under the Fathers, as wee see Gen. L. 2, 10. XXVII. 41. The same is to be said of the seven dayes in which Marriages were celebrated under the Law, as wee see in Sampson, Judg. XIV. 12, 15, 17. which is doubled Tob [...] VIII. 22. no where introduced by the Law, no more than the seven dayes, or seventy dayes, or thirty dayes of mourning, Gen. L. 2. Deut. XXXIV. 8. The like of answering adjurations, which the Law, Levit. V. 1. presupposes, as also Prov. XXIX. 24. as a duty then received, that, if a man conjure all that know any thing of his businesse, to declare what they know, all that heare him stand bound to declare their knowledge in it. For, for this cause it is, that the Law, supposing him guilty of perjury that conceals his knowledge in that case, makes him liable to the sacrifice for expi [...]tion of perjury, as you may see Levit. V. 1. And by virtue of this custome among Gods people, not onely stood they bound to answer the High Priest, as our Lord answers Ca [...]aphas, Mat. XXVI. 63. or the King, 1 Kings XXII. 18. 2 Chron. XVIII. 15. Jos. VII. 19. Job. IX. 24. but al­so private men, in the Co [...] where their cause was hearing, adjuring all that were present to testifie their knowledge in their causes, if wee believe the Jewes Constitutions. In like maner, wee have nothing ordained in the Law that Tithes should be payed, or, that it should be lawfull, or acceptable to God to conse­crate any other part of their goods to the service of God, or to make Vowes of abstinence from things otherwise lawfull: But wee have it determined by the Law, what kindes shall be Tithable, what Vowes shall stand good, what sacrifice shall be offered by him that transgresses his Vow, how every thing that a man freely consecrates to the service of God shall be valued in money, Levit. XXVII. 1-30. Psal. XV. 4. Gen. XIV. 20. XXVIII. 22. Numb. XVIII. 29. The like is to be said of many other Lawes, which, being in the Old Testament mentioned as in force by custome, and no where introduced by the Lawes of Moses, must be presumed to descend by Tradition from the Fathers. Which hee that believes, as it cannot be doubted, must of necessity acknow­ledge, that not onely the principles and grounds of spiritual and inward obedi­ence to God for Gods sake, but also the precepts wherein it consists, are rather presupposed by the Law than introduced by it; And therefore may well be said, to be translated out of the Law of Nature into Moses Law, when they are mentioned by it.

Though hereunto I must adde this; That, they had not onely the doctrine of their Fathers afore the Law, to introduce and to regulate this inward obedience, but also the Prophets under the Law. The intent of whose Office was, not onely to reclaime them from Idol; to their own true God, but also to instruct them wherein consisted, not so much that civil and outward observation of his Law, which it promiseth to reward with temporal happinesse in the Land of Pro­mise, as that spiritual and inward obedience to God, from which they might con­ceive competent ground of hope toward the world to come. Every man knows, how ready they were to fall from God, all the time, whereof wee have the re­cords in the Scriptures, before the Captivity of Babylon. After that time, wee do not finde that ever they [...]ell to the worship of Idols, but wee finde abun­dantly, by the reproofs of the Scribes and Pharisees by our Lord in the Gospels, that the next sinne to it, of Superstition and Hypocrisie, was soon come in in­s [...]ea [...] of it; When, by the outward observation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Lawes, they promised themselves the favor of God and the reward of the world to come. As, by paying Tithes precisely Mat. XXIII. 23. Luc. XI. 42. XVIII. 12. by washing their hands and vessels according to the Tradition of their Predecssors, Mar. VII. 4, 8. Mat. XXIII. 25, 26. Luc. XI. 39. by punctu­ally [Page 85] observing the Sabbath, Mat. XII. 1-12. Mar. II. 23-28. Luc. VII. 1-9. XIII. 10-16. XIV. 1-5. Joh. V. 9—inlarging their Phylacteries and fringes Mat. XXIII. 5. by many things more, which are to be read up and down the Gospels. This disease could not have been reproved by our Lord by the testi­mony of the Prophet Esay, Mat. XV. 9. Mar. VII. 7. Esa. XXIX. 13. had it not taken root even before the Captivity, when as yet they were so subject to fall to the worship of false Gods. Therefore wee finde the reproof of this superstitious and hypocritical confidence in the Sacrifices which they thought to bribe God with, and other outward performances of the Law, to be the ordina­ry work of the most part of the Prophets; David, Psal. XL. 7, 12. Psal. L. 8-13. LI. 18. The Prophet Samuel, 1 Sam. XV. 22. The Prophet Esay, of Sacrifices and Festivals, Esa. I. 11-20. Of their Fasts, Esa. LVIII. 3-10. Of their ser­ving God by Traditions, Esa. XXIX. 13. The Prophet Jeremy, that God requi­red not Sacrifices but obedience, Jer. VII. 21, 22, 23. and concerning patience and hope, in the afflictions which hee sendeth, Lam. III. 25-33. The Prophet Hosea, in the Calves of our lips, Hos. XIV. 2. The Prophet Micah, when hee teacheth what they should come before God with, Micah VI. 6, 7, 8. The Pro­phet Zachary, of celebrating their Fasts, Zac. VII. 3-10. VIII. 16, 19. In fine, all the Prophets in their instructions and exhortations to the inward obe­dience of God in spirit and in truth, have showed themselves true fore-runners of our Lord Christ and his Apostles; Not onely in preaching the principal in­tent of the Law to be the same which the Gospel pretends to covenant for, but in suffering, (as well for this, as for reproving Idolaters) at the hands of those that taught for doctrines the Traditions of men, the like things as our Lord and his Apostles suffered for the same cause, at the hands of the Scribes and Phari­sees. First then, the acknowledgment of one God that disposeth of all things, and knowes the secrets of all hearts, expresly covenanted for by Moses Law, by consequence of right reason infers the duty of spiritual obedience to him in all his commands; Secondly, the Fathers before the Law had delivered, the Pro­phets after the Law did preach the same, no lesse than they did the acknowledg­ment of the true God, but more principally than the outward observation of the Ceremonial or Civil precept of it; Therefore there might be, and was sufficient means under the Law, to make them understand their obligation to that spiritual obedience which the Gospel covenanteth for, though wee suppose, as the truth is, that the Law expresly covenanteth onely for the temporal hap­pinesse of the Land of Promise; Therefore there was also sufficient meanes to oblige them to expect the coming of the Christ, as wee see by the Gospel that they did at the coming of our Lord, and, as all that will maintain Christianity against the Jewes are bound to maintain.

And therefore to the objection proposed I answer; That, though the words of the precept of loving God with all the heart, and all the minde, and all the soul, and all the might, may contain all that Christianity requireth, to be done, in con­sideration of duty to God, and with an intent of his honor and service; Yet neverthelesse that sense thereof that depends upon the Covenant of the Law is to be limited, to the observation of those precepts which God should confine their civil life to, in the service of him alone; The intent of the Covenant being to contract with God for temporal happinesse in the Land of Promise, they un­dertaking, as a Common-wealth, to live by such civil Lawes as hee should give, as well as to worship him by such Ceremonies as hee should prescribe. And therefore, supposing they observed those precepts, they were to expect the in­heritance of the Land of Promise, though wee suppose, that they did it out of respect to that reward, and not onely to God and to his honor and service. Yea, though wee grant, that, for the acknowledging of the true God alone, they were bound to indure persecution and death, rather than for fear of torment to deny God, or sacrifice to Idols, or renounce his Law, as wee see Daniel and the three Children did under Nebuchadnesar, and the zealous Jewes in the Maccabees time under Antiochus Epiphanes. For, if the Heathen had cause to believe, (that which is received of all, as the ground of civil Society) that particular [Page 86] persons are bound to expose their lives for the defense of their Countrey, (that is, to no other end, but, that they may live and die in the Lawes under which they are bred) though they had no promise of God, that they should hold their inheritance of this world by maintaining them; Cereainly, the people that obtained their inheritance by taking upon them Moses Law, shall stand bound, not onely to maintain it by the sword, under the conduct of their Soveraignes, but also by suffering for it when they were not to maintain it by force. A thing nothing strange to a man that shall consider, how des [...]rable life is to him, that is forced from the Lawes of his Countrey.

As for the other part of loving our Neighbor as our selves, it is without doubt pregnant with an evident argument of this truth, seeing, in plain reason, the extent of the precept might so argue the intent of it: For it is evident by in­finite Texts of the Law, that a mans neighbor, in this precept, extends no fur­ther than to Israelites, whether by birth or by religion, that is to say, those that are ingraffed into the Covenant by being circumcised. For example: Let mee ask, how the Law could forbid the Israelites to seek the good of the Moabites and Ammonites, if it be part of the same Law, to love all men, under the qua­lity of neighbors, as themselves. Let mee demand of any man, how Mordecai was tied, not to do that honor to Haman, that his Soveraigne commanded to be done. How hee could in conscience disobey his Prince, in a mater of indifferent nature, of it self, had it not been prohibited by the Law of God. Whether a Jew that is commanded by the Law to professe hostility against all Amalekites, could be dispensed with in this obligation, by any act of his Soveraign. Whe­ther any just reason can be alleged for Mordecai but this. Nay, those who are called strangers in the Law; (That is to say, those that had renounced all Idols, and professed to worship the true God, and thereupon were privileged to dwell in the Land of Promise, out of which the Israelites were sufficiently commanded to root all Idolaters) those strangers I say, by the leter of Moses Law, are not comprehended in the precept of loving our neighbor as our selves. For hee that asked who is the neighbor that the Law speaks of, Lut. X. 27-37. is not convicted by our Lord, by any leter of the Law, but by a Parable, inti­mating, the example of that which hee did for mankinde to be the reason of that which the Gospel requires. Forsooth, if the love of Christians extend to strangers and enemies, because the good Samarit [...]ne, which is our Lord Christ, extended his so farr, then, not because Moses Law had convenanted for it. There­fore, besides this precept of loving our neighbors as our selves, it was requisite that the Law should, by a particular provision, limit that respect and tenderness wherewith they were required to use those strangers, as converts to the true God, (for so the Syriack translation of the Law calls them alwaies) to wit, in the rank of Widowes and Orphans. If this be true, the precept of not co­veting, by the immediate intent of Moses Law, stands confined to that sense which the Jewes at this day give it, according to the decisions of their Doctors, that no man, by contrived oppresion or vexation, designe to force his neighbor, that was by the Law inabled to make a divorce, to part with his wife, or any thing else that hee called his own. Which sense our Lord also in the Gospel manifestly favors, Mar. X. 19. where, recounting the precepts that those must keep that will inherit life everlasting, after thou shalt not bear false witnesse, hee inserres, thou shalt not take away, by fraud or oppression, that which is another mans, for the sense of the tenth Commandement, thou shalt not cover that which is thy neighbors; All which extendeth no further, than the over act of seeking what is not a mans own. And, though this be out Lords answer to him that asks what hee is to do to obtaine life everlasting, yet it may well seem, that our Lord intended first to propound unto him the civil Law of Moses, as necessary to salvation, and a step towards it, because the Gospel saith, that our Lord loved him that answered; All these things have I kept from my youth up, as acknowledging that hee said true; For, that hee had kept these precepts in that spiritual sense, and to the intent and purpose which the Gospel requireth, it was not true. And by that which followes, when hee askes what remained to [Page 87] be done, namely, that hee leave all to follow Christ, hee inferrs in one precept, the whole inward and spiritual obedience of God, which, under the Gospel, is expresly required; To wit, that a man set all the world and himself behinde his back, that hee may follow Christ. Therefore, though they be the obedience which under the Gospel is expresly required, yet, when it is said of the precepts of the Law, which who so shall do shall live by them, Levit. XVIII. 5. Ezek. XX. 11, 21. it is not to be granted, that everlasting life is necessarily signified, but one­ly a prosperous estate, which vivere in the Ebrew, as well as in the Greek and Latine, elegantly signifies. And yet there is good reason why these are counted by our Lord the chief precepts of the Law, though, as for the immediate in­tent thereof, they reach no further than the over act which other Lawes deter­mine as well as they. Because more apt to signifie the general extent of that inward and spiritual obedience, which, being preached and taught by the Fathers, was first to be translated out of their doctrine into the Law of Moses; that the Prophets, (who, being authorized by the Law Deut. XVIII. 18.—. were rai­sed by God to prepare the way for our Lord Christ and his Gospel) might have as it were a Text in the Law, upon which they might ground their Sermons of spiritual obedience, which the Gospel of Christ, whose coming they preached, should expresly require. And this is that secret of Gods Law and of his Co­venant, which the Prophet David declares to be revealed to those that keep Covenant with God, and prayes that his eyes may be opened to see it in the Law, the study whereof inlightens a man to discover it, Psal. XXV. 13, 15, XIX. 9, 10. CXIX. 18. if wee adde hereunto the secret of Christ his coming, which this obedience, or, at the least, the tender of a Covenant which should condition for it, presupposeth.

As for the division of the Precepts of the Law into Ceremonial, Moral, and Judicial, it will very fitly fall in with the truth which I insist upon, in case those that advance or maintaine that division be content to receive this truth. For it will be very proper to say, that the Ceremonial and Judicial Precepts are those that depend upon the expresse and immediate intent of the Law, as it containeth the condition on their part, upon which God on his part covenants to give them the civil happinesse of the Land of Promise; But the Moral precepts, such as might be counted Civil Lawes, being observed civilly out of respect to that hap­pinesse, and might be counted spiritual Lawes, as the offices of them might be done out of obedience to God, in respect to his service; Which sense, the light of Nature, stirred up by that measure of revelation which God was pleased to grant the Fathers before, and the Prophets under the Law, having prevailed to bring into force before the Law, was translated out of unwritten custome into the Law of Moses, to give the Prophets a ground of their doctrine of the love of God above all and a mans neighbor as himself, so to make way for that spiritual obedience, which, under the Gospel was expresly to be required. But, if they refuse to admit this division, so as to comply with the sense I pre­tend, then will it be easie for mee to refuse the division, as not contained in the Scripture, but the conceit of Divines, that neither do understand the true diffe­rence between the Law and the Gospel, not can be content to be showed it. For, neither doth any Scripture of the Old or New Testament expresse this division to come from the first and immediate, and expresse intent of the Law, nor is there any Tradition in the Church of it, which are the two onely means that hitherto remain in question, whether mater of Faith can be grounded upon both of them, or onely upon the one: And to have recourse to any opinion of the Jewes, since the separation of them from the Church of God, in a point concerning that difference, must needs be an affront to Christianity.

CHAP. XIII. That the Law tendreth no other promise but that of the Land of Canaan. How the Resurrection is signified by the Prophets. Expresse texts of the Apostles. Their arguments, and the arguments of our Lord do suppose the mystical sense of the Scriptures. That this sense is to be made good throughout the Scripture, wheresoever the ground of it takes place; Chri­stianity well grounded supposing this. What parts of Scripture may be que­stionable, whether they have a mystical sense or not. The sayings and do­ings of our Lord have it; As also those passages of the Old Testament, which are fulfilled by the same. The sense of the Fathers.

HAving showed, by removing this block, that there is no appearance of inconvenience in admitting this truth, I am now to show, what appea­rance of necessary consequences from the Scriptures there is to inforce it. Be­ginning then with the first proposition of the Covenant of the Law in Marah, Exod. XVI. 27, 28. wee reade, that at Marah God appointed them a Statute and a Judgment. The Jews say, that there hee gave them the precepts of the Sabbath, and Honoring parents. Whether so or not, something God propounds them to do; For, to show what hee bids them expect, doing it, hee inferres; And there hee tried him and said; If thou wilt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and wilt receive his precepts, and do all his Statutes, I will bring upon thee none of the griefs that I brought upon Aegypt. For I am the Lord thy God that heal thee. It will be hard to say, how the Law could be established upon any other condition than first it was propounded on, and here is nothing but an earthly promise. Come wee to the giving and receiving of the Law, Exod. XIX. 5, 6. And now, if you will hear my voice and keep my Covenant, yee shall be to mee, whose all the earth is, a Jewell above all Nati­ons of the earth, a kingdome of Priests, an holy people. All Nations being at this time polluted by offering sacrifices to devils, and enemies to God, the Israelites, redeemed by God out of Aegypt to be free under his government, and to offer sacrifices to him alone, might well be a kingdome of Priests, a holy people, Gods Jewel above all Nations of the earth, without any Covenant for the happiness of the world to come. After the giving of the Decalogue, and other Precepts, by the mediation of Moses, Exod. XXIII. 25—. And you shall serve the Lord your God, and hee shall blesse thy bread and waters: And I will take sickness from a­mid thee: There shall no woman miscarry, or be barren in thy Land. I will make full the number of thy dayes. I will send my terror before thee, and the rest that followes there to assure them, how and by what means hee will bring them in­to the Land of Promise. Hitherto, in treating, in contracting this Covenant, no mention of the world to come; What shall wee finde at renewing it? Deut. XXIX. 1. These are the words (that is, the termes) of the Contract which Moses struck with the Israelites in the plain of Moab, besides that in Horeb. Then, re­peating the summe of what they had seen since their coming out of Aegypt, as to move them to imbrace Gods Covenant; Wherefore, saith hee, yee shall observe the termes of this Covenant, and do them, that yee may prosper in whatsoever you do. And so, contesting the whole Assembly, that they and their posterity must, by transgressing, come under the curse which it is inacted with, thus expresses the summe of it; That hee may settle thee to himself, for a people, and hee be thy God, as hee hath said to thee, and as hee hath sworn to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thy Fathers: To whom hee had expresly sworn to give the Land of Promise, and therefore so determined the expresse sense and intent of being their God. For, to expound what it means, for them to have God for their God, and hee them for his people, it followes, that if any of them return from the Lord to the Gods of the Aegyptians, and other Nations, they shall incurre the curse which the Covenant is inacted with, that the Land, being turned into salt and brimstone, shall not be to be sown, nor spring, nor grasse grow, but be like [Page 89] Sodome, and Gomorra, and Seboim, which the Lord overthrew in his wrath Hereupon hee begins the XXX Chapter thus; And it shall come to passe, that, when all these things are lefallen t [...]e, and thou shalt call them to minde, among all Nations to which God shall have driven thee, and return to the Lord thy God; And the rest, whereby God promises, that hee will be intreated of his people, and turn the said curses from them upon their enemies. Remitting plainly, him that will understand what those are, to that which went afore, from cap. XXVI. 16—. XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX. which hee that will peruse, may trust his own sen­ses, whether they speak of life everlasting, or of the Land of Promise. And in­deed, the whole book of Deuteronomy containing nothing else, but the repeti­tion, and continuation of what was most necessary to introduce and persw [...]de this renewing of the Covenant, whether wee judge of the premises by the con­clusion, or of the conclusion by the premises, wee shall [...]inde no more th [...]n what I have said. Now the whole XXV of Leviticus, being nothing else, but an exhortation and warning to keep the Law, propounded before the camp re­moved from Mount Sinai, as you have it XXVI. 46; Had any such thing as eter­nal life been covenanted for, of necessity the arguments there used must have been drawn from thence. But you shall finde no more than concernes the Land of Promise. The effect of this reason is not to argue a negative from Scri­pture; That is to say, this is not recorded in the Scripture, not in this or that part of the Scripture, therefore not true; But to argue from the common reason of all men, and the visible nature of the businesse then in hand, that, what was not then expressed for a condition of that Covenant which is related to have been struck between God and the Israelites, cannot be presumed to have been an expresse condition of it. For, by interpretation, from, not onely the con­versation of the Fathers, but the doctrine of the Prophets, and the preaching of the Gospel, I grant that it is the principal intent which the Law intimateth, though not expresseth.

One particular precept of the Law I must not omit. It is that of Lev. V. 1-5. which appointeth the same sacrifice to be offered for legal uncleannesse as for perjury. Now, it is to be considered, that legal uncleannesse is not a thing for­bidden by the Law, but is contracted by observing the Law, as Tobits unclean­nesse, which made him lye out of the house, and occasioned his blindenesse by burying the dead, Tobit III. 11. being indeed an outward accident, coming to passe without any inclination of mans will to it, and therefore not imputable. If therefore the same means of expiating that which is not forbidden by the Law, expiate such a sin as perjury, let any man understand how by this Law ex­piation is made for the guilt of perjury, whereby every Christian believes hee becomes lyable to everlasting death, when by the same, expiation is made, not for sinne, but for a legal incapacity of conversing with Gods people, or coming to the Tabernacle. Another is that of Prayer negatively: For, who will believe, that the spiritual reward of everlasting life is promised by the Covenant of the Law, which does not so much as command the spiritual service of Prayer, as the Jewes themselves observe, ( Maimoni in the beginning of the Titles of Prayer and Blessings) that Prayer is commanded onely by the precept of the Law, Deut. VI. 13. X. 20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him. The Lord thy God shalt thou fear, and him serve. And those Blessings in which so much of their Religion consists, onely by Deut. VIII. 10. And when thou hast eaten and art full, then shalt thou blesse the Lord thy God for the good Land which hee hath gi­ven thee. Out of these texts their Elders, they say, have taken occasion to pre­scribe the kindes, and measure, and circumstances of their Prayers and Blessings. And truly, when there is so much in the Law, of their Festivals, and Sabbaths, and Sacrifices, and so little of the spiritual duties which God is to be served with, and was served with even under the Law; It is impossible to give a reason of it, unlesse wee say, that, as the Gospel was yet to be a secret to the spiritual service of God, which under it was to be required, was not, under the Law, to be covenanted for, that is expressed.

And here I am not to forget the Sect of Sadducees, which, though it denyed [Page 90] the reward after death, yet notwithstanding was not, onely tolerated among the Jewes, but also in such Power, that I have showed in another place, that, du­ring the time mentioned by the Acts of the Apostles, it had authority in all publick maters of the Nation under the Romanes. For, if they that denied the Resurrection, expresly renounced the Law, by renouncing the expresse condi­tion of it, it will be impossible to say, how they that renounced the Law, should manage that Power of governing their own people by the Law, which was re­served to the Nation by the Romanes. Indeed, when Idolatry prevailed, the precepts which punished that sinne by death, of necessity were super [...]eded for the time. But, when after the Captivity, some denied the life to come, others expected it from the literal and carnal observation of the Law, both maintain­ing themselves under the Law and by it, it might be signified by the Law, as our Savior proves the Resurrection, Mat. XXII. 23. Mar. XII. 18. Luc. XX. 27. but, had it been covenanted for, impudence would not have had wherewith to maintaine the contrary, acknowledging the Law. And therefore I agree, that, when our Lord sayes; Search the Scriptures, for in them yee think yee have e­ternal life; John V. 39. This think is a term of abatement: Signifying, that they expected salvation by the Law, which indeed is not to be had but by his Gospel, which the Law intimateth and involveth. Yee think yee have it so, as indeed yee have it not.

In the next place, consider wee a while the Writings of the Prophets, that is, all that followes the Law in the Old Testament, and wee shall finde there, such intimations of the world to come, such instruction to that conversation by which it is attained, as may show, that it was not covenanted for, though at­tainable by Gods dispensation of that time. That which wee reade in the Pro­pher Esay XXVI. 19. Thy dead shall live, my carkasses shall arise, awake and sing yee that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth the Gyants; is the very picture of the Resurrection which Chri­stians believe. But what it signifies there, let the consequence of the Scripture witnesse, which showes it (by the beginning of the Chapter) to be part of a Song which should be sung in the Land of Judab at that day: That is, at such time as God, having afflicted his people, according to the Prophesies going a­fore, should restore them again, as hee prophesies there and afterwards. The Vision of dry bones which the Prophet Ezekiel XXXIII. saw, upon the breathing of God, clothed with flesh and skin, to rise againe, manifestly fore­tells the return of the Jewes from Captivity, to be a Nation againe; But [...]o, that it cannot be denied, that S. Hilary had reason to call him several times the Prophet of the Resurrection for it. Nor must wee make any other account of Daniel, who, having prophesied of the miseries that were to befall the Jewes, especially under Antiochus Epiphanes, and their deliverances in the end, sets forth the glory and ignominy of those that had stuck to their Law till death, or fallen from it, after they had their freedom under the Maccabees, by the figure of rising from the dead, XII. 1, 2. For, having first said, at that time thy people shall escape, whosoever is written in the book; (Which time is that persecution un­der Epiphanes) when hee adds incontinently; And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to ever­lasting reproach and shame. And teachers shall sbine as the shine of the sky, and those that make many righteous, as the starres for ever and ever; I say this following immediately, it cannot stand with common sense, that it should not concerne the same times and persons: Though wee allow it a competent argument, that the Prophet, which sets forth the deliverance of that people in such termes, understood the Resurrection of the dead well enough, and intend­ed, by using the same, to make way for Christianity that professes it. But the words of S. Job XIX. 25. are more questionable. I know, saith hee, that my Redeemer liveth, and shall stand upon the earth at last: And after they have pierced this my skin, I shall see God out of my flesh. But if wee compare this with what hath been hitherto produced out of the Prophets, it will not seem probable, that the Resurrection, which they so darkly intimated, should be [Page 91] so plainly preached, either before the Law, when Job lived, or under the Law, when the book of Job is said to have been penned. And truly, hee that per­swaded himself that God would deliver him out of his present affliction, might well say; I know that my Redeemer liveth: And hee that saith XLII. 5. By the hearing of the eare, I had heard of thee, but now doth mine eye see thee; might say to the same purpose, that hee should see God standing at length upon the earth, after that his skin had been pierced with sores. Consider now those passages of the Prophets, whereby they declare, how they are moved to question Gods providence, by seeing the righteous afflicted and the wicked to flourish in this world, Psal. LXXIII. 2-20. Jer. XII. 1, 2. Mal. III. 13-18. besides all the discourses of this point, in Job, Ecclesiastes, and elsewhere. It is plaine, every Christian can answer this out of the principles of his profession, by saying; That God reserves his full account to the day of judgment, in the mean time maintaining sufficient evidence of his providence, by the account which hee takes of some sinnes in this world. And, had this been a part of the old Covenant, it had been no lesse ready for every one to answer with. What saith David? When I went into the Sanctuary of God, then understood I the end of those men: Forsooth, thou settest them in slippery places, and castest them down to ruine. How came they to desolation in a moment? they came to an end by terrors. As when a man awakes out of a dreame, Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt scorn the image of them. Is there any thing in all this to determine, whether in this world or in the world to come? Though the consequence be good, not in this world, therefore in the world to come. What saith Jeremy? And thou, O Lord, knowest mee, and triest my heart before thee. Pluck them out as sheep to be slain, and consecrate them to the day of slaughter. What saith Malachi? They shall be mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, when I store up my Jewels, and I will spare them, as a man spareth his son that serveth him. And yee shall again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. All this is true to those that are in Covenant with God, as the temporal pro­mises are true, even in this life, and therefore expresses not the world to come, whatsoever may be inferred by the foresaid consequence. And truly Ecclesiastes is so farre from expressing the answer that Christianity maketh to this objection, as to give some men occasion to imagine, that it alloweth the world to come no more, than the lives of worldly men do own it. And all the obscurity of the book of Job will never be resolved, without acknowledging, that this truth was then a secret, which the Prophets knew, but preached it so sparingly, (and with such good husbandry, which the Greek Fathers use to call [...]) as the hope of proficience by their Doctrine, in their hearers did require. The same ac­count is to be had of the Prophet Habakkuk II. 3-14. where hee proposeth the difference between the Chaldeans and Israelites in these termes; Behold, the soul that is exalted is not right in him: But the just shall live by faith: And concludes; See, is not this of the Lord of Hosts? And the people shall labor for fire, and the Nations be weary for nothing. For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the seas. Which, all the Prophets will witnesse to signifie the restoring of the people of God, to the destruction of Idolatry, and their enimies I­dolaters. No where is this truth more observable than in the Psalmes XVI. 11. Thou shalt make known to mee the way of life: Fulnesse of joyes is before thee, and pleasures at thy right hand for ever more. Is not this true in the sense of Ezekiah, Esa. XXXVII. 10, 21? First hee saith; I shall see the Lord no more in the land of the living: But upon the tender of the Pro­phet, hee askes, What is the signe that I shall go up into the house of the Lord? Where, the presence or right hand of God, and the pleasure of it, is the joy that his people have to worship him before the Ark of his presence. Psal. XVII. 15. As for mee, I will behold thy presence in righteousnesse, when I awake, I shall be satisfied with thy likenesse. The same thing hee meanes, and hee awakes, when hee comes out of trouble to serve God. Though I am [Page 92] to grant, that I cannot think of any text in all the book of Psalms, wherein the world to come is more literally ex [...]ressed, th [...]n in these words. Psalm CXXVI, 5, 6. They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. Hee that now goeth on his way weeping, shall doub lesse come again in joy, and bring in his sheaves. Whether at the returne from Captivity, or in heaven, let the beginning of the Psalme speak; When the Lord turned again the Captivity of his people, th [...]n were wee like men that dreame. But there would be no end, if I should go about to produce all those passages of the Psalmes, wherein the same is to be observed.

Let us come now to the New Testament, and produce first the sayings of the Apostles, wherein my position is expresly affirmed, especially in the Apostle to the Hebrewes VII. 19. For the Law persited nothing, but the bringing in of à bet­ter hope, by which wee draw nigh unto God. What is this better hope, but that of the world to come, so much better than the Land of Promise? and what brin­geth it in but the Gospel of Christ, by whom alone sinners have accesse to God? X. 19—. Againe, VIII. 6. But now hee hath obtained a more excellent ministe­ry, by how much hee is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which is inacted upon better promises. IX. 15. And therefore is [...]ee the Mediator of a New Covenant, that, d [...]ath interceding for the redemption of those sins that were under the first Co­venant, those that are called may receive the promise of eternal life. This more excellent Ministery, is the Priesthood of Chri [...]t after the order of Melchisedeck. To make way for which, the whole Epistle ci [...]put [...]s, that the Levitical Priest­hood is removed, as the interest of Christianity against the Law of Moses, and the q [...]ion on foot required. Now Melchisedek was [...] Priest, not by the law of a carnal precept, but by the power of indissoluble life; saith hee again, Ebr. VII. 19. What thi [...] carnal precept is, you have IX. 9-14. When hee saith, that at present; to wit, under the Law; gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot persit him that serveth, as to the conscience, consisting onely in meats and drinks, and several washings, and carnal justifications, imposed till the time of Reforma [...] When Christ, coming as a High Priest of good things to come, and having fo [...] sage into heaven, cleanses the conscience from dead works to serve the living [...]d. So that, according to the Apostle, the Sacrifices of the Law effecting on [...]ly a carnal right to the Congregation of Gods people, the Sacrifice of Christ a right to heaven, this right is tendred by the Gospel, the other by the Law. And thus S. Paul, 2 Tim. I. 9, 10. calleth the Gospel, the Grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before the ages of the world, but is manifested now by the appearance of our Lord Christ Jesus, who hath destroyed death, but declared life and incorruption by the Gospel. For, though the life to come was known and declared by the Pro­phets under the Law, yet had they no expresse commission to ingage God for it, till Christ rendred it, as that which the Gospel covenants for on Gods part. But, I must not forget the occasion of that memorable passage, quoted from Ebr. IX. 9. from the discourse that went afore, whereby the Apostle declares the whole course and constitution of the service of the Temple to be nothing else, but a Parable of the present time, to wit of Christianity; As also the legal Taber­nacle was nothing else but a Copy of the Heavenly, by the pattern whereof hee observes that Moses was commanded to build it, VIII. 5, 6. calling it therefore the Worldly Sanctuary IX. 1. because it was a Copy, as it were, of this whole world, in the several parts of it, as Philo and Josephus have discoursed at large. The most Holy place, into which the High Priest entred once a year, by the A­postles interpretation, answereth to the highest heavens, whereunto our Lord Christ is ascended, whom therefore hee calleth the minister of the true Taber­nacle, which God and not man pitched, VIII. 7, And therefore the outward Sanctuary, into which the Priests went once a day, was intended to signifie the Starry heavens, and the Court of the Tabernacle the World here below, as Philo and Josephus declare, justifying the reason why the Apostle calls it a Worldly Tabernacle.

This interpretation of the Ceremonial Law made by the Apostle in this place, by that which it expresly affirmes concerning the twofold sense of that part of the Old Testament, induces a consequence to the twofold sense of all [Page 93] the rest; Inferring, that, if the mystical and allegorical sense of the Old Testa­ment determine in the promises of the world to come, then the literal and hi­storical sense of the same determines in the promises of this life; the allegory, that is to say, the reason of interpreting the Old Testament to that purpose, consisting in nothing else, but the correspondence between them. I am not ignorant, that some Divines have done their best to create one Controversie more to divide the Church, by maintaining, that there is but one sense of the Scriptures, which the leter intends; The things figured under the Old Testament, and the figures of them there set down, making but one and the same sense, as a man and his picture are called the same man, because without the things sig­nified, the signes are nothing, at least, in the nature of signes. For my part, I finde it a thing as easie, as for every fool to tye knots which a wise man cannot loose, to ingage in disputes, in which men cannot yield to the truth, while that ingagement continues. But I finde no pretense, why that sense of the Scri­ptures which they make one, consisting of the figure and the thing figured, should not be counted two, one immediately, the other principally intended. Because the Gospel was a secret under the Law, as S. Paul so many times layes down; So that, hee which knew the Law, many times understood not the ut­most intent of it under the Gospel. Seeing then that this way of allegorizing the Old Testament is used by our Lord and his Apostles, not onely in the Cere­monial Law, but in all that properly belongeth to the Old Testament; I do con­clude, not that the Scriptures have two senses, but, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament have an obvious sense, (that was understood, or might be under­stood by Jewes) and a retired sense, which could not be understood, but by those under the Old Testament, that belonged to the New, as S. Austine many times distinguishes. And, by thus limiting my position, I avoid a great inconveni­ence, which Origen, and those that go the same way with him, though to seve­ral purposes, have incurred. Hee, in his Exposition upon S. John, notes it for the fashion of the Valentinians and other Gnosticks, to draw their strange fan­tasies from some mystical sense, which they fasten upon the Scriptures, though they be not able to prosecute and make good the same sense, throughout the text and thred of that Scripture which they allege for it, as wee understand by Irenaeus, in the later end of the first Chapter of his first book. To avoid this inconvenience, both Origen, and many after him, have sought for a mystical sense of the Scripture many times where it is not to be found, that is to say, where the reason and ground of the difference between the Leter and the Spi­rit reackes not. For, the ground thereof is the purpose of sending our Lord Christ in due time, and, in the meane time the Prophets, to prepare the way for the Covenant of the Gospel which hee came to proclaime. But first the Chief of them, Moses, was to treat and strike a Covenant between God and his peo­ple, whereby they should hold their freedome in the Land of Promise, upon condition of serving him, and governing their own civil conversation by such Lawes as hee should give. It will therefore be necessary to grant, that those Scriptures which proceed not upon supposition of such a purpose, but of the accomplishment of it, have but one sense; To wit, that which was figured by the Old Testament. But, this being excepted, the rest of the Scriptures, which suppose this purpose not yet declared, must, by the same necessity, have this twofold sense, according as the subject of several parts of it shall be capa­ble of, or require both.

Here, those that know what an allegory is, must distinguish the vulgar use of it, even in the Scriptures themselves, from that which standeth upon this ground, which is particular to the Scriptures; Wherein even men of learning sometimes lay stumbling blocks before themselves. For, as an allegory is nothing but an ornament of Language, it is plain, that even the literal sense of the prophesies of the Old Testament, and other parts both of the Old and New, is set forth by allegories; The sense whereof, hee that should take to be the allegorical sense of the Scriptures, would deceive himself too much. For, the allegorical sense which wee speak of here, is seen as well in things done, as said in the Old Te­stament, [Page 94] as not contained in the sayings there recorded immediately, but by the meanes of things done under the Old Testament, wherein, that which is written is true indeed; But so, that the things which come to passe in the out­ward and temporal estate of Gods people are intended to figure, that which comes to passe in their spiritual estate under the Gospel, or in their everlasting estate of the world to come. The ground whereof being the purpose of ma­king way for the coming of Christ, and the Gospel which hee was to preach, as all Christians against the Jews are bound to maintain; The New Testament, be­ing figured by the Old, must needs be the intent and meaning of all that which figured it. This wee shall finde by the writings of the Apostles, and the ar­guments, which, upon supposition of this truth, they draw against those, who, having received Christiani [...]y, and upon that account admitting it for a principle, did neverthelesse, by acknowledging the obligation of the Law, seek th [...]ir sal­vation by it. Thus S. Paul, 1 Cor. XV. 45. And so is it written, the first Adam was made a living soul; The last Adam a quickning spirit. Meaning, that his being made a quickning spirit, is in correspondence to the Scripture that saith; Adam became a living soul; Gen. II. 7. whereby hee establisheth this way of allegory which wee treat, upon correspondence between corporal and spiritual, from the beginning of the Bible. For, upon this ground, that which wee reade in Genesis, of the dominion of Adam upon living creatures, is by the Apostle transferred to the subjection of all things to Christ, being exalted to the right hand of God, Heb. II. 6. 1 Cor. XV. 27. Eph. I. 22. Neither doth the Apostles arguing the duties of Wives and Husbands, upon that which Christ performed to his Church Eph. II. 31, 32. stand upon any other ground but this. So when S. Peter argues, that Christians are saved by Baptism, as Noe by the floud 1 Pet. III, 20, 21. hee appropriates eternal salvation to the New Testament, by finding it figured in the temporal deliverances of the Fathers. Whose Faith, manifestly tending to the Land of Promise, the Apostle by allegory shewes the secret of Christianity, tending to eternal life, in it Heb. XI. 13-16. For Abraham and his Successors died, saith hee, without receiving the promises, but seeing and salu­ting them afarre off, and confessing themselves strangers and pilgrims in the land whereof they had received the promise. Which they that professe, declare they have a Countrey, which they seek. For, if they had thought of that which they had for­sook, they had time enough to return. But now they desire a better, that is, an hea­venly; Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: For prepared them a City. Can this be understood, without the correspondence between their inheritance of this world, and that which was figured by it, of the world to come? So, when S. Paul expounds those things which befell the children of A­braham and Isaac, by the allegory of the Jewes and Christians, Gal. IV. 22— Rom. IX. 7-10. plainly hee maketh the promise of the life to come proper to the New Testament, upon such termes as I have said. And if this be the rea­son, why and how those things that went before the Law shadowed and were to shadow the Gospel, it could not but hold in the Covenant of the Law, and the precepts of it. This appears by the Apostles exhorting the converted Jewes to stick close to the Gospel, from the Psal. XCV. 7— Heb. III. 12—where, if the Israelites, who, having seen Gods works forty yeares in the Wil­dernesse, tempting and provoking him entred not into his rest, but left their carkasses in the Wildernesse; Hee inferres thereupon, Heb. IV. 1-11. that they are to beware, least, having received a promise of entring into Gods rest, they al­so should come short by the example of the same disobedience. Which all suppo­ses this correspondence, for the ground of such consequences from the Old Te­stament. And truly the same is the argument by which S. Paul recalls the Corinthians, (which Church evidently consisted as well of Jewes as Gentiles) srom the misprision of Idolatry which they incurred, by eating things sacrficed to Idols, 1 Gor. X. 1-6-11. where, having related what befell the people in the Wildernesse, hee concludes; These things hapned to them in a figure, and are written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the world are come. That is to say, they are written to deterre Christians from the like sinnes, by the fear [Page 95] of punishment correspondent to that which they incurred. And therefore threat­ning Christians with the losse of eternal life, by the example of Jewes coming short of the rest of the Land of Promise, hee supposes the correspondence which I argue. Which is yet plainer in the words of the Apostle, H [...]b. X. 28, 29. Hee that despised the Law of Moses under two or three witnesses, died without mercy. How much worse punishment, do you think, shall hee be thought worthy of, that treads under foot the Son of God— For it is manifest, that his meaning, or, the answer of his question is a question, how much eternal death is worse than that death which they incurred. Onely, that they incurred it de facto, which, under the Gospel hee saith not shall come to passe, but reserveth hope of mer­cy. In fine, whosoever will go about to deny the mystical sense of the Old Testament, must deny all the arguments that the Apostles make against them, who, supposing Christianity, thought the Law necessary to salvation neverthe­lesse, as impertinent to the purpose to which they are used: All of them sup­posing this sense. And therefore I conceive it is necessary to yield Origen this, and whosoever imployes Origens reason, that the mystical sense of the Old Testament is to be made good throughout, so farre as it concernes the Old Te­stament; (because I have cautioned afore, that the New Testament is begun to be discovered under the Old) and, according as the nature and subject of the several parts thereof will either require or indure: Which is thus to be under­stood according to the grounds already laid.

If the Old Testament containe one continued Prophesie of our Lord Christ, and of the New Covenant which hee preached, and the People of God under it a figure of the Church, then must the Rulers of Gods People, (the Patriarchs before the Law, under the Law, the Kings, the Priests, and Prophets) be first fi­gures of Christ, whom all Christians suppose anointed King, Priest, and Prophet; Then must the Civil Government of Gods People by them figure the spiritual conduct of the Church. And, in as much as particular Christians, who are such not onely to the Church but to God, by participating of Christs anointing are conformable to his example, that which befell them outwardly in the leter un­der the Law, befalls all Christians inwardly in the spirit. This is no more than S. Austine proposes us, as the Rule for expounding the Psalms, and must take place all over the Old Testament, where the reason is the same. This for the Histories and Prophesies of the Old Testament. As for the Precepts of the Law, the Ceremonial do openly professe an intent of signifying and fore-telling the mystery of Christ and Christianity; As for the Judicial, they also may be said to be a figure of those precepts of inward and spiritual obedience, which the Go­spel declares, as civil righteousnesse is a rude shadow of inward and spiritual righteousnesse; And as, in Aristotle, a rude draught is said to be done [...] in a figure: When the outmost lines of a picture give in grosse the shape of the person represented, before it be filled up within to make the representation complete. But it is not to be denied, that there is a difference between these two reasons and wayes of figuring, both derived from the same ground of fore­telling and making way for Christ and the Church. As for the instructions, exhortations, praises of God, prayers, and the rest of that nature, which, in con­sequence to the Covenant of the Law, and the intimation of the Gospel with it was to contain, are found in it, or in the Prophets; it were an impertinence to seek two senses in any part of it; all belonging to the Gospel, though accom­modated to the dispensation of the Law, in that the duties of Christians were to be more sparingly declared even by the Prophets, than under the New Te­stament, as I shall have time to show.

This r [...]ason justifies that course of interpreting the Prophets which Grotius holds in his Annotations, assigning the fulfilling of all their Prophesies to something that fell out to the ancient people of God, afterwards, by corre­spondence, mystically to be fulfilled again in our Lord Christ and in his Church; And thereupon, brings upon this opinion the displeasure that hee undergoes, for expounding Esay LIII first of the Prophet Jeremy, and then mystically of our Lord Christ and his sufferings, in correspondence to what befell that Prophet. [Page 96] But those who are displeased at him for it, should considar what hee hath said generally to the point upon Mat. I. 22, 23. where it appears, that the words of the Prophet Esa. VII. 14. were first fulfilled in a childe born Esay of the Pro­phetesse his wife, if wee will allow any consequence of sense in the text. For this reason is the ground, upon which, the like meaning of the rest will necessa­rily be found requisite. And truly, if Origen was justly rejected by the ancient Church, for not making good the literal and historical sense of that which be­fell Adam and Eve in Paradise, hee that will draw this out into consequence, must necessarily yield, those Prophesies which belong to our Lord and the New Testament to have been literally fulfilled in the temporal state of the Jewes afore; Otherwise, the history is no lesse destroyed in Prophesies, than in the re­lation of Paradise. And if all Prophets were figures of Christ, it is no strange thing, that the Prophet Jeremies sufferings, being the greatest that wee finde re­corded, and from his owne people, should figure our Lords. This for Christ. Now, Prophesies either promising good or threatning punishment, either to Gods people, or their neighbor Nations, the promises of temporal good to Gods people, are, if the premises be true, promises of temporal good to the Church: Threatnings of temporal punishment, are predictions, partly of the rejection of Gods ancient people, partly of punishment upon the New, no [...] continuing in the Covenant, as I showed out of Psal. XCV. 7—. Ebr. III. 7—. But those promises trauslated to spiritual good concerne first, certain remaines of Israel according to the flesh, intended by God to be added to the Church; Then the coming of the Gentiles to the communion of the same: The commi­nations, as spiritual, signifying the utter destruction of both sorts of enemies, as well Jewes as Gentiles, or whatsoever enemies of Gods Church, in the world to come. Neither is there just cause to think, that thereby advantage is given to the Jewes against Christianity, by granting, that such passages, out of which the New Testament drawes the birth and sufferings of our Lord, are reasonably to be understood of his predecessors in Gods ancient people. For it is plaine, that, it despite of the Jewes, the works done by our Lord, and his Prophesies, concerning his Dying and Rising again, and the destruction of the Jewes, and the preaching of the Gospel to all Nations, seconded by his Apostles, and that which they did to winn credit, that they were the witnesses of the same, are the evidence upon which the Gospel obliges. The Scriptures of the Old Testa­ment, (which were no evidence to the Gentiles, as much and more concerned in the Gospel than the Jewes) were evidence, and so to be, not of themselves, for what need Christ then have done those works? But upon supposition that God intended not to rest in giving the Law, but to make it the thred to intro­duce the Gospel by; Which supposition, as it is powerfully inforced by the nature of the Law, and the difference between the inward and the outward obedience of God, as it hath been hitherto declared and maintained; So is it also, first in­troduced, by those works which our Lord declareth to be done for evidence thereof, then made good, by the perpetual correspondence between the Old and New Testament, which any considerable exception interrupts. And there rea­sons so much the more effectual, because this difference of literal and mystical sense was then, and is at this day acknowledged by the Jewes themselves, a­gainst whom our Lord and his Apostles imploy it, in a considerable number of Scriptures, which they themselves interpret of the Messias, though they are not able to make good the consequence of the same sense throughout, because they acknowledge not the reason of it, which concludes the Lord Jesus to be the Messias whom they expect. If these things be true, neither Origen nor any man else is to be indured, when they argue, that a mystical sense of the Scri­pture is to be inquired and allowed, even where this ground takes no place; For vindicating the honor of God, and that it may appeare worthy of his wisedom, to declare that which wee admit, to be the utmost intent of the Scriptures. For, if it be for the honor of God to have brought Christianity into the world, for the salvation of mankinde, and to have declared himself by the Scriptures for that purpose, then whatsoever tends to declare this, must be concluded [Page 97] worthy of God and his wisedom, whatsoever referres not to it, cannot be pre­sumed agreeable to his wisdom, how much soever it flatter mans eare or fantasie, with quaintnesse of conceit or language.

Now, as I maintain this difference between the literal and mystical sense of the Old Testament to be necessary for the maintenance of Christianity, as well as for understanding the Scriptures; So are there some particular questions ari­sing upon occasion of it, which I can well be content to leave to further dispute. As for example; There is an opinion published which saith; That the abomi­nation of desolation, which, our Lord saith, was spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, Dan. IX. 24—. Mat. XXIV. 15. Mar. XIII. 14. was fulfilled in the havock made by Antiochus Epiphanes: Which is also plainly called the abominatio of desolation by the same Prophet, Da [...]. XI. 31. XII. 10. Whether this opinion can be made good according to historical truth or not, this is not the place to dispute. Whether or no the difference be­tween the literal and mystical sense of the Scriptures will indure, that the same Prophesie be fulfilled twice in the literal sense, concerning the temporal state of the Jewes, once under Antiochus Epiphanes, and once under Titus, that is it which I am here content to referre to further debate. One thing I affirme; that, notwithstanding this difference, it is no inconvenience to say, that some Prophesies are fulfilled but once: Namely, that of Jacob Gen. XLIX. 8-12. that of Daniel IX. 24. that of Malacbi III. 1. IV. 5, 6. Because the coming of Christ boundeth the times of the literal and mystical sense; And therefore there is reason why it should be marked out by Prophesies of the Old Testament referring to nothing else. Againe, I am content to leave to dispute, whether the many Prophesies of the Old Testament, which are either manifestly alleged or covertly intimated by the Revelation of S. John, must therefore be said to be twice fulfilled, once in the sense of their first Authors under the Law, and again under the Gospel in S. Johns sense to the Church; Or, that this second comple­ment of them was not intended by the Spirit of God in the Old Prophets, but, that it pleased God to signifie to S. John things to befall the Church, by Prophe­tical Visions, like those which hee had read in the ancient Prophets, whereby God signified to them things to befall his ancient people: For, of a truth, it is the outward rather than the spiritual state of the Church, which is signified to S. John under these images.

A third particular must be the first Chapter of Genesis: For, in that which followes, of Paradise, and what fell out to our first Parents there, I will make no question that hoth senses are to be admitted, the Church having condemned Origen, for taking away the historical sense of that portion of Scripture. But whether the creation of this sensible world is to be taken for a figure, of the renewing of mankinde into a spiritual world, by the Gospel of Christ, accord­ing to that ground of the difference, between the literal and mystical sense of the Scripture, which hitherto I maintaine; This, I conceive, I may, without pre­judice, leave to further debate. But leaving these things to dispute, I must in­sist, that those things which the Evangelists affirm to have been fulfilled by such things as our Lord said or did, or onely befell him in the flesh, have a further meaning, according to which they are mystically accomplished in the spiritual estate of his Christian people. The chiefe ground hereof I confesse is that of S. Matthew VIII. 17. where, having related divers of our Lords miracles, hee addeth; that they were done, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet Esay LIII. 4. Hee took our infirmities and [...]are away our sicknesses; To­gether with the words of our Lord, Luke V. 17-21. where hee telleth them of Nazareth, This day are the words of the Prophet Esay (LXI. 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon mee, because hee hath anointed mee to preach the Gospel to the poor—) fulfilled in your hearing; And his answer to John Baptist grounded upon the same passage, Mat. XI. 4, 5, 6. Go and tell John what yee have heard and seen: The blinde receive sight, the lame walk, the l [...]pers are cleansed, the deaf heare, the dead are raised, and the poor have the Gospel preached them. For, as the Evangelist and our Lord both affirm, that these things were prophesied concerning the cures [Page 98] which our Lord did upon their bodies, so can it not be doubted, that the cure of our soules is spiritually signified by the same, whether you consider the promises, whereby the ground of this correspondence is settled, or the expresse words of the Apostle 1 Pet. II. 24. where, that which S. Matthew expoundeth of the cures which our Lord did upon their bodies, is referred to the taking away of s [...]nne by the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse. Which if it cannot be denied, I shall make no difficulty to inferre, that the words of the Prophet Esay VII. 14. Be­hold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and yee shall call his name Emmanuel; (which the Evangelists referreth to our Lord, Mat. I. 22. and, by the premises, were fulfilled when they were first said, as in the figure) are still accomplished in the children, which by Gods grace are still [...]orn of the holy faith of his Church by grace. Nor, that the words of the Prophet Osee XI. 1. Out of Egypt have I called my Son, (which, being manifestly said of the Israelites coming out of Egypt, the same Evangelist II. 15. affirmeth to be fulfilled in our Lords co­ming back out of Egypt) are still accomplished in those which out of the dark­nesse of this world are brought to Gods Church, which is spiritually the Land of Promise. Nor, that the words of the Prophet Jeremy XXXI. 15. (which the same Evangelist expoundeth of the Innocents which were slaine by Herod at Bethlehem, but, the correspondence hitherto established requireth us to under­stand of the captive Jewes at Ramah in that Prophets time) are still fulfilled in all that suffer persecution and death for Christianity. Nor, las [...]ly, that the words of the Psalmes XXII. 8, 18. Hee trusted in God that hee would deliver him; let him save him seeing hee loveth him; They pierced my hands and my feet; And, They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture; XLI. 9. Hee which did eat of my bread, hath lift up the heel against mee. XLIX. 9, 21. The zeale of thine house hath eaten mee up; And, They gave mee gall to eat, and in my thirst they gave mee vineger to drink. VIII. 2. Out of the mouth of babes and suck­lings thou hast perfected praise; CIX. 8. His Office let another take; XVI. 10. Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell, nor suffer thine holy One to see corruption; (which the New Testament will have to be fulfilled in those things that befell our Lord Christ, in the flesh, in his crucifying, Ma [...]. XXVIII. 18, 35, 43. Mark XV. 22, 23, 24. John XIX. 17, 29. in Judas betraying him, John XIII. 18. in his purging the Temple, John II. 17. in the children that praised him, Mat. XXI. 16. in Matthias chosen in Judas stead, Acts I. 20. in the resurrection of Christ, Acts II. 31. XIII. 35. But the correspondence premised and the reason of it, require us first to understand of those things which befell David and Gods ancient people) are still spiritually verified and accomplished, in those things which be­fall the children of God and his Church under the state of Grace. Neither shall I make any question that, the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel which wee have settled being supposed, it will not follow neverthelesse, that all the Old Testament ought, by virtue thereof, to be so fulfilled in the life of our Lord Christ; But, that the Spirit of God in the Evangelists showeth, that the Spirit in the Prophets so directed their words, that they were intended to be farre more properly fulfilled in our Lord Christ, than in those whom they were spoke of in the literal sense. For wee do not finde that the Text (that is to say, that which went before and that which followes after those words which the Gospels say were fulfilled in our Lord Christ) is answered by any thing which wee reade to have befallen him in the flesh. And the general correspon­dence between Israel according to the flesh in the Old Testament, and Israel according to the Spirit in the New, being sufficient to justifie our Lord to be the Christ whom they expected, and, by consequence, that twofold sense of the Old Testament which here wee maintaine; there is no cause why they should be said to be impertinently alleged, though by ordinary reason supposing this corre­spondence, that could not be proved from those Texts, which the Gospels say that they signifie. Indeed, such of them as are used by our Lord and his Apo­stles to prove him to be the Christ, must be said, and well may be maintain [...]d, to do it, by the perpectual correspondence of Gods earthly promises (made good to his carnal people, through the meanes of their Kings, Priests, and Prophets) [Page 99] with the promises of the world to come, made good by the means of our Lord Christ to the Church.

Ther [...] is yet another kinde of our Lord Christs sayings, and of things that befell him in the flesh, in which there appears at the first view, that difference of literal and mystical sense which hath been settled, between the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Parable of the Prodigal childe for example, seems not onely to contain a plain song of Gods earnest desire to be reconciled with penitent sinner [...], but also a descant, of the rejection of the Jewes and the calling of the Gentiles figured by it. In like maner, the Parable of him that fell among theeves as hee went down to Jericho, Luke XI. seemeth not onely to instruct, who is the neighbor that wee are to love as our selves, but also to fi­gure the fall of man and the sending of our Lord for the restoring of him, in­timated as the ground of it. So the acclamations of them that went afore and them that came after our Lord, at his entrance into Jerusalem, Mat. XXI. agree­ing in the same note of Hosanna to the Son of David, I cannot tell whether any Christian could be so moro [...]e as to doubt, but that it fell out on purpose to sig­nifie the agreement of the Old and New Testament concentring in our Lord Christ. But, as it cannot be reasonably denied, that these Parables and the like are mystical significations, of the purpose of God in sending Christ, or the event of it, in the rejection of the Jewes and calling of the Gentiles; So is all this nothing to the two senses of the Old Testament in which it is twice ful­filled, once according to the Leter, and again, according to the Spirit.

I have thus farre inlarged this point concerning the correspondence and diffe­rence between the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, between the Ancient and New people of God, to show how I conceive the scruples are to be resolved, which may be made against an assumption of more efficacy and con­sequence than any other, wheresoever any point of Christianity is to be showed from the Old Testament. Yet so much more protection I owe the truth, as to show further, how well it agreeth with the sense of the Catholick Church, by which I had begun to show that wee are to examine all maters of Faith. In­deed, I must caution this first, that I do not pretend, as if this point were any part of the Rule of Faith, which is the substance of Christianity to be believed, but, of all points concerning the knowledge of the Scriptures, which is the skill of Christian Divines, I hold it of most consequence. And that therefore, though I am not obliged to affirm, that it is expresly taught by all the primitive Doctors of the Church, (as, all maintaining the mystical [...]ense, it may be maintained, that, by consequence they do all unanimously deliver it, & Origen in praef. de Principiis so accounts it) so will it be necessary to show how well it standeth with the sense of them, that it may appear, that there is no consent of the whole Church against it. It shall be therefore sufficient to name S. Jerome, S. Chrysostome, and S. Augustine, the first affirming that hee reades nothing of the kingdom of hea­ven in all the Old Testament, Epist. CXXIX. Mihi in Evangelio promittuntur regna coelorum, quae vetus Instrumentum omnino non nominat. To mee the kingdom of heaven is promised by the Gospel, which the Old Testament nameth not at all. The second, in his Homilies de Lazaro, and divers others places, raising his ex­hortations drawn from examples of the Saints in the Old Testament upon this ground, that, if they did so, and so when the Resurrection was not preached, it behooveth us under the Gospel to do much more. The last, besides other pla­ces, (whereof some you may finde quoted in my book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church) in the book de Gestis Palestinis, relating it for one of the Articles which Pelagius renounced at that Synod, not onely that the Saints under the Law obtained salvation by it, but even that the salvation of the world to come was preached under the Law. The Article charged upon Pela­gius you shall finde there to be this, cap. V. Regnum coelorum etiam in veteri Te­stamento promissum. That the kingdome of heaven was promised also in the Old Testament. To which Pelagius answering; That this may be proved by the Scriptures; was judged by the Council, not to depart from the Faith of the Church. Which notwithstanding, when S. Austine considers; That the Old [Page 100] Testament in vulgar Language signifies the books of the Old Testament, in which, the kingdome of heaven is promised, as the Gospel is fore-told; But, in the Scriptures, the Old Covenant in which it is not promised; Hee sayes as much as I have done. Therefore hee saith further; In illo verò Testamento quod Vetus dicitur, & dat [...]m est in monte Sinâ, non invenitur apertissime promitti nisi terrena foelicitas. But in that which is called the Old Testament, and was given in mount Sina, none but earthly felicity is found to be very openly promised. Where­upon hee proceedeth to observe, that the Land of Canaan is called the Land of Promise, in which, the promises of the Old Testament, figuring the spiritual promises belonging to the New, are tendred by the Law. And reason hee had to insist upon this, because of another Article charged upon Pelagius, of kin to this, that men were saved under the Law, as under the Gospel: As you may see there cap. XI. Which might well be understood to mean, without the Grace of Christ. But having cleared the ground of the difference between the literal and allegorical sense of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, I hold it utterly unnecessary, if not altogether impertinent to tender further proof of this po­sition from the Fathers, then the constant agreement of them in maintaining that difference; Being, when it is rightly understood, the necessary and immedi­ate consequence of it. Indeed, it cannot be maintained, that they did under­stand expresly the true ground of this difference; which had they done, they would not have been found to use it impertinently and unseasonably, as all lo­vers of Truth must avow that many times they do. Notwithstanding, in as much as they agree in maintaining and using of it, from which use, the ground of it, which is this position, is to be inferred; it shall be enough, that all of them agree in delivering that by consequence, which the principal of them, at least in expounding the Scriptures, do expresly asfirme. For, nothing obliges mee to maintaine, that this is a poi [...]t necessary to the salvation of all Christians to be believed. And by consequence, that it hath been every where taught, and no where contradicted. It is sufficient, that I can and do hold it more general­ly necessary to the right understanding of the Scriptures, than any other point of skill in the Scriptures. Now, if any man object, that this is the doctrine of the Socinians; I answer, first; That they also hold, that nothing is necessary to salvation to be believed, but that which is clear to all men in the Scriptures. And, that this position hath a necessary influence into their whole Heresie, which is grounded upon the unreasonable presumption of it. On the contra­ry, the difference between the Law and the Gospel, is a principle, from which I hope to draw good consequences, in maintainance of the Faith of the Church against the Socinians; who, if they did alwaies see the consequence of their owne positions, would not deny the Tradition of the Church, as I obser­ved afore: If they do not, I am not to waive the doctrine of the Fathers, because the Socinians acknowledge it. But lastly, I demand, whether So­cinus provide for the salvation of the Fathers, or not. If so, why is his opi­nion blamed? If not, why is mine opinion, that do, taken for his?

CHAP. XIV. The Leviathans opin [...]on, that Christ came to restore that kingdome of God which the Jewes cast off when they rejected Samuel. It overthroweth the foundation of Christianity. The true Government of Gods ancient people. The name of the Church in the New Testament cannot signifie the Syna­gogue. Nor any Christian State.

THis position being settled, in the next place, I will proceed upon it, to ar­gue the vanity of that conceit of the Leviathan, pag. 263. that the intent of Christs coming was, to regaine unto God, by a New Covenant, that King­dome, which, being his by the Old Covenant, had been ravished from him, by the rebellion of the Israelites, in the election of Saul. For, supposing most truly, that God became their King, by the Covenant of the Law, and that un­der him Moses had the Soveraigne Power to all purposes, pag. 250, 251, 252. hee inferreth further, that, after Moses, it was by God vested in the High Priests Aarons Successors, though hee for his time was subject to Moses: And this, pag. 217. from that text of Exodus XIX. 6. where God promiseth them, that, upon undertaking his Covenant, they should be a Sacerdotal Kingdome, which in the Original is a Kingdome of Priests, in 1 Pet. II. 9. (where hee challengeth the effect of the promise to the Church of Christ) a Royal Priesthood, in S. John Rev. I. 6. Kings and Priests; But chiefly, pag. 253. from that text of Num­bers XXVII. 21. where it is ordered, that Josue stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask counsail for him before the Lord, At his word they shall go out, and and at his word they shall come in, both hee and all the children of Israel with him. For, saith hee, unlesse wee understand them to be a kingdom of Priests, because the High Priests succeeded one another in the Kingdom, it accordeth not with S. Peter, nor with the exercise of the High Priesthood, the High Priest onely being to declare the will of God to them by entring into the Sanctum Sancto­rum, pag. 218. Though after the death of Josua and Eleazar, when a generation was risen that knew not the Lord, Jud. II. 10. it came to passe, (as it is said divers times in that book) that there was no King in Israel; The High Priests not be­ing obeyed according to Law, and the power of the Judges depending upon the voluntary submission of the people, to the graces, and the successe God gave then for their deliverance; Till, rebelling against Gods appointment, they de­sired a King: As God expresly construes it, 1 Sam. VIII. 7, 8. pag. 253, 254. For thenceforth, God having given way to them, when God was to be consul­ted, the High Priest put on the holy Vestments, and inquired of the Lord as the King commanded, according to the examples which hee allegeth, pag. 228. This kingdom of God, saith hee, so cast off by the choice of Saul, is that which our Lord Christ, accor [...]ing to the promise of God by the Prophets, came to restore: And the Gospel nothing else, but the good newes, that God would give them that should believe our Lord Jesus to be the Christ, and submit to Gods govern­ment by him, immortal life, in that kingdom which Christ, after the general Judgment, should restore upon earth, pag. 219, 234, 240, 241. and so Christs kingdom is said not to be of this world, John XVIII. 36. because it comes not till after the general Judgment, that this world is past, pag. 262, 263.

This monstrous conceit is reproveable upon the same grounds as Christianity is receivable upon, from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, upon which, the difference between the Law and the Gospel is stated, and the Old Testament admitted for a figure, representation and introduction to the New; So that, the Law being admitted to proceed from God, the Gospel is inferred, so soon as the true meaning and purpose of God, in providing it for the time as an introdu­ction to the Gospel, is understood. If the maintenance of Christianity re­quire, that the ancient people of God, their Kings, their Priests, and their Pro­phets be taken for figures of our Lord Christ, and of his Church and Christian people; (as the Covenant of the Law, promising civil and temporal happinesse. [Page 102] is a figure of the New Covenant of Grace, promising forgivenesse of sin and e­v [...]rlasting happinesse in being freed from it and the punishment thereof, and perfectly subject to God by perfectly knowing God) Then is the kingdome of Christ, though not of this world, yet in this world, as taking place in them, who, living in this world, neverthelesse acknowledge the inward and spiritual obedi­ence of their soules to be due to him, who, having ransomed them from the bondage of sin, and maintaining them here against it, will one day make them raigne with him in the world to come; Which all Christians, untill the Levia­than, alwaies took to be Christs Kingdome. For though there be those that be­lieve, that Christ is to come and raign again upon earth for a thousand years after the worlds end, and would astonish us into an expectation to see it come to passe within these very few yeares; (whose opinion, as I am farre enough from allowing, so I cannot think this the place to say any thing to it) Yet is it not their intent to say, that this raign of Christ upon earth, is either his kingdom of Grace, which is begun here, by the obedience which wee yield to his Gospel; Or his kingdom of Glory, which is consummate in the world to come, by the ac­complishment of that subjection and our happinesse in it. For after the thou­sand yeares aforesaid are past, then do they expect the general Judgment which all Christians believe, not afore the raign of Christ upon earth, and the kingdom which hee shall resign to the Father, 1 Cor. XII. 24-28. It had been worth this Philosophers wit to tell us, what kinde of Immortality wee are to expect, in a civil government under Christ. When our vile bodies are made like his glorious body, according to the working whereby hee is able to subdue all things to himself, Phil. III. 21. When wee are neither to marry nor to be given in marriage, but shall be like the Angels of God in heaven; Mat. XXII. 30. And when wee shall have been caught up in the clouds to meet our Lord in the aire, 1 Thess. IV. 10. what shall bring us down to live upon earth again? But to leave this singularity to the fa­ther of it, I must needs stand astonished to see an imagination of such conse­quence to all Christianity advanced upon such imaginary grounds. For my part, truly, I fully believe Josephus, that the Jewes, after the Captivity, were governed by the High Priests in chief, so farre as by sufferance of their Sove­raignes, (the Persians and after them the Macedonians) they were governed by themselves. For this must be the reason, why the sons of Mattathias, having been the means to free them from the monstrous tyrannies of Antiochus Epi­phanes, and thereupon, by degrees seizing into their hands the Soveraign Power, found it necessary to make themselves High Priests, which by lineal succession from Aaron they were not intitled to be. After which time, being reduced un­der the dominion of the Romanes; that power which they allowed them over themselves was in the High Priest, so often as they allowed them not a King of their own, as will easily appear by the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, com­pared with Josephus. For first indeed, after the return from Captivity, it seems to mee, that there was a Governor over them for the King of Persia: For Ze­robabel is stiled Governor of Judah, Hag. I. 1. And Nehemiah, who, wee know, had his Commission from the King of Persia, qualifieth himself by the same stile, making mention also of others besides, Neh. V. 14, 15. and it is to be ob­served, that the word or title [...] is elswhere reckoned among the stiles of the Lieutenants, or Governors, of the Chaldean and Persian Empires, Dan. III. 2, 3- 27. VI. 8. Ezra V. 3. VI. 7. VIII. 36. Nehem. VII. 7, 9. Esther VIII. 9. IX. 3. When as therefore, they obtained of their Soveraignes to be governed by their own Nation, shall wee imagine that this power was trusted with the High Priests, because God had made them Soveraignes by the Law; Or because, after the King, whom in that estate they could not have, the High Priest was regular­ly the second person in the Kingdom? For, what a ridiculous thing is it to ima­gine, that, because Josue and the people to goe in and out, at the word of the Lord by Eleazar the High Priest, therefore the High Priest was alwaies Soveraigne? Was it any more for Josue to be ruled by El [...]azar the High Priest, and his answer by Urim and Tummim, not by going into the Sanctum Sanctorum, than for Saul or David to be directed by [Page 103] the answer of the High Priest in those dayes; when, as our Author saith, the right of the High Priest, was, by Gods permission, though against Law, seized in the Kings hands? As for the Judges, they that reade; In those dayes there was no King in Israel, every man did what was right in his own eyes; with their eyes in their head, do thereby understand, that, though the stories of the Idol in Dan, and of Gibea, are last in the book of Judges, yet they are first in order of time, be­fore any Judge had succeded Josue, the Judges having the same power for which Moses is called King in Israel, Deut. XXXIV. 5. For, God being their King by the Covenant of the Law; while hee raised up no Judge to be his Vicegerent in Moses stead, hee governed the [...] by the Elders of the people, to whom, there­fore, Clemens and Eusebius and other Chronologers impute the time between Josue and Judges. When this Government proved not of force to rule so stiff­necked a people, and that God had raised up a Judge, to refuse him, was to refuse God, who, by manifest operations of his Spirit in him, had declared him his Vicegerent. Which is the plain reason why God pronounces, that, in refusing Samuel, they had refused him, and not Samuel. For it is manifest, that they might by the Law demand a King, Deut. XVII. 14, 15. so ridiculous a thing it is to imagine, that, by demanding a King as other Nations had, they rebelled against God, who had made the High Priest their Soveraign: For God expresseth their rebellion to consist in refusing Samuel, whom hee had declared his Vice­gerent, who being once declared, they were no more free do demand a King, by the Law, till his death. Neither doth a Royal Priesthood, or a Kingdome of Priests signifie, that the High Priests were their Kings; But, that they who came out of bondage should now make a Kingdom themselves, to be gover­ned by their own Nation and Lawes, which Lawes should consist much in offe­ring sacrifices to God: And those sacrifices, though, for the future, special per­sons were to be appointed to offer them, yet, in regard they were offered in the name and on the behalf of the people whose offerings they were, the body thereof are justly called Priests; As all Christians, to whom S. Peter challengeth the effect of this promise, are ftiled by him a Royal Priesthood, and by S. John, Kings and Priests; though nothing hinder them to have their Priests, whose fun­ctions cannot be intermedled with by those who are no Priests, without sacri­lege. In fine, the effect of these words is that of the Prophet Esay LXI. 5, 6. that when the people shall be restored, the Gentiles shall be their laborers and Vine-dressers, while they, in the mean time, attend upon keeping holiday, by offering sacrifices, and feasting upon the sacrifices which they had offered.

It will now be easie to maintain, that the Church, when our Lord saith tell it the Church; is not, nor can be understood but of the Congregation of Christi­ans, though at that time, in common speech, it signified no more than the Con­gregation of Gods people. For, supposing that our Lord Christ came to con­tract a New Covenant with those that received him, whereby they became his people on other termes, and to other purpose than the people whom hee had be­fore; That hee conditioned with them to leave all things and take up his Cross; That hee appointeth those that imbrace this condition to be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I say this being supposed, they that before were the Congregation of Gods people, are no more the Congregation of his people upon the same termes, not by the same right or title, though the same persons; The one being his people under a Covenant for the Land of Promise, and the condition of living by Moses Lawes; The other under the pro­mise of life everlasting, (which the former were not excluded from, though not expresly included in it) upon condition of receiving the Christian Faith and con­tinuing in it. Suppose wee, that, when our Lord Christ commanded them to baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, his Disci­ples understood no more by all this, than, that those who should become Prose­lytes to this new and true Judaisme which our Lord preached, should be initia­ted unto the same by Baptisme, as Proselytes then by custome were unto the Law, because wee see, after the resurrection of our Lord, how strange it was to them, that the Gospel should be preached to the uncircumcised as such; Sup­po [...]e [Page 104] wee further, that all the Nation of the Jewes, whether in Jewry or where­soever dispersed, and none but Jewes had received the Gospel of Christ, so as the ancient and New people of God to consist of all the same persons; I say all this supposed, shall make no maner of difference in the case: But there shall be as much difference between the Old and New people of God, considered as Societies and Bodies, constituted, and therefore distinguished by the several Co­venants upon which they subsist, as if they consisted of all several per [...]ons. Should a man judge onely by his bodily eyes, and see the people of Rome as it was when the Soveraign Power was in the people, and again after it had been seized by Augustus, I could not blame him to say, that it was the same people. But hee that should look upon that people with his understanding, as a Civil Society, State, and Commonwealth, and [...]ay it was the same, all men of understanding would laugh at him for it, how much soever the interest of Augu­stus required that it should seem the same to grosse people. Apply this instance to the case in hand, and I shall need say no more. Several things must either have several names, or the same name in several notions or significations. If our Lord took upon him to teach his Disciples the New Covenant hee came to introduce, to make them the New people of God which hee came thereby to constitute, (such is the correspondence between the Old and the New) the old Name served best to signifie the New thing; But in the same sense, it could not serve to represent to his hearers the several termes upon which Jewes and Chri­stians are Gods people. Be it therefore granted, that the word [...] and the word [...], with such additions as the place where they stand requires, signifie that Body, which, at the time when our Lord spoke was Gods ancient people; This signification, if I mistake not, descending from the first bodying of them into a Commonwealth in the Wildernesse, when they might and were all called and assembled together, to take resolution in what concerned their posterity, (as Commonwealths are presumed to be everlasting Bodies) as well as themselves. When, after the return from the Captivity of Babylon, they became dispersed into Aegypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia, and elswhere, (own­ing still or challenging the same Lawes by owning which they first became one Body) such Bodies of them as lived in Alexandria, Antiochia, Ephesus, Nearda, Sora, Pombeditha, or other Cities, and their respective territories, are by the same reason to be called the Synagogues of Alexandria, Ephesus, and so forth; Being by that name sufficiently distinguished from the Gentile Inhabitants of the same Cities and Territories. Neither is it pretended that there is any thing in the original force of the word [...] or [...], why they should not both signifie the same. But suppose our Lord Christ declare an intent of insti­tuting a New people upon condition of imbracing his Gospel, and use the old word [...] to signifie this New people, (as, well hee may use it, for the near correspondence between them) necessary it is that his hearers, understanding him, understand by that terme, something else than the Law had de [...]clared afore. And very convenient it was afterwards, that, when there fell out not onely di­stinction but opposition between the two Bodies, they should be divided by names as they were by affections; As the one is signified in all Church Writers by the name of the Synagogue, the other by the name of the Church, to sig­nifie the distance, which, ought not to be between them, but is. For, though no­thing is more odious than to quarrel about words; Yet, (as in divers things else) the not appropriating the term of Synagogue to the Jewes, as of Church to the Church, which the Fathers throughly observe, is an argument of not well distin­guishing between the Law and the Gospel; (Which gives them a privilege in understanding the Scriptures above our times, because, as I said afore, this is, in my judgment, the prime point of it, notwithstanding all the advantages wee have above them for learning) and a means to convey the same confusion to the minds of our hearers. When therefore wee reade in the Apostles Writings, of the Churches of Judaea and Samaria, the Churches of Syria, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia, when wee reade of the Church of Rome, of Corinth, Ephesus, Philip­pi or Thessalonica; And again, in other places, finde the name of the Church [Page 105] absolutely put, without any addition, to signifie the whole that containeth all the Churches named in other places, so often do wee meet with so many demonstra­tions to common sense, of several bodies signified by those that so speak, as in­tended to constitute one whole Body of the Church. After which nothing can be demanded, but, whether the intention of the Apostles prove them to be so onely in point of fact, or in point of right, which demand a Christian cannot make. Our Lord in particular, when hee answereth Mat. XVI. 18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; cannot be understood to speak of building the Synagogue which Moses had built so long afore.

Here, I would desire him that thinks it so strange, that our Lord should under­stand by the Church, something else than the Jewes signified by it, to ask the Author of the Leviathan what reason hee had, when hee acknowledged, that the Church of Corinth, Ephesus, and Thessalonica is the Body of Christians li­ving in those respective Cities; And whether hee had reason to affirm, that the Church so signified, did do those acts of right which onely Bodies can do, and which hee affirmeth the Church under the Apostles did do. For if these reasons be not reconcileable, it will be worth the considering, what truth there is in that position which is maintained by two, that cannot agree about the reasons upon which they maintaine it. Neither let any difficulty be made from the difference that may arise, who they be, to whom our Lord conmands there to re­sort, whom hee bids tell the Church; one, or more, or all. For, when it is re­solved, that the Church is a Body or a Society, it will be by the nature of the subject manifest, that the right of acting in behalf of this Body must, by the constitution thereof be reserved, either to one or to a few, or to the whole in some principal acts, in others, referring themselves to their Deputies, as in po­pular Governments. And, whosoever they are that this right is reserved to, hee that resorts to them, is properly said to resort to the Church, though our Lord, declaring here the purpose of instituting a Church, declare not whom hee will trust the power of acting for the Church with. Before I go further, I must inferre against the Leviathan; that, seeing the whole Church is signified by the name of the Church absolutely put, without addition, by the Apostles, as the body which all particular Churches constitute; therefore the Church is understood and intended by them, as a Body capable of right, and able to act, though not by all that are of it, yet by persons trusted for it. A thing which hee that had remembred his Creed could not have doubted of. For, though the name of a Church may be said to rest in a number of men not united by any right into a visible Body, yet, one, holy, Catholick and Apostolick Church cannot consist of all persons maintaining the profession thereof, (in opposition to all Societies claiming that name, but not holding the profession requisite) but it must be distinguished by something which it acknowledgeth for Law to ob­lige it, they do not. Again, if the Name of Church in the Apostles, rest upon the bodies of Christians in the Cities of Rome, Cori [...]th, and Ephesus, then can it not now, as of divine right, signifie the several States, Kingdomes, and Com­monwealths wherein Christianity subsisteth. Not onely because the bounds of Christendom are not, either materially or formally the same, with the bounds of those States under which it is now maintained: But chiefly, because, the signifi­cation of that name in the Apostles, once resting by divine right upon those Congregations, can never be transferred upon those Commonwealths which subsi [...]t not by the same right, but necessarily descendeth upon those Bodies, which derive their succession from them, by visible acts of humane right. Against both I further inferre, that the Church, being signified as one by divine right in the Scriptures, can never be understood now to consist in all those States, Kingdoms, and Commonwealths that professe Christianity. First, because several States, Kingdomes, and Commonwealths are not apt to constitute one visible Body, sig­nified by the name of the Church absolutely put for the Body of all Chr [...]sti [...]s▪ For, it is most truly said by Plate, that all States are naturally enemies to all States, but especially those that are borderers. And how should so many ene­mies [Page 106] be signified as constituting one Body? Secondly, and most evidently, be­cause many parts which belong to the unity of the whole Church, and help to make up the whole, are not now governed by Christian Powers, any more than the whole was from the beginning. In fine, whether the Leviathan had rea­son, so confidently to affirm, that the Church can do no act, I report my self to that which hath been said of the excluding of Hereticks and Schismaticks out of the Church; Seeing it cannot be denied to be the act of the whole Body, (that is to say, of those tha are able to act in behalf of the whole Body) which the whole Body is ruled by and obeyes. For, whether wee have record extant of any Council at which they were condemned; or, whether they were condem­ned in that Church where they appeared; In as much, as, upon information of the proceedings, by daily intercourse and correspondence, the rest of the Church sentenced the same, (as finding the Rule of Faith and the Unity of the Church so to do) the excluding of them becomes the act of the whole Church. For how else are so many Heresies and Schismes come to an end with their Fathers? Nay, I will boldly say, that, whosoever died excommunicate, because being ex­cluded by his own Church hee could not be admitted by another Church, who­soever for fear of this, either submitted to that which any Council ever decreed in mater of Faith, or reconciled himself to his own Church that hee might not be disowned by the whole, whatever instances hereof the records of the Church afford, so many witnesses wee have of the acts which the whole Church either did, or was able to do.

CHAP. XV. How the Power of the Church is founded upon the Law. The Power of the Kingdome, Priesthood, Prophets, and Rulers of that people all of divine right. How farre these qualities and the powers of them are to continue in the Church. The sense of the Fathers in this point. That the acts of S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not of force by virtue of the Law. What Ecclesiastical Power should have been among the Jewes, in case they had received the Gospel, and so the State had stood.

ANd now it will not be difficult to answer; that, though the Power of Ex­communicating did not belong to the Synagogue by Gods Law, but by humane constitution, providing for the maintenance of Gods Law, and that of secular Power; yet is it of the Churches right by Gods Law, distinguishing the Society thereof from the Commonwealth. But this will not be effectually, nor sufficiently done, unlesse I make the discourse general, and show how the rea­son holds in other points of that right, upon which the Church is founded. I say then, that, if it be true that S. Paul sayes Rom. III. 21. Now the righteous­nesse of God (and so his Gospel, which proclaimeth that righteousnesse) is mani­fested without the Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; then are wee not to think, that either the Church, or any part of that right upon which it sub­sisteth, can stand by the Law, or be derived from it, otherwise, than as Christia­nity it self, which destroyeth the Law, may be derived from it, because, as S. Paul sayes, it is witnessed by it. For, the Law will not fail to yield us such ar­guments of those rights, as, the correspondence thereof with the Gospel, (that is to say, of the Synagogue with the Church) requireth.

Consider wee then, that, by the Law, God became King of his people, but under God, Moses his Vicegerent; With this provision for succession, that, hee whom God should raise up in Moses stead should be obeyed as Moses, Deut. XVIII. 15—. Besides, wee know there were XII Princes of the XII Tribes from Moses to David, Num. I. 4-16. II, III, VII. 1 Chron. XXVII. 16. XXVIII. 1. And under these Princes, it seems, the Tribes were divided into Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties and Tens, the Captains whereof were made Judges under Moses during the march through the Wildernesse, Exod. XVIII. 21—. Deut. I. 15. And it should seem, that the people continued to be divided by these Thou­sands [Page 107] and Hundreds in the Land, because wee finde, that in Davids time, the whole Land, and not onely the Souldiery were divided so, 1 Chron. XIII. 1, 2, 5. where David, advising with the Captains of Thousands and Hundreds, is said to advise with the whole Assembly of the People. But as for the office of Judges, there is no question but another course is taken by the Law of Deut. XVI. 18. when they should be planted in the Land. For, when order is taken, that Courts be set up in their Cities, it is intimated, that they were to come in stead of those Captains, which had the ministring of Justice in their hands, in the Wilder­ness. And whereas, besides the assistance of these Captains, M [...]ses is allowed LXX more of the Elders of Israel, upon whom his Spirit is departed, to help him in bearing the burthen of that people, Num. XI, 15, 16, 17; Provision is made for succession by the Law of Deut. XVII. 8-13. That there be alwaies a standing Court at the place where the Ark should rest, to which the more difficult causes should resort, from the Courts of inferior Cities, there to be finally decided. Which being to be the seat of Moses successors Judges or Kings, it is not onely the constant Tradition of the Jews, but of it self evident, that this Court did ex­ercise and was to exercise that Power, which was first committed to them that were chosen for the assistance of Moses. Though nothing oblige us to believe, that, while the seat of the Ark was either not declared, or n [...] constantly used, it was alwaies in force according to the intent of this Law.

Beside these Powers established by the Law for the Government of that Peo­ple, wee have the Priesthood tied by the Law to the Tribe of Levi, with divers privileges, or pety jurisdictions, in that quality annexed to it. For, when God commandeth Aaron, that hee and his sons drink no wine or strong drink when they come into the Tabernacle, that they may distinguish between holy and com­mon, between clean and unclean, and teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord had commanded them by Moses, Levit. X. 8-11; it is manifest, that, by this Law, the people is referred to them for resolution in the cases here intended, though what the cases are that are hereby intended, and what rule their resolution should be tied to, nothing hinders, by other Lawes to be de­clared, and limited. And those ancient Doctors of the Jewes seem to have reason, that observe the terms of the Law, Deut. XXI. 5. every cause and every plague shall be according to their mouth; inferring that all [...] (which wee may translate doctrines, but must understand that which the Greek calls [...], or decrees) must come out of their mouth, Siphri 243. Pesicta Zoterta fol. 91. col. 4. and instanding in the causes to be purged by the ashes of the Red Cow, Num. XIX. not as if none could sprinkle those ashes but a Priest, (which is o­therwise ruled by Num. XIX. 17. to be any man that was clean) but because they could not be burnt but by a Priest, Num. XIX. 3. which is by their Law any Priest, Maimoni in that Title I. 11, 12. and because part of them was set a­side for Priests to purifie with, as another part for other Israelites, Maim. III. 4. So, in the causes concerning Wives questioned by their Husbands being jealous, by the Law of Num. V. 15. the causes of murther for which an Heifer was to be killed by breaking her neck, Deut. XXI. 5. And in the plagues of men, hou­ses and clothes, Deut. XXIV. 8. none of which could be decided without a Priest. In this regard, it seems to mee, the Prophet sayes, The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge, and they shall require the Law at his mouth, for hee is the mes­senger of the Lord of Hosts, Mal. II. 7. and in termes Deut. XXX. 10. [...], They shall teach Jacob thy Judgments, and Israel thy Lawes. According to the other Law Deut. XVII. 11. [...], According to the doctrines that they shall teach thee.

Another Power in that people is that of Prophets, which seemeth to be founded upon the Law of Deut. XVIII. 20, 21, 22. where, having commanded that the Prophet which should succeed Moses be obeyed, as Moses, the Law proceedeth to charge them to put to death whosoever should prophesie in the name of strange Gods: And then, giving a rule whereby to discern between a true and a false Prophet, seems to intimate the authority of Prophets. Which was so very great in that people, that, the Kings themselves were to obey them, [Page 108] so long as they had the reputation of true Prophets, (whereupon wee see how they reprove them, Elias Ahab, 1 Kings XVIII. 17. Elisha the King of Israel, 2 Kings VI. 33. John Baptist and our Lord Christ Herod, Mat. XIV. 4. Luc. XIII. 32. though, when their reputation could by faction be questioned, [...]o often were they questioned, condemned, and killed for the messages they brought in Gods name, as the Apostle saith Heb. XI. 37. and as it befell our Lord Christ) Nay further, that, when they taught, that any particular Law should cease for the time, they were to be obeyed, as Elias commanded to offer sacrifice in another place than at Jerusalem, 1 Kings XVIII. 17. contrary to the Law of Levit. XV. 2-9. the Temple being then on foot. Whereby it appeareth, that the Prophets had their authority immediately from God, not depending so much as upon his Law, further than as the acknowledgment of the authority of it to come from God was a necessary condition to the receiving of them for Pro­phets, as I said asore; Seeing the mater thereof might cease to oblige, if they should declare the will of God to be such. The Commonwealth then of Israel subsisting by divine right, (that is, by the appointment of God giving them free­dome, and the command of themselves, upon condition of undertaking the Law) not onely the Kingdom, which is the form of Government limited by the Soveraigne Power placed in one person, whether by the permission of God or his appointment, together with the Ministers thereof, Judges and Magistrates and Officers, but also the Priestly and Prophetical Office, must be understood to stand by the same title.

As for the Church, which wee have seen to be the spiritual Israel of God, and maintain to be one visible body, by virtue of undertaking the Covenant of Grace which the Gospel tendreth; It is manifest, that the King thereof is the Lord Christ, who professeth not to govern it by his bodily presence, but by the Law of his Word, and by the invisible presence of his Spirit, which was to com­mence upon his departure. That, being here, hee appointed XII Apostles as Patriarchs thereof under him, as the XII Princes of the Tribes were under Moses, and LXX Disciples, or Apostles of an inferior rank, under himself also, as they under Moses; But, for the dispatch of such businesse, concerning his Kingdom, as that, which neither the Captains of Thousands and Hundreds, (who were ordained Judges before the LXX were ordained to assist Moses) nei­ther after them the Judges of particular Cities that succeeded them could de­cide. And shall wee not conclude all this correspondence to be as competent an argument, as wee are to expect for the New Testament in the Old, for the constitution of the Church, in the institution of the Synagogue? To wit, that, seeing wee see God hath appointed our Lord Christ, hee, his XII Apostles and LXX Disciples his ministers in governing of it, that hee intended it a visible body, to which the visible right of governing the same might be conveyed, by the reasonable voluntary act of those, in whom, placing the power, hee must needs place the right of propagating the same in his own absence. One point indeed of difference there is, wherein, wee should abuse our selves too much, to seek for any correspondence between the Synagogue and the Church. For, wee suppose the intent of God to have been, that the Law should oblige one people, but the Gospel all that are to attain salvation out of all people, so that there is no particular seat of Gods worship according to the Gospel, to which all Christians are bound to resort, as Jerusalem was the seat of Gods worship which all Jewes were to resort to. And, wee suppose our Lord Christ to be in heaven, where the Princes of Israel and the LXX Elders cannot be present, to assist him with their ministery. Therefore wee cannot imagine that hee appoin­ted his LXX Disciples for a standing Assembly, as, under the Law; But, to be dispersed all over the world, where Christian people should be, though united by the same Rule which all should follow for the preserving of Christendom in u­nity. Let no man therefore any more imagine, that the title by which any Power is held or pretended to be held in the Church, can be derived from that right which the Priesthood held under the Law; So as from thence to inferre, that the Power which the Priesthood had not under the Law is not under the [Page 109] Gospel to be ascribed unto the Church, as it is the Church. For, I do of my own accord allege, that, seeing the Priesthood was purely ceremonial, to figure that expiation of sin which Christ should bring to passe, and therefore to expire when it was brought to passe, it is not possible to imagine, that any right of the Church can be founded upon the right thereof, or derived from it. Neither is it otherwise with the Prophetical Office. The authority whereof, as I have showed, was of divine right under the Law, as depending immediately upon the will of God, that raised them up, and gave them authority by those evidences, which his own Law had made legal; And this, that hee might tye his people the more strongly, by their ministery, and by the evidence of his presence among them, to observe his Law. And yet, in as much as all Christians must believe them fore-runners of Christ, sent to give notice of his coming by such meanes, as God that sent him thought fit, (so that hee, by his Office, is the chief Pro­phet, to whom the Father reserved the full declaration of his will and plea­sure, concerning the alliance hee intended to hold with men) of necessity their office was to expire in him, neither can it remaine in the Church, further than hee, by a new act, may appear to have appointed. I do not here make any doubt that S. Paul argued very well, when hee said 1 Cor. IX. 13, 14. Know yee not, that they which work holy things eat of the holy? That they who wait upon the Altar, take part with the Altar? So also hath God appointed them that bring newes of the Gospel to live of the Gospel. But, hee that will understand this argument, must make up the comparison, by completing the correspondence, between the brin­ging of souls to Christ, by preaching the Gospel, and the sacrificing of living creatures to God, by executing the Law. This correspondence the Apostle himself hath delared to our hands, Rom. XV. 15, 16. Because of the grace given mee of God, saith hee, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, exercising the sacred function of preaching the Gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. And Phil. II. 17. Nay, though I be poured forth upon the sacrifice and ministery of your Faith, I rejoyce, and that joyntly with you all. Where it appeareth, that, by submitting to the Gospel, men become a sacrifice to God, in as much as they dye to the world, and that they who bring them to Christianity are the Priests that offer this sacrifice; And by this Priesthood it is, that the Apostle challengeth a right of living upon preaching the Gospel, as the Priests lived by attending upon the sacrifices of the Law. Which if it be true, then is the Apostles office that Priest­hood under the Gospel, which was to remaine by the correspondence▪ thereof with the Law, and therefor [...] cannot derive any Title from the Levitical Priest­hood, which it maketh void. As for the Office of Prophets under the Gospel, it is plain by S. Pauls Epistles, that it pleased God, among other miraculous Gra­ces of the Holy Ghost, whereby hee evidenced his presence in the Church, to stirre up Prophets in those Primitive Churches, by whom, besides, they might be instructed in the more solid understanding of their Christianity, as may ap­pear in particular by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV. Which being supposed, can any man imagine, that the Office of those Prophets, and the authority which it import­eth, can be derived from the Prophets under the Law, whose Office expired in Christ? His act it must be to give authority to Prophets under the Gospel; and, since wee have showed, that the chief authority which hee left in the Church was left with his Apostles, it followeth by consequence, (which by other Scri­ptures in another place I have showed to have been true) that the Apostles, by their Office, were the chief Prophets of the Church; Though, as, for the con­tinuance of the gift of Prophesie, under the Gospel there is no promise recor­ded, as under the Law there is; So, neither any precept requiring obedience to their Office, as then I have showed there was. In fine, God by Christ de­signed to raise up children to Abraham, which are the new Israel according to the Spirit; Hee hath given the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord that autho­rity over them, which may answer the power of the Patriarchs and Elders of his ancient people under Moses; Hee hath incorporated into their Office under the Gospel, the authority both of Priests and Prophets under the Law, which [Page 110] both were to cease with the Law; Therefore wee are not to derive any Powe [...] of the Church from the rights of the Priesthood under the Law, not to argue, that the Church hath no right to that Power, which the Priesthood, as then, was not seised of; But, whatsoever power was in the Prinees of Tribes and their inferiors, in the Elders and Judges of Israel, for the civil Government of that people under Moses, the same wee must inferre to have been in the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, (and, by consequence, in them to whom they may ap­peare to have committed any part of it) for the government of the Church un­der our Lord Christ; Saving the difference, which the condition whereupon ei­ther people are gathered into one Society importeth; Which is, in them, the possession of the Land of Promise upon the observation of the Law, in us, the Kingdome of heaven upon the Faith of Christ. And therefore in them infer­reth temporal Power in disposing of causes and things of this world, in these, onely the Power of directing in spiritual maters, wherein the Church, by the Covenant of Grace, doth communicate.

This opinion may seem to some man not to agree with the doctrine of the ancientest Fathers, who do many times argue, what order ought to be held in the Church, from that which the Law provided for the Levitical Priesthood; As Clemens Ep. ad Corinthios from the order which the Law had prescribed for the Sacrifices prescribed by it, argueth, that the like ought to be kept in the Church, pag. 53. And S. Cyprian, that, as Eleazar was consecrated High Priest by Moses, before the Congregation of the People, so ought Ordinations to be celebrated before the Assembly of the Church. Which kinde of argument seems to have no force, unlesse wee derive the Offices of the Church from the Levitical Priest­hood; Together with abundance of passages to the same purpose, whereof it shall be enough to have produced these for an example. But this kinde of ar­gument is easily stopped by one instance. For it is manifest, that the like argu­ment, of instruction or exhortation to those that claime by and under the A­postles, may be drawn from divers passages of the ancient Scriptures, wherein the Prophets of the Law are exhorted to do, or reproved for neglecting their Office; And yet no man can go about to derive the right of their authority from the Prophets Office by the Law of Moses. And then it is easily answered, that nothing hinders, the same reason that appeares in the Ordinances of the Leviti­cal Priesthood to be of evident consequence in the ordering of Gods Church Not because the order of the Church depends upon the Priesthood, but because both are from God, who hath expressed those marks of his wisedom in the el­der, that may seem to direct the later, though claiming no title from it. This reason is general. There is another more particular, to be drawn from that which hath been showed, that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, as Governors of Gods spiritual Israel, and therefore those that claime a right answerable to theirs, have in them both the Office of the Levitical Priesthood, and of Legal Prophets, in such consideration, and to such purpose as the effect of those Offi­ces under the Gospel, in the Church, requireth. Whereupon, if at any time the Fathers of the Church do argue, or dispute the Office of those who claime by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, from those things which are said in the Old Testament, concerning the Levitical Priesthood, or the Prophets under the Law; Much more ordinary it is, to finde them grounding the like instructions and exhortations, upon those things, which are said in the Old Testament, con­cerning the Rulers and Judges of Israel according to the flesh. What is more ordinary in Tertullian, Origen, S. Cyprian, Clement, Justine, the Apostolical Con­stitutions, the rest of the most ancient Fathers of the Church, than to draw into consequence the Rebellion of Corah, and the Law of obeying that which the Priests and Judges of every age should ordaine, concerning difficulties of the Law; against Schisme in the Church? Those things which the Prophets, Esay LVII. 10, 11. Jer. 11. 8. III. 15. XXIII. 1-4. Ez. XXXIV. 1-16. pronounce against the Shepherds of Israel; against those that claime under the Apostles in the Church? For the Prophets themselves Esa. LVII. 10, 11. Jer. II. 8. XXIII. 1-4. Ez. XXXIV. 23. do manifestly show, that these Shepherds are the Rulers [Page 111] of the People, distinguishing them both from the Priests and the Prophets. And the interest of Christianity requires, that the promise of raising up better Shepherds, be understood to be fulfilled in the Holy Apostles. Hee that doubts of the sense of the Fathers in this point, let him take the pai [...]s to reade S. Basil upon III of Esay, and see how hee expounds those things which are prophefied against the Rulers of Gods ancient People, against those that offend like them, in ruling Gods Church.

And therefore it is utterly impertinent to the Power and right of the Church, which is observed as mater of consequence to it, in the second Book de Synedriis Judaeorum VII. 7. that S. Paul ordained Presbyters in the Chur­ches, Acts XIV. 22. as himself without doubt had received Ordination from his Master Gamaliel in the Synagogue; For, if the meaning be onely, that hee Ordained them by Imposing hands, as himself perhaps was Ordained, hee tells no newes, for that is it which the Scripture affirmeth. But, if hee mean fur­ther, that S. Paul did this by authority received from Gamaliel, it will he ridicu­lous to imagine, that S. Paul, by the Power which hee had from the Synagogue, was inabled to give that authority in the Church, which the Synagogue found it self obliged to persecute, as destructive to it. Besides, it is easily said, that the Apostles, finding that it was then a custome to Ordaine those Elders, which were wont to be created in the Synagogue, for such ends, and to such faculties as the constitution thereof required, by Imposing hands; And, intending to conferre a like Power in Church maters upon the like order in the Church, which by such acts they institute; held fit to use the same ceremony in ordaining them, which was in use, to the like but several purposes, in the Synagogue. In which case it is manifest, that the Power so conferred cannot be derived from that which the Synagogue gave, (and therefore not limited by it) but by that, which the Socie­ty of the Church, and the constitution thereof requires. As, suppose for the purpose, that, by the Jewes Law, at that time, they created Elders to Judge in criminal causes onely in the Land of Israel; But for inferior purposes, (as of resolving doubts in conscience rising upon the Law, by pronouncing this or that lawfull or unlawfull to be done) in other places; Is it reason therefore to in­ferre, as it is there inferred pag. 325. that when S. Paul faith, 1 Cor. V. 12. Do not yee judge those that are within? hee must not be understood, of any judgment which the Presbyters of the Church exercised there, because, out of the Land of the Land of Promise, Elders were not ordained for Judges by the Synagogue? I say nothing of the point it self for the present, I say it is no argument to in­ferre thus, as is inferred pag. 325. the Elders which the Synagogue made were not inabled to judge out of the Land of Promise; Therefore, in the Christian Church, there was no Power to judge the causes of Christians at that time; Un­lesse wee derive the authority of the Church from the Synagogue. As for that which is argued pag. 328. that; Had they conferred any other power, than the Rules of the Synagogue allowed, they would have been questioned, and perse­cuted for it by the Jewes, either in their own Courts or before the Gentiles, (in as much as the Christians had then no protection for their Religion, which the Jewes had, but as they passed for Jewes in the Empire) it dependeth meerly upon the opinion the Jewes themselves had of Christianity. For, where the Jewes stood yet at a bay, expecting the trial of that truth which the Gospel pretended, not proceeding to persecute the profession of Christianity, it is not to be imagined, that they should proceed to persecute those acts, which were done in prosecution of it. But where the separation was complete, and enmity declared, no man need bid a Jew persecute a Christian, for any thing that hee did as a Christian, nor a Christian to suffer for that, which a Jew should persecute. All the question onely was, how farre both their Masters, that is, the Powers of the Empire would make themselves executioners of their hatred, (Christianity being hitherto tolerated though not protected) till the Lawes of the Empire had declared against Christianity, which at that time it is plain they had not done. As little do I think it concernes the Right of the Church, which is there observed VII. 4. pag. 287. that, Ordination by Imposition of hands was meerly [Page 112] of human̄e institution in the Synagogue, and no way derived from the example of Moses laying hands upon Josue, Num. XXVII. 18-23. which, being a singu­lar case, can no way ground a Rule. For supposing, that, by the Law, a Judici­ary Power, or what ever inferior Right was to be maintained, and conveyed by the Act of those which were legally possessed of it, or the right of conveying it; Let all limitations whereby the way of conveying it was determined, be counted as much of humane right as you please, the power so conveyed cannot be meerly of humane right, being established by Gods Law, with a Power of limiting all circumstances in propagating of it, which are not against Gods Law, but according to it. As for the Apostles of our Lord Christ, (all whose acts, done with intent to oblige the Church, are of force by Gods act of establishing them) all that can remaine questionable is, with what intent they introduced their Ordinances into the Church, which are unquestionably of force by Gods Law, for whatsoever they intended, whatsoever the Synagogue might intend by the like. As for that voluntary conjecture of pag. 315. which makes the XII Apostles, created with Power of Binding and Loosing, so many Elders to de­clare what was lawfull and unlawful in Christianity; I admit all, understood ac­cording to the premises. To wit; that, as there was in those Elders which the Synagogue created, a Power to declare what was lawful or unlawful by the Law of Moses, to make a man capable or uncapable of the society of that people, to which those promises were made, but in every one as his creation limited; So were the Apostles ordained by our Lord, to declare to the world, upon what termes it might be reconciled to God and obtaine everlasting life: And, those whom they prevailed not with, they are therefore said to binde, because they loosed them not. And as they held this Power in chief, and fully to all purposes; So all that claime any part of it under them must claime no more, than the act by which they conveyed it upon them may appear to have limited. But it were too great an impertinence to imagine, that this power depended any way upon that authority which the Law might allow or constitute, even in our Lord Christ, (supposing him a Prophet acknowledged according to the Law) otherwise then as the Gospel depends upon the Law, and the Church upon the Synagogue: in that they give evidence to them, by which they are made void. For, that which our Lord gives his Apostles, is more then the Law was ever able to effect, if the premises be true, though the Law gave competent witness and evidence to it. Neither is there any more force in that which is conjectured in the same place, that the VII, who are created to wait upon the Tables, or common Diet of the Christians at Jerusalem, Acts VI. are also so many Elders, because made by Imposing hands. For, if it be the authority of the Apostles that made Im­position of hands in force to Christians, (though they had a pattern from the Sy­nagogue to move them to introduce it) who shall limit them not to use it, un­lesse they be Elders whom they ordaine? and therefore, who shall conclude that they are Elders, because so ordained?

If these things be true, it will be easie to resolve the consequence of that sup­position, which is propounded in the Preface to that Book. To wit, supposing the Jewes in the Land of Promise had received Christianity at the Preaching of the Apostles, as they ought to have done, and so, that their Estate had continued as it did, (which, for refusing it, was taken away) whether the Civil Law of that people, continuing as it ought to continue, should have had the same Power in Ecclesiastical causes, as it had in ordering all things that concerned the Ceremo­nial Law. For, if so, then no Ecclesiastical Power could have subsisted among the Jewes, and therefore no cause could be alleged, why other Nations, im̄bra­cing Christianity; should not reserve the same Power to their own Civīl Law. For, supposing the Covenant under Moses, to be no more in force at such time as the New is on foot, which the Preaching of the Apostles had declared to be the intent of the Old, at such time as Christ should come; it will follow indeed, that the reason why the Nation was taken away, (that is, the refusal of the Go­spel) ceasing, God might have preserved them in Estate, had hee pleased, but, by the termes of the Covenant which was expired, could not be tied to it. But, [Page 113] supposing hee had preserved them so, wee must then suppose, that the Civil Law of Moses ought to be still maintained among that people, not by the Co­venant, which being expired, and the condition of the Land of Promise holding no longer, when the taking up of Christs Crosse is propounded and admitted by receiving Christianity, the obligation of maintaining the same Civil Law can no further hold, than the reason of maintaining Christianity should require; That is; So farr as the quiet of that people, in the privileges which till then they injoy­ed, would evidently have been for the advancement and maintenance of Chri­stianity, and the preserving of the Lawes which they were alwaies tied to, as e­vidently for the quiet of that people. For, suppose at this hour a Synagogue of Jewes, in the Empire, or in Italy, or wheresoever else they subsist, should re­ceive Christianity; Neither would any obligation of the Law remain upon them, why they should not give it all over to become free denizens of the States in which they dwelt afore their conversion, (which is that, as I suppose, that Chri­stian States ought to propose to them, to move them to imbrace Christianity) neither is there any thing to difference their case now, from those of our Lords time, that injoyed so much of their own Lawes in the hand of Promise. And, supposing that God had been pleased to preserve them in that estate, wee must also suppose, that God, intending his Church as well of the Gentiles as Jewes, intended both to make parts of it upon the same termes. And therefore, that Power which the Apostles left, for the preserving of unity in the communion of the service of God, for which the Society of the Church stands, that, as well Jewes as Gentiles must have admitted, as a part of the Christianity which they professed, bounding the force of their own Civil Laws, upon the same Terms, as wee show, the Civil Lawes of other Nations that received Christianity are to be bounded with in Church maters.

CHAP. XVI. The Church founded upon the Power given the Apostles. What is the sub­ject mater of Church Lawes. The right of the Church to Tithes and Oblations is not grounded upon the Law, though evidenced by it, and by practice of the Patriarchs. Evidence of the Apostles Order in the Scri­ptures. The Church of Jerusalem held not community of Goods. The o­riginal practice of the Church.

HAving thus farre showed the foundation of Ecclesiastical Power, in the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord Christ, (whom wee may justly affirm, to have been the Church materially as so many Christians, but, in virtue and force, as much as the whole Church can ever be) it will not be requisite, to those that consider things a right, to argue, that their Acts and Ordinances must of ne­cessity have the force of Gods Lawes to the Church, as much as those things, which God said alone to Moses in the Tabernacle of Assembling, had the force of Lawes to his ancient people. For, those that consider the beginnings of States from the beginning of the World, shall easily finde, that people were not governed from the beginning by written Lawes, but reasonable and lawfull consent in some person, or quality of persons, (whether of Gods designing or mans chusing) to govern in chief, was a first a Law sufficient to constitute any Commonwealth, as being sufficient to produce all other Lawes, which dissatis­faction should make requisite for determining cōmon differences, either in wri­ting, or by silent custome. Thus was the Commonwealth of Israel constitu­ted under Moses, so soon as that People had received God for their King, and re­ferred themselves to Moses, for the man, by whom they should understand his will and pleasure. Neverthelesse, because the wisedom of God easily foresaw, how lightly those, who presently received him for their King, would be moved to fall away from him to other Gods; (that which was as easie for his wisedom to do) hee gave them presently such Lawes in writing, both for the Ceremonies wherewith hee would be worshipped, as held the most particular difference from [Page 114] those which the Nations worshipped their Gods with; and for their civil conver­sation, as might best distinguish them from all other Nations that were fallen a­way to the worship of Idols. And all this, besides the secret intent of scre­telling and figuring the Gospel in and by the same. This was the intent of the Decalogue first, then, of those Lawes which Moses received in the Mount to be delivered to the people, Exod. XXII, XXIII, XXIV. and lastly, of the ref: which Moses received in the Tabernacle from Gods mouth, speaking with him as God faith, face to face. When God the Father had sent our Lord Christ to publicsh his Gospel, and to declare the intent of founding his Church upon it, when our Lord Christ had declared his intent of leaving the world, and the pro­secution of his Gospel, and gathering of his Church to his Apostles and Disci­ples, then was the Society of the Church founded in as full force of authority, as ever can have been in it since; Though not yet actually a Church, because the materials of it are not men but Christians, that is, such, as by receiving Christi­anity, should come into the communion of it.

Besides, God intending one communion of all that should become Christi­ans out of all Nations; And therefore, pretending to maintains the State of this World, and all the Commonwealths in which the Church standeth, on the same termes which it findeth; dischargeth the Church of all that power to force men to obedience by harm of this world, by which all States maintaine them­selves. Therefore, the Church can pretend no more, than to communicate in some certain particulars, for which the Society thereof is erected, and, in the communion whereof it consisteth. Suppose wee then the Law of Moses to be ceased, as to the outward force of governing the People to whom once it was Law, though not as to the inward intent of introducing the Gospel, to which it was the Preface; Suppose wee the Society of the Church to be ordained, in the communion of those things which Christianity introduceth; I say, those Rules, without which the Unity of the Church cannot be maintained, whatfoever they be called, have no lesse the force of Lawes, than any that Secular States either inact or inforce. Because, as hee that once hath undertaken to take God for his God, under a promise of being a free Israelite, cannot, so long as that pro­session stands, make question of undergoing the rest of Moses Laws, howsoever troublesome they seem; So hee that once hath imbraced the communion of the Church, in hope of life everlasting, is by the fame reason, obliged to observe such Rules, according to which the communion of the Church is in force and use. But the communion of the Church not consisting in anything of this world, onely in the Offices of Gods service, (for, invisible communion in the faith and love of Christ, and all for Christs take, as Christianity requires, is pre­supposed to the visible communion of the Church) no reason can require that they should be many, at least at the beginning. Our Lord Christ, having preached and declared unto his Disciples, that Prosession of Christianity, into which hee appointeth all Chrissians to be Baptized, may well be said to have ordained the Sacrament of Baptisme for a Law to all Christians; distinguishing the Ceremo­ny, by which the Prosession of Christianity is solemnized, from the Prosession it self of Christianity, which, hee that comes to be baptized must have taken upon him for a Law afore. As little question there can be, that our Lord Christ, at his last Supper, instituted, not his last Supper, (for what sense can there be in saying, that our Lord at his last Supper instituted his last Supper?) but the Sacrament of his last Supper, which is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, for a per­petual Law to the Church. Here then wee have for Lawes to the Church; First the Rule of Faith, containing the prosession, upon supposition whereof the Cor­poration of the Church is founded: Secondly, the Sacraments of Baptisme and of the Eucharist: Thirdly, other offices of common Prayers and Praises of God, together with the Hearing of his Word, (common to the Church with the Synagogue) which God is to be served with: And therefore thus farre I have proved, that there is a Society of one Catholick Church, founded by God upon the precept, or the privilege of communicating in the service of God, by there offices of Christianity, equally charged upon all Christians; And consisting in [Page 115] the obligation of maintaining unity, in serving God by the said Offices. Suppo­sing then a visible authority settled in the persons of our Lords Apostles and Disciples, in behalf of the community of Christians; Supposing this community efected into a Society, visible Body, or Corporation of the Church; what­soever can become questionable, (not concerning mine and thine, which Civil Government pretendeth to decide, but) concerning communion in those Offi­ces which God is to be served with by Christians, is virtually and potentially al­ready decided, by the right of doing such acts, as, being done, oblige the Church for whom they are done; Which therefore are the Laws of the Church. Wee see, that the intent and meaning of Christianity is many times quessionable in ma­ters of that weight, or taken to be of that weight, that Christians are not to communicate with those, who, pretending to be Chistians, do believe otherwise. Here, wee have none but the Apostles themselves to have recourse to. None but they have convinced Christendom to believe that their word is Gods word. For, though Moses and the Prophets and our Lord Christ all spake by the same Spirit, in as much as they all intended a secret, which was not to be published till the Apostles preached, the recourse wee have to them is, with intent to argue, and discover by their writings the truth of that, which may become questi­onable in the preaching of the Apostles. What then may appear to be deter-mined by the act of the Apostles, (as the writings of the Apostles are certainly their act) the declaration of the Church, (proceeding no further, than the means provided by God for that purpose will inable the Church to discerne) that this doth appear, will have the force of a Law, to oblige all Christians, not to vio­late the communion of Christians, upon pretense that it doth not appear. So, the rcason of believing, and the evidence thereof, are both antecedent to the foundation of the Church: But the declaration of the Church, obliging those that are within it, not to violate communion upon pretense of contrary eviden­ce, that is the effect of that right and power which God giveth his Church. But there are other acts, which the Church will be as often necessitated to do, as it becomes questionable in the Church, how any of those Offices which God is served with by Christians is to be performed. What times, at what places, what persons are to assemble themselves for that service, as of it self it is not determined, so, were it never so particularly determined by the writings of the A­postles, yet, so long as the world is changeable, and the condition of the Church, by that reason, not to be limited in that service by the same Rule alwaies, the Society of the Church could not subsist without a Power to determine it. The persons especially, that communicate with the Church, if you will have the Church a Society, must be indowed with several qualities, some of them inabling to communicate passively, that is, to joyn in the Offices of Gods service; (For till our time I think it was never quessioned among Christians, whether the same persons might minister and he ministred to in the Offices of Christianity) Then, if some persons be to be set apart for that purpose, of necessity, it may become questionable, by what acts the fame is lawfully done, according to the will of God declared by his Apostles. Further, when it is determined, who, when, where are the Offices of Christianity and the Assemblies of the Church to be celebrated, the least circumstance of matter and form, of solemnity and ceremony, though it make no difference of saith, yet is able to create a cause of separation of communion, that shall be just on the one side. Is it any great Power that is demanded for the Church, by the Original constitution thereof, when it is demanded, that the Church have Power to regulate it self in things of this consequence? Let mee be bold to say, there is never a Company in London so contemptible, that can stand without having the like, excepting the determina­tion of maters of Faith. And therefore it is a small thing to demand, that the Apostles, for their time, should be able to do it by Power from God, so as to be heard in Christs stead; Those that received Power from them, according to the measure of that Power which they received, though they pretend not their acts to be our Lord Christs, as the Apostles, yet, within the bounds of that Office to which they are ordained, they have power from God, determining their [Page 116] persons, though not justifying their acts. Suppose then that our Lord Christ assume a Ceremony in use in the Synagogue, at such time as hee preached, of baptizing those that imbraced Moses Law, being born of other Nations, to sig­nifie and to solemnize the admission of them that undertake Christianity, to the privileges of his New people; I suppose it is the act of our Lord that makes this a Law to his Church, though it was the Power, which God had provided to govern his ancient people, that made it a Law to the Synagogue. It is no more doubted among men of Learning, that our Lord Christ, at his last Supper, made use of Ceremonies practised among the Jewes at their Passeover, in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the outward act whereof hee ap­pointed to consist in those Ceremonies, whereas the inward intent thereof was not known afore; For, whatsoever they knew of Christ, they could not there­by know, that hee would institute the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in those Elements. In like maner, it had been alwaies a custome of Superiors in the Synagogue, (according to that of the Apostle, Ebr. VlI. 7. Without all contradicti­on, the lesse is blessed by the greater) to blesse, and to pray for interiors, with lay­ing hands upon them, or lifting up hands over them. So did the Priests, so did the Prophets, so Isaac, Gen. XXVII. 4, 7, 12, 19, 21, 22. Jacob, Gen. XLVIII. 9, 14, 17. Aaron, Levit. lX. 22. because a man cannot lay hands upon an Assembly all at once. The Priests blessing, therefore is called among the Jewes listing up of hands, and many scrupulous observations there are among them in doing it. Num. VI. 23, 24, 25. So our Lord in doing cures, (as Naaman thought Elisha would have done, 2 Kings V. II.) in blessing his Disciples, Lue. XXIV. 50. and divers the like. If then the Apostles of our Lord frequented the same Ceremo­ny, in solemnizing Ordination, (as praying for the grace of the Holy Ghost up­on those that received it) and in other acts of publick effect in the Church, it cannot be conceived, that any thing but their owne act brought it in force, (though the practice of Gods ancient people gave them a precedent for it) but it must be conceived, that this argues a Society of the Church, where such Ce­remonies are instituted to celebrate such acts with, as were to provide for the maintenance of it.

Here I must not forget the Law of Tithes, and the Title by which they are challenged to be due to the Church. For having made, that this, proved the Church a Corporation, by the power of making Lawes within themselves, of creating Governors, and of Excommunicating; If it be demanded, where is the common stock and revenue of it, (seeing no Corporation can subsist, with­out means, to maintaine the attendance requisite to those things, wherein it is to communicate) it will be necessary to show, that those who founded the Church have provided for this. Tithes are commonly claimed by the Levitical Law; And, it is not easie to give a reason, why other Lawes of the Church should not come in force, or stand in force, by the Law of Moses, if it be once said, that Tithes are due to the Church under the Gospel, because they were as- signed the Levitical Priesthood by the Law. Truly it deserves consideration, whether they that insist upon the Levitical Law, in the claime of Tithes to the Church, do not prejudice the cause which they pretend to maintaine. For if they look into the tenor of the Law, it will easily appear, that Tithes of fruits of the earth are assigned the Priesthood by God, in consideration of the Land of Promise, which hee gave them; And that therefore, the practice of the Jewes at this very day is due and legal, who pay no Tithes of those fruits, be­cause the service, for which they are due, is, by the Law prohibited out of the Land of Promise. Besides, it is manisest, that by the leter of the Law, Deut. XIV. 23. XVIII. 4. Num. XVIII. 12. of all fruits of the earth, onelyCome and Oile and Wine are Tithable; Of living creatures, the Tith goes not to the Levites, (who payed the Priesthood the Tenth of their Tithes) but to the Al­tar, that is, they are to be sacrificed to God. So that by this means, the Priests and Levites themselves paid this Tith, as well as other Israelites, and that, no more to the interest and advantage of the Priesthood, than the Paschal Lambs, which they also sacrificed, for Tithe cattel went to the owners as the Paschal [Page 117] Lambs did, the Law having provided onely, that they should be holy to the Lord, Levis. XXVII. 32. that is sacrificed to God, their bloud sprinkled upon the Altar, and their flesh eaten in Jerusalem. Which Law, providing also, that this Tith he onely of the Herd or of the flock, that is, of Bullock, Sheep, or Goat, that passeth under the rod, they that will derive the Churches claime of Tithes from the Levitical Law, must, by consequence, tye themselves to these Terms; Which would be, not to abridge the claime, but to destroy it. For, though many kindes besides these were Tithable among the Jewes, by virtue of the Constitutions of the Synagogue, yet, that would not advantage the Church, which, forsaking the Synagogue for refusing Christianity, cannot avail it self of the authority of it. And truly, hee that would insist, that the Law is in force, for the payment of Tithes to the Church, will never be able to give a reason, why it should not be in force for observing the Sabbath,) that is, the Saturday) for being circumcised, and keeping all the Festivals and Sacrifices and Purifica­tions of the Ceremonial Law, and much more the Civil Law of that people, (as much contrary to the Civil Law of Christian people, as to Christianity) see­ing that, whatsoever is contained in that Law which is made void by Christiani­ty, must be understood to be void, till it appear to be contained and imported in that Act, which introduceth and establisheth Christianity in stead of the Law. Indeed, I must not say, that the Levitical Law is the onely evidence that is alle­ged for the right of Tithes in the Church. For, every man knowes, that Abra­hams paying Tithes to Metchiseck, the Priest of the most high God, Gen. XIV. 20. and Jacobs paying Tithes, or vowing to pay them, Gen. XXVIII. 22. are al­leged, (as indeed they ought to be alleged) to show, that, paying of Tithes was in force under the Law of Nature, that is, in the time of the Patriarchs, before the Ceremonial Law. In which regard, God faith, that Tithes are his, Levis. XXVII.30. to wit, by a Law introduced afore. And the consequence hereof seems to be more effectual to the Church, than that which is drawn from the Levitical Law, in that consideration, which the Fathers of the Church do presse with advantage enough against the Jewes, that the Patriarchs were the fore-runners of Christians, and, that Christianity is more ancient than Ju­daisme, in regard that the same service of God in spirit and truth, by the inward obedience of the heart, was in being in the lives of the Patriarchs, as the Go­spel requires, before the scrupulous, and precise, and supperssitious observation of bloudy sacrifices, and smoke of fat and incense, and troublesom purifications of the outward man, and the rest of Moses positive Law was required. For, if the Law of Nature, and the conversation of the Patriarchs under it, is indeed the pattern of Christianity and of the life of Christians under the Gospel, expressed by deed, before wee finde it indented for by Covenant; Then certainly, that which ought to be out-done by the Church, is not abrogated by Christianity. But this argument being made, and allowed to be of force, hee that therefore should say, that the Church claimeth this right, by virtue of that Law, whereby it was in force under the Patriarchs, would be presently lyable to peremptory instances, of the difference of clean and unclean creatures, Gen. Vll. 2. Of rai­sing up feed to a brother deceased, Gen. XXXVIII. II. Of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs, and others, which, though then in force, under the Gospel hold not. Wherefore, it is not to be said, that the Law of that time is the act whereby the Church claimes, but a ground, whereupon the act whereby the Church claimes was done. In like maner, hee that should affirm this right due to the Church, by virtue of the Levitical Law, would meet with these exceptions (peremptory as I suppose) that have been advanced. But, when it hath been said and made good, that the Levitical Law, supposing the Gospel ordained by God to succeed it, yields a sufficient ground to argue, that a provision answerable thereunto was to be established in the Church, as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel, between the Synagogue and the Church requireth; I say, this being pre­mised, there remaines nothing in question, but, how the establishing of it may be derived from the act of them, that had the settling of the Church in their hands.

Considering then, that provision is made, by the Law, onely for the mainte­nance [Page 118] of Gods Ceremonial service confined to Jerusalem; (for a powerfull evidence, that the intent of that Covenant expressed no more than the Land of Promise) that the promise of bringing the Gentiles to Christianity, and the real destruction of the Law, with the Place of this service, inferrs, the service of God in all places, in spirit and truth, to succeed it under the Gospel, and by it; that no order, for all Nations that should be converted to resort to this service, can be maintained, without a Society or Corporation of the Church, visibly tel­ling them whither to resort for that purpose; Upon these premi [...]es, it will be of necessary consequence, that the like provision, for the maintenance of that service of God which the Church professeth, be made, to that which had been made, for the service of God at Jerusalem, during the time of the Synagogue. Now the maintenance of Gods service in the Church, (with the maintenance of the Church, subsisting for no other end than that service) consists in the mainte­nance of those persons, that are to attend on Gods service. Of which persons there are two sorts: The first is of those that attend, either upon the Govern­ment of the Church, or else upon the minis [...]ring of those Offices, which God is served with by his Church, unto the Assemblies of his people: The second sort is of those, that, to preserve this temporal life, being obliged to attend upon the imployment of it, cannot spare themselves and their time to attend on Gods service. It was therefore necessary, that Christian people should contri­bute the first-fruits of their goods, in Tithes, and oblations to the Church, by which, those that attended upon the publick government of it, as well as upon ministring the Offices of Christianity, should both maintain themselves, and be trusted to maintain the poor, that, for the necessities of the world, they might not neglect the Osfices of Christianity. And this necessity, necessarily impor­ted, in the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel, between the Sy­nagogue and the Church, but evidenced by the practice of all ages of the Church, to be the effect of the first order given out and established in the Church by the Apostles. The first order that wee finde mentioned by the Acts of the A­postles, to have been held in the primitive Church of Jerusalem, mentioneth expresly onely the provision for the poor. But it is in the first place to be re­membred, that the Apostles had long afore told our Lord; Behold, wee have left all things to follow thee; And if, as it is said there, Acts IV. 35. Distribution was made to every one as they had need; If their Oblations were laid at the A­postles feet, to signifie, that they were put into their power to dispose of, as they should think fit; if the seven men whom they ordained to attend upon that Of­fice, Acts VI. were trusted under them and by them, then is it necessary to conceive, that themselves were in the first place provided for by those Obla­tions.

It will presently be said; That, at that time, the Christians imposed upon themselves a Law to make all estates common, that all might live upon all that every one had: As hath been granted to the Anabaptists; Denying neverthe­lesse, that it was a Law necessarily obliging all Christians, but an order which which they took up voluntarily, as, being convinced, that it was for the advance­ment of Christianity, at that time. And S. Basil, it is plain, supposeth that they all renounced their estates, as Monks did afterwards; Otherwise, hee could not have inferred the duty of Monks from this example, as in the beginning of his short Rules hee doth. Besides, wee have Grotius his conjecture, that those Christians took up the Rule of those Essenes which were married. For, besides the Pharisees and Sadduces, whom the Lord in his Gospel so deeply condem­neth, there was a third Sect of religious people among the Jewes, called Essens, whereof, though some lived continent, some in marriage, yet both, renouncing the property of their goods, contributed all to the maintenance of the commu­nity into which they betook themselves. And these, being no where repro­ved by our Lord, hee conceiveth, the Church of Jerusalem then consisted most of, and therefore their order received by the Church, as easily as introduced by the Apostles. But all this is in vain, onely that S. Basils argument stands upon a consequence, the validity whereof must be disputed in due place, that, if bare [Page 119] Christians did voluntarily part with their goods in that estate, much more are those, that take upon them the profession of Monastical life, bound to do the same. For, nothing can be more evident than this; That no man was bound by any rule, common to the whole Body, to bring in his goods, but every man brought in voluntarily, what his heart prompted him to part with, all being sa­tisfied, that they were to bring in what the maintenance of the Church, in that estate, should require. At least if wee believe S. Peter telling Ananias, Acts V. 4. Did it not remain thine owne while so it remained? And being sold, was it not at thy disposing? Which could not have been said, had hee been tied to dis­pose of it otherwise. And Acts V. 33, 34—how it is said, that they had all things common Acts II. 44. is thus expounded; That there was great grace upon the believers, for neither did any of them want, because, as many of them as had houses and Lands sold them, and brought the prices of the things they had sold, and laid them at the Apostles feet. Neither could it have been any particular commendation for Barnabas, which, for his particular commendation followes there, that hee, having a land, did the like with it. Therefore, neither did they professe the communion of Monks, who were married, nor of Essenes, who were tied to no more than other Christians, to contribute of their estate, what­soever the maintenance of the Church should require, but did contribute whole estates, or parts of estates, as God moved them to do that which they were not bound in that measure to do. Not was it any thing, but, not judging of that primitive estate of Christianity by that which was afterwards practised, though in an inferior degree, that moved men to grant the Anabaptists more than is true, that they were under the Law of community of goods. But I will not here repeat those texts of Scripture which I have produced, nor the arguments which I have made, for the true sense of them, and the consequences drawn, in the Right of the Church, pag. 200-220. which, I suppose to remaine in force, till some body will show mee that they are not. Onely I will particularly stand upon it, that there is no answer for S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 3, 8, 9, 16, 17. Where, the widowes that are so indeed are to be honored with a Pension: The Presbyters that rule well, especially if they labor in the Word and Doctrine, with a double one. Is Timothy commanded to see this done, and no stock provided out of which hee might do it? Why then doth hee not ask the question; Where is the money to do it with? If any Christian man or woman have widowes, (of their near kindred) let them maintaine them, and let not the Church be charged; For, they that take not care for their owne, have denied the Faith, and are worse than In­fidels. And how shall the Church be charged, if it have no stock, nor none bound to have? Therefore I suppose, I have given a good reason, that S. Peter, when hee saith, [...], 1 Pet. V. 3. forbids the Presbyters to domineer over the inferior Clergy, whose Pensions were to come by their allowance. For those Pensions, being allotted to their several Offices, are most properly called [...]. And therefore, (in Clemens Alexandrinus his relation of S. John) reported by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. III. 23. [...], is, to make some one of the Clergy. And Cornelius, of Novatianus, in the same Euse­bius VI. 43. [...]; Because it was not lawfull for him that had been baptized in bed, for feare, (of suffering for his Christianity, which to avoid, baptisme was deferred till danger of death) to come to any place in the Clergy. And I may well take up again here, that which I alleged afore of S. John, commending Gaius, for intertaining those brethren whom Diotrephes would not suffer the Church to intertain: And of S. Paul, commanding Titus to send away Zenas and Apollos with care, that they wanted nothing. For, the same question will be fit to be asked; where they should have money to do it, did not S. Paul or S. John suppose a stock of the Church provided to do it with.

If this kinde of evidence had been used, it would have been easie to have de­rived the Title of the Church to Tithes, in the nature of First-fruits and Obla­tions, whereof they are but a kinde, from the time and practice and constitution of the Apostles, which the History of Tithes findes no evidence for till CCCC [Page 120] years after Christ: But it would have spoiled the designe of the work, if, as it is commonly thought, the designe was to destroy all title of divine right, which the Church hath, to that which is once consecrated to it. I must touch some testimonies here, because the mater is so questionable. That of Basil shall clear mee in the first place, that I bring in no new interpretation of the proceedings of the primitive Christians at Jerusalem; Hee, in Serm. de Instit. Monachorum, argueth against him, that, having made the profession of a Monk, reserves to himself any thing, either of his own will, or of his worldly good, from the ex­ample of Ananias and Sapphira, who, having consecrated their Land to God, by professing to give the price of it to the Church, detained part of the price, and, by detaining it, drew upon themselves that judgment of God which wee know. So also, concerning the words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. XI. 20, 21, 22. I will allege the passage of S. Ambrose, or whosoever writ the Commentary under his name, to show that I do no new thing, when I argue, that they suppose the right of the Church in First-fruits and Oblations. Hos notat, qui sic in Ecclesiam convenie­bant, ut munera sua offerentes advenientibus Presbyteris, (quia adhuc Rectores Ec­clesiis non omnibus erant constituti) totum sibi qui obtulerat vindicaret schismatis causâ. Dissensiones enim inter eos Pseudo-apostoli seminaverant, ità ut oblationes suas zelarentur, (cùm unâ at (que) eâdem prece omnium oblationes benedicerentur) ut ii, qui, ut assolet fieri, von obtulerant, aut, unde offerrent non habebant, pudore corre­pti confunderentur, non sumentes partem. Et tam citò illud agebant, ut superve­nientes non inveniebant quod ederent. Ideo (que), si sic, inquit, convenitis, ut quisque su­um sumat, domi haec agenda non in Ecclesia, nbi unitatis & mysterii causâ conveni­tur, non dissensionis. Munus enim oblatum totius populi fit, quia in uno pane omnes significantur, 1 Cor. X. 17. per id enim quòd omnes unum sumus, de uno pane sumere oportet. Hee sets a mark upon those, who, so assembled in the Church, that, pre­senting their Oblations to the Priests that came first, (Governors not being yet placed in all Churches) hee that offered took all for himself in regard of schism. For the false Apostles had sowed dissentions among them, so that, being zealous of their own Oblations, (whereas the Oblations of all were blessed with one and the same Prayer) they, who, as it is ordinary, had not offered, or had not whereof to offer, were seized with shame and confounded, not getting any share. Therefore, if so yee meet, as eve­ry one to take his own, these things (saith hee) are to be done at home, not in the Church: where the meeting is not for dissentions, but for unities, and the mysteries sake. For, the gift that is offered becomes all the peoples, because, by one bread all are signified. For, in as much as wee are all one, wee are all to take of the same bread. Here you have both the order of their Feasts of Love, and the disorder which the Apostle corrects. The Oblations of all the Congregation made an inter­tainment for all, rich and poor. They were all blessed at once, by some of the Priests; This blessing including in it the Consecration of the Eucharist. For hee saith, that they assembled for the Mysteries sake, that is, for the Sacrament, alleging S. Pauls words spoken of the Eucharist; That all are to take of the same bread, because all are one. Hereby they became the Churches goods, to intertain the Body of it. And they that challenged their Oblations for their own, by complying with the Priests who consecrated them, did it out of zeal to their own faction, that they who were not of it might not partake of their Ob­lations, as those, whom they would not have to be of the Church. What is then the difference between those of Jerusalem and these? There, men laid down estates at the Apostles feet, to maintain this Communion daily, through the year, and continually: As the Scriptures quoted out of the Acts do evi­dence, that it was practised for the service of God, in the Offices proper to Christianity; Whereupon it is called the daily ministration, Acts VI. 1. Here, at Corinth, the First-fruits of their goods, which they offered from time to time, as the maintenance of their Assemblies and Communion required, served the turn. For, when Christianity was propagated, it was not possible, that all Christians should give that daily attendance upon the service of God, for which, those of Jerusalem are commended in the Acts. Therefore S. Chrysostome in ad Cor. Hom. XXVII excellently reasons; That, as at Corinth, they did not [Page 121] contribute their estates, as at Jerusalem; So, the reason was, because this Com­munion was not continual, but upon set dayes; On which, after the Commu­nion of the Eucharist, the Service being done, they refreshed themselves alto­gether with a common internment. I confesse, hee saith, that those at Je­rusalem had all things common, which is to be understood with that abatement which the premises require; So farre as the maintenance of this Communion, required, and, at the good will of those whose hearts God touched to do it. For the rest, that which I say is not mine, but S. Chrysostomes. In the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, you may see, the disorder which hee labors to com­pose grew, about, who should consecrate the Eucharist, and by consequence, about disposing of the peoples Oblations, p. 53, 54. But Irenaeus alone is e­nough to serve my turn. His words are these; IV. 32. Sed & discipulis suis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint, eum qui ex creaturâ panis est accepit, & gratias egit, dicens; Hoc est corpus meum. Et calicem similiter, qui est ex creaturâ se­cundùm nos, suum sanguinem confessus est. Et Novi Testamenti novam docuit ob­lationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo, offert ei qui a­limenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento. And, (our Lord) counsailing his Disciples to offer unto God First-fruits out of his crea­tures, (not as if hee wanted, but that they might neither be fruitlesse nor thanklesse) hee took that bread which was made of his creature, and gave thanks, saying; This is my Body. Likewise hee acknowledged the cup, consisting of the creature which wee use, to be his bloud. Teaching the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church receiving of the Apostles, through all the world, offereth to him that feedeth us the First-fruits of his owne gifts, in the New Testament. So, the pre­cept of Oblations goes along with the precept of celebrating the Eucharist, as provided for the maintenance of it. Againe IV. 34. Et propter hoc, illi quidem decimas suorum habebant consecratas, qui autem perceperunt libertatem, omnia quae sunt ipsorum ad dominicos decernunt usus, hilariter & liberè dantes ea, non quae sunt minora, utpote majorum spem habentes; Viduâ illâ & pauperculâ hîc totum victum suum mittente in Gazophylacium Dei. And therefore (that there might be a difference between the Oblations of slaves, and of those that are free) they, (the Jewes) had the Tithes of their goods consecrated. (by the Law) But, those who have received freedome, do themselves order all their goods to the Lords use, (as those at Jerusalem did) cheerfully and freely; Not giving lesse, as having grea­ter hopes; But, that poore Widow throwing into the Treasury of God her whole li­ving. Againe; Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert, justè munus ejus purum sacrificium deputatum est. Quemadmodum & Paulus Philippensibus ait; Repletus sum, acceptis ab Epaphrodito quae à vobis missa sunt, odorem suavitatis, hostiam acceptabilem placent em Deo. Oportet enim nos oblationem facere, & in omnibus gratos inveniri fabricatori Deo, in sententiâ purâ, & fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firmâ, in di [...]ectione ferventi, primitias earum quae sunt eis creaturarum offeren­tes. Therefore, because the Church offereth with simplicity, justly is her Oblations counted a pure Sacrifice: As Paul saith to the Philippians; I am full, having re­ceived of Epaphroditus the things which you sent, a sweet smell, an acceptable sa­crifice, pleasing to God. For it behooveth us, making oblations, to be found in all things thankfull to God that framed us; Offering with pure mindes, and faith un­fained, with firm hope, and servent love, the First-fruits of those creatures which wee have. You see hee qualifieth that which they sent S. Paul no otherwise, than the Oblations, out of which the Eucharist is consecrated. But chargeth the duty peremptorily upon all Christians, which evidently presupposeth, that it was in force through the whole Church: for hee declareth that they did do that, which hee moveth them cheerfully and freely to do; Making the freedome of Christians the reason, why the Gospel declareth not what is Gods, as the Law did, and so, tying them to more. Tertullian in the place afore-quoted de prae­script. Cap. XXX. saith, that Marcion the Heretick, when hee was admitted into the Church, (out of which hee was excluded afterwards) brought in with him ducenta Sestertia: And, adversus Marc. IV. 4. Adeò antiquius est quod est secun­dùm [Page 122] nos, [...]t & ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit; Quum & pecuniam in primo calore fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae contulit, projectam mox cum ipso, posteaquam à nostrâ veritate descivit. So is that (Gospel of S. Luke) which wee use the more anci­ent, that Marcion himself sometimes believed it; When, in the first heat of the Ca­tholick faith, hee contributed also money to the Church, which was straight cast out with him, when hee fell off to his own Heresie from our truth. How could the mo­ney, that Marcion had brought into the Church with, be cast out with him after­wards, but because hee offered it to the treasury of the Church, and, because, be­ing there, it was with himself disowned by the Church; Which never would admit any offering from any body, that was not admitted to communion with the Church? For how many ancient Canons of the Church are there, in which it is forbidden to receive the Oblations of such and such, to signifie, that they are not admitted to communion with the Church? The Testimonies of Tertul­lian, Origen and S. Cyprian, I leave them that please to peruse in the History of Tithes, Chap. IV. contenting my self, by these few to demonstrate, upon what ground, and with what intent and conscience Christians from the beginning tendred their Oblations, at the celebrating of the Eucharist:

But it will as easily appear, that the Church was owner of goods and posses­sions, which Christians did contribute to the maintenance thereof, even when it was subject to be persecuted, untill persecution was proclaimed; For then, it cannot be doubted, that the Church goods were seized into the Emperors cof­fers. And what evidence more any man can demand for the Corporation of the Church, which Idolaters acknowledged, as long as they tolerated Christianity, I understand not. But there can be nothing so eminent as the charge laid to S. Athanasius, in the Council of Tyrus, and ever after, wheresoever his case was questioned, that, going to visit after the Council of Nicaea, and to put the acts of it in execution in the [...], (which was a Shire of Aegypt next to Ale­xandria, alwaies part of the Diocesse) and coming with a guard to the Cell of one Ischyras, pretending to be a Priest among the Meletians, (whom the Coun­cil had commanded to be subject to Athanasius, and the rest of the Catholick Bishops, upon such terms as I have remembred elsewhere) and his Cell a Church, it fell out that there was a glasse broken, which they pretended to be a Chalice. For it can no wayes be imagined, that this case should trouble the whole Church, as it did, so long as it remained questionable, whether Athanasius was regularly removed or not, had not all the Church presupposed, that Chur­ches, and Altars, and Chalices, consecrated to God, are the Churches goods, and that the irreverence which might be showed them, might charge upon one of Athanasius his rank, a presumption of so much irreverence to Christianity, as should render him unworthy of it. Therefore Athanasius, in his Apology, ne­ver allegeth any thing to the contrary, but many things to evidence, that there was neither Church, nor Altar, nor Chalice there. The order of the Emperor Aurelian given for the execution of the sentence of the Christian Synod at An­tiochia against Paulus Samosatenus, is expresse and peremptory to the purpose. How can the Soveraigne acknowledg the House of the Church, (which is in our Language, the Bishops Palace at Antiochia) but hee must be understood to ac­knowledge, that which the Christians had disposed of to the Church to be done by virtue of their Law, which hee, for that time, conniving at Christiani­ty, alloweth to be the Churches. The good Emperor Constantine the Great, in restoring to the Church the goods and possessions which had been ravished from it in the persecution under Diocletian, and should then be found in being, (as you may see by Eusebius de Vitâ Constantini II. 36-40. Eccles. Hist. X. 5.) in­tendeth not hereby to erect the Church into a Corporation, by a secular capaci­ty of possessing lands or goods without interruption of Law; but, professing to restore that which was the Churches before, acknowledges, as a Christian, that right which Christians acknowledge, of holding Land and Goods, to be in the Church. For, when wee reade afore, in any records of the Church, where the persecution of Diocletian is mentioned, (as in Eusebius Eccles. Hist. IX. 9.) that Churches and Oratories were pulled down, and the books of the Scriptures [Page 123] burned; were not these Churches and Oratories and Books the common goods of the Church, dedicated to the service of God, but given the Church for the purpose of it? When Constantine writ that famous letter to Eusebius, to pro­vide fifty Copies of the Bible, was it not to furnish the Churches which hee had erected at Constantinople? There is nothing more ancient in the records of the Church, than the mention of Titles and Coemiteries, belonging to the Church at Rome; nor any thing more effectual to convince this intent, than the name and condition of the same. The maner was at Rome to set marks upon eschetes▪ and confiscations, and all other goods belonging to the Exchequer, whether moveable or immoveable, intimating, that the Exchequet claimed them, and that no man was to meddle with that Title, for so it was called. And truly, the same was the reason, why they set a bodily mark upon souldiers, to signifie them to be the Emperors men, as private men did on their goods, which occasi­oned the allegory of the character of Baptisme, the reason whereof, S. Austine, by that comparison declares. When therefore a piece of ground or a house was given the Church to exercise their Assemblies in, the name of Title evidences, that a mark was set upon it, (whether a Crosse, as Cardinal Baronius would have it, whether visible to the world, or onely to those of the Church, I dispute not now) to distinguish the Churches goods from the goods of private persons. And therefore what can be more clear, than, that the Church had goods? In the life of Alexander Severus, you have a question about a certain place, chal­lenged, on one side, by the Christians, on the other by the Taverners, popi­nariis, (whom, with the like, hee had made Corporations, as the same Life rela­teth) decreed by him in favor of Christians. It will, perhaps, be said, that it is enough to justifie those that have seized the goods of this Church, that the Tenth part, and those kindes, of which it is to be payed, are not determined by Gods Law. For, if it be once granted, that the act of man is requisite to designe what hee will please to indow the Church with; That the act of Soveraign Power is requisite, to make such or such or all kindes Tithable through each State, it will be in the Soveraigne Power, either to recall its own act, or, to limit or void the acts of particular persons. To this my answer shall be; That all this dis­pute proceeds upon a supposition, that the men are Christians, to whom it ad­dresseth. Seeing then it is a part of Christianity, to acknowledge the Church a Corporation founded by God, and so, capable of rights as well as of goods; Whatsoever, by any mans voluntary act it stands indowed with, as the Church of England is with all Tithes, some man may have force, no man can have right to take from it. But, I have showed further, that all Christians, whether publick or private persons, are bound to indow the Church with the First-fruits of their goods: Of which First-fruits, the Tenth hath been the part most eminently li­mited, under the Lawes of Nature, Moses, and Christ. Therefore, the persons whereof a Commonwealth consisteth may be Christians, in giving their goods, as the necessity of the Church requires, but the Commonwealth it self cannot be Christian, but by securing such Christian acts from violence. Which if it be true, so farre must any State be, from seizing such goods, that the first thought thought should be, to restore the breach made upon Christianity by such feizures, For the intent of consecrating First-fruits and Oblations, (whether presently to be spent, or to make a standing stock) to the maintenance of one Commu­nion and corporation of the Church, is evidenced by the same means as our common Christianity; That is, by the Scriptures, expounded by the original practice of Ghristians. And therefore, supposing Christian States were mistaken in accepting the Obligation of Tithes as from the Levitical Law, they were not mistaken, either in their duty to indow the Church, or in limiting the Tith for the discharge of it; suppo [...]ing it necessary, that all being become Christians, the rate should be limited, and that the Tenth, whether alone, or with other conse­crations, might serve the turne. And therefore there can be no difference be­tween the Churches goods, that is Gods, and private mens, but the difference between mans Law onely, and Gods and mans Law both, speaking of those Churches upon which mans Law hath once settled that, which private [Page 124] or publick devotion hath once consecrated to God. For consider, that there is neither Kingdome nor State to be named before the Reformation, that ever un­dertook to maintain that Christianity which it professed, wherein there hath not been a course taken, to settle Goods consecrated to God upon his Church, for the maintenance of Gods service, that it might not lye at the casuality, of Chri­stians behaving themselves as Christians should do, whether the service of God should be maintained or not. For, though, while no man was a Christian, but hee that had resolved to undergo persecution to death, for the profession of Christiani­ty, it was not to be doubted, that, hee who had given himself up to the Church; would not stick at giving up his goods, so farre as the necessities thereof should require; Yet, when all the world was come into the Church, (whether for love of God, or, of the World that favored the Church) what disorder might have insued, had not a standing provision been made, it is obvious to common reason to imagine: Or rather, what disorder did insue for want of it, it is evident, by the provisions of the Civil Law of all Christian Kingdoms and States, that pro­ved requistie to prevent it for the future. Whether or no the Tenth part were due by virtue of the Levitical Law, seeing it appeareth by that which hath been said, that, from the beginning of Christianity, a stock of maintenance was due to the Church, out of the First-fruits of Christians goods, offered and dedicated to God, whereof Tithes were from the Law of Nature before Moses one kinde; They might be bad Divines in deriving the Churches Title from the Levitical Law, who had not been good Christians, had they not discharged themselves to it; But they can be neither good Divines nor good Christians, that discharge the Church of the rights so purchased to it. Alwayes, this being the course of maintaining the Church from the beginning, the evidence for the corpo­ration of the Church is the same with the evidence for our common Christiani­ty; To wit, the Scriptures, with the consent of all Christians to limit the mea­ning of it.

And therefore, as every Church is a Body by it self, and all Churches not­withstanding bound to make one Body, by visible communion one with ano­ther, which Body is the Catholick Church; So is this common stock of the Church provided for the maintenance, first of that Church whose it is, then, of the whole Church, by defraying the charge of those correspondences whereby the unity thereof is intertained. In the place afore-quoted out of my Book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State, you shall finde those Scriptures alleged, which speak of the Collections of other Churches for the maintenance of the Church of Jerusalem, the then Mother Church of all Churches. And in this Book afore Chap. X. you have evidence, that the correspondence between all Churches, by which the communion of all was to be maintained, was institu­ted and set on foot by the Apostles. You have therefore evidence, that such a stock was requisite, even in regard of correspondence between several Churches, when you see upon what businesse it was spent. Whether this correspondence were exercised in holding of Councils, or by dayly intercourse and intelligence, the case was alwaies the same as at the Council at Ariminum, where the Fathers complained that they were detained against their will, as to the great charge of them, who were to maintaine their Representatives there. And if my memory faile not, the British Bishops particularly in Sulpitius Severus, that their Churches were not able to maintaine them there at the charge which was requisite. For Constantine indeed, at the Council of Nicaea, had furnished not onely the wa­gons of the Exchequer to convey them to the place, but also the greatest part, if not their whole charge during the action. But his son, intending by duresse to constrain them to decree that which hee intended, (because hee knew, that, if they decreed it not, his authority would be of no more effect to induce the Church to receive it, than the Heathen Emperors had been to induce it to renounce Christianity) using his Soveraign Power in commanding his subjects to assemble and continue assembled, layed for a further burthen and duresse upon them, to continue their at their own charge, that is, at the charge of their Churches. I [Page 125] will conclude with a memorable passage of S. Gregory Nazianzens, in Julianum I. where hee tells us, that, among other designes os the Apostate to extinguish Christianity, one was, to bring the Lawes of the Church into use among the Gentiles, as the means to propagate and maintain their Idolatry, which was vi­sibly the means to propagate and maintain Christianity. Indeed it is a testimo­ny that concerneth all parts of Church Law, and evidences all the parts of Ec­clesiastical Power that I have insisted upon. But because it mentioneth partly the erecting of Hospitals, for the correspondence of Christians, I have put it here in the last place, where I allege the practice of the Church for the corporati­on of it: [...]. Hee was ready to set up Auditories (in stead of Churches) in every Ci­ty, and Presidents of higher and lower States, readings and expositions of the do­ctrines of the Gentiles, both, which compose mens manners, and the more abstruse. Also in part, the forme of Prayers, and censuring of sinners according to their measure. Of Catechizing also and Baptizing, and other things which manifestly be­long to the good order that is among us. Besides, to found Hospitals to intertain stran­gers, and convents of Virgins and Monasteries, and the humanity which wee use to the poore. Also, beside the rest of our order, that of leters of mark which wee give to those that need, when they travail from Countrey to Countrey. Julian belie­ved not that these Orders came from God, because hee believed not Christianity. Those that can believe as hee did of these Orders, why not of Christianity? Those Christians whose purses maintained the charge of them, would not have been so forward, had they thought themselves left free to themselves, without obligation from our Lord by his Apostles. And, to that which hath been said, to make evidence of this Law, and other Lawes whereby the Church was made a Corporation by the Apostles, I will here desire the Reader to adde all that hee shall finde written by Epiphanius, in the end of his work against all Heresies; concerning the Rules and customs of that one Church, which continueth so only by separating from them. Perhaps, they who can think the Constitutions and Ca­nons of the Apostles meer fables, because the books were not written by them to whom they are intitled, will not believe that Epiphanius would have writ the same things, had they not been real and visible.

CHAP. XVII. The Power of Excommunication in the Church is not founded in the Law. What argument there is of it in the Old Testament. The allegorical sense thereof is argumentative. It was not necessary that the Christians should incurre persecu­tion for using the Power of the Keyes, and not by virtue of the Law.

I Am now come to the point principally insisted on, for all this is premised for a ground to that contradiction which I must frame, to that which hath been said against the Power of Excommunicating in the Church. To which, insisting upon the premises I say; That I am so farr from pretending that right to depend upon the Church by virtue of the Law, that I insist expresly, that there was no such thing introduced by Moses Law, or in force under the Law of Nature in the time of the Patriarchs; And not onely admit, but, as for my Interest, demand all that for truth, which the first book de Synedriis hath proved at large, and saved all them that believe it the pains of doing i [...] again; That Excommunication came in force in the Synagogue after the Captivity, and in the dispersions of the Jewes, when they, (desiring, as their duty was, to maintaine Gods Law by which they were to be governed, and not having the Power of [Page 126] insticting Penalties requisite to maintaine it, as not being inabled by their So­veraignes) devised a course that might appear reasonable, because necessary, up­on [...]upposition of their own Law, and yet lesse presuming upon the Soveraigne Power; Which was, to devest those that should incurr that forfeit, of the pri­vilege of a Jew, and to banish him the conversation of his native people, either in whole or in part, as the penalty was to be measured by the offense. And truly, I count my self with the world, obliged to him that hath imployed so much learning to show it, and, that it will onely become the wilfulness of them, who neither understand the Scriptures themselves, nor will learn of them that do, to imagine an Ecclesiastical Court distinct from the Secular, under the Law, in which the Priesthood were Judges: And to take paines, to show themselves uncapable of truth, by seeking to maintain that, which hee hath showed to be evidently false. But this being granted, I do not understand what reason can be imagined, why it should follow that, under the Gospel, there should be no such Power in the Church. For, had it been never so clear, never [...]o much granted, that such a Power was in force under the Law, yet, could it not be derived upon the Church, mediately or immediately, from some act of our Lord Christ foun­ding his Church, it would not have served the turne. The Law of Moses conti­nuing Scripture to the worlds end, but Law to none but to those whom it was given to oblige: That is, the people that subsisted by receiving it, and that for that time when it was intended to be in force. But if it may appear, that the Church is made one Society and Communion by the act of them that founded it, and that such it cannot be, without a Profession, limiting or uniting the right of that Communion to him that makes it, nor stand such, without power of denying the same to him that visibly makes that Profession and visibly failes of it; Whe­ther any such thing were in force under the Law or not, under the Gospel it shall not therefore fail to be in force. True it is, that this cannot be true, un­lesse a competent reason may be made to appear, of something answerable to it under the Law, in the same proportion, as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel, between the Synagogue and the Church holds. But such a one will not be wanting in this case.

They that argue from the excluding of Adam out of Paradise, to the putting of sinners out of the Church, if they argue no more than a figure discern [...]ble by the truth, when competent evidence of that truth is made, conclude not amisse. For, though this be before the Law, yet, not before the purpose of God in figu­ring Chri [...]ianity was set on foot. And, that Paradise, as it is a figure of heaven and the joyes thereof, so likewise is a figure of the Church upon earth, is neces­sarily con [...]equent to the reason, upon which the mystical sense of the Old Te­stament is grounded. So likewise under the Law, the shutting of Lepers out of the camp of Israel, (answerable in the Jewes Law to the City of Jerusalem, and, supposing the truth of the Gos [...]el, a figure of the visible Church) neither signified any cause, nor produced any effect, but of a legal incapacity of con­versing with Gods people; But, supposing a spiritual people of God, intitled, by their profession, to remission of sins and life everlasting, a visible failleure of this profession is the cause which, producing invi [...]ble separation from God, is competent to produce a visible separation from the Church, which is visibly that people. The penalty allotted to the neglect of circumcision is; The childe to be cut off from his people: Which penalty, beginning there, is afterward much frequented by the Law in many cases, the penalty whereof is, to be cut off from Gods people. Signifying, (as hee hath learnedly showed, and saved mee the pains of doing it again) that such a forfeiture should make him that incurred it lyable to be suddenly out off by Gods hand, from the land of his people. And, because it was an evident inconvenience, that a civil Law should leaye such faults to Gods punishment, who never tied himself to execute the punishment, though hee made the transgressor lyable to it, therefore the Antiens of Gods people, according to Gods Law, have allotted to such faults the punishment of scourg­ing, as next in degree to capital, for grievous. But there are several other crimes mentioned in the Law, which, who incurres, is, by the same Law, cut off from [Page 127] Gods people by being put to death. I demand now, what correspondence can be more exact, (supposing, the Law that tenders the happinesse of this life in the Land of Promise to them that undertake and observe it, to be the fore-runner of the New Covenant, that tenders remission of sins and life everlasting upon the same terms) than is seen betwixt the invisible and visible forfeiture of the privileges of Gods people in the Land of Promise, and the invisible and visible forfeiture of the Communion of Gods people, as the sin is notorious or not? Nor will it serve his turn to scorn S. Cyprian, urging, (as you may see by my book of the Right of the Church, that Origen and S. Austin do, pag. 27.) that, Excommunication in the Church is the same, as putting to death, under the Law; As proving that by a meer allusion, which, if it have not other grounds, is not like to be received. For, S. Paul saith well, that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. III. 15. spea­king of the Scriptures of the Old Testament; Because, without faith in Christ, upon the motives which his coming hath brought forth to the world, they are not able to do it; but, supposing those motives received, do inable a Christian to give a reason of that different dispensation, whereby it pleased God to go­vern things under the Law; and so, not onely to attain salvation, but with wisedom to direct others in it, and take away stumbling blocks o [...]t of their way to it. And in this case, should a man go about to perswade Christians to ad­mit such a Power over them, by no other argument than this, well might the mo­tion be scorned by them to whom it were tendred. But, there being no pre­tense in this allegation, but, of rendring a reason for a Power of the Church from that of the Synagogue, and the Fathers so well stated in the difference be­tween the Law and the Gospel, as, not easily chargeable of the indiscretion to use ridiculous arguments; it is to be maintained, that they have given such a rea­son from the Old Testament as is to be required, by such as would be wise to sal­vation by it.

Indeed, I could not but observe in the late History of Henry the Eight, p. 157. where the Writer imagines what reasons Cardinal Woolsey gave the Pope, for his consent to the dissolving of some little Monasteries, for the erection of his Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich; that hee alleges among others; That the Clergy should rather fly to Tropes and Allegories, if not to Cabbala it self, than permit, that all the parts of Religious worship, though so obvious, as to fall easily within common understandings, should be without their explication. The intent whereof may just­ly seem to charge the Clergy, to have advanced the mystical sense of the Scri­pture, as a means to make the Religion they maintaine more considerable, for the difficulty of it. But, I would there were not too much cause to suspect, from o­ther writings of the same Author, a compliance with Porphyry, Celsus, Julian, and other enemies of Christianity, that have not spared to charge our Lord Christ and his Apostles with abuse and imposture, in alleging the Scriptures of the Old Te­stament impertinently to their purpose, though here hee charge onely the Clergy for that wherein they follow his and their steps. To mee, I confesse, it smelled so ranck, that I conceived my self bound to cry out upon the venene, that may be so closely couched under the words. But, to those that believe the truth of Christianity, arguments from the mystical sense of the Old Testament must not seem contemptible, (those of our Lord Christ and his Apostles being such) provided, that the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel be preserved upon the right ground, and in the right grain. Provided also, that no more waight be laid upon them, than they are able to bear; To wit, no more than wee can lay upon the Law of Moses, in proving the truth of Christianity. Which, if wee premise not the miracles of our Lord Christ, and his Apostles, done to witnesse their commission from God, together with the excellence of Christianity above Judaisme, even in the ballance of reason; If wee make not good and constant correspondence between both, wheresoever the ground of that correspondence takes place, wee allege a reason that needs a reason to de­fend it. But if wee do that, wee imprest all the miracles done by Moses to introduce the Law, to depose for the truth of the Gospel: Wee furnish our [Page 128] selves of a magazine of argument, in all points of Christianity, to convince those who have received it, what, the con [...]itution of Gods ancient people, and the truth then on foot will inferre, upon the correspondence which they are supposed to hold, with Christianity, and with the Church. I do then freely grant, that Excommunication stood not immediately by Gods Law, among Gods ancient people, though by that Power which Gods Law had vested on them that first introduced it; Were it Esdras, (by commission from the King of Persia, as to the Power that inforced it with means to constraine, though by the Law, as to his Title, before and against other men by the Law) or whosoever it were be­sides. But I will allege evidence for it after the return from Captivity, which, to my knowledge hath not hitherto been alleged; Namely, that which is called in the Greek Bible the third Book of Maccabees, where it is r [...]lated, that, when some of the Jewes at Alexandria had obeyed the Edict of Ptolomee Philome­tor, comman [...]ing to worship an Idol which hee had set up, the rest of the peo­ple [...]. Abhorred those of them that had turned Apos [...]es, and conde [...]ned [...]em as enemies to the Nation, depriving them of mutual conversation and the henefit of it. III. 25. Upon the consideration of which pas­sage I eas [...]ly conclude, that of 1 Macc. XIV. 38. not to be well understood, n [...] transl [...]ted, where it is said that Razias [...]: signifying indeed that, in the [...]or [...]er times, (un­der Antiochus Epiphanes, when so many Jewes departed from their Law) hee had brought in the decree of not mixing Judaisme: That is to say, that hee had been the means of passing a decree, that those who stuck to their profession should not comm [...]nicate with the Apo [...]ates. These things were done by vir­tue of the Law, against the will of their Soveraignes, and therefore Philometor complaines of them for it, 3 Macc. III. 16. but it is by virtue of his decree, be­ing his subjects, that they put them to death aft [...]rwards, VII. 8, 9, 10. I do al­so grant, that, the putting of a man out of the Synagogue, (which, I admit to have come in by the act of those men, who, n [...]verth [...]lesse, had their authority originally from that act of God; which made them a people under those Lawes) imported a great abatement of the temporal privilege of each Jewes estate, in as much as it is evident, that, whosoever was banished the conversation of Jewes, in whole or in part, was, at the same rate, abated the privilege of a Jew, which they held, by the declaration of their Soveraignes, to maintain them in the use of their own Lawes. For, the privilege which a man holdeth among his people whereof hee is a native, will appeare of what consequence it is, when hee comes to live among strangers. But, I do not therefore yield, that, to be ex­communicate out of the Church, by the original constitution thereof, and the Law of God, imports the abatement of any secular privilege: Because of the dif­ference between the Synagogue and the Church, which God appointed to be gathered out of all Nations, under the condition of bearing Christs Crosse. For, such a company refusing their Communion to such as they exclude, can neither prejudice their persons, goods, nor fame; which, being doubtfull to the world, so long as they professe the Religion which the world owns not, returns, by consequence, when they quit that Religion, to return to the Religion of the State. Rather, as the Leviathan truly sayes, they make themselves liable to all the persecution, that may be brought upon them by such, as think they have had ill measure by being put out of the Church.

Now, to that which is argued; That, because the Christians went for Jewes a­mong the Gentiles, at the beginning of Christianity, injoying Jewes privile­ges, and thereby the exercise of their Religion, therefore, the Excommunicati­ons used by them must needs be such, as were in force among the Jewes accord­ing to Moses Law, that is, by the Power which it establisheth; The answer is by denying the consequence. The reason this: The Christians at the begin­ning communicated with the Jewes in that service of God which they used, as well in the Temple, as in the Synagogue: How should they have opportunity to make them acquainted with the Gospel otherwise? But, as sometimes they [Page 129] assembled secretly among themselves for fear of the Jewes, Acts XII. 12. John XIX. 38. so also, besides those Offices which they served God with among the Jewes, in the Temple or in the Synagogue, they acknowledged others, which they held themselves bound to, and for which they retired themselves from the Jewes, Acts I. 13. II. 42, 46. III. 23. V. 42. VI. 2. The ground of their Communion with the Jewes, Christians know to have been the hope of win­ning them to be Christians, (lasting while that hope should continue the ground of serving God in their own Assemblies) the obligation of Christianity for ever to continue. In regard of the conversation and communion which they held with the Jewes, whether Civil or Religious, they were subject to be excommu­nicated by the Jewes. That is part of our Lords Prophesie, John XVI. 2. They shall put you out of their Synagogues; Nay, the time cometh, that whoso killeth you, shall think that hee doth God service. But, whatsoever the effect of these Excommunications might be; being driven, and confined, in a maner, to the Communion of the Church (by being excluded, or at least abridged the Commu­nion of the Synagogue,) must they not needs forfeit their Communion, by not fulfilling the condition by which they held it? Or could they forfeit it upon o­ther gronnds, or to other effect, than those, upon which, and to which they held it? Indeed, I will not undertake to give you many Scripture examples of Excommunications during that time. For, when it appeared, that, the Apostles discerned the secrets of mens hearts, and inflicted death on those that proceed­ed hypocritically in their Christianity, it is no mervail, that none of the rest durst joyne themselves to them, as S. L [...]ke informes us, Acts V. 13. that is, of those that were not perswaded sincerely to imbrace and untertake Christianity. And, Excommunication is onely for those who appear not to be sincerely Christians, denying it, either by expresse profession, or by consequence of their actions in­consistent with it. Simon Magus may well be reckoned the first: Who, being sentenced by S. Peter to have nor part nor lot in this Word; that is, in any thing which Christianity pretendeth to give, (because it appeared, that hee had pro­fessed it out of hope to learn how to do such strange feats, as might advance the credit and ends of his Magick) is by him exhorted indeed to repentance, but so, that the Apostle engages not himself, (that is, the Church) to pray for him, as not satisfied yet of the truth of his repentance and conversion to Christiani­ty, Acts VIII. 18-24. Which is the very practice of the primitive Church, (as I have showed more at large in the Right of the Church, pag. 17-27.) towards Apostates, Murtherers, and Adulterers, whom many times, and in divers parts they restored not to the Communion of the Church; (As counting it very dif­ficult for them that had failed so grosly, to give competent assurance of sincere Christianity) though exhorting them to repentance, and giving them hope of forgivenesse from the goodnesse of God, when they found not reason to ingage the Church, by restoring them, to become the warrant of it. In consequence to this passage of S. Peter with Simon Magus, and in consideration of those Texts of the New Testament which I have handled afore, though I acknowledg a Power of excommunicating in the Church, yet I do not imagine that any man could be absolutely excommunicated, further than this severity of Discipline was in force, which refused Penance to some of the most grievous sinnes. For who­soever was, or might be, by the custome in force, re-admitted upon Penance, is rather excommunicate by his own act if hee refuse it, than by any act of the Church that requires it. But in as much as, whosoever is refused communion till hee perform his Penance, is absolutely refused not performing it, there is never a Penitential Canon in the records of the Church, never a passage mentioning Penance in any of those that writ before the Canons of the Church were in writing, that deposes not for a Power of excommunicating in the Church. As for those whose sinnes were allowed no hope to be re-admitted; though they were absolutely shut out of the Church, yet, in as much as they were sent to God with hope of mercy, they were saved, if saved) by that Key, which, by authority as well as knowledge, let them into heaven by shutting them out of the Church. But suppose this case may be understood otherwise; for the possi­bility [Page 130] of the thing, those that were subject to be excommunicated by the Syna­gogue, are not therefore disabled to excommunicate one of themselvs, (any more, than those who now depart from the Church of Rome, are disabled to excom­municate one of their own) though wee suppose them to passe for Jewes to the Romanes their Masters, and to injoy thereby the exercise of their Christianity. For so long as their Interest obliged not the Romanes to distinguish between carnal and spiritual Jewes, it is no mervail, if, allowing the Jewes to governe themselves in the Land of Promise, they allowed them also to persecute those whom they took for Apostates, though their own subjects. But, when the per­secution upon the death of Steven ceased, (whether by the conversion of Paul, or by the death of Herod, or whatsoever might move the Jewes to surcease, not the Romanes to forbid it) no mervail if the Romanes maintained that liberty which the Jewes tolerated, (that is, persecuted) not in those whom they held A­postates. For, if the Romanes themselves, in after times, did not alwaies perse­cute Christianity when they allowed it not, is it any thing strange, that the Jewes, who held their own Religion from the meer grant of the Romanes, should finde cause, not to persecute their Apostates, as they counted the Christi­ans, with that Power which they were allowed by the Romanes? This being the case of the first Christians in Palestine, it will be easie, thereby to take mea­sure, how it must stand with them in the dispersions of the Jewes, to whom they were to bring the Gospel in the first place. For, suppose it intertained with that repute among them, which might preserve it from being persecuted, the fore-said reason would oblige the Christians to communicate with the Jewes, as well in the service of God in the Synagogue, as in civil converse; Though obliged moreover, as they should be able, to assemble themselves for the ser­vice of God as Christians. So the Christians of Antiochia, whom Paul and Bar­nabas assembled in the Church for a year together, Acts XI. 26. were not to forbear to serve God with the Jews in the Synagogue, so long as they, and Christianity could hold so much credit with them, as to give hope of reducing them to it. So, when the same Paul and Barnabas created Presbyters for the Churches which they had founded, Acts XIV. 23. sure they intended them not for the Synagogue, which was provided without them; But, to maintaine the commu­nion of those Churches in the service of God as Christians. As for the Ro­manes their Soveraignes, by whose grant the Jewes injoyed all that use of their Lawes which they injoyed, no man will mervail, that they took no notice of the difference between Jewes and Christians, so long as the Jewes complained not, when wee see them refuse to make themselves executioners of their wrath, upon the Christians, when they did complain. Wee must not forget Gallio, Acts XVIII. 12-17. when Paul was brought afore him, taking the difference to be onely about names and terms of their own Law, and refusing to be judge in it, though leaving them to persecute the Christians, as, by their own Customs, namely by scourging, they might do. Nor mervail, that hee at that time, should think no more of it, when wee finde by Origen, that Celsus the Epicurean, wri­ting against the Christians two hundred years after, takes it for a suit about goats wooll, which is nothing. As for the Edict of Claudius, that all Jewes should depart from Rome, Acts XVIII. 2. the case is plain, that Aquila and Priscilla, and all native Jewes, though Christians, were involved in it, and bound to with­draw. But, whether or no it layed hold on those that had been converted to Christianity being Gentiles, and had not the legal mark of Jewes, which was Circumcision, upon them, by the text of S. Luke appears not; No, though wee suppose, that which I have showed, in the Primitive Government of Churches, p. 53-57. to be probable, and have still much reason to believe, that the Chri­stians at Rome lived at first divided into two Bodies, one of Jewes under S. Pe­ter, the other of Gentiles under S. Paul. For the Jewes, as, in the Land of Promise, they were bound by the Law to protect strangers, (such as, renouncing Idols, should professe to serve the true God) but not to suffer Idolaters to live in it; So, in their dispersions, they must needs finde themselves bound, propor­tionably, to cherish those that should make the like profession, whom they cal­led [Page 131] the Godly of the Nations. But the Empire, and the Ministers thereof, whether they intended to comprise them in the right and privilege of Jewes, because joyned to their Religion, or of Gentiles, because uncircumcised, the text of that Scripture decides not. I confesse, considering the words of Sueto­nius Claud. XXV. Judaeos, impulsore Chresto assiduè tumultuantes, Roma expu­lit; The Jewes, raising continual tumults at the moving of Chrestus; hee drove out of Rome; I cannot give a better reason for the tumults, which, hee saith, oc­casioned the Edict, than the difference between them and the Christians, part of whom were Jewes, others adheered to them as Gentiles converted to the true God. Whether his meaning be, to lay the fault upon the Christians, (sup­posing that it is our Lord Christ whom hee calls Chrestus, no difference in found being discernable) Or, whether hee meant to say, that one Chrestus, a Jew in Rome was author of those tumults (as some would have it) no reason can be gi­ven for those tumults so probable. But whether so or not, to our purpose it will be of no consequence. For, as well Gentilish as Jewish Christians being forced from Rome, and seeking shelter among Christians elswhere, would easi­ly accomodate themselves with the Jewes of other parts, upon the same terms as Christians did otherwise, and yet continue to preserve themselves Christians, and thereby members of the Church, upon such terms as all Christians under­stood. It should seem, by the Epistle to the Ephesians I. 11, 12, 13. II. 2, 3. 11-20. III. 1-6. that the first foundation of that Church was meerly of Gen­tiles, the Jewes that may have been converted being so few, that S. Paul held them not considerable to be taken notice of in his Epistle. A thing that agrees punctually with that which S. Luke relates, Acts XIX. 8, 9, 10. that S. Paul, perceiving hee could not prevail with the Jewes by his discourses in the Syna­gogue, departed, and separated the Disciples, that is the Christians, from them, disputing dayly in the School of one Tyrannus. And this for two years, till the Gospel was known to all Asia, Jewes and Gentiles. (This Tyrannus neverthe­lesse, holding a School, seems to have been a Doctor of the Jewes Law, so that all Jewes refused not the Faith.) These, I suppose, no man will argue that they used Excommunication as the Jewes did, because they had departed from the Jewes: And yet, it is agreeable to the case under Gallio, to conceive, that they were looked upon by the Romanes, as a sort of men that had broke from the Jewes, whose Religion they had professed afore, and indifferently protected by them, as not concerned in the difference, while no Law was made against Chri­stianity. The coming indeed of S. John into Asia seems to have inned a very great harvest of Jews into the Church, by that compliance which his successors at Ephesus, and in the rest of Asia, held with the Jewes, for the winning of them to Christianity. But this was afterwards. In fine, before the separation of Christians from the Jewes, the Church seems to have been, as it were, a childe unborn in the mothers womb, which, though it draw the means of subsistence from the mother, yet is it complete in all the same faculties of life which it shall exercise afterwards: So, whatsoever it was fit for the Church to do while it held communion with the Synagogue, it was able then, by the Power of condu­cting as well as founding it in the Apostles, to do whatsoever it did afterwards, onely the Body was strangely changed which it was to govern.

CHAP. XVIII. The difference between S. Pauls anathema and that of the Jewes. It is not necessa­ry that the Christians anathema should signifie cursing. That the incestuous per­son at Corinth was Excommunicated by S. Paul. Jurisdiction of the Church. Telling the Church, binding and loosing, holding him that is bound for a Heathen or a Publicane, signisie the same. The coherence of our Lords discourse. Of Excommunication and Indulgence by private persons in the Ancient Church. That Excommunication and the Power of the Church could not come in force by the voluntary consent of the first Christians. How it may be said to be volunta­ry. Of the confederacy of the primitive Christians.

ANd here, I cannot chuse but mervail, that the Anathema which S. Pauls Epi­stles mention sometimes, should be made an argument, that the Excom­munication which hee means by it is the same which the Jews used, because theirs was called by the same name. For the answer is the same that I said afore, of the name of the Church, but, there is more particular evidence for the reason here, in the words of the Apostle. I do, for my part, believe them that conceive, the name by which the Jewes call anathema, that is [...], to signifie the same that S. Paul means by maranatha. For the Jewes use to call God [...], that is, the Name. And this, I conceive, they compound with the Verb [...], signi­fying to come, and to make of both the Verb [...], signifying maledixit or execravit, hee cursed by the coming of God. Though they use it to signifie the least degree of Excommunication, whereas, to curse a man by the coming of God, seems to leave him to God to take vengeance of, as incurable and despe­rate; For every man knows how much difference there is between the original and use of words. Now it is evident by the writings of the Prophets every where, that they use to describe the appearance of God to punish sin, in the stile of Gods coming. And in that stile the passage which S. Jude referreth to, proceedeth, Jude 14, 15. Behold the Lord cometh with his holy myriads, to execute vengeance on all, and to reprove all their wickednesse, for all the wicked works that they have done, and for all the hard words which they have stoken against him as wicked sinners. For these are the words, which Enoch, the seventh from Adam, is brought in speak­ing in that place, to the old world whom hee preached to, to recall them from that wickednesse, which, in the end, was punished by the deluge. Now, when S. Paul saith, 1 Cor. XVI. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be a­nathema, maranatha. It is plain, that Maranatha signifies our Lord comes; And so referrs to the second coming of our Lord Christ, which the Gospel preaches. For this learned person, in the first book de Synedriis, p. 214. acknowledges, that it is not in use among the Jewes. And the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel requires, that those things which are prophesied in the Old Testament concerning the coming of God, be understood to be com­pleted in the second coming of Christ: According to that of S. Paul, Rom. XIV. 10, 11. Wee shall all be presented before the Judgment seat of Christ, as it is writ­ten; As I live, saith the Lord; To mee shall every knee bow, and every tongue shall give glory to God. Where, that which the Prophet had said of the appea­rance of God in former judgments concerning his people, Esa. XLV. 23. that, the Apostle affirmeth to be fulfilled in the coming of our Lord Christ to judg­ment. Therefore, when S. Paul sayes, Let him be anathema maranatha, hee means, let him expect vengeance at the second coming of Christ: At which, S. Jude sayes, that the Prophesie of Enoch against the old world shall be accom­plished upon those that hee writes against; For how can hee say otherwise; Enoch prophesied against these? And can it be thought, that a Jewish Excommu­nication can proceed upon supposition of the coming of our Lord Christ to judgment? That were as much a jest, as that of the History of Don Quixote, where hee saith; That the original Historian in the Arabick, being a Mahume­tane, protests the truth of it, upon the faith of a good Christian. So, when S. Paul saith again, Rom. IX. 3. I my self could wish to be anathema from Christ, [Page 133] for my brethren, my kindred according to the flesh. I will not dispute that ingenious interpretation of Grotius, which this Learned person, with others, allows; That hee wishes, in stead of an Apostle, and Chief in the Church, to be counted a man unfit for any Christian to converse with: For it punctually agrees with S. Pauls stile, 1 Cor. XII. 12. For, as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so is Christ; That is to say, the Church. And so Gal. III. 27. Wee are baptized into Christ, because into the Church. But, admitting this interpretation, how can it be imagined to signifie a Jewish Excommunication, that cuts of a Christian from the Church? Hee that is put out of the Synagogue, in as much as hee is put out of it, is made Ana­thema to Moses, not to Christ. That is, hee is cut off from the privileges of a Jew, from the hope of returning into the Land of Promise, and freedom in it from the yoke of forrain Nations; Not from the hope of life everlasting, which they indeed promise themselves by the Law of Moses, but Christians know they cannot have, unlesse they renounce the holding of it from the Law of Moses. And therefore S. Paul, when hee bids Anathema to whosoever shall preach ano­ther Gospel than that which hee had preached, Gal. I. 8, 9. must needs mean the same as a Christian, which hee signifies to be meant by him that calleth Jesus anathema, 1 Cor. XII. 3. Hee that calleth Jesus anathema, defieth him as reje­cted by God. Anathema indeed signifieth that which is consecrated to God: But it answers the Hebrew word [...], as in Levit. XXVIII. because conse­cration was a profession of abandoning for ever that which was consecrated, im­plying a curse upon all that should lay hands on it to any other use. And when the Jewes said to their Fathers or Mothers; Be it Korban, whatsoever thou may­est be the better for of mine; They cursed themselves, if ever their Father or Mo­ther were the better for any goods of theirs, as much, as if they should give them things consecrated to eat or to drink: Supposing that if they did so, no man was to touch or come near them more than consecrated things. So, when God made Jericho anathema or [...], whatsoever was not for the use of Gods ser­vice was to be destroyed; whatsoever might be for his service, hee that laid hands on it to any other use, became himself of the condition of that which was not for Gods service. And such the Apostle professeth to hold him, whoso­ever should preach any other Gospel besides that which hee had preached.

For, I must not allow, that the Church, when it excommunicateth, or the A­postle, when hee biddeth anathema, intendeth to curse, that is to say, to pray to God, actually to bring those curses upon them which they are liable to; Though I confesse this is not the place to dispute such a question, because the resolution of it will suppose something, which can neither be proved, nor supposed with­out proof in this place, where my purpose is to settle the Principles of Christi­an Truth, by which Principles this is to be resolved. It shall be enough to say here, that it is evident, that the Greek Church, following an order or sentence of S. John Chrysostomes, doth, for the most part, insist, that Christians are not to curse Christians; Whatsoever be the practice of the Church of Rome, in the Bull of Maundy Thursday at this time. And yet the very present practice of that Church doth not seem necessarily to import praying for Gods vengeance upon Hereticks, and others who are then cursed; Because it is their custome to pray for their conversion the very next day, that is, on Good Friday. There­fore it may very well seem, that all their Solemnities of cursing do not amount to signifie, that the Church prayes for mischief upon them whom they declare to be accursed, but by these solemnities expresse how they would have them esteemed by Christians. Though, by that corruption of Christian charity which time hath brought to passe, it be now generally understood no otherwise, than as a Prayer for Gods vengeance; And there may be great reason to think, that the ancient Fathers and Councils did not pronounce anathema against Hereticks in any other sense, or to any other purpose. Nay the words of Vincentius Li­rinensis, which I quoted afore, make it most evident, that the ancient Christians understood nothing else by Anathema, when hee expounds S. Paul Gal. I. 8, 9. Anathema sit, inquit; Id est, separatus, segregatus, exclusus, nè unius ovis dirum [Page 134] contagium innoxium gregem Christi venenatâ permistione contaminet. Let him be anathema, saith hee; That is, let him be severed, set aside, shut out, least the dire­full contagion of one sheep, with any mixture of venene, stain the innocent flock of Christ. Which is enough to show, that therefore it ought not to have been put into the definition of that Excommunication which is pretended to be made by the Power of the Church, that it containeth a curse or curses against them on whom it is inflicted, as you shall finde the first book de Synedriis doth, in the place quoted afore. Because, those that agree in challenging that right for the Church, do not appear to agree in that point. And this will serve for an argu­ment of difference between the Excommunications of Jewes and of Christi­ans. For, the first without question were curses, of the second, it is at least que­stionable, whether it stand with Christianity to take them for curses or not. I do believe that which is said in the first book de Synedriis, pag. 209. that the Jewes did not so cut a man off by Excommunication, as to cast him quite out of their Body; But so, as to deprive him of free conversation with his native peo­ple; To wit, according to the terms limited there afore, the lesse, that no man should come within his four cubits; The greater, that hee should dwell in a co­tage alone, and have bread and water brought him, and see no man otherwise. Neither do I finde any third kinde by the Jewes Constitutions, which others would have. But it were a wrong to common sense to extend this to Apostares. Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryphone, and after him Epiphanius haer. XXX. and Je­rome in Esa. tells us, that the Jewes, shortly after our Saviors time, sent an Or­der through all Synagogues over the world, to curse the Christians thrice a day, at publick Prayers in their Synagogues. And at that time practised all means possible to stirr up the Empire to persecute them to the death. Neither was it strange they should proceed so farr, against those whom they took for Apo­states, because the punishments which their own body could inflict would not serve their turn. But this is evidently another thing than that which the great Excommunication by their Rules importeth. In the mean time, here you have cursing to the purpose, in this utmost exigent; But so, that ordinary Excommu­nication amongst them imported a proportionable measure of the same. That the Apostles should intend to curse, nothing can seem so pregnant as the words of S. Peter to Simon Magus, Acts VIII. 20. Thy money perish with thee. But hee that, in the next words, advises with so much charity; Repent thee of this thy wickednesse, and pray to God, if perhaps this designe of thy heart may be forgiven thee; I suppose was farr enough from wishing, that hee might perish, whom hee seeks to reclaim. Neither is there any reason why hee should wish his money to perish, which the first sound of his words beareth. And therefore it will be requisite to take it for an expression, signifying, that hee held, and would have the Church hold him as certainly in the way and state of perdition, as the money that hee loved was perishable. Much more, when S. Paul wisheth himself anathe­ma, or him that should preach a new Gospel, or loved not the Lord Jesus, it is not his intent to pray for the evil which anathema signifies upon them, but to in­duce the Church to take them for such men, as the Church believes to be liable to the utmost of Gods curses.

As for the businesse between S. Paul and the Corinthians, thereare in it so evident marks of Penance injoyned by that Church upon the Apostles Order, as no wit, no learning can serve to deface. S. Paul advises them to restore the Offender in these terms, 2 Cor. II. 5. [...] ▪ 11. If any body hath grieved mee, hee hath not grieved mee but in part, that I may not charge you all. Sufficient for such a one is this censure inflicted by many. So that yee are rather to gratifie and comfort him, least such a one should be swallowed up with too much sorrow. Wherefore I pray you settle love towards him. For, I writ also for this end, to know the trial of you, whe­ther you be obedient in all things. But if you grant any thing, I also grant it. For, if I have granted any thing for your sake, in respect of Christ I have granted it, that Satan get nothing by us; For wee are not ignorant of his devices. What is the censure inflicted by many, but the Penance, which the Church, upon S. Pauls order having injoyned, now desires the Apostle to rest content with; which [Page 135] hereby hee accords? What is it that hee granteth, because they grant it, but in respect of Christ, willing them also to gratifie and comfort him whom they had censured; But, (upon undergoing this censure) the re-admitting of him to the Communion of the Church? Since Luther first disputed against Indulgences, this Text hath been in every mans mouth. Was there ever any reason to deny, that there is in the Church a Power of abating Penance once injoyned, upon trial of him that undergoes it? Or, that the example of S. Paul in this place is good evidence for it? Had there been any controversie about it, if the Church of Rome had demanded no more under this title? Though, to speak my own minde, perhaps men mistake this Indulgence, because they take not S. Pauls pro­ceeding to be so rigid, as the strictnesse of discipline under the Apostles re­quires. They take it commonly, as I said, that S. Paul, hereby, releases him of the Penance that had been injoyned; whereas, it may be, hee onely admits him to Penance at their request, and so, to the Prayers of the Church. Being for­merly so excluded from the Church, as not to be assured of his reconcilement with God by the warrant of the Church, though not excluded from the hope of it by the mercy of God. Tertullian indeed hath an opinion, that it is not the same man whom the Apostle commanded them to deliver to Satan afore, 1 Cor. V. 5. Because, as I said afore, according to the strictnesse of the Monta­ni [...]s, hee will not believe, that the Apostle would admit such a sinner upon any Penance. But this opinion is excluded by the expresse words of the Scripture; For I writ also for this cause, to know the trial of you; which show that this is the case which hee writ of in his former Epistle. It remains therefore, that, upon S. Pauls first Epistle hee was delivered to Satan, but, upon their submission, and request that hee would be content with the censure which they propose, hee admits him to the comfort of their Prayers. According to this supposition, the Indulgence which S. Paul admits, is not the releasing of Penance injoyned, as afterwards it signified in the Church; but the injoyning of Penance, inferring a grant of the Prayers of the Church, towards the means of reconcilement. But, whatsoever become of this, Indulgence presupposeth the censure which it mitigateth, and therefore, the Communion of the Church, either abated or quite taken from him, whom it restoreth to it. And, what is the mater that S. Paul grants that which hee grants for their sakes, but in respect to Christ, that Sa­tan, (saith hee) whose devices wee are acquainted with, get nothing by us? Two reasons are rendred for this: The one, in respect of the party excluded, not to drive him to despair of salvation by Christianity, and consequently to Apostasy, or what else that despair might produce: The other, (which I remember S. Au­stine in some place advances, as the reason, whereupon the Church, in after ages, was driven to abate of that strictnesse that was in force under the Apostles) least those that favored the party excluded, if hee should be refused upon the submission tendred, should make a faction and separate from the Church. Take whether you will of these reasons that have been said, or produce a better that hath not been rendred yet, you shall never make that good which S. Paul saith, 2 Cor. VII. 11. Plainly, yee have approved your selves clear in the businesse; But in this sense: That, whereas before there was a party that bare out this incestu­ous person in his attempt, upon the coming of the first Epistle, the better part prevailed to do that, which S. Paul saith they should have done afore, 1 Cor. V. 2. Yee are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that hee which did this deed might be taken from among you. For, since it is evident by divers passages of the primitive Church, that Excommunication was solemnized in a fashion of mour­ning, as for a member whom the Church had lost, what reason can be given, why S. Paul, when hee speaks of mourning in this case, should mean any thing else? At least, for Epiphanius his sake, accept of his reasons before any mans opinion without it. Hee, when S. Paul sayes, 1 Cor. XII. 21. I fear God will humble mee in respect of you when I come, and, that I shall mourn for many, that have sin­ned afore, and not repented, (by that time I come) of the uncleannesse, whoredome, and wantonnesse which they have done; renders the reason of this mourning of S. Paul, to be for those whom hee should be constrained to put out of the [Page 136] Church; Either then utterly lost, or for their reconcilement with God, being admitted to Penance. Though Epiphanius distinguishes not between mourn­ing for the reconcilement of sinners, and mourning for the losse of them, when they were shut out of the Church.

Now when S. Paul writes to them, 1 Cor. V. 11. not to converse, not so much as to eat with him that is called a brother, and is a whoremaster, a slanderer, a chea­ter, an Idolater, a drunkard, an oppressor or the like; Hee that will, may pretend to take this for no more but good counsail: But hee shall not consider what follows; For what have I to do to judge those that are without? Do not yee judge those that are within? And yee shall heave out from among you him that hath done evil. Which good counsail will not serve to do: but Censure or Judgment, call it what you please; Not as of a Court, pretending force to execute the sentence by virtue of the Laws of the Empire: But as every Society or Cor­poration, so farre as it is so, hath a Jurisdiction answerable to the end and pre­tense for which and upon which it stands, whereby the Laws must be inforced, without which no such Body can continue. I grant, that Jurisdiction absolute­ly named, and without any addition, is that of a Civil State, which, by force of lawfull arms is able to execute the sentence which the ministers thereof give. But every State maintaineth the Corporation which the Charter thereof consti­tuteth. And, all Christian States are to maintain the Corporation of the Church, if constituted by God. And in this regard, both the Rules by which the community of the Church stands, are truly called Laws, and, the Jurisdicti­on of the Church is the exercise of that Power which executes the same. So Ec­clesiastical Jurisdiction is really Jurisdiction, though Jurisdiction according to the Romane Laws is resolved into the Power of the Sword, whereupon it de­pendeth. When S. Paul writes to Titus III. 10. to avoid a man that is an He­retick, after the first and second warning; When S. John writeth, 2 John 10, 11. Hee that cometh to you, and bringeth not this doctrine, (of God the Father, and the Son come in the flesh) receive him not home, nor bid him God speed; For hee that biddeth him God speed is accessory to his evil works; When S. John, accor­ding to this Precept, refused to come into the Bath with Cerinthus, his Scholar Polycarpus to own Marcion otherwise, than as the first-born of the Devil; it is more than good counsail which tied them to forbear even Civil conversation with those, whom, thereby they demonstrated, how farr they would be from communicating with, in the Offices of Christianity. Neither is the objection of that waight as is pretended, that Judas communicated in the Eucharist, at the last Supper of our Lord. For it is notorious to all that understand but a little in Christianity, that it is not sin, but the notoriousnesse of sin that renders a man liable to be Excommunicate: Even as it is not Christianity, but the pro­fession of it that qualifies a man to be of the Church. The reason of it being this, that others may not think, that such as notoriously act contrary to that pro­fession, can be capable of the promises to which it intitleth. Which opinion cannot be grounded upon sins that are not publickly seen. For, even when they are seen, there is yet a difference between legal conviction, and that which is onely sensible and reasonable. Neither is any man legally convicted, till hee or they who are to act in behalf of the Body, whatsoever it is, declare them convicted. For though it were to be wished, that all notorious sin could be le­gally convicted; Yet, because the execution of Laws without discretion mani­festly tends to the ruine of all Societies; It is also to be excepted, that, neither is the toleration of notorious sins in the Church a just argument, that there is no such thing as Law or Jurisdiction or a Community of the Church, that may put away such sin. To that case then I say, that, neither the knowledge of our Lord, nor of his Disciples, concerning Judas his wickednesse, rendred him un­capable of the Eucharist, even according to the ordinary Rule of the Church. A legal conviction was requisite over and above, which might either demon­strate him uncapable of the quality of a Disciple, that is, of a Christian, or be a means to reconcile him to that quality, and so to the society of Christs Disci­ples. And this conviction, absolutely depending upon the will of our Lord to [Page 137] publish the sentence, cannot be thought to be had, so long as hee declared no­thing in it. If any man here object the inconveniences, which the perempto­ry prohibition of conversing with the Excommunicate must needs cause, in that state of things, which the incorporating of the Church into Christian Com­monwealths necessarily produceth; let mee desire him to have patience for an answer to this, which I shall have a care to give, before I leave this point, but cannot before I have premised something more. As for that which may be ob­jected, that S. Paul, by saying; Do not yee judge those that are without; makes the Body of every Church, that is, the people thereof, or the commonalty, judge; It shall be sufficient to remember that which I said afore, that the intent at present being onely to prove a Corporation of the Church by divine right, it is sufficient in this place, onely to show, that there is a right in the Body of the Church, by Gods appointment, to do such things, as the Nature of a Soci­ety founded upon a Charter of Gods, inferreth: For, whatsoever persons shall be by the same appointment inabled to act for the Church, and to conclude it, (as in no form of Government the whole is able to act by it self) whatsoever is done by those persons is reasonably and legally said to be done by the Church, though I referr it to another dispute to determine, what persons they are, and in what cases. These reasons therefore do satisfie mee, that, the delivering to Sa­tan which S. Paul condemns the incestuous person to, implies indeed something extraordinary, which the sentence of Excommunication in these dayes produ­ceth not: And it is this; That, during the time of the Apostles, to manifest the presence of God in his Church, those that were shut out of it became sub­ject to the visible incursion of evil spirits, plaguing them with bodily diseases; Which S. Paul calleth the destruction of the flesh; Intimating, that Gods end in them was, to reduce him to the sense of that Christianity which hee had professed, that, by inwardly returning to it, the spirit might be saved in the day of Christ, whether or no, by outwardly professing it, hee might be reconciled to the Church, for salvation by the means of it.

As for the words of our Lord, Dic Ecclesiae; I will not insist upon the im­probabilities of Erastus his interpretation, that, Let him be unto thee as a Hea­then or a Publicane, is no more but this; Be it lawfull for thee to sue him in the Romanes Court. For this I say; It is plain by S. Paul 1 Cor. VI. 1. that our Lords Disciples, that is Christians, might in no case implead one another before the Gentiles, whatsoever Erastus imagine: Which, it is plain, the Jewes also did their utmost to avoid. Nor is the other more probable, that makes it no more, than, that upon his neglect of the Synagogue, hee was free to return scorn, and to avoid him who had scorned the Synagogue. For, would our Lord binde his Disciples to resort to the Synagogue, and yet obtain nothing but leave to scorn him that scorned them first, and afterwards the Synagogue? Besides the inconvenience common to both these interptetations; that, such a precept to his Disciples, that is, to all Christians, should concern them no longer, nor in any other consideration, than that, for which, at the first, Christians were bound to comply with the Synagogue; which compliance, not onely what it was, but, even what it signified, they then understood no more, than hee that understands nothing. But I leave all other advantage, to prosecute the princi­ple premised: That the Disciples of our Lord acknowledged a new King of Israel, (which, the title of Gods anointed, the Messias signified) a new Covenant by which hee was their King, a new Israel according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh, and, by consequence, new Laws, which a New Common-wealth must needs inferr. And therefore, call it what you will; Synagogue, (which as yet they understood not to be void) or Church, (which they understood must be, but that it should be distinct from the Synagogue understood not) being commanded to tell the Assembly, they must understand it to be an Assembly of themselves, Christs Disciples, which all Jews might be, for any thing they yet understood. And, when our Lord saith; Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man or as a Publicane; though they understood that Heathen men and Publi­canes resorted to the Temple, as also those that were Excommunicate by the [Page 138] Synagogue did, (because the Law stood not upon any promise of the world to come, but upon the privilege and sitl of a Jew, to all rights that Jewes were in­dowed with) yet they underflood also, that our Lord spoke in Parables, contain­ing sharp speeches, figures and riddles. When hee faith; Hee that smiteth thee on the right cheek, turn him the left; they underflood, that himself no way bal­ked his own command, when, being smitten by the Jews Ministers, hee an-swered not by turning the other cheek: But, that his meaning was, to have his Disciples as ready to do them good that so should assront them, as if they should pleasure his anger, by turning him another cheek to strike. And when hee faith; Hee that constraineth thee to go a mile with him, go thou twain; His meaning is not, that they should leave their businesse to be counted fools for it: But, to be ready to do him as great a pleasure. So, hee that fees the Jews so to avoid the society of the Gentiles, (and by consequence of publi [...]anes, who has ne­cessary and continual frequentation with Gentiles) that, when they came from the Piazza, they washed their hands before they went to meat, (as polluted by coming near them) hee that fees S. Peter obliged to give account to his brethren the Jewish Christians, why hee did eat with Cornelius and his Company, though worthippers of the true God, and such as had imbraced the Faith; that fees God instruct him so to do, by the vision of earing unclean beasts, as if hee could no more do the one than the other by the Law; Hee, I fay, that considers these things will say, that our Lord, when hee sayes, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man or a Publicane, hath very sharply expressed the fame that S. Paul means, when hee sayes; with such a one no not to eat. And therefore I conclude his meaning to be that which I have concluded heretofore, that his Disciples should carry none of their suits, though concerning mater of Interest, out of the Church, but stand to what it shall determine. For, how should S. Paul de­mand; Dare any of you, having a cause with another, go to suit before the unrigh­teous and not before the Saints? I Cor. VI. I. If it had not been a Law known to Christians, that their suits were to be determined within themselves? Re­ferring my self for further evidence, that this was then in force, to what hath been showed in another place, and having not been contradicted, must needs be in force. And if any man shall object, that this would be the ruine of all States so soon as they prosesse Christianity, if the Jurisdiction of them should be swallowed up in the Jurisdiction of the Church, all causes being, in that case, causes of Christians; For an answer, referring him, not onely to that which I have said already there, but, to that which I purpose to say further before I have done with this point And upon these terms I grant Erastus, that, when out Lord sayes; Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publicane; Hee sayes in ef­fect, be it lawfull for thee to sue him in the Court of the Gentiles: Not as if our Lord did allow that which S. Paul forbids; That a Christian should sue a Christian before Gentiles: But because, being to be held as a Heathen or a Pub­licane, as being Excommunicate, (that is to say, suppposing that to be true, which Erastus would have to be salse) by consequence, and in effect it would become lawfull to sue him before Gentiles, as being no longer a Christian.

Now, when it followeth; What forever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; If wee take bin­ding and loosing in a general sense, to signifie that Power of giving Law, so that hereeby the Church is inabled to give Law to the Church (setting aside for the present, who of the Church is to give Law, who to receive it) then I say, that, by virtue hereof, the Power of Excommunicating is given to the Church: Because it is nothing else but such a Right established by a Law of God; And, if God give his Church a Power to make Laws, then hee gives it Power to make a Law that shall give force to all the rest, by inacting that penalty that shall be requisite to restrain disobedience. But, if wee take the terms of binding and loosing as they are used among the Jews, (and, by consequence, when that which is unlawfull is done, for declaring what is lawfull or unlawfull to be done to be discharged of it) I say that, admitting the difference between the Law and the Gospel which I have established, the Power of Excommunicating [Page 139] will follow in the Church. For, supposing the Law not to tender remission of sin in order to life everlafting, but to the remporal privileges of a Jew; to be bound and to be loose will signifie no more, than, to be in or out of possession of those privileges, uncapable or capable of the fame, by doing or not doing what the Law requireth to be done for that purpose. In the mean time, this Power will argue a Common-wealth of Israel, founded by God, by virtue of which foundation, the Power of those who are inabled by the Law to make this declaration takes effect to all purposes contained in the Law. But. suppo­sing the Gospel to tender remission of sins in order to life everlasting, upon such terms as the Covenant of Grace importeth; To be bound and to be loose will signifie freedom from sin, or the captivity and fervitude of it. And there­fore the Power of declaring this estare, and, what is to be done for the attain­ing of it, will necessarily inserre a Society of the Church, founded upon the Power of making that declaration, whereupon, any man may be accepted for such; Neither can it be imagined, that any part, any degree of the fame can be in any man, but so farr, and to effect, as the Community of the Church shall have allowed. It is not now unknown, that divers of those that dispute Con­troversies for the Church of Rome, do challenge the Power of making Law, for the Church, by virtue of this Power of binding and loosing given by our Lord to his Apostles. And this opinion taketh place by the former interpretation of these words, which being admitted, that consequence cannot be refused. But, taking the Power of binding and loosing to be by virtue of the Keyes of Gods House, which are the Keyes of David, or the House of David, the figure of the Church, (which is that signification which the language of the Scripture re­quired, when our Lord. having promised his Church, adds, Mat. XVI. 19. Unto thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou bindest on earth, shall be bound in heaven, what soever thou loosest on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.) The Power of binding and loosing in the Church will be correspon­dent to that, which the Doctors of the Synagogue had, of declaring this or that lawfull or unlawfull according to Moses Laws, and a man tied to do this or that for maintaining his privilege by it. And having said this, I conceive I have done more, than hee that distinguished these two meanings in our Lords words thought fit to do. Hee, distinguishing thus in the first book de Synedriis, pag. 291— hath thought it enough to argue, that neither the one nor the other will serve to ground the Power of Excommunicating in the Church; Wherein, what hee hath proved, I referre my self to that which hath been said. But in what sense the words of our Lord are to be understood, according to his own opinion, hee hath not declared, how requisite foever it had been to do, as I, according to my opinion, indeavor to do. As for that little Objection, that, in Our Lords words, it is not persons but things, that are said to be bound and loose; It is to be underflood, that things are neither bound nor loose of them­selves; But that, by the way of common understanding of men, and speech, it is attributed to them from the obligations that Iye upon men or persons, by vir­tue of which obligations, or freedom from them, such things as they import are said to be bound or loose, as lawfull or unlawfull for them to use, who, using them, are either bound or free to such rights, as the using or not using of them inferrs. Though by consequence of this Power, the Power of binding by Law, or loosing, (that is, of leaving free without tying by Law) will naturally follow. For as in Civil Government, whatfoever person or persons are, abso­lutely and without limitaiton, indowed with the Soveraign Power, must necessa­raily be indowed with the Power of giving Law, whereby they do but limit themselves what Law they will govern by, which is, before those Laws be de­clared, their will and pleasure; So, if wee suppose in the Church, a Power of admitting into, and casting out of the Society of the Church, wee must needs suppose a Power of giving Law to this Society, because no Society at all can have Communion with it self, but according to some Rules of exercising the said Communion; which, for the present, are called Laws. Now, our Lord Christ. ha­ving given his Disciples the Power of binding and Loosing, by opening or shut­ting. [Page 140] the doors of his Church, that is, by admitting into, or excluding out of it; hath thereby given them the Power of framing his Catholick Church. Not that they are so properly said to binde those whom they shut out of the Church. For, when Christianity declareth mankinde to be under sin, (not to be freed of it, but by submitting to Chrissianity) the bond is contracted by him that finneth, the shutting of the Church door upon him is but refusing him the cure, whereof hee tenders himself uncapable. But, those whom they admit into the Church, they are properly said to loose, because, though they cannot be loosed without their own act, yet that act is not to be done, without submitting to that authority which is intrusted to require it. And this authority, with those who acknowledge it by being admitted into the Church, is that which consstuteth the Society and Corporation of the Church. For, admitting into the Church, and allowing to continue in the Church, are both one and the fame act, because they proceed both upon the fame, of Christianity, and preserving Unity in the Church. Therefore. at present, I speak of both under one. And, if it be demanded whether the Power of binding and loosing do signifie generally binding by Law, and not hindering; Or particularly, binding by shutting out of the Church for sin, and loosing, by admitting into the Church, or retaining in the Church as free from sin; I answer, that expresly and formally, the Power of binding and loosing signifies the later; But the former, by consequence. For, in the Com­mon-wealth also, the Power of giving Law is the same in generalls, with the Power of Jurisdiction in particulars; All parts of Soveraignty flowing natural­ly from that act, whereby it becomes settled upon some person or persons; Whose will is necessarily the Law whereby it is to be governed, in as much as it is not limited by the original establishment thereof, and acts done legally by vietue of the fame. And so, the Disciples of our Lord being prevented by no­thing but our common Christianity, (which, our Lord Christ having established, left them the framing of his Church) what they, or, those who claim under them shall do to obligue the Church, obligeth by virtue of this Power, of ad­mitting into, or excluding out of the Church. And it is truly said, that the Power of giving Law to the Church as the Church, by virtue the Power of the Keyes belongs to the Church; Provided that the effect of it belimited to those things, which, after the preaching of our Lord, remained for his Apostles and Disciples, as well as their Assistants and Succcessors to determine, for the framing of Gods Catholick Church.

Before I leave this point, I shall desire that the consequence of our Lords dis­course may be considered. For unlesse the command of resorting to the Church be understood, as sending to binde or loose him to the Church, that is supposed to be bound to sin or loose from it, that which is inferred; Whatfoever yee binde on earth— will be utterly impertinent to that which went before, Tell the Church— But if wee suppose the speech to concerne Excom­munication, and Penance, by consequence, wee give a good reason why it followes; Againe, I say unto you, that, if two of you agree upon earth, about any thing to be demanded, it shall besall them from my Father in the heavens. For, sup­posing, (as known by the general and original practice of the Church, whereof mention hath been made in the premises) that the means of loosing from sin was the Prayers of the Church, wee conclude, that our Lord, in the next place, could not inferre any thing more proper and pertinent to that which hee had premised, than this; To wit, how the Penitent is to be reslored to the favor of God, and, upon presumption thereof, to the unity od the Church: To wit, by the Prayers of the Church. For, when hee sayes, the Prayers of two Chrussians will be available with God, hee must needs signifie, that the Prayers of the Church will be much more available. I know, there are some Expositors, Ori­gen, S. Austine, and Theophylact of old, and Grotius of late, who, when our Lord, having said, Let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publicane; inferreth, whatsoe­ver yee binde on earth— do understand, that, hereby, particular Christians do binde and loose particular Christians, when they show them the sin they do, and they that do it will or will not make reparations. And truly, in as much as the [Page 141] knowledge of sin is a condition requisite to make the bond thereof take firm hold upon the conscience, whosever procures this knowleg is truly said to binde, as hee that shows the means of being loose is truly said to loose him that useth those means. But, if this were here meant, there were no reason why our Lord should send him to the Church, whom hee declares to be thus bound, which this opinion supposeth; Never dreaming of the Synagogue, when our Lord faith, Tell the Church. For, to say, that a private Christian bindeth or loo­seth him whom the Church hath first declared to be in the wrong, and not other­wife, is as much as to say, that a private Christian neither bindes not looses, but the Church; Not because hee cannot binde and loose before God. in that sense which I spoke of afore, but because hee cannot binde or loose any man as to the Church, whom the Church had bound afore, by declaring his sin. For this opinion supposeth, that, when our Lord faith; Whatsoever yee binde on earth— hee speaketh of the sins of those that had refused to hear the Church afore. Which being supposed, it will remain manifest, that when our Lord faith; Let him to be thee as a Heathen or a Publicane; immediately adding, whatsoever yee binde on earth.— hee doth not onely teach what the wronged party, but what every Christian is to do; to wit, what the acts of the Church oblige him to do as a Christian and one of the Church, not as one that is wronged, though the discourse, rising upon this cafe, if thy brother wrong thee— end in the mention of him alone, let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publicane; because of the rea­son which follows, grounded in the Power of binding and loosing, which all Christians are to acknowledg.

These things being proved, I will here repeat, and insist upon that observati­on which heretofore I have advanced in another place, that our Lord, (whom, from the premises, I suppose to treat here of Excommunication) forbids that course to be held in the Church, which then was used in the Synagogue, namely, that private persons should Excommunicate one another; The effect of such Excommunications reaching no further than themselves, or their inferiors, and not obliging any stranger to take such a person for Excommunicate. Which ob­servation I oppose to an argument made, from that which was used in the Primi­tive Church, for Martyrs, and Consessors in bonds for the Gospel, to restore to the Communion of the Church, those that were under Penance. Tertul. de Pu­dic. XXII. Ad martyras I. Cypr. Epist. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVII. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXXVIII. and John the Monk of the deserts of Egypt having Excommunicated the younger Theodosius, hee was not satisfied with the Bishops absolution untill the Monk had done the fame. Hence it is argued, that Excommunication in the Church was the same that had been practi­sed in the Synagogue, because private Christians used that Power, as private Jewes had done. The ansswer is easie to him, that will observe the reason of such Excommunication and obsoulution in the Church. There were in the Church, from the beginning, besides those who had the chief authority of governing it, divers ranks of persons of special esteem: The rank of Widows, honored with publick maintenance from the Church, as wee understand by S. paul orders I Tim. V. 3-16. The rank of Virgins, the Prerogative whereof wee may understand by Tertullians book de Virginibus velandis, Wherein hee disputes, whether they were priviledged against S. Pauls order, I Cor. XI.5-15. of vailing their faces in the Church. of the rank of Marryrs and Consessors, (that is, those, who had abondones themselves to whatsoever the prosession of Chri­ssianity should inferre, howsoever they escaped) I need say nothing; The e­steem of them being known to have been such, that it is no mervail, if their desire, or their sentence were counted a Prejudice or Prerogative to the Church. As thus: At the elections of the Romane Magistrates, the Century of the Tribe, that voted first, was counted to have a Prerogative, the Vore thereof be­ing a kinde of Prejudice to them that followed, to vote the same. So that it was found, that whose carried this Prerogative, commonly carried the whole Vote. Such was the effect of that absolution which Consessors in their du­rance did sometimes grant Penitents in the Primitive Church; To wit, a con­fidence, [Page 142] grounded upon the esteem of their merit towards Christianity, that their act would not be made void by the Body of the Church. Whereupon S. Cypr. Epist. XII. Qui libellos à Martyribus acceperunt, & eorum Praerogativâ apud Deum adjuvari possunt—Those who have received billets from the Martyrs, and may finde help before God by their Prerogative—. The Monks Excommunica­tion proceeded upon the same ground; That is to say, upon a confidence, that, whom hee, by that sentence declared to have forfeited the Communion of the Church in his judgment, those who had his Holinesse in esteem would not com­municate with. The Emperors proceeding shows it was not for nothing. Who, being absolved by the Ordinary, rested not content, till hee had satisfied the Monk. The reason, because even then it might be evident, that, the preservati­on of Unity in the Church, obliged to grant the Communion thereof to such, as there was no reasonable assurance that Gods pardon did go before it; which, otherwise, the restoring of that Communion ought to suppose. Which might move a tender conscience to do more than the Church injoyned him to do. But I intend not hereby to justifie maters of fact in the Primitive Church: It shall serve my turn to argue, that the reason inferred appears not by this practice, be­cause another reason doth appear. Onely I say further, that nothing of pri­mitive institution can be argued from a custome, which, they that relate it, Ter­tullian and S. Cyprian do mark for an abuse, tending, either to abate the severity of discipline, or to dissolve the unity of the Church. And therefore, hee that observes all this, must not forget to observe the reasons, whereby S. Cyprian pro­tests, that the courses whereby those of his time went about to force the con­sent of the Church, by the credit of the Martyrs, were seditious, Ep. IX. & XXII. And also the course that hee takes, to referr the mater to the debate and common sentence of other Churches, equally concerned in the cause, Ep. XVII. For, to have recourse to the Unity of the Church, to cure the distemper of a particular Church, had been against common sense, for him that had not known, that those whom hee had to do with acknowledged the same; And, that being acknow­ledged, it will be more against common sense to imagine, that Martyrs or Con­fessors of one Church could give Law to the whole; as they must do, if wee suppose, that absolution granted by them in the Church of Carthage, was of it self of force and valid, which, by the same right and title, must extend to all that were in the same case.

But there remains a second reason or plea, how a Communion of the Church might be, and so a Power to Excommunicate, (and, by consequence, other Rights, in which it hath been showed, that the Society of the Church subsisted before Constantine) without any title of divine Right, which Princes and States professing Christianity are bound to maintain. For, it is alleged, that Excom­munication, and Penance which is the abatement of it, was in force in the Pri­mitive Church, by virtue of the voluntary consent of Christians, consederating themselves, upon such terms as wee finde to have been in use, into a discipline taken up of their own free resolution; Which, by consequence, must be said of the rest of those rights, wherein the Communion of the Church, and the Unity thereof, did consist at that time. To which I must except generally in the first place; That this plea, whether true or false for the present, is not receivable so much as into consideration, untill it be qualified and limited so, that it may be consistent with the former now refuted. For, no man can pretend to advance such a plea for his cause, as consists of two parts, whereof the first destroyes the second. Now, it was pretended afore, that there was no Excommunication in use under the Apostles, but that which was in force in the Synagogue, by virtue of Moses Law, and the Power erected by it, of introducing such Penalties, as the maintenance thereof should require. And here it is pretended; That Ex­communication and other effects of Ecclesiastical Power came in force upon the voluntary agreement of Christians. Therefore the whole plea, if you will have it hang together, must be this; That the whole Body of Christians did voluntari­ly agree among themselvs, to receive that Excommunication which was in force by virtue of the Law, and by consequence, such other Rights already in force [Page 143] by virtue of the Law, as they agreed to be no lesse usefull for maintaining the Communion of the Church, than they found Excommunication to be. And on these termes I admit the two parts of this plea not to be inconsistent. For the effect of the whole will be this; That there was indeed a Society and Corpo­ration of one visible Church, from the beginning of Christianity to Constantine, such as I now challenge that there ought to be: But not by any order of the Apostles, or title of divine right, but by the free consent of all Christians, which, being the consent of subjects, and subsisting by sufferance of the Soveraign, re­solves into his will when hee pleases to seize it into his hands. But then I will appeal to the common reason of all men, whether it be consistent therewith in two regards. The first shall be that which I alleged before out of Irenaeus, whe­ther it be consistent with common sense to imagine, that neither the Churches planted in the Germane Provinces or Spanish or Ganlish, of the Romane Empire, nor those in the East, nor in Aegypt or Africk, nor those that were planted in the middle parts of the world should practice or observe otherwise, than the Communion which de facto I have already showed to have been maintained a­mong them did require, and all this have no other beginning than their own free and voluntary consent, prevented by no obligation at all, but the dictate of common reason, pronouncing what would be best, for the maintenance of that common Christianity, to which wee suppose them obliged. If there were no more in question but the uniting of seven persons into one of our Independent Congregations, (or as many more as may all hear any man preach at once) I should grant, that such Bodies might subsist for such a time, as the cōmon batred of the Church restrains the peevishnesse of particular persons, from breaking that Communion, which no tye of conscience obliges them to maintain. But, if the experience of divers years hath not brought forth any union betwixt any two such Congregations in England, so farr as I can learn, what was it that u­nited all Christians from East to West into that one Communion visibly distin­guished from all Heresies and Schisms, which till about the Council of Chalcedon remained inviolable, supposing no obligation of our common Christianity deli­vered by the Apostles, to maintain it. Is it possible for any man to imagine, that, with one consent they would have cast themselves into such a form of ob­servation and practice, as all to acknowledge the direction of the same persons, in several parts; to acknowledge those Rules, which Generally were the same; (though, in maters of lesse moment, differing in several parts) to intertain or re­fuse communion with them, that were intertained or refused by the Church where they dwelt, for a common cause, had there been nothing but their own fansy to tell them, not onely what was requisite to intertain such communion, but whether it were requisite to intertain such communion or not? If such a thing should be said, the processe of my discourse were never a whit the more satis­fied, unlesse some body could show mee how the truth of Christianity can be well grounded upon those motives, the evidence whereof resolves into the con­sent of all Christians; And yet, that which all Christians have visibly made a Law to their conversation from the beginning, to wit, the communion of one Catho­lick Church, not belong at all to the mater of our common Christianity. And therefore this plea is no lesse ruinous to our common Christianity, the ground whereof it undermineth, than to common sense. For, that, in such difference of judgments as mankinde is liable to, the whole Church should be swayed to unanimity herein, by the Prerogative, as it were, of the Synagogue, uniting themselves, by imbracing the Ordinances thereof, the evident state of the times whereof wee speak will not admit to any pretense of probability; The division between Jews and Christians being then advanced to such a hatred on the Jews part, that it would have been a very implausible cause to say, that Christians ought to follow the Jewes, whose curses they heard every day, whose persecu­tions they felt, in the tortures, which, at their instance, were inflicted by the Gentiles. A thing so evident, both by the Writings of the Apostles, and the ancientest records of the Church, that I will not wrong the Readers patience to prove it. True it is, that at times and in places, great compliance was used by [Page 144] Christians to gain them, who, elsewhere, were so ready to persecute their fellow Christians. As at Jerusalem under and after S. James, at Ephesus and in Asia under S. John, there is great appearance to believe. In the mean time, hee that can make a question, whether the separation between Jewes and Christians, and the hatred ensuing upon it were formed under the Apostles, must make a questi­on of the truth of S. Pauls Epistles, to the Galatians, to the Colossians, to the Philippians, to Titus, and especially that to the Hebrews. Besides that, during the time whereof Irenaeus speaks, Christianity was extended so farr beyond Ju­daisme, that, a great part of the Church could not be acquainted with the con­versation of the Jewes, much lesse learn and imbrace their orders. And there­fore, as I do admit and imbrace the diligence of those learned men, who bestow their paines to show, how the Rules and Customes of the Church are derived from those of the Synagogue; So I prescribe one general prejudice concerning all orders that may appear to be so derived, that they are all, to the Church, Traditions of the Apostles, and by their act came in force in it: And that upon the premises, that, neither they had any force from the Law of Moses, not could be admitted by common consent of Christians, after the separation was formed, that is, after the Apostles time; And therefore, by their authority were intro­duced into the Church.

Having excepted thus much, it will notwithstanding be time to distinguish, that, the orders and customes, and observations of the Church may be said to be voluntary, as nothing is more voluntary than Christianity it self, though there be nothing to which a man is so much obliged. For, though the will of God, and our salvation, and whatsoever God hath done to show that salvation depends upon Christianity, oblige us to it, yet they oblige us also to imbrace it volunta­rily, so that, whatsoever should be done in respect of it, without an inward in­ward inclination of the will, would be abominable. In which regard, whatso­ever our Christianity obliges us to is no lesse voluntary than it is. And, in this sense, I grant, that the confederation of common Discipline, which prevailed in the primitive Church, was by the free and voluntary consent of Christians, who, be freely and voluntary consenting to the profession of Christianity, consented freely to maintain the Communion of the Church, which they knew to belong to that profession, as a part of it. But then, this consent, which is voluntary in regard that the choice of Christianity is free, becomes necessary upon the obliga­tion of making good the Christianity which once wee have professed; the Com­munion of the Church, professed by all, obliging every one for his part to maintain it. So, when Pliny reports to Trajan, of the Christians, Ep. X. Soli­tos Sacramento se obstringere, ne Furta, ne Latrocinia, ne Adulteria committerent, nè fidem fallerent, ne depositum negarent; That they were wont to tye themselves by a Sacrament, to commit no Thefts, Robberies or Adulteries, not to fail of their faith, or deny that which was deposited in their trust being demanded. It is mani­fest, that all this is the profession of all Christians, and, that the Sacrament of Baptisme is properly the Vow of observing it. And, though I dispute not here, that the Eucharist is called a Sacrament, and Sacramentum in Latine signifies an Oath, yet, in as much as it is the meaning of the Sacrament of Baptisme, I con­ceive, I understood not Pliny amisse, when I conceived, that hee speaks in this place of the Eucharist, when hee reports, that they were wont, before day to sing Psalms in praise of Christ as God, and to tye themselves to the particulars hee names, by a Sacrament. And, the same Tertullian understood by Pliny, when hee saith hee reports to Trajan Apolog. II. Praeter obstinationem non sacrifican­di, nihil aliud se de Sacramentis (as Heraldus truly reads it) eorum compe­risse, quàm coetus antelucanos, ad canendum Christo & Deo, & ad confederandam Disciplinam, Homicidium, Adulterium, Fraudem, Perfidiam, & caetera scelera prohibentes. That hee had discovered nothing of their Sacraments, or Mysteries, (besides obstinacy not to sacrifice) but assemblies before day, to sing praises to Christ and to God, and to confederate their Discipline, prohibiting Murther, Adultery, violation of Faith, and other hainous deeds. For the Eucharist is the Sacrament by which this discipline of Christianity is established; But, farr from being vo­luntary [Page 145] to those whom wee suppose Christians. As for Origen in Celsum I. pag. 4. It is manifest that those private Contracts, which Celsus calumniateth that the Christians made among themselves, as against the State, are acknowledged by him to have been those that were solemnized at their Feasts of Love; That is, at the Eucharist, which from the beginning was a part of them; whether then it were so or not. And therefore, the confederacy of Christians among them­selves, whom these Authors speak of, was no otherwise voluntary than Christi­anity, and therefore not voluntary supposing it. The words of Origen: [...]. Which I do not admit to be well corrected [...]: As being too obscure an expression for so clear a Writer as Ori­gen to say, that it was of force to do more mischief than the Bacchanalia; (which for that jealousie were put down, as wee understand by Livy) besides, that hee must have said, [...], and not have used a general word for a particular. And therefore I suppose hee alludes to the Verse of Homer [...], meaning [...], dissolving by private confederacy, that publick League and Bond, wherein the peace of every Com­monwealth consisteth. Thus then saith Origen; And hee seeks to calumniate the Love (so called) of Christians towards one another, as subsisting at the peril of the Publick, and able to do the mischief of disloyalty. If this will not serve the turn, but it be demanded, that the Communion of the Church was then fre­quented by voluntary agreement, let mee demand, whether the authority of the Apostles in the Church subsisted upon no other title. For, as to the credit of them in delivering the Gospel, believing what God had given them to evidence it with, it is not possible for any man that pretends to be a Christian to question it. If then it be said, that they who were tyed to believe them con­cerning the truth of the Gospel, were not bound to receive them as chief Go­vernors of the Church; let mee demand, how it came to passe, that those were received all over the Church, whom, it was believed, that they had granted their authority to, or what part soever of it. There being no obligation to tye them to receive such afore others; and, the variety of judgment which all men are sub­ject to being such, as never to agree in the same reason, where nothing obliges. So likewise, whereas it is manifest, that the Church then, both had, and must needs have many Rules, the general importance whereof was received by all, though with particular differences according to times and places; I demand, how any such could come in force, when, neither the Jewes deserved that love, that all should imbrace them for their sake, nor the judgments of all Christians, so different in all things, could concurr in any thing which their Christianity im­ported not. Especially I demand this concerning the indowment of the Church, because it is evident, that, as Constantine, first, made good by the Empire all the acts of them that had given whatsoever was ravished away by the persecution of Diocletian, then, gave much more of his own; So, all Kingdoms and Com­monwealths, after the example of that Empire, have proceeded to indow it with the first-fruits of their goods in Houses and Glebes and Tithes and Oblations. I demand then, what imposture could have been then so powerfull, as to seduce all the Christian world, in a mater so nearly concerning their interest, had they not stood convict by the constant practice of Christendom before Constantine, that it was no imposture, more than the Christianity brought in by the same A­postles. Lastly, whereas it is acknowledged, what strange severity of discipline the Primitive Church was under, by the Rules of Penance which then were in force, (though I have showed in another place, that they were yet stricter under the Apostles, and that the severity of them necessarily abated, as the zele of Christianity under them did abate) I demand, what common sense can allow, that all Christians should agree, to make themselves fools, by submitting them­selves to such Rules, which, nothing but their own consent could oblige them to imbrace. For, neither can it be said, that they had them from the Jews, nor, had they been extant among them, that the Christians would have received them for their sake.

CHAP. XIX. That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles, can never be in any Chri­stian Soveraign. The difference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard. The interest of Secular Power in determining maters of Faith presup­poseth the Society of the Church, and the act of it. No man can be bound to professe the contrary of that which hee believeth. Every man is bound to professe that Christianity which hee believeth. The Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity through Christendom, as the Soveraign of Civil Peace, thorough his Dominions. Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather than the State, neither being infallible.

I Shall not now need to say much to those terms which the Leviathan holds, beside that which hath been already said, to evidence the Society of the whole Church, and the foundation thereof, by the Scriptures. Hee that ac­knowledges in the Church a Power, to judge of true repentance, and accor­dingly, to binde and to loose; (and that, upon the same score, and therefore to the same effect, as it baptizes) together with the Power of appointing publick persons in the Church; and, the Church in which hee acknowledges the Power, to be the Body of Christians in each City; by what Title doth hee suppose the Church to hold this Power or this Right, the evidence whereof hee fetches from the Scriptures, whereby hee proveth it? For, those Scriptures do not import, by what Act it is established, but onely that it was in force, or use, at the doing of those things which they relate. Can it be imagined to be any thing else than the act of the Apostles, declaring the will of God in that behalf? If then by divine right, (that is, by Gods appointment and ordinance imported by those Scriptures) the Church, that is, the Body of Christians in each City, stands in­dowed with those rights; how shall the Church, that is, the Soveraign Power of each State, stand indowed with the same rights by the same Title, that is, by Gods appointment, evidenced by the same Scriptures? How shall Gods Law, that in­ableth the Body of the Church to binde and to loose, to nominate and elect publick persons in the Church, (but requireth the Apostles and those that hold under them to pronounce the sentence, and to impose hands) inable the Sove­raign Power to do the same, and yet require those that claim from the Apostles to execute? If Philosophers have the privilege to justifie such contradictions as these, then may this opinion passe for a truth. In the mean time, to men of common reason, how reasonable it will sound, that the Apostles, (being imploy­ed by God to order these things in the Church, and that, for the maintenance of Christianity received) should tye themselves to execute those acts, which the Body of Christians in each City should determine to be for the maintenance of that Christianity, which they knew nothing what belonged to, but what they had learned from them, the Apostles; I am well content to referr my self to judgment. But alwayes there remains, or may remain a difference between the Bodies of Christians in several Cities, and the Soveraign Powers over them; So that the rights of both cannot be derived from one and the same Title. Sad ex­perience shows, that Churches may continue where the Soveraign Powers are not Christians, as they subsisted before they were. Shall these Soveraign Powers give sentence of binding and loosing, and appoint persons to be ordain­ed, and those that claim under the Apostles be bound to execute? Shall the Great Turk have Power to officiate, and minister the Sacraments of divine ser­vice in the Church, because whatsoever a man may do by his minister, hee may do in his own person much more, as this opinion, pag. 297. 298, 299. expresly disputes that the Soveraign may do, and that, imployment or more publick con­sequence is the onely reason why hee doth not? It is said indeed, pag. 299. that hee that had Power to Teach before hee was a Christian, being Baptized, retains the same Power to teach Christianity. And so, every Soveraign being the Chief Master, to teach all his Subjects whatsoever the peace of his State requires; by [Page 147] being Baptized, hee gets no new right, but is directed how to use that which wee had afore. But, if the premises be true, the assumption is ridiculous. A Doctor of the Synagogue duely qualified, is not a Doctor of the Church, be­cause the Church stands not upon the same terms with the Synagogue, Doctors and Disciples being relatives, terms of a relation grounded upon the Society of the Church or Synagogue. The Soveraign Power teaches by Lawes, to keep the Publick peace (though, that it should do no more than teach were ri­diculous.) The Church teaches the way to heaven, and, for that reason, the bond of Publick peace not the mater of it. And therefore, as no man, by being Ba­ptized, getteth the right of teaching by Civil Laws; So, hee that hath the right of teaching by Civil Laws, by being baptized, getteth no right to teach Christianity.

The Law of Moses was given to one people, which had covenanted with God to be ruled by it, and upon that condition to be maintained in the Land of Pro­mise. So, the Covenant of the Law, and the obligation of that people to it, was presupposed, before God had declared whom hee would make Soveraign of that people after Moses. But, in as much as the determination of all things that became questionable concerning the Law was to come from those Powers, which were under the Soveraign, it is manifest, that the act of such Power se­cured the consciences of Inferiors. For, the promise of the Law being the tem­poral happinesse of the Land of Promise, and, the body of the people being, by the Law, to depend upon the determination of their Superiors, they practising the Law according to such determination, the promise thereof must needs re­main indefeisible. As for the inward obedience to Gods spiritual Law, where­upon, as I said, they might and did ground a firm hope of everlasting life under the Law; it concerned not the consciences of the people, how the outward Laws were determined, seeing, howsoever they were determined, this inward obedience to Gods spiritual Law received no hinderance. Though, the consci­ences of Superiors, from whom those determinations proceeded, were so much concerned in them; that, those who should violate that obedience due to the carnal commandement, by determining it to an unjust intent, could no wayes pretend any inward and spiritual obedience. But Christianity, covenanting for this inward and spiritual obedience, and expressing everlasting life, as the consi­deration of it, and particular Churches being constituted upon these terms, (and constituting the whole Church, which is nothing but the Communion of all Churches) whatsoever rights are acknowledged to be in particular Churches, (which, the precept of preaching to, and the promise of calling the Gentiles shows, might be under several Soveraignties) being settled in them already by divine right, can never accrue to a Soveraignty, though constituted by right, but, such as God onely alloweth, by commanding Government in general, but ap­pointeth not, by revealing it self in particular. And therefore, necessarily tend to the constituting of the whole Church, by the concurrence of all Churches, though of several Soveraignties, to the maintenance of that Christianity, in which all had equal interest before any Soveraign was Christian. And now, I cannot mervail, if hee that believes not the Scriptures to be Law to Christians, other­wise than as they are injoyned by Christian Powers, acknowledge no Power in the Apostles of obliging the Church, or in any body else beside the Soveraign. My mervail is, that hee who had pretended all this, should neverthelesse acknow­ledge a right in several Churches; that is, in the Bodies of Christians dwelling within several Cities, the Power of Excommunications and Ordinations, and that by the Scriptures, that is, by divine right. For, whatsoever act it was, or whose act soever it was, whereby those rights were settled, upon those Chur­ches, will hee or will hee not, was a Law to those that stood bound to acknowledg such right; which was really nothing, if no man were bound to acknowledg and to yield effect to it. Neither is it mervail, if hee acknowledg no Law for the indowment of the Church, that acknowledgeth not the judg­ment of the Levitical Priesthood to have been a Law to the Jewes, but by the will of the Soveraign, under the Kings. But, those that acknowledg that in­dowment [Page 148] to be Gods act, not to be voided so long as the Covenant was in force, will have seen as good an argument for the like provision to be made for the Church, as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel will allow any point of Christianity from the old Scriptures. And then, as it hath appeared, that several Churches are, by Gods appointment, several Bodies capable of in­dowment, constituting one whole Church, which is the Body of all Churches; So, by the same means it appears, that, what the Church is once indowed with, is as much the Churches, as any mans cloak is his own. And, as the giving of alms in general is not arbitrary to a Christian, but due from all that will be what they professe; So, the indowing of the Church, to those purposes for which the communion thereof standeth, (though called Alms, even by the Laws of this Land) had never prevailed over all Christendom, had not the obligation there­of been a part of our common Christianity.

But now, as concerning the Power of determining Controversies of Faith, I do here insist upon this argument; That, because no Secular Power is inabled by God to determine Controversies of Faith, therefore God hath provided a Soci­ety of the Church for preservation of unity among Christians, by such determi­nations, as may reasonably satisfie the consciences of those for whom they are made. Though, not in order to any penalty of this world, pretending by out­ward force to constrain obedience, but onely in order to the Communion of the Church, that is, to the holding or loosing of it, as a man conforms to the deter­mination or not; All outward force and constraint being acknowledged to pro­ceed from the power of the Sword, which the Soveraign beareth. This diffi­culty onely the Leviathan answers, they who, denying the Power of Excom­munication, dissolve the Communion of the Church and the Society thereof, in­to the Community of a Christian Common-wealth, contenting themselves to name godly Magistrates (which term I use not, because incompetible to the So­veraign) or Christian Powers, (as if their godlinesse or Christianity did intitle them to this Power) though it might have concerned them to show, how the Profession of Christianity comes to oblige Christian Subjects, to the determina­tions of Christian or godly Powers, if they would not be thought to begg the question which they tye themselves to answer. For, I also say, that all Christi­ans stand bound to the decrees of godly Powers, because, I suppose, (and the pre­sumption of piety implies them to suppose) that it is a part of godliness to profess one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church, the unity whereof once professed, ob­liges a private Christian to be of it, a publick person to maintain it: Which if the Soveraign do, then must hee maintain those persons, who, by the Society of the Church, have right to act in behalf of the Church, both in doing their duty, and in giving force to their Acts. For, I acknowledge (as I have already done) two points of that right, which Secular Power hath, in the acting of Church maters: The first is that which the trust of Secular Power importeth in all ma­ters; As they hold it not by their Christianity, and therefore not by the Church, so, that they suffer it not to be invaded upon pretense of Christianity, and the Power of the Church. For, as experience hath showed that there may be such pretenses; So, the reasons whereupon I ground the Society and right of Sove­raign Power, show, that Christianity abridgeth not the Soveraign Power in any thing that may concerne the publick peace. The second arises from Christianity; Which, as it giveth all Christians an interest both in all Christian truth, and in the Communion of the Church, as the common birth­right of Christians; So it giveth publick Powers a publick interest in the main­tenance of the same: That is, of all truth, which the Church, by the acts of the Church, (done by the Power of the Church for the preservation of Christi­anity) stands possest of; and of all Lawes, whereby the Communion of the Church in the service of God according to Christianity is duely maintained. But this interest presupposeth, therefore, a Society of the Church, by the acts whereof, Christian truth, and the unity of the Church is to be maintained; And importeth in the Soveraign, a Right to constrain, even those that act in behalf of the Church, not to transgresse their own profession, that is, either the due power [Page 149] of determining things questionable, which the Society of the Church inferreth, or the acts which have been duely done by the same.

Therefore, not supposing this Society, (that is, such an Act of the Church, as it may be evident, that, the Soveraign may or ought to maintain, because it may be evident, that the Church transgresses not those grounds which it pro­fesses) and supposing Controversies among Christians about Christianity; I say the Secular Power can have no right to determine them, that is (to oblige those that are under their Power to stand to the determination which they shall make [...] unlesse wee do grant, that, by their Christianity, they may be obliged to believe one thing, and, by their Allegiance, to professe another. For, seeing there be Soveraignes that professe Christianity, whereof some are of the Eastern, others of the Western Church, and, of these, some of the Communion of the Church of Rome, others that are departed from it; some Calvinists, others Lutherans, (and, Socinus his Sect, no man knowes, how soon some Sove­raign may follow) besides new Religions that appear; how shall the com­mon profession of Piety or Christianity oblige several Nations to obey those Lawes, whereby, several Soveraignties may establish contrary things in Christi­anity, but, by obliging them to professe contrary to what they believe? For, what contradictions soever are held among Christians, neverthelesse, they are sensible, that no mans private spirit, that is, any evidence of Christian truth, in the minde of one man, can oblige another man to follow it, because it imports no evidence, to make that which hee thinks hee sees appear to others. What becomes then, of the Christianity of Christian Subjects, obliging them to stand to the Determination of their Soveraignes, in all things questiona­ble? If the Soveraign Power have right to limit all that is questiona­ble, this right will create an obligation of professing and doing the con­trary of that, which Christianity will oblige a man to believe, and to think fit to be done; Unlesse all the Subjects of each Soveraign, have the strange hap to believe as their Soveraigns, in all things questionable. Besides, if the Soveraign Power have right to determine them, it will be impossible to show a reason, why this Power, in him that is no Chri­stian, should not have the same right; Seeing it is plain, that the common pro­fession of Christianity, being in Soveraigns that command contrary things, does it not, and the Soveraign Power which remains is the same in those that are not Christians, as in those that are. And therefore I conceive, that the Leviathan hath done like a Philosopher in this, to object unto himself the greatest of those dif­ficulties that his opinion is liable to; and hath but pursued his own principles, when hee inquires, what a Christian should do, when a Soveraign that is no Christian commands him to renounce Christianity. For, when hee argueth, that every Soveraign, by being a Soveraign, is the chief Teacher of his people, (whom, it is manifest that Soveraigns Teach not, but by their Laws or com­mands) but, that Christianity onely inableth to use this Power right; Hee must know, that there is no Power that will not oblige when it is used amisse, though not to all purposes, yet to all within the compasse of it. So that, if Christiani­ty onely inable Christian Soveraigns to determine maters of Religion right, the Power of determining will be the same in the Great Turk, (supposing him a lawfull Prince) as in any Christian Soveraign. And, if his act oblige the Chri­stians under him, being well used, why not ill used, the Power being the same?

But though I commend him, as a Philosopher, for charging his own opinion with the greatest difficulties; When hee answers, that a Christian in that case shall stand bound to reserve the belief of his Christianity to himself, for satis­faction of his conscience, but to professe or act outwardly as his Soveraign com­mands; I must so much detest this answer for a Christian, that I cannot con­ceive any thing so destructive to the foundation of Christianity hath been pub­lished among Christian people, since the time of Simon Magus and the Gno­stiaks, who, when Christianity was not protected, would do this, and yet pre­tend to be Christians. Onely the difference is, that hee does it not, but declares [Page 150] himself free to do it, if the Soveraign commands it. Which, though it may seem to preserve him the quality of a Christian, yet it is to be considered, that, by so declaring himself, hee recalleth that solemn vow, promise, & profession up­on which hee was admitted to Baptisme, or made a Christian in the Church of England. For, hee that is free to renounce the Faith at the command of his Soveraign, cannot be bound by the promise of professing it unto death. If therefore, it prove, that this promise is the substance of our whole Christianity, hee will prove an Apostate, if onely part of it, an Heretick. But, I perceive, hee is well enough aware of the Interest of his opinion, for love whereof hee waives the Interest of Christianity. For, as all Divines have made the profes­sion of Christianity the outward act of Faith, the inward act whereof is to be­lieve; So, upon this profession (the visible act of Christianity) the visible Soci­ety of the Church is built, which there is no pretense for if this be not com­manded, nor against, if it be. This profession, solemnized by the visible though mystical act of Baptisme, (that is, signifying more to the understanding than the meer sight of the eyes can evidence) being, as S. Austine argues, nothing else but the entring or dedicating of a Christian unto God, in that visible body of Religion which the profession of Christianity designs.

Which consideration sets right the mistake that is commended to us from a true Principle, that Soveraign Powers are the chief Teachers of their People. For, the relation, Offices, and Interests of Teachers and Scholars do not sub­sist, but upon supposition of some certain Society contracted between Masters and Scholars; as may appear by the instance of Masters and Apprentices, the so­ciety between whom is grounded upon a contract of learning the Trade. And no man denies, that there is a Society between Soveraign Powers and their Peo­ple lawfully to be contracted: And, that this Society makes the Soveraigns Ma­sters and Teachers, and the People their Scholars, if it be rightly understood: (Though, that it should make them no more, would be an imagination so ab­surd, that hee is not farr from that absurdity who takes notice of no more, see­ing all Teachers cannot make their Scholars learn as Soveraigns can do) But, this relation must be limited by the ground of civil Society, which is of necessi­ty no more than civil life; though the grace of God by Christ addeth unto it a capacity of advancing everlasting life, by maintaining the profession of Christi­anity, which is meerly accessory to it, as appears by all those Common-wealths that never were Christian. And therefore, that which civil Society teacheth is no more, than that civil conversation, which the maintenance of civil Society requireth. If therefore there be any such thing as a Relation of Teacher and Scholar in Christianity, (which this argument supposeth that there is, seeing that the common quality of Christian is no ground at all of that difference, which the different denominations of Teacher and Scholar suppose) of necessity it followeth, that there must be a Society of the Church, upon supposition where­of, the qualities and relations of Teachers and Scholars in Christianity are groun­ded and subsist. Which relations, which Society, did they not suppose Christia­nity to come from God, but to be a religion, either invented by the Soveraign, (as Mahumedisme, by the first founder of that Power under which Mahumetane Princes now claim) or inforced by the Powers that professe it, (as Heathenisme) then were it essentially a Law of that civil Society, the act whereof is all that obligation by which it standeth. And truly, hee that should believe Christiani­to be no more, than a Religion taken up as a means to govern people in civil peace, (which is not onely the opinion of Machiavillians, if any such there be, who, by believing no more of that Religion which they professe, signifie, that they believe no more of God, or of Religion at all, but also of those Philoso­phers, if any such there be, who do admit a Religion of all maxims which nature and reason hath taught all men to agree in, but, that which supposeth revelation from above, onely as the Religion of their Countrey, not as true) I say, hee that should believe this, must necessarily believe nothing of the Church, more than the Soveraign Power shall make it. But, as hee that makes outward Profession to be no part of it, can never give account, how the inward belief of it could be [Page 151] maintained and propagated to the worlds end, as I suppose all Christians agree; that God would have Christianity; So, hee that leaves the determination of all maters questioned in Christianity to the Secular Power that is Soveraign, (by dis­solving the Society of the Church into the Common-wealth that is Christian, and that without limitation, because by Gods Law) hee must by consequence oblige men to professe that, as the means of Salvation, which the Interest of State shall oblige every Soveraign to think necessary, for the preservation of it.

And that is the answer, that I shall make, to him who shall object the same inconvenience to mee, that the determinations of the Church are subject to fail; To wit, that there are three points of difference between it and the Se­cular Power, in consideration whereof, it is reasonable to believe, that God should provide a Society of the Church for the maintenance of Christianity, not­withstanding that hee leaves them subject to fail. The first, because this right cannot be said to be assigned the Soveraign Power by the Scriptures. For, in the Scriptures of the New Testament, there is no mention made of Soveraign Powers that were Christian. And, as for the Old Testament, if any man ar­gue; That, the Power which the Kings of Gods ancient people had in marais of Religion, the same Christian Princes have in Church maters, not onely [...] ­ [...]wer hath been made by denying the consequence; But also evident reason hath been drawn from the difference between the Law and the Gospel, why the consequence holds not. The second, because, the supposition of a Socie­ty of the Church, imports in it, means of determining maters controverted in Christianity, which the dissolution of Ecclesiastical Power into the Secular void­eth. The third, because those means of determining maters of Christianity, will inferre a limitation of that obligation which the determinations of the Church produce in them that are subject to them, meerly upon this ground, that they cannot produce any effect beyond the means upon which they pro­ceed. And these two differences, as I have begun to open, according as the subject of this discourse hath ministred occasion to do it, (having hitherto re­moved this opinion, that makes the Church nothing in the nature of a Society, nor the act thereof to have any force but that which the Soveraign Power al­lowes; and coming now to determine the means of discerning between true and false, in things questionable concerning Christianity, together with the effect of the Determinations of the Church) I shall have occasion to determine more distinctly in that which follows. Which being done, it will be time to limit the due bounds, by the which the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power are to concurre, in the establishment of things to be determined to Christian States and Kingdomes, in the mater of Christianity. Which will be the due place to meet with that objection which is so hotly pursued in the first Book de Synedriis, cap. X. that the Excommunications of the Church have been always thought li­ble, in Christian Common-wealths, to be limited by the Secular Power; And therefore, that there is no Excommunication by divine right. Which objecti­on, if it have any force, must hold in all parts and rights of Ecclesiastical Power, as well as in one.

CHAP. XX. The rest of the Oxford Doctors pretense. The Power of binding and loosing sup­poseth not onely the Preaching of the Gospel, but the outward act of Faith. Chri­stians are not at liberty to cast themselves into what formes of Churches the Law of Nature alloweth. They are Judges in chief for themselves in mater of Religion, supposing the Catholick Church; not otherwise. Secular Power cannot punish for Religion, but supposing the act of the Church, nor do a­ny act to inforce Religion, unlesse the Church determine the mater of it.

NOw, because the Doctor of Oxford might think himself neglected or dis­paraged, if, having considered the first book de Synedriis, (which in the [Page 152] point of Excommunication hee hath made his own) and the Leviathan, I should take no notice of that which hee hath added; I will not turn my Reader to him, till I have noted the particulars, in which hee seems to go alone: Putting him first in minde, to advise, how to make his choice, whom of the three hee will follow against all Christendom, who, upon several grounds, have set upon the Church, and the Article of our Creed that professes the same, to destroy it. Hee seems most to ground himself upon a supposition, that the Power of the Keyes extends no further than the converting of a man to become a true Christian, by preaching the Gospel, or rather the convicting of him that hee ought so to be: Resting therefore in the inward Court of the conscience, and not reaching to a­ny visible effect in the Church, because nothing can be wanting to the salvation of such a one. For him that is loose from sin, by this means, the Church cannot bind, him that is bound by sin it cannot loose. They that are by this means, loos'd from sin, have in themselves every one the Soveraign Power of judging between true & false in Christianity, as to the inward Court; as to the outward, their So­veraign. They are therefore at their freedom, to joyn in Ecclesiastical Communi­on, with whom they like best, and, being so joyned, do constitute a Church. And C [...]rches so joyned, may, as they shall finde their proficience in Christianity re­quire, combine themselves with other Churches, and assemble themselves in Sy­nods, to take order in maters of common concernment; provided they be tyed no further by the resolutions of them, than every man stands convict, by the light which his loosing hath given him, that they are either just or requisite. By the same right they create themselves Pastors, not with any Power to censure either people or Pastors, further than reproving. And, such Churches as these, hee imagines, the first Synagogues of the Israelites, under the Prophets, to have been, especially in the ten Tribes after Jeroboam; Seeing they could not resort to Jerusalem, & yet resorted to such meetings, for that service of God which was not confined to the Temple. But the judgment of maters concerning Religion in the outward Court, that is, as to the world, belonging onely to the Soveraign, and the Powers derived from him, hee vesteth even in the Heathen Emperors, to the same effect as in Christian, allowing a reason why they do well or ill in the exercise of it, as they do that which the Scriptures allow or not, but main­taining, that they do not exceed their power, whatsoever they do. So that, Ex­communications, Decrees of Councils, Ordinations, and whatsoever else may be done in behalf of the Church, being done by virtue of this Power, whether just or not, are valid to [...]y the outward man, either to stand to them, or to un­dergo the penalty assigned to the transgressing of them; which, being done in the name and the title of the Church, are meer usurpations and nullities.

The ground then of this deceit (which Aristotle calls [...], (or the first mistake) lies in this; That a man is loosed from his sin, meerly by the act of the inward man, acknowledging himself convicted of the truth of Christianity, or producing besides, what inward act of faith this opinion can require. Contra­ry to that which is settled by the premises, that the outward act of professing Christianity is absolutely requisite to obtain forgivenesse of sins, and other pro­mises which the Gospel tendreth by the Holy Ghost, the gift whereof the Sacra­ment inferreth. For, Baptisme, presupposing the profession of the true Faith consigned into the hands of the Church, (requiring it as the condition upon which it tendreth remission of sins, and the promise of the Holy Ghost) infer­reth also the communion of the Church, unto which it admitteth. Therefore is no body a Christian by believing the Scriptures, nor hath, by consequence, any title to the Kingdom of God, but by being baptized. Nor is it worth the while, a­mong reasonable people, to except those, who may be prevented, by unavoidable necessity of mortality, of recovering that Baptisme, which, they had utterly re­solved to submit themselves to any condition, to obtain; The Rule of the Law being a production of common reason, that an exception confirmes a Rule in cases not excepted. Now, if it appear, by the same consent of Christians that evidenceth our common Christianity, that hee who obtains Baptisme by making that profession which the Church requireth, owneth the person of the Church [Page 153] (for Corporations are persons in Law) for the evidence which hee trusteth in the mater of his Salvation; I shall not need to have recourse to the Article of our Creed, to prove that hee owneth the unity of it, and obligeth himself upon his Salvation to abide in the same. Nor, indeed, have I any need here to repeat the processe, by which I have demonstrated the corporation of the Church. Here I inferre, as clearly gained by it, that the effect of binding or loosing men from sin is limited by God, to a condition of acknowedging or not acknowledg­ing the Church, for two reasons, and in two cases. For, hee that is admitted to Baptisme upon professing the Faith of the Church, and undertaking to live as a Christian, if hee transgresse this profession, forfeits the communion of the Church which hee attained by making it. And, hee that acknowledgeth the uni­ty of the Church (which, all that are baptized must needs acknowledge) forfeits his share in it, by doing that which dissolveth it, though hee transgresse not the profession of his Christianity, doing it. Now, it appeareth by S. Paul and our Lord, that Christians under Infidels are forbidden to carry any of their sutes out of the Church, and commanded to end them among themselves. And shall hee not forfeit the benefit of his Christianity, and become bound by the sin hee committeth, in so doing, that doth this? I may therefore grant Erastus and this Doctor, that Let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publicane, sig­nifies; be it lawful for thee to implead him before Unbelievers; But it must be, as I said afore, upon supposition that hee is first excommunicate, and be­come no Christian to thee, and therefore to be used as a Heathen or a Publicane. As also I grant him, that, to be delivered to Satan, signifies not to be excommu­nicate, but supposes it. For if S. Paul, calling the miraculous graces of the Apostles time the manifestation of the Spirit; do teach us, that the world was thereby convicted, That God of a truth was in his Church, as hee saith again, 1 Cor. XIV. 24, 25; then was it to the same purpose and effect, that those who were shut out of the Church should become liable to the incursions of evil Spirits; To wit; To make the difference between the Land of Goshen and the rest of Egypt visible. It was therefore necessary, that the power of binding or loosing, in the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord, should be accompanied with the gift of the Holy Ghost, which our Lord breathed upon them. For by them the world was to be assured, upon what termes they might be loosed from sinne, and continue in the Unity of the Church, which if they forsook, they be­came bound again. But there is not the same reason, why the same should be thought requisite, to the same power in their successors. For, those terms be­ing once declared and settled, hee that professeth and teacheth them as the A­postles have taught, is a competent Minister to loose or to bind another: not onely though hee have not that gift of the Holy Ghost, that may make him ap­pear to be appointed by God to that purpose; but also, though hee be bound him­self, because hee undergoes not that which hee professeth.

Now, if the premises be true, it is a mistake as grosse as pernicious, to ima­gine, that particular Christians, by the light common to all Christians, are Judges in all things concerning Christianity, or the Scriptures. For, if the at­taining of Christianity, and Salvation by it, require no more, but to know the Rule of of Faith, and the common precepts of Christian conversation, together with the Offices wherewith God is to be served by his Church; If the gift of the Holy Ghost be promised to those that are baptized, upon undertaking this; then is the understanding of the rest of the Scriptures no further required at their hands, neither have they any warrant for that which they shall do, upon any such presumption as this. The Church, that hath received of God the trust of maintaining unity in this service of God, so as may best stand with the main­tenance of that profession which it presupposeth; hath by consequence, an obligation upon them, to stand to the resolution thereof, saving that common Christianity which the constitution thereof presupposeth. It is therefore utter­ly a most poisonous doctrine to be infused into the ears of Christian people, that they are, by their Christianity, free to cast themselves into Churches, as they may meet with those whom they best like to communicate with. It is [Page 154] therefore a thing to stand astonished at, that they who have hitherto declamed against any thing in Christianity, the reason whereof is not to be derived from the Scripture, not seeing in the Scripture any such thing as a Church, that was not founded by the Apostles; or by commission from the Apostles, not in all Christianity, any thing ever counted a Church, that was not planted by mean authority derived thence to some Church; should now think themselves at li­berty to build Churches, upon no other foundation, than an arbitrary agree­ment of seven persons. Suppose I say nothing as yet, in what right and inte­rest, several Members, or rather several ranks and qualities concurre to the re­solution of the Church; Suppose I grant the power may be so abused, that se­veral parts of the Church may stand obliged to provide for themselves without the whole, which is al that the common profession of Reformation importeth; Shall we not be throughly reformed, till we renounce one Catholick Church, as visibly a corporation, as the Baptisme which we received upon acknowledg­ing of it is visible? If every Church be planted by the authority of the Apo­stles to that effect, extant and alive in some Church, then is not the commu­nion thereof with all other Churches (by the means of that which planted it, communicating with all) arbitrary, but a necessary consequence of that obli­gation to the Unity of the whole, which it gets by being a Church. Nor is there any reason why the acts of the whole, (whether done by representatives in Synods, or resolved at distance of time and place, by intelligence and corre­spondence of the absent) should any way depend upon the satisfaction of par­ticular Christians, how just or how requisite. For, neither doth their confor­mity to them, in any reasonable construction, import any ingagement of their conscience, to the justice or necessity of them. Unlesse it could be said, that a man could not live in society, without binding himself to answer for the acts of that society wherein hee liveth. Which hee that saith, will not find an in­dependent congregation to continue in for four and twenty hours, or to enter into, onely for one. For, what obligation can all Christians have, to answer for that, which our Christianity, upon profession whereof we are become Chri­stians, containeth not? Indeed, when the abuse is so visible, that the unity of the Church, provided for the service of God upon supposition of this common Christianity, evidently destroyeth what it pretendeth to maintain; I leave the case at present, for their plea, who cannot obtain the consent of the whole, if they reform themselves. But you see what reason I have to deny, that this Reformation consisteth, in voiding the obligation of the acts and decrees of the Church. For the same reason, the authority of Pastors is as visibly derived from the act of the Apostles in primitive Churches, as their own authority is visible in the Scriptures. And unlesse all Christendom could be cousened or forced at once to admit such an imposture, they can be no Churches further than the name, in which it is derived from the Law of nature and reason, and the liberty left private Christians to dispose of themselves in Ecclesiastical communion where they please. For, of that liberty, neither the Scriptures, nor all Christianity since the time of them will yield one example. I marvel therefore that S. Pauls commission to Timothy, 1 Tim. V. 17. should seem to import no more then a reproof, and that at the discretion of him that is reproved, whether hee will admit it, or return him as good as hee brings. For if S. Pauls commission to Timothy extend no further, what could hee have done more himself had hee been present? And the Apostle, injoyning obedience to those who first brought the Gospel, and to those who presently ruled those Churches, in the same terms, Hebr. XIII. 7, 17. must needs be thought to give the successors their predecessors authority, saving the difference observed afore. So certain is it which I have advanced in another place, that this opinion is not tenable, without denying the authority of the Apostles, in the quality of Governours of the Church. For, as to the exception that may be made concerning the use of this Power, I have already demurred to the doubt that may rest in diffe­rence, between the succession of Faith, and the succession of persons. In fine, not to insist here, what the respective interests of publick and private per­sons [Page 155] in the Church are and ought to be, because it is a point that cannot here be voided; It shall be enough to say, that, of necessity, the authority of publick persons in and for the whole must be such, as may make and maintain the Church a Society of reasonable people, not a Common-wealth of the Cyclopes, in which, [...], no body is ruled by any body in any thing, accor­ding to Euripides. As for the Synagogues, that may be presumed, rather then evidenced, to have subsisted in the ten Tribes, during the Schisme; Let him make appear what hee can, hee shall never have joy of it towards his intent, so long as the difference between the Law and the Gospel stands, which I have [...]ettled; that the Church and the State were both one and the same Body under the Law, as standing both by the same title of it; But several under the Gos­pel, the one standing upon the common ground of all Civil Government, the other upon the common Faith of Christianity, which ought to make all Chri­stian States one and the same whole Church. For, in the two Tribes, who were at their freedom to resort to the Temple for that service of God which was confined to the Temple, (which all, could neither alwayes do, nor were bound to do) there is no record of any settled order for assembling themselves to serve God, either in the Law, obliging of right, or actually practised accor­ding to Historical truth. How much lesse in the ten Tribes, being fallen from the Law by the Schism? And, if there wanted not those who had not bowed the knee to Baal; nor Prophets, and schools of Prophets, under whom they might assemble themselves; yet was this far from a Society, formed by a cer­tain Rule and Order for communicating in Gods service, as I have shewed, the Church is. And therefore hee, who, upon that account, thinks himself free from the Rule of Gods service under which wee now have in the Church of England, must first either nullifie the Gospel, as owning no such thing as one visible Church, or prove the Church in which hee received his Christianity to be apostate.

Now, I confesse, our Doctor here makes use of an assumption which I in­tend not to deny, being an evident truth; That every man hath the Soveraign Power of judging, in mater of Religion, what himself is to beleeve or to do. For, how should any man be accountable to God for his choice, upon other termes? But, hee will intangle himself most pitifully, if hee imagine; That God hath turned all men loose to the Bible, to make what they can of it, and professe the Religion that they may fansie to themselves out of it. Even those who make men beleeve the Infallibility of the Church, must, in despite of them­selves, appeal to the judgement of whomsoever they perswade, to pronounce, that so it is. And, for the rest, how much soever he referre himself to him that hath intangled him in that snare, it proceeds wholly upon this supposition, to which hee hath once made his understanding a slave. But, if all the world should do as men do now in England, make every fansy taken up out of the Bible a Law to their Faith (not questioning, whether ever professed, owned, or injoined by the Church, or not) it would soon become questionable, whe­ther there be indeed any such thing as Christianity or not, these that professe it agreeing in nothing wherein they would have it consist. And, for my part, the the mater is past question, supposing what hath been said; That God pro­vided from the beginning of Christianity, that all Churches should be linked to­gether by a Law of visible Communion in the service of God, and so to make one Church. For, by this means, to become a Member of any Church, was to become a Member of the whole Church, by the right of visible Communion with all Churches, into which, all Members of any Church were baptized. And this it is which made the Church visible. For, when a man had no further to enquire, but, what Christians they were who in every City communicated with all Christians besides, the choice was ready made without further trial, avoiding the rest for Hereticks or Schismaticks. And, this choice being made, there was no fear of offense by reading the Scriptures, the sense whereof, this choice confined to the Faith and Rules received through the whole Church. So that, speaking of Gods Institution, every man is Soveraign to judge for himself in [Page 156] mater of Religion, supposing the Communion of the Church, and the sense of the Scripture to be confined within that which it alloweth. But, hee, who, thereupon, takes upon him to judge of Religion out of the Scripture, not knowing what bounds the Communion of the Church hath given the sense of it, shall never impute it to Gods Ordinance, if hee perish by chusing amisse. Now, if it be objected, that wee are at a distance from the Church of Rome, and all who communicate with it, upon a just cause of refusing the Reformation, as all that professe the Reformation suppose; And therefore, that there remains no visible presumption what is true, the ground of visibility being destroyed, by the division of the Church; I shall be far enough from extenuating the force of this objection, or the effect of this division, acknowledging, that, ac­cording to my opinion, holding both the Reformation, and the Catholick Church, the Church should be visible, but is indeed invisible. Not absolutely, but, as that which is hardly visible may truly be called invisible, because every one whom it concerns cannot attain to discern it, upon clear grounds. For, my intent is to aggravate the mischiefs of division to the highest, which, they who believe not the Catholick Church do not take for any inconvenience. And therefore I grant all, and do acknowledge, that division in the Church necessa­rily destroyeth that provision which God hath made, for the unlearned as well as the learned (equally concerned in the common Salvation of Christians) to discern by their common sense, where to resort, for that which is necessary to the Salvation of all; and how to improve and husband the same, as their profici­ence in Christianity calls for more at their hands, then the Salvation of all re­quires. Whereby it comes to pass, that they are put to make their choice, in maters, whereof it is not possible for ordinary capacities to comprehend the grounds; And so, must chuse out of fansy, education, prejudice, faction, or which is the vilest of all, interest of this world, which is in one word, profit. But, this being a choice that must be made, and though difficult, yet possible to be well made, hee that, without supposing Infallibility on the one side, or Reformation on the other side, would discern between true and false supposing the Original unity of the Catholick Church, must be a madman if hee advise not with the Records of the Catholick Church, though out of date, as to force of Law, on both sides, to tell him wherein Reformation infallibly consisteth. For, by that means, though hee shall not be able to restore that unity which is once violated (the duty of all but obliging to an effect, that cannot take place without the consent of parties) yet hee shall be able so to behave himself; and that Church which goes by this Rule, be it greater or be it lesse, shall be so constituted, as not to make, but to suffer the division which it is charged with. But, hee who preaches original liberty to all Christians to cast themselves into Presbyteries or into Congregations at their choice, bids them sail the main Sea without Ballast; and, besides departing from the Unity of the Church, by be­coming Members of arbitrary Societies, not parts of the whole by the visible act of visible power in it, expose themselves to the shelves and quick sands of positions destructive to the Faith of the Church. And I am to demand of this Doctor, if the Presbyteries be Churches by association of Congregations, and the Congregations Churches without it, and those which are neither Presbyte­ries nor Congregations (that is in effect, all the Parish Churches of the land) be Churches no lesse than either of both, (because they have one whom the Triers call a godly man, sent them to preach whatsoever he can make of the Bi­ble) I say, I must demand of him, what it is that qualifies a man a Member of a Church, or a Church a Church, and how a man, by being such a one, becomes a Member of the whole Church, which hitherto hath been thought necessary to the Salvation of every Christian. For, who knoweth not the dispute that remains between the Reformation and the Church of Rome, which shall be the true Church? Which, if every man be at liberty to become a Member of a Congregation, with any six more that hee likes, (who by that means shall be a Church) is plainly about nothing. And therefore wee are plainly invi­ted to a new Christianity, part whereof hath hitherto been, to think our selves [Page 157] Members of the Catholick Church, by being Members of some particular Church, part of the Catholick. So certain it is, that, had not the Creed been first banished out of mens hearts, it had not been banished out of the Church.

But, when this Doctor maintaineth further, that, all men having power in chief to chuse for themselves, in mater of Religion, the Soveraign hath Power, not onely to chuse for it self, but to impose penalties upon those which owe no man any account of their choice, if they chuse not that which the Soveraign chuseth; I confesse I find this toucheth mee, and the remnant of the Church of England, to the quick; edifying the Soveraign, to deny protection in the exercise of Religion, to them, who find themselves bound, never to commu­nicate in the change that is made, and in making, in Religion amongst us. But I find withal, so much inconsequence, and contradiction to his own sense, and the sense of all Christians, in it, that, I hope no Secular Power will be so prodigal of a good conscience, as to make it self the executioner of a doctrine tending to so unchristian injustice. For, if, as hee saith, no man is answerable for the Religion hee chuseth, to any but God, how shall hee be liable to be punished by man, for that, wherein hee offendeth him not? Or, how can any man offend him, to whom hee is not countable? Nor will it serve the turn to say; That, by denying protection in the exercise of Religion, the Secular Power punisheth no man for the judgement of his conscience. For all Chri­stians, of what profession soever, do generally believe, that they are bound to exercise the Religion which they are bound to professe; That Baptisme, wherein, (by the positive will of God under the Gospel) the profession of Christianity consisteth, truly obliging true Christians, to assemble themselves for the service of God with his Church, according to the Rules of it. It can­not therefore be said; that it is no penalty, no persecution for Religion, to deny protection in the exercise of Religion, to them who are not punished for the judgment of their conscience. For, whosoever can be supposed to be a good Christian, not onely had rather, but surely had better lose his life, (much more any comfort of it) than lose the exercise of his Christianity in the service of God, whereupon his Salvation so neerly dependeth. Nor will it serve the turn to say, as this Doctor saith, that, in persecuting the Christian Faith, (much more, in denying protection to the exercise of any profession which it infor­ceth) the Heathen Emperors exceeded not their Power, but onely abused it; having granted afore, that a man is free to chuse for himself, that is, not count­able for his Religion to his Soveraign. For, if it once be said, that God grant­eth all men all freedom in the choice of their Religion, it cannot be said, that God granteth the Secular Power any right to punish him for that choice, for which hee maketh him unaccountable. The ground of my reason lies in that which hath been said, against the Infallibility of the Church. For if the sen­tence of the Church be not of force to oblige any man to believe the truth of it, much lesse can the sentence of any Christian, though never so Soveraign, oblige the meanest of his Subjects to believe that Religion to be true which hee commandeth, because hee commandeth it. And, whatsoever penalty the So­veraign inflicteth upon those that concurre not to the exercise of that Religi­on which hee holdeth forth (as when hee denieth them protection in the ex­ercise of their own, which, as I have showed, is no mean one) implieth a command of exercising his, and is inflicted in consideration of obeying Gods command, which, the Subject is inabled by God to judge that hee hath, a­gainst all the world to the contrary. So that, upon these terms, the Secular Power, which is inabled to judge for it self upon the same account with the meanest Subject thereof, cannot have power to punish any Subject, for exer­cising any Religion which it alloweth not. For all Power, as I said afore, is a moral quality, consisting in a Right of obliging another mans will by the act of his will that hath it. Therefore, if a Subject cannot be obliged by the will of his Soveraign, to professe and to exercise that Religion which his Sove­raign prescribeth, then cannot the Soveraign have power, to impose any penal­ty upon his Subject, for professing or exercising that Christianity which hee [Page 158] believeth; All Christianity obliging a man, to the utmost of his ability, to professe and to exercise that Religion which hee believeth to be true. And the reason is manifest. For, Christianity is from God, and the Secular Power is from God, though by several means. Christianity, by the coming of Christ, and the preaching of his Apostles. Secular Power by what means, I will not here dispute, nor yet suppose any thing that is questionable. That which serves my turn is evident to the common reason of all men; That, by another act of God than that upon which Christianity standeth; That Christianity depend­eth not upon it; That, as I argued against the Leviathan, by a Law which no Secular Power can abate. If therefore God oblige a Christian by his Christia­nity, to serve God otherwise than his Soveraign commandeth, hee is bound by the same bond to disobey his Soveraign to obey God; which obliged the primi­tive Christians to suffer death rather than renounce the Faith. But I intend not to say that absolutely, which I say upon supposition of this Doctors sense. Nor do I intend here to dispute that, which I have resolved in another place, what kind of penalties Secular Power is able to inact that Christianity with, which it self professeth. The question is now, how the Secular Power is able, or becomes able to impose penalties in maters of Religion; (which as a Chri­stian, it is not able to oblige the Subject to acknowledge) not how far these penalties may extend. A question which cannot be answered, not supposing the Church. A question which is no question supposing it. For, supposing that God, sending Christianity, founds, for part of it, the visible society and corporation of a Church, assuring the common sense of all people thereby, what is the condition, upon which Salvation is to be had by communicating with it; What will remain, but to conform to the communion of this Church, la­bouring to work out, every man his own Salvation, by the means which the communion thereof furnisheth? Which whoso doth not, but pretends to di­sturbe it, will remain punishable by the Secular Power, (for I have said alrea­dy, that the Church is not inabled to inflict temporal penalties) not absolute­ly, because it is Christian, but upon supposition, that it maintaineth the true Church; The acts whereof, as Excommunication, by the original constitution thereof, inforceth; So, did not the Secular Power inforce that Excommuni­cation, it must of necessity become ineffectual, when the world is come into the Church, and Christianity professed by the State. And this is the resolution that I have given in another place, that the acts of the Church, for the mater of them, are limited by the Church, (that is to say, by persons qualified by the Church, and in behalf of it) but the force that executes them must come from the State. For, supposing the Church to be founded by God, and the power of it resolved into that act wherein this foundation consisteth; What­soever the Church is by this power inabled to do, will belong to the Church by Gods Law to do, though the mater of that which it doth be not limited by Gods Law, but by the act of men inabled by Gods Law to do it. S. Cyprian, and others of the Fathers have reason, when they argue, that the acts of the Church are the acts of God. For, no man capable of common reason can doubt, that, what is done by commission from superiour Power is the act of that Power which granted the commission, so far as it ownes the execution of it; And, I have sufficiently limited the Power granted the Church heretofore, by the mater of that communion for which it subsisteth, and the supposition of the Christianity upon which it subsisteth. What is therefore done by virtue of this commission, though perhaps ill done, for the inward intent with which men do it, yet, being within the bounds of the Power established by God, is to be accepted as his own act, without contesting whose act of founding the Church, it cannot be infringed. Which if it be true, so far is the Secular Power from being able to create or constitute a Church, (by creating that difference of qualities, in which, the difference between several Members thereof consisteth) that it is not able of it self to do any of these acts, which the Church, that is, those who are qualified by and for the Church, are thereby qualified to do, with­out committing the sinne of Sacrilege, (in seizing the Powers, which by Gods [Page 159] act are constituted, and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own service, into its own hands) not supposing the free act of the Church, without fraud and violence, to the doing of it.

CHAP. XXI. How the Tradition of the Church limits the interpretation of Scriptures. How the declaration of the Church becomes a reasonable mark of Heresie. That which is not found in the Scriptures may have been delivered by the Apostles. Some things delivered by the Apostles, and recorded in the Scriptures; may not oblige. S. Austines Rule of Apostolical Traditions.

ANd, by this means, I make account, I have gained another principle towards the interpretation of Scripture, and resolution of things questioned in Christianity, either concerning the Rule of Faith, or such Laws and Customs determining the circumstances of Ecclesiastical Communion, as, I showed afore, are understood by the name of Apostolical Traditions. Which principle, that no man mistake mee, pretends not any general Rule for the interpretation of Scripture, even in those things which concern the Rule of Faith; but inferrs a prescription against any thing that can be alleged out of Scripture, that, if it may appear to be contrary to that which the whole Church hath received and held from the beginning, it cannot be the true meaning of that Scripture, which is alleged to prove it. For the meaning, even of those Scriptures which con­cern the Rule of Faith, must be had, by the same same means, by which, I shall come by and by to show, that the meaning of all Scriptures, whatsoever they concern, is to be had and established. But the being and constitution of the Society of the Catholick Church from the beginning is of force to prescribe this limitation, to the Fansies of all men that take upon them to interpret the Scriptures; that they neither admit, nor impose upon any man, any thing for the true sense of Scripture, whereby, the substance of Christianity, which the Rule of Faith importeth, may become questionable. So that, an evidence of such op­position, ought to out-shine and supresse any appearance or supposed evidence of truth, in any such sense.

The Rule of Faith, (Not to go about to determine, in this place, what it con­taines, because it is the Master-piece of all the Divines of Christendome, to say, what is fundamental in Christianity and what is not, but to give a grosse descri­ption of what men mean when they inquire for it) consists partly in things to be believed, partly in things to be done: Hee that holds so much of Christian truth, as may reasonably certifie him of all that is requisite to qualifie a Christian man for remission of sins and life everlasting, which are the promises of the Go­spel, may well be said to hold the whole Rule of Faith in things to be believed. Hee that holds so much of Christian truth, as may reasonably certifie him, of all that is requisie to preserve all Christians with consciences void of sin, may be said to hold it in things to be done. For, the common Rule of Faith importeth not what is necessity for any Christian, but for all Christians. And, that any thing contrary to the salvation of all Christians should be held and professed by all Christians, is a grosse contradiction to common sense. Whereupon it is no lesse evidently true, that the Catholick Church of all ages and places is utterly infallible; In as much as it is a grosse contradiction, to suppose a number of men to attain salvation, who all do hold some thing destructive to the salvation of any one. So much difference there is between the whole Church, which is the Catholick Church of all times and places, and the present Catholick Church, respectively to those ages, in which the Communion of the whole was not in­terrupted by any breach, but effectuated by actual correspondence. For, the act of the Catholick Church, in this sense, which I call the present Church, if it be lawfull, obligeth all that are of it; But it self stands obliged to the Faith of the whole Church, as that, which, the being & privilege of a Church▪ resupposeth to be [...] rofessed by it. And of this I cannot conceive how any question should remain. [Page 160] The difficulty that remains is, how it may appear, that all this is not a fine no­thing, how it may reasonably seem to signifie something towards the limitation which I prescribe, to the interpretation of those Scriptures which may be alle­ged, in mater concerning the Rule of Faith. And the answer is, that, seeing it hath appeared, that the Apostles of our Lord Christ established from the begin­ning one Catholick Church consisting of all Churches, by the will of God and his appointment; (and that, in consideration of that which was made to appear afore, that all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians, though evident­ly extant and discernable in the Scriptures, are not neverthelesse evidently dis­cernable by all them whose salvation they concern) that therefore the unity and Communion of the Catholick Church was provided by God, as the deposi­tory of his truth, the acknowledgment whereof should be necessary to obtain life everlasting. So that, the effect of this trust, deposited by God in the Church, to be at least thus much; That, whatsoever was advanced in any part thereof, as belonging to the Rule of Faith, being condemned where first it was advan­ced, and, in consequence of that condemnation, by all other parts of the Church, to that effect, as to render those that held it uncapable of the Communion of all the whole Church; That this, I say, might be accounted a reasonable mark, to discern such doctrine to be destructive to the Rule of Faith. And thus were all Heresies marked for such by the Church, and, upon this ground, those marks were receivable, not onely before Constantine, but, so long as it may be visible that nothing hindred this correspondence, wherein the actual unity of the Church consisted, to operate and have effect. For, if this be the reason and ground which made these marks reasonable, as grounded upon it, then, hee that suppo­ses this reason either actually interrupted or impeached, cannot presume upon the like effect. And therefore, the justifying of these marks requires the evi­dencing of this correspondence of the Church, and no more. And truly, I could not but admire, to finde it alleged by Crellius the Socinian, (in his answer to Grotius concerning the satisfaction of Christ, where hee argues, that no Ec­clesiastical Writer ever profest that opinion) I say, I admired to finde him an­swer, that Pelagius the Heretick maintained the same. For sure it is not much more pertinent, than, if hee should allege, that the Jewes professe our Lord Jesus not to be the Messias, or that the Gentiles do not worship one true God; In as much as, though they be further from the faith of true Christians than Pelagius, yet an Heretick is no lesse excluded from the Communion of the Church, than a Jew or a Gentile: And the whole reason, for which the testiemonies of Ecclesiastical Writers is receivable, to evidence maters concerning the Rule of Faith, (to which they can give no credit, but are, by acknowledging the same, receivable for Christians) is the Communion of the Church, which make it evident, that, what such men professe in the Church is not against the Faith of the Church. And this, in the second place, may be a reasonable presumption or evidence of that which belongeth to the Rule of Faith, when a thing is so ordinarily and vulgarly taught by Church Writers, that there can be no reaso­nable presumption made, by the doctrine of any of them, that the contrary was ever allowed by the Church. So then, I do not tye my self to this, that, if any thing be found in the writings of any of those whom wee call commonly Fa­thers, it is therefore not contrary to Christianity, or to the Rule of Faith, that is, either expresly, or by consequence; For, who will or can think it reasona­ble, that the Church should be thought to avow all that hath been written by any of the Church, and is come to the hands of posterity by whatsoever means? Or who will think it strange, that a Christian should not understand the Rule of his Christianity, though the right understanding thereof should have been the condition requisite to the making of him a Christian? If the profession made by the writing from which posterity hath it, were evidently so notorious to the Church, and the maintenance thereof so obstinate, that the Church could not avoid taking notice of it and contradicting it, without quitting the trust of the Rule of Faith deposited with it; then, and not otherwise, I do admit, that the contrary of that which is regularly and ordinarily taught by Church Writers is inconsistent with the Rule of Faith.

Besides this, another presumption or prescription, limiting the interpreta­tion or Scriptures in such things as concern the Traditions of the Apostles, wee may be confident to have gained, from the Society of the Church, demonstra­ted by the premises; To wit, that, if any thing be questionable whether it come by Tradition from the Apostles or not, there can no conclusion be made in the negative, because it is not expressed in the Scriptures. Here, I desire all them that will not mistake mee, to take notice, that I intend not here to conclude, or inferre, what force those Traditions, which I pretend may come from the Apostles, though it be not certified by the Scriptures, may have, to oblige the Church, which question, I found it requisite to set aside once afore. But, that which here I affirme onely concerns the question of fact, that it is not impossible to make evidence, that some Orders, or Rites and customes of the Church had their beginning of being brought in for Laws to the Church, by the Apostles, though not written in the Scriptures. Confessing neverthe­lesse, that the proving hereof, which no reason can hinder mee to proceed with here, will be a step to the resolving of that force, which the Traditions of the Apostles (whether written or not written in the Scriptures) have and ought to have, in obliging the Church at present, when it shall appear to be common to written and unwritten Traditions, to have their authority from the Apo­stles. And, the evidence of this prescription depends upon a more general one, limiting the interpretation of Scripture, in mater of this nature (that is, concerning the Laws of the Church, how far they were intended by the Apo­stles to tye the Church) not to exceed the practice of the Church succeeding the times of the Apostles. The demonstration whereof consists in certain in­stances, of things recorded by the Scriptures of the New Testament, either e­videncing onely mater of fact, that is what was then done (and therefore im­porting no precept what was to be done for the future) or importing such pre­cepts, as no man will stand to be now in force.

It is manifest, that the Scriptures report, how the Disciples, under the Apo­stles, were wont to assemble themselves to serve God by the Offices of Chri­stianity, upon the first day of the week called vulgarly Sunday, after the Re­surrection of Christ, John. XX. 19, 26. Acts. XX. 7. Con. XVI. 2. Apoc. I. 10. Speaking of the banishment of S. John, conforming himself to the times of the Church for the service of God, and thereupon ravish'd in Spirit: Which no man questions. It is said indeed in this case, as it is said by others in the question of Tithes, that the first day of the week is commanded to be kept holy of Chri­stians by the fourth Commandment. But I demand of any man that can tell seven whether the first day of the week and the seventh day of the week be the same day of the week or not; And if this be unquestionable, I demand further, whether the Jews were tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep the last day of the week or not: Assuring my self, that, whosoever believes the Scriptures, and reads the Commandement, that obliges them to rest all that day, in which God rested from making Heaven and Earth, can no more doubt, that they were bound to rest on Saturday, than, that God rested from making Heaven and Earth upon that day. I demand then, whether the same precept, that obliged them to keep Saturday, can oblige Christians to keep Sunday? And do conclude that it can no more be said, then, that the same word signifies both the seventh and the first day. So wide an error so small a mistake can cause, when faction hath once swallowed it. A man would think it a very easie mistake to understand the seventh day of the week, which God commands to be hallowed, as if it signified one of the seven and no more. Which if it were true, then were the Jews never tied to rest on the Saturday by Gods Law, but might have chosen which day of seven they would have rest­ed on, notwithstanding that God rested on the Saturday, which is, to make the reason of the precept impertinent to the mater of it. I intend not to de­ny, that the reason and ground, upon which the Christian Church came to be enjoyned to keep the first day of the week, is drawn, and to be drawn from the fourth Commandment. But I say further, that, the reason and ground of [Page 162] a positive Law makes it not a Law, but the act of him that hath power to give Law, signifying that hee intends to inact it for a Law, whether hee expresse the reason or not. And thus I say, as I have hitherto said, concerning other Ordinances which have the force of Law to oblige the Church; that they can no more stand, by virtue of such Ordinances, as I acknowledge to have been torrespondent to them under the Law of Moses, than Christianity by the vir­tue of Judaisme, or the Gospel by virtue of the Law; which though it bear witnesse to the Gospel, yet, hee were a Madman that should say; That hee who was bound to be circumcised, by virtue of that circumcision should be bound to be baptized, supposing him of the number of Christians, who agree, that, Baptisme coming in force, circumcision could no more continue in force. And surely, those simple people, who of late times have taken upon them to keep the Saturday, though it were, in truth and effect, no lesse than the re­nouncing of their Christianity, yet, in reason, did no more then pursue the grounds which their Predecessors had laid, and drawn the conclusion which ne­cessarily followes upon their premises; that, if the fourth Commandment be in force, then, either the Saturday is to be kept, or the Jews were never tied to keep it.

Besides this particular, it is manifest, that the Apostles observe the third and sixth, and ninth hours of the day, for the service of God, Acts II. 15. III. 1. X. 3, 9, 30. And this, according to an Order then in force among Gods peo­ple, according to the Scriptures, Psal. LV. 18, Dan. VI. 11. As the very words of these Texts, and common reason, with the Testimonies of Tertulli­an, de Jejuniis cap. X. Epiphanius, Heresi XXX, S. Hierome upon the Text of Da­niel, S. Cyprian de Oratione Dominica, and divers others import. And again, Acts XIII. 2. wee see, that the Christians at Antiochia assembled themselves in fasting, for celebrating the service of God, when they were to send away those, that by Gods appointment were to carry the Gospel to further parts. As the Church, according to this example, hath, of ancient ages, had a cu­stome of Fasting before Ordinations. But, whether or no those things are to be observed by the Church, as Laws introduced and begun by these practices, this, whether true or false, whether questionable or unquestionable, is not to be concluded by the words of those Scriptures which barely relate what was done. Again: At the institution of the Passeover, it is expresly commanded, that it be eaten with their loins girt, shoes on their feet, and staves in their hands, Exod. XII. 11. which notwithstanding, it is manifest to all that believe, that our Lord did eat the Passeover, that hee did eat it sitting at the Table, or leaning on his side, as then they did eat at Table, Mat. XXVI. 20. Mar. XIV. 18. Luke XII. 14. in which posture, neither were their loins girt, nor their shoes on their feet, nor had they staves in their hands: And yet, so sure as our Lord knew what the Law required, so sure is it, that his intent was to observe the same. And therefore, knowing this to be Scripture, hee knew neverthelesse that it obliged not, and every one that practised it knew the same, and by the Scriptures could not know it. See the like at the last Supper of our Lord. Our Saviour, instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist at his last Supper, command­eth his Disciples to do that which hee had done. And the Disciples of our Lord, in pursuance of this Commandment, are reported by the Scriptures, to have celebrated the Eucharist at Supper, as our Lord had instituted it, and held those Assemblies, at which they served God with the Offices of Christianity for that purpose, the rich bearing out the poor in the charge of it. This, I have shew­ed afore more at large, to be the meaning of those Scriptures, wherein men­tion is made of these their Assemblies, Acts II. 42. 46. VI. XX. 7. 1 Cor. XI. 20, 21, 22. 33, 34. Jude 12. 2 Pet. II. 13. By all this wee find not, that the Eucharist was instituted by our Lord to be celebrated at the publick service of God, where this Supper of our Lord is not celebrated, as Tertullian acknow­ledgeth, where neverthelesse hee affirmeth, that it was delivered to the Church by the Apostles so to observe it. de Cor. III. Eucharistiae Sacramentum, & in tempore victus, & omnibus mandatum à Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec [Page 163] nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus. Wee receive the Sacrament of the Eucha­rist which our Lord instituted at the time of meat, and for all, at our Assemblies a­fore day also, but, onely at the hands of our Presidents. Though I have indeavo­red in another place to show, that this is to be gathered from some circumstance of the Apostles writings; (to wit; That, in point of fact it was so practiced under them) yet it is manifest, that the bare words of the Scripture, Do this in remembrance of mee, and the Scriptures, that relate onely what the Apostles did, do not determine, whether it ought to be celebrated otherwise than at Sup­per, as our Lord instituted it,

Further. The Apostles Acts XV. 29. decree; that those who were then con­verted to Christianity of Gentiles, should abstain from things offered in Sacri­fice to Idols. Which, being done to comply with the Jewes, manifestly signi­fies, that they were to abstain from those meats, as meats of Gods making, not­withstanding that the eating of them implied no communion with the sacrificing to Idols. For, it is a thing certain, by the examples of Daniel and his fellows, Dan. I. 9. of Tobit, I. 11, 12. and Judith, XII. 2, 3, 4, 19. that the Jewes, from the time of their captivity, when they could not avoid conversing with the Gen­tiles, had taken upon them to abstain, not onely from things really sacrificed to Idols, but from most things that came out of Gentiles hands, because there was some presumption, that a part of most kindes, (for First-fruits) had been conse­crated to Idols, the rest being by those First-fruits polluted, as dedicated to I­dols. Therefore, in those places alleged, it appears, that they forbore all meats and drinks that came from the Gentiles. Neither can there be reason to think it a folly which the Jews tell us, that Nehemiah, being Cup-bearer to the King, was dispensed with for drinking the wine of the Gentiles. For, why should wee think him lesse scrupulous of the Law than those afore-named? About this wine of the Gentiles, and consequently, other kindes, there are many nice and scru­pulous decisions in the Jewes Constitutions, the ground whereof, you may see by the premises, is more ancient than the beginning of Christianity. And this is that wherein the Apostles order the Gentilish Christians to comply with the Jewish, to satisfie them, that there was no intent of falling from that God who gave their Law, in those that turned Christians. And this decree S. Paul deli­vers to the Churches of his foundation to be observed, Acts XVI. 4. Which notwithstanding, writing to the Corinthians, hee manifestly distinguishes be­tween eating things sacrificed to Idols materially, as Gods creatures, without inquiring whether so sacrificed or not, and formally, when notice must needs be taken that they are such, 1 Cor. VIII. [...]—. instancing in two cases; First, when this is done, nor onely in the company of Idolaters, but in an house of Idols, 1 Cor. VIII. 10. Secondly, when a man, being invited by Idolaters, knowes that they intertain him with the remains of things sacrificed to Idols, part of which, as the First-fruits, whereby the rest was consecrated, were first consumed upon the Altar, whereby they that made these Feasts professed to communicate with their Altars, that is, with their Idols, which were Divels, 1 Cor. VIII. 19-30. In these two cases then, the Apostle, forbidding them to eat things sacri­ficed to Idols, (lest they might give occasion to those that uncer [...]ood not what they did, to cōmunicate in Idolatries) manifestly allowes them, when that con­sideration takes no place, to eat that which the Apostles had forbidden to eat, intending to forbid the meats of the Gentiles, for compliance with the Jews, in the distance they kept from Idolaters. And truly the same is manifestly to be gathered from that which hee orders among the Romans, XIV. 2, 3, 20, 21. neither to condemn one another for not observing that difference of meats, which, by the Law, then obliged; nor yet to use such meats, in case it might scan­dalize those that were of the Law, to think, that Christianity stands not with it. Whereby, it is evident, that hee allowes them that which the Apostles had for­bidden, because it is evident, that this is one of those differences, which Jews, by the Law, were bound to make. If therefore there be this difference in the Scriptures, it is manifest, that the leter of them doth not determine what obli­ges. So again, the same Apostle, 1 Cor. XI. 1-16. disputeth at large, that [Page 164] men ought not, but women ought to cover their heads at praying or prophesy­ing in the Church. For the intent whereof, though it hath been the subject of whole books in this age, I conceive, I need go no further than Tertullians book de Velandis Virginibus; who, living so much nearer the Apostles, knew better the custōms of their Churches, than all the Criticks of this time. Hee disputes the case in question then, whether Virgins had a privilege not to vail their faces at Divine Service; by arguing, that they cannot be excepted from S. Pauls words, and alleging the example of the Church of Corinth, where, at that very time, the Virgins vailed their faces at Divine Service as other women did. Which whether it tye the Church or not at this time, it will scarce be granted by those who now practice it not. And in another place, 1 Tim. V. 3-6. hee show­eth, that there was then an Order of Widowes, whose maintenance hee order­eth to come from the stock of the Church, as likewise, how they are to be quali­fied, and how imployed; Of which Order, there is no where any step remaining in the Church at [...]resent, though nothing be more imperative than the Order concerning it. So, the precept of the Apostle serves not to oblige the Church at present, though by Scripture. And if I may use the argument ad hominem, upon the supposition of those that I dispute with, who intend not to take any thing for true which I prove not, as debating the principles of Christian truth; it is manifest, that the Apostle, James V. 14. appointeth that the sick be anoin­ted with oil, together with prayers, as well for the recovery of their health, as for the forgivenesse of their sins. Which, it is manifest, that it cannot appear not to oblige the Church at this time, by virtue of that Scripture which injoy­neth it. And therefore, to say nothing at present, whether it do indeed oblige the now Church or not, those that believe it doth not oblige, cannot be able to give a reason why it obligeth not, by the Scripture alone. And this is the argu­ment whereby I prove, that the interpretation of Scripture, as concerning ma­ter of Law to the Church (or the means to be used in determining what obli­geth what not) cannot transgresse the tradition and practice of the Church: Because, that which is propounded in the Scriptures as meer mater of fact may oblige, and that which is propounded as mater of precept creating right, may not oblige, the Scripture not determining whether it intend that ob­ligation to be universal or not. For, having showed afore, that the Church is a Society instituted by God, to which these Rules are given, as Laws to govern it, in the exercise of those Offices wherein the Communion ther [...]of consisteth; all reasonable men must grant, that, as the intent and meaning of all Laws is to be gathered from the primitive and original practice of that Society for which they were made, so is the reason of all Orders delivered to the Church by the Apo­stles, and by consequence their intent, how farr they were to oblige, to be mea­sured by the first and most ancient practice of the Church, which first had them to use. Whereunto let us adde these considerations; That the Orders delivered the Church by the Apostles were of necessity in force, before mention can be made of them in their writings; That the writing of them is neither the rea­son why they oblige, nor a thing thereunto requisite, but meerly supervenient to the force of them; And, that there is sufficient evidence, that those motives to believe which the Scripture recordeth but cannot evidence, are neverthelesse true; and, that the truth of those motives cannot be evident, but by the Society of the Church which the said Laws do maintain. For, upon these con [...]derati­ons, it will appear necessarily consequent, that, as there be Apostolical Tradi­tions which the Scripture evidently witnesseth, so evidence may be made of them without Scripture.

The Rule of S. Austine, how to discern what Traditions do indeed come from the Apostles, is well enough known to be this; To wit, that which is ob­served over all the Church, though it cannot be discerned when, where, or by whom it came first in force, (that is, in his times, by the authority of what Sy­nod it was settled) that must be deemed and taken to come from the authority of the Apostles themselves. I will not use the terms of Synod or Synods, be­cause I conceive, the Church was from the beginning, by virtue of the perpe­tual [Page 165] intelligence and correspondence settled and used between the parts of it, a standing Synod, even when there was no Assembly of persons authorized to consent in behalf of their respective Churches; Such things as became requi­site to be determined in any Church being thereby so communicated to the rest, as the order taken in one, either to be accepted by them or redressed. Nei­ther will I say, that the Rule is so effectual as it is true. For, I cannot warrant, how general the practice of every thing that may come in question can appear to have been over the whole Church, nor whether it may appear to have begun from some act of the Church, to be designed by some place or persons, or not; which in S. Austines time, I doubt not, might be made to appear, and being made to appear, would maintain the Rule to be true. Nor have I need of any such Rule, as may serve to discern whatsoever may become questionable, whether it come from the Apostles themselves or not: It shall suffice mee here to presume thus much, that no man can prescribe against any Rule of the Church, that it comes not from the Apostles, because it is not recorded in the holy Scri­ptures. And therefore, that nothing hindereth, competent evidence to be made of the authority of the Apostles, in some Orders of the Church, of which there is no mention in the Scriptures. Correspondently to that which was settled afore concerning the Rule of Faith, that no man can prescribe against any thing questionable, that it is no part of it, because it is not evident in Scripture; or, because such arguments may be made against it out of the Scriptures, which every one, whose salvation it concerns, is not able evidently to assoile. And, all this being determined, I intend neverthelesse, that it still shall remain que­stionable, how farr these Orders of the Apostles oblige the Church: Because I intend not to prescribe from all this, that those Orders which shall appear to have been brought in by the Apostles may not become uselesse to the Church.

CHAP. XXII. The Authority of the Fathers is not grounded upon any presumption of their Lear­ning or Holinesse. How farr they challenge the credit of Historical truth. The pre-eminenee of the Primitive. The presumption that is grounded upon their ranks and qualities in the Church. Of Arnobius, Lactantius, Tertulli­an, Origen, Clemens, and the approbation of posterity.

THese things being said, wee have got ground for a resolution, in the dispute concerning the authority of the Fathers in maters questionable concern­ing Christianity, and the interpretation of the Scriptures. For truly, did the credit of those things which they affirm consist in the reputation of their holi­nesse or learning, whether or no the premises be true, the consequence would be lame. Hee that could make a question of the godlinesse and of the Christiani­ty of those persons, to whom wee owe the maintenance and propagation of Christianity under God, (by preserving Christs flock from the contagion of He­resies, by intertaining the unity of the Church, and by laying down their lives for the truth) must, by consequence, question, though not that Christianity which hee hath sansied, yet that which was delivered by the Apo­stles. Which notwithstanding, if the Holy Ghost, that was in them to save them, by saving the common Christianity, hath not given the Church evidence, that hee was given them to preserve them from error in understanding the Scriptures, wee wrong them, and the Holy Ghost in them, if wee take the truth of their doctrine upon their credit. For, though the having of the Holy Ghost presup­poseth the profession of Christianity, as I have showed, yet that importeth no evidence to warrant the truth of all that they might say, in defense or interpre­tation of it. And though their learning, in that which is proper to Christians, that is, their skill in the Scriptures be such, as these ages, that boast so much of learning can never equal, because they made it in a maner their whole businesse of study; And though some of them, as Clemens, Tertullian, Origen, and S. Hi [...] ­rome, that looked about them for further helps to the defense and interpretation [Page 166] of Christianity, may well challenge the curiosity of these times for great know­ledg; Yet, because mans wit is alwaies fruitfull in that which it is imployed a­bout, and may still be well imployed in clearing the true intent of Christianity and the Scriptures, so long as there are contrary opinions and sects which cannot all be true; I will not create any prejudice to the learning of this time upon that score, which, it is evident, may and doth imploy more helps of learning, than they ever did imploy towards the understanding of the Scriptures.

Two privileges there are, belonging to the Fathers of the Church, which, no man that writes in these dayes can pretend to, how godly, how learned soever hee may be. The first is that of their age and time, creating an infallible trust, in point of historical truth, concerning the state of Christianity during those ages in which they lived, or which they might know. This is that, which, nei­ther Pagans, nor Jews, nor Mahumetanes can refuse them any more, than Chri­stians can refuse to believe them in maters of fact, which they relate, not as things done in private, (which themselves with a few more may pretend to have had means to know) but which were visible to the world at such time as they writ, and wherein, had they been otherwise, they might have been reproved, as imposing upon the world, not the belief of that which doth not appear to be true, but of that which doth appear to be untrue. Neither do I demand, that, upon this score, their credit be admitted any further, than that which I have pre­mised will inforce. For, if I have well concluded, that the Church is a Society instituted by our Lord Christ and his Apostles, in trust, for the maintenance and propagation of Christianity, contained in the holy Scriptures which hee depo­sited with it; then is the sense of that time which is nearest the age of the Apo­stles a legal presumption of the truth of that which it was trusted with. And as all Writers, that relate things subject to the sense of all men as well as their own, have the credit of historical truth, and Church writers, in maters of fact con­cerning the Church of their respective ages; (the state thereof being alwaies visible) So those that write under the first ages of the Church, though compe­tent authors for the truth of nothing in Christianity, (for then why should not Christianity be believed upon their credit?) yet must be admitted, as unquesti­onable witnesses of that Christianity, which came hot and tender from the forge of our Lord and his Apostles. Nor do I complain, that any man refuses them upon this score. But when I see, how many, pretending to search the Scriptures, and the truth of things questioned in Christianity, never make use of any infor­mation they might have from them, to argue thereupon the true sense of the Scriptures, (who, if they were to expound any Author of humane learning, would count him a mad man that should neglect the records of those Authors that lived nearest the same time, and perhaps do themselves imploy the writings of Jewes and Pagans in expounding the very Scriptures) I cannot chuse but take it as a mark of prejudice against some truth, that men care not to be infor­med of the primitive Christianity, least consequences might be framed against some prejudices of their own, which, supposing onely the credit of historical truth, might prove undeniable.

And here, I must needs mervail at the Cardinal of Perrons demand, that the trial of what is to be thought Catholick, (or, universally received in the whole Church of God) should proceed chiefly, or at least necessarily, upon the testi­monies of those Writers which lived about the fourth century of years from Christ, as that which flourished most for number and learning of Writers. For, seeing the authority of Church Writers is not grounded upon presumption of their learning; And, that the credit of historical truth cannot be denied even the single witnesse of those, that writ, when they were more scarce, and lesse knowing, at least in Secular studies; But, what is primitive, what accessory, is not to be discovered, but by the state of those times which were before additions could be made; hee that demands to be tryed by the times of three hundred years distance from the original, (wherein, what change may have fallen out, not presumption but historical truth must determine) I say, hee that demands this tryal, demands not to be tryed. Not that I would deny the Writers of that [Page 167] age, and such as follow, the credit which their time, in the consideration now on foot, allowes; But, that the resolution of what is original and primitive must not come from the testimony thereof, but from the comparison of it with the testimony of those ages that went afore.

The second consideration, in which the writings of the Fathers are valuable, cometh from that which is now proved, that is, from the Society of the Church, and the unity thereof, from whence it follows, that, what is foun [...]d to be taught in the Church by men authorized by the Communion thereof, and qualified to teach, and that without contradiction, is not contrary to the Rule of Faith, but, if it be taught with one consent, it is part of it. Without contradiction, I mean here, when a man is not charged to transgresse the Faith of the Church, in that which hee teacheth, much lesse disowned by the Church for teaching it. Not, when no man is found to hold a contrary opinion, which alwaies falls out in things disputable. For, the Communion of the Church necessarily importeth, that a man qualified with authority in it, professe nothing contrary to that Faith, the profession whereof qualifies all to be of the Church: Though, other things there be many, wherein a man may be allowed, not onely to believe, but to professe contrary to that which another professes, and yet qualified, not onely to be of the Church, but to bear that authority which the Society thereof con­stituteth. The name, therefore, of Fathers importeth at least some part of that superiority, which the Society of the Church giveth; And therefore belongeth not properly to those that are not so qualified, though they that are not so qua­lified may be the authors of such writings, as have the lot to remain to posteri­ty. But, the authority of Fathers which is grounded upon this presumption, that persons qualified in the Church teach nothing contrary to the Faith of it, be­cause their quality in the Church would become questionable if they should teach that which agrees not with the Faith of the Church; This authority, I say, cannot appear in the writings of private Christians; Because the Church is no further chargable, by allowing him the Communion of the Church, who declareth to believe onely that which indeed contradicts the Rule of Faith, then of taking no notice what a private man professes to think, out of that igno­rance, which may beseem a capacity of being better informed.

Hereupon it is, that I think it no exception to the due authority of the Fa­thers, that Arnobius or Laectantius should be utterly disdained in some particu­lars. The one, known to have been a Novice in Christianity, when hee writ, and writing, as S. Jerom testifies, to declare himself a Christian, by trying his stile (as being Master of a School of Eloquence) in defense thereof, a­gainst the Gentiles, had, it seems, the ill chance to light upon some writings of the Gnosticks, according to Saturninus, or Basilides; and, taking them for Chri­stians, because they affected to go under that name, translated their monstrous opinions into his work, as points of Christianity. The other, whether a novice or no I cannot say, marked neverthelesse by S. Jerome, as one more able to refure Gentilisme, than to give an account of Christianity, (and therefore, to have been converted to Christianity, but not to have learned it) what presumption a discreet man can make of Christianity by his Book, let every discreet man judg. I will not say the like of Justine the Martyr, a man who hath deserved farr more of Christianity, by renouncing the world, and taking upon him the profession and habit of a Philosopher among the Gentiles, thereby to gain opportunity of maintaining Christianity on all occasions which the Heathen Philosophers took, to maintain the positions of their several sects. A resolution truly gene­rous and Christian. In the mean time, having in him more of a Philosopher than of a Scholar, and gathering his knowledg rather from travail and conver­sation than from reading, it is no mervail, if hee hath suffered many impostures, at least in maters of historical truth, which, hee that should demand that the Church should answer, as allowing his books to be read, would be very unrea­sonable; When as, bearing no rank in the Church above that of all Christians, for any thing I can perceive, if hee should have mistaken himself in any thing, neerly concerning the substance of Christianity, his eminent merits towards [Page 168] the Church might have been of force to have drowned all consideration of them, and given his writings passeport to posterity notwithstanding. I will not extend this consideration to the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus, of Origen, and of Tertullian; The last whereof, that is Tertullian, belongs not to this rank, having put himself out of the Communion of the Church, by making a party against the Church of Carthage, upon the pretenses of the Montanists. The second, that is Origen, whatsoever opinions hee had, cannot be said, either to have held them so resolutely, or to have professed them so publickly, that those that were nearest him could be thought accessories to them. And there­fore, as his very great merits of the Church otherwise, held him in his rank in the Church during his time, so his extravagancies cannot impeach that authority, which others, and hee also in such things as hee agrees with them in, do truly purchase by the allowance of the Church. The same is to be said of his Master Clemens, whose writings as they are not so many, so neither his extravagancies so great and considerable. But even these eccentrical Writers, by being mar­ked for positions particular to them, besides the credit of historical truth, (which, in times nearest the Apostles, is of great consequence to inform us of the pri­mitive state of Christianity, and therefore of incomparable value towards the settling of a right judgment in all things now questionable) I say, beside that which is common to them with all Writers, they get, by the exceptions which are made against them, the advantage of a Rule of Law in the rest; that is to say, that, setting aside those points in which they are excepted against, they are according to the Rule of Faith in things not excepted against, against. In fine, the authority of the whole Church is found to be expresly ingaged, in all things, that have passed into effect, either from the determination of Synods, (which, having been assembled by the free consent thereof, have been received by the like free consent, whether all or part were present at the Synod) or, from the act of any particular Church; the proceeding and grounds whereof, hath been approved of, and received into effect by the whole. Which, in some measure, may be said of the writings of particular Doctors: In as much as it is manifest, that extravagant doctrines may have been published in several parts of the Church, which particular Doctors may have imployed their pens to contradict, before any Church had imployed any censure to condemn. As, by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Origenists, it appeareth that Origen was contradicted by Methodius. If therefore such extravagances so contradicted be extinguished, such writings have continued cherished by the Church, it is evidence enough that the Church it self is ingaged in the condemnation of those extravagances, which have been suppressed by the means of such writings. And all this serves to maintain and evidence the Society of the Church, and the influence of it in those acts, whereby Christianity hath been maintained and propagated from our Lord and his Apostles. But, for the present, the question concerning onely the Rule of Faith, that which hath been said shall suffice to ground this prescri­ption; that, whatsoever the Church may appear unanimously to have agreed in, and to have allowed no contradiction to it, that may, and doth as evidently ap­pear to belong to the Rule of Faith, as evidently it may and doth appear, that the Society of the Church, freely acted by it self, hath given such consent. And therefore this prescription will inferr nothing, when it may by any means, ap­pear, that the consent of the Church, and the freedom which is requisite to the validity thereof, hath been anticipated or over-swayed, by any means interce­pting that intercourse and correspondence by the which it appeareth. In the mean time, the interpretation of the Scriptures is to be confined within the bounds of that which the whole Church from the beginning hath taught, when as, by the means hitherto demonstrated, it may be evidenced, in things that be­come questionable.

CHAP. XXIII. Two instances against the premises, besides the objection concerning the beginning of Antichrist under the Apostles. The general answer to it. The seven Trum­pets in the Apocalypse fore-tell the destruction of the Jewes. The seven Vials, the plagues inflicted upon the Empire for the ten persecutions. The correspon­dence of Deniels Prophesie inferreth the same. Neither S. Pauls Prophe [...]e nor S. Johns concerneth any Christian. Neither the opinion of the Chiliasts, nor the giving of the Eucharist to Infants new Baptized, Catholick.

BEfore I leave this point, I must here take notice of two instances against that which I have said. The first is the opinion of the Millenaries, which is said to be the general opinion of the primitive Fathers, Justine the Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Victorinus the Martyr, Lactantius, and I know not how many more. So that universal antiquity will prescribe no­thing in mater of Faith, when wee see so general an error of the most ancient corrected by their successors. The other, in the custom of giving the Eucharist to Infants, as soon as they were baptized, pretended to be so general, that no practice of the Church can conclude any thing to come from the Apostles, to him that avoweth this to have been well and duely changed by the Church that is. There is besides these a more general objection against the testimony of the Church in any mater of Christianity, rising from S. Pauls Prophesie 2 Thess. II. 2, 7, 14. that the mystery of iniquity was then on work, till hee that hindred were out of the way, not to be revealed. Which is pretended to be the corru­ption of Christianity by such as professed to be of the Church, then begun, not to be declared, till the rise of the Papacy, by the fall of the Empire: Or, as the Socinians will have it, till after the death of the Apostles, at what time, as Hegesippus in Eusebius witnesseth, the Church, that, till then, had continued a Virgin, was defloured and defiled by mixing with adulterate doctrine. This ob­jection I have produced elswhere, and repeat it here, in the first place, to be con­sidered, as pretending here to make fuller answer. I excepted heretofore thus; That, unlesse they that make this objection tye themselves to demonstrate, wherein that corruption consists, which the Apostle sayes was then on working under-hand; it will be as free for Socinians to pretend, that hee means this cor­ruption to consist in the Faith of the Trinity, and the Satisfaction of Christ and Original sin, as in any thing peculiar to the Papacy. And that with so much the more reason, because, if wee make the Pope Antichrist by virtue of this Scripture, wee must make him so for that which is peculiar to the Papacy, where­as, the corruption here spoken of concerns the whole Church, as well as that of Rome. Now I except more strongly, that, supposing the purpose of S. Paul to concern the corruption of the Church, that corruption cannot consist in any thing, which, by sufficient testimony may appear, to have been received in the Church from the beginning. That is to say, to this bare surmize of S. Pauls meaning, I have opposed all the reason that hath been alleged to prove, that, whatsoever hath been received in the Church from the beginning, is either of the Rule of Faith, or some custome introduced by the Apostles. But because still, this is but an exception in bart to the objection, not in resolution of the difficulty which groundeth it; I will proceed further, to show, that neither this Prophesie, nor the Revelation of S. John is meant of those that professed Chri­stianity, either in corrupting it, or in persecuting Christians, but of the professed enemies thereof, who persecuted the profession of it, to wit the Princes of the Romane Empire.

To which purpose, having observed, that the whole Prophesy of the Reve­lation, from Chap. V. to XX. consisting in the Vision of a Book sealed with se­ven Seals; at opening the seventh whereof, seven Angels are seen to blow se­ven Trumpets; at blowing the seventh whereof, seven Angels come forth, and pour forth seven viols of Gods Judgments upon the earth; I now say further, [Page 170] that the seven Trumpets signifie the Judgments of God poured forth upon the Jewes in Jewry, for refusing and persecuting the Gospel. The evidence hereof is first, in that of Apoc. VII. 4. 8. where there are sealed CXLIVM, of every Tribe XII M. to be preserved from the plagues of the seven seals, to wit, the Christians of whom our Lord had said, Mat. XXIV. 31. Mar. XIII. 20. that for the elects sake, those dayes should be shortned. For it is evident, that this Vision is presented S. John upon occasion of the like, which hee had read in Ezekiel IX. 4, 5, 6. in the like case, where the Angel is first commanded to mark those that should be saved from the destruction which hee prophesieth. And therefore, where, in the beginning of the Chapter, hee seeth four Angels standing at the four corners of the earth, who are forbidden to hurt it, till the servants of God be marked; it is manifest, that this earth is not the world, but the land of Jewry. Again, when it is said, XI. 1, 8, 13. that the Gentiles shall trample the outer Court of the Temple; and that therefore S. John should not measure it, as hee is tyed to measure the inner Court and Temple; That the carkasses of the two witnesses should lye in the streets of the great City where our Lord was cruci­fied, spiritually called Sodom and Egypt; That there was a great earthquake, which cast down the South part of that City, and killed seven thousand; hee that would see men pitifully crucifie themselves by racking the Scriptures, let him look upon them that ingage themselves not to understand by all this, the City of Jerusalem and the Temple there. Further, what is the meaning, that the CXLIVM are seen standing with the Lamb upon mount Sion, XIV. 1. if they belong not to that people? What is the meaning, that afterwards XIV. 19, 20. when the Angel with the sickle had made the Vintage, and cast it into the Wine-presse of Gods wrath, this Wine-presse is trode without the City, and the bloud over-flows to the space of XVI C furlongs; But, that the City of Jerusalem is meant, and the Judgment executed in the destruction thereof ex­pressed by the Wine-presse of Gods wrath, which over-flowed all that compasse without the City? If these things cannot be, unlesse the sounding of the seven Trumpets, Chap. VIII and IX be understood to proclaim the same vengeance; Let mee ask, what is the reason, that, having related what the founding of them produced, hee addeth, IX. 20, 21. The rest of men, that were not slain with these Plagues, neither repented of the works of their hands, so as not to worship Devils, and Idols of gold, silver, brasse, stone and wood, which can neither see, nor hear, nor go: Nor of their murthers, and witcheries, and whoredoms, and thefts. For, the Jews not being chargeable with Idolatry at that time, nor the consequences thereof, how should the rest be chargeable for not repenting of the same? For, to say, that covetousnesse of silver, gold, and goods of brasse, stone, or wood, is the Idolatry, and these the Idols here meant, is to strain the Scripture to an improper sense, whereof there is no argument in the words. But if wee say, that the rest of men, that were not slain with the Jews, are the Gentiles, to whom God by destroying Jerusalem, sent a warning to turn them from their I­dols to Christianity, for persecuting whereof they saw the Jews destroyed; wee say, that the main scope of the whole Prophesie is touched in these words; And from hence wee shall be able to give a reason, why, having propounded (in the twelfth and thirrteenth Chapters) the subject of that vengeance which hee seeth God to take, by the Vision of the seven Viols, in the fifteenth and sixteenth Chapters; hee returneth to remembrance of those CXLIV M that were mar­ked to be saved, and of the destruction of the rest of the Jews, XIV. 1-5, 14-20. of which, I shall not easily believe, that a reasonable account can be gi­ven otherwise. For, having fore-told the persecution of Christians in those two Chapters, the twelfth and thirteenth, what could be more pertinent, than, that hee should return to the remembrance of the saving of those that were marked, and the destruction of Jerusalem, as a patern of comfort to Christians, to incourage them to indure, and of terror to the Gentiles to refrain that fury? And therefore, as before, IX. 20. this intent had been signified, so it is most ex­presly repeated by the proclamation of three Angels one after another, XIV. 6, 8, 9-11. warning all to worship God alone, not the Beast of Chapter [Page 171] XIII. and fore-warning of the fall of Babylon for her Idolatries.

Now I am to remember you, that, after the sealing of the CXLIVM Jew­ish Christians, there appears before the Throne of God, so great a multitude as no man could number, of all Nations, Tribes, people, and Languages, cloa­thed in white Robes, and singing praises to God. Which, afterwards, are expounded by the Angel to be those that come out of the great tribulation, and had washed their Robes white in the bloud of the Lamb, VII. 9. 14. that is to say, Martyrs. And further, that these are they, who are seen at opening the fifth Seal, standing beneath the Altar, and calling for vengeance upon their bloud, VI. 9, 10. Which vengeance begins to be executed by the seven Trumpets. And the Angel that throws down those coals of vengeance upon the earth, from the Altar above, is said to put incense to the prayers of the Saints, VIII. 3, 4, 5. So that the same Censer, sends up perfume, that is those prayers, to the throne, and vengeance down upon earth. Seeing then, that it is manifest to all, that at opening the first Seal, our Lord goes forth upon a white horse to make warr, VI. 2. Who, after victory and revenge upon his enemies, appears in the same likenesse again, as triumphing over his enemies, XIX. 11-16. it will be re­quisite, to understand the Vision of opening the six Seals to be a general propo­sition of the whole Prophesie, signifying the publishing of the Gospel, and the prevailing thereof, through the vengeance which God would execute upon the persecutors of it, Jews first, and afterwards Gentiles of the Romane Empire, who would not take warning by the destruction of Jerusalem, to turn from persecuting the Gospel, to imbrace Christianity. And therefore the signification of the rest of the Seals is common to both. For, when hee feeth a Red Horse to signifie warr, a Black Horse to signifie famine, and a Pale Horse to signifie pesti­lence, VI. 3-8. it is manifest, that all this agrees wonderfully with that which our Lord had fore-told should come to passe in Jewry, as a preface to the de­struction of Jerusalem, of warrs, famines, earthquakes and pessilences, so as, notwithstanding, the end not to be yet, Mark XIII. 5-10. Mat. XXIV. 6-15. Luke XXI.—8-20. And yet it expresseth as punctually, those calamities of the world, which, those of the Empire did impute to the sufferance of Chri­stianity, when as God indeed intended thereby to punish them that imbraced it not. Antiquity is copious in this subject, that, when these calamities fell out, the Romanes cried out upon the Christians, as the onely cause of them. The beginning of Arnobius his dispute against the Gentiles will satisfie you of it. When as, therefore, the persecution of Christianity was both begun in Jewry, (as the Acts of the Apostles inform us) and prosecuted in the Empire, it will be against the truth of the case, to restrain the cry of the Souls under the Altar, upon the opening of the fifth Seal, either to those that suffered by the Jewes, or by the Empire. Now hee that peruseth that which is said to have come to passe upon the opening of the sixth Seal, Apoc. VII. 12-17. might have cause to think that hee reads the destruction of the world; but that it is evident, both, that the destruction of Jerusalem is prophesied by our Lord by the like expres­sions, (which the Prophets also of the Old Testament do use in describing the vengeance which God taketh upon the Nations) and also, that this Prophesie expresses a large time for Christianity to continue in the world, after this ven­geance taken by God upon the enemies of it. And therefore wee must believe that those have reason, who referr the effect of it, no lesse to the great change that fell out in the world, upon the ceasing of the persecution of Diocletian, and the coming of the Empire into the hands of the Christians, than to the de­struction of Jerusalem. For, when could it be said more justly, that the world was in an earthquake, that the Sun became like hair cloth, and the moon like bloud, that the starrs fell to the earth, as a fig-tree shaken with a great winde casts her figs, that the heavens passed away as a book folded up, and the Mountains and Islands were removed out of their places, (if ever such things could justly be said by the Prophets to expresse great alterations to fall out in the world) then when those Tyrants, and by consequence all their ministers, for shame that they were not able to root up Christianity, gave up the design with their power, and left the [Page 172] Empire to strangers, which, in a few years, fell into the hands of Constantine, and the Christians his Ministers? When could it be mōre justly said, that the Kings and great Ones of the earth, the rich, the Captains, and the Nobles, the bond and the free, hid themselves in caves and rocks of the Mountains, saying to them, fall on us and hide us from the face of him that sits on the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of his wrath is come, and who can stand? Then, when the Persecuters, some gave up the design, others proclaimed the hand of God upon them, and all their Ministers saw Christianity, which they had persecuted, to flourish, and their powers possessed by Christians? Which how strongly it inferreth (especially if you take the premises along) that, the Trumpets sounding the vengeance taken upon the Jews, the Viols must signi­fie the like upon the Empire for the ten persecutions raised upon the same pre­tense of rooting out Christianity (not by those that professe Christianity, though indeed they corrupt it) I leave to all the world to judge. Especially, if wee consider that which is often repeated from the beginning of the Prophesy, that the mater of it must come to pass shortly, that they are happy that shall read and observe it, and that to that purpose it is sent to the seven Churches of Asia, as concerning them deeply; Which, if it concern vengeance to be taken of the blood of those that suffered by the Papacy, by consequence of the premises is yet to come, at least the vengeance prophesied, and ten thousand chances to one if ever it do come, while those that rack the Prophesy to signifie it, are forced to prophesie themselves, without evidencing any commission for it; and the seven Churches in a maner suppressed by Infidels, far enough from being any thing of the effect of it, or any of those to whom S. John can be supposed to speak when hee sends it. And truly, supposing that the sound of the Trump­ets concernes the Jews, which no reason refuses, no modesty denies; and sup­posing again, that S. John was not banished into Patmos till Domitians dayes, which is the original and more probable report of Irenaeus (though some sup­pose hee was sent thither afore, when Claudius his Edict commanded all Jews to depart from Rome, because Epiphanius sayes, that hee prophesied under Clan­dius, and the Pro-consul of Asia might, as it was ordinary, command the same for that Province which the Prince had at Rome; For, what probability can there be, that S. John should be forbidden Asia, when S. Paul was permitted Achaia, as wee find by the Acts? I say supposing this, a very good reason is to be given, why the calamities of the Jews, then past, are represented to S. John by the vi­sion of the Trumpets; to wit, for the assurance and incouragement of the Chri­stians, for the terror and conversion of their Persecuters, who, knowing that which was come upon the Jews, prophetically described by the sounding of the seven Trumpets, might, both the better understand that part of it, and better in­ferre the meaning of the seven Vials; together with that which goes afore, to prepare the way for the pouring of them forth, and follows, to show the con­sequence of it. And, I must adde farther, that, though I say, that the destruction of Jerusalem was past when S. John was banished into Patmos; yet this Prophe­sy of it, and of the seven Trumpets, might be revealed to him before, accord­ing to Ep [...]phanius, affirming that hee prophesied in Claudius his dayes. For, what hindreth that which concerned the Jews onely to be revealed while Jerusalem stood, the visions of the seven Seals, and seven Vials, (concerning the Gentiles either in part or onely) being reserved to the persecution under Domitian, in which S. John is commanded to write that Letter to the seven Churches, which hee is commanded to send the whole Prophesy with?

Let mee now desire the Reader to look upon that interpretation which I have given in the Review of my Book of the Right of the Church in a Christian state, to that which is prophesied of the Raign of the Saints, that is the Christians, with their Lord Christ, for a thousand years, Apoc. XX. which, they they that referre the seventh Trumpet, and the seven Viols, in which it is accomplished, to the judgments to come upon the Papacy, cannot avoid to inferre the opinion of the Millenaries, condemned long since, and suppressed in the Church, in so much that the most learned of them hath professedly set up the Standard to revive it. I [Page 173] will not here suppose any thing, how prejudicial this opinion either is, or, as it is held, may be to Christianity. This I will say, that those which read the Hi­story of the Successors of Alexander, Kings of Syria and Aegypt, so expresly prophesied Dan. XI. that many particulars of it might have been buried in obli­vion, had not the exposition of it inforced S. Hierome and his Predecessors to have recourse to those Histories which now are lost, and out of them to relate such passages as the Prophet points at; I say, I shall count them strange men, if, seeing the rest agree with the Story, when they come to Antiochus Ep [...]pha­nes, and those things which the Prophet foretells of his acts in a continued Narrative, they can perswade themselves, that they were not fulfilled under him, but must belong to the coming of Antichrist. I know S. Jerome is charge­able with it: But it is one thing for him to follow some Predecessors, in expound­ing that which hee knew not how to expound otherwise, another thing to im­pose such a doctrine upon the Church, upon no ground, but such an interpreta­tion as that. I must say farther, that, the Visions of the VII and VIII Chap­ters of Daniel of the four Beasts, and the ten horns of the fourth, and the little horn that blasphemed God and made war against the Saints, VII. 8, 9. Of the Ram [...]e and the Goat, and the little horn thereof which made war against God and his people, Dan. VII. 9-14, must of necessity be understood of Antiochus Epiphanes, because of the taking away of the daily sacrifice so expresly foretold; That Nebucchadnezzars vision of the Statue, which represents four Kingdomes, the last whereof is evidently that of Syria and Aegypt, whereof both in their turns had the command of the Jews, Dan. II. seemeth to have no other aim but to introduce the Prophesie of their sufferings under Epiphanes. The purpose of these Visions toward the Jews being the same, with that of the Apocalypse to­ward the Christians, to comfort them with resolution to adhere to the Law, un­der to great trials, the good success whereof, the same Prophesie which foretold the Persecutions assureth. It is not my businesse here to enter into any farther exposition of the particulars, presuming that, the reasons which confine the In­terpretation being so concluding, those that will look into the writings of those that walk within the bounds of Epiphanes his time, especially Grotius the latest and ablest, will find a more proper sense within those times, than any can be i­magined otherwise. If therefore the Persecutions then related be fulfilled in the sufferings of the Jews under Epiphanes, then the Kingdom which there is soretold to be given the Saints and People of God, after vengeance executed upon him, Dan. VII. 18, 22, 27. XII. 2, 3. must also of necessity be understood of that Dominion which that Nation attained by freeing themselves from the Dominion of the Macedonians under the Maccabees.

Now, there being such correspondence, not onely between the main intent of both Prophesies, but also between the particulars of them, in very many things, which, no man can read both with diligence but must observe (though it is true, that many figures are used in S. Johns Revelations which are found to cor­respondent purposes in the Visions of others of the Prophets concerning Gods ancient people) I conceive no man will be able to reprove the consequence; that, both the Persecutions which pretended to make the Christians renounce Christ, as Antiochus pretended to make the Jews renounce the Law, are intend­ed by the fifth Seal, and also the coming of Constantine to the Empire, whereby the Government of the world came into the hands of Christians by the sixth Seal; As well as the Dominion of the Maccabees succeeding the persecution of Epiphanes, by the raign of the Saints foretold by Daniel. From whence I ar­gue, that S. Pauls Prophesie cannot intend any that should professe Christianity with an intent to corrupt it, because of the terms which hee useth; Hee that exalteth himself against all that is called God, or to be worshipped, so as to seat himself in the Temple of God, showing himself that hee is God; Being the same in which Epiphanes is described, Dan. XI. 36, 37. And the King shall do what him list: Hee shall exalt himself, and magnifie himself against all that is God, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of Gods, and shall prosper till the wrath be accomplished: For the determination is made. Neither shall hee regard the God [Page 174] of his Fathers, nor the desires of women, nor care for any God: For hee shall mag­nifie himself above all. For who is it that magnifies himself above all that is cal­led or accounted God, and worshipped for God, though by his own Predecessors, but hee that appoints the Jews, whom they shall worship, for their own, the true God, in the Temple? But hee that appoints the Christians to whom they shall sacrifice? Which, as, of all other Princes that had the Jews in their pow­er, none did but Epiphanes, so, all the Emperours that raised persecution against the Christians did necessarily do. For, as it is manifest, that, both the Macedo­nian Kings and Roman Emperours were themselves worshipped for Gods by their Gentile Subjects; so can none be said to advance himself above all that is called or worshipped for God, but those that, first, forbid the worship of the true God, then, of false Gods, allow or disallow the worship of whomsoever their own fansie directs, which is a thing common to Antiochus Epiphanes with the Roman Emperours. For the saying of Tertullian is well enough known; Apolog. V. cap. Nisihomini deus placuerit, deus non erit; Spoken in regard of the Power that State used, to allow or disallow the Religions and the Gods which they pleased; Whereupon hee rests and sayes; That such Gods, if they have not man to friend, must be no Gods. And besides, the Emperours by assu­ming the Legal power of Pontifex maximus, were invested with a Civil Right, of allowing or disallowing whomsoever should pretend to be worshipped for God, within the bounds of the Empire.

Whether then that wee suppose, that the Prophesie of S. Paul to the Thes­salonians, and the Revelations made to S. Iohn do concern Antichrist or not; (seeing the Scripture no where saith, that either the one or the other intendeth to speak of Antichrist.) And for the present, omitting the dispute, whether that Antichrist whom S. Iohn in his first Epistle II. 18, 19. IV. 1, 2, 3. admitteth to be appointed to come, though other Antichrists were come afore; whether I say that Antichrist be such a one as by persecution should seek to constrain Christians to renounce Chirst, or such a one as by professing Christianity should induce Christians to admit the corruption of Christianity, and thereby to forfeit the benefit of it; I say, omitting to dispute this for the present, out of the premises I shall easily inferr, that there is neither in S. Pauls Prophesie, nor in S. Iohns Revelations, any thing to signifie, that they are intended of any that should bring in the corruption of Christianity, by making profession of it. Whereupon it followeth, that, though wee suppose the mystery of iniquity which S. Paul foretelleth to be the same that S. Iohn saw, (as truly I do suppose) and both to begin with the preaching of Christianity, yet from thence no exce­ption can be made to the interpretation of the Scriptures, and the determination of things questioned in Christianity, from that which may appear to have been received by the whole Church from the beginning. Onely I will adde, that it is a very barbarous wrong that is done the Church, whether by the Socinians, or by whosoever they are, that allege the testimony of Hegesippus in Eusebius, acknow­ledging; That the Church, which, during the time of the Apostles was a pure Virgin, after their departure began to be adulterate with the contagion of pesti­lent doctrines; to argue, that this being the mystery of iniquity which S. Paul prophesieth, is also the corruption of the Papacy, which, beginning so early, leaves nothing unsuspected that can be presumed upon the consent of the Church. For, it is manifest, that Hegesippus speaks of the abominable doctrines of the Gno­sticks, which, as it is manifest by the writings of the Apostles, that they were on foot during their time, so may wee well believe Hegesippus, that, upon their death, they spread so sarr, that, in comparison of what succeeded, the Church of the A­postles may well be counted a pure Virgin. It is also manifest, from the premi­ses, that the Gnosticks could finde in their hearts to counterfeit themselves as well Christians as Jewes or Gentiles, to secure themselves from punishment, and winn followers: But it is also manifest, that, as they were discovered by the Church, so they were put out of the Church, and forced to range themselves a­mong their own respective Sectaries. So that, to impute the corruption of their damnable inventions to the Church, because they mixed themselves with the [Page 175] Church till they were discovered, is the same justice that the Gentiles did the Christians, in charging them with those horrible incests and vilainies, which the Gnosticks only were guilty of, because they, so farr as it was for their turn, affect­ed to shelter themselves under the profession of Christians. I shall have occasion in another place to inquire further, concerning the ri [...]ng of the Gnosticks du­ring the time of the Apostles. In the mean time, because I see those, who know not how to yield to the truth when it is showed them, stand in the justification of the wrong that is done the Church, by expounding, of the corruptions of the Papacy, that which Hegesippus saith of the Gnosticks, it shall be enough to give you his own words in Eusebius Eccles. Hist. III. 32. R. Steph. [...]. Hegesippus saith; That till that time, the Church remained a pure Virgin and undefloured; Those that indeavored to adulterate the true Rule of that preaching which saveth (the Rule of Faith, which I said so much of afore) lur­king in obscure holes of darknesse till then, if any such there were. But, the sacred quire of the Apostles having found the several ends of their lives; And, that gene­ration of men being past, that were vouchsafed to hear the wisedom of God with their own ears, then did the confirmation of atheistical error receive beginning, through the deceit of false Teachers; Who now, none of the Apostles remaining, undertook, bare-headed, for the future, to preach that Knowledge which is falsly so called in op­position to the preaching of the truth. For, here you have, in expresse terms, that Knowledge falsly so called, from whence the Church, after S. Paul, calls all those Hereticks Gnosticks, as pretending to have got it by such means, as our Lord had not discovered to his Apostles. You have also the difference between their lur­king under the Apostles, and their open preaching after their death, in terms so expresse, that, hee must have a good will to it, whoever oversees. I shall be ob­liged to referr my self to these same words in another place.

Now, to that which is objected concerning the opinion of the Millennaries, I answer first, that it cannot be thought ever to have been Catholick. For, Iu­stine the Martyr, who first mentions it, in his dispute with Trypho the Jew, not many years after the Apostles, expresly testifies, that it was the opinion of the most orthodox Christians: (to wit, in his judgment) but withall, that it was contradicted by others, who were neverthelesse Christians, even in his account, that is, of the Communion of the Church. Which, as it is a peremptory ex­ception against the Universality, so is it a reasonable presumption against the O­riginality of it; Seeing that, in so few years between him and the Apostles, those that believed not all which they had delivered for the common Christiani­ty can, in no probability, be thought to have injoyed the Communion of the Church. And truely, had it not been contradicted elsewhere, that excellent Pre­late, Denys of Alexandriae, that suppressed it in Egypt about CXXX after, as you may see in Eusebius Eccles. Hist. VII. 23, 24, 25. would have found a hard text of it. For, the intelligence and correspondence then in use between all parts of the Church, would easily have confirmed those of his charge even a­gainst him. The reason of atchieving the work was, because the rest of Chri­stendom insisted not on it. Neither is the number, or repute of Writers ex­tant, the reason to conclude any thing Catholick, if the premises be true; But the evidence which may be made, (sometimes from the disputes of able Writers, but much more, from the acts which past in the Church, according or against that which they dispute) that their doctrine was received or not received by the Church, in whole or in part, as necessary, or not. And therefore secondly I say, that the mater of this position concerneth not the Rule of Faith common­ly obliging all Christians, but the interpretation of a true Prophesie indeed, [Page 176] but, the true understanding whereof, whoso would make necessary to the salvati­on of all Christians, should tye all Christians, upon their salvation, to understand the Apocalypse, which who does? To justifie this opinion, it hath been showed that the Jewes have this opinion, that their Christ shall raign M years when hee comes, which seeing they cannot be supposed to have received from the Christi­ans, it makes a just presumption, that they had it even in S. Iohns time. The Jewes have a Tradition which they attribute to the School of one R. Elias, men­tioned in many of their writings, by name in Baal haturim upon Gen. II. and which is also the conceit, not onely of Lactantius, VII. 14. Tychonius the Do­natist in his V Rule for expounding the Scripture, and the Epistle anciently in­titled to S. Barnabas and lately published, but also, (as you may see in the late Lord Primates Latine Discourse of Cainan) That, as there passed II M years before the Law, under the Law, (counting from Abraham) II M years, so the dayes of Christ should be II M years, and after that the everlasting Sabbath. But whether or no the Jews of S. Iohns time could expect this thousand years for the complement of the Sabbath or work of VIIM years, which this Tradition promised; Whether or no Christians may expect the end of the World at the end of VII M years, the Sabbath that shall succeed being eternity; (according to that of S. Peter and of the Psalm, that M years are as a day in Gods sight) let them that have nothing else to do inquire; Certainly it will not concern the meaning of the Apocalypse, unlesse it could be said, that the M years there fore-told are to begin after II M years of our Lord are finished. Indeed, this wee see, that the Jewes whom King Alphonsus imployed to make the accounts of the Celestial motions, in appointing the motion of the fixed Starrs from West to East to come rome round in XLIXM years, the irregularity of that motion to come round in VII M years, (and that, not being obliged to it by any observations) made the like account of Sabbaths of thousands of years, and VII thousands, as the Law doth of dayes, or years, or Sabbaths of years. But if these Jewes be pitifully put to it, when, to excuse their not believing in Christ who came when the World was about IVM years old, according to their own Tradition, they are fain to say that it hath failed a small mater, of almost XVII C years, for their sins; Among the Christians what can be said more, but, that it pleased God to promise them M years of prosperity and raign, which the Jews, forsaking Christ, promised themselves to no purpose? Seing the beginning of them cannot be tyed to the end of VIM years from the beginning of the world. And truly no more than this can be thought requisite to the purpose of the whole Prophesie, of incouraging them to continue con­stant in the profession of Christianity, notwithstanding all persecutions, as fore­knowing the issue. Now, hee that continues constant in Christianity, and never knew this Prophesie, shall want nothing necessary to his salvation, though hee want so nething very effectual to the having of that which is necessary; To wit, of perseverance in Christianity; The intent of this Prophesie being to per­swade them to it. Which is enough to show any man a difference, between the right understanding of this Prophesie, and any part of the Rule of Faith.

As for the custome of giving the Eucharist to Infants so soon as they were baptized, I answer, that, the evidence which I will give you, that it was never used out of an opinion of necessity to Salvation, as the Baptisme of Infants was, seemeth to be an exception sufficient against the universal use of it, as sup­posed to come from the Apostles. Hee that will shew mee any Writer of the Church, by whose testimony it may be presumed, that the Church did not bap­tize Infants, out of an opinion that they could not be saved without it, (I speak not now of the truth of this opinion, but onely of the point of fact, whatso­ever may be argued from thence by virtue of the premises) I will yield him, that the same Writer did believe, that the giving of the Eucharist to Infants up­on their Baptisme, was commanded by the Apostles. I acknowledge it is the opinion of Tertullian (for which there is no mark upon him as ever a whit the lesse Catholick) that it was not expedient to baptize Infants, because of the danger of years under discretion, to seduce them from the fulfilling of their [Page 177] profession, before they could throughly understand what it imported. But I de­ny that this was, because he, or any body then believed, that they could go out of the world unbaptised, and yet be saved. For, when the vigilance of Pa­rents, and the diligence of all, might assure them, not to fail of Baptism in case of necessity; it is no marvail, if the reason alledged might move men to de­fer it to the years of manhood, beleeving no lesse the necessity of it. Now in the writings of Fulgentius, a worthy African Prelate, there is extant a little piece, in answer to a Letter of Ferrandus, a Deacon of his, it seems, about a certain Moore, who being converted, and having divers times made profession of Christianity, as the custome of the Church then required; after that, being taken sick, was baptized, without being able, by speaking, to make the like profession as the rule required all at their baptism to make. Upon other considerations, the Letter desires resolution of the salvation of this Moore; But, upon this also, because he survived not to receive the Eucharist, which is clearly answered in the affirmative, upon as good reasons of Scripture, as a good Christian can desire. Which is without exception, to show, that they had not that opinion of the necessity of the Eucharist, as of Baptism, sufficient to argue a severall beginning of observing them both. And truly, seeing it is granted on all hands, that it is no inconvenience in Christianity, that the Church, or any part of it, mistake the true meaning of some Scriptures, the alledging of our Lords words; Ʋnless yee eat the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drink his blood, yee have not life in you, Joh. VI. 53. seems to argue, that this came to be an or­der from some new act of the Church, or part of it; rather then, that it was practised as coming from the Apostles. Whereunto if we add that which here fol­lows; though it appear (chiefly by S. Cyprian, de lapsis) to have been frequented in Africk, though it were practised in the Western and Eastern Church, yet perhaps it will appear to comeshort of S. Austins rule, of discerning what comes from the Apostles, as affording appearance, that it was neither Original, nor Catholick: as for how prejudiciall, this is not the place to determine it.

The words of Innocent I Pope, out of which it is commonly taken for grant­ed, that this custome was in use at Rome, are these, Epist. XCIII. Apud Au­gustinum: Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare, parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratiâ posse donari, perfatuum est. Nisi enim manducaverint carnem filii homins, & biberint sanguinem ejus, non habebunt vitam in [...]semetipsis. But, that which your brotherhood affirms that they publish, that Infants may have the reward of eternal life given them even without the grace of baptism, is very foolish: For unlesse they eat the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drink his blood, they have not life in themselves. Where it is plain, that eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, which he makes necessary to salvation, is that which consists in being baptized; but of giving them the Eucharist, not a word more then this. The same fense (concerning the eating of the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ in and by baptisme, and that onely necessary to salvation) S. Austine also most manifestly delivers in a passage alledged by Gra­tain, de Consecrat. dist. 2 Cap. Quia passus est dominus, out of a certain Homily, de infantibus, which Bede also hath, in 1 ad Cor. X. Nulli est aliquatenus dubi­tandum, unumquemque sidelium Corporis & sanguinis Dominici tunc esse partici­pem, quando in baptismate membrum efficitur Christi? nec alienari ab illius panis calicis (que) consortio, etiamsi antequam panem illum comedat calicem (que) bibat, de hoc seculo migraverit, in unitate Corporis Christi constitutus. No man is any way to doubt, that every believer then becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when he is made a member of Christ by baptism: Nor does he become a stranger to the communion of that bread and cup, though before eat that bread, and drink that cup, he goes out of the world, estated in the unity of Christs body. And thus he expounds also the eating of Christs flesh, and drinking his blood, de pec­catorum meritis & remis. III. 4. And so he is likewise there to be understood, Cap. XX. And, to this purpose, all those passages of his are in force, whereby he requireth nothing but Baptisme to the salvation of Infants. And, in this sense, Hypognost. ad Art. V. Quomodo vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non re­natis [Page 178] ex aqnâ & spiritu, non cibatis carne, at (que) non potatis sanguine Christi, qui fusus est in remissionem peccatorum? Ecce non baptizatus, vitali etiam cibo po­culo (que) privatus, dividitur à regno coelornm, ubi fons viventium permanet Chri­stus. How do ye (Pelagians) promise little ones, not born again of water and the spirit, no [...] fed with the flesh, nor drenched with the blood of Christ shed for re [...]ission of sins, the life of the Kingdom of heaven? See, the unbaptized, deprived also of the bread and cup of life, is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven, where Christ the well of life remains. So, it appears that the African Church had this custome, but held it not necessary to salvation as Baptism; But by Gennadius, de dogma­tibus Ecclesiasticis, Cap. LII. It appears to have been a custome of the Church, when Hereticks were reconciled to the Church by confirmation, to give their little ones the Eucharist presently upon it. And Ordo Romanus de Baptismo, prescribes it after the solemn Baptism before Easter, which the French Capitulary, I. 161. and Alcuinus also, de divinis officiis provideth for. And in the Eastern Church, Dionysius in the end of the booke de Hierarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ. In the mean time it is to be considered, that, there being no order that all should be baptized Infants; nor at what age: (Whereupon St. Gregory Nazianzene, Orat. XLII. in Sanctum Bapt. advises at three or four years of age) it cannot be said to have been a generall custome of the Church; Nor, that it could be o­riginall from the Apostles, because the solemn times of Baptisme, at Easter and Whitsontide, cannot be thought to have been settled, till Christianity was grown very vulgar. For, as for those that were baptized upon particular occasi­ons, or in danger of death, it cannot be thought, that the Eucharist was cele­brated for their purpose; nor doth any example appear, that it was ever brought them from the Church. On the contrary, when the times of Baptisme came to be disused, because it was found to be for the best, that all should be bapti­zed Infants; upon this occasion, the receiving of the Eucharist came to be deferred as much longer then was fitting, in my opinion, then it was given too soon in S. Cyprians time, according to the example related by him in his Book de Lapsis; where the Child, whom the Pagans had given bread dipped in the wine that had been consecrated to their Idols, (because too young to eat of the flesh of their sacrifices) receives the Eucharist in the Church.

CHAP. XXIV. Two sorts of means to resolve whatsoever is resolvable concerning the Scripture. Upon what terms the Church may, or is to determine controversies of Faith. And what obligation that determination produceth. Traditions of the Apostles oblige the present Church, as the reasons of them continue or not. Instances in our Lords Passeover and Eucharist. Penance under the Apostles, and afterwards. S. Pauls vail, eating blood, and things offered to Idols. The power of the Church in li­miting these Traditions.

I May now proceed, I conceive, to resolve generally, upon what principles any thing questionable in Christianity is determinable; and as franckly as briefly do affirm, that there are but two sorts of means to resolve us in any thing of that nature: Tradition and Argument, Authority and Reason, History and Lo­gick. For whatsoever any Artist or Divine hath said, of the great use of the lan­guages, in discovering the true meaning of the Original Scriptures, by the ancient Translations, as well as the Originalls, (which I allow as much as they demand;) they must give me leave to observe, that, seeing all languages are certain Lawes of speaking, which have the force of signifying by being delivered to posterity upon agreement of their Predeoessors, all that helpe is duly ascribed to Tradi­tion, which we have from the Languages. Indeed this is no Tradition of the Church, no more then all History and Historicall truth, concerning the times, the places, the persons mentioned in the Scripture, concerning the Lawes, the Customes, the Fashions, and orders practised by persons mentioned in the Scriptures in all particulars whereof the Scripture speaks; which, whether it be de­livered [Page 179] by Christians or not Christians, as far as the common reason of men al­loweth or warranteth it for Historical truth, is to be admitted into consequence, in inquiring the meaning of the Scriptures; and without it, all pretense of Lan­guages is pedantick and contemptible, as that which gives the true reason to the Language of the Scripture, whatsoever it import in vulgar use. This helpe being applied to the Text of the Scripture, it will be of consequence, to confi­der the process of the discourse, pursuing that which may appear to be intend­ed, not by any mans fancy, but by those marks, which, cleared by the helps premised, may appear to signifie it; Which is the work of reason, supposing the truth of the Scriptures. And whereas other passages of Scripture, either are clearer of themselves, or, being made clearer by using the same helps, may seem to argue the meaning of that which is questioned: whereas, other parts of Christianity resolved afore, may serve as principles to inferre, by conse­quence of reason, the truth of that which remains in doubt (not to be impu­red therefore to reason, but to the truth from which reason argues, as believed and not seen) this also is no lesss the work of reason, supposing the truth of the Scriptures. But whereas there be two sorts of things questionable in Chri­stianity; and all that is questionable meerly in point of truth, hath relation to, and dependance upon the rule of faith, as consequent to it, or consistent with it, if we will have it true; or otherwise, if false: I acknowledge in the first place, that nothing of this nature can be questionable, further, then as some Scripture, the meaning whereof is not evident, createth the doubt. And therefore, that the determination of the meaning of that Scripture, is the determination of the truth questionable. For, seeing the truth of Gods nature and counsails, which Christianity revealeth, are things which no Christian can pretend to have known, otherwise then by revelation from God; and that we have evidence, that whatsoever we have by Scripture, is revealed, but, by the Tradition of the Church, no further then all the Church agreeth in it; (all that wherein it agree­eth, being supposed to be in the Scripture, and much more then that) It follow­eth, that nothing can be affirmed as consequent to, or consistent with that which the tradition of the Church containeth, but by the Scripture, and from the Scri­pture. So that I willingly admit, whatsoever is alleadged from divers sayings of the Fathers; that, whatsoever is not proved out of the Scriptures, is as easily rejected as it is affirmed, limiting the meaning of it as I have said. But, whatsoe­ver there is Scripture produced to prove, seeing we have prescribed, that no­thing can be admitted for the true meaning of any Scripture that is against the Catholick Tradition of the Church; it behoveth that evidence be made, that, what is pretended to be true, hath been taught in the Church so expresly, as may inferre the allowance of it, and therefore is not against the rule of Faith. But this being cleared, so manifest as it is, that the Church hath not the privi­ledge of infallibility, in any express act, which is not justifiable from the uni­versall originall practice of the Church, whither in prescribing what is to be believed, what is to be professed, or what is to be done: So manifest must it remain, that nothing can be resolved by plurality of votes of Ecclesiasticall Writers, as to the point of truth. For then were the priviledge of infallibility in the votes of those Writers, which themselves disclaim, from the substance of what they write. And it is to say, that, what had no such priviledge when it was written, if it have more Authors survive that hold it, shall be and must be held infallible. Which consequences being ridiculous, it followeth, that, for the tryal of truth within the bounds aforesaid, recourse must be had to the means premised. And the effect of those means every dayes experience witnes­seth. For, the obligation which all men think they have, firmly to hold that, which by these means, they have all concluded from the Scriptures, is the conse­quence of these principles in expounding the same. Which obligation, though sometimes imaginary, in regard that between contradictory reasons the conse­quence may be equally firm on both sides; yet that it cannot be otherwise, he that believes the truth of Christianity must needs imagine. For, true principles truly used, necessarily produce nothing but true consequences.

Which if it be so, why should any question be made, that the Church may and sometimes ought to proceed, in determining the truth of things question­able upon occasion of the Scriptures, concerning the rule of Christian faith? or which is all one, that the exercise of this power by the Church, produceth in those that are of the Church, an obligation of submitting to the same? Indeed here be two obligations, which sometimes may contradict one another, and therefore, whatsoever the matter of them be, the effects of them cannot be con­traries. The use of the means to determine the meaning of the Scriptures, pro­duceth an obligation of holding that which followeth from it; which obliga­tion no man can have, or ought to imagine he hath, before the due use of such meanes; whither his estate in the Church oblige him to use them or not. But, the visible determination of the Church, obliges all that are of the Church, not to scandalize the unity thereof, by professing contrary to the same. And to both these obligations the same man may be subject, as the matter may be, to wit, as one that hath resolved the question upon true principles, not to believe the contrary; and as one of the Church, that believes the Church faileth in that, for which he is bound not to break the unity thereof, not to professe against what the Church determineth. For I am bold to say again, that there is no so­ciety, no communion in the world, whether Civill, Ecclesiasticall, Milita­ry, or whatsoever it be, that can subsist, unlesse we grant, that the Act of superi­our Power obligeth sometimes, when it is ill used. In the mean time, I say not that this holds alwaies, and in matters of whatsoever concernment; nor do take upon me generally to resolve this, no more then what is the mater of the rule of Faith, which, he that believes may be saved, he that positively believes it not all, cannot. It shall be enough for me, if I may give an opinion, whether that which we complain of, be of value to disoblige us to our superiours, or not: As, concerning what is questioned amongst us, whither it be of the rule of Faith or not. But this I shall say, that, to justifie the use of this power towards God, re­quireth, not onely a perswasion of the truth, competent to the weight of the point in question, in those that determine for the Church; but also a probable judgement, that the determination which they shall make, will be the meanes to reduce contrary opinions to that sense, which they see so great Authority pro­fess and injoyn. For, without doubt, there can be no such means to dissolve the unity of the Church, as a precipitate and immature determination of some­thing that is become questionable. (For, effectually to proceed, to exercise Ecclesiasticall Communion, upon terms contrary to that which hath been received afore, is actually to dissolve the unity of the Church) The in­gagement to make good that which men shall have once done, being the most powerful Witcheraft and Ligature in the world, to blind them from seeing that which all men see besides themselves; or at least, from confessing to see that which they cannot but see.

But if we speak of things which concern the communion of the Church, in those offices which God is to be served with by Christians, or that tend to maintain the same; besides the meaning and truth of the Scriptures, there re­mains a further question, what is or ought to be law to the Church, and oblige them that are of the Church; (seeing that whatsoever is in the Scripture, obligeth not the Church for Law, though obliged to beleeve it for truth) the resoluti­on whereof, will require evidence of the reason, for which every thing was done by the Apostles; (for as it holds or not, so the constitution grounded upon it, is to hold, either alwaies, or onely as it holds). And this reason must be e­videnced by the Authority of the Church, admitting that reason into force, whither by express act, or by silent practice. When the Israelites are command­ed to eat the Passeover in haste, with their loins girt, and their staves in their hands; there is appearance enough, that the intent of it was onely concerning that Passeover which first they celebrated in Egypt, not for an order alwaies to continue, because then the case required haste; and because then the Angell passed over their houses, upon the door-posts whereof the blood was command­ded to be sprinkled, that by that marke he might passe over them to smite the [Page 177] Egyptians. For, though Philo would have the Passeover to be celebrated at home, and not at Jerusalem, (though perhaps onely by those of the dispersions, those that dwelt in the Land of promise, being all tied to resort to Jerusalem) yet all that acknowledge the Talmud, think it not lawfull to celebrate it but at Jerusalem; contenting themselves with the Supper, and abatng the Lambe, as one of those sacrifices which the Law forbiddeth every where, but before the Ark. But had not the practice of the Nation, and the Authority of the Elders, trusted by the Law to determine such matters, appeared in the businesse; our Lord, who, according to his own doctrine, was subject to their constitutions, had not had a rule for his proceeding. So, in the infancy of Christianity, it is no marvail, if the Christians at Jerusalem entertained daily communion, even at board also, among themselves; and, that they gave their estates to the mainte­nance of it, not by any law of communion of goods, but, as the common ne­cessity required; For what could make more towards the advancement of Chri­stianity? And when, at Corinth, and in other Churches, the communion was in use, though not so frequent, nor giving up their estates, but offering the first fruits of them to the maintenance of it; yet still was the Eucharist frequented at these occasions, as it was first instituted by our Lord, as, by the express words of Tertullian, we understand that it was, even in his time. But, when the num­ber of Christians so increased, that the use of the like communion could not stand with the maintenance of the world, which Christianity supposeth, when the same discipline could not prevail in so vast a body, which had ruled at the be­ginning; is it then any marvail to see these Feasts of love laid aside, (whether with the Eucharist, or without it) and the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord become so unfrequented at Supper, that it is strange to the rest of Christendom, to see it so used in Egypt, on Maundy Thursday, in remembrance meerly of the primitive custome? What shall we say of the order of Widows, whereof S. Paul writeth? Is it not manifest, that there was then a necessity of such persons, as might give attendance upon the sick, and poor, and impotent of every Church? that might minister hospitality to those strangers that should travail by every Church, and were to receive entertainment according to the custome? And is it not manifest, that when, Christianity increasing, daily oblations could not serve for this purpose, but standing indowments were to be provided; this course could not serve the turn, nor the office continue necessary, when the work cea­sed? There is nothing more evident, then that which I have said in another place, concerning the rigour of Penance under the Apostles. Nothing to inti­mate, that they forbade any sinne, how grievous soever, to be admitted to re­concilement with God by the Church. Many evident Arguments, that they left it in the power of the Church to grant it or not. But, the increase of Chri­stianity, abating the sincerity and zeal of Christians, made it so necessary to abate of that rigour, and to declare free access even for Adulterers, Murtherers, and Apostates to the worship of Idols; that Montanus first, and afterwards the Novatians, are justly counted Schismaticks, for departing from the Church, upon that, which the change of times made necessary for the preservation of unity in it: Which the Donatists remain much more liable to, breaking out af­terwards upon a branch of the same cause. Yet is nothing more evident, to them that use not the unction of the sick, then that instance. For what is, or what can be alleadged, why an expresse precept of the Apostles, backed with the unin­terrupted practice of the Church, should not take place, but the appearance, that the reason for which it was commanded ceaseth; the miraculous curing of bodily sickness no more remaining in the Church, and so drawing after it the ceremony which signified & procured it? But, in S. Pauls dispute of womens co­vering their heads in the Church, the case is not so clear, unless we admit two suppositions, both evident upon the credit of Historicall truth. The first, that neither Jews, Greeks, or Romanes, ever used, or knew what it meant, to un­cover the head in sign of reverence. What use soever they made of Hats or Caps, as they had use of them (though not to continue all as we have) seeing you never find that they put them off in sign of reverence; it is impossible, that [Page 162] keeping them, on should be understood among them for a sign of irreve­rence. And therfore, that the whole dispute nothing concerns the question, of preaching with a Hat or a Cap on in the Church. The second is, that which we learn by Tertullians Book, de Velandis Virginibus: The subject whereof being, that Virgins are not exempted, by any priviledge, from vailing their fa­ces in the Church, is argued by consequences drawn from this dispute of S. Paul; And namely, it is alledged, that, in the Church of Corinth at that time, according to S. Pauls order, they vailed their faces. Whereby it appears, that S. Paul was understood to speak of a vail, which, covering the head, came down before the face, which S. Paul therefore one while calls, [...], another while, [...], signifying, that which is so upon the head, as it comes down before the face; in English, a vail. And so Clemens Alexandri­nus and others, understand it. This being the case, what is the reason, which ceasing, the precept thereupon may be thought to cease? Surely, nothing else, but, because those Christians which overcame the Romane Empire, did not think, that civility, and the modesty of women, required them to keep their fa­ces vail'd; as the opinion and custome of Jews, Greeks, and Romanes, to whom S. Paul preached, did require. And though he argueth, that nature, which teacheth women every where to let their haire grow at length, teaches them to vail their faces, because, even unclothed, they are provided of a vail; yet, when he addeth; If any man be contentious, we have no such custome, nei­ther the Chuches of God: It is manifest he intends no law of Nature, but an inference, which, civility making from Nature, was fit to be maintained by the custome of the Church, as that custome, for the unity of the Church. But when those Nations, whose civility had not made the same inference, received Chri­stianity, is it marvail that Christianity should not impose that upon them, which, being no part of Christianity, had no ground, unlesse they would be bound to receive the civility of other Nations upon the account of the common Christi­anity? In the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem, prohibiting the Gentilish Christians things sacrificed to Idols, strangled, and blood, it appeareth by the dis­putes of sundry learned men, admitting the Jews Tradition; that all the Sonnes of Noe received seven precepts from God, which, when other Nations fell a­way to Idols, remained visible onely in the practise of such, as, not being Jews nor circumcised, are neverthelesse, in sundry places of the Law, allowed to live among them in the Land of promise, under the name of the stran­ger within the Gates: For, this allowance was, upon condition of undertaking these seven precepts. When therefore Gentiles were admitted to Christianity with Jews, and the question resolved, that they were free of the Law of Mo­ses, and yet an expedient was requisite, not to scandalize the Jews by the use of that freedom, that Jews and Gentiles might the more kindly joyn in one Church; it appears, that the precept of blessing the name of God, that is, wor­shipping God, was sufficiently provided for by the Christian faith: The precepts of maintaining Courts of Judicatures, and of forbearing rapine, were suffici­ently provided for by the Government of the Empire; and the precept of the Sabbath out of date under the Gospel. It remaineth therefore, that, by pro­hibiting things sacrificed to Idols, and fornication, with that which was stran­gled, and blood; the Apostles establish such compliance between Jewish and Gentilish Christians, as was in use between Jews and strangers, Proselytes, in the Land of promise. Not as if Christians had not sufficiently renounced Ido­latry in receiving the faith; or, as if it were not free for them, being Christi­ans, to Gods creatures, which perhaps might have been sacrificed to Idols: But because, as I said afore, the Jews had a custome not to eat any thing, till they had inquired, whether sacrificed to Idols, or consecrated, by offering the first fruits thereof; which scrupulosity those who did not observe, they counted not so much enemies to Idols as they ought to be; which opinion of their fellow Christians, was not so consistent with that opinion of Christianity which was requisite. Not as if fornication were not sufficiently prohibited by Christianity, but because, simple fornication being accounted no sinne, but meerly indiffe­rent [Page 163] among the Gentiles; all the professions, and all the decrees that could be made, were little enough to perswade the Jews, that their fellow Christians of the Gentiles, held it in the like detestation as themselves. Now, though we find, that the Christians did sometimes, and in most places forbear blood, and things strangled, and offered to Idols, even where this reason ceased; and that perhaps out of an opinion, that the decree of the Apostles took hold of them, in doing which they did but abridge themselves of the common free­dom of Christians) yet, seeing the Apostles give no such sign of any intent of reviving that which was once a Law to all that came from Noe, but for­gotten and never published again; it followeth, that the Church is no more led by the reason of their decree, then those Churches of Rome and Corinth were, whom S. Paul licences to eat all meats in generall, (as the Romanes) or things sacrificed to Idols expresly, (as the Corinthians) excepting the case of scan­dall, (which our common Christianity excepteth) setting aside the decree of Jerusalem, which S. Paul alledgeth not, and naming two cases, wherein that scandall might fall out, as excepting no other case. But in all these instances, (and others that might be brought) as it was visible to the Church, whether the reasons for which such alterations were brought into the Church, continued in force or not; so was it both necessary and sufficient, for them that might que­stion whither they were tied to them or not; to see the expresse act, or the cu­stome of the Church for their assurance. For, what other ground had they to assure their consciences, even against the Scripture, in all ages of the Church? For, if these reasons be not obvious, if every one admit them not, much lesse will every one find a resolution wherein all may agree, and all scandall and dis­sention may be suppressed.

CHAP. XXV. The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles. Not eve­ry abuse of this power, a sufficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves. Heresie consists in denying something, necessary to salvation to be be­lieved. Schism, in departing from the unity of the Church, whether upon that, or any other cause. Implicite Faith no virtue; but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity.

SUpposing now the Church a Society, and the same from the first to the se­cond coming from Christ, by Gods appointment; Let it be considered, what is the difference between the state thereof under the Apostles, and under Con­stantine, or now, under so many Soveraignties as have shared these parts of the Empire; And let any understanding, that can apprehend, what Lawes, or what Customes are requisite to the preservation of unity in the communion of the Church, in the one, and in the other estate; I say, let any such understand­ing pronounce, whither the same Lawes can serve the Church, as we see it now, or as we read of it under Constantine, and as it was under the Apostles. He that sayes, yea, will make any man that understands, say, that he understands not what he speaks of; he that sayes nay, must yeeld, that even the Lawes given the Church by the Apostles, oblige not the Church, so farre as they become useless to the purpose for which they are intended, seeing it is manifest, that all Laws of all Societies whatsoever, so farre as they become unserviceable, so far must needs cease to oblige. And the Apostles, though they might know by the spirit the state of the Church that should come after; yet, had they intended to give Laws to that State, they had not given Laws to the State which was when they lived and gave Laws. The authority therefore of the Apostles remaining unquestionable, and the Ordinances also by them brought into the Church, for the maintenance of Gods service according to Christianity; the Church must needs have power, not onely to limite and determine such things as were ne­ver limited nor determined by the Apostles, but even those things also, the de­termination whereof made by the Apostles, by the change of time, and the [Page 160] state of the Church therewith, are become evidently uselesse and unserviceable to the intent for which it standeth. And if it be true that I said afore, that all power produceth an obligation of obeying it in some things, (I say not in all, as afore) even when it is abused, in respect of God, and of a good Consci­ence [...] then is the act of the Church so farre a warrant, to all those that shall follow it so farre, even in things which a man not onely suspects, but sees to be ill ordered by those that act in behalfe of it. This is that, which all the va­riety and multitude of Canons, Rites, and Ordinances, which hath been in­troduced into the Church, before there was cause of making any change with­out consent of the whole, evidenceth; being nothing else, but new limitations of those Ordinances, which the Apostles either supposed or introduced for the maintenance of Gods service, determining the circumstances according to the which they were to be exercised. For, if there were alwayes cause, since the beginning, for particular Churches, (that is, parts of the vvhole) to make such changes, vvithout consent of the whole, as might justly cause a breach between that part and the whole; then was there never any such thing as a Catholick Church, which all Christians profess to believe. And truly, the Jews Law may be an argument, as it is a patern, of the same right; which, notwithstand­ing an express precept, of neither adding to it, nor taking from it, unlesse we admit a power of determining circumstances not limited by the letter of it, becomes unserviceable, and not to be put in practice: as may easily appear to any man that shall peruse the cases that are put, upon supposition of those precepts which determine not the same. Whereupon a power is provided by the same Law, of inflicting capitall punishment upon any, that, not resting up­on the determination established by those that have authority in behalfe of the whole, shall tend to divide the Synagogue.

Iintend not hereby to say, that the power of giving Law to the Church, can­not be so well abused, that it may at length inable, or oblige parts of the Church, to provide for themselves such an order in the communion of Christi­anity, as may stand with the Scriptures, and the unity of the Church, though without consent of the whole Church of the present time. For it is evident, that this disorder may be so great in the Laws of the Church, as to make them uselesse and unserviceable, not onely to the profession of the true faith, or to the service of God, for which the communion of the Church standeth, but even to the unity of the Church it selfe, which is the prime precept, that all which the Church does, ought to aim at. It is evident also, that this is the true cause which the reformation hath to dispute against the Church of Rome. But this I say, that, though particular Churches must necessarily have their parti­cular Lawes (which are the differences which severall Churches observe, in the exercise of the same Ordinances) yet may not any particular Church make it selfe any Law which may tend to separation, by disclaiming the unity of the whole Church; or, either expresly, or by due construction denying the same. This is done by abrogating Apostolicall Traditions as inconsistent with Christia­nity for the mater of them; not because the reason and ground of them is cea­sed. For, they who disclaim the Authority of the Apostles, cannot acknowledge the unity of the Church: And they who make Apostolical Ordinances inconsi­stent with Christianity, do necessarily disclaim the Authority of the Apostles. The same is done, by abrogating the constitution of the Church, done by vir­tue of the Authority left it by the Apostles. For, to disclaim the Church in this Authority, is to disclaim the Apostles that left it. And though this Authority may be so abused, that particular Churches, (that is to say, parts of the whole Church) may thereby be authorized, yea obliged to provide for themselves without the consent of the whole; yet not against the authority of the whole, that is to say, of the Apostles from whence it proceedeth: Nor is every abuse thereof a cause sufficient to warrant the scandals, that such proceedings necessa­rily produce. And this shall be enough for me to have said in this place; Ha­ving, I suppose, established those principles, by the right application whereof, he that can make it, may judge what is the true plea, whereby that separati­on, [Page 165] which the reformation hath occasioned, must either be justified, or be thought unjustifiable.

From that which hath been said, the difference between Heresie and Schisme, and the true nature of both crimes, in opposition to Christianity, may and ought to be inferred in this place; because it ought not to be forgotten, (which ought daily to be lamented that at) the beginning of the troubles, it was questioned in the Lords House, whether there were any such crimes or not, or whether they were onely bug-bares to scare Children with; and that, hereupon, every man sees England over-run with both. The word Heresie signifies nothing but Choice, and therefore the signification of it is sometimes indifferent, importing no more, then a way of professing and living which a man voluntarily chuseth, as S. Paul useth it, when he saith; That he lived according to the most exact He­resie of the Iewes Religion a Pharisee, Act. XXVI. 5. For it is known, that, besides the necessary profession of the Jews Law, there were three sects, which no man by being a Jew was obliged to, but by his own free choice, the Phari­sees, the Sadduces, and the Essenes; which being all maintained by the Law, as it was then used, the common name of them cannot signifie any crime a­mong them, to whom S. Paul then spoke, whatsoever we believe of the Sad­duces. And thus it sounds among them, who use it to signifie the Sects of the Grecian Philosophers, allowed by those who imbraced them not: As in the Title or Lucians discourse, [...]. But because it is too ordinary, for men, of their own choice, to depart from the rule to which they are or ought to stand obliged; thereupon, the word is most part used to signifie the free choice of a rule of living, contrary to that rule w ^ch they stood obliged to before: In which sense, Adam is called by Tertullian the first Heretick, as he that first departed from the will of God, to live according to his own. Supposing now that Chri­stianity obliges, both to the rule of faith, and to the society of the Church, by virtue of that rule; (because the beliefe of the Catholick Church is part of it, as hath been declared afore) it is manifest, that, whosoever dis-believes any part of that rule, the beliefe whereof is the condition upon which a man becomes a Christian; and thereby forfeits his interest in those promises which God hath made to Christians, doth or may either lead others or follow, in living according to that belief which he chooseth, whether, professing it, as a Christian ought to profess his Christianity, or not. And, in this sense it seems to be used by S. Paul, when he sayes, Titus III. 10. 11. A man that is an He­retick, after the first and second admonition, avoid. Knowing that such a one is turned aside, and sinneth, being condemned by himselfe. For, when he speaks of admonishing them, he signifies, that he speaks not of such as had actually de­parted from the communion of the Church, but sheltred themselves under the common profession of Christians, doing every thing as they did, that, by such means, they might inveigle such as suspected nothing, to admit their infusions; which, I showed before to have been the fashion of the Gnosticks, whose Do­ctrines the Apostle, 1 Pet. II. 1. calls, [...], Pestilent Heresies: And whom S. Paul must needs speak of in this place, because there were no other on foot, so as to be mentioned by their writings. Such a one then the Apostle saith is condemned by himselfe, in the same sense, as the Councills and Chuch-Writers say of one in the same case, in seipsum sententiam dixit; He hath given sentence against himselfe; because, by refusing the second admoni­tion, he hath declared himselfe obstinate, in that which the common Christiani­ty maketh inconsistent with the communion of the Church. And this more proper to the circumstance of this text then S. Jeroms interpretation, of those that condemn themselves to be put out of the Church by voluntarily leaving the communion of it; though that also is not farre from truth, concerning them who are properly signified by the generall name of Hereticks.

For, it is very evident, that, when S. Paul saith, 1 Cor. XI. 17. There must be Heresies among you; his meaning is onely of such factions as tended to Schism, whereof he admonisheth them, 1 Cor. I. 10. That there be Schisms a­mong them. Now it is manifest, how much difference there is between him who [Page 166] holdeth something contrary to the faith, and yet departeth not from the com­munion of the Church; and him that departeth from the commnion of the Church, though holding nothing contrary to the substance of the Christian Faith. The one forfeiteth his interest in Heaven, by the inward act of his soul, refusing the common faith which saveth all Christians, though outwardly hold­ing communion with the Church: The other, by the inward act of the soul, pro­ceeding to the outward act of dissolving the communion of the Church, which the common charity of Christians in the first place is to maintain. If both these crimes may come under the the common name of Heresie, (because inward mis­belief naturally tendeth to make a sect of such as shall profess to live accor­ding to it) no marvail, if all divisions of the Church be commonly called both Heresies and Schisms, whatsoever be the cause upon which they divide; If meer schisms, (that is, where the cause is not any thing necessary to the salvation of all to be believed) be also Heresie in the Language of the Apostles. Neverthe­lesse, there being so much difference between the two crimes, and the grounds of them, it is necessary to understand, setting aside all aequivocation of terms, that there is a crime consisting in mis-believing some Article of the faith (which, if you please, may properly be called Heresie;) And another consisting in dis­solving the unity of the Church, which is properly called Schism, when there is no further pretense for it then some Law, which, the Church being able to make, the other part will rather depart then admit. There may divisions in the Church upon pretence of such doctrines, as are not necessary to the salvation of all (and so, no part of the rule of faith) but, so evidently to be deduced from it, and from the rest of the Scriptures, that the Church may have cause to determine the same; and yet others may choose rather to depart from the Church, then suffer the determination thereof to take place. Which divisions, that memorable observation of S. Jerome seems to call Heresies, which said that all Schisms naturally devise to themselves some Heresie, (that is, some do­ctrine extravagant from the doctrine of the Church) that they may seem not to have departed from the Church for nothing; Which is very well exemplified by S. Austine in the Donatists. But whether such divisions are to be counted He­resies or Schisms, both names properly signifying all divisions of the Church, (and only that crime which consisteth in mis-believing some Articles of faith, appropriating the name of Heresie, because common use hath given it no pe­culiar name of its own) I leave to him, that shall please to determine it.

Supposing these things, it will not be requisite for me to say much, to that which hath been published concerning the nature of Schism, of late. That, be­ing to be had onely out of the Scripture, it is no where there to be had, but in S. Paul to the Corinthians. That there was at Corinth, when S. Paul writ, onely one Congregation of Christians, which he calleth the Church of Corinth. That therefore, there is no crime of schism, but in breaking one Congregation into more. As for any visible society of the Catholick Church, acknowledging the materials, men that professe Christianity, (which he that sees cannot believe) to the form (which is that unity which is visible) he is as great a stranger, as if he had never heard of the Creed; acknowledging, notwithstanding, an invisible unity in the common faith and love of Christians; upon perswasion whereof, he challenges as great freedom from schism, as ever any member of the Catholick Church could claim. For, having showed, how a thing which God made visible for many ages, may reasonably be expected to be found in the Scriptures; I am not to yield to try it by any part of them, knowing, that, whosoever evi­denceth a society of the Church by Gods Law, evidenceth the crime that con­sists in the dissolving of it. And, it were fit we were told, how all the Christi­ans, in a City where God had much people, should sit at one Table; (or, at least, sup in one room) before we believe, that there was then no more Christians at Corinth, then could assemble at once. Which if I did believe, I would notwith­standing alledge Iustine the Martyrs words, Apol II. [...], On the day called Sunday, all that dwelt in Cities, or in Countries, assemble themselves in one. And, [Page 167] supposing, that then, there were more Christians in Rome, and the Territorie thereof, for example, (for he writes to the Emperour Antoninus) then could meet together in one place; As Iustine means not, when he saies, That all in Cities or Countries meet in one, that all made one Assembly, but met all in common assemblies: I would thereupon argue; that, no more does S. Paul say, (when he gives these rules to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. XI. 14. which serve any assembly) that there was then but one Congregation at Corinth. If in Iustines time, if afore, if after, he can show me any Church of Rome, or any City beside Rome, that contained not all the Christians of that City, and the Territory thereof; I will believe, that, when Clemens writ the Letter lately published, from the Church of Rome, to the Church of Corinth; there were no more Christians at Rome, or at Corinth, then could meet all at once. But, if in all the Scripture, as well as in all the Records of the Church, a Church signifie the university of Christians, which one City, and the Territory thereof, containeth; it is an affront to common sense, for him to deny, that [...], or [...], is the Church that is contained in the Ci­ty and Territory of Rome, or Corinth. Let the learned Publisher of that Epi­stle, take [...] there for Inquilinus or Peregrinus, in Inmate or Pilgrim, (be­cause his Greek gave him leave) he that hath been showed so plentiful men­tion of [...], in the subject in question, for that which we now call a Dio­cese, can have no reason to see with his eyes, but because he is resolved not to use his own. For, in the very address of Polycarpus his Epistle, [...], To the Church of God dwelling beside Philippi; The da­tive case quite spoils the construction of the words to his sense. If the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi, then the Christians of the Territory be­longed to the Church of the City. As for the visible unity of the Catholick Church, it was not so easie for me to evidence that, which could not be questi­onable till the difference between Catholick Church and true Church, came to be questionable: As it is not hard for any Christian to question, whither the Church, which was Catholick for so many ages, ought now to be Catholick, or not. For, till he have destroyed the evidence which this abridgement hath been able to advance, (and, when that is done, new evidence will not be wanting, so long as the records of the Church are Historically true, and men continue possest of common sense) it is in vain to alledge the dictate of his own spirit, to show, that he is no Schismatick, not acknowledging, much lesse holding the unity of the Church, out of which no man can be accounted otherwise. But I marvail most, wherein he would have the crime of Schisme, acknowledged by S. Paul, in that one Text which he would be tried by, to consist. It is the Law of Nature that inables Christians to [...]oyn in a independent Congregation, as our other Doctor of Oxford hath told us. If a Covenant or League passe be­tween so many Soveraigns in this point; consider how difficult it is, to charge a Soveraign with breach of League, such contracts consisting of many Articles, one whereof violated voids the contract; At least, to the contrary there is no Rule. Now, the Covenant of a Congregation must suppose all Christianity, the violation whereof in any point, by any member, supported by the rest, frees a man of his contract. How then shall S. Pauls words take place, 1 Cor. XI. 19. There must be Heresies, that the approved may become manifest among you: For, if one leave six, (the Congregation consisting of seven) how shall it appear that the six are in the right? But, in my supposition, these petty animosities at Corinth, may have been fomented by secret Hereticks, as in time I shall show that they were. And their indeavour might be, to make a party for their Here­sie out of other Churches, as well as out of that of Corinth; and, being formed, to unite them by the like bond, as they saw the Church tied with by the Apo­stles. In this case division is ruinous to Christianity, not when the question is, whether seven shall meet together, or three and four. For by this means, it may become difficult for particular Christians, upon true principles, to give sentence for themselves in the matter of differances, but easie to miss the truth, and to joyn with the enemies of it, (thinking they serve God in communicating with [Page 168] them) by charging themselves, with judging of the sense of the Scriptures, ei­ther in those Laws of the Church, which concern not the salvation of particular Christians; or, in the common faith, without those bounds which God hath pro­vided by the Church. And, upon these terms, those that are approved may and do become manifest, by the rising of Heresies in the Church.

That which I shall inferre, is this; That, though there be no such virtue as im­plicite faith, because it is no part of faith, no office of that virtue to believe, that any thing is true (because the Church believes it with that firm adherance to it, as we are resolved to stand to that, by believing which we hope to be saved) yet it is part of the virtue, and part of the office of a faithfull man, that is a Christian, to conform himselfe to the beliefe of all that which the Church lawfully determineth to be believed; that is to say, not to professe the contrary of it, (and upon that profession, to do any thing towards dissolving the unity of the Church) so long as the determination thereof causeth not that corruption of those things which the society of the Church presupposeth, as may seem to make the unity thereof uselesse; whereof, this is not the place to debate when it comes to pass. It is sufficient for the present, that, whatsoever the Church hath power to determine according to the premises, that the Church (that is, all particular Christians) are obliged, not to believe, (by the office of faith, which is onely exercised in them, who can make deductions of conclusions from the principles of faith, who necessarily holding the conclusions in considera­tion meerly of the premises, do necessarily believe the conclusions, by that virtue of faith which holds the principles) but to hold, and to conform to, and not to scandalize, by the office of that charity, which is most eminently exerci­sed, about that which concerns the common good of all Christians in generall; which, uothing in the world can so much concern, next the common faith, as the unity and communion of the Church. Thus have I bounded the power of the Church, and so showed the reason upon which the right use of it is to pro­ceed. I showed afore the ground of that exception, which, the interest of se­cular Power in Church matters createth, to the due use of it. When I shall have showed, in the third book, what the Law of God hath determined in mat­ters concerding the communion of the Church; (and, by consequence, what it leaveth to the Church to determine) it will be time to take in hand the same consideration again. For, the ground of this exception will show, how farre it extendeth; whereby it will appear, that Christian Powers do acknowledge the Church, and the power of it to stand by Gods Law, even when they limit the exercise of it, by virtue of that interest, which the law of God alloweth them in Church matters.

CHAP. XXVI. What it is to adde to Gods Law; What to adde the Apocalypse. S. Pauls Anathe­ma. The Beraeans. S. Johns Gospel sufficient to make one believe; and the Scrip­tures, The man of God perfit. How the Law giveth light, and Christians are taught by God. How Idolatry is said, not to be commanded by God.

IN the beginning of this Book, I proposed the chief Texts of Scripture, which are usually drawn into consequence, to prove, either the infallibility of the Church, or the sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures. Of which I may tru­ly say, that they are, and have been, for these hundred and forty yeares, the Theme of a dispute, between the Scriptures and the Church, for the right of giving Law to the consciences of Christians, what communion to chuse, that of the Reformation, or that of the Church of Rome: But with so little success, that a discreet man may truly say, that the parties do now stand at a bay, as it is visible that they do, meerly because they are not able to force one another, by the arms which they are furnished with; the Arguments of either side serving to maintain them against the adversary, meerly because the arguments of the other side are insufficient; not because either hath, either the whole truth, or no­thing [Page 169] of the truth for it. I showed you there, that they come short of making good that which they are imployed to prove, on this side as well as on that. As for my present business, (which is here to show, how the sense of them concurs to the truth which I have established) I shall but desire any man of common sense, to make an argument from the Text of Moses alledged in the first place, and say; The people of Israel are forbidden by the Law of Moses, to adde any thing to the said Law, and to take any thing from it. Therefore the Scri­ptures contain, (clearly set down to all understandings concerned) all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians; then to tell me, whither he will undertake to make good this consequence of not. For, if the Law of Moses cannot pretend to contain clearly all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians, it will not hurt my opinion to inferre; That, because it is unlawful to adde any thing to Moses Law, (by saying, that it is and ought to be part of it, when it is not, nor ought to be) therefore it is unlawfull to adde any thing to the Bible, by saying, that it is necessary to the salvation of all Christians, though not written there: For, this my opinion sayes not. And truly; I must here alledge, that Gods Law, Deut. XVII. 8.-12. provideth a power in that people, to resolve and determine all things, which the peace and unity of that people requireth to be determined: And that, for the effect of this power, we have to show, all the constitutions and determinations (whereby the precepts of Moses Law are limited, how they are to be observed) which we find recor­ded in the Jews Talmud, and all the disputes and debates, that have ended in those determinations. In as much as we have to allegde, that our Lord in the Go­spell, hath commanded to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, as those that sit in Moses Chair. For those constitutions derive their Pedigree from those that were in force in our Lords time, by the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees, as it appears to all that compare them with the particulars mentioned in the Scriptures, in Philo, and Iosephus. For though the particulars be not alwaies the same, because time produces continual charge in particular custome; yet there is agreement enough to show, that it was successively the same authority, that made such orderly and moderate changes, (as the state of the time might re­quire, or mens fancies imagine) in the practise of their Law. Whereby it is evi­dent, that, the power of so interpreting the Law, being established by the Law, cannot be against the Law, as forbidden by it. And this abundantly e­nough for the justifying of that which I have said. For, the interpretation and limitation of the Precepts of the Law, by the tradition left with Moses, and by the Authority setled in the Synagogue, being established by the Law, cannot be counted an addition to the Law. Therefore, the interpretation of the Scrip­tures, by Tradition, left the Church by the Apostles, and the limitation of the circumstances which the service of God is to be regulated with, by the Autho­rity setled in the Church, cannot be counted an addition to Gods new Law, or to the Scriptures of the New Testament. But, because the satisfaction of the Reader, in the true intent of these precepts of the Law requires more, I shall say further; That I conceive, that God, providing a power requisite to determine all circumstances, which the practice of the Law should require; re­peats neverthelesse a caution of adding to, or taking from the Law, that it might not be thought, that this Power extended to alter any thing in the worship of the one true God, which all the precepts of the Law tended to limite. Sure­ly, in the Text of Deut. XII. 32. this caution followes immediately upon warning given, not to worship God by any of those Ceremonies, with which the Gentiles honoured their false Gods: the reason whereof is plain, least, by using the like ceremonies, the honour of those false Gods, to whom they were tendred by those that believed in them, might be admitted. Whereupon, when it is inferred, that nothing be added to or taken from those precepts, by which the Law commandeth to serve the true God; it is manifest, how well, the limi­tation of circumstances questionable in the practice of the Law stands with this caution, so soon as it appears, that the precepts thereof cannot be practised, till so limited. And upon the same caution, Deut. IV. 2. he inferres immedi­ately; [Page 170] Thine eyes have seen what the Lord did to those that served Baal-peor, now they are dead, and thou alive this day. As supposing this consequence; That, if they stuck close to their own, the true God, nothing should seduce them from his Laws: Not this; That, if they stuck close to their own, the true God, no­thing should perswade them to practice the precepts of his worship, in that sorm, which the power appointed by him should determine. So that both Texts prepress upon them the precepts of the Law, as those whereby the worship of the true God is distinguished; not as if, of themselves, they contained mater to oblige that people, or to procure them happiness. And surely, the determi­nations of their Elders, as they concur to the same ends, so are they inforced by the same obligation which the precepts themselves produce. And therefore it will not be amiss to take notice, how far the Jews, who acknowledge all that I say of limiting the Law, are, from thinking it to be contradicted by these Scriptures. Solomon Jarchi upon Deut. VI. 2. Thou stalt not adde; As for ex­ample, to the five Sections in the Phylacteries; to the five kinds in the banquet, which we cary at the feast of Tabernacles; to the five Thrummes in the Fringes: And so when he sayes, Thou shalt not take away. They are commanded by the Law, to wear frontlets upon them, to put them in remembrance of the precepts thereof, Ex. XIII. 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI. 18. to carry in their hands, and to walk with a Bush, made up of the branches of severall trees, at the feast of Ta­bernacles, Levit. XXIII. 40. to put a fringe to the corners of their Garments, made of a thred of Hyacinth among others, Numb. V. 38. 39. But that those frontlets should contain five Sections of the Law, & no more; that those fringes should consist of four kinds besides the Hyacinth (which are the determinati­ons of their Elders) these, according to his opinion, they are as much forbid­den to adde to, as to take from that which is determined by the leter of the Law. Abenezra seems to be more sober upon the same place; Thou shalt not adde, saith he, Of your own conceit, as thinking the worship of God to consist in it. For, believing that they vow to worship one God alone, and, that no passive acts, which the light of nature injoyneth not, can be esteemed the worship of God of themselves; but, in the doing of them, is the keeping of that Law which appoints them: it is one thing to worship God, as the precepts of the Law, determined by that Power which it appoints, do injoyn; another thing, to introduce rules of worshipping God, not by virtue of his Law, but upon a mans own conceit. And therefore it is forbidden them, to inquire after the fa­shions, by which the Gentiles worshipped their Gods, Deut. XII. 30. as a pre­sumption, that he which should say, that he would worship God as they did their Idols, had a mind to worship their Idols in stead of God, otherwise he would rest content with that way of worshipping God, which the Law had pre­scribed. Whereupon the Jews determine, that there are four Ceremonies, which who so does to any thing but to God alone, must be understood to wor­ship it for God; which are, sacrificing, burning incense, pouring out drink-of­ferings, and adoration: But others there are, by doing which, a man cannot be concluded to worship any thing but God, till he do it in that way and fa­shion, as is one by those that professe to worship it for God. If it be said, that these are Jews which allow Traditions; but, that there is another sort of Jews called Scripturaries [...], which admit nothing but the leter of the Scriptures. I answer, that those also who admit onely the Text of Scripture, and pretend to determine all controversies about the Law, by consequences to be drawn from it, could never come to agreement among themselves, what consequence should take place, and what not, did they not acknowledge some publick per­sons, whose determinations the whole body of them submitteth to; the conse­quences which they derive their observations by from the leter of the Law, be­ing so ridiculously insufficient, that they could not satisfie the meanest under­standings otherwise, as may appear by those which the Talmudists alledge for their constitutions. Which being no lesse ridiculous, then the traditions which they alledge incredible, would be both to no effect, did not the publick power of the Nation (which, while the Law stood was of force by it; but, now it [Page 171] is void, ought to cease) put all pretenses beyond dispute.

And for that which is alledged out of the Apocalyps (which in sound of words, seems to import some such thing concerning the vvhole book of the Scriptures, as these Texts of Moses import concerning the Lavv) I shall desire the understanding Reader, but to consider that protestation vvhereby Irenaeus conjures all that should copy his Book, to collate it vvell vvith the Original, that they might be sure, neither to adde to it, nor take from it, as Eusebius rela­teth out of his Book de Ogdoade against the Valentinians, Eccl. First. V. 21. [...]. I adjure thee, that shalt copy out this Book, by our Lord [...]esus Christ, and by his glorious presence, when he comes to judge the quick and dead, to collate what thou hast transcribed, and correct it by this Copy whence thou hast transcribed it, with care; and likewise to transcribe this adsuration, and pu [...]it in the Copy. Setting aside this adjuration, what is the difference between S. Iohns charge, and the matter of it? And, finding the words of S. Iohn to import neither more nor lesse, to tell me what he thinks of this argument; S. Iohn protesteth in the conclusion of his Revelation, that, who so shall adde any thing to the true and authentick Copy of these Prophe­sies, to him shall be added the plagues written it; who so taketh from it, from him shall be taken his share in the Book of life, and the holy City, and the good things written in that Book: Therefore, all things necessary to the sal­vation of all Christians, are contained in the Scriptures clearly to all under­standings. But, strain the consequence of this Text beyond the words of it, (which concern onely the words of the prophesie of this Book; that is, the Apo­calyps) if you please; and take it for a seal to the whole Bible, forbidding to take any thing from, or to adde any thing to it (for some of the Ancients have so argued from it) shall he that addeth the true sense to, or taketh false glosses from the Bible, by force of that evidence which the Tradition of the Church createth, be thought therefore to adde to the Word of God, or to take from it? Then did God provide that his own Law should be violated by his own Law; when, having forbidden to adde, or to take from Moses Law, he provided a power to limit or to extend both the sense and practise of it, and that under pain of death to all that refractarily should resist it. Now, I demand of them that shall alledge S. Pauls Anathema, against him that should preach any other Gospel then what he had preached to the Galatians, against the position that I maintain whether he do believe, that the Galatians had then the New Testament, consisting of the four Gospels, and other Aposto­licall Scriptures; or whether he can maintain that they had any part of it. For if this cannot (as is evident that it cannot) be affirmed, then, of necessity, S. Paul speaks of the Gospel, not as we have it written in the Books of the New Testament, but as they had received it from the preaching of S. Paul, by word of mouth; which, being common to all Christians, (unlesse we question whether all the Apostles preached the same Gospell) cannot be thought to destroy, either the being of the Catholick Church, or the saith which it suppo­seth, or the power wherein it consisteth; and the Authority of those acts which have voluntarily proceeded from it. As for the Beraeans, that examined even the doctrine of S. Paul by the Scriptures; is it a wonder, that they should not take S. Paul for an Apostle of Jesus Christ, upon his own word, but should demand of him, to show by the Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ, that so they might be induced to believe him sent to preach the Gospel of Christ? Therefore, when they were become Christians, we must believe, that they un­derstood themselves, and S. Paul better, then to call his doctrine under exami­narion, or to dispute with him about the meaning of the Scriptures which he should alledge; which our illuminati, which take this for an argument, must consequently do, because they value not, in S. Paul, the commission of an Apostle, but the presumption they have, that the Holy Ghost moved him to [Page 172] write the Scriptures which he hath left us, though they have nothing to alledge for it, but the general commission of an Apostle. To the words of the Evange­list, Ioh. XX. 30. 31. I answer, that he speaks onely of his own Gospel. And, that the things written in that Gospel are sufficient to induce a man to believe, that believing he may have life; But that is not sufficient to inferre; that, there­fore all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians, are clearly expressed, either in S. Iohns Gospel, or in the whole Scripture; because, he that is indu­ced by the things there written, to belive the truth of Christianity, may seek further instruction in the substance thereof, that he may attain unto life by im­bracing the same. So, S. Iohn saith not, that a man hath life by believing what is there, but what, by knowing it he cometh to believe. As for those words of S. Paul, 1 Tim. III. 16. 17. I confidently believe, that S. Paul speaketh onely of the Books of the Old Testament, then (before the writings of the Apo­stles were gathered into that body, which now is the New Testament) known by the name of the Scriptures: Being well assured, that no evidence can be made to the contrary, because of those alone it could be demanded, that they should bear witnesse to that which the Apostles preached and taught: There being no question, that the sayings and doings of our Lord and his Apo­stles, (the matter of the Gospels and Acts) and the writings of the Apostles, contain the same, which the man of God, that is Timothy, is to Preach and Teach. Neverthelesse, waving so evident a presumption, I am ready to stand to all, that the words, understood of the whole Bible, will argue. For, granting, that all Scripture was inspired by God to this purpose, That the man of God might be perfectly furnished to every good worke, of edifying believers, or convincing gain-sayers; of instructing the sonnes of the Church, or correcting the rebelli­ous; it would be neverthelesse in vain to inferre, that, therefore, all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians, are clearly expressed to all under­standings in the Scriptures; because it is evident, that the man of God, by be­ing first made a Christian, or else a man of God, might be instructed in all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians, or to the discharge of his particular trust, which by learning the Scriptures, he might afterwards be more plentifully inabled to know. For, granting that the Scripture is able abun­dantly to furnish him that hath learned all that is necessary for a Christian, or for a man of God to know, with all parts belonging to a man of God; It fol­loweth not, that the Scripture clearly teacheth him that hath not learned the same, all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians: Because, he that transgresseth not the substance of Christianity, may find in the Scriptures suf­ficient furniture, both for the maintaining, and for the advancing of that Chri­stianiy which he acknowledgeth; And yet, he that trusteth his own sense, to find out what is the substance of Christianity, by the leter of the Scriptures, may well miss of that, which God never bade him trust his own sense, to find by the Scripture.

Now if it be demanded, how the Law can be said to give light, or wise­dom to the simple, being of it selfe not to be understood; I will answer from the peculiar consequence of my position, concerning the double sense of the Law: For it becometh a Christian to believe, that the Law is thus highly ex­tolled by the Brophets, (whom he is obliged to take for the fore-runners of Christ, not for the outward and carnal sense of it, as it was the condition of holding the Land of promise, and the happinesse thereof; but for the inward and spirituall sense, as the means whereby the Spirit of God then enlight­ned them to discern the true inward and spirituall righteousnesse of Christians, as I said afore. And, what is the reason that the Psalmist sairh, XXV. 11. 13. What man is he that feareth the Lord? Him shall he teach in the way that he shall chuse. The secret of the Lord is among them that fear him, and he will shew them his Covenant: The Covenant of the Lord being clearly expressed to all Israelites, whose Ancestors, contracting it with God, had undertaken to teach it their children? But that there was something more in it than all that were of it understood, which, God teacheth by the Psalmist all that were of it, that [Page 173] he was ready to teach them, that should come with his fear in their hearts to learn it. The same which our Lord tells the Jews of his time, Ioh. VII. 17. If any man will do the will of my Father, he shall know, concerning my doctrine, whi­ther it be of God, or I speak from my selfe. For, that which our Lord Christ shews, shall be expresly received and acknowledged by those, who, by the Law had been conducted, to be willing to do what God should command, in point of inward and spiritual obedience; To them that stand so affected, nothing remain­ing to be done, but to shew them that Christ was come from God with instru­ctions, what he vvould henceforth have them to do that vvould be saved. Novv, if the Prophets, Esay and Ieremy promise, that, under the Gospel, all Christi­ans shall be taught of God: If our Lord praiseth the Father, for revealing to babes the secret thereof, vvhich he had concealed from the great and learned of the world; If, upon the same account, it was not flesh and blood, but the Father that had revealed to S. Peter the Christ the Son of God: I demand whether we shall imagine their meaning to be, that God taught them these things without showing them reason sufficient argument to believe them to be true; Or, having shewed them such, that he taught them, by inclining them to follow that which he had showed them sufficient arguments to believe. If we say, that he taught them immediately, without showing them any sufficient reason for the truth of that which he taught them to follow; we expose our common Christianity to the scorn of all unbelievers, whom, by consequence, we can show no reason why they should become Christians, unlesse God make them so before they know why. Nay, we can show them no reason, why we deal with them to become Christians; why the Gospel should be preached at all, or any man suffer for preaching or professing it, in order to reduce the world to it, unlesse we suppose that we can show them reason so sufficient why they should be Christians, that it may by Gods grace become effectual to make them no lesse. But this is the reason why our Lord Christ protesteth, concerning the testimonie of Iohn the Baptist, (which, every man sees how available it was to make him receivable of those who before had admitted Iohn to be sent by God, professing himselfe sent expresly to bear witnesse to our Lord Christ) I say, this is reason enough, why he professeth neverthelesse, not to receive any witnesse from man. For, had not God provided afore-hand, that the witnesse of Iohn should he accepted for the word of God; that, being so accepted, it might leave no doubt in them that had accepted it (so considerable a party, that those who refused our Lord Christ, durst not provoke it, as we see by the Gospels) that our Lord was come from God; in vain had it been for our Lord to alledge his witnesse. Wherefore, when he alledgeth him, alleadging not him, but the Father, who had procured him to be accepted; well & truly, though alledging witness of Iohn Baptist, be renounced the witnesse of man, but professeth to speak those things whereby they might be saved, only under the witness of God. Neither is it strange that the Prophets, Esay and Ieremy, and the Apostle S. Iohn, should say; that those who had been thus taught of God, should need no instruction from one another, because they know all things already, or because they had that within them, that should teach them all things. I confesse, if we look impertinently, upon that infinity of disputes that remains in the world, either about action, or about knowledge; if we look upon the multiplying of controversies in Religion, the least of which dispute of reason decides not, and therefore faction determines; it may appear a very large vvord to make good: But if vve look upon the intent of those that spake it, and the mater vvhich they had in hand, it will appear ve­ry unreasonable to extend it to any thing else. Now I suppose, upon the pre­mises, that the Prophets, Esay and Ieremy, in the first, and literal, and obvious sense, intend to soretell the return of the people of Israel from Captivity, and the great change that should be seen, in their faithfulnesse to God; though figuring thereby that knowledge of God, and that fidelity of Christi­ans, which the preaching of the Gospel should produce. And truly, I do chal­lenge all them that are best acquainted with the state of that people from the beginning, to show me any greater change in it, then that which we see came to [Page 174] passe upon their return from the Captivity. To wit, that they, who formerly, before the Captivity, had been every day falling away from their own the true God, to the worship of imaginary Deities; should from thenceforth con­tinue constant to him, when tempted with the greatest torments in the world, to renounce him for the worship of Idols, as we see by the relations of the Mac­cabees. And is it strange then, that I should say, that this is the change which these Prophesies intend to declare? Especially when I say not, that this is all they intend, because I know, that the Apostles have declared them to be in­tended of the times of the Gospel; But, that this is that which they intend in the first instance, which, by the premises, must be a figure and step to that which the Gospel intends to declare. And yet, in regard of the manifold Idolatries which prevailed before the Captivity, it shall be most truly and significantly understood; that the people of God, who, after the Captivity never departed from the true God, shall not then teach one another to know the true God; because that Law, the summe of the old Law, should be written in their hearts and entrails, so that they should have no need to teach one another to know the true God. If this be true, referring this Prophene to the Gospel, of which the Apostle expounds it in the mystical sense, Heb. VIII. 8—it will be much more evident, how those that are baptized upon the profession of the Christi­an faith, (who are the new Israel according to the Spirit) shall have no need to teach one another to know the true God, who both know God, and the way to God, which is the Law of God which they bear in their hearts, if their Chri­stianity be not counterfeit. So that, when God promiseth to establish this new Covenant, he promiseth neither more nor lesse, then the conversion of the world to the Christian faith.

Accordingly, S. John truly tells the Christians to whom he writes, that they knew all things, and had no need that any man should teach them, because the unction that was in them, taught them the truth; because he doth not mean, that they knew the secrets of Geometry, or the mysteries of nature, or what­soever is, or is done in the utmost parts of the world, or any thing else imper­tinent to his present discourse: But, because they had in them a principle suf­ficient to condemn those errors which he writes against there; to wit, those that deny both the Father and the Son, by denying Jesus to be the Christ, which, saith the Apostle, is the spirit of Antichrist. For surely, he that hath unfained­ly professed the Christian Faith upon being catechized in it, hath in him a prin­ciple sufficient to preserve him from such gross infections; which the Holy Ghost, wherewith he is anointed upon being baptized into this profession out of a good conscience, sealeth up in his heart, so that such corruptions can have no access to infect it. And therefore the Apostle might well call upon them, to try such Spirits, whither of God or not; seeing that the comparing of their pretenses, with that which they had once received, must needs be sufficient to condemn that which is opposite to it, by the judgement of any man that un­fainedly adhereth to it. So that S. Paul, when he bids the Thessalonians try all things, but hold that which is good; demands no unreasonable thing at their hands, if we understand those things which he would have tried, to be such as are tri [...]ble by the rule of faith, common to all Christians. Indeed the same Apo­stle, when he writeth to the Corinthians, that the spiritual man is judged by no man, but himselfe judgeth all things; seems to speak more generally, not onely of the rule of Faith, but of the secret counsel and good pleasure of God, in dis­pensing the revelation thereof, one way to the ancient Prophets, another way to the Apostles, both, by the Spirit of God and Christ: Which secret counsel, those spiritual men that he speaketh of, were able to interpret, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by comparing spiritual things with spiritual things; That is, the revelations granted under the Law, with those which the Gospel had brought forth. Which though the Apostles could do, yet, the grace of under­standing the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by the Holy Ghost, was no more common to all Christians at that time, then now, that the understanding of the Scriptures is to be purchased by humane indeavours, it can be common to all [Page 175] Christians to be Divines. By all which it appeareth, not that the Scriptures con in all things necessary to salvation, clearly to all that want it; but that Christianity affordeth sufficient means of instruction, in all things necessary to the salva [...]ion of all that learn it. And those, who, to find this instruction, turn simple plain meaning Christians to that translation of the Bible which they like, to find resolution in the pretenses of the sects, which can arise, cannot be said, either to teach them Christianity, or sufficient means to learn it. For, he who hath not only acknowledged the substance of Christianity, but grounded the hope of his salvation upon it, will rather deny his own senses, then admit any thing contrary to it, to be the true meaning of the Scripture, whatsoever be the sound of the words of it. But, he that onely knoweth the Scriptures to be Gods truth, and believeth he hath the spirit of God to conduct him in seek­ing the sense of it, not supposing the beliefe of Christianity to be a condition requisite to the having of Gods spirit, may easily be seduced by his inbred pride, to devise and set up new positions, sounding like the Scriptures, which the Church acknowledgeth no more, then that meaning of the Old Testament, which our Lord and his Apostles first declared, was acknowledged by the Scribes and Pharisees. And, thinking he doth it by the same right as they had, must needs take himselfe and his followers for our Lord and his Apostles, but the Church for the Scribes and Pharisees. As for that extravagant conceit of Cart­wright, I will once more stand amazed at it. A man of so much knowledge, as to think himselfe fit to recall the Lawes of his Country, and give new Laws to the Church of God in it, is not ashamed to admit, that the reason why the Idolatries of Israelites were so odious to God, was, because he had not com­manded them by the Scriptures; As if God had never forbade them to wor­ship Idols by the Scriptures. For, otherwise, he could not have inferred by the words of the Prophet, that a Christian ought to do nothing without a Text of Scripture to warrant it; much lesse, to admit any Law of the Church without such evidence. Which had it been granted him, with power to give the Church such Laws, he could not have proceeded without demanding this exception; that those which Cartwright should make without any such warrant, might be counted godly and religious; but these which the Church, superstitious.

CHAP. XXVII. Why it was death to transgress the determinations of the Jews Consistory, and what power this argueth in the Church. A difference between the authority of the Apo­stles, and that of the Church. The being of the Church to the worlds end, with power of the Keyes, makes it not infallible. Obedience to Superiors, and the Pillar of truth inferre it not.

IT will not be more difficult to show, how the true sense of all those Scrip­tures, which are alleadged towards the infallibility of the Church, concurs to make good the terms upon which I have resolved the dispute in hand. For, having showed, that the Law of Moses was given the Jews for the condition of holding the land of promise, they ruling as well their civil communion, as the service they tendred to God, according to it; I will demand but one thing more, from the general experience of all civill people: which is this; That no form of Laws can be propounded to any community of men whatsoever, so as to serve it, without further determining and limiting of such things, as time, and the occurrences of time shall discover to be undetermined by that Law, and therefore questionable. So that Moses Law, though given by God, who fore­saw whatsoever could become questionable concerning the mater of his Law; yet, because given for the civil Law of the people, must needs be given liable to want such limitations as the occurrences of time should make requisite. Nei­ther can the truth hereof be better evidenced, then by showing the course which God, by the Law, hath taken, for the ending of all such disputes arising [Page 176] upon the Law. I do therefore not onely grant, but insist upon this, that the power established by the law of Deut. XVII. 8.-12. extendeth to all maner of debates, arising upon occasion of any recept of Moses Law; and to the deter­mining of them, by limiting those things, which the leter of the Law had not expressed. I do likewise grant, that death is allotted for a penalty, to whoso­ever should not conform to any such determination, and the practice of the Law according to it. And I do find so much reason for it, that I do not under­stand, how possibly that people should subsist (and, by consequence, the Law which made them that people) in practice of it, without such a provision as this; An opinion of the intent and meaning of God, in the practice of any precept, being sufficient to divide that people into parties, not to be reconciled but by the voice of God, either upon the occasion, or by the Law, warranting the sentence of those whom he authorizeth to declare what he requireth of his people. Setting aside for the present to dispute, whether it be the Priests alone, or the Priests with the chiefe of the People, in whom this Power is vested by the Law, (as, for the present, I dispute not, who the persons are, in whom the power of Church maters rests, in behalf of the Church) it is plainly, by this Law, a capitall crime, to teach and do contrary to what the publick Power of that People should determine, concerning the intent and practice of any Pre­cept of that Law. And therefore accordingly I grant, & insist, that, in the new Israel of God according to the Spirit, which is the Church of Christ, there is and ought to be a Power of putting out of the fellowship of the same any man, that shall not stand to the resolution, which legally is able to conclude it. For, without such a Power, it cannot be imagined, how the unity thereof should sub­sist, seeing that there can be no community, in which debates shall not arise, about those things wherein they communicate. I grant further and insist, that he who is justly put out of the Church, though meerly for violating the unity thereof, by disobeying that just order which unites it, is thereby condemned to the death of the world to come; As, he that teaches and does contrary to the sentence of that power that concludes the Synagogue is put out of this. Notwithstanding, as many other crimes besides this, are capitall by the law of Moses; so, there be many other causes, both of faith, and of life, by which a man forfeits his interest, both in the world to come, and in the communion of the Church. But if any man argue, that, because a man forfeits the Communi­on of the Church, by disobeying the determination thereof; therefore all the de­terminations thereof are infallibly true, and obliging by virtue of Gods Law. I shall deny the consequence, by virtue of that very Law of Deut. XVII. 8.-12. upon which this Argument is grounded; For, whereas it makes disobedience a capital crime, there are other Laws, that suppose a breach of the Law, even in following the determinations of that power which it establisheth. At least if we admit the practice of those Jews that follow the Talmud, in those precepts of Levit. VI. 13.-21. Numb. XV. 21.-26. which indeed cannot reason­ably be otherwise understood: How should the Congregation offer sacrifices to expiate that ignorance wherein all were involved; but, as those that had power to make wrong determinations, should expiate that ignorance, which the Congregation, by following, had incursed. Neither saith our Lord any lesse in the Gospel, though in a mater of greater consequence, when, having con­demned them that transgressed Gods commandment, for the Tradition of their Predecessors, Mat. XV. 5-10. Mar. VII. 8-12. neverthelesse, he com­mands them to observe; and do all such things as the Scribes and Pharisees, sit­ting in Moses Chair, should command, Mat. XXIII. 2. to wit; because the authority of Moses his Chair presupposed the Law of God, but extended not to nullifie any part of it. In like maner, the authority of the Church presuppo­sing the truth of Christianity, the profession whereof makes Christians, the Body whereof is the Church: It is not possible that it should reach so farre, as to warrant any man to believe that, which, those grounds, upon which the truth of Christianity stands, cannot evidence to be true. I say not that the Church cannot determine what shall be taught and received, in such disputes, as will di­vide [Page 177] the Church, unlesse an end be put: But I say, that the Authority of the Church can be no reason, obliging or warranting to believe that for truth, which cannot be reasonably deduced from the motives of our common faith; onely it shall be a reason, obliging and warranting to keep the peace of the Church, by not scandalizing such determinations thereof, as are not destructive to the common faith. Much more, where the faith is not concerned, (onely the que­stion is, of determining the circumstances of those actions, wherein the Com­munion of the Church is exercised, which neither our Lord, nor his Apostles have determined) shall the disobeying of such determinations, be the violating of that unity, which all Christians professe that God hath ordained in his Church. And now we have an easie account to give, how the Prophets Haggai and Mala­chi send the Israelites to the Priest, for resolution in those things, which the practice of that people determined, to belong to their office to resolve; Be­cause it cannot be doubted, that their resolutions depended upon upon the acts of that authority, which concluded that people, by the Law aforesaid of Deut. XVII. 8.-12. Which, if not infallible, and yet authorized by God, to war­rant the proceedings of his people, it will be no marvail, if those that act in dependance on them, be authorized to warrant the people, though further from being infallible.

To come now to those things that are alleadged to be said of the Apostles and of the Church; having already limited the power of the Church not to ex­tend to the faith of Christianity, which it presupposeth it will be easie to distin­guish it from the power of the Apostles. Which, though it presuppose the truth of Christianity preached by our Lord, as that which they are imployed to introduce and establish [...]; yet, in order of nature and reason, is before the ve­ry being of the Church, as serving to evidence any truth of the Gospel to them that believe, being convicted that they came from God to move them to be­lieve. For, how can they stand obliged to believe the truth of our common Chri­stianity to be that, which God sent our Lord Christ to preach; but, by standing convict, that the Apostles were sent by him, to move them to accept of it, and thereupon inabled with means to evidence this Commission, and trust; where­upon, the world may safely repose themselves upon the credit of them, whose act God owns, by the witnesse he yields them for his own? The true reason and ground, upon which, no act of theirs, whither by word or writing, is refusable by the Church: Upon which, the truth of things determined by their writings, is no more determinable by the Church, because the meaning of their words, which is the truth sought for, is in the words from the time they are said. And is it then an unreasonable demand, that their Charter, He that heareth you, hear­eth me—extending to all that falls under their office, should not be thought to descend upon the Church indefinitely, but according to such limitations as the constitution thereof determineth; That is to say, not to the effect of crea­ting faith, but of preserving peace and unity in the Communion of the Church? Not prejudicing, neverthelesse, that force of evidencing the truth of Christia­nity, and the meaning of the Apostles writings, which I have showed to be in the testimony of the Church, not by any authority it hath from God, but from that conviction, which the testimony of such a body of men inferreth I shall not therefore deny, that he who heareth or refuseth their successors, heareth and refuseth God; if that which they would be heard in, be within the bounds of that power which God hath assigned them, but is not the same that he as­signed the Apostles. But I shall utterly deny, that it is by virtue of these words, which were spoken by our Lord, at such time, as he had not declared, whither they should have successors or not. For, there is very great appearance, that they themselves, after this, expected to see the worlds end, and the coming of Christ. When the Apostles, Mat. XXVI. 3. inquire of our Lord, When shall these things come to passe? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the worlds end? Though our Lord by this answer, distinguisheth the time of the destruction of Jerusalem from the end of the world; yet, by the question, there is no appearance, that the Apostles did so distinguish, before his answer, And, [Page 178] when his answer contains; That this generation shall not be over, till all these things come to passe; and that, not only after he had declared the destruction of Jerusalem, but his coming, and the end of the world, Mat. XXIV 14.-23-29-34. it appeareth, that those things, which, he declares, shall forerun the worlds end, were to begin before that generation were out, when to end, being not thought sit then to be said. If this interpretation of Grotius, which makes good the leter best, suffer contradiction; yet is it evident by S. Pauls Epistles, 1 Cor. XV. 51, 52. 2 Cor. V. 11-44. 2 Thes. IV. 15. 17. that he was not certificed, but that the coming of Christ to judgement should be during his time. In which S. Iohn, by the Apocalypse, was more fully informed. If these things be true, the obe­dience due to the Apostles successors, cannot stand by virtue of this command, given, when it was not declared, whither they were to have successors or not: But, by those Scriptures, whereby it may appear, so farre as in due place it shall appear, whither or no, and upon what terms the Apostles left their Authority with successors; which when it appears, then, by consequence of reason it will be inferred from these words, that, who hears or refuses them, hears or refuses God, by whom the Apostles were inabled, to leave such part of their power with successors.

Neither will it be strange, that I allow not any Councill, in which never so much of the authority of the present Church is united, to say, in the same sense, and to the same effect, as the Synode of the Apostles at Jerusalem; It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us: Though I allow, the overt act of their as­sembling to be a legall presumption, that their acts are the acts of the Holy Ghost, so farre as they appear not to transgresse those bounds, upon which the assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised the Church. For, as for the Apostles, I have showed before, that they had the Holy Ghost given them, not onely to preserve them in the truth of the common profession of Christians, but to re­veal unto them the true sense of the old Scriptures, according to the Gospell which they preached, (though that grace was common to many more besides the Apostles, not to all Christians) upon which depended the resolution of the point then in debate. Besides, I do not intend to depart from that observation which I have made in another place, that we find by the Scriptures, and by the primitive Records of the Church, many revelations made to Gods people at their publick Assemblies, by the means of such as had the Grace. And there­upon do inferre, that such a revelation was made to that Assembly upon the place, directing the decree which there follows, and is signified (according to that brevity which the Scriptures use, in alleadging that whereof no mention is premised in the relation that went afore) by these words it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us. Now, the words of our Lord, Mat. XXVIII. 20. Be­hold, I am with you to the worlds end; are manifestly said to the body of the Church, and therefore do not promise it any priviledge of the Apostles. And truly, seeing it is a promise immediately insuing upon a Precept; Go preach and make Disciples all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you: I find it a matter of no ill consequence, but very reasonable, to say, that the Precept is the condition of the Promise, seeing no act so expressed can reasonably be understood otherwise. But, in regard it is otherwise manifest, that the continu­ance of the Church is absolutely promised and foretold, till the world end, by name, in those other words of our Lord, The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, Mat. XXI. 18. I shall easily admit, that God absolutely promises to be with his to the worlds end, so as to preserve himselfe a people in the mani­fold distractions and confusions that fall out, by the fault of those that professe themselves Christians, as well as by the malice of Infidels: But I shall deny that this inferres the gift of Infallibility in any person, or quality, in be­halfe of the Body of Christians. For, supposing the visible profession of Christi­anity to continue till the worlds end; so that, under this visible profession, there is sufficient means to conduct a true Christian in the way to salvation; And that by this means, a number of men invisibly united to our Lord Christ [Page 179] by his Spirit, do attain unto salvation indeed: These promises of our Lord will be evidently true, though we neither acknowledge on one side, any gift of In­fallibility in the Church; nor deny on the other side, the visible unity of the Church instituted by Gods Law. It will be evidently true, that our Lord Christ is with his Disciples, (that is Christians) till the worlds end, who could not continue invisibly united to him, without the invisible presence of his Spirit. It will be evidently true, that the Gates of Hell prevail not against his Church, in the visible society whereof, a number of invisible Christians prevail over the powers of darknesse. For though, granting the Church to be subject to error, salvation is not to be attained without much difficulty: And, though division in the Church may create more difficulty, in attaining salvation, then errour might have done; yet, so long as salvation may be, and is attained by visible communion with the Church, so long is Christ with his, nor do the Gates of Hell prevail against his Church, though error, which excludeth infallibility, though division, which destroyeth unity, hinder many, and many of attaining it.

But if the consequence that is made from those words of our Lord be lame, that which may be pretended from the power of the Keyes, or, of remitting [...]d retaining sins, (both one by the premises) granted S. Peter, the Apostles, of the Church, will easily appear to be none at all. For, no man can maintain the power of remitting and retaining sins to be granted to the Church, but he must yield it to be communicated to more then those, in whom the gift of In­fallibility can be pretended to reside. Neither can the greatest of the Apostles remit o [...] retain any mans sinne, without inducing him to imbrace profession of Christianity, or (if, having imbraced it, he fall from it in deed, and in effect) without reducing him to the course and study of performing the same, and up­on due profession thereof, readmitting him into the Church; on the other side excluding those that cannot be reduced to this estate. Nor can the least of all that are able to bring any man into the Church, fail of doing the same, upon the same terms. And, did ever any man ascribe the gift of Infallibility, to all them that should have power and right from the Church, and in the Church, to do this? What meaneth then the exception of clave non errante, which is every where, and by every body cautioned for, that, with any reason challenges the power of the Keyes for the Church? To me it seems rather an argument to the contrary, that, seeing this power is challenged for the Church, under this ge­neral exception, without limiting the exception to any sort of maters or sub­jects: And, that the act of it is the effect of the decrees of the greatest autho­rity visible in the Church; (as, whether Arias should communicate with the Church or not, was the issue of as great a debate, as the authority of the Church can determine) that therefore, the sentence of his excommunication proceeded not from the gift of Infallibility in any authority concurring to the decree of Nicaea, whence it proceeded, granting generally the power of ex­communication to be liable to the exception of clave non errante. Indeed it cannot be denyed, that something requisite to the exercise of this power, was in the Apostles infallible, or unquestionable, as presupposed to the being of the Church. For, what satisfaction could men have of their Christianity, if any doubt could remain, whether the faith which they preached were sent from God or not? whither the Laws of Ecclesiastical communion, which they ad­vanced, were according to their Commission, or not? But, the causes upon which the Church is obliged to proceed to imploy this Power, being such as depend many times upon the rule of faith, and the Laws given the Church by the Apo­stles, by very many links between both; The dependance whereof, it is hard for all those, that are sometimes to concur to these sentences to discern; I con­ceive it now madnesse to maintain the gift of Infallibility from the power of the Keyes; in the exercise whereof, so many occasions of failing may come to pass.

As for the exhortations of the Apostles, whereby they oblige the Churches of the Thessalonians and Ebrues, diligently to obey and follow their Governors, 1 Thes. V. 14. 15. Heb. XIII. 7. 17. these I acknowledge to be pertinent to [Page 180] the question in debate, as, concerning such Governours, as had in their hands the ordinary power of the Church; saving that, when he saith; Remember your Rulers, which have spoken to you the word of God; And, considering the issue of their conversation, imitate their faith; It is possible he may speak of those that first brought them the Gospel, and those were the Apostles and Dis­ciples of Christ, either of the first rank of the XII. or the second of the LXX, whose privildges are not to be communicated to any authority, to be preserved in the Church afterwards. But the importance of these exhortations is not such, as can inferre any imagination of infallibility, in those whom they are exhor­ted to follow. For, they that know the bounds of that Power, which the Apo­stles had trusted with the Governours of particular Churches, presupposing the Christianity and Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which themselves had deli­vered, may safely be exhorted to acknowledge them, to esteem them above mea­sure in love, to obey them, and to give way to them, remembring those, from whom they had first received Christianity; (from whom they had received these in­structions, as well as their then Rulers) because they had long before received, and yielded obedience to those things, which we except from the obedience of present Rulers, as presupposed to any power they can challenge. As for the words of S. Paul, 1 Tim. III. 15. I confess they containe a very just and full attribute of the Church, and a Title, serving to justifie all the right I chal­lenge for it. For, if the Church be the House of the living God, then is it, by Gods founding and appointment, a Body consisting of all members of the true Church, wherein God dwells, as of old in the Temple at Jerusalem; as he dwells in every Christian; as he dwelt in the Tabernacle and Campe of the Israelites. And if it be the Pillar that sustains the truth, then must it have where­with to maintain it, beside the truth it selfe, which is the Scriptures. And what what can that be, but the testimony of it selfe, as a body and fellowship of men onely; which, securing it selfe, (that is succession) by the evidence made to the Predecessors of the same body, maintains the truth once committed to the trust of it, not onely by writing, but also by practice. But what is this to the gift of Infallibility? for, suppose the Church, by the foundation of it, inabled to maintain both the truth and the sufficience of the motives of faith against Infidels, and also the rule of faith against Hereticks, by the evidence which it maketh that they are received; What is this to the creating of faith, by de­creeing that, which, before it was decreed, was not the object of faith; but up­on such decree obligeth all faithful to believe? Surely the Church cannot be the Pillar that sustains any faith, but that which is laid upon it, as received from the beginning, not that which it layeth upon the foundation of faith. Here I will desire the Reader to peruse these words of S. Basil, Epist. LXII. speaking of the Bishop of Neo caesarea deceased; [...]. There is a man gone, that of all men of his time, most evidently excelled in all and every of those good things that belong to men: The stay of his Country, the ornament of the Church, the Pillar that sustained the truth. For, if a particular Prelate may duly be qualified, as well the Pillar that supporteth the truth, as the prop of his Country; Well may the Church be thought capable of the same stile, though it create no mat­ter of faith, by decreeing, but onely preserve that which it hath received, by defending and maintaining it.

CHAP. XXXI. The Fathers acknowledge the Sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures, as, the Traditions of the Church. They are to be reconciled, by limiting the terms which they use. The limitation of those sayings which make all Christian truth to be contained in the Scriptures. Of those which make the authority of the Church the ground of Faith.

IT is now time, having showed the meaning of those Scriptures which are al­leged for both extremes which I avoid, to do the like for some of those say­ings of the Fathers which are pleaded to the same purpose. This abridgment cannot consider all; Therefore I will not multiply those which speak to one and the same purpose; Nor marshal them according to the mater which they speak to; Finding them speak to any branch of those extremes which I decline, I will put them down as they come. S. Augustine again de Doctr. Christianâ II. 6. for one place you had afore; Magnifice & salubriter Spiritus Sanctus ità Scripturas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus fastidia detergeret. Nihil enim ferè de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissimè di­ctum alibi reperiatur. Gallantly as well as wholesomly hath the Holy Ghost so tem­pered the Scriptures, as to satisfie hunger by those places that are plain, by those that are obscure, to wipe of queasiness. For, there is scarce any thing digged out of those dark places, that is not found most manifestly said elsewhere. Epist. III. Tanta est Christianarum profunditas literarum, ut in eis quotidie proficerem, si eas solas, ab ineunte pueritiâ usque ad decrepitam senectutem, maximo otio, summo studio, meliore ingenio conarer addiscere. Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti, tant â in eis perveniatur difficultate; Sed cùm ibi quisque fidem tenuerit, sine quâ rectè pie (que) non vivitur, tam multa, tam (que) multis mysteriorum umbraculis opaca intelli­genda proficientibus restant—So great is the depth of the Writings of Christi­anity, that I should profit in them continually, if I should indeavor to learn them one­ly, at very great leasure, with most earnest study, having a better wit, from the be­ginning of my nonage till decrepit old age. Not as if it were so hard to attain to that which is necessary in them; But when a man hath attained the Faith, without which there is no good and godly living, there remain so many things to be understood, and so darkly shadowed with manifold mysteries—Clemens Protreptico: [...]. Hear yee then that are farre off, hear yee that are near hand. The word is not hid from any. It is a common light, it shineth upon all men. There are no Cimmerians in the Word. As some said then, that there were in the world, that had no Sun. Irenaeus II. 46. Ʋniversae Scri­pturae & Propheticae & Apostolicae in aperto & sine ambiguitate, & similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt. All the Scriptures both of the Prophets and Apostles are open, and without ambiguity, and may be heard (or understood) alike of all. III. 15. Do­ctrina Apostolorum manifesta & firma, & nihil subtrahens: neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia verò in manifesto docent um. The doctrine of the Apostles is clear and firm, and conceals nothing; As not teaching one thing in secret and another open­ly. Origen, contra Celsum VII. [...]. The vnlgar, after their entrance made, may easily study to apprehend even the deeper notions that are hid in the Scriptures. For it is manifest to any man that reads them, that they may have much deeper sense than that which straight appears in them; Which becomes manifest to those that dedi­cate themselves to the examining of the Word, according to the rate of that leisure and forwardnesse which they bestow upon their exercise in it. Athanasius Disp. cum Ario in Conc. Nic. (if it be his) speaking of the Godhead of the Holy [Page 182] Ghost; [...]. The Holy Scriptures clearly de­clare all things; And not onely that which was in debate. S. Chrysostome in Lazarum Hom. III. incourages to reade the Scripture, because it is not obscure; the Gentiles that sought vain-glory by writing books, affecting obscurity as the way to be admired, but the Holy Ghost, seeking the good of all, contrariwise. In [...]oan. Hom. II. hee compares S. Johns doctrine to the Sun, as shining to all, not onely men of understanding, but women and youths. In Mat. Hom. I. to the same purpose; Epiphanius Haer. LXXVI. [...]. For, all is clear in Gods Scriptures, to those that will come to the Word of God with godly reason, and turn not themselvs down the precipices of death, through lust wrought in them by the devil. To the same purpose, Haer. LXIX. Gregory Nyssene in Psalm. Inscriptio­nes I. commendeth the Psalms for rendring deep mysteries easie and pleasant to men and women, young and old. Cyril in Julianum VII. answering his scorn of the Scriptures for their vulgar language, saith it was so provided, that they might not exceed any mans capacity. Fulgentius, according to S. Austine, Serm­de Confessoribus: Ita suae moderationis tenet temperiem, ut nec ovibus desint pabula, nec pastoribus alimenta. The Scripture holds this moderation in the temper of it, that neither the sheep wants food, nor the shepherd nourishment in it. S. Chrysostome observes, that when S. Paul sayes 2 Cor. III. 14. Their senses are blinded in read­ing the Scriptures; Hee makes the cause to be in the Jewes blindenesse when they understand not in the Scriptures.

Again, Origen in Mat. Tract. XXV. in Rom. III. S. Basil. Moral. definitione XXV. S. Chrysostome in Psal. XCV. S. Cyril Catech. IV. Rufinus in Symb. agree in affirming, that, whatsoever is taught in Christianity is to be proved by the Scri­ptures. S. Jerome in Mic. I. Ecclesia Christi quae habitat bene, & in toto orbe Ecclesias possidens spiritus unitate conjuncta est, & habet urbes Legis Prophetarum, Evangelii, & Apostolorum; non est egressa de finibus suis, id est, de Scripturis sanctis. The Church of Christ being well seated, and having Churches all over the world, it hath the Cities of the Law the Prophets, the Gospel, and the Apostles; goes not out of her bounds, which are the Holy Scriptures. Optatus V. putting the case of the Church with the Donatists to be the case of children about their Fathers inheritance, sends them to his Will, as the Judge of their pretenses. And so S. Austine also, in Psalmum XXI. The Constitutions of the Apostles II. 19. Leo Epist. XXIII. S. Cypr. Epist. LXVIII. and many more agree, that the People are to answer for themselves, if they follow bad Pastors. S. Austine adversus Maxim. III. 14. Ne (que) ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam praejudicaturus, proferre Concilium. Scripturarum authoritatibus, non quorumcun (que) propriis, sed utrius (que) communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causâ, ratio cum ratione decertet. Neither am I to produce the Council of Nicaea, nor you that of Ariminum, for a prejudice. With authorities of the Scriptures, as witnesses com­mon to both, not proper to either, let mater contend with mater, reason with reason, cause with cause. De Ʋtilitate credendi VI. hee saith, the Scripture of the Old Testament, ità esse modificatam, ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est, si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè, ut vera religio poscit, accedat. Is so tempered, that any man may draw out of it that which is enough for him, if hee come devoutly and piously, as true religion requires, to draw. Vincentius Com­monit. I. confesseth that inveterate Her [...]es, and Opus imperfectum in Mat. Hom. XLIX. that the corruptions of Antichrist are not to be convinced but by Scripture. The same Vincentius Commonit. I. and Sulpitius Severus Hist. II. ac­knowledg the Arians to have over-spread the greatest part of the Church. The [...]e­fore Nazianzene Orat. advers. Arianos scorns them that measure the Church by number. And Liberius in Theodoret Eccles. Hist. II. 16. answers Constantius, [...]. The cause of the Faith hath never a whit the worse, because I am alone. But truly, I know nothing in all an­tiquity, more peremptory against the Infallibility of the Church, than that of Vineentius, denying, that the Rule of Faith can ever increase, or Councils do any [Page 183] more in it, than determine that expresly and distinctly, which was simply held from the beginning. Commonit. I. And S. Austine de Ʋnitate Ecclesiae cap. XVI. challenges the Donatists to demonstrate their Church out of the Scriptures. S. Ambrose de Incarnatione cap. V. S. Hilary de Trinitate VI. Victor in Marcum cap. III. agree, that the Faith is the foundation of the Church, by vir­tue whereof, the gates of Hell prevail not against it. Therefore S. Austine de Bapt. contra Donat. II. 3. acknowledges, that not onely particular Councils are corrected by General, but that, of General Councils the later may and do cor­rect them that went afore.

Again Irenaeus III. 1. affirms that the Apostles writ what they preached, by the will of God, for the foundation and pilar of our Faith. Tertulliane de Pr [...]script. cap. VIII. Cùm credimus, nihil ultrà desideramus credere. Hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus. When wee believe, wee desire to believe nothing else. For, first wee believe, that there is nothing further which wee ought to believe. So cap. XIV. XXIX. contra. Hermog. cap. XXII. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina. (that the world was made of mater pre­exi [...]ent) Si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus definitum. Let the shop of Hermogenes show it written. If it be not written, let it fear the wo de­creed for them that adde or take away. Apollinaris in Eusebius Eccl. Hist. V. 10. is afraid to write, least hee should seem to write or injoyn more than the Go­spel, to which nothing is to be added, or taken from it. S. Basil de Fide, sayes, it is plain apostasie, to bring in any thing that is not written. And in Asceticis Reg. LXXX. proves it, because faith is by Gods Word, and, that which is not of faith is sin. So likewise S. Ambrose de Paradiso cap. XII. alleging Apoc. XXII. 19. S. Austine de Bono Viduitatis I. Sancta Scriptura doctrinae nostrae Regulam figit. The Holy Scripture prescribes a Rule to our doctrine. To the same purpose de peccatorum & remiss. II. 36. S. Cyril de Trinitate & personâ Christi, whose words Damascene uses de Orthod. Fide I. 1. Theodoret in Levit. Quaest. IX. Theophilus II. Paschali. S. Jerome in Psal. XCVIII. Omne quod loquimur de­bemus affirmare ex Scripturis Sanctis. Whatsoever wee say wee are to prove out of the Holy Scriptures. To the same purpose in Mat. XXIII. in Aggaei I. Origen in Mat. Tract. XXIII. That wee are to silence gain-sayers by the Scriptures, as our Lord did the Sadduces. Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem, quae mihi & factorem ostendit & facta. I adore the fulness of the Scripture, which showes mee both the Maker and what hee made, saith Tertulliane contra Hermog. cap. XXII. S. Au­stine de peccat. meritis & remiss. II. 36. Credo etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum claerissima autorit as esset, si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non posset. I believe there would be found some clear authority of the Word of God for this (the original of mans soul) if a man could not be ignorant of it without losse of the sal­vation that is promised. In fine, seeing it is acknowledged, that the Scripture is a Rule to our Faith, on all hands, the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. III. Hom. XII. is not refusable, [...]. A Rule is not capable of adding to, or taking from it: For so, it looseth being a Rule. For the same reason, S. Basil in Esa. II. and Ascet. Reg. I. con­demns all that is done without Scripture.

On the other side, in the next place, a greater thing cannot be said for the Church than that which Tertul. contra Marc. IV. 2. S. ser. Ep. LXXXIX. S. Aust. cont. Faust. XXVIII. 4. have said, that S. Pauls authority depended upon the allow­ance of the Apostles at Jerusalem. Tertul. Deni (que), ut cum au [...]o [...]ibus contu [...]t, & convenit de regulâ Fidei, dextras miscuere. In a word, as som as hee had conferred with men in authority, and agreed about the Rule of Faith, they shook hands. S. Jer. Ostendens, se non habuisse securitatem praedicandi Evangolii, nisi Petri, & caetero­rum Apostolorum qui cum eo erant, fuisset sententia roboratum. Showing, that hee had not assurance to preach the Gospel, had it not been confirmed by the sentence of Peter, and the rest of the Apostles that were with him. S. Austine; That the Church would not have believed at all, had not this been done. Among the sentences of the Fathers, which make S. Peter the rock on which the Church is built, the words of S. Austine contra partem Donati, are of most appearance; [Page 184] Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum Portae. This (Church of Rome) is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not. S. Jerome is alleged hereupon, consulting Damasus then Pope in maters of Faith, as tied to stand to his sentence, Epist. LVII. and Apolog. contra Rufinum; Scito Romanam fidem, Apostolicâ voce landatam, istiusmodi praestigias non recipere; Etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quàm semel praedicatum est, Petri authoritate munitum, non posse [...]utari, Know, that the Faith of Rome, commended by the voice of the Apostle, is not liable to such tricks. Though an Angel preach otherwise than once was prea­ched, that, being fortified by the authority of S. Peter, it cannot be changed. The saying of S. Cyprian is notorious; Non aliunde haereses orta sunt aut nata schis­mata; nisi indè, quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tem­pus Saeerdos, & ad tempus Judex Christi vice cogitatur; cui si secundum magiste­ria divina fraternit as obtemperaret universa, nemo adversùm Sacerdotum Collegium quicqam moveret, & nemo discidio unit atis Christi Ecclesiam scinderet. Heresies spring, and Schisms arise from no cause but this; That the Priest of God is not obey­ed, that men think not that there is one Priest in the Church, one Judg in Christs stead, for the time; Whom, if the whole Brother-hood did obey as God teacheth, no man would move any thing against the College of Priests, or tear the Church with a rent in the Ʋnity of it. The authority which the Church giveth to the Scri­pture is again testified by S. Austine contra Epist. fundamenti, cap. V. Cui libro necesse est me credere, si credo Evangelio; Quum utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendet authoritas. Which book (of the Acts) I must needs believe, if I believe the Gospel; Catholick authority alike commending to mee both Scriptures. To the same purpose, contra Faustum XI. 2. XIII. 5. XXII. 19. XVIII. 7. XXVIII. 2. XXXIII. ult. Therefore hee warns him that reads the Scriptures, to preferr those books which all Churches receive before those which onely some. And of them, those which more and greater Churches receive, before those which fewer and lesse. So that, if more receive some, and greater others, (though the case, hee thinks, doth not fall out) the authority of them must be the same. And, contra Cresconium II. 31. Neque enim sine causâ tam sa­lubri vigilantiâ Canon Ecclesiasticum constitutus est, ad quem certi Prophetarum & Apostoloruus libri pertineant, quos omnino judicare non audoamus. For neither was the Rule of the Church settled with such wholesom vigilance, without cause, to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles might belong, which wee should dare on any terms to censure. Where, manifestly hee ascribeth the difference be­tween Canonical Scripture and that which is not, to an act of the Church set­tling the same. Of the Power of the Church to decide Controversies of Faith, all the Records of the Church, if that will serve the turn, do bear plentifull witnesse. But the evidence for the gift of Infallibility from them, seems to consist in this consequence; That otherwise there would be no end of Con­troversies, neither should God have provided sufficiently for his Church. S. Austine contra Cresconium I. 33. Quisquis falli met uit huyus obscuritate quaestio­nis, Ecclesiam de illâ consulat, quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Scriptura sacra demon­strat. Whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the darkness of this question, (concer­ning Rebaptizing) let him consult the Church about it, which the Holy Scripture demonstrateth without any ambiguity. S. Bernard Epist. CXC. ad Innoc. II. Pa­pam. Opertet ad vestrum referri Apostolatum pericula quae (que), & scandala emer­gentia in regno Dei, ac praesertim, quae de fide contingunt. Dignum nam (que) arbitror, ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei, ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum. All dangers and scandals that appear in the kingdome of God are to be referred to your Apostleship. For I conceive it sitting, that the decaies of the Faith should there e­specially be repaired, where the Faith is not subject to fail.

As concerning the mater of Traditions, wee are not to forget Irenaeus III. 2, 3, 4. where hee showes, that the Gnosticks, scorning both Scripture and Tra­dition, as coming from those that knew not Gods minde, as they pretended to do, (thence calling themselves Gnosticks) may be convinced by that evidence, which the consent of all Churches in the same Faith tenders common sense, for the Tradition of the Apostles; Which, saith hee, wee must have stuck to, [Page 185] had they left us nought in writing, as those Christians then did, which had not the use of leters. Epiphanius Haer. LXI. [...]. All Gods words do not need allegory, but are to be understood as they are. But they need consideration, to know the force of each mater. Tradition also is to be u­sed: For all is not to be had from Gods Sriptures. For the Holy Apostles delive­red some things in writing, others by Tradition, as the Apostle saith. So Haer. LV. LXXV. S. Jerome advers. Lucif. Multa quae per Traditionem in Ec­clesiis observantur, auctoritatem sibi scriptae Legis usurpàrunt. Orthod. Non quidem abnuo hanc esse Ecclesiasticam consuetudinem: Sed quale est, ut Leges Ec­clesiae ad haeresim transferas? Many things that are observed in the Churches by Tradition have usurped to themselves the authority of written Law. The Ortho­dox party answers. I deny not the custome of the Church to be such: But what a business is it, that you transform the Lawes of the Church into Heresie? S. Austine Epist. CXVIII. Illa autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur, dantur intelligi, vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis Conci­liis, quorum est in Ecclesiâ saluberrima auctoritas, commendata at (que) statuta reti­neri. But those things which wee observe, though not written but delivered, being observed all over the world, wee are given to understand, that they are held as re­commended and setled either by the Apostles themselves, or by General Councils, the authority whereof is very wholesom in the Church. To the same purpose, de Bapt. contra Donat. II, 7. IV. 6, 24. V. 23. de Ʋnitate Ecclesiae XIX. contra Cres­coniam I. 31, 32, 33. The supposed Dionysius the Areopagite Eccles. Hierar­chiae cap. I. mentioneth that instruction which the Apostles delivered without writing, as a witnesse of the Church, though not as a Scholar of the Apostles. And Eusebius de demonstr. Evang. I. 8. acknowledgeth written Lawes of the Apostles. Concilium Gangrense in fine; [...]. And wee desire in summe, that all things delivered by the Scriptures of God, and the Traditions of the Apostles, be observed in the Church. And Greg. Nazian­zene Orat. I. advers. Jul. referrs those Ordinances, which I quoted out of him a­fore, to the Apostles, as Authors of them.

Some sayings of the Fathers are also alleged, to show, that they held the Scriptures obscure. Origen in Levit. Hom. V. allegorizeth the Law of burning some part of the peace-offerings, to signifie, that some things in the Scriptures are reserved to Gods knowledg, least wee understand them otherwise than truth requires. The same saith Irenaeus II. 47. even in the world to come, that man may alwayes learn, but God alwayes teach the maters of God. S. Chrysostome in Joan. Hom. XL. observes, that our Lord bids; Search the Scriptures; By dig­ging, as for mines, or treasure; So, if they may be understood with searching, yet it followeth not, that every one is able to take that course in searching them, that is requisite. And, Opus imperfectum in Mat. Hom. XLIV. Ergò non sunt Scriptnrae clausae: Sed obscurae quidem, ut cum labore inveniantur, non autem clausae, ut nullo modo inveniantur. Therefore the Scriptures are not shut: Dark indeed they are, so that they are found with pains: But not shut, so as by no means to be found. Adding, that, as it is for the praise of them that finde them, that they sought, so, for the condemnation of them, that seek not, that they under­stand them not. S. Jerome ad Algasiam Quaest. VIII. Omnis Epistola ad Roma­nos miris obscuritatibus involuta est. The whole Epistle to the Romanes is involved with marvellous darkness. Epist. ad Paulinum. Hoc autem velamen non solùm in facie Moysi, sed & in Evangelistis & Apostolis positum est. This vail is not onely in Moses face, but upon the Evangelists and Apostles. And; Nisi aperta fuerint universa quae scripta sunt, ab eo, qui habet clavem David, qui aperit, & nemo clau­dit, qui claudit, & nemo aperit, nullo alio reserante pandentur. Unless all things that are written be opened, by him who hath the Key of David, who opens and no man shuts, who shuts and no man opens, no man else will unlock and lay them forth. [Page 186] Before him, Origen in Exodum Hom. XII. is afraid, that the Evangelists and A­postles, as well as the Prophets, will prove not onely vailed, but sealed to us, as the Prophet saith, unlesse wee both study and pray, that the Lamb of the Tribe of Juda may open us the Seals of it.

Here I will advise the parties to consider, how they can advantage themselves by those sayings of the Fathers, which contain not the terms of that position, which, they do nothing unlesse they inforce. Allege they what they can allege out of the Fathers, to show, that they acknowledg the Scriptures both sufficient and perspicuous; I shall not be troubled at it, but shall willingly concurr to ac­knowledg the same. I acknowledg the Scriptures to be an Instrument of God, though a Moral Instrument. And I shall have a care not to acknowledg, that God ever provided or used au Instrument that would not serve his turn. Instru­mentum Vetus & Novum, is a term in every mans mouth, to signifie the Old and New Testament. But there are Natural Instruments, and there are Moral In­struments. I say not that there is no third kind of Instruments, for it may be there are Artificial Instruments, of a several nature from both, but my present pur [...]ose obliges mee not to consider that difference. When the substance or frame of the Instrument inables it to serve him that imployes it, well may it be called a Natural Instrument, as the parts of mans body, or other creatures, which execute the operations of the soul. When neither the substance nor frame of the thing which that substance produces, concurrs to the work to the which it is Instrumental, but it is done meerly by the consent of mans will, (the reason is the same of Gods will, if it be an Instrument between man and God) then is it great reason why it should be called a Moral Instrument; because the force of it lyes in the maners of those, who use it to testifie those acts, which they do not mean to transgresse: Such as all civil records are, in regard of the effect of those contracts, or deeds, which they come to witnesse. The Old and New Testament are the records of two several Treaties, or Contracts if you please, that have pas­sed between God and Man. And therefore authentick, because the writings of those who contracted those Treaties. But does every Instrument of a contract contain every thing that is in force by the said contract? Surely it is a thing so difficult, to contain in writing every thing that a contract intends, that, many times, if witnesses were not alive, other whiles, if general Lawes did not de­termine the intent of words, in fine, if there were nothing to help the tenor of such Instruments, things contracted would hardly sort to effect. Consider now what is alleged on the other side, how resolutely, how generally, the Tra­dition, both of the Rule of Faith, and of Lawes to the Church, is acknowledg­ed even by those witnesses, whose sayings are alleged to argue the sufficience, perfection, and evidence of the Scriptures. Is it civil, is it reasonable to say, that the Writers of the Christian Church make it their businesse to contradict themselves; which no Scholar will admit either Infidels, Pagans, Jewes, Mahu­metans or Hereticks to do? Is it not easie to save them from contradicting themselves, by saying, that Tradition of Faith containeth nothing that is not in the Scriptures, but limits the meaning of that which they contain; Tradition of Lawes, may contain that which is not in the Scriptures, for the species of fact, but is derived from the Scripture, for the authority from whence it pro­ceeds? Or, is it possible by any other means, reasonably to save them from con­tradicting themselves?

These generals premised, freely may wee make our approaches to the particu­lars, and, by considering the circumstance of the places where they lye, make our selves consident to finde some limitation, restraining the generality of their words to make them agree, as well with my position, as with themselves. For example; Epiphanius Haer. LXXVI. Irenaeus II. 46. III. 15. Athanasius Disp­cum Ario say, all is clear in the Scriptures; Meaning, that the sense of the Church is clearly the sense of the Scriptures, in the points questioned; But not to them who exclude that Tradition, which themselves include and presuppose. Observe again, that the perspicuity of the Scriptures is not limited to things necessary to salvation, in all that hath been alleged, but once in S. Austine Epist. [Page 187] III. and observe withall, that the knowledg of things necessary proceeds upon supposition of the Rule of Faith, acknowledged, and received from the Church, in the Catechizing of those that were baptized; Not determined by every ones sense of the Scriptures. It is therefore easily granted, that the Scriptures were made for all sorts of people, that they might profit by them; Alwaies provi­ded, that they bring with them the Faith of the Catholick Church, for the Rule, within the bounds whereof, they may profit by reading them, otherwise, they may and they may not. And therefore, those sayings which were alleged, to prove them obscure, convincing, that they are not clear to all understandings, because they require study, and search, and digging; do necessarily leave him that comes without his Rule, not onely in doubt of finding the truth, but in danger of taking error for it. Upon the like supposition S. Austine affirms, de Ʋtilitate credendi VI. that any man may finde enough in the Old Testament, that seeks as he ought: For, to seek humbly and devoutely, is the same thing for him that is no Christian, (For, the Manichees, to whom S. Austine recommends the Old Te­stament, in this place, were Christians no further than the name) as it is, for him that is a Christian, to seek like a Christian that is, having before his eyes the Faith of the Church. And this is that which S. Austine means, that hee who is no Christian, so seeking, may finde enough to make him a Christian; That is, as much as hee is to expect from the Old Testament. And this supposition is ex­prest by Origen, contra Celsum VII. when hee sayes; that the unlearned may study the Scriptures with profit, after their entrance made: For, this entrance is the Rule of Faith, which they were taught when they were baptized. And, the Catechism of that time, containing as well the motives as the mater of Faith, appears to the unlearned the way into the deep, that is, the mystical sense of the Scripture. Upon the same terms may wee proceed, to grant all that is alleged to show, that which is not contained in the Scriptures not to be receivable in point of Christian truth. For, having showed, that the Rule of Faith is wholly contained in the Scriptures; And, nothing contained in the records of Church Writers to be unquestionable but the Rule and Tradition of Faith; Whatsoe­ver further intelligence and information can be pretended, either tending to e­stablish the same, or, by consequence of reason to flow from it, if it cannot be pretended to come from Tradition, (because there is no Tradition of the Church concerning that wherein the Church agrees not) either it must come from the Scripture, or by the like revelation as the Scriptures, which no Church Writer pretends to have. For, as for that, which by consequence of reason is derived from those things which the Scripture expresseth; Seeing the words of the Scri­pture is not the word of God, but the sense and meaning of them, it were a thing very impertinent to question, whether or no that be contained in the Scri­pture, which the true sense of the Scripture, by due consequence of argument imports. But if the question be of Lawes delivered the Church by the Apostles, having showed, that there may sufficient evidence be made of such, though not recorded in the Scriptures; there can no presumption be made, being not found in the Scriptures, that therefore a Law was not first brought into the Church by the Apostles. And yet it remains grounded upon the Scriptures, in point of righ [...], because the authority, by which it was brought into the Church, is either established or attested by the Scriptures; Mater of fact being competently evi­denced, by other historical truth besides. And upon these terms wee may pro­ceed to acknowledg the goodness of an argument drawn negatively from the Scriptures; that is to say, inferring, this is not in the Scriptures, therefore not true. Doth my position then oblige mee to deny Irenaeus, affirming III. that the Apostles writ the same that they preached? Or S. Austine in Psalmum XXI. de Ʋnitate Ecclesiae cap. V. and Optatus V. tying the Donatists to be tried by the Scriptures? Both parties pretending to be children of God, are to be tryed by their Fathers Will, that is by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. But, if there shall fall out any difference about the intent of their Fathers Will, the meaning of the Old and New Testament, shall I think that is said in vain, which is alleged on the other side, out of the same S. Austine contra Cresco­nium [Page 188] I. 33. that, if a man would not erre in that point, hee is to advise with the Church, which the Scripture evidenceth? For, the question being about the rebaptizing of Hereticks, (that is, about a Law of the Church) if you will have S. Austine agree with S. Austine, it must be upon the terms of my position, the practice of the Church giving bounds to the sense of the Scripture. I can there­fore safely agree with the Constitutions of the Apostles, with S. Cyprian and Leo, and whosoever else teaches, that it is not safe for the people, to assure their consciences upon the credit of their Pastors: But it is because I suppose the U­nity of the Church provided by God, for a ground, upon which the people may reasonably presume, when they are to adhere to their Pastors, when not; To wit, when they are owned, not when they are disowned by the Unity of the Church. For, though this provision becomes uneffectual, when this Unity is dissolved, yet ought not that to be an argument, that the goodnesse of God ne­ver made that provision, which the malice of man may defeat; But, that, who­soever concurrs to maintain the division, concurrs to defeat that provision which God hath made. As safely do I agree with all them, who agree, that whatsoever is taught in Christianity is to be proved by the Scriptures. For, if it belong to the Rule of Faith, it is intended by the Scriptures, though that intent is eviden­ced by the Tradition of the Church. If to the Lawes of the Church, the autho­rity of it comes from the Scriptures, though the evidence of it may depend up­on common sense, which the practice of the Church may convince. If over and above both, it is not receivable, if not contained in the Scriptures. And in this regard, whosoever maintains the whole Scripture to be the Rule of Faith, is throughly justified by all those testimonies that have been alleged to that pur­pose. For, though it be not necessary to the salvation of all Christians, to un­derstand the meaning of all the Scriptures; yet, what Scripture soever a man at­tains to understand, is as much a Rule to his Faith, as that, which a man cannot be saved if hee understand not the sense of it, whether in and by the Scripture, or without it. And though a man may be obliged to believe, that which is not in the Scripture, to have been instituted by the Apostles; yet is he not ob­liged to observe it, but upon that reason which the Scripture delivereth. And, upon these terms, is the whole Scripture a Rule of Faith, from which, as nothing is to be taken away, so is nothing to be added to it, as the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. II. Hom. XII. requireth. And the saying of S. Basil in Esa. II. and Ascet. Reg. I. condemning all that is done without Scripture, takes place upon no other terms than these. Not as Cartwright and our Puritanes after him imagine, that a man is to have a text of Scripture, specifying every thing which hee doth, for his warrant; For, as it is in it self ridiculous to ima­gine, that all cases which fall out, can be ruled by expresse text of Scripture, our Christianity being concerned infinite wayes, of which, it is evident, that the Scri­pture had no occasion to speak; So, if the words of the Scripture be lodged in a heart, where the work of them dwelleth not, (a thing which wee see too pos­sible to come to passe) it is the ready way, to make the Word of God a color for all unrighteousnesse, not onely to others, but to the very heart of him who hath that cloke for it. It is therefore enough, that the reason of every thing which a Christian doth is to be derived from that doctrine which the Scripture decla­eth. And, where a man proceedeth to do that, for which hee hath not such a reason so grounded, as reasonable men use to go by, then cometh that to passe which S. Basil chargeth Ascet. Reg. LXXX. That, What is not of faith is sin. It is true, according to that sense which hitherto I have used, after many Church Writers, the Rule of Faith extendeth not to all the Scriptures, but onely to that, which it is necessary to salvation to believe and to know; Which, every man knowes, that all the Scripture is not. For, though it be necessary to salvation to believe, that all the Scripture is true, yet is it not necessary to salva­tion to know all that the Scripture containeth. And, the reason why I use it in this sense is, to distinguish those things contained in the Scriptures, which Tradition extendeth to, from those to which it extendeth not; For, upon these terms, is the sense of them limitable to the common Faith. But, I quarel not [Page 189] therefore the opinion of them that maintaine, the whole Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith, acknowledging that, whatsoever it containeth is necessarily to be believed, by all that come to understand it: And whatsoever it containeth not, though the Scripture alone obligeth not to believe the truth of it, is not ne­cessarily to be observed, for any other reason, but that which the Scripture de­clareth. As for S. Basil, making it apostasy, to bring that which is not written into the Faith; It is a thing well known, that the Arians were charged by the Church, for bringing in words that were not in the Scriptures, saying [...]; There was a time when Christ was not; And, [...]; That hee was made of nothing; On the other side, after the Council of Nicaea, the Arians charged the Church, for bringing in the word [...], of the same substance. Where then lay the difference, between the Inndelity of the Arians, and the Faith of the Church? Theodoret showes it Hist. Eccles. I. 8. out of Athanasius de Actis Concil. Niceni: [...], saith hee; They were condemned by written words piously understood. But how appears this piety? For, I suppose the Arians would not have granted it. Hee addeth, that the word [...], had been used by the Fathers, (which, had it been inconsistent with the sense of the Church, could not have been indured, in a ma­ter concerning the Rule of Faith) whereas their terms were contrary to that which is found in the Scriptures. Now S. Basil acknowledgeth that hee had else­where, dealing with Hereticks, used terms not found in the Scriptures; to ex­clude their sense contrary to the Scriptures, (as, you shall finde by the Authors alleged, that the Council of Nicaea had done) but to those who desired informa­tion with a single heart, hee resolves to rest content with the Scriptures; The terms whereof, his meaning is that the Hereticks did not rest content with, be­cause they had a minde to depart from the Faith. Upon the same terms, Tertul­lian pronounces the Wo that belongs to them which adde to Gods Word, upon Hermogenes, because his error concerned the Article of our Creed, that God made heaven and earth. And S. Austine presumes, the reason why there is no clear Scripture for the original of the soul, to be because hee presumes that it concerns not the substance of Faith. Besides these Observations, some of those passages which are alleged may concern Christianity, rather than the Scriptures. The Word shines upon all, and is hid to none, saith Clemens to the Gentiles. But it is enough for his purpose, that they may be convinced of Christianity, whether the Scriptures contain it clearly to all understandings or not. Tertul­lian prescribeth, that, when once wee believe, wee are to believe that wee have nothing else to believe; because the Gnosticks pretended secrets, which our common Christianity, they confessed, contained not. Claudius Apollinaris is afraid that our common Christianity might be thought unperfit, if hee should write against Montanus. And does not Christians writing one against another cast a mark of imperfection upon it, in the opinion of unbelievers, though Christians ought to know that God is not tyed to prevent offenses? Assuredly, the Gospel of which hee speaks, is neither any one Gospel nor all four: Nor can the word Gospel signifie, either the New Testament alone, or the Old and New both: Nor could hee be thought to adde to them, by expounding them, and thereby maintaining the Church. Therefore, hee inferrs a good consequence, that, because it is forbidden to adde to, or take from the Law, therefore, our com­mon Christianity is not unperfit, nor ought wee to do that, whereby it may seem unperfit. Now, as for the sayings alleged out of S. Austine, that import as much as the words which wee had afore; Ego Evangelio non crederem—having show­ed what is the effect and intent of them, I shall not be very solicitous to show, how all that is said to the same effect is answered. For, as there is no head so hard, that cannot distinguish, between the authority of the Church, as it is a vi­sible Body of men, that could never have been cozened into the beliefe of Chri­stianity upon pretended motives (whether sufficient or not) and, as it is suppo­sed by Christians, to be a Body founded by God; So is there no heart so hard­ned with prejudice, as to refuse this demand: That the authority of the Church as the Church presupposes the truth of Christianity, and therefore proves it not; [Page 190] And, by consequence, no truth, that Christianity either containeth or inferreth. Which being admitted, if any thing be ascribed to the Church, which seems not to suppose any part of Christian truth, it must be referred to the authority and credit of the Church, as a visible Body of men, moving others to imbrace the Christian Faith. For, though this credit contribute to the making of those men Christians, which are won to the Church already setled, and so the Church is the Church before they are Christians; Yet is the ground and reason which makes the Church a Body founded by God, to wit, the profession of Christianity, more ancient in order of reason and nature, than the being of the Church. And up­on supposition of this ground, (that is, that the Church hath true reasons, as well as sufficient, to believe) proceeds all that authority of the Church, which S. Au­stine allegeth to the Manichees, upon so high terms, that hee would not believe, were hee not moved by it to believe. Neither was it the authority of the Church, vested in the rest of the Apostles, that gave S. Paul the authority of an Apostle over the Church; (though I have said afore, that all the authority which the Church can ever have, was in the Apostles and disciples of our Lord, for the time. And though it is manifest, that S. Paul could not have had the Authority of an Apostle over the Church, had he not been owned by the rest of the A­postles) but the Authority of our Lord Christ in the Apostles, of the same effect, in obliging the Church to receive S. Paul for an Apostle, as, to receive that which they preached, for the Faith. Nor is the mater much otherwise, in the receiving of any Scripture for Canonital. For, neither can any mans writing be owned for Canonical Scripture, not supposing his person owned by the Apostles. And his authority, being so owned, is necessarily before any authority of the Church, and the very being of it. That some Scriptures may be received in some Chur­ches, and not in others, is not because any Church can have authority to reject that which another is bound to receive; but because some Church may not know, that some Scripture comes from a man so owned by the Apostles, (though ano­ther may know it) and yet be a Church, and salvation be had in the communion of it, such knowledg depending meerly upon evidence in point of fact; And therefore, the act of the Church in listing the Scripture hath no authority but that which the presumption of such evidence createth. As for the rest of that which is alleged for the authority of the Church, if S. Jerome resolve to stand to the Church of Rome, it is not because hee takes the sentence thereof to be in­fallible; but because hee had reason to presume, that it were in vain for an An­gel in heaven to preach any other Faith to it, than that which once had been re­ceived. Nor doth S. Cyprian make the not believing the Popes infallibility the sourse of all Heresie and Schism, but, the neglect of authority derived from the Apostles, upon the Heads of particular Churches, in the consent of whom, the visibility of the true Faith, and Church both, consisteth. For, it is meer slight of hand, to take the Rock which the Gates of Hell vanquish not, in S. Austine, for the Church of Rome, because hee spoke of it in the words next afore; Be­ing meant of the Vine which hee had speech of a little afore that; to wit, the Christianity which our Lord Christ preacheth. For, in S. Bernards time, I grant, the stile was changed, and it might passe for good doctrine to say; That the Faith cannot suffer any failleur in the Church of Rome. As for all those passages of the Fathers, which are alleged in recommendation, whether of Tradition for the Rule of Faith, or of Traditions which are the Lawes of the Church, they are all mine own; They cannot serve the turn of any opinion but that which I pre­tend; That the Tradition of the Church, (witnessed and evidenced by the con­tinual exercice and practice of the Church, extant in the records of the Church, not constituted and created by any expresse act of those that have authority in be­half of the Church) as it giveth bounds to the interpretation of the Scripture, in such things as concern the Rule of Faith; So it discovereth what Lawes the Church received from the Apostles, and, by consequence, what is agreeable and consequent to the intent of the same in future times, according to the difference between that and the present state of the Church. Let those things therefore which have been produced here, be added to that which I alleged in the begin­ning, [Page 191] to make evidence for the Corporation of the Church, from the Lawes given it by the Apostles. Irenaus shall serve, both for the authority of the Scri­pture antecedent to the authority of the Church, and for the Tradition of the Church bounding the sense of it. For, if the same Faith which first was prea­ched, was afterwards committed to writing by the Apostles, (and, how should those Christians which had not the use of leters, be saved otherwise?) then was it the authority of the Apostles, acknowledged by them that found themselves tyed to be Christians, which made the Faith to oblige, whether delivered by writing, or without it; The consent of all Churches, in the same Rule of Faith, serving for evidence of the Apostles act, in delivering the same to the Chur­ches. Nor can any further reason be demanded, why that knowledg, which the Gnosticks prerended to have received by secret wayes should be refuted, than the want of this. And therefore it is in vain to allege, that, as they scorned the Scripture, so they alleged Tradition for this secret knowledge; The Tradition which they alleged being secret, and such as could not be made to appear; But no lesse contradictory to the Tradition of the Church, than to the Scriptures, both infallibly witnessed by the consent of all Churches. And hereupon, I leave the sayings of S. Austine, setting aside the authority of the Council of Nicaea, and affirming, that former General Councils may be corrected by later, without answer; As also the sayings of them who affirm, the Faith which our Lord hath taught to be the rock, upon which the Church is built. For, if no building can lay that foundation, upon which it standeth, then cannot the Church make mater of Faith, being founded upon it. And that authority which may be set aside, or corrected, can be no infallible ground of Faith. It is true, it is pleaded, that, though, in the Church of Rome there be some, that do believe, that the Church is able to make new Articles of Faith; (that is, to make such determinations in maters of Faith, as shall oblige all men to believe them, as much as they are obliged to believe all that which comes from our Lord by his Apostles) Others, that do believe onely, that the Church is able to evidence what the Apostles delivered to the Church, and that this evidence is the ground whereon particular persons are to rest, that, whatsoever is so evidenced, was in­deed so delivered by the Apostles; yet both these agree in one and the same rea­son of believing, both of them alleging the Tradition of the Apostles to the Church, for the ground of their Faith. But this is more than any man of reason can believe, unlesse wee allow him that affirms contradictories, to ground him­self upon one part of the contradiction, which the other part of it destroyes. For, seeing that there must be but one reason, one ground, upon which we believe all that we believe, and that it is manifest, that, those Articles of Faith which the determination of the Church creates, (being not such by any thing which that de­termination supposes) are believed to be such, meerly in consideration of the au­thority of the Church that determines them; By consequence, the Scripture, and whatsoever is held to be of Faith, upon any ground which the authority of the Church createth, is no mater of Faith, but by the authority of the Church, de­termining that it be held for such. On the other side, hee that allowes Tradi­tion to be the reason why hee believes the Christian Faith, necessarily allowes, all that hee allowes to be mater of Faith, not onely to be true, but to be mater of Faith, before ever the Church determine it. So that, allowing him to say, that hee holds his Faith by Tradition, hee must allow mee, that hee contradicts himself, whensoever hee takes upon him to maintain, that the Church creates new Articles of Faith, which were not so, the instant before the determination of the Church.

CHAP. XXXII. Answer to an Objection, that choice of Religion becomes difficult upon these terms. This resolution is for the Interest of the Reformation. Those that make the Church Infallible cannot, those that make the Scripture clear and sufficient may own Tradition for evidence to determine the meaning of the Scriptures, and Controversies of Faith. The Interest of the Church of England. The pre­tense of Rushworthes Dialogues, that wee have no unquestionable Scripture, and, that the Tradition of the Church never changes.

AS little shall I need to be troubled at any reason that may be framed a­gainst this resolution, having answered the prejudice that seems to sway most men to apprehend, that God must have been wanting to his Church, if all things necessary to salvation be not clearly laid down in the Scriptures. For, it is very manifest, that the very same presumption possesses the mindes of the adverse party, that God must needs have provided a visible Judge infallible in de­ciding all Controversies of Faith; Whether the Church, or any person or per­sons authorized in behalf of the Church, for the present all is one. I shall there­fore onely demand, that it be considered, first, that God was no way tied either to send our Lord Christ, or to give his Gospel; which, because it comes of Gods free grace, is therefore called the Word of his Grace, and the Covenant of Grace. Then, that hee hath not found himself obliged to provide effectual means, to bring all mankinde to the knowledge of it; resting content to have provided such, as, if men be not wanting to their own salvation, and the salvation of the rest of mankinde, may be sufficient to bring all men to the knowledg of it. And, when it is come to knowledg, all discreet Christians, notwithstanding, must acknowledg, that the motives thereof fully propounded, though abundantly suf­ficient to reasonable persons, yet do not constrain those that are convicted by them, to proceed according to them, as necessary reasons constrain all under­standings that see them, to judg by them. For, how should it be a trial of mens dispositions, if there were no way to avoid the necessity of those motives that in­force it? Now, if any knowledg can be had, of truth in maters of faith that become disputable, it must all, of necessity, depend upon the sufficiency of those motives, which convict men to imbrace the Christian Faith. And if there be any such skill as that of a Divine among Christians, of necessity, all of it pro­ceeds upon supposition of the said motives, which, not pretending to show the reason of things which they convict men to believe, convict them notwithstand­ing to believe, that they are revealed by God. For, what conviction can there be, that this or that is true, unlesse it may appear to fall under those motives, as the means which God hath imployed, so to recommend it? Therefore can it not be reasonable, to require a greater evidence, to the truth of things disputable a­mong Christians, than God hath allowed Christianity it self; which being suppo­sed on all hands, it remains questionable, whether this or that be part of it. Therefore can it not be presumed, that God hath made the Scriptures clear in all points necessary to salvation, to all understandings concerned; or, that hee hath provided a visible Judg, infallible in determining Controversies of Faith; either because originally his goodnesse requires it, or because wee cannot suppose that men can be obliged to imbrace the Gospel upon other terms. It is sufficient, that, having given the Scriptures, hee hath over and above provided the Commu­nion of the Church, to preserve the Rule of Faith, and the Laws of the Church, in the sensible knowledg and common practice of all Christians; that the means of salvation might be sufficient, and yet men remain subject to trial, whether they would render them uneffectual or not, to themselvs and the rest of mankinde. I confess indeed, it would be much for the ease of the parties, and would shorten their work very much, if it might be admitted for a presumption, that all things necessary are clear in the Scriptures, or, that the Church is an infallible Judg in Controversies of Faith. For then, the superficial sound of the words of Scri­pture, [Page 193] repeated by rote, in the Pulpit or out of the Pulpit, would serve to knock the greatest question on the head, without any advise, what difficulties remain behind, undecided, upon no lesse appearances in Scripture; On the other side, a decree of the Council of Trent would serve to put the Scripture to silence, without any proffer to satisfie the conscience that is moved with the authority thereof, equally obliging with our common Christianity, with the sense of the Church on the same side to boot. Thus much is visible, that they whose businesse it is, in England, to reconcile souls to the Church of Rome, finde their work ready done when they have gained this point; and men, all their lives afore grounded upon contrary reasons, in the particulars which are the subject of the breach, change their profession without any coutrary resolution in those particu­lars, that is, their former grounds remaining in force. Surely nothing were more desirable, than a ready and short way to the truth, in things so concerning. But, to pretend it upon a ground, which, if any thing can be demonstrative in this kinde, is demonstratively proved that it cannot be true; To wit, the authority of the Church decreeing, without means to derive that which it decreeth, from the motives, that should evidence it to be revealed by God; This, I say, to pretend, is no better than an Imposture.

And if this be true, I remain secure of that which every man will object a­gainst the resolution which I advance, that, whereas, the meaning of the Scri­pture alone is a thing too difficult for the most part of men to compasse, I re­quire further, that it be assured by the records of the Church, which are endlesse, and which no mans industry can attain to know; So that, the meer despair of finding resolution by the means propounded, will justifie to God, him that fol­lowes probabilities, as being all one in that case, whether there be no truth, or whether it cannot appear to those whom it concerns. This Objection, I say, I do not finde so heavy upon mee, that I have any cause to mince, but rather to aggravate the difficulty of it, having showed, that the means provided by God, to make evidence of the Faith to the consciences of particular Chaistians, is not any gift of infallibility vested in any person or persons on behalf of the whole Church, but the Unity of the whole Church, grounded upon the profession of the same Faith as the condition of it. For in all reason, what Unity bindes, that Division destroyes. And, whatsoever Unity contributes to the assurance of a Christian, that hee is in the way to salvation, so long as hee continues in the U­nity of the Church; that the Division of the Church necessarily derogates from the same assurance, in him that cannot continue in that Unity which is once dis­solved, and yet, believing the Scriptures and our common Christianity to be in­fallibly true, cannot believe the parties to be infallible, as they are. And, what hath hee that desireth the Unity of the Church to do. but to aggravate that dif­ficulty of attaining salvation, which the division thereof produceth? I do there­fore grant, and challenge as for mine own Interest, that it is very difficult for unlearned Christians to discern the truth in those Controversies, about which a settled division is once formed, as now in the Western Church; At least upon so true and so clear grounds, as may assure them, that they make their choice up­on no other interest than that of Gods truth. But I do not therefore yield to that which this difficulty, it seems, hath wrung from Vincentius Lerinensis, with whom agreeth the Opus imperfectum in Mat. as you have them quoted afore; That there is no means but Scripture to convince inveterate Heresies: The rea­son whereof, the later of those authors renders; Because those Heresies have their Churches, their Pastors, and the succession of them, and their Communion, as well as Catholick Christians: For hee supposeth Pastors lawfully constituted to have fallen away to those Heresies. And truly, the case of this difficulty was put, when the Arian Faction had possessed so great a part of the Church, that S. Gregory Nazianzene, in the place afore quoted, acknowledges, that the true Church could not be judged by numbers; With whom S. Hilary, libro de Syno­dis, agreeth. But if the same Nazianzene scorn them that value the Church by numbers, Liberius, in the place afore quoted out of Theodoret, revies it upon him, in saying, that the cause of the Faith could not suffer, though hee were alone. [Page 194] For, not onely the Scriptures continue alwaies the same, but, though the present Church fail, it follows not, that the Tradition of the Whole Church must fail with it. So long as the original sense of the Whole Church may be evident, by the agreement thereof with the Scripture, wee may discern what is Catholick, without the sentence of the present Church: And, that which is not so to be discerned for Catholick, wee may presume, that our salvation requires us not to believe it. And therefore Vincentius and his fellow are so to be understood, that it is difficult indeed, to make evidence to private Christians, of Tradition contra­ry to that which they see received by Heresies; (And therefore, that for the convicting of them in the truth, recourie is to be had to the Scriptures) But Vincentius, who, as I showed you, acknowledges evidence for Tradition, from written records of the Church, need not have said, that there is no means to convince inveterate Heresies, but the Scriptures. Be this difficulty then the evi­dence, how much it concerns the salvation of all Christians, that the Unity of the Church be restored; That the choice of private Christians, in maters con­cerning their salvation, be not put upon the sentencing of those disputes, the rea­sons whereof they are not able to manage. For, being restored, upon agreement in those things, which, it is sufficient for all Christians to believe, it will neither be easie for private Christians, to frame to themselves opinions, destructive to their particular salvation, within that compasse, neither will their fall be impu­table to the Church, but to themselves, if they do. But, neither shall this diffi­culty be so great an inconvenience in our common Christianity, nor so insupe­rable as it seems to those, that are loth to be too much troubled about the world to come. For, I never found that God pretendeth to give, or that it is reason hee should give those means, for attaining that truth by which wee must be saved, which it should not lye within the malice of man to render difficult, for them to compasse, whom they concern. I finde it abundantly enough for his unspeak­able goodness, and exactly agreeable with those means whereby hee convicteth the world of the truth of Christianity, that hee give those whom it concerns, such means to discern the truth of things in debate, as, being duly applyed, are of themselves sufficient to create a resolution as certain, as the weight of the mater in debate shall require. And such I maintain the Scripture to be, contain­ing the sense of it within those bounds, which the Rule of Faith, and the Lawes given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles do limit. For, what is more ob­vious, than to discern, what the whole Body of the Church hath agreed in, what not, what is manifestly consequent to the same, what not? what is agreeable to the ground and end of those Lawes which the Church first received from our Lord and his Apostles, what not? Let prejudice cast what mists of difficulties it can, before the light which God hath given his Church, to discover the truth, hee that stands out of their way, shall discern, much more art used to obscure than to discern it. Neither is there any reason why it is so hard to make it dis­cernable to all that are concerned, but the unreasonable prejudices, either of the force of humane authority in mater of Faith, and the extent of Tradition be­yond the Rule of Faith, or, that the consent of the whole Church may as well come from Antichrist as from the Apostles. If the records of the Church were handled without these prejudices, lesse learning than this age shows in other ma­ters, might serve to evidence the consent of [...] Church in more controversies than wee have, to those that would be content to rest in the Scripture expounded ac­cording to the same. But, if the Church, that is, those that uave right in be­half of the Church, being perswaded of a sacrilegious privilege of Infallibili­ty, shall take upon them to determine truths in debate, to limit Lawes to the Church, without respect to this Rule, (which, if they respect, they manifestly renounce the privilege of their Infallibility) I mervail not that God suffers his people to be tried with such difficulties, whose sins I doubt deserve this tryal; But then I say further, that it is not the providence of God, (that is, the means which hee hath provided to resolve men in debates of Christianity) but it is the malice of man, that makes that means uneffectual, which God hath made suffi­cient.

I must now answer an envious objection, that this resolution is not according to the positions of those, that professe the Reformation with us: To which I will speak as freely as to the rest, having profess'd my self utterly assoiled of all facti­on and respect of mens persons, to way against the means of finding the truth, and, for that reason, devested even the Fathers of the Church, of all authority, which their merits from Christianity have purchased, to hear what their testimo­nies argue in point of Historical truth. I say then first, that may saying no way prejudices the intent and interest of the Reformation, whatsoever insufficience it may charge the expressions of Reformers with. I know the worst that can be alleged in this point is, that Luther, in appealing from the Pope and Council called by him, to a Council that should judg meerly by the Scriptures, first fra­med this Controversie between the Scriptures and the Church, which since hath been alwaies in debate; so that hee which will not be tried by the Scriptures a­lone, plainly seems to quit the party, and give up the game. Who has this ima­gination, though never to apparent, let mee desire him to go a little higher, to the first commencing of the plea about Indulgences. For, there can be nothing more manifest than this; That, when those that undertook that cause against Luther found, that the present practice of the Church could not be derived from any thing recorded in the Scripture, they were forced to betake themselves to the authority of the Church, not that which consisteth in testifying the faith once delivered, but in creating that which never was of force, untill the exercice of it. Here, let all the world judg, (for, I am confident, the case is so plain, that all the world may judg in it) whether Luther had any Interest to demand, that the Scripture alone should be heard, in opposition to the Tradition received from the beginning by the Church, tending (as I have said) to nothing, but to limit the meaning of the Scripture; Or, that his Interest required him to protest, that the truth for which hee stood, was not to be liable to the Sentence of the pre­sent Church. And therefore, when, afterwards, hee appealed to a Council which should pronounce by the Scriptures alone, if this tend to exclude those means which are subordinate to the attaining of the meaning of the Scriptures; I do utterly deny, that it can be understood so to be meant, by any man that would not defeat his own enterprize: And therefore, that it must be understood, to ex­clude onely the authority of the present Church, so farre as it proceeds not up­on supposition of those grounds, whereupon the Church is to pronounce. For, what hinders the sentence of the Church to be infallible, not of it self alone, but as it proceeds upon those means, which, duely applied, produce a sentence that is infallible? And truly, were not his plea so to be understood, all his Fol­lowers, Melancthan, Chemnitius, and others, who have written Volumes to show, how their profession agrees with that of the Catholick Church, should have taken pains to commit a very great inconsequence. For, as I have argued, that those who maintain the Infallibility of the present Church, do contradict themselves, whensoever they have recourse, either to the Scripture, or to any Re­cords of the Church, to evidence the sense of the Scripture, in that, which, other­wise, they professe, the authority of the Church alone infallibly to determine; So, those that will have the Scripture alone to determine all Controversies of Faith, and yet take the pains to bring evidence of the meaning thereof, from that which hath been received in the Church, may very well be said to take pains to contradict themselves. Some of our Scottish Presbyterians have observed, that the Church of England was reformed by those, that had more esteem of Me­lancthon than of Calvin, and therefore affected a compliance with the ancient Church. And truly it is fit it should be thought, that they complied with him, because hee complied with the Catholick Church; for by that reason, they shall comply with the Church, if in any thing hee comply not with it. But it is a great deal too little for him to say, that will say the truth for the Church of Eng­land. For it hath an Injunction, which ought still to have the force of a Law, that no interpretation of the Scripture be alleged, contrary to the consent of the Fathers; Which had it been observed, the innovations which I dispute a­gainst could have had no pretense. If this be not enough, hee that [Page 196] shall take pains to peruse, what D ^r. Field hath writ hereupon, in his work of the Church, shall find, that which I say to be no novelty, either in the Church of England, of in the best learned Doctors beyond the Seas. And sure the Refor­mation was not betrayed, when the B. of Sarum challenged all the Church of Rome at S. Pauls Crosse, to make good the points in difference, by the first DC years of the Church. Always it is easie for me to demonstrate, that this resolution; That the Scripture, holding the meaning of it by the Tradition of the Church, is the onely means to decide controversies of Faith; is neerer to the common terms, that the Scripture is the onely Rule of Faith, than to that Infallibility which is pretended for the Church of Rome; Having demonstrated, that, to de­pend upon the Infallibility of the present, and the Tradition of the Catholick Church, are things inconsistent, whereas this cannot be inconsistent with that Scripture, which is no lesse delivered from age to age than Tradition is, though the one by writing, the other by word of mouth, and serving chiefly to deter­mine the true meaning of it, when it comes in debate. And if prejudice and passion carry not men headlong to the ruine of that Christianity which they pro­fess [...], it cannot seem an envious thing, to comply with the most learned of the Church of Rome, who acknowledge not yet any other Infallibility in the Church then I claime, rather than with the Socinians, the whole Interest of whose He­resie consists, in being tryed by Scripture alone, without bringing the consent of the Church into consequence, and that, supposing all mater of Faith must be clear in the Scripture, to all them that consult with nothing but Scripture.

But I cannot leave this point, till I have considered a singular conceit advan­ced in Rushworthes Dialogues, for maintaining the Infallibility of the Church, upon a new account. The pretense of that Book is, to establish a certain ground of the choice of Religion, by the judgement of common sense; To which pur­pose I pretend not to speak in this place, thinking it sufficient, if this whole work may inable them who are moved with it, duely to make that choice for themselves, and to show those that depend on them, how to do the like. But, in as much as no man will deny, the choice of Religion to be the choice of truth before falshood, in those particulars whereof the difference of Religion consists; It is manifest, that the means of discerning between true and false in mater of Faith, which I pretend, cannot stand with that which hee advanceth. It consists in two points; That the Scripture is not, and that Tradition is the certain means of deciding this truth. Which, if no more were said, will not amount to a contradiction against that which I resolve. For, hee that sayes, the Scrip­ture is not the onely means, excluding that Tradition which determines the meaning of it, doth neither deny that Tradition is, nor say that the Scripture is the certain means of deciding this kind of truth. But the issue of his reasons will easily show, upon what termes the contradiction stands. Hee citeth, then, com­mon sense to witnesse, that wee cannot rest certain, that wee have those Scrip­tures which came, wee agree, by inspiration of God, by reason of the manifold changes, which, common sense makes appearance, must come to passe in tran­scribing upon such a supposition as this; That, so many Columns as one Book cont [...]ins, so many Copies, at least, are made every hundreth years, and in every Copy so many faults, at least, as words in one Column: Upon which account 15 or 16 times as many faults having been made in all copies, as there are words, it will be so much oddes, that wee have no true Scripture in any place; Abating onely for those faults, that may have fallen out to be the same in several copies. And, if Sixtus V Pope, causing 100 copies of the Vulgar Latine to be compared, found two thousand faults, supposing two thousand copies extant, (which may be supposed a hundred thousand in any Language) what will remain unquestion­able? It is further alleged, that the Scripture is written in Languages now cea­sed, (which some call Learned Languages, because men learn them, to know such Books as are written in them) the meaning whereof, not being subject to sense, dependeth upon such a guessing kind of skill, as is subject to mistake, as experience showes in commenting of all Authors: But especially the Hebrew, and that Greek in which wee have the Scriptures; That having originally no [Page 197] vowels to determine the reading of it, wanting Conjunctions and Preposiaions to determine the signification of him that speaks, all the Language extant being contained in the Bible alone (the Jews Language differing so much as it does from it) the Language of the Prophets consisting of such dark Tropes and Figures, that no skill seems to determine what they mean: This, so copious, and by that means so various in the expressions of it (though wanting that variety of Conju­gations by which the Hebrew and other Eastern Languages vary the sense) that, to determine the meaning of it, is more than any ordinary skill can compasse. Adde hereunto the manifold equivocations, incident to whatsoever is expressed by writing, more incident to the Scripture, as pretending to give us the sense of our Lords words (for example) not the very syllables; Adde the uncertainties which the multiplicity of Translations must needs produce; and all this must needs amount to this reckoning; That God never meant the Bible for the means to de­cide controversies of Faith, the meaning whereof requires many principles which God alone can procure, because so indefinite. Which, the nature of the Book argueth no lesse, as I observed, being written in no method of a Law, or a Rule, nor having those decisions that are to oblige distinguished from mater of a farre diverse, and almost impertinent nature. Upon these premises it is inferred, as evi­dent to common sense; that the Scripture produces no distinct resolution of con­troversies, though, as infinitely usefull for instruction in virtue, so, tending to show the truth in maters of Faith in grosse: and being read, rather to know what is in it, than to judge by it; by the summary agreement of it with that which is held and practised, convincing where the truth is, and on which side, especially if wee content our selves with what is probable from it, expecting from Traditi­on what is definite and certain.

For, supposing so great a Congregation as the Church to take this for the ground of their Faith; that, nothing is to be believed, for revealed truth, but what they have received from hand to hand from the Apostles; it must be grant­ed; First, that they had the same perswasion from the beginning; Because, having never declared to their successors, what are the particulars they are to receive, ei­ther they had from the beginning this principle, to distinguish mater of faith from that which is not, or could never introduce it without grosse imposture: And besides, that, holding this perswasion, they could never admit any thing as re­ceived from their Fore-fathers which was not so indeed; Because, whole Nati­ons can never agree so to deceive, in a mater subject to sense, as to say, that they received this or that from their Fore-fathers, when they did not, the reason being the same in all ages since Christ, as in our own. For, the Christian Faith being so repeated, so inculcated by the preaching of the Apostles; how long soever wee suppose the remembrance of their doctrine to have remained certain in the Church, so long wee may inferre, that age which had this certain remem­brance must convey it as certain, in a sensible distance of time, and, by the means of such distances, that it must needs come no lesse certain to us. Neither can any breach have been made upon the Faith, without contesting the common principle of Tradition in the first place: and secondly, the consequence and cor­respondence which the Articles of Christianity have one with another, by means whereof, hee that questioneth one, must needs, by consequence, prejudice o­thers. And, Religion being a bond, by observing which, people are perswaded they shall attain happinesse; the same motives to enter into this bond in general, the same grounds of embracing Christianity in particular remaining; how should wee imagine, any part of it should be either lost or changed, which necessarily must concurre to the effect of the whole? For, being dispersed, as from the be­ginning it hath been, over so many Nations, whose authority can be a sufficient reason, to perswade them all, that which hee sayes to have been received from the Apostles, not that which they were possessed of afore? Who is able to move them with hopes and fears, answerable to those which wrought them to imbrace it, either to silence or to change it? And yet, so long as it can appear, that the contrary was received, so long time must the change require to prevaile, and so much more to leave the truth forgot, and yet subject to be evidenced by any Re­cords [Page 198] that may remain. So that there is no appearance, that the principles pro­ducing such a change, should so long time prevail as those motives, that first evi­denced the truth. And further, upon all this appearance in point of fact, it is argued à priori, and as it were in point of Right; That, God having provided so many possibilities to make the preservation of Christianity so easie, the effect must needs have followed, lest the means should have been provided in vain, if no effect should insue: All possibility being to no purpose when no effect fol­lowes, and no effect but this answering the means that render it so possible.

CHAP. XXXI. That the Scriptures which wee have are unquestionable. That mistakes in Copying are not considerable to the sense and effect of them. The meaning of the He­brew and Greek, even of the Prophets, determinable, to the deciding of Contro­versies. How Religion delivered by Tradition becomes subject to be corrupted.

THis is the summe of this new account, which, to my understanding, main­tains the Infallibility of the present Church, upon as high terms, as those that resolve the reason of their Faith into it; and yet, not upon any gift of Infal­libility, intailed upon any visible act of any persons, however qualified on behalf of the Church; but upon a pretense of evidence made to common sense, that those who acknowledge Tradition, cannot receive any thing, not onely which they believe to be, but which is indeed inconsistent with it. Wherein I shall protest in the first place, that I have nothing to do with the terms of great error, or Christianity, so as to say here, that, either Christianity, which hee calleth Christs Law, or any part of it, either hath been, or may be renounced by them, that pretend to admit nothing as revealed truth, but what they believe was re­ceived from the Apostles, and that so great an error as this may have crept into the Church. For, the present purpose being general, to try how any thing in debate may be tryed, whether agreeable to the Faith or not; I should count it a great impertinence, and the ruine of all that I design to infer, upon sufficient principles (which, I pretend, those which I reject, not to be) to be ingaged to show, how great any error may be, before I have a ground to inferre, whether it be an error or not. But, if I may proceed to settle such a ground, I shall make no doubt to convince all, that remain convict of the truth thereof, how great the error is which it convicteth. It shall therefore suffice mee, for the present, to state the opposition which I make to this pretense upon these termes; That the common sense of all Christians determineth, those who pretend to admit nothing as of Faith but what they receive from our Lord and his Apostles, to be subject neverthelesse, under that pretense, to receive things really inconsistent with it, and, which may be discerned so to be, by the means which wee have to decide such questions; The Scriptures interpreted by the Original and Catholick Tradition of the Church. The evidence of this position necessarily consists in that, which is to be said for Scripture and Tradition joyntly, as the onely suffici­ent means to evidence Christian truths; that is to say, that, having showed, the arguments made against Scripture alone, and for Tradition alone, to be ineffect­ual and void; That which remains for the truth will be this, that the Scripture, with Tradition to determine the meaning of it, do both together make a suffici­ent means, to determine the truth of any thing questioned concerning Christia­nity.

I say then, in behalf of the Scripture, which this plea so undervalueth, as not to acknowledge any such thing, but in favour to them whom they dispute with; that it is a mervail to see, how the greater difference with common enemies is forgot, upon lesse quarrels among our selves. For, if there be any such men as Atheists, that deny the beginning of the world, and the marks of Gods provi­dence, expressed in the government of it (as I would there were none) I de­mand, how they could be more gratified, than by making it beleeved, that we are no more tied to beleeve Moses writings that we have to come from God, [Page 199] than we please? For, if it be fifteen or sixteen to one, that the words which we have are not from God, what respect can oblige us to do more? And would Pagans and Idolaters think themselves lesse bound to us, if we could perswade them, that, whatsoever is pretended in Scripture, of a Covenant made by God with Abraham and his posterity, to acknowledge and worship him alone for the true God, may be denied, so farre, as by saying, that no man can say we have any Record of it? As for the Jews, what a favour were it to them, to quit them all that can be alleged against them out of Moses and the Prophets, by saying; That we cannot be assured that it is their writing? For, if it be said, that, what­soever the Church hath interest to use against Atheists, Pagans and Jews, will be admitted upon Tradition, having renounced Scripture; can it be imagined, that, having granted, that the whole narration, upon which Christianity steppeth in, may have been counterfeited in writing, any man can undertake to show the truth of the same, unquestionable, by word of mouth? Surely it may well a­stonish a man void of prejudice to see it so carefully alleged, how many ambi­guities and equivocations necessarily fall out in expressing mens mindes by wri­ting; never considering, that the same may fall out, in whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth, so much more uncureably, as a man writes upon more delibe­ration than hee speaks: and, posterity can affirm with more confidence, that which is delivered by writing to have been said, than that which is onely so re­ported. For, let common sense judg, by what is usually done by men, for the preserving of evidence concerning their estates, whether it be more effectual to have it in writing, or onely by word of mouth. For, whatsoever can be pretend­ed to come by Tradition from the Apostles, must first have been delivered in the Ebrew language; (at least that language which they spake, and was so near the Ebrew of the Old Testament, that in the New Testament it is called by that name) Thence, being turned into Greek or Latine, it must have come after­wards into the now vulgar languages of Christendom. Neither can any man i­magine, how the profession of Christians should be conveyed by Tradition, and not by word of mouth. Where, though they that heard the Apostles certainly understood their meaning; (which there can be no question of, when the intent is, familiarly to teach it) yet, the terms wherein it was delivered not remaining upon record, as much difference may creep in, as there may be difference in se­veral mens apprehensions, saving that which the communion of the Church de­termineth, And will any common sense allow, that the meaning thereof shall be more certain than the words are? more certain, than the meaning of written words, which are certain, though obscure, and yet not without competent means, to bring the intent of them to light? But I must not preferr any thing of this nature before any thing wee have in the Scriptures, so long as both sides acknow­ledg it. I demand then, whether the precept of the Law, which injoyned the Israelites to teach it their children, concerned the written Law or not. The Prophet David Psalm LXXVIII. 1-8. shewes the practice of it, and so do other passages of the Old Testament; and surely there can be no doubt made, that Moses himself did deliver and inculcate the sense of the precepts to his hearers: But will any common sense allow, that hee forgot his text, when hee expounded the meaning of it? Our Lord commands the Jews to search the Scriptures, hee remits Dives in the Parable to Moses and the Prophets. S. Paul presses, that all things that are written are written for our learning, that wee, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope: That all Scripture in­spired from God is profitable—and a great deal more to the same effect; and shall wee, open the mouth of Atheism with an answer, that this concerns not us, who no way stand convict, that wee have the words of Moses and the Pro­phets, of our Lord and his Apostles? Let this therefore passe for a desperate at­tempt, of making a breach, for Atheism, Heathenism, Judaism, to enter in, provided that the Reformation should have nothing to say against the Church of Rome. But, let it be demanded, whether any of those that writ for the Church against Heresies were masters of the common sense of men or not? And let it be demanded, when they alleged the Scriptures against them, whether they [Page 200] thought the meaning of them determinable or not. It is true, Tertullian pre­scribed against Hereticks that the Church was not tied to dispute with them out of the Scriptures, and certainly had just reason so to do; Because, though they admitted the Apostles to have Gods Spirit, yet they admitted not, that Spirit to have declared to them the bottom of the truth, as to themselves, and therefore made use of the Scriptures as the Alcoran doth; so farre onely, as they agreed with the Traditions of their own Masters, whom they supposed to have the fal­nesse of the truth: Whereas it is manifest, that Christianity admits no dispute from the Scriptures, but from them, that acknowledg no gifts of Gods Spirit, that suppose not Christianity and the Scriptures. Therefore, those that disputed against the Heresies that grew up afterwards, and acknowledged no revelation, but that which had brought on Christianity, what did they dispute upon? For e­vidently they neither had, nor used that prescription, which Tertullian insisted upon against his Hereticks. But, as Tertullian might, (though not bound to so much) use the Scriptures against such Hereticks, as well as against Jews and Infi­dels; did they who succeeded onely use it against succeeding Heresies that own no further revelation than that which Scripture came with, not as necessity, but to show the advantage they had? for, this they must do, if nothing but proba­bility is to be had from the Scriptures, but the peremptory truth, is, without Scripture, evident in the determination of the present Church, which was first visible in ejecting Hereticks? Certainly, such a breach upon common sense can­not be admitted, as, for them that have evidence for the truth, to compromise it to a dispute of probabilities. Here therefore, I do appeal to the common sense of all men, that see, how all the disputes that have been made from the begin­ning, for the Faith against Heresies, do consist of Scriptures drawn into conse­quence against them, though in behalf of that which they professed to hold from the Apostles; whether all this pains was taken to show, what was probable, or what was true upon the evidence of the true sense of Scripture, falling within the compasse of that which they held from the Apostles.

The ground then of that account, which pretends, that wee have no Scri­pture, is very frivolous. For, if common sense be valued by the experience of those, that handle written Copies, not by the imagination of them that do not; the faults, which it is probable all Copies carry from their makers, cannot en­danger the truth of the Scripture, but in that one case which hee alloweth to a­bate his account, that is, when the same fault falls out in several Copies; which is a rare chance. For, where diverse Copies agree in the same fault, it behoveth, that there should be some occasion of committing the mistake, capable to induce several men into the same, the consent of whose Copies may in time create a doubt what is true. But, to imagine, that a fault committed at large by a Co­pyer, which, it is so great odds, that none else shall fall into; (The truth being one, errors infinite) should indanger the true reading of any writing, is not to appeal to common sense, but to renounce it. For, neither in that one case, where, it is confest there may be danger, are wee left without cure; the conse­quence of the sense, either alone, or with the help of some Copy, alwaies out­waying the credit of Copies liable to so many mistakes. Hee that sees not what benefit all records of learning have received, even from negligent Copies, industriously handled, to the preservation of all records, may pretend ignorance in this point. But, for the Scriptures, as common sense bears, that there is more occasion of making faults than in other writings, because more multiplying of Copiesl so, common sense showing, that there is so much more means of correct­ing them, the danger of changing the text is vanished. Which, if all this were not, common sense, that sees the present text of Scripture make a sense so reasonable, so agreeable, will as much scorn as a reasonable man will scorn to ad­mit, that this beautifull order of the world comes from the casual interfering of atomes: For, is it not the same case, when it is said, that so constant sense arises from the contingence of errors? And therefore I mervail, that the va­rieties of readings recorded in Sixtus V his Bible should be alleged to this pur­pose; Which, though they are the records of errors, yet they are the argu­ments [Page 201] of truth; The true reading, by the credit of them, over-balancing all mistakes. And truly, hee that shall not up a just account, of the hinderance, which the variety of reading in the Scripture, gives the resolution of truth, shall finde three or four texts questionable for their reading, by the enemies of the Trinity; In other things, though diverse readings questionable, yet none of consequence to any point in debate: And those I speak of, so questionable, that that either they make no consEquence, there being evidence sufficient without them, or there remains evidence enough to waigh the true reading down.

Now, the ceasing of the Languages, in which the Scripture was written, is indeed a difficulty to the attaining of the sense of them, as it is a difficulty to the attaining of the Language: But, either wee suppose the skill of the Lan­guage attained when it is not, or, being attained, wee must suppose, that which wee have upon record in it, as well understood, (to wit, as to the Language) as men understand one another in their mother tongue. And therefore, the E­brew and Greek have hard fortune, to lye under contrary charges: As to say, that the Ebrew is obscure because it is scarce, and the Greek is obscure because copious; and, the Scripture being written in the one and in the other, is there­fore obscure. Certainly, those that spoke Ebrew, and those that spoke Greek had means, to understand one anothers meaning, or else those Languages were uselesse to the end of all Language: And, shall wee imagine, that they deter­mine not the meaning of the speaker in writing, but when they are spoken, well and good? No. To them that know not the Language, there is no suffi­cient mark to determine the meaning of what is said in it. It is no mervail: On Gods name, let them learn a little further, and they may discern the marks, whereby the force of signifying is stamped upon the Languages. And truly, the scarcenesse of that Language lies rather in the sloth of learners, (who save a great deal of pains, by perswading themselves, that they know that Language, when they have learned what is to be found in the Scriptures) than in want of words to expresse all conceits. It is an easie thing to imagine, that the writings of later Jewes are not good Ebrew, and indeed it may appear, that, after the Captivity, the Vulgar did not speak it. But, by the Traditions, whereby they determine the exercise, of Moses Law (which, the Jews of Palestine resident at Tiberias agreed to put in writing, about the Emperor Antoninus his time) it appears plain enough, that the Language was preserved alive among the Lear­ned, and extends farr further, than that which is found onely in the Scripture, though with some little difference: Which, that excellent Master of humane learning Joseph d'Escale seems to mee, very properly to distinguish, by the names of the Ebrew and Jewish Languages; Because this difference may well seem to have begun, from the times of Esdras, when the Tribe of Judah, (with the apperrenances of it) with the recovery of their ancient inheritance, took upon them the study of their Law. And, I appeal to the common sense of all, that have found by reading, with what ease and property, that Language serves to ex­press all the conceits of their Philosophers and Divines, how beggarly, how unable to determine the meaning of mans minde, wee are to account it. As for the Greek, be it never so defective in those expressions, which the variety of Conjugations in Eastern Languages do produce, hee that knows both the one and the other, shall finde the force of those expressions, signified by other means, in the Greek, and other Languages; Be it never so copious otherwise, hee that will husband his paines to the learning of the Scriptures, shall finde means enough to attain the meaning of them, without undertaking to overcome all that is written in that Language. As for the figurative speech that is used, espe­cially by the Prophets, and other writings of a Poetical stile, (as the Psalms, Job, the Canticle, and the like, if you reckon them not among the Prophets) as it is not to be denyed, that the stile of them is obscure by that means, so, when wee see the meaning of them determined by the writings of the Apostles, wee must either grant, that means to be sufficient for that effect, or, that the Apo­stles have alleged them upon no just ground, to no just purpose. Now, that our Lords and the Apostles words are set down in such expressions as the Evangelists [Page 202] and S. Luke thought meetest; I suppose, hee that hath a due respect for them, will not think to be any argument, that hee who hath the meaning of the Pen-man, hath not the meaning of him that spoke. And if all these be difficulties to the attaining of the true meaning of the Scriptures, sure, the multiplicity of trans­lations, (those especially, which are the most ancient) by those who understand them, is duely esteemed a help to that end, and not a hinderance. For, as the turning of them into so many Languages prevents all errors of Copiers, and assures the true reading, so, the comparing of the translations with the original (showing how it was understood anciently, by those who were better and nearer acquainted with the mater of them, than wee are, who must have it from them) makes up a commentary of the meaning of the same, and how farr it extends. I do therefore here appeal to the common sense of all them, that have been at charge, or at pains, to procure and compasse the Edition of all translations of the Bible, especially the ancient, in particular the Spanish, Anwerpe and Paris, (which, it is hoped, is now improved to the same purpose here at London) and do challenge all men to say, first, whether the designe be commendable or not, then, whether it can be commendable, if it contribute not to preserve the true reading, to determine the true meaning of the Scriptures.

As for that, which, I conceive, I have sufficiently insisted upon, in behalf of the truth, that the writings of the Apostles presuppose a Rule of Faith, received by those to whom they addresse, together with certain Rules, limiting their communion in the service of God, upon supposition of that Rule; I am here to claim the effect of it, that the sense of the Scripture is to be limited to that, which common sense may discover, by the records of the Church, to have been the sense and intent of the same, But, that this should argue an intent in God, not to have given the Scriptures to determine debates that might arise a­mong Christians concerning the common faith; and that, upon, onely the visi­ble profession of the Church, all arguments to the contrary from the Scriptures, all clamors of conscience are to be silenced, without reconciling them to the primitive Faith and practice of the Church, (to which, it is evident, that, if the Church be not wanting to their duty, they are reconcileable) this is that which I must and do proclaim to be utterly brutish and unreasonable. And therefore, to proceed to the next point, I grant, and insist, that, nothing but that, which is received from our Lord Christ & his Apostles, can, by any means seem receivable to any Christian: But, whereas it may be received either by writing alone, or by word of mouth alone, or by both; I say, that the receiving of Christianity by word of mouth alone cannot be pretended, (the power of the Church to create articles of Faith, which was never heard of till the quarel with Luther was on foot, being excluded) but supposing it evident to common sense, that the act of the present Church, is the act of the Catholick Church from the A­postles; Which, so farr as I know, was never heard of till Rushworths Dialog ues came forth. The Christianity, that was from the beginning received by word of mouth, consists in the profession, of believing a certain Rule of Faith, and un­dertaking a certaine Rule of life, as the Law and condition, whereby all Christians hope to attain everlasting life. Besides, all Christians being, upon this profession, admitted to communicate with the Church in the service of God, aci­cording to such Rules as determine the circumstances thereof, first brought in by the Apostles; These Rules may also be said to be received by word of mouth, because the practice of them holds by custome from age to age, though the expresse knowledg and profession of them is not the means to save particu­lar Christians, further than it is the means, to maintain the service of God in the unity of his Church, which is the means of it. Here are then two heads of things received by word of mouth, which, hee that will speak expresly in this point must distinguish. And, according to this distinction I say, that, onely the Rule of Faith, which is the Law of attaining everlasting life, and the communi­on of the Church, is delivered by word of mouth; though, when I say so I under­stand, that the true intent and meaning thereof, and what it importeth to com­mon sense, cannot be excluded. Besides which, there is, of necessity, infinite [Page 203] mater of discourse, concerning things consequent, or impertinent, or repugnant to the same, some whereof, obtaining credit in some times and some parts of Christendom, comes, by tradition of word of mouth, neverthelesse, to other a­ges and places, which therefore do truly bear the name of Tradition; Though not as delivered from the beginning by the Apostles, further then, as, by them the means is delivered, whereby it may appear, which of them is consequent, which of them repugnant, which of them impertinent to that which they have delivered indeed. As concerning the Laws of the Church, so certain and so ma­nifest as it is, that there were Rules delivered by the Apostles, to have the force of Law, in directing the communion of Christians in the publick service of God, to the Unity of the Church; So certain and manifest is it; First, that the same Laws are not capable to regulate the communion of the Church in all e­states of it, which the change of times should produce; And yet secondly, that, whatsoever should be changed, or taken away, or added to the same, ought to tend to the same intent, which, it is visible, those of the Apostles did purpose. Let any understanding, that is capable, but consider the difference that needs must arise, by the Secular Power undertaking the protection of Christianity, be­tween the Church afore and the Church afterwards; If hee say, the same Laws will serve to maintain the communion of the Church in both estates, (supposing the society thereof to be the same, upon the premises) I shall then confesse, that it is to no purpose to appeal to any discourse of reason in this whole dis­pute. I say further, that, among those who professe, that nothing ought to be received for revealed truth, but that which was first delivered by our Lord and his Apostles, nothing ought to have the force of Law, but that which tendeth to the same purpose, with that which they inacted; Nothing hindreth, things to be received into belief and practice, that are really, not onely impertinent to, but inconsistent with that which indeed they have delivered to us. The appeal is to common sense, therefore let discourse and experience satisfie common sense.

Religion indeed is a bond, by the condition whereof wee perswade our selves of peace with God; of attaining the good and avoyding the ill, which be­longs to those that are so or otherwise. And thus farre, it is certain, that Religi­on is a thing bred in mans nature, which it is impossible for him to shake off or renounce. But is it impossible for him to become perswaded hereof upon un­due terms? Whence then comes all false Religion, whether of Jews or Pa­gans? For, we shall not need here to consider Mahumetanes, whose Religion supposeth Christianity, as the corruption of it. Surely, he that considers not amiss, will finde, that it was a great ease to them, that were convinced to acknowledg a God above them, to imagine the name and honor of this God to rest in some­thing of their own choice, or devising; which being set up by themselves, reason would, they should hope to please, and have propitious, by such obedience and service as they could allow. Correspondently, God, having given the Jewes a Law of such precepts, as might be outwardly performed without inward obe­dience; whosoever believe, the most difficult point of Gods service to be, the submission of the heart, will finde it a gain, that hee can perswade himself of Gods peace, without it, whatsoever trouble, whatsoever cost hee be at, for that perswasion, otherwise. If then there be in mans nature, a principle of Paganism and Judaism, notwithstanding that men cannot be at quiet, till, by imbracing a religion, they think they are at peace with God; Is it a strange thing, that they who have attained the truth of Christianity should entertain a perswasion of peace with God, upo [...] terms, really inconsequent to, or inconsistent with the true intent of it? Surely, if wee reflect upon the motives of it, and the motives of them, it cannot seem strange. I have said, and it is manifest, that the nature of Christianity, though sufficient, yet were purposely provided not to be con­straining, that the effect of them might be the trial of those dispositions, that should be moved therewith. And, is it a mervail, that, means to perswade those that have received Christianity, that things inconsistent with that which was first delivered, are indeed consequent to the same, should be left, among those that professe, that they ought to receive nothing, but what was first delivered by our [Page 204] Lord and his Apostles? I say nothing now of renouncing Christianity, while men professe this; for, I confesse, and insist, that, while men do believe, that there is a society of men visible by the name of the Church, it will not be possible for them to forget their whole Christianity, or to imbrace the contrary of it. But I say, that, notwithstanding the profession of receiving Christianity from our Lord and his Apostles, the present Church may admit Lawes, (whether of be­lief or of Communion) inconsistent with that which they received at first. I al­lege further, that, so long as all parts of the Church held free intercourse and correspondence with one another, it was a thing either difficult, or altogether impossible, to bring such things, either into the perswasion or practice of all parts of it, according to the difficulty, of bringing so great a body to agree in any thing, against which any part might protest with effect. And this held, not onely before the Church was ingraffed into the State of the Romano Empire, but also, so long after, as this accessory help of Christianity did not obscure, and in the end extinguish the original intercourse and correspondence of the Church. For then, it grew both possible, and easie for them, who had the Secular Power on their side, to make that, which the authority thereof was imployed to main­tain, to passe for Tradition in the Church: Seeing it is manifest, that, in the or­dinary language of Church Writers, Tradition signifies no lesse, that which the Church delivers to succeeding ages, than that which it received from the A­postles. Adde hereunto the opinion of the authority of the Church, truly pre­tended originally, within the true bounds, but, by neglecting the due bounds of the truth of Christianity which it supposeth, infinitely extended to all States, w ^ch, Powermay have interest to introduce. For, if it be not impossible to perswade those, who know they have received their Christianity upon motives provided by God, (to convince the judgments and consciences of all that see them, to im­brace those things, to which the witnesse of them may be applyed) that they are to imbrace whatsoever, either the expresse act, or the silent practice of the Church inforces, whether the motives of Faith be applicable to them or not; Then is it not impossible to perswade them any thing, which this Power shall think to be for their Interest to perswade: For, no mans Interest it can be, to go about to perswade the world, that expresse contradictories are both true at once. And if it were not impossible, that the imaginations of most of them, that dispute Controversies for the Church of Rome, should be so imbroyled with the equivocation of this word Church, as not to distinguish the Infallible autho­rity thereof, as a multitude of men, not to be deceived in testifying the truth, from the authority of it, as a Body constituted upon supposition of the same; Shall it not be easie for those, who can obtain a reputation of the World, that their act is to oblige the whole Church, to obtain of the same, to make no difference, between that which is presently decreed, and that which was originally delive­red by the Apostles; The said difference remaining disputable, not onely by any text of Scripture, but by any record of historical truth, testifying the con­trary to have passed for truth, in any other age or part of the Church.

Upon these premises, I do appeal to the common sense of all men to judge, whether the Church, professing to hold nothing but by Tradition from the Apo­stles, may not be induced to admit that, as received from the Apostles, which indeed never was delivered by the Apostles. For, when the Socinians pretend, that the Faith of the Trinity, of the Incarnation and Satisfaction of our Lord Christ, not being delivered by the Apostles in their writings, crept into the Church as soon as they were dead, they still maintain, that nothing is to be ad­mitted, but what comes from our Lord and his Apostles; But, upon their sup­position, that Antichrist came into the Church as soon as they were dead, are ob­liged to renounce all that can be pretended to come by Tradition, and in that very next age. Which, I yield and insist, that, whosoever shall consider the in­tercourse and correspondence visibly establisht by the Apostles, between all parts of the Church, shall easily perceive to be a contradiction to common sense. But, when so much difference is visible, between the State of the Church in several ages, and, what change hath succeeded in things manifest, to inferre [Page 205] what may have succeeded in things disputable; Hee must have his minde well and thoroughly possessed with prejudice, to the utter renouncing of common sense, that can indure, a demand so contrary to all appearance, to be imposed upon his common sense. The same I say to the other demands, of certain and sensible distances of time, which, they that see the end of may be certainly as­sured, what was received at the beginning of them, and so, by mean distances, this age, what was held by the Apostles; Of the like time, for blotting out the remembrance of the truth, as for introducing falshood. For it is evidently true, that the motives of Christianity could never have prevailed to introduce it into the belief and profession of all Christendom, had they not been true; But it followeth not therefore, that, Christianity beeing settled, and a Power to con­clude the Church lawfully vested in some members of it, in behalf of the whole, within due bounds; The act of this Power transgressing the due bounds, shall not be able to produce, in so great a Body, an opinion of the like obliga­tion, upon the expresse act of this Power, as upon Tradition truly derived from the Apostles. For, the truth of Christianity professed, called in question mens lives and fortunes, which they were not therefore so ready to ingage, upon an imposture. But, if when Soveraigns own the act of that Power which conclu­deth the Church, hee that acknowledges it not, calls in question his estate and reputation, or whatsoever good of this world the protection of the Church in­gageth. Upon this account, then, it is possible that innovation should come into the Church, without calling in question the common principle, that no­thing is to be admitted which comes not from the Apostles. Nay, without cal­ling in question other points of Christianity, so received; Because no­thing hinders, things inconsistent with, or at least impertinent to that which the Apostles have delivered, to be received, as consequent to that, which indeed they have delivered, though not as expresly contained in the same. And, because I would not speak without instance, in a businesse so general, I demand of those that hold this opinion, whether they believe, that the Greek and Latine Church, at such time as the Schism fell out between them, did both believe Tradition as well as Scripture: And, when it appears, that there was no visible difference between them in that regard, at that time, I shall desire them to tell mee, what they think of their demand, that all Sectaries have alwayes left Tradition, to betake themselves to Scripture alone. For, though I pretend not to suppose ei­ther the one party or the other guilty of Schism or Heresie in this place; yet I pretend it visible to common sense, that they who pretend to receive nothing but from the Apostles, may think that which is not, to be received from the Apostles, unlesse contradictories may be both true at once. Another instance I will give that learned Gentleman Tho. White, who professeth to put Rushworths Dialogues into the world as his ward, and an Orfane, out of the book which hee hath published of the mean state of souls between death and the general Judg­ment, to show; that there is a Tradition of the Church, that the greatest part of the souls of Christians that are not damned, continue in a state of joy or grief, proportionable to the affection they had to this world while they were of it, to be purged thereof at the general Judgment, but are not translated, by any pray­ers of the Church, to the kingdom of heaven from Purgatory pains. For, I de­mand of him that believes this, whether it be received now or not, how hee will defend his Ward, that maintains the present Tradition to be alwaies the same. For, if it be said, that it is not decreed by the Church, though generally believed and practiced accordingly; I will say that my businesse is done, when the most votes, by so many degrees, are consenting to that, which, hee maintains, is con­trary to the Tradition of the Apostles, his vote, and perhaps two or three more in the communion of the Church of Rome, not hindring that which is received in practice, to be a more effectual Law in force, than abundance of things in­acted in writing that will never come to effect. A third instance I will give, in the difference between the Reformation and the Church of Rome, concerning the Canon of Scripture; Supposing, that the late Scholastical History thereof hath made evidence, that those books belonging to the Old Testament, which [Page 206] the Council of Trent maketh Canonical Scripture, were never received for such from the Apostles: In as much as it is evident, that there were, in all ages of the Church, that did not take them for Canonical Scripture. For, this being suppo­sed, what question can remain, that this decree cannot be taken to proceed from Tradition of the Apostles; But from a mistake in the Power of the Church, as grounded upon a gift of infallibility, tyed by God upon the visible act of per­sons inabled to decree in Council? Otherwise, men of reason would not have taken upon them, to make that Canonical Scripture, which, there is evidence, that they never received for Canonical Scripture. And indeed, I, who have no more to demand here, but, that, something may be thought, by the Church, to come from the Apostles, which, in truth, it never received from the Apostles, do seek no more by the premises but this; That no general presumption, from the present Church, be receivable against evidence of historical truth, in the records of by-past ages: That men will not take that, for the Tradition of the Catho­lick Church, which some part of the Church, they see, hath not owned for such: That they will abate of the generality of their position, as the particulars, out of which the induction must rise, may require. I take not upon mee to say here, that any foundation of Faith, necessary to the salvation of all, hath been, or can have been extinguished by Tradition of the present Church. But I say here, that something may be taken by the present Church to come from the Apostles, which, in truth, comes not from the Apostles. And, so long as that is true, I say, that the choice of Religion cannot be prejudged by common sense, without taking into consideration the weight of those truths which may appear to be held otherwise by the present Church then, originally, they have been received from the Apostles.

Now, to that which is said, that, unlesse Christianity continue as it was deli­vered, the possibilities provided by God to that end will be in vaine; Though it be a dispute as unseasonable here, as to little purpose, yet, because it requires no more than common sense to judge; I say, that the ends of Gods creatures and works are none of Gods ends. My meaning is, that it is one thing to say, God would have this to be the end of his creature; (happinesse, for example, to be the end of man) another thing to say, that hee made man to bring him to happinesse: The difference being the same in the works of his providence, whether it be said, that hee provided such means, as, of their nature tended to propagate the truth of Christianity preached by the Apostles to all posterity; or, that hee intended thereby to propagate the same: In a word, whether it be said to be Gods end, or the end of his works. And truly, hee that sayes it was Gods end, consequently sayes, that God falls short of his end, if it come not to passe. But hee that will speak of God with reverence, must not imagine, that hee hath any end but himself, nor, that hee doth any thing to any other end, than to exercise and declare his own perfecti­ons. If hee do sundry things, which, of their nature have necessarily such an end as they attain not; it is to be said, that Gods end never fails, in so much as, by failing of the end to which they were made, they become the subject of some other part of that providence, wherein his perfections are exercised and decla­red. Seeing then, that all Controversies concerning the Faith, have visibly their original from some passages of Scripture, which, being presupposed true before the foundation of the Church, ought to be acknowledged, but cannot be consti­tuted by it; And seeing that no man, that, out of the conscience of a Christi­an hath imbraced all that is written, can deny that, which hee may have cause to believe, to be the sense of the least part of the Scripture, without ground to take away that belief; It remains, that the way to abate Controversies, is, to rest content with the means that God hath left us, to determine the sense of the Scripture, not undertaking to tye men further to it, than the applying of those means will inferre. And truly, to imagine, that the authority of the Church, or the dictate of Gods Spirit, should satisfie doubts of that nature, without show­ing the means by which other records of learning are understood, and so resol­ving those doubts which the Scriptures necessarily raise, in all them that believe [Page 207] them to be true, and the word of God; is more than huge cart-loads of Com­mentaries upon the Scriptures have have been able to do. Which, being written, upon supposition of certain determinations pretended by the Church, or certain po­sitions, which, tending to reform abuses in the Church, were taken for testified by Gods Spirit; have produced no effect, but an utter despair of coming to re­solution, or, at least, acknowledgment of resolution, in the sense of the Scri­ptures. Whereas, let men capable of understanding, and, managing the means heretofore mentioned, think themselves free, as indeed they ought to be, of all prejudices, which the partialities on foot in the Church may have prepossessed them with, and come to determine the meaning thereof, by the means so pre­scribed, and, within those bounds which the consent of the Church acknow­ledges; They shall no sooner discern, how the primitive Christianity, which we have from the Apostles, becomes propagated to us, but they shall no less clearly discern the same in their writings. And, if God have so great a blessing for Chri­stendom, as the grace to look upon what hath been written with this freedom; there hath been so much of the meaning of the Scripture already discovered, by those that have laid aside such prejudices, and so much of it is in the way to be discovered every day, if the means be pursued, as, is well to be hoped, will, and may make partizans, think upon the reason they have, to maintain partialities in the Church. If God have not this blessing in store for Christendom, it re­mains, that, without or against all satisfaction of conscience, concerning the truth of contrary pretenses, men give themselves up to follow and professe that, which, the protection of secular Power, shall show them means to live and thrive by. In which condition, whether there be more of Atheism or of Christianity, I leave to him, who alone sees all mens hearts, to judge.

CHAP. XXXIV. The Dispute concerning the Canon of Scripture, and the translations thereof, in two Questions. There can be no Tradition for those books that were written since Prophesie ceased. Wherein the excellence of them above other books lies. The chief objections against them are questionable. In those parcels of the New Testament that have been questioned, the case is not the same. The sense of the Church.

HAving thus resolved the main point in doubt, it cannot be denied notwith­standing, that there are some parts, or appertenances, of the Question, that remain as yet undecided. For, as long as it is onely said, that the Scripture, interpreted by the consent of the Church, is a sufficient mean to determine any thing controverted in mater of Christian truth, there is nothing said, till it ap­pear, what these Scriptures are, and in what records they are contained. And truly it is plain, that there remains a controversie, concerning the credit of some part of those writings, which have been indifferently copied and printed for the Old Testament, commonly marked in our English Bibles, by the title of Apo­crypha; And no lesse, concerning the credit of the Copies wherein they are re­corded. For, though it is certain and evident, that the Old Testament hath been derived from the Ebrew, the New from the Greek, in which at first they were de­livered to the Church; Yet, seeing it appeareth not of it self impossible, (such changes may have succeeded in the Copies) that the Copies, which the Jews now use, of the Old Testament, are further from that which was first delivered, than the Vulgar Latine, as also the Copies of the Greek Testament now extant; It is a very plain case, that, this doubt remaining, it is not yet resolved, what are the principles, what the means to determine the truth in maters questionable concerning Christianity. I must further distinguish two questions that may be made in both these points, before I go further: For, it is evidently one thing to demand, whether those writings, which, I said, remain questionable, are to be counted part of the Old Testament or not; Another, whether they are to be read by Christians, either for particular information, or for publick edification at the assemblies of the Church. And likewise, as concerning the other point, it is one thing to demand, what Copy is to be held for authentick, another thing [Page 208] to dispute, how every Copy is to be used and frequented in the Church; To wit, whether translations in mother languages are to be had, and into what cre­dit they are to be received. For, it is manifest, that the one sense of both questi­ons demands, what the body of the Church either may do, or ought to do, in proposing or prohibiting the said writings or Copies, to be used by the members thereof, for their edification in Christian piety; But the other, what credit they have in themselves, upon such grounds, as are, in nature and reason, more ancient than the authority of the Church, and which, the being and constitution there­of presupposeth. And, as manifest as it is, that these are two questions, so ma­nifest must it needs remain, that the one of them, to wit, that which concerns the authority of the Church, and the effect of it, does not belong to this place, nor come to be decided, but upon supposition, of all the means God hath given his Church, to be resolved of any truth that becomes questionable. As for the other part of both questions, though it hath been, and may be, among them that will not understand the difference between principles and conclusions, (because it is for their turn, that differences in religion should be everlasting) the subject of great Volumes written for and again; Ye, to them that are content to set aside that which cannot here be decided, I am confident, there remains so little to be said, that the resolution of them will appear to be meer consectaries and inferences from that truth, which hitherto hath been premised. For, supposing that which common sense is able to inform, that the writings which wee call A­pocrypha, are more ancient than the Church of Christ; And that, whether they were written by inspiration from God, as wee believe the Law and the Pro­ph [...]s to have been, the Church never had any expresse revelation, beside the cre­dit upon which it received them from the Synagogue; it remains, that, whether they were received by the Synagogue as inspired by God, is all that can remain questionable; Seeing it is not within the compasse of common sense to imagine, that, being not inspired by God at the beginning, when they were penned, they can become inspired by God, by virtue of any act of the Church, inducing them to be received for such.

Here then is to be seen the use of that distinction, which was made, between the Church, as a Society of men, visible to common sense, and the same Church, as a Society of men founded by God, and visible onely to the faith of Christians. For, the belief of this later, presupposes the truth of Christianity, the motives whereof, without more ado, must evidence the truth of the Scriptures: And so this question must be decided by such means, as are more evident than the being of the Church in this later sense, to wit, by the being thereof in the former sense. And this is that which I said, that the testimony of the Synagogue, in maters of this nature, is, every whit, of as much force, as the testimony of the Church; Both of them proceeding upon the same evidence, which, the visible consent of such a company of men advanceth to common sense. In fine, if it may appear, that the writings in question, were, from the beginning, admitted by the Synagogue in the nature of writings inspired by God, there will remain no cause why they should not be received into the same credit with other wri­tings, whereof the Old and New Testament consisteth; If it may appear to the contrary, it will be utterly in vain to allege any act of the Church, to inforce that, which is, as evidently beyond the Power of the Church, as it is evident that there is such a thing as the Church. Neither can there be any question, whether these writings were ever received by the Synagogue, in this nature, see­ing it is evident, that they do not receive any Prophets after Malachi. I will not undertake, that they do not believe, that any body, after that time was in­spired by God to foretell things to come; For, that is not all that belongs to those, whose writings are to be received as inspired by God. It must appear further, that they are sent by God to his people, with commission to declare his will to them; There must be evidence, that they are moved to speak by the Holy Ghost, and by consequence, the people of God, to whom they are moved to speak, obliged to receive them: How else should the gifts of Gods Spirit, and the commission upon which they that have it are sent, challenge, of duty, the [Page 209] acknowledgment of Gods people? I reade in Josephus, of divers things, fore­told with truth, after this time, nor I do I finde my self obliged to maintain, that the motions were not from God. But, in as much as they were not furni­shed with such means as God appoints, to manifest unto his people, whom hee sends on his message, they are not to receive them as sent from God; whatsoe­ver his secret purpose may be, in sending such motions; but shall alwaies remain obliged, to govern themselves according to his will otherwise declared. Now, there is nothing more manifest, than the declaration of Josephus, intending to acquaint the Gentiles with the Faith and Laws of the Jews; That, untill the time of Artaxerxes that succeeded Xerxes, (being, in his opinion, the time whereof I speak) the Prophets had written the relation of their own times: But after that time, things were written indeed, but not with the like credit, be­cause there was no succession of Prophets. Cont. Ap. I. And what can be more agreeable to the conclusion of the Prophet Malachi, IV. 4—where, having war­ned them to give heed to the Law of Moses, the Statutes and Ordinances which God by him had given Israel; Behold, saith hee, I send you Elias the Prophet, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come, and hee shall turn the hearts of the Fathers to the children, and of the children to the Fathers, least I come and smite the Land with a curse: Which, the Gospell tell us, was fulfilled, in send­ing John the Baptist, to make way for the Christ, the Chief, and end of all the Prophets, Luke I. 17. Mat. XI. 14. XVII. 12. according to the saying of the ancient Jews, that the Christ is to be annointed, that is, solemnly invested in his Office, by Elias. And for this reason, when Judas Maccabeus purged the Temple, and the question was, what should be done with the stones of the Al­tar that had been polluted, it is said 1 Mac. IV. 46. And they laid up the stones in a fit place, in the Mount of the Temple, untill a Prophet should come and give answer concerning them. And, speaking of the persecution after the death of Ju­das, it is said, 1 Mac. IX. 27. And there fell out so great tribulation in Israel, as had not been, from the day that no Prophet had been seen in Israel. And this time it is, whereof it is either said, or prophesied; Psal. LXXIV. 10. Wee see not our to­kens, there is no Prophet any more, neither any that understandeth any thing. Now it is manifest, that, in the Scriptures, as well as in the Jews writings, the name of Prophet is not understood onely of foretelling things to come, but of utte­ring things unknown to humane understanding. And so, the Law and the Pro­phets contains all the Scriptures of the Old Testament. If therefore there were no Prophesie from those times to the coming of our Lord, and John the Baptist, it followeth, that there is no Scripture inspired by God left us by those times, according to the words of Eusebius in his Chronicle at the XXXII year of this Artaxerxes; Hucusque Hebraeorum divinae Scripturae, annales temporum continent. Hither to the divine Scriptures of the Hebrews contain the annals of the times. And the Synagogue in S. Jerome, in Es. cap. XLIX. lib. XIII. Post Aggaeum, & Zachariam, & Malachiam, nullos alios Prophetas usque ad Joannem Baptistam videram. From Haggai, Zachary, and Malachy to John the Baptist, I had seen no other Prophets. And so S. Austine de Civ. Dei XVII. 24. Toto ille tempore ex quo redierunt de Babyloniâ, post Malachiam, Aggaeum, & Zachariam, qui tunc prophetaeverunt, & Esdram, non habuerunt Prophetas usque ad Salvatoris adven­tum. All that time from their return from Babylonia, after Haggai, Zachary, and Malachy, who then prophesied, and Esdras, they had no Prophets till the Savi­ors coming: Excepting those whom wee finde mentioned in the Gospels. And truly it is manifest by historical truth, that there was a part of that Nation, that gave themselves to use the Greek Language in there dispersions, whereas, those that returned into the Land of Promise, as well as those that remained in Baby­lonia, had learned the language of that Countrey, being very near their own, which was retained onely amongst the book-learned. Seeing then, that it is manifest, that these books were committed to writing in the Greek, for the most part at least, it cannot in reason be imagined, that the whole Nation acknow­ledged them, as Scriptures inspired by God must have been acknowledged; which, no man can say, that ever they came generally to be used by the whole [Page 210] Nation, or could come to be used, being onely in Greek. Wee shall not finde much of them translated, for the use of them that conversed in the Ebrew, un­lesse it be Tobit. For, Ecclesiasticus, it is true, was first written in Ebrew, and but translated into Greek; When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, then, and among them that used it, were they added to the writings of the Prophets, and so received by the Church, that received those Scriptures from them in Greek, in the same nature, and upon the like credit, as it was visible they held them, from the time that first they were received.

It is now no mervail, to see some men, upon the truth of these reasons, quite renounce all the advantage which Christianity hath, by the witnesse, which these writings, being impartial, as uttered before it came into the world, do render it; because they are unduely advanced by others, to the rank of those that are inspired by God. For, the spirit of contradiction naturally carries weak men, to oversee, to destroy their own Interest, so they may be farr enough from those whom they desire to bear down. So, wee are content to yield the Socinians all the advantage, which the consent of the Church gives us against them, upon condition, that the differences wee have with the Church of Rome, may be de­cided by Scripture alone; And so are wee content to betray the Church, to fight, without the armes that are to be had out of these books, that wee may be free of them, when they seem to crosse some prejudice, wherein wee have inga­ged our selves. But, if that which hath been said, of the fulfilling of the Pro­phets in the literal sense, at this time, between the return from Captivity, and the coming of our Lord, be not premised amisse; Without doubt, all the world could not recompense the losse of the books of Maccabees, and the use of them; to the understanding of the Prophets, so inestimable is the benefit of them to that purpose. And truly, I should not stick to the reasons which I have premi­sed, if I should not observe here, that, when that people began to be persecu­ted for their Religion, by the Gentiles, it pleased God so to order the mater, that, for their comfort, and resolution in adhering to it, the truth of the Resurrecti­on, and Judgment, and the World to come, should be openly and clearly recei­ved and professed; which, though never questioned, yet had been sparingly and darkly preached by the Prophets themselves. Wee see it in the exhortations of the mother of the Maccabees to her children, 2 Mac. VII. 23. 29. and in their own protestations; according to the words of the Apostle, Heb. XI. 35, 36. that they suffered in consideration of the world to come. And, it is as well to be seen in those visions, whereby the Resurrection is figured out to the Prophets Daniel and Ezekiel. (for in their time began the persecution of Gods people) And, as in their time those revelations were granted, so, by their doctrine, and the doctrine of the Prophets their successors, were the people of God fortified against Apostasy, by the assurance of the resurrection and the world to come. And by this means also, and upon this ground, that inward and spiritual obedi­ence, which the mystical intent of the Law requireth, in order to everlasting life, is so clearly and so plentifully expressed in those moral writings, of the Wisedom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus; that it is a great mervail, to see those, who are so eager to perswade Christian poople, to be informed in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, (though many times, not knowing the reason upon which the obligation of the Law ceaseth, they are not onely scandalized thereby with Jewish opinions, but lost, and seduced to be circumcised) so violent to pro­hibite them the information, which, from hence, they may have in their Christianity. For, so sure as the Apostle, in the eleventh to the Ebrews, shows, that all the Fathers were saved upon the same terms as Christians are; so sure as the Fathers of the Church, as I have elsewhere alleged, convince the Jews; that the Fathers before the Law were saved as Christians, and not as Jews, so sure an advaatage hath Christianity, fro [...] all that is written before it came in force. Whether, because it could not have been received by the Synagogue, had it con­tained things contrary to that rule of piety, and means of salvation, which, in the Synagogue, (within which, it is acknowledged on all sides, that, means of salvation was found) was in force; Or whether, because, being written by the [Page 211] immediate successors of the Prophets, they had, as it were, the sound of that doctrine still in their ears, which they had received from them by word of mouth. For, hee that would make a question, that the doctrine of the world to come, is more plentifully and clearly delivered in these writings, than in the Scriptures of the Old Testament inspired by God; And, by consequence, that inward and spiritual obedience, which becomes due in order to the same, more plentifully here described; hath no more to do, but to turn over the books, and compare them, which will not fail to justifie what I affirm. As for the book of Judith, (though perhaps, ignorant people may scandalize themselves at it) yet I shall professe to think it no disparagement to the credit, or to the right and due use thereof, if the conceit which Grotius hath published, and confirmed by several circumstances, observed in the tenor of the book, should hold, both in it, and in the book of Tobit: To wit, that it was not written for a history, nor requireth historical faith, that such a thing was ever done, but as an allegory, or figure, de­scribed by way of Romance, to expresse the malice of Satan under the shadow of Nebuchadnesar against Jewry, signified by Judith a widow and fair, exerci­sed by his Deputy Holofernes, in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, but trusting in God for deliverance; The rest serving to fill up the relation. I will not say so much of the book of Tobit, because it is so farr from creating any difficulty in point of time, that it helps very much to dissolve those difficulties which are made otherwise. But this I will confidently say, that, supposing it to be a meer parable, relating what hapned to a true Israelite in whom was no guile, continuing faithfull to God and to his people, in a difficult time of persecution; it will be of no lesse consequence, to the animating of Christians in the like course, then, supposing the thing related to have come to pass. As for the History of Susanna, what pains Origen hath taken to perswade the learned Julius Afri­canus, (for to him, as wee learn by S. Jerome in Catalogo, his leter of this sub­ject is directed) that it is a true story, every man that will take the pains to per­use that leter may see. Some say, that the Jews have the same story, differing in the relation of it, in that they make the two Elders to be punished by Nebu­cadnezar, not by their own people. And, though Origen is witnesse that the Jews had the Power of the Sword sometimes in their dispersions; Yet under the Chaldeans, when they were lately transplanted, it is like enough they had it not. For these two Elders, the Jews, they will have to be Ahab and Co­laiah, of whom you reade Jer. XXIX. 21. And truly there is appearance, that this relation, being delivered from hand to hand among the Jews, was at length penned by some of them that used the Greek, and so added to the Greek Bible; For, you have in the Great Bible, two several Editions of it in the Syriack, much differing one from the other in litle circumstances; Though one of them gives the two Elders other names than the Jews do. Which, as it will not allow the Writing to be inspired by God, so will it inforce as much edification from it, not detracting from the truth of it. For what doth it detract, that hee that writ it useth an allusion from the names of Trees under which they accuse her to have committed uncleannesse, which the Greek onely bears? Daniel answering to him that saw her under a Holm tree, in Greek [...], to him that said, under a Mastick tree, [...]; This is indeed an argument, that hee who penned it in Greek, was willing to bring in a figure, to set forth a conceit, which the Ebrew would not bear, (for Origen cannot perswade mee, that there can have been those names for these trees in the Ebrew, though now un­known to us, vvhich hold the same allusion; a chance of ten thousand to one) but is the writing of ever the lesse effect and consequence, to the incouraging, and vvarning of Gods people to vvalk in his Lavv? I vvill here adde the considera­tion of that, vvhich, I observe to be common to many of them, and, in my o­pinion serves to shovv, hovv much there is in them of the sense of the Nevv Te­stament, and of the doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles. This consideration rises thus. S. Jerome in his Preface to the Books of Solomon saith, that some an­cient Church Writers ascribe the Book of Wisedom to Philo the Jevv: Not meaning, (as hee expresly addeth) that Philo that lived under Caligula, vvhose [Page 212] works wee have, but another that lived under Onias the High Priest. Therefore, whatsoever may have been said since S. Jerome, of the author of this book, can­not make it to be of the age of Caligula. S. Augustine de Civ. Dei XVII. 20. saith, that Ecclesiasticus and it both have been ascribed to Solomon (as S. Jerome also in Dan. IX. saith, that Ecclesiasticus was then called Solomons Wisedome) propter nonnullam eloquii similitudinem: Because there is some resemblance between the frame of Solomons stile and that which they use. Which as it is most true, so is it manifest, that there is no maner of resemblance between the stile of them, and of our Philo. As for the mater of the work, the addresse which hee ma­keth to the Kings and Princes and Judges of the earth, I. a. VI. 1, 2-10, 22. ma­nifesteth, that it is intended for an exhortation to the Gentiles, under whose power Gods people was, not to persecute them for serving the onely true God, but rather, to learn the knowledg and worship of him themselves. This is the occasion of setting forth the Wisedom of God, from whence the Law, (in which the wisedom of the Nation consisted, according to Moses Deut. IV. 6, 7.) came, and which dwelt afterwards, as in Solomon, so in the rest of the Prophets and Patriarchs from Adam downwards, as you may see, from that sixth Chapter, in the processe of the Book. This is the intent of that which is said, concern­ing the wisedom of that people coming from God, in the Book of Baruch III. 12-38. For, intending to exhort them, to stick fast to God, and not to fall a­way to the Idols of the Nations, in the Captivity, as the Prophets Esay and Je­remy had done, (which is the cause, why it is ascribed to Baruch) hee puts them in minde, that it was none but God, that could discover that way of wisedom, which the Law taught Israel; Which wisedom, saith hee, afterwards was seen on earth, and conversed among men: For so I construe the words, not to mean, that God was seen on earth and conversed among men (not because it is not true, but because it is not so plainly said in the writings of the Prophets) but the wisedom of God was seen on earth, and conversed among men; to wit, in the Prophets who spoke by the word and wisedom of God. In like maner, when the three Squires of the Body to King Darius undertook to plead, what is of most force; the third, having named women to be the strongest, addeth, that Truth prevaileth over all; Meaning, that the truth which God, by his Law, had declared to his people, should prevail over all that is strong in this world; And so incouraging the King, to pro­tect it, by countenancing the building of the Temple: As you may see in the third of Esdras II. III. 34-40. Which, I suppose here, to be a piece that comes from the Egyptian Jews, being first read in the Greek Bible, and not in any record of the Jews otherwise. Finally, Ecclesiasticus, commending the Wisedom which hee pretendeth to teach, and, for the mater of his commenda­tion, having recourse to the original of it, descants indeed upon Solomons plain song, in the VIII ^th and IX ^th of the Poverbs, (and therefore delivers no new re­velations, but the right intent of that Prophets doctrine) but recommends the Wisedom of his Nation, farr beyond all that can be said of any Wisedom of the Gentiles, as coming from that Wisedom, by which God made the world, and governs it ever since, Ecclesiasticus I. XXIV. from which also the Law and the Prophets came. Now Ecclesiasticus, though first penned in Ebrew, yet was translated into Greek in Aegypt, as the Prefice witnesses. Supposing then, the interest of Christianity against Judaism to consist in that which the Fathers of the Church do plead; That the same Word and Wisedom of God, which first dealt with the Patriarchs, which gave the Law to Moses, and afterwards spoke by the Prophets, in after time dwelt in our Lord Christ Jesus and delivered the Go­spel; I demand, what could have been said, more to the purpose of Christianity against Judaism, by those that lived under Moses Law? There is a question, whether the Apostles, S. Paul, and whosoever it was that writ the Epistle to the Ebrews, do allege these Books, and allow them for their Authors, when they call our Lord Christ the Image of God, 2 Cor. II. 4. the Image of the invisible God, Col. I. 15. the resplendence of the glory of God, and the express image of his substance. Ebr. I. 3. the Power of God and the Wisedom of God, 1 Cor. I. 24. When they say, that all things in heaven and earth were created by him, and to [Page 213] him, and subsist through him, as the first-born of the whole creature, Col. I. 16, 17. that the world was made by him, and, that hee sustaineth and moveth all things by his powerfull word, Ebr. I. 2, 3. For, how like are these things to those which wee reade in Ecclesiasticus I. 1, 4. All wisedom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for everlasting. Wisedom was made before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting. And XXIV. 14. [...]. Before the world, from the beginning hee made mee, and for ever I fail not; Having said, in the beginning of the Chapter, according to the Latine Copy; Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi, primogenita ante omnem creaturam. I came forth of the mouth of the most High, the first born before every creature. And again, Ecclesiasticus I. 9, 10. The Lord himself made her, and saw, and numbred her, and poured her upon all his works. With all flesh shee is, according to his gift, and hee furnisheth her to them that love him. And XXIV. 5-9. I came out of the most High, and covered the earth like a mist. I dwell in the highest, and my throne is in the pilar of cloud. I alone compass the circumference of heaven, and walk in the bottom of the deep. In the waves of the sea, and in all the earth, in every people and nation is my inheritance; Adding, that, seeking rest among men, shee found it no where but in Israel. And in the book of Wisedom VII. 22.-27. For there is in Wisedom an understanding spirit, holy, onely begotten, mani­fold, subtile, thinn, nimble, perspicuous, undefiled, plain to be understood, inviolable, loving goodness, quick, not to be hindred, beneficent, loving to men, firm, sure, not so­licitous, that can do any thing, that survayeth all things, and passeth through the purest and finest understanding spirits. For Wisedom is nimbler than all motions, and attaineth and passith through all things because of her pureness: For it is a vapor of the power of God, and a sincere effluence of the glory of the Almighty, therefore no pollution can happen to it. For it is the resplendence of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of Gods working, and the image of his goodness: Which being one can do all things, and remaining in her self reneweth all things, and passing into pious souls in all ages, makes them friends of God, and Prophets. And IX. 9, 10, 11. And with thee is Wisedom that knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the world, and knoweth what is pleasing in thine eyes, and right in thy com­mands. Send her from thy holy heavens, and from the throne of thy glory, that shee may assist and labor with mee, and I may know what is pleasing before thee. For shee knoweth and understandeth all things, and will guide mee wisely in my doings, and keep mee in her glory. Can any man reade these things, and not remember the beginning of S. Johns Gospel; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was nothing made that was made? Can any man conceive, that, the Apostles should call our Lord Christ, the Word, the Power, and the Wisedom of God, that made all things in heaven and in earth, it self being brought forth before all creatures, supporting and moving all things, which was with God from everlasting, that hee is the image of God, the shine of his glory, the cha­racter of his substance; That the successors of the Prophets should describe the Wisedom of God, to be the Word of God that dwelt in the Prophets, and the Power of God that made all things, being it self brought forth before all things, that sustaineth and governeth all things; to dwell by the throne of God, as the shine of his light, the miror of his works, the breath and vapor of his power and glory, and from thence to come and take possession of the souls of Prophets; and not acknowledg all this to come from the same fountain? Espe­cially, being perswaded afore, as all that are not Jews must be perswaded, that the same Spirit and Word of God, (qualified as Wisedom describeth it) which, possessing the souls of righteous men, in that measure whereof each of them was capable, made them Gods Prophets; dwelt in Christ without measure, ac­cording to the fulnesse of the Godhead, as the Apostles have told and said, John I. 14, 16. III. 34. Col. II. 9, 10. Truly, if any man say, as I know it is said, that the same sense may be derived by the Apostles, from the glory of God in Ezek. I. 28. from the attributes of the Messias Psal. II. 7. 2 Sam. VII. 14. Esa. IX. 6. from the making of the world by Gods wisedom, recorded Psal. XXXIII. 5. [Page 214] CXXXVI. 5. Jeremy LI. 15. X. 12. especially from that which Solomon hath written of Wisedom, being present with God from everlasting, and doing all his works, Prov. VIII. 11-31. I will not contend with him about it; Though, in my own judgment, seeing it cannot reasonably be denied, that these writings, being extant long afore, went then with the rest of the Greek Bible; And, seeing the texts that are alleged do not direct us to understand, how the Word and Spi­rit and Wisedom of God, by which the Law and the Prophets spoke, dwelleth for ever in our Lord Christ, as these passages of their Successors do; I do firmly believe, that they signifie their allowance of them, whose doctrine they use. But, it is enough, that it may hereby appear, as it must needs appear, that they give us good and sound commentaries upon so high a point of the Prophets do­ctrine, their predecessors, when the Apostles, that follow them, hold such cor­respondence with them in it. Onely hereupon, I will from hence draw the rea­son, why, the inward obedience to God in Spirit and truth which the Gospel re­quireth, is so plentifully preached in all those writings which wee call Apocry­pha; Whereas, in our Saviors and his Apostles time, and much more afterwards, they promised themselves the kingdome of heaven, upon the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees; That is, upon the outward and carnal observation of Moses Law, and preciseness in all those little niceties, which their Masters had fensed it with. For, it is no mervail, that they, who, under persecution, promi­sed themselves a part in the resurrection of the righteous, cleaving to God and his Law; should finde themselves tyed to that obedience, in spirit and truth, which God, who is a Spirit, sees and allows. But lesse mervail it is, that, having attai­ned the carnal promises of the Law, in the possession of the Land of Promise, they should fall away from the like zeal, and yet promise themselves the world to come, upon that form of godliness which they observed, being destitute of the force and power of it.

As an argument, that this consideration is well grounded and true, I will here adde the authority and practice of the primitive Church, prescribing these books to be read by the Catechumeni; or, those that professed to believe the truth of Christianity, and offered themselves to be instructed in the mater of it, in or­der to Baptism, and being made Christians. For, seeing these might be as well Jews as Gentiles, this signifies, that the doctrine of them was held by the Church, a fit instruction towards Christianity, even for those, that were already acquainted with the doctrine of the Prophets. S. Athanasius then, in Synopsi, testifieth, that these books were read to the Catechumeni. To the same purpose it is read in the Constitutions of the Apostles, though the place is not at hand at present. And that which the last Canon of the Apostles prescribes, that, besides the Canonical Scriptures, the book of Ecclesiasticus be read by the youth, seems to tend to the same purpose. To the same purpose Dionysius de div. Nom. cap. IV. calls the Book of Wisedom an Introduction to the divine Oracles. But, let no man think to inferr, that the Apostles took these Books for Scripture inspi­red by God, because I grant that they borrowed from them in their writings; Origen hath met with this objection, Prol. in Cant. where hee observeth; That the Apostles have borrowed some things out of Apocryphal Scriptures, (as S. Jude out of the books of Enoch, and the departure of Moses) and yet addes, that wee are not to give way to the reading of them, because wee must not trans­gresse the bounds which our Fathers have fixed. Where, you see, hee distinguish­eth those books which the Church did not allow to be read, under the name of Apocrypha, from those which it did allow to be read, and are therefore more properly called Ecclesiastical Scriptures, (which name hath particularly stuck, by way of excellence, upon the Wisedom of the son of Sirach) though I contend not about names, when wee call them Apocrypha, because I see that S. Jerome hath sometimes done it. And, if S. Paul have alleged Aratus, Menander and Epimenides, heathen Poets, hee did not thereby intend to allow the authors, but the mater which hee allegeth.

If these things be so, I shall not desire to abridg any mans liberty, from ar­guing against the mater of these Books, to prove them not inspired by God, be­cause [Page 215] not agreeing with those, which, wee know, and agree to have been inspired by God: But I shall warn them that take upon them thus to argue, first to look about them, that they bring not the unquestionable parts of Scripture into an undue suspicion, for agreeing in something, for which they have conceived a pre­judice, that these Books are not to be received. The design of Judith, and her proceeding in the execution of it, is charged not to agree with Christianity, nei­ther is it my purpose here to maintain that it doth. But, I am more than afraid, that those who object this, do not know how to distinguish it from the fact of Jaell the wife of Heber the Kenite, in the book of Judges, which the Spirit of God in Deborah the Prophetesse so highly extolleth. The like is to be said of the like passages, questioned in the book of Tobit and the Maccabees, and name­ly, the fact of Razias, killing himself, least hee should fall into the hands of per­secutors, which seemeth to be related with much approbation, 2 Mac. XIV. 41-46. For, to distinguish this fact from Samsons, it will not serve the turn to say, that Samson did it by inspiration of Gods Spirit, supposing afore, that it was contrary to Gods declared Law to do it. The difficulty being greater, in saying, that the declared Law of God is violated by the motion of Gods Spirit, when as, the Spirit of God is not granted to any man, but upon supposition of ac­knowledging Gods declared Law. For howsoever Saul, or Caiaphas, or Balaam may be moved by the Spirit of God, to speak such things, as, by the Scriptures inspired by God, wee learn that they did speak; Yet, that God should imploy upon his own Commission, (as the Judges, of whom it is said, that the Spirit of God came upon them, were manifestly imployed by God) whom hee favored not, is a thing which cannot agree with the presumption which all Christians have, of the salvation of the Fathers. As for the passage of Eccles. XLVI. 23. which seems to say, that it was the soul of Samuel the Prophet, and not an evil Spirit assuming his habit, that foretold the death of Saul; I do not understand, why all this may not be said, according to appearance, not according to truth: For, it will still make for the honor of Samuel, that the King, whatsoever opinion hee had of this means of fore-knowledg, should desire to see Samuel, as him, whom, in his life time, hee found so unquestionable. But, if it be said, that this can­not satisfie the leter of the Scripture, yet can it not be said, that, as Saul, a wic­ked man, did believe, that hee might see Samuel, so, a good man at that time might not have the same: Being then no part of the truth, which true piety ob­liged all men to acknowledg. In the book of Tobit, there are several things besides, questionable. But, they that imagine conjuring, in the liver of a fish, to drive away an unclean Spirit, do not consider those exorcisms, whereby, it is evi­dent, both by the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, besides divers of the most ancient Fathers of the Church, that the Jews, both in our Lords times and af­ter, did cast out unclean Spirits. For, what force could they have, but from the appointment of God, from whom, at first, they were delivered, for a testimony of his residence among his people? Which makes me stick to condemn that relation of the Jews in the Talmud, extant also in Suidas, that there were admirable re­medies delivered by Solomon, which hee caused to be writ upon the walls of the Temple; though they commend King Ezekias for causing them to be done out, when it appeared, that the virtue of them was such, that the people forgot their recourse to, and dependence upon God, because they knew so ready help else­where. And truly it is nothing strange to mee, that the Jews, living under the Persian Empire, and seeing, that there were seven chief Princes which had the great credit in it next the King, the successors of the seven [...], (that is, those seven that killed him that usurped after the death of Cambyses as some­times I have conceived; who, having the privilege of perpetual accesse to the King, as Herodotus testifieth, are therefore said to see the Kings face, Esther I. 10, 14—Esther VII. 14.) I say it seems not strange, that, expressing and think­ing of God as of a great Prince, (as doth the whole Scripture, speaking in those terms that men are most apt to conceive) they should attribute unto him the like attendance of seven Angels, as his principal Ministers, the book de Mundo un­der Aristotles name, comparing him also with the King of Persia. And yet I [Page 216] will not grant, that the seven Spirits before the Throne of God in the Revela­tion I. 4. IV. 5. V. 6. are those seven Angels, because there are seven virtues of Gods Spirit recounted in Esay XI. 2, 3. which the seven Spirits before Gods Throne may well serve to express; The seven Angels that blow the seven Trum­p [...]ts, Revel. VIII. 2. being onely that number of Angels, (whether the prin­cipal of Gods Ministers or not) who appear seven, to represent the plagues of the Trumpets and Vials in seven, as the seals of the Book afore. Neither is there any hope or fear, that any mater of historical truth can be discovered in them, which may justly charge them with imposture; as if the authors of them could be thought ignorant of the state of Gods people, living, as they did, so high in time. In vain it is to imagine, that, when Judith VIII. 6. is said to have kept, not onely the Sabbaths, New-moons, and Festivals of the Law, but also the dayes afore, which, by the Talmud Doctors wee know, were afterwards in use a­mong the dispersions of the Jews; Hee who writ this book forges, when hee sayes they were so anciently in use. For, either hee must prophesie, or they must have been in use when the book was writ: And whether in use or not, when the story is said to have come to passe, will be of no consequence to him that believes it to be of no consequence, whether a Parable or not. As for the pretense of superstition, which, the credit thereof may be said thereby to maintain; if it be no superstition, for the people to whom our Lord preached to observe all that the Scribes and Pharisees injoyned them, because they sate in Moses his chair, much lesse shall it be superstition for Judith, or for those that lived when the book of Judith was penned, to have served God two dayes, by the appoint­ment of those that sate in Moses chair, when as Gods Law named but one. And so, when the history of Susanna saith, that the Jews were allowed in their di­spersions, to judge maters of life and death among themselves; though this per­haps was otherwise under the Chaldeans, and, that, hee who penned it mistook in that circumstance; yet justly and certainly might it have been presumed, (though Origen had never interposed to justifie a thing, which, upon better, be­cause anciente [...] credit of this author, had been justified before) that such a power had been exercised at some times by the Jewes, in their disper­sions.

Before I go further, it will be requisite to answer an objection, which, I must confess to be material, but withall, apprehended for more dangerous than it need; To wit, that some part now received for Scripture of the New Testa­ment, (the Epistle to the Ebrews, and that of S. James, by name, the Revelati­on of S. John, and some other small pieces) have been sometimes questioned, and since are received, in that nature. And what, then, should hindet those books that sometimes have been questioned, whether of the Old Testament or not, to be now received for such upon the decree of the Council of Trent? I say then, that is manifest to him, that will take the pains to consider it, that the writings of the Apostles were first deposited with those parts of the Church, upon occasion, and for use whereof they were first penned; As, for the pur­pose, their Epistles, with those Churches to which they were sent, (where Ter­tullian, in his prescription against Hereticks, testifies, that the authenticks and originals of them were extant) and the Revelation of S. John with the seven Churches. Nei [...]her is it to be imagined, that the Collection, which now wee call the New Testament, was then any where extant. Nay, it is manifest by the beginning of S. Luke, there went about certain Gospels, which Origen, and S. Ambrose upon that place, following him, sayes, were afterwards disallowed. Adding, that the gift of discerning Spirits, mentioned by S. Paul 1 Cor. X. 10. was then extant in the Church, (as in the Synagogue, when it was to be discer­ned whether true Prophets or not) that the Church might rest assured of the writings of those whose commission had been so verified. It is therefore reaso­nable to think, that those writings, that had been received by some Churches, upon the credit of their Authors, known to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, gave others an umbrage of something not agreeable with Christianity; (as the Epistle to the Ebrews, of refusing Penance, the Revelation, of the King­dom [Page 217] of a thousand years) when they came first to know them, which from the beginning they had not done, much lesse, the doubt, whether inspired by God or not. Neither is the case otherwise, excepting terms of scorn which may have been used, either in Luthers refusing S. James his Epistle, or, when the Epistle to the Ebrews is questioned by Erasmus, or Cardinal Cajetane; as that of S. Jude of late by Salmasius. But there is alwayes means to redresse any part of the Church, or any Doctor of it, in any such mistake, so long as there remains means to certifie them, from what hand they have been received, to wit, from persons, in whom the Church was certified, that the Holy Ghost spoke. Which being certified, reason would, that, not onely particular persons, but Churches lay down their jealousies, by understanding such words as cause jealousies, so, as they may best agree with the common Christianity. But what is all this to the wri­tings of those, who can by no means be supposed to have written by the Holy Ghost? Shall any act, any decree of the Church, create them the credit of wri­tings inspired by Gods Spirit, which before that act they had not? And there­fore, the case is not the same which the writings, which, we know, never could nor can be received, standing the evidence, that no evidence can ever be made, that they were inspired by Gods Spirit, or, that the authors thereof ever spoke by the same. And, with this resolution, the testimonies of Ecclesiastical writers will agree well enough, if wee consider, that, to prove them to have the testimony of the Church, to be inspired by God, it is not enough to allege, either the word or the deed, either of Writers or Councils, alleging the authority of them, or calling them Holy, Divine, or Canonical Scriptures; Nothing but universal con­sent making good this testimony, which, the dissent of any part creates an ex­ception against. For, if those, to whom any thing is said to be delivered, agree not in it, how can it be said, to be delivered to them, who protest, not to have received it? Wherefore, having settled this afore, that no decree of the Church inforceth more, than the reason of preserving unity in the Church can require; wee must, by consequence say, that, if the credit of divine inspiration be de­nied them, by such authors, as the Church approveth, no decree of the Church can oblige to believe them for such; though, how farr it may oblige to use them, I dispute not here. It shall therefore, serve my turn to name S. Jerome in this cause. Not as if Athanasius in Synopsi, Melito of Sardis in Eusebius, S. Gregory Nazianzene, abundance of others both of the most ancient Writers of the Church, and of others more modern, who justly preferr S. Jerome in this cause, did not reject all those parts, or most of them, which the Church of England re­jecteth: But because, were S. Jerome alive in it, there could be no Tradition of the Church for that, which S. Jerome, not onely a member, but so received a Do­ctor of the Church, refuseth. For, it will not serve the turn to say, that hee writ when the Church had decreed nothing in it; who, had hee lived after the Coun­cil of Trent, would have writ otherwise: The reasons of his opinion standing, for which no Council could decree otherwise. Hee would therefore have o­beyed the Church, in using those books, which it should prescribe; But, his be­lief, whether inspired by God or not, hee would have built upon such grounds, the truth whereof, the very being of the Church presupposeth. Nor will I stand to scan the sayings of Ecclesiastical Writers, or the acts of Councils, concerning the authority of all and every one of these books, any further in this place. There is extant of late, a Scholastical History of the Canon of the Scripture, in which this is exactly done; And upon that I will discharge my self in this point, referring my Reader, for the consent of the Church, unto it. And what impor­teth it, I beseech you, that they are called Sacred or Canonical Scriptures? As if all such writings were not holy, which serve to settle the holy Faith of Christi­ans. And though it is now received, that they are called Canonical, because they contain the Rule of our Faith and maners, and perhaps are so called in this notion, by S. Augustine, and other Fathers of the Church; Yet, if wee go to the most ancient use of this word Canon, from which the attribute of Canoni­cal Scripture descendeth, it will easily appear, that it signifieth no more, than the list or Catalogue of Scriptures received by the Church. For, who should make [Page 218] or settle the list of Scriptures receivable, but the Church that receiveth the same? it being manifest, that, they who writ the particulars knew not what the whole should contain. And truly, as I said afore, that the Church of Rome it self doth not, by any act of the force of Law, challenge, that the decrees of the Church are infallible; So is it to be acknowledged, that, in this point of all o­ther, it doth most really use in effect that power, which, formally and expresly it no where challengeth; Proceeding to order those books to be received with the like affection of piety, as those which are agreed to be inspired by God, which, it is evident by expresse testimonies of Church writers, were not so received from the beginning by the Church. So that, they who made the decree, renouncing all pretense of revelation, to themselves in common, or to every one in parti­cular, can give no account, how they came to know that which they decree to be true. So great inconveniences, the not duely limiting the power of the Church contrives even them into, that think themselves, therefore, free from mistake in managing of it, not because they think they know what they do, but because they think they cannot do amisse. It remaineth therefore, that, standing to the proper sense of this decree, importing, that wee are to believe these books, as inspired by God, neither can they maintain, nor wee receive it: But if it shall be condescended, to abate the proper and native meaning of it, so as to signifie onely, the same affection of piety moving to receive them, not the same object, obliging Christian piety to the esteem of them; it will remain then determina­ble, by that which shall be said, to prove, how these books may or ought to be recommended or injoyned by the Church, or, received of and from the Church.

CHAP. XXXIII. Onely the Original Copy can be Authentick. But, the truth thereof may as well be found in the translations of the Old Testament, as in the Jewes Copies. The Jewes have not falsified them of malice. The Points come neither from Moses, nor Esdras, but from the Talmud Jewes.

AS to the other point, it is, by consequence, manifest, that the Church hath nothing to do to injoyn any Copy of the Scripture to be received as authentick, but that which it self originally received, because it is what it is, be­fore the Church receive it. Therefore, seeing the Scripture of the Old Testa­ment was penned first, and delivered in the Ebrew Tongue, (for I need not here except that little part of Esdras and Daniel, which is in the Chaldee, the same reason holding in both) that of the New in the Greek; there is no question to be made, but those are the authentick Copies. Neither can the decree of the Council of Trent bear any dispute, to them who have admitted the premises, if it be taken to import, that the Church thereby settleth the credit of Scripture, inspired by God, upon the Copy which it self advanceth, taking the same away from the Copy which the author penned; That credit depending meerly upon the commission of God, and his Spirit, upon the which the very being of the Church equally dependeth. But it is manifest, that it cannot be said, that the said decree necessarily importeth so much; because it is at this day free for every one to maintain, that the Original Ebrew and Greek are the Authentick Copies, the Vulgar Latine onely injoyned, not to be refused in act of dispute, or que­stion; which hindreth no recourse to the Originals, for the determining of the meaning which it importeth. Hee that will see this tried, need go no further, than a little book of Sorbonne Doctor called Valerianus de Flavigny, Professor of the Ebrew in the University of Paris, written in opposition to an opinion, ven­ted in the Preface to the great Bible lately published there, in disparagement of the Ebrew Copy of the Old Testament. Where hee shall see that opinion re­futed with that eagernesse, and the contrary attested by the opinions of so many Divines, of so great note in the Church of Rome, since that Council, that no man that sees them can deny, that, notwithstanding the decree, it is free for every [Page 219] man to maintain, the original Copies to be authentick. And truly, hee that should affirm, the credit of the Scripture to stand upon the decree of the present Church, or upon the testimony of the Spirit; must, by consequence, have recourse to the same visible decree, or to the same invisible dictate, whensoever it shall be necessary to accept or refuse the reading of any text of Scripture, with that faith, which, if it be false, the whole truth of Christianity will be forfeit. What Rushworth and his possession would do, to evidence, what reading of the Scri­pture is indeed authentick, when as it doth not appear what is the reading which the Church is truly in possession of, let him advise. For, in that case hee must ex­presly avow the consequence of his position, that the Scripture is not considera­ble in resolving Controversies of Faith: Because the Church is not in possessi­on of the certain reading of any Scripture. For, if hee say, hee hath made short work in that question, having discharged the Scripture of being necessary to the Church, and therefore acquitted himself of any necessity to show, how wee may come by true Scripture; and in stead thereof, and all other means of deciding Controversies in the Church, established the tradition presently in possession; First, it will be easier for mee, to verifie the short Rule of Faith, by the Scri­ptures interpreted according to that, which, by records, may appear to have been from the beginning of force in the Church, than it will be for him to show, what is the Tradition which the Church is in possession of at present: And that, this being showed, I shall not need to fear any great danger that hee may ob­ject, from the variety of reading which may be found in several Copies, the ne­cessity of salvation being secured. And then, in the next place, to say; That the Scripture is not necessary, though not for the salvation of every Christian, yet, for the salvation of the Body of Christians, which is the Church; Though, that faction which separation ingenders will suffer no opinion to be plausible, but those which are in extreams. Yet I hope, the malice of Satan hath not yet debauched the ears of Christians to indure. And thus, as afore it was settled, that the whole Scripture is received for the word of God, upon the credit of Tradition; so, of every part and parcel of it, wherein the credit of several Co­pies consisteth, it is consequently to be said, that nothing can oblige the faith of a Christian, to receive it, unquestionably for the word of God, the Tradition whereof is not unquestionable.

But, thus m [...]ch being settled; That, what was originally delivered in Greek and Ebrew, is to be received for the authentick Word of God; What was o­riginally delivered in Greek and Ebrew, may still remain questionable. That is to say, this being agreed, it may still remain questionable; what Copies they are, that do contain that, which was originally delivered in Greek and Ebrew. How probable it is, I need not yet say; but, any man of common sense must say, that it is possible, through the changes that time is able to produce, that the translations shall prove better than the originals, and that the Scriptures shall be truer read among those that have received, than among those that delivered them. And this is indeed the true state of the question, which is now come to be disputed, upon due terms, as it seems; To wit, whether the Ebrew Copies which now wee have from the Jews, and the Greek Copies of the New Testa­ment now extant, contain that Scripture, which all Christians are bound to re­ceive upon their Christianity, not onely in opposition to the Vulgar Latine, which the Council of Trent injoyneth, and to the authority of the present Church, (thinking that it is concluded in that decree) but in opposition to that Tradition, which other ancient Copies, either original or translated, may and do contain and evidence. In which point, I shall in the first place professe, as con­cerning the Old Testament, that I finde it no inconvenience, but a great deal of reason to grant, that, at what time those books were made up into a Body, and consigned unto the Synagogue, the reading which wee have received from them was not delivered as unquestionable, (so that it should be any prejudice to the Law of God to suspect it) but as the most probable, and, by admitting whereof, no prejudiee to the said Law could follow. And, the safety of this position, both Jews and Christians will witnesse with mee. For if the Jews rruly ac­knowledg, [Page 220] and insist, that their Judaism is sufficiently grounded and witnessed by the leter of the Old Testament which wee have; the Christians, that their Christianity is as sufficiently to be evidenced, by the Copies wee have, as Chri­stianity was intended to be delivered by the Scriptures of the Old Testament; Is it possible, that it should be a mater of jealousie for mee to admit, that, in that Body of the Old Testament which the Christians have received from the Jews, there may be found some passages, the reading whereof was not received as un­questionable, when the Body of the Old Testament was consigned to the Sy­nagogue, from whence the Church receiveth it? I say not when this time was, nor would I have that which I affirm here, to stand upon a circumstance so dis­putable. I do believe the Jews, when they tell us of the men of the Great Synagogue, after the return from the Captivity; from whom, and by whom, the Scriptures, they believe, were settled and delivered to their posterity. I do also believe, that this Assembly might and did indure, whilest the Grace of Pro­phets had vogue, and was in force among Gods people. For, if I believe them when they tell mee, that there was such a company of men; I cannot disbelieve them, that the Prophets Haggai, Zachary, and Malachi, the Scribe Esdras, (the same with Malachi, as they tell us, for any thing I know; for why should I not believe, Malachi, being appellative, and signifying my messenger, to be Esdras his surname, given him from that which is prophesied Mal. III. 1?) Mordecai, Nehemias, Josue the son of Josedok, and many others of that time were of it. But, shall I believe, that their Prophetical grace was imployed to decide the true reading of the Scripture? shall I believe, that a new revelation was given, to notifie how every leter and syllable was to be read, when, neither the consequence of the mater required it, and, sufficient means had been given to certifie common sense how to proceed? I know the good Father S. Irenaeus was made to believe, that the Scriptures were quite lost during the Captivity of Ba­bylonia; and, that the Copies wee have, contain onely that, which Esdras, by in­spiration of Gods Spirit, writ anew for the books of the Old Testament. I doubt not there are enow that finde this unreasonable, which cannot hear with­out a great grain of jealousie, that Esdras, (supposing him the man, that made up and consigned the Body of the Old Testament to the Synagogue) should de­liver any thing, but upon such credit, that, if any syllable of it should be admit­ted questionable, the Law of God it self must become questionable; To wit, because Esdras is supposed to have been indowed with Gods Spirit, though it cannot be supposed to what purpose. For, otherwise, why should it seem so dangerous to believe, that there are faults in the reading of the Jews Copies of the Old Testament which wee use? That excellent Humanist Joseph Scali­ger hath maintained, that there are corrupt readings in the Copies that wee use, more ancient than Esdras. Ludovicus Capellus at this day maintaineth, that the Ebrew Copies may be mended, not onely by other texts of the Old and New Testament, but by the Translations which have been made, before those corru­ptions might prevail. I can neither pretend here to maintain, nor to destroy that which either of them hath said. I will say further to the same purpose. The Syriack of the Old Testament, which is a translation made by Christians, out of the Original Ebrew, seemeth to have followed another reading than that which wee finde in our Ebrew Copies, and that many times considerable. I will give you a few instances. Gen. II. 2. It hath been thought so strange, that God should finish the work that hee had made upon the seventh day, who is said else­where to have made heaven and earth in six dayes; That the Jews have repor­ted, that the Greek translates it the sixt day, least the Gentiles should stumble at it. But, when wee see the Samaritane and the Syriack follow the Greek, shall not the credit of them balance the credit of the Ebrew Copies? Gen. XLIII. 28.— wee are brought in, that hee may roule himself upon us, or, fall upon us. [...] is read many times in the sense of casting down a mans self prostrate. That it can signifie simply, falling, I do not believe any Ebrew can ju­stifie. Reade but with the Syriack [...], changing onely [...] into [...], and the sense will be as proper as the Ebrew, to put tricks upon us. Num. XXXI. [Page 221] 28-47. according to the Ebrew, the spoil being divided in two, the army are commanded to consecrate one of five hundred to God, the Congregation, one of fifty: In the Syriack, both, one of fifty. And the numbers specified after­wards, differ accordingly. Now, whereas these are consecrated to God as the first-fruits of the spoil; it is manifest, that one of fifty was the legal rate of first-fruits, which, any man might exceed, but no man was to go lesse: As S. Jerome upon Ezekiel, agreeing with the Talmud, witnesseth. Which is the rea­son why I must account this reading considerable, notwithstanding the Ebrew. 1 Sam. XVII. 12. And the man went among men for an old man, in the dayes of Saul. Translate; And the man in the dayes of Saul was old and stricken in years; Reading with the Syriack [...], not with the Ebrew [...]; And then, let any man that understands Ebrew and sense tell mee, which is the more proper Ebrew, which is the more proper sense. 2 Kings X. I. Jehu writ and sent leters to Samaria, to the Princes of Jezreel, the Elders, and to those that brought up Ahabs children. Here is a great question, which all that maintain the Ebrew to be without fault will have much ado to answer; How should Ahab, sending to Samaria, send to the Elders of Jezreel? And the Syriack assoils it not, accord­ing to the Paris Copy. But, in the readings of the Great Bible it is noted, that our Copies reade it not. And truly hee that would say, that wee are to reade the Elders of Israel for the Elders of Jezreel, might have much to say for himself. But that the Elders of Samaria should be the Elders of Jezreel cannot be rea­sonable. 2 Kings XVIII. 27. Rabshakeh said unto them; Hath my master sent mee to speak these words to thy master and to thee, or to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their dung and drink their piss with you? So wee reade it. But, in conscience, were it not farr better sense to reade it with the Syriack; That they may not eat their dung and drink their piss with you? For, how could hee have said a fitter reason to make the people mutiny, then by telling them, that his master had sent them that good counsail, that they might not, by stand­ing out the siege, be put to eat their own dung and drink their own piss, with Ezekiah and his Counsail? I might have brought more than these, but it is a work by it self, for him that would try what that Translation would afford, and this may serve for an Essay. And therefore, to mee it seemeth farr safer to yield that it may be so, than utterly to ruine the credit of Gods Law, in the opi­nion of those men, who, being told, that no tittle thereof can be questionable, without granting that it came not from God, do neverthelesse finde sensible reason, to doubt of the reading of some passage.

This being said, in the next place, I shall as freely professe, that I finde no rea­son in the world to suspect, that the Ebrew Copies which wee now have from the Synagogue, are maliciously corrupted and falsified by the Jews. I grant, that precious Saint of God Justine the Martyr did so believe, and so charges them Dial. cum Tryphone: and Eusebius Eccl. Hist. IV. 18. is bold to pronounce, that the Jews were convinced by him in this point. But without disparagement to the great merit, wherewith that blessed Martyr hath obliged Christs Church, it may and must be yielded, which I said before; that a person so curious in all things which hee could inquire out, tending to the advantage of Christianity, hath suffered himself to be imposed upon, in divers particulars of historical truth, concerning that purpose. And, that this is one of them, I shall, for proof, need no more, but to send them to the place, and desire them to consider, whe­ther those passages which hee alleges to have been falsified by the Jews, were indeed so read as hee recites them, in the true Greek Copies of the Old Testa­ment, at that time: Or, whether hee was imposed upon to believe, that they were true Copies which reade them as hee does, though indeed they were not. Neither do I finde, that the Christians after him have thought themselves obli­ged to follow that reading, which hee, as falsified by the Jews, professeth to re­store. And truly, though (in regard of the bloudy hatred of the Jews, which the Christians, at that time, when their departure was fresh, might justly impute the greatest persecutions to, that they indured) no suspicion upon them but may seem just; yet I would have this limited, so farr as there appears reason to be­lieve [Page 222] that it may be true. For, from the time that the study of Gods Law was in request among them, that is, as I conceive, from the return from Captivity, (where, it seems, they were settled in a deep detestation of Idols, and took in hand the teaching and learning of the Law, as God had commanded in it) I say, from that time, they seem to have been possessed with a disease on the other hand, of a superstitious esteem of the very leters and tittles of it. Which r [...]n­ders it a thing no way credible, that they should make it their design, to fal [...]fie those which they held in so superstitious a reverence. And truly, hee that con­siders, how necessary the preserving of the Old Testament intire must needs be, to the propagation of Christianity which God had designed; will easily say, that this perverse zeal of a thing to the leter of the Law, was purposely imployed by the providence of God, to work his Gospel the freer passage, by presuming the leter of the Law unquestionable. S. Austine therefore calleth the Jews capsarios Ecclesiae, as those that keep the records, and carry those books for the Christians, which serve to cut their own throat. And, had it been their design to falsifie the Scriptures, would any reason allow, that they should practice it in such places, as concerned Christianity little or nothing, rather than in those which they chal­lenge most interest in? For, without doubt, it is hard to name any place contro­verted between the Jews and Christians, for the reading of it, that is of conse­quence to the truth of Christianity. I confesse the reading of the Christians Psal. XXII. 17. [...] is true, and not that of the Jews [...]; for what good sense can they make of it? But I do not therefore see they intended to falsifie the true reading of it, who have, of themselves, set a mark of a doubtfull rea­ding upon the place. So, in Esa. IX. 5. the modern [...]brew reads [...] the Latine seems to have read [...]: but, any man that knows the Ebrew will allow mee, that the first reading will bear the sense of the later, and his name shall be called: So farr there is no evidence of falsifying, as the end of it appears not to be obtained, by admitting that reading, which you pretend for­ged. How farr it concerns either the credit of S. Paul, or the truth of Christi­anity, that Psal. XIX. 5. wee reade [...] as Rom. X. 18. not, as wee have it this day in our Copies [...] I am willing to referr unto judgment; Knowing that, whatsoever be decreed will not be of force, to conclude so great a presum­ption as wee have in debate. For, suppose wee, that they had never so much minde to do such a wickednesse; and consider on the other side, that the separa­tion of Christians from Jews was not made in a moment, but that, so long as there was hope to winn the Jews, they conformed themselves to serve God with them, and without doubt, carried a greater or a lesse party in all Syna­gogues, where Christianity found entrance, (which, how soon it found entrance into the whole Empire, the very writings of the Apostles may serve to assure us) I say sup [...]osing all this, wee cannot doubt, that, at the separation, the Chri­stians were possest of Copies which the Jews warranted, in so many parts of the Empire. And will any common sense allow, that it should be possible for them, to corrupt their own Copies, whether in Ebrew or in Greek, and the Christians not convict them of it? knowing them both able, and willing, and obliged so to do.

Seeing then wee must conclude, that, what fault soever may have come in­to the Copies which the Jews at present send us, it cannot be presumed to have come upon prepensed malice, but upon such casualties, as the propagating of all records is subject to; it will be fit, as a furzher step to our proceeding, to in­quire in the next place, whether the points, signifying the vowels whereby the sense of the Old Testament is now determined, are from the Spirit of God, or invented by man, and allowed by the Synagogue. A conceit as eagerly maintained by some, that would magnifie their profession of the Ebrew, as if the credit of the Scripture, and by consequence of Christianity, were to stand or fall with every jot or tittle of the Jews Copies, as, of the Law, our Sa­viour saith it doth. Which, hee that considereth the intent of the Old Testa­ment to serve principally for a motive, to introduce Christianity, (but, to deter­mine the mater of it, no otherwise, than first the meaning thereof shall be de­termined [Page 223] by the New) will never grant; Though freely allowing the utmost of our Saviours meaning, that every tittle of the Law continues in force under the Gospel, to the effect whereto it was intended, not of the Leter, but of the Spirit. Those that would have these points to carry the credit of Gods Word, do faintly maintain that, which the Jews as familiarly [...]ffirm, as they do believe all their Constitutions to be Gods Law by word of mouth; to wit, that they were delivered to Moses in Mount Sinai. But they seem to insist peremptorily, that, if not delivered by Moses, at least they were settled by Esdras, and his companions of the Great Sy [...]gogue, or Assembly, which I spoke of so lately. And truly, there is no question to be made, but this must have been done while the Spirit of God was among them: But this being granted, hee that should thereupon presume, that the Spirit was given to this effect, of settling the mea­ning of the Scriptures, must demand it gratis, or rather for lesse than nought, considering what appearance I have made, that the Copies were settled, not by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but by Tradition of historical truth. Yet, not insisting upon this, I must professe, I cannot but mervail, what probability any man can imagine, that this method of determining the reading and sense of the Ebrew of the Old Testament, which, according to the nature and custome of the Eastern Languages, originally consists of consonants onely; should be as ancient as Esdras his time. I make no question, that there must be a certain method of reading things written by consonants onely, otherwise, they had not, in that estate, means to understand one another in writing. But this, in maters of common sense and effect, the meer use of speaking would easily fur­nish all that had practice of writing and reading with. For, what great difficul­ty could remain in reading that, which was of it self understood? The neces­sity of this method in writing, is the difficulty of understanding; that is to say, a capacity of being determined to several senses, in those writings, to which it is applyed. Suppose now, that to be true, which I showed afore to be proba­ble, that, from the Captivity, the study of the Law, came in request according to the Law; From that time it must be known amongst them, how the Scri­ptures were to be read. And truly, from that time, the Scribes were much more in request; though I have showed elsewhere, that their profession began under the Prophets, being nothing else but their Disciples, which wee reade of in their writings. I have also showed, that the profession extended from the Judges of the Great Consistory, to School-masters that taught children to reade, and No­taries that writ Contracts. These mens profession consisting in nothing else but the Scriptures, (for what learning had they in writing besides?) is it strange, that children could be taught by Tradition to reade it, though the vulgar language was somewhat changed? This supposition indeed will inferr, that the reading could not be so precisely determined, for all to agree in the same: But it will also inferr, that, the more the study was in use, the more precise determination they must needs attain. Now I desire the indifferent Reader to consider two points, both of them certain, and resolved in the Tradition of the Jews; The first, that this method of points is part of the Law delivered by word of mouth; as appears by the Tradition in the Gomara, that hee that hath sworn, that such a one shall never be the better for him, may teach him the Scriptures, because that they may be done for [...]ire, but hee may not teach him the points, because the Law by word of mouth, must not be taught for hire. The second, that it was never held lawfull to commit this civil Law to writing, till the time of R. Juda, that first writ their Misnaioth, or repetitions of the Law, upon a resolution ta­ken by the Nation, that, the preservation of the Law in their dispersions did necessarily require, that it should be committed to writing; as Maimoni, the Key to the Ta [...]mud, in the beginning, and divers others of the Jews do witness. Hee that would see more to justifie both these points, let him look in Buxtor­fius his answer to Capellus I. 2. where hee hath showed sufficient reason to resolve against his own opinion; That, all the Jews say of the points delivered to Mo­ses in Mount Sinai, is to be understood, of the right reading and sense of the Law, which must be delivered from hand to hand, but was unlawfull to be com­mitted [Page 224] to writing before the beginning of the Talmud by R. Juda: To wit, with authority; For, it was lawfull for Scholars to keep notes of their lessons. Up­on these premises I inferr, that there were no points written in the Jewes Bi­bles before this time; and that, upon this decree, they began to busie themselves in finding a method by points, and applying the same to the Scripture; though, it is most agreeable to reason, that it should have been some ages before it was setled, and received by a Nation so dispersed as they were. And herewith a­greeth all the evidence which the records of that Nation can make. Though I repeat not here the testimonies in which it consisteth, having been so effectually done already in books for the purpose.

CHAP. XXXIV. Of the anci [...]n est Translations of the Bible into Greek first; With the Authors and authority of the same; Then into the Chaldee, Syriack, and Latine. Ex­ceptions against the Greek, and the Samaritane Pentateuch. They are helps ne­vertheless to assure the true reading of the Scriptures, though with other Co­pies; whether Jewish or Christian. Though the Vulgar Latine were better than the present Greek, yet must both depend upon the Original Greek of the New Testa [...]ent. No danger to Christianity by the differences remaining in the Bible.

THe first turning of the Bible into Greek, the common opinion saith, was done by the authority of the High Priest and heads of that people resi­d [...]nt at Jerusalem, and by men sent on purpose, (VI of every Tribe, in all LXXII, called therefore by the round number for brevities sake, the LXX Trans­lato [...]s) to Ptolomee Philadelphus. But this relation suffers many difficulties, that have been made of late years, and indeed, seems to come from a writing pre­tending the name of Aristeas, a Minister of the said Prince, from whence Phi­lo and Josephus seem to have received the credit of it; Who, being of those Jews that used the Greek tongue, may very well be thought to cherish that re­port which makes for the reputation of their Law, with them that spoke it. Jo­sephus, wee know, in other points, hath related Legends or Romances, for hi­storical truth; as that of the acts and death of Moses, and that of the third of Esdras, concerning the dispute of the three Squires of the Body to King Da­rius. As for Philo, wee have S. Jerome, who hath made sport of the legend, hee [...]ells of this businesse: To wit, how that, being shut up every man in a several room, at the end of so many dayes, they gave up every man his Copy, translated all in the same words to a tittle. Which rooms, Justine the Martyr, couzened by the Jews of Alexandria, reports, were extant in his time, and that hee had seen them; in his dispute with Trypho the Jew. But the particulars are too many to finde a room in this ab [...]idgment. Those that would be further informed in this point, may see what Scaliger hath said against this Tradition, in his Annotations upon Eusebius his Chronicle, and what Morinus and others have said for it. But, though wee grant the book of Aristeas to be a true History, not a Romance, which [...]w will do that reade it, (for the roughnesse of the Greek makes it ra­ther the language of some obscure Legendary, then of a Courtyer at Alexan­dria) though wee grant, that there were LXXII sent from Jerusalem to Phila­delphus, and did translate him the Law; because, besides the agreement of all other Jews and Christians, Aristobulus a learned Jew of Alexandria, writing to P [...]olomee Philometor, (in Eusebius de Praepar. Evang. XIII. 7.) an exposition of the Law, some CXXX years after, averrs it; yet will not that serve the turn, to make this Copy which wee have their work. Because the same Aristobulus, together with Josephus and Philo, the Talmud Jews besides, and S. Jerome among the Christians, do agree, that those LXXII that came from Jerusalem translated one­ly the five books of Moses, as you may see them alleged in a late discourse of the late Lord Primate of Ireland, de LXX. Int. Versione, Cap. I. Now it is most evident, that the Copy which wee have is all of one hand, and, that it can by no [Page 225] means be thought, that the five books of Moses, which are part of it, were trans­lated by any body, but by him that translated the rest. Therefore, wee are as much to seek for the author of this Translation, as if wee did not grant, that e­ver the Law was translated by LXXII persons sent from Jerusalem to Philadel­phus. And therefore, I make no difficulty to grant, that this Translation, (which cannot be ascribed to those LXXII) was made by the Jews of Alexandria, or Aegypt, where the Jews injoyed great liberties from the first Ptolomees time, flourishing in learning, and neglecting their own language for the Greek, where­upon they were called [...], that is to say, Jews that spoke Greek. But I say withall, that I do not understand, why the reputation of this Translation should be ever a whit the worse, than if it had been made by LXXII sent from Jerusa­lem to Alexandria on purpose, supposing it to have been done by the Jews of Alexandria. The reasons why I think it was made by the Jews of Alexandria, supposing the translating of the Law by the LXX, I confesse are but probabili­ties, but which, finding the truth ballanced by the difficulties premised, seem to way down on that side. First, in Caninius his Hellenismus, at the Imperfect Tense, [...] Boeoticè & Chalcidicè [...]. Quae forma LXX Int. frequens. Nam Asianis etiam vernacula. Lycophron, [...]. For [...], the Boeotick and Chalcidick saith [...], which form the LXX Translators frequent. For it is the Asiaticks mother language. Lycophron uses [...]. That which hee saith of the Asiatick Greeks I have not yet found. All that use this dialect, so farr as I have observed, are the Greek Bible, the books wee call Apocrypha, and Epiphanius; Excepting Lycophron, who was born at Chalcis in Euboea, standing upon the confines of Boeotia; but lived at Alexandria: And therefore, I conceive, Canini [...]u should have counted it Alexandrian, and not Boeotick or Chalcidick. The like I say, when, for [...] in the second Aorist, or indefinite tense, hee makes the Boeotick to say [...]. For, in the same authors, namely, the Greek Bible, the Apocrypha, Epiphanius, and Lycophron, you shall finde the like, and in some of them, if my memory fail mee not, [...] for [...], and [...] for [...]; which dialect, Caninius also alleges, out of some Grammarians. Now I have not found this Greek used by any author that lived in Palestine, where Epiphanius, though hee conversed much, yet cannot well be thought to have learned his Greek. And therefore it is to mee a mark, that an Alexandrian rather than a Palestine Jew should make it. Secondly, whereas by Josephus Antiq. III. 9. by S. Jerome, Hesychius, and many others, it is manifest, that the Jews Shekel was equal to the Attick tetradrachme, or piece of four drachmes, it is alwayes translated by them [...], or piece of two drachmes. A thing which hath bred strange opinions in some mens fansies, and caused whole books to be written, that the Jews used two Shekels; and, that the Shekel of the Sanctuary was double the vulgar. Whereas all this difficulty va­nishes, if wee say, that they translate it [...], by the Alexandrian drach­ma, because that was indeed double the Attick. For first, Julius Pollux Onomast. IX. 6. affirmeth, that the Talent of every Greekish State consisted of VI M drachmes, of the same coin, as the Attick Talent contained VI M. Attick drachmes. Then, Festus in the word Talentum saith, that the Alexandrian Ta­lent contained XII M. Attick drachmes. Which cannot otherwise be true, un­lesse the Alexandrian drachme be double the Attick. Now, it is no lesse impro­bable, that Palestine Jews, though translating at Alexandria, should translate according to the value of that coin which was current at Alexandria, (all other Writers testifying, that in Palestine they accounted otherwise) then it is pro­bable, that Alexandrian Jews should do it. So long then, as I am peremptorily barred, from believing, the Translation which wee use to be the work of any LXXII sent from Jerusalem, I shall accept of these inklings of historical truth, that intitle the Egyptian Jews, who first took up the Greek, to it. For, as for the difference of Copies, which, I grant, is very great, in the Greek Bible, I suppose, no man in his right senses will argue, that it is derived from any other Copies than one, which, by the wantonnesse of Copyists having suffered some [Page 226] change in lesse maters, discovers the same plainsong, by variety of descants that are framed upon it.

As for the credit of this Translation, why should it be thought ever a whit the worse, coming, from the Egyptian Jews, than, those of Palestine? My reason is; I demand what there is to be found in all the writings of that Nation since the Prophets, of like consequence to Christianity, with that which the Jews of Aegypt have transmitted to us: Why the Greek Bible should not be as well thought of, coming from them, as if it came from LXXII men sent from the High Priest at Jerusalem. For, here I set aside all prejudicate fansies, and reports of inspiration, by which it is said, that there LXXII all translated the Law in the same words, as meer fables. I go to issue, upon evidence of that which ap­pears in this translation, compared, both with the present Jews Copy, and o­ther translations which the Church useth of many ages. Onely I question, why it should not be of as good credit, coming from the Jews of Alexandria, as from LXXII sent from Jerusalem. The prejudice that is alleged against it, is an addition to the Book of Esther in the Greek, which sayes thus; [...] In the fourth year of the raign of Ptolomee and Cleopatra, Dojitheus, calling himself a Priest and Levite, and Ptolomee his son, brought the foresaid leter of Phrurim, (which you have in the Greek Bible, after Esther VIII. 12.) translated, as they said, by Lysimachus son of Ptolomee, of Jerusalem. This Ptolomee and Cleopatra are those, by whose per­mission, Onias and Dositheus, (whether hee that is here named, or another of that name) Jews, having faithfully served them in their warrs, built a like Temple to that of Jerusalem, in the Country of Heliopolis in Aegypt, as Josephus contr. Ap. II. & Ant. XIII. 6. testifieth; Incurring thereby the like crime of Schism, as the Samaritanes had committed, in setting up their Temple on Mount Geri­zim; and undertaking to serve God there, after Jerusalem was lawfully chosen, for the place to which the Law confined Gods service. And so, this translation is supposed to come from the Jews of Aegypt, when they were under that Schism, and the sacrilege of it. To which I answer, that, neither it doth appear by this addition to Esther, (which, in one of these two Copies, which the late Lord Primate of Ireland hath published out of the Earl of Arundels Library, appeareth not at all) that, therefore, the whole translation was made then, when it saith this leter came; Nor that, if it were then made, it had any relation to, or dependance upon their Schism, or the sacrilege of it. For, though Josephus sayes, that Onias found Priests and Levites of his minde to serve God there; and though hee sayes elsewhere, that Onias did this out of contention, which hee had with the Jews at Jerusalem, having banished him; Thinking to draw the multitude from them, to the Temple which hee had built de Bello Jud. VII. 37. yet, these are rather arguments, that the Body of the Jews at Alexandria did not submit to his premises whatsoever, his credit with the King might ob­lige them, to permit particular men to do. And Josephus Ant. XIII. 6. imme­diately after the building of this Temple, telleth us of a trial between the Sa­maritanes and Alexandrian Jews, before the same Philometor, whether the Tem­ple at Jerusalem, or that on Mount Gerizim were according to Gods Law. And that those Jews were so zelous in the cause, that they consented, what side were cast, those that pleaded for it to be put to death; Which, accordingly, was ex­ecuted upon Sabbaeus and Theodosius, that pleaded for the Samaritanes. Now, though Josephus say not, that this, which hee relateth presently after the build­ing of the Temple, came to passe after it in time; yet it is utterly incredible, that those, who had showed such zeal for the Temple at Jerusalem, should, the next day as it were, that is, in the same Kings raign, run into the same crime, whereof they had convicted the Samaritanes. Certainly, when the addition to Esther saith, that the leter which hee had inserted was translated into Greek by Lysima­chus son of Ptolomee a Jew of Jerusalem, it is no sign, that there was any pre­tense [Page 227] of Schism, between the Jews of Jerusalem and those of Alexandria, on foot. And therefore, this aspersion takes away nothing from the credit of the Greek Bible.

I am further confirmed in this opinion, by considering the writings of Philo the Alexandrian Jew, though I am not moved by them to think hee was a Chri­stian, but onely to conclude, that hee cannot be convinced to be no Christian. Three things I allege out of him, as steps which hee hath made, beyond the rest of the Jews, towards a Christian. The first; That hee hath followed the Go­spels, in reproving the Tradition of the Elders, for which they neglected to ho­nor their parents, as the Law commandeth. The Tradition was this, as wee finde by him, in his book [...]; If a man vow, that his Father or Mother shall never be the better for any thing that is his, it shall not be lavv­full for him to maintain them out of his goods. For, Korban signifies anathema; And, hee that said, Be it Korban, whatsoever thou maiest be the better for, of mine; In his anger, to Father or Mother; said in effect; Be it ana [...]hema; That is, be hee accursed that touches it. In this point then, Philo follovvs the doctrine of Christ, against the Tradition of their Elders. The second is his exposition of Deut. XXVIII. 46. The stranger that is within thee shall get above thee more and more: And thou shalt come under him, more & more: in his book [...]. The stranger truly, lifted aloft with good success shall be gazed at, as admired and coun­ted happy for two the greatest excellences; That, having turned to God, hee hath received the most proper reward, a firm rank in heaven, not lawfull to be expressed. But the right born, imbasing and counterfeiting the coin of his birth, shall slide down till hee come to the very depth of darkness; That all men, seeing these examples, may grow sober, considering how God accepts that virtue which springs from an ene­my stock, bidding the root farewell, but the shoot welcome, that is grown to a stock, because by tillage it is changed to bear good fruit. For, hovv vvould a Christian ex­pound this text against the Jevv, in the mystical sense, but by making the Chri­stian the stranger, vvhom this text prophesieth of, that hee shall have the upper hand of the Jevv; as Origen more than once, if my memory fail mee not, out of this place of Philo, hath done? The third consists of those things vvhich hee hath said, in so many places, concerning the Word of God, agreeable to those pas­sages of the Wisedome of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch, vvhich I compa­red afore vvith the doctrine of the Apostles, concerning that Wisedom of God vvhich is his Word; of vvhich you have enovv in Grotius his annotations upon those texts, but much more might be produced. For, vvhosoever compares them together, shall finde, that he vvho said them vvas not far from the Christian Faith. For, if it be objected and said, that there is no evidence, that ever this Philo pro­fessed Christianity, vvithout vvhich, he cannot be counted a Christian; It may rea­sonably be ansvvered, that, during the time vvhen the Synagogue vvas at a bay, vvhether to receive Christianity or not, (at vvhat time it is plain they did not per­secute it) nothing can be said, vvhy it might not be professed, by any Jevv of those Synagogues vvhich stood so affected to it; not onely vvithout any mark of apostasie upon him among his fellovvs, but even vvith that trust, vvhich, vvee knovv this Philo had among the Jevvs of Alexandria, being deputed by them to Ca­ligula, in business concerning their vvhole subsistence. For, if those vvho vvere baptized by John the Baptist vvere not thought to depart from the Lavv, vvhy should those vvho vvere baptized into Christ; vvhether the effect of both Ba­ptisms vvere the same or diverse, the Lavv continuing in practice long after that time?

I must therefore professe, to allovv the opinion those, that vvill have this vvork [Page 228] to have been done by the Jews of Alexandria, of which, wee know, there was a very great Body, from the time of the first Ptolomee; who, having taken up the Greek in stead of their Mother tongue, necessarily required, that they should have the Scriptures in it. It is then agreeable to reason, that this translation, be­ing made so soon after the study of the Law came in request, and so farr from Je­rusalem; should acknowledg more difference of sense, arising from the divers wayes of determining those words that are written without vowels, than those that are of a later date, when the reading was better determined by custome and practice. Which, accordingly, wee see, is come to pass. For, the translations into the Greek that were made after the time of our Lord, by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, (no Christians) and, the Chaldee of Onkelus and Jonathan, who, whatsoever time they were made in, are later than so; though wee cannot say that they do alwaies and in all things agree, either with one another, or with the Ebrew Copies which wee use; yet must wee needs say, that there is a great deal more agreement between them visible, than there is between the Greek of the LXX, and any of them, judging of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, by the remains of them recorded by the Fathers of the Church. As for the Syriack and Vulgar Latine, both made by the Christians, and the former justly challen­ging as great antiquity, (and therefore as great credit) as the early coming of those parts to Christianity, (& thereupon, the necessity of having the Scriptures) inforces; it is manifest, that they were translated out of Copies, which were had from the Jewes, and yet that the sense was not determined in those Copies, as it is by the vowels determined in the Ebrew Copies wee use. Whether that, in S. Jeromes time, the method of points was not complete, and written into their books, or whether they would not suffer such Copies to go out of their hands, for the use of Christians. I confesse, I have met with a passage in the Gemara, Brachoth cap. ult. that seems to argue the contrary. It is reported there, that R. Akiba, (about Adrian the Emperors time) decreed, that they were not, (saving your presence) to wipe the backside with the right hand, because it shows the ac­cents of the Law [...]. For, if there were then accents to be showed, certainly there were vowels. But, the Glosse of R. Solomon Jarchi clears the mea­ning of the passage to be no more than this; that, by holding the right hand up or down, they signified how the lessons of the Law were to be sung, according to that, whether Musick, or howling, which still, it seems, they use in their Syna­gogues.

Now, to come to the resolution of the point propounded; I think it not unfit, to divide from the rest, the Greek and Samaritane Copies, because a rea­son is pretended, why they should never be taken into consideration, when there is any question of the true reading of the Old Testament; whatsoever account is to be had of the rest. By the Scripture of 2 Kings XVII. wee understand, that the Samaritanes, at their first planting, were Idolaters, and worshipped God as the God of that Countrey, not as the one true God that made heaven and earth; In which worship there must needs be as much Idolatry, as in the Athenians worshipping the unknown God, among innumerable Idols: Though that title yiel­ded S. Paul an argument against Idols. When the Temple and City came to be restored, under Esdras and Nehemias, they offered themselves to assist the work, pretending, that they they worshipped the true God onely, Esdras IV. 2. And what reason can wee have to doubt, that they said true in it? For when, in opposition to the Jews, they had built themselves a Temple upon Mount Geri­zi [...], and sacrificed there, as the ten Tribes did at Bethel and Dan from Jeroboams then, there can no question be made, but that they sacrificed to the true God, though not, according to the true intent of his Law, at Jerusalem, but as Schis­maticks, where they pleased themselves. Whatsoever then was the reason, why, under Esdras and Nehemias, they were not admitted to build the City and Tem­ple with the Jews; (as just there might be, and no doubt was, though wee sup­pose them not to have been Idolaters) from the time that they were thus reje­cted, I make account, wee may clearly say, that they have been and are Schisma­tical Jews, professing the Law, but according to a Copy of their own, which, for a [Page 229] rar [...] monument of antiquity, is printed in the Great Paris Bibles, and so ex­tolled, by those that pretend to oblige the Christian world by publishing the same, as if it were the true Copy of Moses. As for the rest of the Old Testa­ment, seeing it cannot be said, that ever they admitted either the writings of the Prophets, or the Resurrection and world to come, which under them was more and more declared; I leave to those of better skill to consider, whether this were not the reason, why they were refused the communion of the Jews under Esdras and Nehemias. This is the original credit of this Copy of Moses Law, which cannot be greater than the credit of those that use it: But it is alleged, over and above, out of an extract from Eulog [...]us Patriarch of Alexandria, in Photius, that this Copy was falsified by Dositheus, a Doctor of such credit among the Samaritanes, that Origen upon S. Mathew XXIV. informs us, that hee pre­tended to be the Messias, whom the Samaritanes, as Jews, did expect. As for the Greek of the LXX. it is alleged, that, by comparing it with the original, (which is the most effectual conviction of common sense) it may appear, that they who made it, never intended to translate the Ebrew which they had before them, but to inlarge, abridge, and change the sense and mater of it, as best pleased their own fansies, though, to what purpose, it is hard to affirm. This is alleged to be visible in the Book of Job, the Proverbs, Esther, and, I know not whether any other parts of the Old Testament. Supposing these exceptions made to those two, the ancientest Copies, (besides the Ebrew) that the world has, I will not enter into the dispute concerning the true Copy of the LXX, which, every man knows, what difficulties it becomes lyable to, by the diligence & industry of Origen; who, that it might appear at one view, what the difference was between the Greek and Ebrew Copies, first, set a mark upon every word, which the Greek of the LXX had ex [...]r [...]ss [...]d, more than the Ebrew contained; then, under another mark, added to the same Copy, that which, being found in the Ebrew, was not found translated in the Greek of the LXX. For, those marks being afterwards left out, by the neglig [...]n [...]e of Copyists, there came into the common use of the Church, a mixt Copy, of the Greek, according to the LXX, and that which the Ebrew had more than the Greek, according to Theodotion, whom Origen had stuck to in that businesse. Whereby, and by several Copies, corrected and ordered by Luciane, Hesychius, and others, to set a period to this dis­order, it is become impossible to say, what is the true Gr [...]ek of the LXX, or Alexandrian Jews, in abundance of places. But this dispute, I conceive, I shall not need to enter into, having nothing to do here to say, how well or how ill the Church hath been served, by the multiplying of several Copies, whi [...]h is a far di­vers point, that may come to hand in due place; But, on [...]ly supposing things to be as they are, what means we have, to assure our selves of unquestionable Scripture, in order to the deciding of difficulties in mater of Religion, which not onely or­dinarily, but universally, have their beginning from some uncertainty in the mea­ning of the same. But, supposing the Greek and Samaritane lyable to these ex­ceptions, supposing that wee have a very [...]n [...]ient translation of the Old Testa­ment, into that language which the Jews from the Captivity used, (for, what can be the reason, why the Jews should turn it into Chaldee, but for the vulgar use of their people?) that wee have the vulgar Latine, and that ancient and worthy Christian translation into the Syriack, is there any body will undertake to say; Either, that, having these helps, wee cannot assure our selves of the Scripture which God delivered to the Church, so farr as the necessity of the Church requi­reth to be assured of it; Or, that nothing but the Copy, which now wee have from the Jews, is to be regarded, God having provided us so many helps over and above? For, suppose the Samaritane Copy of the Law to have been f [...]l [...]i­fied by Desitheus, must it not needs have been falsified upon some certain design? And will one certain design require, or will it indure, that all should be falsified, whether it concerned that design or not? So, suppose those Jews of Alexan­dria, who turned the Old Testament into Greek, gave themselves liberty to make the Book of Job, the Proverbs, more of the Old Testament if more can be al­leged, not what the original contained, but what themselves fansied would be [Page 230] handsom; shall wee therefore say, the whole work is not a translation but a Romance, which, wee see stick so close to the original, in the most of the Scri­pture? Surely, the very great antiquity of both Copies, and the experience, which, all that study the Scriptures with an intent to clear the meaning of them, have, of the great advantage, which the comparing of the Greek advances, more and more every day, to that design, will no way indure, that it should be counted no translation of the Old Testament: Or that, though a man pretend not to build upon the credit of either of those Copies alone, in opposition to the E­brew which wee now use; Yet, the agreement of them with other Copies, to­gether with the reason, and consequence, or pertinence of sense inforced by the text of the Scripture, may give him just ground to assure himself, and the Church, of the true reading of the Scripture, yea, though the present Ebrew should not agree with others.

For, I shall not need here to say, what or how great faults may be found in our Ebrew Copies, who had rather be assured that there were none at all to be found, greater or lesse; But that wee, (who neither relye upon the dictate of the Spirit, to them that are able to conclude the Church, nor, much lesse, to par­ticular Churches, for assuring the true reading of Scripture) are not bound to resolve our faith in it into the present Tradition of the Synagogue, having, over and above, so considerable helps to the verifying of the same. For, magnifying first the providence of God, in that the Jews, having Christians in utter hatred, should neverthelesse, neither be willing, for their interest, nor able for their ma­lice, to falsifie those things in their own books, which bear witnesse against them­selves; Seeing God hath given the Church, that most ancient Greek Transla­tion, which is commonly ascribed to LXX Interpreters sent from Jerusalem, but more justly to the Jews of Alexandria, besides that Copy of the Law which the Samaritanes still use; Since wee have considerable remains of those Greek Translations made by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, the Bodies whereof, to the great losse of the Church, have perished with the worthy labors of Ori­gen, in joyning them in columes to the Ebrew; Since wee have those ancient translations into the Chaldee, which the Jews make so much esteem of; Since wee have the Syriack and Vulgar Latine made by Christians, (to say nothing of the Arabick, whether made by Jews or Christians, or of any other though anci­ent translations, which have not had the like use and credit in the Church) So far am I from giving way to that unreasonable demand, so destructive to the being of Christianity, that wee cannot assure our selves that wee have any Scripture; That in all that I have to say, or shall have said, concerning the dispute on foot in England about Religion, I shall neither undertake to assure men that will be content with reason, that I allege nothing for Scripture which I cannot justifie so to be, or else, undertake to resolve that which shall come in debate, without the help of that which I cannot assure to be such. Not intending, in that which follows, to allege any more evidence hereof in the particulars, than I have done in the premises; But, building my self upon the resolution premised, and in­tending, that there shall be nothing to be objected, from the true means of que­stioning and settling the true reading of the Scriptures, that may breed any con­siderable scruple, concerning the truth of those Scriptures, which I shall imploy to my purpose.

As for the part of the difficulty which remains, concerning the true reading of the New Testament, it is in vain, to maintain the decree of the Council of Trent, by pretending, that the Greek Copy, out of which the Vulgar Latine was translated, vvas more intire, and of better credit, than the Greek Copies novv extant: Understanding that decree, to make that Copy authentick in point of faith, by virtue of any gift of Infallibility intailed upon the decrees of the present Church, For, if it be onely made authentick, because the use and credit of it is not allowed to be questioned in the Church, it is another question, as I have said already, vvhich I pretend not to touch in this place. For, supposing the Copy from which the Vulgar Latine was translated, to have been better than any Greek Copy now extant, the credit of the Vulgar Latine is not to be ascri­bed [Page 231] to the decree of the Council that decrees this, any more, than the funda­mental Laws of this Kingdom of England were the fundamental Laws thereof, by virtue of any Act of Parliament, by which they were not constituted, but declared and acknowledged to be such. And, if the credit of the Vulgar La­tine be derived from the Greek Copy, out of which it was translated, then is it no further authentick, than, as it expresseth the authentick reading, which then was found in the Greek, out of which it was translated. And so, the whole cre­dit of the Scripture is resolved into the credit of the Originals, whereof wee stand possest, in the translations of them that remain, in whatsoever Language. So that the question comes to be the very same that remained before, concerning the authentick Copy of the Old Testament, and the resolution clear, that the Original Greek is the authentick, the reading thereof being first assured, neither by the dictate of Gods Spirit, to any persons inabled to oblige the Church by their decrees, nor to any never so good Christian, much lesse by the Tradition of any particular Copy which the Church stands possest of, but by that Tradition which is justified and assured by all Copies, wherein the leter of the Scripture is recorded to the Church. For, though I do, for disputation sake suppose, yet do I not grant for a truth, that the Copy out of which the Vulgar Latine was transla­ted, is to be held of better credit than that, out of which that excellent transla­tion into the Syriack, which, to the great benefit of Christianity, these last ages have brought into Europe, was made. The antiquity of this later, and the emi­nent helps which it hath contributed toward the understanding of the New Te­stament, being so great, as the Vulgar Latine, though very learned, and there­fore very helpfull, can never out-shine. And yet will I never grant, that ei­ther one or both of them, and that, with the help of the Arabick and other the most ancient Translations which the Church beside may have, are not to give account to the consent of many Copies now extant, nay, to the credit of some one, if it should so fall out in any passage, that the sense of the Scripture, which cannot be made out by the rest, is clear to common reason, according to that one: Whether such a case do ever fall out in any part of the Scripture or not; The assurance of Christianity not standing in this, that either this or that is, or must needs be true, but in this, that the Church is assured in all cases. But, by this it may appear, how innocent, the resolution of the authentick Original of the Old Testament, vvhich I have premised, is, and hovv safely I ground my self, not upon the credit of the Jevvs Copy, but upon all the records vvhereby the Church assureth the Tradition of the Scripture; In that it is freely confes­sed, that the difference of reading vvhich can become questionable, notvvith­standing the superstitious diligence of the Jevvs in preserving their Copy, is nei­ther so frequent, nor any thing so vveighty, as in the Nevv: Which, hovv much more considerable it is tovvards the upholding of our common Christianity, is plain enough, to him that shall have perused but the premises. And surely, vvere it not true, as hath been premised, that a certain Rule of Faith vvas from the beginning delivered to the Church, it vvould seem strange, that wee cannot deny, that there have considerable differences crept into the reading of the New Testament, so much more nearly concerning our salvation than the Old, in the reading whereof, through the diligence of the Jews, there remains no considerable difference. But if wee remember, that S. Paul makes the ministery of Preaching the Gospel, to be the ministery of the Spirit, in opposition to the ministery of Moses in giving the Law, which was the ministe [...]y of the leter, wee shall finde, that Faith, the receiving whereof qualified Christi­ans to be indowed with the Holy Ghost, to be of such sufficience, that, remain­ing intire, wee need not think the Church disparaged, if the records thereof suf­fer decay, so long as the effect of them remains written by the Holy Ghost, in the hearts and lives of Christians. Alwayes, it being unquestionable, that there are considerable differences remaining in the reading of the New Testament, it will be a very great impertinence, to fore-cast any danger, in granting, that some question may be made to the Jews Copy of the Old Testament, though neither so frequent nor so considerable. And all that hath been said hath issue in this [Page 232] consequence, to justifie, and to recommend to the world, the usefulnesse of the design lately set on foot in London, for printing the Bible, with the most ancient and learned Translations in columns; most agreeably to the design of Origen in his Te [...]rapla, Hexapla, and Octapla, that is, Old Testament of four, six, and eight columns, recording the several numbers of Translations or columns, whereof his several Editions consisted. For in a word, this furniture, and that, which serves to the same purpose, (for who will undertake that one book shall contain all?) is the Instrument I appeal to, for evidence of the Scripture which wee have. And further, here is the original means of determining the sense of the same, though, besides this, I have claimed many other helps to be requisite to that purpose.

CHAP. 1. Two parts of that which remains. How the dispute concerning the Holy Trinity with Socinus belongs to the first. The Question of justification by Faith alone. The Opinion of Socinus concerning the whole Covenant of Grace. The opinion of those who make justifying Faith the knowledge of a mans Predestination, op­posite to it in the other extream. The difference between it and that of the Anti­nomians. That there are mean Opinions.

THE greatest difference that is to be discerned, among those things that concern the duty of all Christians, consists in this; that some of them concern Christians as Christians: others, as members of the Church. For though all Christians, as Christians, are bound to be members of the Church, (in as much as it is a part of their profession, to believe one Catholick Church) yet, their obligation, to be Christians, being in or­der of nature and reason, before their obligation to be members of the Church, (because the very being of the Church presuppo­seth all that are members of it to be Christians) that obligation which is ori­ginall and more ancient, must needs be presupposed to that which is grounded upon it. Of what consequence it may be, to distinguish this difference in the matter of Christian duties, will perhaps appear in due time. In the mean I shall freely say my opinion, that all the Divines in the Christian world cannot more pertinently, and to better purpose, comprise the subject which they pro­fesse to be imployed about, then by dividing it into that which concerns Chri­stians as Christians, and, that which concerns them as members of the Church. For mine own present purpose, it is evident that the disputes which divide us do concern, either the state of particular Christians towards God, or the obli­gation they have to other Christians as members of the Church. So that, the matter which I propose to my insuing discourse is sufficiently comprised in two heads; one, of the Covenant of Grace; the other, of the Laws of the Church. I know it may be said, that the heresie of Socinus is of the number of those that have footing among us, and, that the principal point of it, concerning the faith of the holy Trinity, comes not properly under either of these heads. And I deny not that it is very dangerous for us in regard of two points, that have so great vogue among us: The first is the cleare sufficience of the Scriptures, commonly passing so without any limits, that it seems to follow of good right, that what is not clear out of the Scriptures to all understandings, cannot be necessary for the salvation of all Christians to believe: So that no man can be bound, to take that for an Article of his Faith, against which they [Page 2] can show him arguments out of the Scriptures, which he cannot clearly assoile. The other is, that they put it in the power of Christians to erect Churches at their pleasure (though supposing the Faith which Socinus teacheth, and pre­tending to serve God according to the same) without communion with, or ob­ligation of dependance one upon another, either in the Rule of Faith, or ser­vice of God according to it, wherein they may seem elder brothers to those who have put the like principle in practice among us, though without suppo­sing any other Rule of Faith, then that which every Church so constituted shall agree to take for the sense of the Scriptures. Now, how soon it may come into the mind and agreement of a Church so constituted, to take up the profession of Socinus for the Rule of their Faith, I leave them that are capable to judge, if yet we have no experience of it. But I have observed by reading Socinus his Book de Christo Servatore (one of the first, if not the first of all the Books whereby he declared his heresie) that being extreamly offended at his adver­saries opinion, he seems to have been thereby occasioned to fall upon another extream, of denying the satisfaction of Christ: and so, by degrees, his Godhead, as the only peremptory principle to destroy the satisfaction of Christ, and by consequence as well that reason of the Covenant of Grace which the Church, as that which his adversary maintaineth. Conceiving then, his error about the Covenant of Grace to have occasioned his error in the Faith of the holy Tri­nity, I conceive I shall handle the chiefe Controversies in Religion that divide the Church at present (according to the title of my Book) though I maintain not the faith of the Trinity against Socinus, otherwise then as the mainte­nance of the Covenant of Grace, grounded upon the satisfaction of Christ, (as that upon his Godhead) shall require. Another reason I had, because this Heresie seems to be too learned to become popular among us, though branches of it may come to have vogue. For though there hath been but too much, either of wit or Learning, imployed in framing the Scriptures to the sense of it, in the chiefe points of Christianity; Yet is it hard to make the vul­gar understanding not onely of hearers, but of teachers, such as these times allow, capable of that sense, to which they have framed the most eminent pas­sages of the Scriptures, and the grounds of it, together with the consent and agreement of the severall points of Christianity among themselves, according to it. Upon this consideration, I charge not my selfe with the maintenance of the Faith of the holy Trinity, otherwise then as the consideration thereof shall be incident to resolve the nature of the Covenant of Grace, which is the first part of my purpose.

Therefore (that a few words may propose many and great difficulties) from whence it comes, and what it is, that renders Christians acceptabe to God, sand heirs of everlasting life, who, as men, are his enemies by sinne here, and [...]ubjects of his wrath in the world to come; this I conceive to be the sum of what we are to inquire: Concerning, in the first place, that disposition of mind, which qualifies a man for those blessings which the Gospel tenders, upon that condition which the Covenant of Grace requires: and in the second place, whether this disposition be brought to passe in us by the free Grace of God, and the helps which it provides, or by the force of nature: that is, by that light of understanding, and that freedom of choice, which necessarily proceeds from the principles of mans nature. It is well enough known, how great dis­pute there is between them that professe the Reformation and the Church of Rome, whether a man be justified before God in Christ, by Faith alone, or by Faith and Works both,▪ speaking of actuall righteousnesse; or, if we speak of habituall righteousnesse, by Faith and Love. For, though the whole Garland of supernaturall vertues concurrs to the habituall righteousnesse of Christians, which is universall to all objects & actions: Yet, seeing the reason of them all is derived from that which Faith believeth, and the intent of all refer­red to that service of God which love constraineth, where Faith and Love are named, there the rest may well be understood. Whether Faith alone there­fore, or Faith and love, so much the parties must, in dispite of them, remaine [Page 3] agreed in, that there is some disposition, or act of mans mind, required by the Covenant of Grace, as the condition that qualifieth a man, at least for so much of that Promise which the Gospel tendreth, as justification importeth. But this being supposed and granted it may and must be disputed, in what considera­tion it qualifieth for the same: Which is, to make short, whether the inward worth of that disposition, whatsoever it shall prove to be, oblige Al­mighty God to reward it with that which the Gospel promiseth: Or whether, in consideration of the obedience of Christ, performed in doing the message which he undertook, of reconciling Man unto God, he hath been pleased to proraise that reward, which is without comparison more then can be due to that disposition which he requires, as the condition to qualifie us for the promise.

Here must I relate the position of the Socinians, concerning the intent of Christs comming: Not to purchase at Gods hands those helps of Grace which inable Christians to become qualified, for the promise which the Gospel tendreth, which the Church, with S. Austin in the dispute with the Pelagians, cals therefore the Grace of Christ: Not to reconcile us to God, in the nature of a meritorious cause, his obedience being the consideration, for which God accepteth that disposition, which qualifies us for the promise of the Gospel, as the condition upon which he tenders it: But to yield us sufficient reason, both to perswade us of the truth of his message, (as by the rest of his works, so especially by rising again from the dead) and also to induce us to imbrace the Gospel, by assuring us of the fulfilling of that promise to us, which we see so eminently performed in him, by that height to which we believe him to be exalted; and then having induced us to undertake the Gospel of Christ to secure us, both of protection against the enemies thereof here, by that power which he that went before us in it hath obtained for that purpose, and of our crown at the judgement to come. And all this, not in any consideration of the merits and sufferings of Christ, but of Gods free Grace, which alone moved him to deale with us by Christ, to this effect, and to propose a reward so unpropor­tionable to our performance, which would not redound to the account of his free Grace, if it should be thought to have been purchased, either by the satisfa­ction of Christ, in regard of our sins to be redeemed, or by his merits, in regard of the reward to be purchased. As for the matter of Justification by Faith alone, it is to be observed, that Socinus is obliged by the premises to understand that Grace, for which the Gospel is called The Covenant of Grace, to be no Grace of Christ: that is to say, not given out of any consideration of his merits and sufferings, which they neither acknowledge to have been tendred by our Lord, nor accepted by the Father, to any such effect or purpose. But nothing hinders him therefore to acknowledge it the Grace of God; that is a meere grant of his free goodnesse, whatsoever condition he require thereby, to qualifie him that imbraces it for the promises which it tenders, provided it be such as he that it is tendred to can accomplish. For, that Faith which alone justifieth according to S. Paul, he maketh to consist in believing the Truth of Christianity, and sincerely indeavouring to bring forth the fruits thereof, out of a grounded confidence of obtaining the said promises. And that in consideration hereof, those that thus believe are counted righteous before God; that is treated as if they had been originally righteous, and not sinners before they came to believe. As for the Sacrament of Baptism, making no more of a Church, then of an arbitrary Society, of so many as agree to serve God together in the same Faith, it is no marvel if he make it a meer Ceremony, the use whereof was during the time of the Disciples of our Lord, and the conversion of Jews and Gentiles to Christianity by their preaching, to signifie the purifying of them by that Faith, to which they professed thereby to be converted: which intent ceasing in those, who being born of Christian Parents, were never tainted with the filthinesse, either of Jewes or Gentiles, by consequence, that ceremony, though it may freely be used by Christians, in the nature of a thing indifferent, yet ought not to carry that opinion, as if any mans salvation depended upon it.

And having related this opinion, I must relate another opposite to this in another extream, which is the opinion of those that hold that Faith which alone justifieth, to consist in believing, that a man is predestinated by God to life from everlasting, as being of the number of them whom Christ was sent to redeem, exclusively to the rest of Mankind: And that therefore the whole consideration for which this Faith justifieth, is the obedience of Christ, im­puted unto them which are of th [...]s number, upon no other account, then the eternall purpose of God to give him for them alone, whereby his sufferings are theirs in Law, as much as if they had been performed by themselves, the condition of Faith serving only, to limit a qualification, without which this purpose availeth them not, being limited to take place, from the time that this purpose of God is revealed unto them, the revelation whereof, they suppose to be that Faith which alone justifieth. Who they are that maintain this opinion, I will not here dispute, which I intend to show cause, why it is to be thought so ill of, that I could with, that no man that is called a Christian would own it: And perhaps many of those, who, either expresly, or in effect do hold it, do withall hold other points, which indeed and in effect, are contradictions to it: Neither can I say, that our Presbyterians are parties in it; but this I say, that this is the opinion, in opposi [...]ion to which Socinus brought in the Opinion hitherto described, voiding the Grace and satisfaction of Christ, by declining to the other extream, as any man may see, that with a little care shall peruse the fourth part of his Book De Christo Servator [...], Cap. III. IX. X. And therefore I conceive, I may justly infer, that to maintain this extremity (which he not consulting the Catholick Church and the Faith thereof, thought necessary to the voyding of that other extream, which he found inconsistent with the principles of Christianity) he proceeded so far, as to deny any Godhead, any being of Christ, before his birth of the Virgin: taking away, by consequence, that reason and ground both of satisfaction for sin, and of merit of Grace which the Church ascribeth to his obedience and sufferings, and placeth the Godhead of Christ (which he acknowledgeth so far, as to tender him the worship that is proper to God, at least in some circumstances) in that height of eminence to which God hath exalted him, for undertaking and performing the Commission of reconciling Man to God, though bound to it as a meer man, and Gods Creature before he undertooke it. And thus you see, how that part of Socinus his Heresie, in denying the Faith of the Holy Trinity, indirectly commeth in, to the question of the Covenant of Grace: Seeing it is manifest to the sence of all men▪ that had he not questioned the Godhead of Christ, there had been no pretence, of bringing the Faith of the Trinity into any dispute.

But of what consequence, this opinion concerning Justifying Faith and the nature of it is, to the substance of Christianity, it will be time to consider, when I have shewed why it is not true: In the mean, I shall note here another opinion, differing in somewhat, but agreeing in much with this which I take to be the opinion of our Antinomians, but shall not be much troubled, if any man shall dispute that I mistake it. For seeing them so full with a blas­phemous conceit of Gods Spirit, that they would think it a disparagement to it, to be tied to any dispute of reason, (though upon supposition of the Christian Faith) to distinguish between principles and conclusions, to infer a certaine position from certain grounds, even of Scripture; I cannot think it any great imputation to misunderstand them, whose perfection it is not to understand themselves. For when I name Antinomians, I intend to comprise in, the opinion which I refute, all our Anabaptists, all our Familists, all our Enthusiasts and Quakers, all Sectaries whatsoever, that do believe them­selves possessed of the Spirit, not presupposing, not only the beliefe of that Faith which is necessary to the salvation of all Christians, but also whatsoever else it shall appear, that the condition of the Covenant of Grace importeth. The having of Gods Spirit, as it inferreth a right to everlasting life; so, suppo­sing whatsoever the Covenant of Grace importeth.

But by the noise which they make with the free Grace of God, and the Cove­nant of Grace, I conceive, the main of their position lies, in one step beyond that extream, which I described even now, in opposition to Socinus; That we are justified by the obedience of Christ, performed for them, for whom God appointed it, and therefore imputed to them from everlasting, by vertue of that appointment made from everlasting, but revealed to them by that faith, whereby they know themselves to be elected to life from everlasting, not de­pending upon the revelation thereof, but the revelation upon the being of it. And, upon this ground it is, that they say; that God sees not, nor can see sin in his Elect, that all their sins are pardoned before they are done, and that there is no mortall sin but repentance, implying the want of saving faith, with which no sin can stand, nor any thing be but sin without it, and the like blasphemies innume­rable.

I know there are other Opinions of Justification by faith alone among those that professe it, according to the senses which they may have, of the nature of justifying faith, and those perhaps of greater vogue, than this which I have named: Neither is it my intent to involve those that maintain Justification by faith alone in the blame, which I charge the opinions hitherto described with. The reason why I mention these opinions here is, because they are in the extreams, and therefore the mention of them seemed to propose the state of that question, which I pretend to resolve. For my way shall be, in the first place, to answer the question proposed, concerning that disposition which the Covenant of Grace requireth the mind of him to be formally affected with, that will be qualified for the promises which God therby tendreth: Making this account, that the treating of it will give us an overture, into the consideration, both of the effective cause, that produceth it in those that have it, and also of the meritorius cause that moveth God, both originally to grant the said ef­fective cause, and consequently to accept the effect thereof, for a competent qualification of them that have it, for the promises which God by his Gospel tendreth those that receive it▪

CHAP. II. Evidence what is the Condition of the Covenant of Grace. The contract of Bap­tism. The promise of the Holy Ghost annexed to Christs, not to Johns Baptism. Those are made Christs Disciples as Christians that take up his Crosse in Bap­tism. The effects of Baptism according to the Apostles.

TO proceed to as brief and as clear a resolution of that point as I can pro­pose, I say; That a sincere and resolute profession to undertake Chri­stianity, and to live according to it (believing as our Lord Christ hath revealed, and living as he hath taught) consigned to God in the hands of his Church, by the Sacrament of Baptism, is that condition which the Covenant of Grace requireth, to qualifie us for the promises which it ten­dreth. This resolution is directly against the Antinomians, and those that believe that a Christian is justified by the obedience of Christ, imputed from everlasting to them whom he came to save; Which indeed nullifieth the Cove­nant of Grace, and converteth it to a meer promise on Gods part, requiring no condition on mans part to be performed by him, to qualifie h [...]m for it. But, this resolution opposing that conceit so roundly, as positively to expresse the condition which I intend to maintain; It will serve, both against the conceit of Socinus, that justifying faith is nothing but a firm beliefe, that those who believed the Gospel purposing to live as God requireth, are accepted by him as righteous, Baptisme into the profession of Christianity not inclu­ded. But also of those, that will have it to consist in the knowledge of our being predestinate to life from everlasting, revealed by Gods word, and sealed [Page 6] by his Spirit. The proofs of it I will divide into three heads: For, consisting of so many branches as you see, it cannot be expected, that those Scriptures which shall serve to evidence it, should every where expresse all the parts of it. It is enough if the severall parts of it, out of which the whole results, be de­monstrable by severall ranks of Scriptures. The first of those Scriptures that concern the profession which God, by our Lord Christ, requireth (and he by his Apostles, and the Church after them to the worlds end) of them that will be qualified for the Promises which the Gospel tondreth: which I put in the first place, expresly, because they seem to contain the most visible and express ar­guments, that the principles and practice of Christianity can yield, to inforce this truth. The second shall be taken from the nature of faith, and the attri­butes ascribed to it by the Scriptures, in justifying, saving, regenerating, or adopting us for sons, giving us the spirit of Gods sons, remitting our sins, and the rest that we expect at Gods hands by vertue of his Covenant of Grace. The last shall be from those passages, of the Apostles chiefly, and consequently of other Scriptures that they expound, wherein it is denied, that we are saved, or justified by Works, or by the Law; but affirmed that we are saved and justified by Grace and by faith: The due sence and intent whereof is the thread, to guide us through the intricacies of this whole dispure. Though, when this is done, I shall not wish any man to resolve himself, in this, or in any other point of the whole book, till he hath gone through the whole, and considered what resolution this generall infers, to all other branches or depen­dances of it; And therefore shall think he does nothing, that goes about to disprove any part of it, without shewing the resolution, which his opinion infers, to those other points or dependances, that the Reader may have the choice before him, which he thinks most consequent, in reason, to the principles of Christianity received on all sides.

I will begin with the words of the Apostle, 1 Pet. III. 20, 21. where this seems to be couched in terminis: He saith, that the long suffering of God waited in the dayes of Noe, while the Arke was making, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved: the antitype whereof, Baptism, now saveth us, (not the laying down of the filth of the flesh, but the having of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The water of Baptism saveth us through the temtations of the World, as they were saved through the deluge: And what can be done more then to save us? let no man think to defeat this. by striving about words, that, to save, and to justifie, is not the same: If Bap [...]ism import the condition of the Covenant of Grace which saveth us, our justification will necessarily be wrapt up in the same packet, though to justifie and to save be severall conceits. And is it not strange that any man should be perswaded, that there is nothing said or meant of the Baptism of water in all this passage, but of the Baptism of the Spirit, as that which moves a good conscience to professe Christianity? For, how can Baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire be the antitype of the waters of the deluge, as the Baptism of water is, and as that Baptism which the Apostle speaks of is? The correspondence be­tween the types of the Old, and the antitypes of the New Testament, by vertue of the premises consists, in the correspondence between the temporall delive­rance of that time and the spirituall deliverance of this, both in order to the everlasting deliverance of the World to come. Now it is certain, that the visible Ceremony of Baptism signifies the temptations of this World, out of which we escape, by the means of that Sacrament, as he that is baptized rises out of the water again. According to that of the Psalm LXIX. 1, 15. Save me, O God, for the waters are come in even unto my soul. And, Let not the water-stood drown me, neither let the deep swallow me up: And let not the pit shut her mouth upon me. And XLII. 9. One deep calleth another, because of the noise of thy water-pipes: All thy waves and billows are gone over me. Whereupon S. Paul Romans VI. 3, 4, 5, Know ye not, that as many as have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death? We are therefore buried with him by baptism into death, that as Christ was raised from the dead by the [Page 7] glory of the Father, so we should also walk in newnesse of life. For if we have been planted into the like death of his, then shall we be also into the like of his rising again. For when he saith again, Rom. X. 7. Who shall go down into the deep; to wit, to bring up Christ from the dead? He sheweth plainly, that by the waters of the deep, he understands death: whereby I suppose it appears sufficiently, that the water of Baptism, not the fire of the Holy Ghost, is the antitype to the waters of the deluge. Besides, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is not called Baptism, but by resemblance of the fire thereof infusing it self into all the soul, as the whole body is drenched in the waters of baptism. Therefore it is not cal­led absolutely Baptism, but with an addition abating the property of the sense, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire. Therefore where the term Bap­tism stands without this addition, or any circumstance signifying the same, it cannot be understood. Again, the interrogating of a good conscience, [...] signifies, as all men of learning agree, metonymically, or by Synecdoche, the answer, or rather the stipulation, consisting of the in­terrogatories of Baptism, and the answer returned by him that is baptized, undertaking to believe and to live like a Christian. For it is manifest, that it Fath been alwayes the custom in the Church of God, as still in the Church of England, (which S. Peter here shews that it comes down from the Apostles) to exact of him that is baptized, a solemn vow, promise, or contract, to stand to that which he undertaketh. And this it is which the word [...] here signifies, whereof he that doubts, may see enough in Grotius his Annotations to make him ashamed to doubt any more. When therefore S. Peter saith, that Baptism saveth us, not the doing away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, he does not intend to distinguish the Baptism of water from the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, in opposition to the same; But to distinguish in the Baptism of water, the bodily act of cleansing the flesh, from the reasonable act of professing Christianity, which, being done out of a good conscience towards God, he saith, saveth us; And that by the resurre­ction of Jesus Christ: By vertue whereof S. Paul also saith, that, if we planted into the like death to Christs death, we shall also be planted into the like resur­rection of Christs; Supposing that whosoever is baptized takes upon him the profession of Christs Crosse, that is the bearing of it, when his Christianity cals him to it. For when our Lord saith in the Gospel, I have a Baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitned till it be accomplished? Luk. XII. 50. And again to the sons of Zebedee, Mat. XX 22. Are ye able to be baptized with the Baptism which I shall be baptized with? He shews sufficiently that his Baptism is his Crosse. In consideration whereof, that is, of undertaking to bear it, out of a good conscience, as Christ was raised from death to life again, by the Spirit of Holinesse, which dwelt in him without measure; So those that are planted into the likenesse of Christs death in Baptism, are promised the Grace of Gods Spirit to dwell in them, and to raise them from sin here, to the life of Grace; and from death hereafter to the life of Glory in the world to come, as I shewed you in the first Book. So that S. Pauls argument proceeds not upon consideration of the Ceremony of Baptism, and the naturall resemblance it hath with the duty of a Christian, to rise from sin, because he professes to die to it: For that were to think, that the Apostles have but weak argumens to inforce the obligation of Christianity with, when this prime one is made to signifie no more then an indecorisne, impertinence, or inconsequence in, signify­ing and professing that by our Baptism, which by our lives we perform not. But, maketh Baptism the protestation of a solemn vow and promise, to God and men and Angels, to live for the future, as the profession of Christians im­porteth. And is it possible to show man, overtaken in sin, a more valuable consideration to expect salvation upon, (and therefore a stronger means to in­force the performance of what he hath undertaken) then his own ingagement upon such a consideration as that? We are therefore baptized with Christ un­to death, because we have undertaken, upon our Baptism, to mortifie our selves to the world, that we may live to Gods service: And upon that condition, we [Page 8] promise our selves, that we shall be raised from the dead again, though by ver­tue of Christs rising again: Being buried with him in Baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him, by faith of the effectuall working of God, which raised him from the dead, saith S. Paul, Col. II. 12. For, by obliging our selves to the profession of Christianity, from a good heart and clear conscience, we obtain the promise of the Holy Ghost, whereby God effecteth the raising of us to a new life of righteousnesse, necessarily consequent to the mortifying of sinne.

Besides these, how many and how excellent effects are attributed to Baptism, in the writings of the Apostles? which, without S. Peters distinction, might seem strange, that they should depend upon the clensing of the flesh; but, that they should, by Gods appointment, depend upon that ingagement, whereby we give our selvs up to Christ for the future, according to his distinction, not at all. For, that this ingagement should not be effectuall, till consigned unto the Church at Baptism, cannot seem strange to him that believes the Catholick Church to be, as I have shewed, a corporation founded for the maintenance and exercise of that Christianity, to which we ingage our selves by Baptism.

When the Jewes were pricked in heart to see our Lord, whom they had cru­cified, to be risen again, and asked the Apostles, Men and Brethren, What shall we doe? Acts II. 37, 38. Peter saith unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, unto remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Which, if it depend upon Baptism, what promise of the Gospel is there that does not? To the same purpose, Heb. VI. 6. It is impossible for them that have once been inlightned, and tasted the heavenly gift, and become partakers of the Holy Ghost: Where you see, that upon inlightning, that is Baptism, we become partakers of the Holy Ghost. And this consideration utterly voides the only reason why our Lord, when he sayes to Nicodemus. John III. 5. Veri­ly verily I say unto thee, unlesse a man be born again of wa [...]er and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God; should not seem to speak of the Sacrament of Baptism. For at that time. neither was the Sacrament of Baptism instituted, nor the promise of the Holy Ghost annexed to it. The Holy Ghost, that is to say, the gift of the Holy Ghost, is no where promised be­fore the ascension of Christ. For, besides that which I alledged in the begin­ning, to show, that it presupposeth Christianity; When it is said, John VII. 37. The Holy Ghost was not yet, because Christ was not yet glorified: The de­pendance thereof, upon the glorifying of our Lord is plainly expressed. And that according to S. Paul, Ephes IV. 8. 12. Shewing out of Psal. LXVIII. 18. that the graces of the Holy Ghost, by which the Church is united and compa­cted into one Body, are sent down by God, as a largess, in consideration of the advancement of our Lord to the right hand of God, as in honour of that triumph: Wherewith agreeth S. Peter, Acts II. 33. Being then exalted to (or by) the right hand of God, and having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, (as it is also called, Acts X. 54.) he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Now let any man say, that these visible operations of Holy Ghost, (where­by the world was to be convinced of the presence of God in the Church of Christians) these indeed depend upon the ascension of Christ: But, without the invisible operation of the Holy Ghost no man ever to salvation from the beginning; (supposing this for the present, but not granting it, if any man that is a Christian demand proof for it) Though this be true, yet it was not ex­presly promised by God, nor expresly Covenanted for by man, till the pub­lishing of Christianity upon the ascension of Christ. Therefore, the Baptism of repentance which John preached, was without question effectuall, to the re­mission of sins, as the Gospels propose it, Mark I. 4. Luke III. 3 For if I maintain the salvation of those, who, living under the Law, understood the Covenant of Grace to be folded up in it, by the preaching of the Prophets, much more easily can I maintain the salvation of those, who have imbraced the Baptism of Repentance for remission of sins. which Jo [...]n Preached, provided that they came to Christ, to whom John Baptist sent his Disciples so soon as [Page 9] the command of Christianity should take place, and not otherwise. But, not by vertue of the Covenant of Grace published, which it was not to be till the ascention of Christ, but by vertue of the Covenant of Grace vailed under the Law, which was not unvailed as yet, during the time of passage from the Law to the Gospel, when the baptism of John might take place. Neither was the baptism of John in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, which baptism our Lord never established till after his rising again, Mat. XXVIII. 19. but in the name of him that was comming, as S. Paul saith to the Disciples Acts XIX. 4. John truly baptised the baptism of repentance, saing to the people, that they should believe on him that was comming after him, that is in Christ Jesus: which words, some have endeavoured to set upon the rack, and to pull them from those which follow; but they hearing this, were bapti­zed in the name of the Lord Jesus, as if they were not S. Lukes words, but S. Pauls speaking of S. John's hearers, that they were baptized by him in the name of the Lord Jesus. A thing altogether unreasonable to imagine, that the Disciples of John should make a question, whether our L. Jesus were the Christ or not, as Mat. XI. 2. Luke VII. 18. if they had been from the beginning baptized in his Name. And the words might have served to represse this conceit, in them that had submitted to take the meaning from the words, For it is, [...], not [...], which their meaning (were it the meaning of the text) would require. Nor is it strange, that they who had been bap­tized into the profession of admitting him that was comming for the Christ, in hope by him to have remission of sins, as their Fathers had alwayes hoped, acknowledging our Lord Jesus not only to be the Christ, but further, sent by the Father to send the Holy Ghost, should be baptized again in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For the receiving of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of S. Pauls hands, which followeth in S. Luke, is sufficient evi­dence, that it is the baptism of Christ, and not of John Baptist, whereof he speaketh.

Let us hear, then, the Commission of our Lord Christ to his Apostles, Mat. XXVIII. 19. Go make Disciples all Nation; babtizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. [...] in Greek, in the Syriack [...] from [...] & [...], if we insist upon the property of the word must necessarily signifie make Disciples. But who are Christs Disciples? Those that take up his Crosse to follow him: Those that will do whatsoever he commandeth: Those that bear much fruit: Those of whom our Lord saith, John VIII. 34. If ye abide in my Word, then are ye truly my Disciples. As I shewed you before, speaking of the profession of Christianity. This before Christs death, and the institution of Baptism. Afterwards, who are his Disci­ples, Acts XI. 26. It came to passe that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antivchia. First at Antiochia; but afterwards, all over that Book, as well as afore, they are oftner called Disciples then Christians. Neither is the name given to any but Christians, saving those Disciples which I spoke of just now, who, under the baptism of John, had given up themselves to our Lord Jesus as the Christ, but through invincible ignorance, knew not yet that the gift of the Holy Ghost presupposed Christs Baptism, being ready, as we see, to receive it, so soon as they understood it, by the means of S. Paul. Now there is nothing more manifest, than, that the gift of the holy Ghost is promised by our Lord in the Gospel to supply the want of his bodily presence, and therefore, when he declared unto them his departure, and not much afore it. Which things, if they be true, of necessity the promise of the Holy Ghost is annexed to the precept of being baptized, given by our Lord at his departure, and from that time to take place. Neither is the meaning of his commission in the words alledged, that they should first teach, and then baptize; (though teach­ing that which Christianity professeth is necessarily presupposed to baptizing, namely, that Catechising which I spoke of afore) but that they should make men Disciples, by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, limiting thereby, the quality of Disciples, to which the Holy Ghost is [Page 10] promised, to those who should have received the Sacrament of Baptism, and so been made Disciples. Seeing then it appears so plentifully, that the Gift of the Holy Ghost, promised by our Lord, a little before his departure, to supply his bodily presence, is limited by him to the Sacrament of Baptisme, Of necessity, that new birth by Water and the Holy Ghost, which our Lords words to Nicodemus require, of all that shall enter into the Kingdom of hea­heaven, dependeth upon the Sacrament of Baptism, whatsoever Nicodemus might understand by the terme of water, at the time when our Lord spake them, and this promise was not published. Of which I shall have occasion to say more in another place. Neither will is be to the purpose, to object, that it is the actuall assistance, and not the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost, that regenerateth (supposing for the present, but not granting that which all that pretend to Christianity do not acknowledge) and therefore that the promise of the Holy Ghost, to succeed upon Baptism, no way obligeth us to under­stand that water, which, with the Holy Ghost, regenerateth, of the water of Baptism; For, the actuall assistance of the Holy Ghost, regenerating a man to become a Christian, may well be understood to go before the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost, upon Baptism. And in my opinion is to be understood, when our Lord goes on and saies; That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Marvell not that I said unto thee; ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it lifteth, and ye hear the noise of it, but cannot tell whence it commeth, nor whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Holy Ghost. And therefore what shall hinder water and the Holy Ghost to signifie one and the same thing in this place, the cleansing vertue and operation of the Holy Ghost, being often signified under the figure of Wa­ter in the Scriptures? So that Water and the Spirit may well stand here for no more than the Spirit that cleanseth; I say all this will not serve the turn. For, the habituall gift of the Holy Ghost, being promised Christs Disciples upon his departure to inable them to make good what they undertake by being h [...]s Disciples: it is manifest, that the actuall assistance of the holy Ghost, regene­rating to Christianity, only prepares the way for it. Seeing then, that the gift of the Holy Ghost depends upon the Water of Baptisme, it is manifest, that the cleansing vertue of Gods Spirit, in the new birth of sinners, comes not to effect without the same.

I will further draw into consequence those texts of Scripture which I alledg­ed in the first book, to show, that there was a certain Rule of Christianity de­livered by the Apostles, and acknowledged by them that undertook to be Christians, for there are some of them that signifie plain enough, that this acknowledgment was made at their baptism, as the condition which it praesup­posed. When S. Paul thanketh God for the Romans that they had obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine which had been delivered them, Rom. VI. 17. What is this obeying from the heart, but that answer, or stipulation of a good conscience towards God in Baptism, which S. Peter saith, saveth us, as you have seen? And S. Paul to Timothy. 1 Tim. VI. 12. 13. Fight the good fight of Faith, lay hold of eternall life, to which also thou wast called, and madest a good profession before many witnesses. I charge thee before God that quickeneth all things, and Christ Jesus that witnessed the good Profession under Pontius Pi­late, that thou keep the command unspotted and blamelesse, unto the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. What profession was it that our Lord died to witnesse, but, that he was ordained by God, the King of them whom he was sent with the Gospel to save? in regard whereof he is called by the Apostle Hebr. III. 2. the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession; Because he bore the Crosse afore us, to witnesse that righteous cause▪ which we are to maintain by bearing the same. And what is that profession which Timothy made afore many wit­nesses, but that of bearing Christs cross when he was baptized? And what is the commandement which he is charged to keep unspotted and blamelesse, but that Christianity which he became charged with at his Baptism? Wherefore when S. John alledgeth an Unction from the Holy one, even our Lord Christ, [Page 11] which teacheth Christians all things, so that they need not be taught to avoid the Heresies of that time, because they knew the truth; hut withall chargeth them to abide in that which they had learned from the beginning, and in that Unction which teacheth them all things: He sheweth us manifestly, that the Unction of the Holy Ghost is granted by our Lord Christ to teach us all things which we have learned; To wit, that we be not seduced from that which we have learned from the beginning of our Christianity. Now, as it hath ap­peared, that this Christianity was then learned and acknowledged in order to Baptism, so likewise, that the gift of the Holy Ghost dependeth upon the same. Otherwise, what shall we say to S. Peter ascribing remission of sins to Baptism, Acts 11. 38? What shall we say to Ananias exhorting S. Paul, Acts XXII. 16. Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord? What shall we say to S. Paul, affirming that, as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal. III. 27. and that those that are baptized into Christ, are baptized into his death, Rom. VI. 4. Which is to say, that God on his part granteth them power to perform that which they on their part professe to undertake? And again Eph. V. 25, 26. Christ gave himselfe for his Church, that he might sanctifie it, by cleansing it with the laver of water through the Word. And again, Titus III. 5, 6. Not by works of righteousnesse which we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of rege­neration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he powred upon us plentifully, through our Saviour Jesus Christ. And the Apostle to the Hebrews X. 21, 22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts cleansed from evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water, let us hold fast the profession of faith, without declining from it. what starting hole is here left for him that had a mind to prefer his own prejudices before the Word of God, to avoid the evidence of these testimonies, for the con­currence of Baptism to the qualifying of a Christian for the promises of the Gospel? What room is there left, so to interpret and understand Justifica­tification by Faith alone, or the nature of that Faith which alone justifieth, that a man may be thought to be ingrafted into Christ by a living faith, before and without being baptized? He that admitteth S. Peters distinction shall not need to marvel, that God should appoint the cleansing of the soul to depend upon the washing of the body, seeing the profession of true Christianity, ob­liging him that is baptized both to God and to his Church (the power of bap­tizing into which is the power of remitting sins by the keys of the Church, as I proved in due place) by the same appointment annexed to the same. And upon this ground it is that S. Paul says, 1 Tim. V. 8. that he who provides not for his own, especially for his Family, hath denied the Faith, and is worse than an Infidel. Because that Christianity to which he is tied by his baptism obliges him to it. And the Apostles Jude 4. 2. Pet. II. II. affirm, that the Gnosticks did deny the Lord Jesus Christ that bought them: who certainly renounced not the profession of Christians which they counterfeited, but lived not according to it. Whereupon we read in S. Paul of those that retain a fashion of godlinesse, but deny the power of it, 2 Tim. III. 5. And that professe to know God (doubt­lesse as Christians, if of Titus his charge) but deny it by their works, Titus I. 16.

CHAP. III. The exhortations of the Apostles, that are drawn from the patterns of the Old Testament, suppose the same. How the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament are the same, how not the same. How the New Testament and the New Covenant are both one. The free-will of man acteth the same part in dealing about the New-Covenant, as about the Old. The Gospel a Law.

BEsides all this, I argue the same from the Old Testament, as the passages of it are imployed and expounded by our Lord and his Apostles in the New. S. Paul inforceth the observing and fulfilling of our Christian profession, specially not to communicate in the worship of Idols, thus: 1 Cor. X. 6. 11. These things came to passe for patterns to us, that we should not lust for evil things, as they also lusted: Nor be Idolaters, as some of them; As it is writ­ten; The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Nor go a whoring, as some of them did, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Nor tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by Serpents. Nor mur­mur, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happenned to them for figures, and are written for our warning, on whom the ends of the world are come. If these things fell out to the Fathers, that they might be figures for Christians, and that they were punished for transgressing the Covenant which they had made with God, is it not manifest, that the punishments which the Apostle threatneth Christians with, must come, for transgressing the second Covenant of Grace, which the Gospel introduceth (consider again the Apostles argument Hebr. III. 7-13. Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, to day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as at the pro­vocation, in the day of temptation in the wildernesse, where your Fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years, wherefore I was wroth with that generation, and said, They always erre in heart, and know not my wayes, So that I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my rest. take heed, brethren, that there be not in any of you an evil heart of unbeliefe, in departing from the living God: But exhort one another every day, while it is called to day that none of you be hardned with the deceit of sin. It is manifest, that his intent is, to warn them of the crime of Apostasie, in renouncing Christianity, for the persecutions which the Jewes then followed them with, as the whole Epistle witnesseth, and here the very terms of an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God, do evidence. And therefore in the end of the Chapter; Who did he swear should not enter into his rest, but those that were disobedient? And we see they could not enter for unbelief. [...], those that were dis­obedient to Gods Law, which they had plighted their Faith to keep, could not enter into his rest of the Land of Promise, [...], for unbelief, or unfaith­fulnesse whether you will. Therefore they that depart from God, having un­dertaken the profession of Christianity, shall not enter into his everlasting rest of the Kingdome of Heaven, whether for unbelief, or unfaithfulnesse, For, as they are disloyall to their Promise, so, by Apostasie, they fall into the condition of Infidels. Can this Argument proceed upon any other terms? And, proceeding upon these, doth it not suppose an ingagement claiming loyalty? Is not the rest of Christians, which he mentioneth, as clearly the Kingdom of Heaven, as the rest whereof the Psalm speaks was the Land of promise? wherefore he inferreth upon the words quoted; For we are become partakers of Christ, if we hold the ground of our confidence, or the principle of our expectation firm to the end. The ground of a Christians confidence, or, that from whence his expectation of the promise commences, which he cals [...], being nothing else but the condition which he undertaketh, upon supposition of Gods promise. Wherefore S. Paul thus inferreth the warning [Page 13] afore rehearsed, 1 Cor. X 1.-5. Now I would not have you ignorant. Bre­thren, that our Fathers were all under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and all were baptized into Moses, in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and all ate the same spirituall meat, and drank the same spirituall drink. For, they drank of the spirituall Rock that followed them: now the Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased; For they were felled in the Wildernesse. Did you ever read in the Old Testament that the Israelites were baptized, because they passed the Sea, under the Cloud, without a drop of water to wet them with? But, this we read, that God, by Moses, had delivered them, and thereupon they agree to leave Aegypt under his conduct. Hereupon infucs the drowning of their enemies in the red Sea, while they are protected thereby, with the Cloud also over their heads. This therefore was the beginning of that Peoples ingagement to God, under the conduct of Moses; Which though by & by they departed from at Marah, and elsewhere, mutiny­ing against Moses, yet being reconciled to God by his patience and goodness in fulfilling their desires, they also tooke upon themselves to obey him, and to keep the the Sabbath, Exod. XV. 25, 26. XVI. 27, 28, 29. Untill being come to Monnt Sinai, they received the Decalogue, and afterward the whole Law, as it was renewed by Moses a little before his death, though, in effect, they had submitted to whatsoever should be required in Gods name by Moses, when they passed the red Sea, under his conduct. Only it is to be observed, that the Covenant of Circumcision, which God had made with Abraham, when he gave him the Land of Promise, remained for their Title to it, when the promise thereof became limited by the Law; Which limitation, because they submitted to by leaving Aegypt under the conduct of Moses, and, being shadowed by the Cloud, saw their enemies drowned in the red Sea, therefore are they elegantly said by S. Paul, to be baptized into Moses, in the Cloud, and in the Sea. For if, being redeemed from the Aegypt of this world, we undertake to leave it under the conduct of our Lord Christ; If, hereupon, our sins be drowned in the waters of Baptism; Were not they baptized in the same sense, as we passe the red Sea at our comming out of Aegypt? But both upon supposition of the correspondence between the two Testaments, without which, all this ar­gument could neither have force nor relish. And therefore I cannot but ad­mire, to see men learned in the Scriptures to maintain by this place, that the Sacraments of the Old Testament are the same with the Sacraments of the New; Not distinguishing, whether immediatly, or by way of correspondence. For, if you make the Kingdom of Heaven and the Land of Promise all a thing, then is Baptism, and the passage of the red Sea all one. But then, it will be all one to believe in Christ, and to submit to his conduct to Paradise, as to be­lieve in Moses, (as the Israelites did hereupon, Exod. XIV. 31.) and to put themselves under his conduct to the Land of Promise; Which is my Argument. But if, setting aside the correspondence, you make their ingagement to God under Moses for obtaining the Land of promise, one thing, and our ingage­ment to God under Christ, another; Certainly, the immediate assurance of this, and the immediate assurance of that, (which by means of the correspon­dence becoms also the assurance of this) are severall things. And, if there be, between the Old and New Covenant, that correspondence, which makes that the figure of this, they may as well be said to be one and the same, (and, by consequence, the Sacraments of them) as a mans Picture is called by his name, when, seeing the Pictures of our Princes, for example, we say, This is H. the eight, and this Queen Elizabeth. But to say, that the Sacraments of the Old Law do immediately figure or assure the same thing, which the Sacraments of the Gospel do, is the same thing as to say, the rest of the Land of Promise, and the everlasting rest of the Kingdom of Heaven are both one and the same. Let us now see, by what right, that is, upon what ground S. Paul argues that, concerning the Gospel, from the words of Moses, Deut. XIII. 11.-14. which is manifestly said by him concerning the Law; Rom. X. 6.-10. The righteousnesse that is of Faith saith thus: Say not in thine heart; who will [Page 14] ascend into Heaven? To wit, to bring down Christ: Or, who will go down into the deep? To wit, to bring up Christ from the dead: But what saith it? The Word is near thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart. That is, the word of Faith which we Preach; That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe with thy heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart a man believes to righteousnesse, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. The argument is this; If Moses duly warn the Israelites, that they have no excuse for not obeying the Law which he had put, as it were, in their mouths, and into their hearts, so plainly had he taught it them: then cannot those that hear the Apostles Preach the Gospel excuse themselves in not obeying it, being so plainly shewed; That, if they professe Christ with their mouths, believing with the heart, that God raised him from the dead, they should be saved; That this word of Faith is put, as it were, in their mouths, and in their hearts. Can this be made good to be Moses his meaning, not supposing that the Spirit of God intended the Gospel by the Law? Or can it be denied so to be, supposing it? If therefore the profession of an Israelite tie him to the Law of God, given the Jews, shall not the profession of a Christian tie him to the Law of God, given the Jews, shall not the profession of a Christian tie him to the Law of God given the Christians? Shall not the professing of Christ, which the Apostle speaks of, be the undertaking of it? For S. Paul, by saying, that they were baptized into Moses under the Cloud and in the Sea, plainly sheweth, that, as their undertaking to march under the conduct of Moses towards the Land of Promise through the red Sea, was rewarded by God with the drowning of their enemies, and the overshadowing of the Cloud: So our undertaking to follow Christ towards that Kingdom, which he obtained by his Crosse, is rewarded with the extinguishing of sin and the refreshing of the Holy Ghost, in our travel to the world to come. And therefore, the ingagement of the second Covenant being inacted and settled upon us, by the Sacrament of Baptism, the promises of the Covenant must needs depend upon the same.

What else shall the name of a New Covenant, or a New testament signifie, if we will not have them to signifie nothing? Some man perhaps may marvel whence it comes, that the agreement between God and his ancient People be­ing alwaies represented in the Old Testament, in the nature and terms of a Covenant, the New is, by the Apostle, proved to have the nature of the last Will and Tessament of our Lord Christ, Hebr. IX. 16, 17. But, if this Testa­ment be also a Covenant, (as the same Apostle saith, Hebr. VIII. 9. He hath obtained a more excellent Ministery, by how much he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which is inacted upon better promises) there will be no cause to mar­vell. The Greek word [...], in ordinary Greek, signifies no more, than a mans last Will and Testament; But, in the use of the Jews that spoke Greek, such as are the Apostles, the translators of the Old Testament into Greek, and others, it fignisies also a Covenant. If further it pleased God, that our Lord Christ should die, to assure us of everlasting life on his part, which thereby he purchased, obliging God on his part to give it to those that shall be found qualified for it, well may the Apostle affirm, that it is the last Will and Testament of him who died to make it irrevocable; (because mens Wills are not so till death) But it containeth nevertheless a Covenant, because men become not Sons of God by birth, but by choice, accepting the adoption which is tendred, being also their New-birth. Whereupon it follows, Hebr. IX. 18. Whence, neither the first was dedicated without bloud. Making the first Covenant a Testament also, because the sacrifices which it was dedicated with, signified the death of Christ, whose Testament the New Covenant is. Now every Covenant, every Contract whatsoever is a Law, which the parties in­tercbangeably tie themselvs to, being free before: Neither can it be a Cove­nant that imposeth nothing upon one of the parties. I know; the promise of God, not to destroy the World any more by water, is called many times, his Covenant, and the Rain-bow the sign of it, Gen. IX. 9.- 17. whence it may be argued, that nothing hinders a Covenant to be no more then a bare Promise. [Page 15] And truly it is properly [...], that is, a disposition, though by free promise, it is [...], or a choice, according to them that will have that to be the ori­ginall of the Word. He that would be contentious, might have ground to dispute, that this promise of God was not without a condition annexed unto it. For the tradition of the Jews is now generally received by men of Learning [...] that God gave Noah and his Sons seven Precepts to observe, which were visi­ble during the time that his People lived in the Land of Promise, as being the condition, upon the undertaking whereof, strangers were protected by Gods Law among them. Which if it be true, it can no way seem unreasonable to say, that the undertaking of these precepts was the condition, upon which it plea­sed God to secure them from the waters of another deluge: reserving him­self neverthelesse the liberty of destroying the world by fire, when that Cove­nant which was to succeed this, and all the additions to it, under Abraham or Moses, should have wrought the effect for which it was tendred, in the salvation of Mankind. And thus it might be said, that the name of a Covenant is properly attributed to this promise, because of the condition annexed, though not remembred in the Scripture. But, seeing the word Covenant is manifestly used in the Scripture, to signifie a decree of God, or the declara­tion of it, as when it speaks of Gods Covenant with the day and the night; I shall not need to ground my selfe upon any such nicety as this, provided and understood alwaies, that the annexing of a condition necessarily determines and limits it to signifie a Contract, not a bare decree or promise. Which easily appeareth in the Covenants whereof we speak, because they are treated. For, to induce a man to imbrace a promise, which, being of advantage brings no burthen within it, is not for the wisdome of God to send his Son to do, be­cause none but a mad man can refuse it. But, where God sends his Son to tender mankind terms of reconcilement, where he suffers death, to undergo and execute his Commission, where he sends his Disciples, authorized by the evidence which his Spirit gives, that he sent them, but obliged to undergo death in testimony of the same; There, I suppose, there is such a condition an­nexed, which, they that have reason to be satisfied of the truth of the mes­sage, may doubt, whether to make themselves parties to, by imbracing the profession of it.

Hear the Apostle 2 Cor. V. 18, 19, 20. All is of God that hath reconciled us to himselfe by Jesus Christ, and given us the Ministery of reconcilement: As, that God was about reconciling the World to himselfe by Christ, not imputing to them their transgression. and placing in us the Ministery of reconcilement. We are therefore Ambassadors in Christs stead; As if God did exbort by us; In Christs stead we beseech you, be reconciled to God. If all that is said in the Bible, of the second and New Testament, or Covenant of Grace, imported no more, but a bare promise, was mankind so void of reason, as to need all this, to perswade him to imbrace his own happiness tendred without any reputed disad­vantage? For though, to forsake the world and our selves be really an ad­vantage to the most noble parts of humane nature; yet, because that is not seen but by Faith, not imbraced without disadvantage, in regard of the present world, that which is really a difficulty to the imbracing of Christianity, I admit, as in the reputation of them to whom the Gospel is preached, to be a disadvantage. And therefore, with them to whom the Gospel is preached, the case is the same as with Cain, when God said to him, Gen. IV. 5. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted? but if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door: As with the Israelites, when God said to them Deut. XXX. 15. Behold, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil: Whereas I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his wayes, and to keep his com­mandements, and statutes, and judgements, and thou shalt live, and increase, and the Lord thy God shall blesse thee in the Land whither thou goest in to possesse it; In fine, as with them to whom it is said, Ecclesiasticus XV. 14,- 17. He made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own Counsel; Keep the Commandements and faith, if thou wilt; To do things acceptable to him. [Page 16] He hath set before thee fire and water, stretch forth thy hand to whether thou wilt. Life and death is before man, and that shall be given him which he liketh. That is to say; so manifest as it is, that God, when he tendred the Law to the Israe­lites, tendred them their choice, whether they would undertake to live accor­ding to it, upon condition of obtaining the promises tendred with it; So evi­dent is it, that God, tendring the Gospel in the same terms, to all that are invited to undertake Christianity, tendreth it upon condition of living ac­cording to it. And therefore, that, as well in matter of Christianity (in the imbrac [...]ng or rejecting, in performing or failing of it) the choice of free will is evidently seen and exercised in, as any thing else wherein one man contracts with another; The nature and consideration of a Covenant holding as fully in this, as in humane contracts.

Which if it be true, we must not be nice in allowing the Gospel of Christ; the name & nature of a Law, thogh the name of the Law (being already possessed by the Law of Moses) when it is put with some addition incompetent to the Law of Moses, cannot be understood of any thing else. For, if every contract be a Law to the parties so soon as it is inacted, then can it not be denied, that the Covenant of Grace is a Law to them that ingage in it, unless we would have God tied by his promise, and Christians free from any obligation, yet nevertheless inti­tled to the same. For, what is a Law, but the condition, by observing whereof, every man maintains his estate in the Commonwealth whereof he is? Which, he that would not have Christianity to be, in regard of the world to come, what would he have Christians to be but Libertines and Rebels? True it is, God imposeth it not, as upon his subjects; but tendreth it as to his rebels, for the condition upon which they may become his subjects instead of his rebels; And that is a just reason why it is called a Covenant, rather than a Law; And that reason justly reproves the Leviathans imagination, that it can oblige neither more nor less than the Law of Nature. For, being positive, as tendred by the meer will of God, and upon what terms he pleased, (as the Precepts thereof, which are Gods Laws to his Church, and the institution of the Church it selfe is meerly positive) there is no reason at all to presume, that the moral Precepts which are in force under it are bounded by the Law of Nature. Though, whether it be so or not, I undertake not here to determine. But, we know what S. Paul saith, Rom. III. 27. Where is boasting? It is shut out. By what Law? Not by the Law of works, but by the Law of Faith; That is, by the Gospel, which requireth that Faith, of which, I am inquiring wherein it consists, for the condition of obtaining the promises which it ten­dreth. And S. James 11. 8. 12. If ye fulfill the Royall Law, which saith; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self, ye do well. And, So speak ye, and so do ye, as being to be judged by the Law of Libertie. For, the liberty of being Gods sub­jects, and under Gods royall Law, the Gospel giveth. Neither is S. Paul otherwise to be understood, when he saith, Rom. VIII. 2. The Law of the Spirit of Life which is in Christ Jesus hath freed me from the Law of sin and of death; The imbracing of the Gospel being the Law, that is, the condition, upon which we become partakers of the Holy Ghost, free from sin and from death. And truly, I cannot but pity the blindness of error, so oft as I remem­ber, that I have heard Antinomians alledge the words of the Prophet Jer. XXXI. 31,-34. quoted by the Apostle to show the difference between the first and second Covenant, Heb. VIII. 8,-11. Behold, the dayes come, saith the Lord, that I will settle with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah a new Covenant, not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers, when I tooke them by the hand, and brought them out of the Land of Aegypt, (for they abode not in my Covenant, and I neglested them, saith the Lord) For, this is the Covenant which I will make with the house of Israel, after those dayes, saith the Lord; Putting my Laws into their mind, I will also write them upon their hearts, and I will be to them for their God, and t [...]ey to me for my people. Nei­ther shall they teach every man his neighbour, and every man his Brother, saying; Know the Lord; For, they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest; [Page 17] I say I cannot but pity them, that, upon these words ground themselves, that the Covenant of Grace is a meer free promise, not onely freely made, for so I say it is free, (for what but Gods goodness moved him to tender it?) but freely, without condition contracted for at their hands. For, cannot God by his Prophet, foretell the effect of the Covenant of Grace, but he must be presumed, to set down the terms of it? And, if he express them not there, is he the less free to demand them when he tenders them? Especially, the Cove­nant it self being to remain a secret. till Gods time to reveal it? I say then, that this Prophesie hath taken full effect in the lives of those, who, submitting themselves to the terms of Christianity, have received of God the gift of the Holy Ghost, to understand their profession, that they might live according to it; But, that this gift of the Holy Ghost, that is to say, the habituall assistance thereof, neither was due, nor bestowed, but upon supposition of Chnstianity professed by baptisme, which God, by our Lord Christ hath revealed, to be the condition which he requireth of them that will injoy the same.

CHAP. IV. The consent of the whole Church evidenced by the custome of chatechising. By the opinion thereof concerning the salvation of those that delayed their Baptism. By the rites and Ceremonies of Baptism. Why no penance for sins before, but after Baptism. The doctrine of the Church of England evident in this case.

BUT I am now come to the argument, that is to be drawn from the pra­ctise of the universall Church, to my purpose. And truly, he that shall consider, for what reason, the Apostles should require those whom they had converted, to be baptized, will find himselfe intangled in rendring it, unless he settle the ground of it upon the obligation of professing true Christianity: And the effect of it, in admitting to the unity of the Church, which may require the performance, and maintain the exercise of it. And the consequence thereof, they that are, or shall be imployed by the Church, to preach to un­believers, will find to be such, that either they must insist upon the terms which I hold with them, or, they shall make them but aequivocall Christians; That is, such as may wear the Cross of Christ, to man for a cognizance, but not in the obligation of their hearts to God, rather to suffer death, than, either to profess or act against that which he hath taught. The next point, in the visible practice of the Catholick Church, is the custome of catechizing: The circumstances whereof, for time and manner, though no man can mantain to have been the same in all Churches, yet it may be argued, to have been ge­nerally a time of triall, for them that had been wonne to believe the truth of Christianity how they were likely to apply themselves to live like Christians, and what assurance or presumption the Church might conceive, that they would not betray the profession thereof. And therfore I appeal to the common sense of all men, whether they that exercised this course did not admit men to Christianity and baptism, upon the condition of professing and undertaking so to do. Besides those things which I alledged in the first Book, in the Con­stitutions of the Apostles, in the most ancient Canons of the Church, and ge­nerally in all Church writers we read of Missa Catechumenorum, and Missa fidelium; In English, the dismission of Scholars, and the dismission of Believers: Because, during the Psalms, & during the reading of the Scriptures, & expoun­ding the same, reason was that learners should be present, as well for their instruction in Christianity, as for discharge of their [...]uty, in the praises of God, and prayers to God: Though, the same prayers were not to be offered to God for Learners, as for believers, but they were to be dismissed with pe­culiar prayers of the Church for their particular estate, such as yet are extant [Page 18] in the ancient Offices of the Church. I say there was reason for these orders, supposing that Scholars were to be admitted Christians upon this presumption; Otherwise none. And, hence it commeth, that the assembly of the Church, being first by a Synecdoche called in Latine Missa, from the dismissing of it which it ends with, (as in Greek [...], in Latine Collecta, for the assem­bling of it) the word Missa Latine, as [...] in Greek, is now come to signifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist, (which came after the dismissing of Learners, but went afore the dismissing of believers) being the principall office for which the Assemblies of the Church were held. But I will remit those that would understand the weight of this argument, to that which they may read in Clemens his Poedagogus, where they shall find the conversation which the Church required of those who professed to be Scholars of Christianity, and to stand for baptism, described in all the parts of it. Perhaps somewhat in the way of Plato his Common-wealth, or Xenophons education of Cyrus, expres­sing many times what should be, rather than what was: But still, what the Church, on the behalfe of God, required at their hands, till being come to the end of the book, he who had approved himselfe by his conversation likely to make a good Christian, is, in the end of it, inducted by the Chatechist into the Church, to demand that baptism, which, by this time, he hath learned what it charges him with. And if this be not argument enough, what the Church in Gods behalfe demands of them that would be Christians, it will be in vain to apply reason, to argue any thing that is questionable.

For it is visible, that the time of any mans continuing Catechumenus, or a Probationer in Christianity, was required upon no other ground, nor to any other purpose, but that the Church might be reasonably or legally (that is, according to custome) assured, that the party pretending to baptism was really resolved to stand to that, which Christianity should require at his hands. This, the conversation of severall years for triall, the frequenting of Gods ser­vice in the Church, the hatred which he needs must undergo from the enemies of the Church, Jewes and Gentiles, must needs signifie, supposing Christians to be reasonable people. But that exception which I alledged out of the Con­stitutions most clearly: That if any mans zeal to Christianity should be found so fervent, that there was no reason to suspect his sincerity, then the regular time of continuing in the state and rank of Catechumenus, or a Scholar of Christianity, might be abridged by the Church. For this is the same confide­ration, which takes place, in many penitentiall Canons of the Church after­wards: That if any man should demonstrate that zeal and eagerness, in de­testing the offences through which he had failed, which might ground a confi­dence of his sincerity for the future, the regular time of his Penance, might be abridged. The ground whereof is to be seen in the example of S. Paul, abating the rigor of his censure, upon the incestuous person at Corinth, though not only in consideration of the persons own zeal, but of the Churches submis­sion, to acknowledge themselves parties to his crime, for bearing him out against the censure due to it before. And this indulgence, consisting in the relea­sing or abating of regular penance, is without all quession, according to the will and word of God.

Consider further another custome of the Church, during this primitive estate. Many men that were convicted in their judgements of the truth of Christianity, finding d [...]fficulty in undergoing the Crosse of Christ, and perse­cution for Christianity, at least, willing to avoid it, though they went so far as to professe themselves Probationers in Christianity, yet went not so far as to pretend to Baptism, least, by being admitted to it, they should make themselves liable to persecution as Christians. These men, if any thing fell out to make themselves liable to persecution as Christians. These men, if any thing fell out to make them think their lives to be in danger, would, neverthe­less, desire to be baptized in their beds of sickness. Neither did the Church make any question of granting it, presuming that those, who, by the hand of God had been driven to demand it, would prove true to that, which, by [Page 19] such an exigent they had been driven to seek. Nevertheless, these are those Clinic [...]. whom we read of in the ancient Records of the Church, of whose sal­vation though there were that presumption, in regard whereof they were ad­mitted to baptism, yet not without some scruple. Upon what account? Not because they were not so well drenched with water, being baptized in their beds, as others: But because their resolution, to abide by the Christianity which they professed at their baptisme, was counted more questionable than theirs, who had frankly without reservation, abandoned themselves to it. Tertullian in his Book De Bapt. cap. XIX. argues, that none should make hast to Baptism, that are not provided of that resolution, which the per­formance of that which they undertake by it requires. And, upon this account, he advises to delay the baptism of Infants to mans estate, nay, of single per­sons, because of the temptations to which they are subject, till they resolve to serve God, either in the state of virginity and widowhood, or of wedlock. What the consequence hereof is, in the matter of baptizing Infants, his reason must determine. And that sufficiently appears to be, upon the profession which Baptism undertaketh; For, that which he apprehendeth is, that, not ha­ving well understood and digested what it is they undertake, they should fail in making it good. And truly let any man tell me, why there should be so much doubt made of the salvation of those that died before baptism in the an­cient Church, notwithstanding that they had professed, not only to believe the truth of Christianity, but also, that they intended to undertake the pro­fession of it, and were indeed of the rank of Catechumeni, Scholars or Proba­tioners in it? For it is manifest, that, aster persecution was ceased, there were many and many, who, professing Christianity, forbore neverthelesse to be baptized, sometimes many years, sometimes till death. (as we see by the great Constantine, who having professed so long before the beliefe of Christia­nity, was not baptized, neverthelesse, till a while before his death) sometimes therefore were prevented by death, and died unbaptized, of whose salvation there was some difficulty made in conceiving full assurance, as it appears by the arguments, wherewith S. Ambrose comforts himselfe in the case of the Emperour Valentiniane, and his brother Satyrus. Not that there could re­main any doubt in the salvation of those, who, having resolved to undertake and profess Christianity, by being baptized, should be intercepted and cut off by inevitable casualties of mortality, not procured by those delayes, which the want of zeal in that resolution had brought to pass: For, it is clear, that those who suffered death in the profession of Christianity, left no doubt in the mind of any Christian, whether they should be saved or not, suffering for Christ before they were baptized. But because those who might have had means and opportunity to be baptized, at such times, and upon such occasions as the rules and customes of the Church furnished, by neglecting the same, ministred some ground to presume, that they had not in them that resolution to undergo the Crosse of Christ (in, and for the performance of that which baptisin under­takes) in consideration whereof he grants those promises which his Gospel proclaimeth. And, having said this, I conceive, I need say no more, to show the necessity of Baptism, according to the doctrine and practise of the whole Church, which I proved afore by the Scriptures. For, if those who professed to believe Christianity, and had resolved to enter into that estate and life which it required, came under a doubtfull repute, as to their salvation, among Christians, where they were intercepted by death before they were Christened by baptism; well may the unavoydable casualties of mortality dispense in the necessity of an act, the means whereof may depend upon some­thing else beside his will that wants it; But it appears therefore a necessary in­gredient, in the condition which qualifies for the promises of the Gospel, when the desire of having it. if it were possible, appears absolutely undispensa­ble. And this shall save me the labour of producing the testimonies of Church Writers, to evidence the sense thereof in all ages. For the sense of the Church cannot be so effectually evidenced, by the sayings of particular persons, of [Page 20] what authority soever in their own Churches, as it is evident by the customs really in force, which it appeareth, that particular persons held themselves obliged to follow. And therefore to the opinions presently on foot; Of the Socinians: That baptisme was necessary under the Apostles, to profess that purity of life which Christianity promiseth, when men were converted from Jews or Gentiles to Christians, but indifferent for those that wear that profes­sion, by being born and brought up under Christian parents; And of some Enthusiasts among us, who think it a meer mistake to baptize with water in­to Christianity, the Baptism of John being the Baptism of water, but the Bap­tism of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism of Christ, (of which Opinions you shall hear more by and by) I say, to these opinions, it shall serve my turn to say: That, the necessity of the Baptism of Water stands evidenced by the same means, that convince the World of the truth of Christianity; To wit, by the Scriptures hitherto alledged, and by the consent of all Christians. For it will be impossible to alledge, not only any Writer that hath been allowed and credited by the Church, but any man that hath pass'd for a Christian in the Church, that ever undertook to perswade himselfe, or any man else, to pre­sume, that he should be saved neglecting Baptism. For what reason and upon what ground, I leave to those that shall neglect S. Peters distinction hitherto pleaded, to alledge.

As for the next point, which is the manner of baptizing, from the circum­stances and ceremonies of it, I shall but relate here what I alledged out of S. Peter in the beginning, of the solemn questions propounded of course to those that demanded Baptism, whether they did believe the truth of Christianity, whether they would undertake to profess it, and to fight against the flesh, the World and the Divel, for the observing of it, whether he desired to be baptized upon these terms? Neither shall I need to alledge the testimonies of Church-Writers, for the use of the same ceremony, which, at this day is in force in the Church of England. And, though there be those that are liberall enough in censuring it as impertinent, now that all are baptized Infants, and though this be not the place to consider such exceptions, yet I will here take notice, how the contract thus executed concerns [...]he salvation of Christians, that so it may be judged, how it concerns the Office of Baptism, that, what so concerns the salvation of Christians be expressed in it. To the same purpose I will here alledge the putting on of white robes after Baptisin: Whereupon the Sunday after Easter-day is still called Dominica in Albis, The Lords day in Whites, (which first they had put on at Easter when they were baptized) which custome seemeth to have been in use in the Church, when S. Paul said Rom. XIII. 14. Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill it in the lusts thereof. And Gal. III. 27. As many as are bapti­zed into Christ, have put on Christ. And Joh. IV. 22. 24. To put off the old man, and put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousnesse and true holinesse. And Col. 3. 10. Having put off the old man, with his actions, and put on the new man that is renewed unto knowledge, according to the image of him that made him. For all these expressions seem to be allusions, to that which they saw done and practised before their eyes. But, those that yield not so much, cannot refuse to grant, that the custome was taken up by the Church, to signifie the profession of that which the Apostle injoyneth all Christians, in those that were baptized. The same thing signified, by signing those that were baptized with the sign of the Crosse: Which S. Augustine expounds very well, by the custome of the Roman Empire, to set a mark on the bodies of those that were listed Souldiers, and upon slaves, by which they might be known and brought back, if they should run away, or depart from their co­lours. For, though the sign of the Crosse, made upon him that is baptized, remain not visible upon him, yet being done publickly and solemnly, and, as S. Paul saith of Timothy, under many witnesses, he is notwithstanding to be challenged by it of what he undertooke. And he that observes this mark to be called by the ancient Church sigillum, the signe or seal, must think of S. Pauls [Page 21] words, 2 Cor. I. 21, 22. But he that establisheth us with you into Christ, and anointeth us, is God, who hath also signed us, and put the earnest of his Spirit into our hearts. And Ephes. I. 13. In whom also having believed, ye were signed with the Holy Spirit of Promise. And IV. 30. Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, by whom ye are signed to the day of Redemption; I say, he must think of these words of S. Paul, as I said of those, concerning the white robes of them them that were baptized; That they are either allusions to that which men saw done by the appointment of the Apostles, or occasions of taking up these cere­monies by the primitive Church. I might here argue from the custom of Ʋnder­takers (which now are called, Godfathers and Godmothers) to the same purpose. For, if it were requisite, that the Church should be secured, by some of theit own body, that they who demanded Baptism were no counterfeits, but would stand to what they undertook, it ought to be an Argument, that they were to under­take that, which they give the Church security to perform. And indeed, this cu­stom being nothing else but an appertenance, or consequence of the Interroga­tories of Baptism, I need say no more, but, that it appears thereby, what those that were admitted to Baptism undertook, when they were to have Sureties to undertake for them, that they dissembled not in that which they undertook.

But, in the next place, I will alledge the constitution of the Church, and all the authority of it; Grounded, (as by the means which I have imployed to make evidence of it appeareth) upon supposition and presumption, that, by being baptized into the visible communion thereof, we attain invisible com­munion in the promises which the Gospel tendreth. There are some that take upon them to censure the ancient Church, for the abuse which I spoke of even now, in delaying of Baptism. These men, if they will go alwaies by the same weights and measures, must call S. Paul to account, why he makes this demand, 1 Cor. V. 12, 13. What have I to do to judge those, that are without? do not ye judge those that are within? But those that are without God shall judge. For, those who professed only to believe Christianity, though obliged to learn how to behave themselves like Christians, (for with what face could they demand Baptism otherwise?) yet, to speak properly, were not Christians, were not of the Church. Therefore Clemens Alexandrinus in the end of his Paedagogus, bringeth in the Word, that is, our Lord Christ, or his Gospel, (which he cal­leth the Paedagogue, for governing these Children and Novices in Christianity in their way to the Church) giving up this Office to himselfe, (as being to be­come for the future their Doctor, and Master, and Bishop [...]) at their entrance into the Churcch. The passage is remarkable. [...]. But it is not for me to teach these things further, saith the Paedagogue. We have need of a Doctor to expound these holy Oracles, and to him we must go. And truly it is time for me to give over my Office of Paeda­gogue, and for you to become the Doctors Hearers. He, receiving you bread with good government (having behaved themselves well during the time of their trial) shall teach you these Oracles. And in good time here is the Church, and the onely Doctor the Bridegroom, the good mind of a good Father. Christ, or the Gospel of Christ, is the Paedagogue that guides and governs Children in Christianity, to the School, that is, to the Church, to demand baptism, having behaved them­selves well by the way, during the time of their triall. When that is done, he teaches them no more as children are taught by a Paedagogue; But, as a Master teaches his Scholars, so Christ those that are become his Disciples by being baptized. Therefore afterwards; [...]. The Pae­dagogue, having set us in the Church, hoth recommended us to himselfe the Word, the Doctor and Bishop of all. And this is our Lords Commission to his Apostles to make them Disciples, that should take up his Crosse, by [Page 22] baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Then to teach them to observe all that he had given them in Charge. The same is the ground of Cassanders observation, which is much to my purpose. That the Church putteth no man to penance, whatsoever his life may have been, for any thing done before Baptism. Zosimus thinks he layes a great imputation upon Christianity, in pretending that Constantine, finding no means to come clear of the bloud of his Wife Fausta, or his Son Crispus, gave ear to Christia­nity, because it pretended to wash away all sin. That Constantine should seek those meanes which Heathenism pretendeth to purge sin with, may well be thought to proceed from the malignity of the Gentiles, against the first Chri­stian Prince. For the rest, not disputing of his doings before Baptism, because the Church judgeth not that those are without, (though he professed Chri­stianity when they were done) it would be a disparagement to that Fountain which God hath opened for Juda and Jerusalem, that there should be any sin which it cannot cleanse, supposing the change sincere, which the undertaking of Christianity professeth; If not, God is his Judge. But, though the Church refuse no man Baptism, because, professing Christianity, he had delayed his Baptism; yet, as it appeared sufficiently, by the scruple that was made of the sal­vation of those that died in that estate, that the Church disallowed it; so, when they were come into the Church, a mark of the authority of the Church was fastened upon them, in that, those that were baptized in their beds were made uncapable (by one of those Canons which I spoke of in the first Book, that were in force before the Church had any Canons in writing) of being promo­ted to the Clergy. For this you shall find objected to Noratianus, by Cornelius in Eusebius Eccles. Hist. VII. 43. That, by the Canons, he ought not to have been promoted to any rank in the Clergy, because he had been baptized in his bed of sickness, having delayed his Baptism for fear of persecution, till he found himselfe in danger of death. And, though the Church put no man to penance for his life before Baptism, (because Christianity it selfe pretendeth a totall change in him that imbraceth it, and that the Church judgeth not, but pre­sumeth of the truth of that change, which is pretended by him that is without, yet it fasteneth a mark of the authority which it purchaseth upon Christianity) by providing that no man, who had been ever put to penance, should be pro­moted to any rank of the Clergy. The reason is expressed in those words of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians, pag. 54. speaking of the Apostles; [...]. Preaching over Countreys and Cities, they made the First­fruits of them (whom they had converted) Bishops and Ministers of them that should believe. The learned Bloudell will have these First-fruits to signifie those that were first converted to Christianity. A mistake more sutable to the prejudice which he had undertook to maintain, then to the rest of his learning. For, who knoweth not that First-fruits are the best, the floure, the cream of the whole? And, if no man that dared not to professe Christianity, no man that had been put to penance for failing, having profest it, is to be of the Clergy, you see why they are called the First-fruits of Christians. In the mean time, if the Church judge not those that are without, doth it not judge those that are within, according to S. Paul? Show me any thing that ever was called a Church; that is, shew me the time when, and the place where Christianity was ever settled, and exercised according to order and rule, where, those that had received Baptism were not under a discipline of penance, failing of that which they had undertaken by it. What is reformation in the Church, and what is not, is the subject of this present dispute; therefore I cannot here grant, that which some of the reformation may have done, to be well done. Otherwise, I am secure; no man will choke me with naming a Church, that had no disci­pline of penance. But that so it was, I refer my self to that which I have said in the first book. I demand here, what is the ground and reason, that so it must be? For, supposing the Keys of Gods Kingdom exercised in the first place, in limi­ting the terms upon which baptisme is granted, not in ministring of it; [Page 23] Of necessity it followeth, that, in the second place, it be seen and exercised, in limiting the terms, upon which, those that have failed of that which they undertook at their Baptism, may be restored to the visible communion of the Church, upon presumption, that they are restored to the invisible commu­nion of those promises which the Gospel tendreth. Not supposing this, there is no reason why it should signifie any more than a scene acted upon a stage, as it is taken to signifie by those who understand not this.

Lastly, I will mention here the expresse Doctrine of the Church of England, in the beginning of the Catechism, declaring three things to have been under­taken, in behalfe of him that is baptized: That he shall forsake the Devil and all his works, the pomp and vanities of this world, and the evil desires of the flesh, and not to be seduced by him, either from believing the faith of Christ, or from keeping Gods Commandements. And again, in the admonition to the Sureties after Baptism, you must remember, that it is your parts and duties, to see that these Infants be taught, so soon as they shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise and profession they have made by you. For, all that come to Christianity believing, what promises they get right to by it, and being admitted to it up­pon those terms, there can remain no question, upon what terms they attain the said promises: Nor can or ought any Doctrine of that Church, to what purpose soever cautioned, be interpreted to the prejudice of that, wherein the salvation of all consisteth. But further, in the Introduction to the Office of Baptism: For asmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and, that our Saviour Christ saith; None can enter into the Kingdome of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost, I beseech you to call upon God, that these children may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christs holy Church, and be made lively members of the same. Proceeding to pray; That they comming to thy holy baptisme, may receive re­mission of their sins by their spirituall regeneration. In the exhortation after the Gospel; Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believe, that he will likewise favourably receive these present Infants, that he will imbrace them with the arms of his mercie, that he will give unto them the blessing of eternall life, and make them partakers of his everlasting Kingdome. Again; Ye have heard also, that our L. Jesus Christ hath promised in his Gospel, to grant all these things that ye have praied for. And after the Sacrament; Seeing now, that these children be regenerate and graffed in the bodie of Christs congregation. And a­gain; We yield thee heartie thanks, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy Congregation. All this can leave no doubt of the communion of the Church of England with the whole Church, in this point, so nearly concerning the salvation of all Christians.

CHAP. V. The Preaching of our Lord and his Apostles evidenceth, that some act of Mans free choice is the condition which it requireth. The correspondence betwen the Old and New Testament inferreth the same. So do the errors of Soci­nians and Antinomians concerning the necessity of Baptism. Objections deferred.

THe whole tenor of the Scripture would afford matter of Argument to in­force this consequence; But it shall be enough, to have thus far pointed out the ground, upon which the meaning of the rest is to proceed. The reasons of this position, from the principles of Christianity, can be no other, than those which have been touched, upon occasion of treating the passages of Scripture hitherto alledged. Yet to make the consequence still more evident, I will here repeat, first, the consideration of Gods sending our Lord Christ, to show the world sufficient motives, why they should imbrace his Gospel, as [Page 24] well as to teach them what it is, and wherein it consisteth. I will not here in­sist upon any supposition, of the clear sufficience of the Scriptures, or the ne­cessity of Tradition besides the Scriptures. But I will appeal to the com­mon sense of all men, to judge, whether it be within the compass of reason, that our Lord Christ should come to preach, and to exhort men to acknow­ledge him to be come from God, and to take up his Cross; should show them reasons to believe, that all which he preached is true, that so they might be perswaded willingly to follow him; Should give certain proofs of his rising again from death, to inforce the same; If men have no will, no choice, no freedom to do what he requires them, or not to do it; whether, in other things, they, have it or not. The same to be said of his Apostles and Disciples, who were strange Creatures, to expose their lives, for a Warrant of the truth of what they said, if they had not willingly and freely imbraced that profession themselves, which they pretended to induce the world, with the like freedome of choice to imbrace. Thus far then we are assured by common sense, that the condition required by the Covenant of Grace, on our part, must be some act of mans free choice, the doing whereof, at Gods demand, must qualifie us for those promises which it tenders. But this is not all that may appeare to common reason, by the proceeding of our Lord and his Apostles. The prea­ching of the Gospel-premises, for a supposition, upon which it proceedeth; That mankind are become enemies unto God through sin, and subjects of his wrath: Proposing therepon the termes, upon which they may be reconciled to God, and intitled presently to, and in due time possessed of everlasting happiness. Suppose these terms purchased by the satisfaction of Christ, though not granting it, (because all that call themselves Christians in the West do not) is it possible to imagine, that they who declare all mankind to be Gods enemies for sinne, should have commission to declare them heires of his King­dome, not supposing them turned from sin to that righteousnesse, which shall be as universally according to Gods will, as their sin is against it? As on the contrary supposing this, do you not suppose them qualified for Gods promises, as fitly as men overtaken in sin can be? And is not this that which Baptism supposeth, when S. Peter saith, Acts II. 38. Repent and be baptixed every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, unto remissin of sins? The Baptism of John indeed was the Baptism of Repentance unto remission of sins, Mat, III. 11. Mark I. 4. Luke III. 3. But our Saviours theame as well as John Baptists, when they began to preach, was; Repent and believe the Gospel: Or, Repent, for the Kingdome of Heaven is at hand. Mark I. 15. Mat. III. 2. IV. 17. Therefore the Baptism of Christ, as well as the Baptism of John, presupposeth repentance, only the promise of the Holy Ghost is proper to the Baptism of Christ; because that remission of sins which Johns Baptism gave, presupposed not the Covenant of Grace inacted and published. And therefore it is no mar­vell, that the Baptism of John is called The Baptism of water, when our Lord saith, Acts I. 5. John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost before many dayes. For, it will not follow any more, that therefore the Baptism of water is not Christs Baptism; then it will follow, the Baptism of John was not the Baptism of repentance to remission of sinnes, because Christs Baptism was so; And, because it had the promise of the Holy Ghost, which Johns had not. It is then to be considered, that the repentance of him that hath been qualified for the Gospel promises, may be only conver­sion from some particular sin, supposing one sin of that weight as to void that title. But, the repentance of him that is wholly enemy to God, such as the Gospel declareth Jews and Gentiles to be, (as you find by S. Paul in the begin­ning of his Epistle to the Romans) necessarily signifieth conversion from all sin to all righteousnesse. The repentance therefore of him, who, finding him­selfe overtaken in sin, hath recourse to Christianity for the cure of it, being necessarily a motion from all sin, the term wherein it resteth, being Christia­nity, is necessarily a resolution of all righteousnesse for the future. Which is all that my position demandeth; only this, that whereas the profession of [Page 25] this resolution is also required, therefore it be not thought sufficient, to pro­fesse for Christianity, that which every man that readeth and believeth the Scriptures may take to be Christianity, but that which the Church, (being trust­ed with the maintenance of that Rule, the profession whereof is required to salvation by the Gospel) hath alwayes required to be professed of them, who are baptized into the Church.

And that the condition, without this particular is not complete, may further appear by assuming for granted that which hath here been proved by the pre­mises, wherein I have demonstrated, that the first Covenant which God by Moses made with the Children of Israel, was, and was intended by God to be the figure of the second Covenant, which, by our Lord Christ he hath established, for all that will embrace it by undertaking Christianity: The correspondence between them consisting in this; That, as God, by the first, tendered them the happinesse of the Land of Promise, upon condition, of go­verning themselves according to the Law, which he gave them by Moses; So, by the second, he tenders everlasting happinesse in the world to come, to all those, that shall undertake to professe the faith of Christ, and live according to that which he hath taught. Which being no more questionable, then it can be questioned by those who professe themselves Christians, whether or no, the New Testament was intended and designed by the Old; Whether Moses writ of Christ or not; Whether Judaisme was to make way, or to give place to Christi­anity or not; And, seeing it can no more be questioned, whether or no the Jews were to take upon them the Law of God as their King, for the condition upon which they were to expect the Land of Promise; It is plaine, there wants nothing that can be required, duly to inferre, that the condition, the underta­king whereof intitles Christians to life everlasting, is the profession of Christi­anity: And the performance thereof, that which is rewarded, by the performance of all the promises which the Gospel tenders, as the performance of the Law was that, which secured the Israelites in the possession of the Land of Promise against their enemies round about. Now we know, that, when the Covenant of God with Abraham for the Land of Promise came to be limited, as to the condi­tion required by God, to the law of Moses, that Circumcision which God had required of all Abrahams seed became a condition limiting the same to Isra­raelites; the want whereof, at eight dayes old, was a forfeiture of that promise. For, The waters of the Red Sea, which saved them, and drowned the Aegyp­tians, the Cloud that overshadowed them, the Manna which they eate, and the Waters of the Rock which they drank, though (according to S. Paul) Sa­craments answerable to the Sacraments of the Church, were so but for the time of their travel through the Wildernesse. If therefore, by virtue of these, the Israelites were intitled to the Land of Promise, (which of Circumcision is evident) then must the Sacrament of Baptisme be necessarily requisite, to the right of a Christian in the heavenly Inheritance. This is the first reason, drawn from that which seemes most evident in Christianity, and that which I have been able to inferre, and to premise from the same.

But I will adde another reason, though it seems to be of the same nature with these that goe afore, which comes from the necessity of Baptisme. How much soever the licentiousnesse of this time may have debauched this wretch­ed people from the Christianity which they were dedicated to, by the Church of England, no pretense of Socinians, or Antinomians, hath yet prevailed, to make them believe, that it is not necessary for men to be Christned, that in­tend to be Christians. There hath been indeed, among the fruits of this blessed reformation, a Pamphlet seen under the title of The doctrine of Baptismes, the intent whereof, is, by a studied discourse to prove, that it was never the intent of our Lord and his Apostles, that the Baptisme of water should be used to make men Christians with, Being a legal rite used by John the Baptist, to continue, so long as the use of Moses law was tolerated after the publishing of the Gospel, but to cease therewithall, when the Baptisme of the Spirit, which is the Bap­tisme of Christ, had succeeded the same. This Pamphlet, attributed to the [Page 26] Master of a Colledge in one of the Universities. How that University will wash their hands of acknowledging, as master of a Coledge, one who cannot passe for a Christian among Christians, supposing him the Author of this Book, is not for this place to enquire. This is visible, that this opinion proceeds up­on the common presumption of Antinomians, Enthusiasts, Quakers, and the like, that they have the holy Ghost, though they presuppose not in them­selves the profession of that true Christianity which the Catholike Church teacheth, and whether baptized or not; Whether supposing themselves praede­stinate to life from everlasting upon the dictate of the same Spirit, or justified by that faith, which consisteth in revealing to them their praedestination from everlasting; Alwayes supposing they have the Spirit in consideration of the me­rits and satisfaction of Christ, without supposing the truth of that Christianity which they professe, as a condition required by God in them whom he gives his Spirit. But the opinion of the Socinians, (having in detestation this unchristian as well as unreasonable Principle) acknowledgeth the gift of the holy Ghost to be granted by God to those, who, believing our Lord Jesus to be the Christ, resolve to live according to all that he hath taught, but denieth any considera­tion of the merits and satisfaction of Christ, either in his sending the Gospel, or in his giving the holy Ghost to enable a man to perform that which it re­quireth. Onely acknowledging the free grace of God, in sending those terms of reconcilement which the Gospel importeth, and the free choice of man in accepting or refusing the same; But upon the accepting or refusing of them, concluding the promises of the Gospel to be necessarily due. And therefore presuming, that it is altogether unreasonable, to make them still to depend up­on an outward ceremony of Baptisme by water, the consideration upon which they are tendered being already performed. And therefore, construing the proceeding of the Apostles, and the Scriptures wherein they are mentioned, upon such presumptions as these, they conclude, the reason and intent of the Baptisme which they gave, according to the Commission of our Lord, to be particular, to the condition of those, who being Jews or Gentiles before, were thereby to acknowledge their uncleannesse in that estate, and to professe a con­trary course for the future. So that, the reason ceasing, why they did Baptize, the obligation also of their Baptisme must necessarily cease. But in this great distance between the grounds upon which these extream opinions inferre the indifference of Baptisme, it is easie to observe something common to both; Namely, that neither of them acknowledgeth any Catholike Church, or any presumption of the visible unity thereof, limiting that part of the Doctrine taught by the Scriptures, which it is necessary to the salvation of all Christians that they professe, as received from hand to hand by the Churches of the Apo­stles founding, to be exacted of them whom they Baptize into themselves. For, this being set aside why should not Enthusiasts perswade themselves, that they have the Spirit of God, and a title to all the promises of the Gospel de­pending upon it, by Christ, if the Socinians can perswade themselves, that they may have it by the meer act of their free will, accepting the tender of the Gos­pel, by believing that our Lord is the Christ, and resolving to live as he hath taught, without any consideration of his merits and sufferings; Both being perswaded, that for their salvation, they are to make what they can of the Scriptures, without any regard to the Church, for securing the intent and mean­ing of it. What shall hinder them indeed, supposing the way plained to them both, by admitting the necessity of Baptisme to be such, that all the effects and consequences thereof may be thought to be had and obtained before and with­out it? Certainly the waving of those grounds, upon which the necessity of Baptisme may appear to be consistent with the undoubted efficacy of that Chri­stianity which the heart onely feeleth, is the breach that hath made a gap for these Heresies to enter into Gods Church. For, if no man can be thought to have right to be baptized, that hath not true and living Faith, which true and living faith alone qualifies any man for Remission of sins and salvation, (whe­ther it consist in believing, that our Lord Jesus is the Christ, (because he who [Page 27] believes that is obliged to live as he teacheth) & the Scriptures, according to the Socinians; Or, in believing, that we are praedestinate to life in regard of our Lord Christ, dying for us, according to the Enthusiasts) what remaineth for Baptisme to procure, that is not assured already, before a man be Baptized?

And therefore, I conceive, I demand nothing but reason. For, all the gaine that I demand from all this is no more, but that it be freely acknowledged, that, justification by faith alone, and that faith which alone justifieth be not so understood, as to make the promises of the Gospel due before Baptisme; to which the Scripture, interpreted by the consent and practice of the whole Church, testifieth, that Baptisme concurreth. A thing which can by no means be obtained, but by placing that faith which alone justifieth, aswell in the out­ward act of professing, as in the inward act of believing; This profession containing an expresse promise, or vow to God, whereby we undertake to live as those who believe the Gospel of Christ are by Gods Law to live; And, that promise or vow to be celebrated and solemnized by the Sacrament of Bap­tisme, appointed by our Lord Christ to that purpose. For, seeing the profes­sing of Christianity, and not the believing of it, is that which brings upon the Church that persecution, which the Crosse of Christ, the mark of a disciple signifies; neither can it be reasonable, that God should allow the promises of the Gospel, to any quality that includeth it not, nor unreasonable that he should make them depend upon it. And, seing it is not the profession of any thing that a man may call Christianity, (though perhaps, grounded upon an imagination that he hath learned it from the Scriptures) which God accept­eth, (whatsoever a man may suffer for the maintenance and affirmation of it) but of that which himself sent our Lord Christ to preach; It is no marvel, if God who esteemeth nothing but for that affection of the heart wherewith it is done, should notwithstanding, accept no disposition of the heart towards the profession of Christianity, but that which is executed and solemnized by such an outward ceremony, as himself hath limited his disciples & their succes­sors to celebrate it with. For, supposing that God hath founded the unity of his Church, upon supposition of professing that Christianity which he gave his Apostles Commission to preach, consisting in the visible communion of those offices which God is served with by Christians, it will be evident, why God, who esteemeth the heart alone, hath not allowed the promises of his Gospel to any but those who professe Christianity, by being admitted to Baptisme by the Church; Because, as it is not any beliefe or resolution that may be called Christi­anity, but that which the Church hath received from the Lord and his Apo­stles, that qualifies a man for those promises which God tenders by the Cove­nant of Grace: So it is not the profession of any beliefe or resolution, that qualifies a man for Communion with the Church by Baptisme, but of that which the Church professeth to have received from our Lord and his Apostles: And this is the true ground of the foundation of the Church, and the Society thereof, whereof so much hath been said: To wit, that God, giving his Gos­pel for the salvation of mankind, did think fit to trust the guard and exercise of it to men once instructed by those, to whom, at the first he had given immedi­ate Commission to publish and establish Christianity; Rather then leave them to expect at his hands, every day new revelations and miracles, for in­troducing that, which had once been sufficiently declared. And also, rather then leave every man to his own head, to make what he can of the Scriptures, and think he hath salvation by living according to it. For, supposing that Christi­anity which is delivered by the Scriptures, once subject to be misunderstood and corrupted, (of which we have but too much experience) an effectual course to preserve it will be, to found a Corporation or Society of the Church, the members whereof, each in his owne ranck, should remaine intrusted by God (but, by the meanes of their predecessors from whom they received Christi­anity) to preserve, both the profession of Christian truth, and the exercise of Gods service inviolable.

Nor is it effectuall to say, that the unity of the Church may fail, being di­vided by Heresies and Schismes, insomuch that, that Baptisme which is visibly valide and good, shall be void of that invisible effect which it pretendeth. For, it is not requisite that God should provide such meanes of salvation as may be undefeisible; It is enough that they are reasonable. He that is Baptized into a profession destructive to that which all Christians are bound, upon their salva­tion, to believe, perishes for want of Faith, setting aside the unity of the Church which his Herisie violates over and above. But, if the unity of the Church be of such advantage to the maintenance of our common Christianity, as it was before the dissolving of it, it is no marvaile, if the Baptisme of Schisma­ticks, though valide and good for the visible forme, become voide of effect to them, who, by receiving it, make themselves parties to the breach of the uni­ty of the Church. We agree that the Power of the Church of Rome is the oc­casion of many abuses in the Church. What they are, it is my present busi­nesse to enquire. He that bounds the interpretation of the Scriptures, within the sense of the Catholike Church, shall not transgresse the Law of Gods truth in that inquiry. He that accepts the bounds of his own fansy in stead of them, is it not just with God, if he die? If once common Christianity, and the main­tenance thereof depend so much upon the unity of the Church, is it not rea­son that the benefit of it should depend upon the same? he who, having at­tained the true Faith, and according to the same seeking the unity of the Church, faileth of it without any fault of his owne, (if he who so seeketh it can be supposed to faile of it) hath the difficulty of overcoming his own ig­norance to pleade for his excuse. But, for them who have the consent of all Christians from the beginning, to oblige them to undertake the profession of Christianity by Baptisme, but, out of hatred to the present Church & the abuses of it, neglect baptisme, upon presumption, that they have the holy Ghost with­out it, or that the reason why the Apostles Baptized is now ceased; I say, that for them, I suppose, there remaines no just plea, seeing that, by the unity of the Catholike Church, they ought to have been guided in judging what is of the abuse of the present Church and what is not. And thus that con­sideration which some seeme to be, not without cause, scandalized at, (when these effects of Christianity, the power whereof must necessarily consist in an unfained heart, are made to depend upon an outward ceremony of Baptisme which the Church gives) is utterly voided, by that reason which the Apostle insinuates when he sayes, that Baptisme saves us, not the laying down of the filth of the flesh, but that profession to God, which is made with a good and a sincere consci­ence. Whereas those, that distinguish that faith which alone justifieth, from the profession thereof which baptisme executeth, oblige themselves to make Baptisme a ceremony, not whereon the promises of the Gospel depend, but to signifie that they are had and obtained without it. But to whom signifie? not to God, who giveth them. Not to him that has them, and by his faith knows he has them; Not to the Church, which can never be certified that he hath them indeed, and demands onely to be certified that he wants nothing requisite, to presume him to be such. So that, Baptisme being required, onely to presume that a man is a Christian, and that presumption being legally had, by any act, the Church or any that call themselves the Church can require, as well as by be­ing Baptized; If that be all, there is no reason to be given the Sociniant, why Baptisme should be necessary to the salvation of Christians, and therefore why it should not be in their power to use it or not to use it. And truly I do much marvel to see the Socinians, that have very well seen the truth concern­ing the twofold meaning of the Law, literall and spirituall, (and the promise of the land of Canaan tied to the carnall observation thereof as that of everlasting life to the spirituall obedience of it) I say, I do marvel to see, that in conse­quence hereunto, they should not inferre, that God hath appointed a spirituall people of the Christian Church, answerable to Israel according to the flesh, and that his spirituall promises should depend upon the visible imtiation of eve­ [...] ▪ Christian into the body of that people (as the right of his temporal promises [Page 29] depended upon their initiation into the body of carnall Israelites) not accord­ing to birth but according to promise. Onely, when I consider on the other side, that, without regard to the Article of the Catholick Church, which Christians make a part of their Creed, they rest in such a communion, as their private perswasion of the sense of the Scriptures shall be of force to produce; I do not marvail to see them not owne the consequence of their own princi­ples, when they see it not stand with other prejudices, which they have im­braced.

I know there are two things will be objected here, the one is a meer preju­dice, that, by maintaining of free will, (by maintaining the Covenant of Grace to consist in an act of it) we shall incurre the Heresie of Pelagius: The other, that, if the condition of the Covenant of Grace be an expresse profession, vow and promise, to live, as well as to believe, according to what Christ hath taught, and that, without the use of reason, no such promise can be of force or take place, then infants cannot be baptized, who cannot make, or are tied to any such promise. To these I say no more but this, that, it is one thing to answer arguments, and to give grounds of a contrary truth, another thing to ob­ject difficulties, which, even the truth is not clear of, especially that which comes by revelation from without, as Christianity doth: Because, to the verifying of revealed truth it is not necessary, that all things should be alike clearly re­vealed, that are necessary to the clearing of objections; The obligation of sticking to that which is revealed taking place no lesse, though something be­longing to the clearing of it be not so clearly expressed. And generally, that which is evident, is never the lesse evident, because there is something else evi­dent, the evidence whereof I cannot reconcile with it. But, this I say not, as though I meant to dismiss these difficulties, without that which I conceive ought to satisfie; But, because I have learned of Aristotle, that it is the fashion of the unlearned, to demand at once, both the grounds of the truth, and the clear­ing of difficulties. A thing which might be done here, but so, that another place would require it to be done againe, and not without balking the order which I intend. My designe will bring me in due time to speak with the Pela­gians first; and afterwards with the Anabaptists: To those points, I will, remit the answer to these objections. Onely, for the present, to the former of these doubts I would say this; That all that hath been said hitherto concerns onely that disposition, which, he that will come to salvation by Christianity must be firmly qualified with, as the condition which the Covenant of Grace requir­eth. All which being supposed, it may and doth still remaine questionable, how and by what meanes, in the nature of an effective cause, a man becomes qualified with the disposition so required; To wit, whether by the meer force of free will, or by the help of Gods Grace: And that being resolved, upon what consideration, in the nature of a meritorious cause, those helps of Gods grace are furnished; To wit, whether by the free Grace of God, or in consideration of the merits and satisfaction of Christ, provided by Gods free Grace, as the reason for which, and the measure by which, the helps of his Grace are dis­pensed. To the latter of them I would onely say here; That I conceive, I have here maintained that reason for the necessity of Baptisme to the salva­tion of all Christians, upon which the necessity of the Baptisme of Infants is to be tied. Which is to say, in plain English; That I have by the premises, re-established that ground for the necessity of Baptisme in generall, the un­setling whereof, was the onely occasion to make the necessity of Baptizing Infants become questionable.

CHAP. VI. Justifying Faith sometimes consists in believing the truth. Sometimes, in trust in God grounded upon the truth. Somtimes in Christianity, that is in imbracing and professing it. And that in the Fathers as well as in the Scriptures. Of the informed and formed Faith of the Schools.

NOW; for those Scriptures wherein the nature of justifying faith is de­scribed, by those effects, which the promises of the Gospel tender, I must here observe that which all observe, that faith is many times made by the Scriptures, to consist in believing the truth of Christs Message which he came to preach; Otherwhiles, neverthelesse, in a grounded trust and confidence in the goodnesse of God declared through Christ. For what is more mani­fest then that of S. Paul, Rom. X. 9. If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe with thy heart that God raised him from the deád, thou shalt be saved. Where first, that which the heart believeth is the rising of Christ from the dead, (signifying by one Article the rest of the Faith) then, that which the mouth professeth is nothing but the same truth. Therefore, neither the inward nor the outward act of faith reacheth any further, then the acknowledgment of the said truth. So the Apostle 1 John V. 15. 10. Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Messi as is begotten of God. Who is he that overcomes the World, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? He that believeth in the Son of God hath the witnesse in himself. He that believeth not God hath made him a liar, be­cause he believeth not the witnesse which God beareth of his Son. Where, it is plain that no difference is made, between believing God, and believing in the Son of God; and [...], is no more then to believe Gods witnesse. Mat. IX. 28. Jesus faith to the blind; Believe you that I am able to do this? They say unto him; yea Lord. Then touched he their eyes saying; ac­cording to your faith be it unto you. That faith which consisted in believing that he was able to do it. So of John the Baptist, our Lord Mat. XXI. 32. John came to you in the way of righteousnesse, and ye believed him not, but the pub­licans and harlots believed him; Which you seeing, repeated not afterwards that ye might believe him. And sure, they obtained the grace of Christ, that belie­ved John the Baptish. Our Lord to the father of the Lunatick, Mat. IX. 23. 24. If thou caust believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straight the father of the childe crying out said; Lord I believe, help my unbeliefe. If thou canst believe that I am able to do this, as afore. Mat. XI. 23. 24. He that shall say to this mountaine, be thou removed, and cast into the sea, and doubt not in his heart, but believe, that, what he sayeth cometh to passe, is shall come to passe to him as he sayeth. Therefore I say unto you, all things that ye ask by prayer be­lieve that ye shall receive, and they shall come to passe to you. John V. 24. He that heareth me and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into condemnation, but is passed from death to life. XX. 31. These things are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believeing ye may have life through his Name. Acts VIII. 37. Philip said to the Eunuch; If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest be baptized. He an­swered and said; I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Upon which faith he is baptized. Rom. IV. 3. Abraham believed God, (saying to him, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven. Gen. XV. 5.) and it was imp [...]ed to him for righteousnesse.

On the other side, it is no rare thing to finde faith described by trust and confidence in God, and the effects of saving faith ascribed to it, as in the descri­ption of the Apostle. Heb. XI. 2. Now faith is the substance of thing hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. That which he calls [...], is that which the Hebrew expresseth by [...] or, [...] both which are some­times translated in the Greek of the Old Testament, [...], signifying con­fidence, [Page 31] [...]s the resolution of Horatius Cocles, not giving way to the enemy, is called by Polibius, [...], and in Livy, subsistere [...]oste [...], is to stand the enemy. So Heb. III. 14. [...] is the first confidence of Christians. and 2 Cor. VIII. 4. [...] confidence in bosting. So Rom. III. 25. Whom God hath proposed as a Propitiatory through faith in his blood. The pro­pitiatory was set before the Israelites to assure them of Gods help, according to the Law: So is Christ, faith the Apostle, to them that have recourse to him with confidence, alledging for themselves his blood shed for us. So, Jam. 1. 6. 7. But let him ask in faith nothing doubting; For he that doubteth, is like the sea waves tossed, and stirred with the windes. Let not such a man think that he shall obtaine any thing of God. Where, the efficacy of prayer is ascribed to an as­sured confidence of obtaining that which is desired, and therefore that beliefe which, according to the words of our Lord Mar. XI. 23. 24. seemeth properly to consist in this assurance, obtaines all prayers. And, not suppo­sing S. Paul to speak of the common faith of all Christians, when he faith; 1 Cor. XIII. 2. If I have all faith, so as to remove mountaines; yet, as he insinu­ates, that this is done by that particular assurance and confidence, which that grace giveth him that hath it; So must the conquest of the World by the common faith of Christians be ascribed to that assurance and confidence, with which all Christians expect Gods promises. And truly, through the manifold indifference of signification, which words will afford them that will use them to their purpose, it cannot be denied, that, to believe God, and to believe in God, is sometimes all a thing. Yet it is very hard to believe that they are intended, by the Scripture, to signifie alwayes the same thing, be­ing so frequently and ordinarily used with a difference. For if we consider, that, in very many texts of the Old Testament, the nature of Faith is expressed by [...] and [...] with the particle [...] by which speeches, trusting and confi­dence in some body, or some thing, (particularly in God, when the speech is of re­ligion) is signified as well by [...], which signifies believing in God, it will be impossible to imagine that all such expressions import no more, then bare­ly believing those things to be true, which God or man sayes, though some­times believing God, and believing in God may signifie all one. The Apostle Hebr. XI. 33, 34, 35. thus reckoneth the marveilous things, which through faith came to passe to the Fathers of the Old Testament: Who by faith sub­dued kingdomes, wrought righteousnesse, obtained promises, stopped the mouthes of Lions, quenched the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, recovered of in­firmities, prevailed in warr, put to flight armies of strangers, women received their dead raised againe, others were beaten to death, not expecting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. And can it be reasonable to im­pute these effects to the bare belief of Gods power or goodnesse, or whatso­ever else can be thought requisite for them then to believe, when as, that trust and confidence in God which supposeth that beliefe, is, both by the nature thereof nearer to these effects, and, apt to dispose them to undergoe those trials, under which they found such deliverances? For, of them all we may say as the Apostle of Elias, James V. 17, 18. Elias was a man subject to like passions with us, and he earnestly prayed that it might not raine, and it rained not upon the land for three years and six moneths: And againe he prayed, and the heavens gave raine, and the earth put forth her fruit. The confidence which Elias had ground­ed upon Gods presence with him, made him first pray for drought, and then for raine, which came to passe according to his saying, 1 Kings XVII. 1. that there should be neither dew not rain for those yeares but according to his word; And so, the trust which the rest there mentioned had in God, to ob­taine so great things as the Apostle sayes befell them; that, rather then the beliefe of Gods power and goodnesse, or whatsoever else they were to be­lieve, chalenges so great effects to be ascribed to it.

I must now observe a third notion, which this word faith signifies, especi­ally in the writings of the Apostles, from whence this difficulty is in the first place to be derived, which you shall find Hebr. X. 39. We are not of apostasy to [Page 32] destruction, but of faith to the saving of the soul. What is opposite to falling from faith, but perseverance in it? or what doth all this Epistle, but learn the Jews that were Christians, not to forsake Christianity, for the persecutions raised against them by those of their kindred? So here, Faith is Christianity, as apostasy the renouncing of it. Then S. Paul, when he saith that his Apostle­ship was for the obedience of faith in all nations, Rom. I. 55. and Rom. XVI. 26. that the Gospel is made known to all nations for the obedience of faith; must needs signifie that submission, which those that render themselves Christians do undertake, for the performing of that condition, whereupon the Gospel tenders everlasting life; Of which he saith againe Rom. III. 27. that boasting is not excluded by the law of works, but by the law of faith. For every law being a condition upon which a man enjoys some benefit, in some society whereof he is a part, the law of faith must needs be that condition, the undergoing where­of intitles all men to the common claime of all Christians, which is their Christianity. So, when S. Paul exliorteth them, Rom. XII. 3. 6. to think of themselves unto sobriety, according as God hath divided to every one a measure of Faith; As againe; If any man had the gift of Prophesie, according to the pro­portion of faith; It is manifest that his meaning in the latter text is; If any man had profited so farre in Christianity, that God thereupon, had bestowed on him the grace of prophesying. For, though it is well known that God some­times gave that grace to those, whom he loved not to life, as Saul, and Bala­am, and Caiaphas, and those who shall say once, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy Name, Mat. VII. 22? (which notwithstanding, under Christianity, is li­mited to the profession thereof, as I shewed you in the beginning) yet it is as certaine, that those whom God imployeth to his People and Church, upon those commissions that require such graces, those he useth to chuse for their proficiency in true Godlinesse; The prophets of the Old Testament being so ordinarily assumed out of those, that had lived in the study of godlinesse under the discipline of the Prophets their masters, that Amos VII. 22. alledges it as a strange thing, that God had made him a Prophet of an heardsman, and that therefore he could not but do his message: And is Saul among the Pro­phets? became a riddle rather then a Proverb, not to be resolved but by ano­ther question, And who is the father of them? that is, that God, the Father of all Prophets, could give his Graces where he pleased, without meanes 1 Sam. X. 11. 12. And therefore at the election, of S. Matthias to the office of an Apostle, to which this grace belonged, the disciples pray; Acts I. 24. Thou Lord that knowest the hearts of all, shew whether of these thou hast chosen: shew­ing, the Christianity of the heart to be the foundation of that choice. And when S. Paul exhorteth to think soberly of themselves, according to that mea­sure of Faith which God had divided to every one; it is manifest, that, this measure of faith extends to all graces, the thought whereof may carry a man beyond the bounds of sobriety; That is, a'l wherein Christianity consisteth. So that, the measure or proportion of Faith, is the measure and proportion of Christianity, which being given by God, though seconded with graces which all had not, he forbids them to be puffed up with. Againe, when the same Apostle hopeth that the faith of the Corinthians, being increased, should be magnified abundantly through them, by his preaching the Gospel to the parts beyond them according to his own rule 2. Cor. X 15 16. What is that in­crease of faith, but the setling of them in their Christianity, which when it were done, he hoped by their meanes, to find accesse to preach to their neigh­bours. I do confidently chalenge to this signification, that text of S. Paul. Gal. V. 6. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncir­cumcision, but faith that is acted by love; Because I know, that no man that un­derstands Greek can deny, that [...] is in this place passive, and because it cannot be understood without violence, how faith should be acted by love, but when that profession, which we make at our Baptisme, is performed for no other motive but that of God and his love. What is then that work of the Thessalonians faith which S. Paul commendeth, 1 Thes. I. 3. which he [Page 33] prayeth God powerfully to fulfill, 2 Thes. II. 11. but the doing of that which they undertook to do when they were made Christians? And what is the mi­nistry of the Philipians faith, Philip. II. 17. but the service which S. Paul did God, in labouring to make them good Christians? And what is the faith in which he would have the Corinthians to stand 1 Cor. XVI. 13? Wherein He and Barnabas exhort the Churches to continue, Acts. XIV. 22? The bare profession of Christianity, or the liabituated resolution of living ac­cording to it? By which reason, whensoever the profession of Chri­stianity is signified by the name of Faith, in the writings of the Apostles, (in which sense it stands as frequently there as in any other) this habituated resolution is presupposed, because, upon presumption thereof men are made Christians to the Church, as well as to God. For, that no man is really and naturally a Christian to God, untill he be so legally to the Church; unlesse it be, when the effectuall purpose of being so is prevented by that ne­cessity, which reasonably cannot be prevented. And hereupon it is, that, though men believe the truth of Christianity, before they are made Christi­ans by being baptized, yet, even in the Scriptures themselves, believers and Christians are many times all one. 1 Tim. V. 8. 16. If any man provide not for his owne, and especially those of his houshold, he hath denyed the faith, and is worse then an infidell. If any believer, he or she, have widows, let them support them, and let not the Church be charged. VI. 2. Those servants that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but serve them the ra­the [...] because they are faithfull and beloved Titus, I. 6. If any man be blameless the husband of one wife, having children that believe, not blamed for riotousnesse, or disobedience. Apoc. XVII. 14. They that are with the Lamb, are such as are called, and choice, and believers. And hereupon, when the Apostle faith, John III. 5. [...]; His meaning of, necessity, is this; Beloved, thou shalt do like a Christian what thou shalt do for the brethren and strangers: Because no private trust, but the common tye of Christianity, obligeth to do good to Christian travelers, of whom he speakes there. And therefore Acts II. 38, 44. S. Peter having said to those that were pricked in heart, upon conviction of the resurrection of our Lord; Repent ye and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, unto remission of sins; And this being done, it followeth; But all the believers were together, and had all things common,

Here I must not forget the stile and language of the most ancient Fathers of the Church, who, deriving from and referring all their studies to the Scriptures, must needs speak in the same stile with them in matters of Christianity. I do not intend therefore to say, that they do not use the word Faith, to signifie the belief of those things which the Gospel declareth to be true; and that trust and confidence in God, through Christ, which the truth thereof naturally tendeth to produce; Having shewed, that both these conceptions are frequently signi­fied by the terme of faith in the writings of the Apostles, their masters: But I say further, that, it is oftentimes used by them in this third sense which I spake of last, to signifie Christianity, that is the profession thereof, presumed by the Church not to be counterseit. This is very visible in Tertullian, in whose language. Faith and Baptisme are many times the same thing; de exhorta­tione castitatis, Cap. I. Nec secundas post sidem nuptias permittitur nosse. And is not permitted to know any second marriage after Baptisme. De Pudicitia. Cap. XVI. Quae amisso viro Fidem ingressa. She who entered into the faith having lost her husband; Is, that became a Christian. Ibid. Cap. XVIII. Ante fidem & post fidem; Signifies, before and after Baptisme. Therefore in his Scorpiace, Cap. VIII. Talia a primordio & pr [...]cepta & exempl [...] debitricem Martyrii Fidem ostendunt. Such precepts, such examples from the beginning shew, that Faith is indebted in Martyrdome. For it is Baptisme that obliges a Christian to Martyrdome rather then renounce the Faith. So S. Cyprian, following his master, Epist. ad Antonianum. Si fidei calor praevalet. If the heat of faith prevail. And De [...]opere & Eleemosyna; Credentium fides novo adhuc fidei calore ferve­bat. [Page 34] The faith of believers was servent with the heat of faith being yet new. For so Tertullian had said of Morcion in the place alledged in the first book, Cont. Marc. IV. 4. In primo calore Fidei Catholicae; In the first zeal of the Catholike faith; That is of his professing it, being reconciled to the Church. for these things are properly attributed to the profession of Christianity: But to barely believing that it is true, afarre off, and at a great distance. Cornelius in his letter to Fabius Bishop of Antiochia concerning Novatianus in Eusebius Eccles. Hist. VI. 43. Thus describeth Celerinus, having been persecuted for the Faith, [...] A man who, having most stontly, through the mercy of God, passed through all tortures, and confirmed the weaknesse of his flesh by the strength of his faith; which strength is not in the mind that judgeth Christianity to be true, but by the resolution of the will to stick to it. Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. II. alledges Plato; that in civil commotions the greatest virtue a man can meet with is Faith; To wit, in him whom a man trusts, though the greatest happinesse be Peace which makes it needlesse. Infer­ring thus; [...] Whereby it appears, that the greatest of wishes is to have peace, the great­est of virtues faith. Which he would not have alleged for the commendation of the Christian Faith, had he not understood it to consist in that trust which a man sincerely engageth, as well as in that credit which a man giveth. Where­by we may understand, why, in another place, he will have the title of [...] or the faithfall, for Christians, to hold the same reason with that of Theog­nis; (when he commends a faithfull friend; [...] That he is worth gold and silver, in a civil dissension.) Because, he places the faith of a Christian in the obligation of Christianity which he undertakes, when he expresseth that the honour, which it imports lies in the performing of it. As Lydia when she intreateth S. Paul in these terms Acts XVI. 15. If ye judge me faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there; presseth him, if he think her a true Christian, (as she had professed her self) That is, faithfull to God and his Church, which she must be oblieged to upon the trust that she had taken upon her, in becoming a Christian. Therefore disputing not long afore against Basilides and Valeu­tinus the Hereticks, who made mens faith to depend necessarily upon the frame of their natures; [...] Therefore is faith no longer the achievement of choice, if it be the advantage of nature, nor shall he that believes not be justly recompensed being blamelesse, he that believeth being no cause: Nor shall the property, or otherwise, of faith or unbeliefe be subject to praise or dispraise. And by and by; [...] But where becomes the repentance of unbelievers, through which comes remission of sins? So that neither shall Baptisme be any more reasonable, nor the blessed seal (the gift of the holy Ghost by Baptisme) nor the Son, nor the Father. (from whom it is expected) Onely the distribution of natures according to them, will be found utterly without God, not having, for the foundation of salvation, voluntary Faith. So the volunta­ry engagement which Baptisme expresly inacteth is that Faith whereby a Christian claimes the promises of the Gospel. I know the words of S. Au­gustine may here be objected Enchirid. Cap. XXXI. De hac enim fide loqui­mur quam adhibemus cum aliquid credimus, non quam damus cum aliquid polli­cemur. Nam & ipsa dicitur fides; Sed aliter dicitur non mihi habuit fidem; Aliter non mihi servavit fidem. Nam illud est, non credit quod dixi: Hoc non fecit quod dixit. For, saith he, we speake here of the credit which we give, when we believe something, not of that which we engage when we professe something. For that also is called Faith. But a man meants one way when he sayes, he did [Page 35] not give me Faith: Another way when he sayes, he kept not faith with me: For that is, he believed not that which I said: This, he did not what he said. As if the consideration of trust to be kept or not to be kept, were utterly imperti­nent to the nature of justifying faith. For why were those that were not yet baptized never called Fideles, or Believers, in the primitive Church, though they professed never so much to believe the Christian faith, but onely Catechu­meni, Hearers or Scholars, or at the most, Competentes or Pretenders, when they put themselves forth actually to demand their Baptisme? Why? but to signifie that the Church had not yet conceived confidence of their Christianity, be­cause they had not yet engaged themselves in the profession of it. Which having solemnized by Baptisme they were thenceforth called Faithfull, the Name signifying as well trusty as Believers, having proceeded so farre as to engage themselves to live as Christians, because they believed believed Christianity to come from God as it pretendeth. There would be no end if I should go about to produce the Fathers for this name of Christians. one place or two shall serve for example. Tertullian De Exhort, castitatis, Cap. IV. Spiritum quidem Dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles Apo­stoli. Ergo, qui se fidelem dixerat, adjicit postea; Spiritum Dei se habere, quod nemo dubitares etiam de fideli. And truly even Christians have the Spirit of God, yet are not all Christians Apostles. Therefore (S. Paul.) having called him­selfe faithful, (or a Christian) he adds afterwards, that he hath the Spirit of God, which no man would question in a Christian. Whereupon in his Book, De Jejuniis, Cap. XI. you find an Antithesis, or opposition between Spiritualis and Fidilis; or a meere Christian, and one that had extraordinary indowments of Gods Spirit. As on the other side, de praescript. Cap. XII. Quis Catechu­menus; quis Fidelis incertum est. Speaking of the hereticks, among them, It is uncertain who is a Professor, who a Scholar.

And truly he who considers all virtue to consist in the affection of the will, not in the perfection of the understanding; Considering withall, that faith is according to Clemens Alexandrinus where afore, [...] a voluntary assent of the soul; Or, [...] a voluntary presumption and assent unto piety; Shall find great reason to consider what affection of the will it is wherein he places the virtue of faith in a good Christian. Especially experience on the one side shewing, that hereticks, schismaticks, and badde Christians, (who cannot be thought to be endowed with that faith which recommends good ones) do really and truly believe all that truth, which their Sect or their lust is consistent with; And reason on the other side shewing, how the believing of it becomes reconcileable with the interest of their sect, or of their lust. I suppose, here, that the rea­son which makes the motives of saith, though sufficient, to become defeisible, is the Crosse of Christ, attending the profession of Christianity in time of perse­cution, but the performance of it alwayes, because alwayes difficult and labo­rious, alwayes the following of Christ with his Crosse on our shoulders. When the powers of the World professe Christianity, then is the scandall of professi­on taken away, because they must cherish, (so farre must they needs be from persecuting) that which they professe; But the scandall of the Crosse in performing of it remaines so much the more difficult to be avoided, by how much a man is more subject to be tempted by evill example, to hope for salvation without performing it. Therefore, as I shewed you asore, those who professe to believe the truth of Christianity many times delayed their Baptisme in the Primitive Church, whe­ther as loth to retire to that strictnesse of life which it required, or as sensible of their own weaknesse, and desiring to finde confidence of themselves, that they might walk worthy of it, before they undertook it. Whereupon Tertul­lian, as I shewed you, advises to deferre it, till a man were setled in a state of continence or wedlock. And because the reason of this delay was doubtfull, therefore there remained in the Church some doubt of the salvation of those that died in this estate. But to him that should resolve to wear the profession [Page 36] for a quality rendring him capeable of the priviledges of a Christian, by the laws of Christian powers, but to fulfill it no further then the law should re­quire, to him is the scandall of Christs Crosse quite voided, though by as great a scandal as that which diverts from Christianity, namely, that of Simon Ma­gus, who became a Christian for gaine. He that expressely resolves not this within himselfe, but, in the effect of his life and conversation hath no more regard to the reason of his Christianity then if he had expressely resolved it, is necessarily of the same form, and all that care not to perform what they under­take, according to the ranck and degree of their negligence, reducible to it. But besides it is manifest, that, during the heat of persecution, those that belie­ved not the whole faith of a Christian, that is hereticks; those who, for mat­ters not concerning the Faith, broke the unity of the Church, that is schisma­ticks; were many times ready to suffer death for their sect, and for that part of Christianity which it allowed; So far were they from dis-believing it. Shall we say that any of these had in them the virtue of faith? Let us consider what might move them to believe, and it will appear, first, that they might be moved to believe that for their own sake; which a Christian believes for Gods sake, then, that it can be no part of the virtue of Faith, to believe the truth for a mans own sake and not for Gods. If sensuality can move a worldly man to believe the truth, so long as the advantages of the world attend it, well may it be said to be the grace of God that gives him sufficient reason to believe (sup­posing for the present, not granting, that these reasons are the helps of Gods free grace to bring men to believe) but, that he sets himself in Gods stead, in believing that for his own advantage, which he should believe out of obedience to God, and for his service, is not grace but wickednesse, be it never so true, never so holy that he believes. He that dis-believes part of that which it is necessary to salvation to believe, he that breakes the unity of the Church, upon true grounds though not necessary (for who can make a sect without some pretense in our common Christianity?) he hath the fulfilling of his own will and singularity for his reward, and cannot claime that faith to be a grace of God, which God rewardeth not. Nor is this to say, that the least beginning of Faith is to be had without Gods Grace; (supposing for the pre­sent, but not granting that the worke of Salvation, is the work of Gods prae­venting Grace, from the very beginning of it) But, that there may be a reall beleefe of Christian truth in the understanding of him, that hath no part of good will to be a true Christian; The V [...]article of the Councill of Orange providing only Initium fidei ipsumque credulitatis affectum; That the beginning of Faith, and the very inclination to beleeve be thought to come; Per inspiratio­nem spiritus sancti, corrigentem voluntatem nostram ab infidelitate ad fidem, ab impietate ad pietatem; By inspiration of the Holy Ghost, correcting our Will from unbeleefe to faith, from ungodlinesse to godlinesse. For, though, when first a man is shewed reason to beleeve, both these reasons, and the least inclina­tion to follow them be ascribed to Gods Grace, (because the scandall of the Crosse is to be overcome, to which all that inclination tendeth) yet when that scandall is voided by falling upon as great, the assent of the understanding re­maines the effect of humane discourse upon the sufficience of reasons proposed, all the goodnesse that otherwise must have been ascribed to Gods Grace in the inclination of the will, being void and dead. And all this, though properly said of those that are converted to Christianity, at yeares of discretion, seeing the difference between the cases, is punctually true in them that are bred Chri­stians, supposing them to have the Grace of the Holy Ghost, by being bapti­zed infants, and to have destituted the same afterwards. The beleefe that re­maines in them being meerly the effect of humane discourse, upon the motives of Faith (which are indeed helpes of Grace) without us, without any respect of submission to the will of God, for the effect of them within us; which who giveth, cannot be so wanting to the Grace of God, as we suppose these.

But, this being said, I shall now leave it to the Reader to judge, whether [Page 37] this may have been the occasion; or, upon what other occasion it may be thought to have come to passe, that, in the Doctrine of the Schoole, the in­ward act of beleeving, without the inward resolution of outwardly professing, hath been taken for the whole virtue of Faith; I say, without including that in­ward resolution of the heart, whence, that outward profession proceedeth when it is true, and is alwaies presumed by the Church to proceed, when the contrary appeares not: And that, from hence have proceeded the disputes concerning faith without forme, (which they will have to be that dead faith without works, which S. James II. 17, 19, 20. compareth with the faith of de­vils, that believe and tremble) And faith informed by the love of God, which they will not have to adde any thing to the nature of it, so that it shall consist in any thing else then in believing the truth of the Gospel; but, to qua­lifie it, to justifie him that before was a sinner to God, as containing in it all the righteousnesse of a Christian. But, though at the present, I determine not, what is true in this position, what not; I must determine as to the point in hand, that the nature of that faith, to which the Scriptures of the Apostles, and the most ancient Fathers of the Church ascribe remission of sins, and that righteousnesse which the Gospel holdeth forth;, together with other promises of the same, is no way declared by this resolution, but darkned. For, it is manifestly requisite, for a due account of the sense, as well of the most ancient Fathers as of the Scriptures, that the nature of faith be understood to consist in that, to which the said promises may duely be ascribed; which in both are so oft, so plainly, and so properly ascribed to faith, not to any thing which may stand with it, or necessarily follow it. Now, though no man can resolve to professe Christianity, without true love to God above all things, yet the Scriptures of the New Testament plentifully shew, that the holy Ghost, the Spirit of love is not given to reside habitually with any but those that are baptized and so become Christians, however necessary the actu­all assistance of the same holy Ghost is, to go before and to induce them to be­come Christians, by undertaking what that profession requires. Therefore, it will be necessary to distinguish not onely the faith, but the love, but the hope, the fear, the trust in God, and all other graces begun in him, that beginneth to believe the Gospel to be true, but is yet not resolved to undergo the profession of it, and the condition which it supposes; From the same as they are in him, who, upon such resolution, is become a Christian. And, if any man, upon this distinction, will say, that the faith which he believed with afore is faith without forme, but formed afterwards, he shall easily have me to concurre with him in it; Alwayes provided, that, whatsoever it is the Scripture attri­butes the procuring of the promises of the Gospel to, that be understood to belong to the nature of that faith which alone justifies, according to the Scri­ptures.

CHAP. VII. The last signification of Faith is properly justifying Faith. The first by a Metonymy of the cause: The second of the effect. Those that are not justified doe truly believe. The trust of a Christian presupposeth him to be justified. All the promises of the Gospel become due at once by the Covenant of Grace. That, to believe that we are Elect or Justified, is not Justifying Faith.

FOR, now it is time, to draw the argument which I purposed at first from these premises, and to say; That the name of faith, by the effects which by virtue of the Gospel promises it produceth, being attributed, first, to the bare belief of the Gospel, secondly, to that trust, which a Christian enters into by being Baptized, and lastly to that trust in God through Christ which Chri­stianity warranteth; And the second of these naturally presupposing the first, [Page 38] as the third both of them, the reason can be no other then this; Because the middle is that which entitleth Christians to the promise of the Gospel, in re­spect whereof, both the name of Faith, and the effects of these promises, are duly and reasonably ascribed both to that which it supposeth, and to that which it produceth, both to the cause, and to the effect of it. For, in all manner of language, it is as necessary to use that change of words, and the sense of them, which is called Metonymy by Humanists, and, by some Philosophers and Di­vines of the Schooles denominatio ab extrinseco, as it is impossible for any man, to expresse his minde without that change of speech, which they call a Trope, in any manner of Language. It is not to be imagined, that those fashions of speech are onely used, for ornament and elegance of language; The Human­ists themselves having taught us, that they are as our clothes, as well to cover nakednesse, as for comelynesse. For, as long as the conceits of the minde may be infinitely more then the words that have ben used, it will be absolutely necessary to straine the use of customary speech, as the conceit is not customa­ry which we desire to expresse. It will not, therefore, be strange, that the name of faith should be used to signifie three conceptions distinct, but depend­ing one on the other, so long as there are more conceptions then words; It will not be strange, that the effects of that trust which a man entreth into, by undertaking the profession of a Christian, should be attributed, both to that Faith which believeth the Gospel to be true, (being a thing necessarily pre­supposed to induce a man to undertake that ingagement) and to that confidence which a Christian hath in God through Christ, being a thing necessa­rily insuing upon the undertaking of it, with a sincere and effectuall pur­pose.

But this would be strange, and no just reason to be given for it, were it not granted that the second, to wit, that sincere undertaking the trust of a Christi­an, is that, which really intitleth him to the promises of the Gospel. For, is it not manifest to all Christians, that there are too many in the world, whom we cannot imagine to have any due title to those promises, and yet do really and verily believe the faith of Christ to be true, and Him and His Apostles sent from God to preach it? If therefore we will have these Scriptures which ascribe the promises of the Gospel to believing the truth of it to be true, we must understand them by way of Metonymy, to be attributed to it, as of right belonging to the consequence, which it is naturally apt to produce. Nor is there any reason, that convinceth me in this point more, then that which Socinus giveth, why justification should be attributed to that act of faith alone whereby a man believes the Gospel to be true. His reason is because, he that throughly believes the true God and his providence, which will bring all mens doings to judgement, and render them their due reward of life or death; that believes, our Lord Christ truly tendereth everlasting happinesse to all that take his yoke upon them, and draw in it, as long as they live; must needs stand convict, that he is to proceed accordingly. I say no lesse; And I say, that the preaching of the Gospel tenders motives, sufficient to convict all the world of so much. But I say further, that, so long as, notwithstanding sufficient con­viction tendered notwithstanding a mans faith engaged, and his own sentence past against himself if he faile, we see men, either not embrace Christianity, or not performe it having imbraced it; So long, right to Gods Promises can­not be ascribed to this belief, though, in reason, whosoever is convict of the truth cannot deny, but he ought to engage in Christianity and hold it. The reason is, because we see men not alwayes do that which resonably they ought to do; And therefore, it is not enough to have submitted to conviction what we ought to do: And the promises of the Gospel are not properly ascribed to the belief of those truths, which convince men what they ought to do, but to the consequence thereof, which, naturally and reasonably they are apt to produce, but do not necessarily produce.

Againe, on the other side; Trust and confidence in God, through Christ, obtaines the promises of the Gospel, who denyes it? But is this trust alwaies [Page 39] well grounded and true? Is it not possible for a man to imagine, his title to the promises of the Gospel to be good when it is not? I would we had no cause to believe how oft it comes to passe; I grant, that, at the first hearing and believing the Gospel, all the world have ground enough for that confi­dence, that may save them from despairing to attaine the promises of it: But, hath he, that hath ground not to despaire of being justified by faith, ground to conside, as justified by faith? Or, is that all one, as to have ground enough for that confidence, that they have right to the said promises? I sup­pose there is a great gulfe between both. For, when the preaching of the Gospel convinceth a man that he is lost unlesse he accept it, upon whatsoever condition it tendereth; it is enough to keep any man that is in his wits, from dispairing, to know, that there is a condition tendered by God, the accepting whereof will intitle us to his promises: Because being sincerely tendred in Gods name, there can be no barre, but on our part to the accepting of it. But, to have a well grounded confidence of our own right and just title to the pro­mises, it behoveth, that the Spirit of a man, which is in him, know, that there is in him a sincere resolution of accepting the conditions; Which, how much the better it is grounded and setled, so much more shall his confidence be se­cure. And, to this confidence to bring a man from this former confidence, is as great a work, as to induce a man that believes the world to come to preferre it before this. For, I demand. Is he that sins against God, for love of this world, enemy to God, as the Apostle saith, James IV. 4. or not? Are not all men enemies to God, when the Gospel calls them to become his friends? If not, why may they not be saved without it? If so, can they have confidence in their enemy, by being discovered to be his enemies? Indeed, the Gospel ten­dring conditions of peace, they have confidence, that they may become friends with God, by imbracing the same. But, the confidence of friends, till they have imbraced them, they cannot have. It is therefore a dangerous a im­posture, to invite an unregenerate man, so soon as he is descovered so to be, to the confidence of a Christian in God through Christ; As, not to invite him to that confidence, who may be a Christian, is, to drive him to despaire. For not presupposing his conversion from sinne to God, it is necessarily carnal presumption, not the confidence of a Christian. And, if the Spirit of God should seal to any heart the promises of the Gospel, not presupposing this ground, it were not possible for any man, to discern the illusions of the evil Spirit from the dictates of Gods; The conscience of our submission to those terms, being the onely test, by which the difference is discernable. For, all they that trust in thee shall not be ashamed, but such as transgresse without a cause shall be put to confusion. Psal. XXV. 2. To transgresse without a cause, and, to put trust in God, are terms incompetible. So that, wheresoever we are bid trust in God, (being implicitely forbid trust in the world, or our selves, which, all that love the world, or themselves, not in order to God, necessarily do) there is supposed the ground of this trust, inconsistent with the conscience of sinne. And though this ungrounded confidence importeth carnal presum­ption, yet may it occasion dispaire. For, when the guilt of sinne in the con­science, stronger then all prejudicate opinion, and imposture of false doctrine, discovers that there is no ground for the confidence of a Christian; and pre­judice on the other side, admits no recourse to that condition which is the ground of it; no marvaile if it seem impossible to attain peace of conscience, which appearance is the very horror of despair. Seeing then, that, trust in God as reconcileable, and, for the attaining of remission of sinnes, is the imme­diate fruit of the Gospel believed, but, trust in God as reconciled, which is confidence of remission of sinnes obtained, is necessarily the consequence of that faith which justifieth, (the justification of a Christian, being a sinner be­fore a Christian, necessarily implying remission of sins) what remaineth, but that the professing of faith to God, for the undergoing of Christianity, be the condition upon which the promises of the Gospel become due, that is to say, that faith which alone justifieth.

For, it is true, the Gospel tendereth severall promises, remission of sinnes in the first place, because the first thing, a man convict and sentenced to death seeks, is his discharge; But, no man can have this discharge, but, upon the same terms, he must become the sonne of God, (whether as regenerate by grace, or as adopted to glory, that is, to the right and title of it) and, upon the same terms be sanctified by the holy Ghost, which, as I shewed before is promised as a gift, that is, (habitually to be possessed) onely to Christians and to all Christians; And therefore, it is impossible to imagine a man discharged of his sinnes, that is not, for the very same reason, and therefore at the same instant, of nature as well as of time, regenerate, adopted, and san­ctified. It is indeed to be granted, that justification signifies something dif­ferent from all these promises, in as much as it is manifest, that in the language of the Scriptures, it importeth, not making of a man righteous, but declaring him and accounting him righteous, treating him, and dealing with him as righ­teous: All this is true; And yet I shall not grant, that it is so properly un­derstood to be the act of God, as sitting upon his throne of judgement (whe­ther according to mercy or justice) as, the act of God contracting with m [...]n for everlasting life, upon condition, of submitting to the Covenant of Grace and the terms of it. Indeed, the preaching of the Gospel premises the gene­rall judgement to come, as tendering the way to come clear of it, to wit by Christ, whom it declareth judge of quick and dead. For S. Paul thus proposeth it to the Athenians, Acts, XVII. 30, 31. God, who eversaw the times of igno­rance, now chargeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world righteously, by the man whom he hath ap­pointed, making faith hereof to all, by raising him from the dead. And, of the overture thereof which he made to Felix, S. Luke saith, Acts XXIV. 25. As he discoursed of righteousnesse, and temperance, and judgement to come. And S. Paul speaking of the Gospel Rom. 1. 18. The wrath of God is reveal­ed from heaven, upon all ungodlinesse, and unrighteousnesse of men, that hold the truth in unrighteousnesse. For, the preaching of the Gospel is that revelation which here he meanes. And by S. Augustine, de Catechizandi Rudibus, we understand, that, by the order of the Church, there was no instruction in Chri­stianity without conviction of the judgement to come; as that which obligeth to have recourse to Baptisme for the avoiding of it. But when God conde­scends to tender to those, whom he holds liable to his justice, terms of recon­cilement, plainly he comes down from his Throne of judgement, to deale with his obnoxious creatures upon equall terms, or rather terms of disadvan­tage, supposing what no Christian can deny, that the Gospel tenders terms of our advantage. Nay he is content to go before, and to declare himself tied before hand, if we accept; expecting our choice, whether we will be bound, by accepting, or not, which is a difference, between the Law and the Gospel, not unworthy to be observed. For, the Covenant of the Law was struck once for all, with all those whome it concerned, to wit, the whole people of Israel at once, their posterity, being by birth, subject to it. But when the Gospel is preached, the Covenant of Grace is tendered indeed, but not inacted till some man consent to become a Christian; and therefore, God first binds him­self to stand to the termes which he tenders, expecting whether man will ac­cept them or not. And though it be called the Covenant of Grace while it is but tendered, yet it is not a Covenant, till it be inacted, between God and every one that is baptized.

Seeing then, that no justification of sinners takes effect, but by virtue of the Covenant of Grace, and that the act of Gods meer Grace inacts and gives force to that Covenant, manifest it must needs be, that justification imports the act of God, admitting him for righteous, who, setting aside that Covenant, could not challenge, so to be held and dealt with. But if justification import this act of God, shall it not therefore imply, shall it not suppose some con­dition qualifying him for it? For, what challenge can he, whom the Gospel overtaketh in sinne, pretend, for reward by it, being engaged by Gods law, to [Page 41] the utmost of his power otherwise? shall a mans conversion, from sinne past, to righteousnesse to come, challenge both the cancelling of his debts, and a reward beyond all proportion of that which he is able to do, being obliged to do it? But, shall that Gospel, which pretends to retrive righteousnesse into the world, allow the reward of righteousnesse, without any consideration of it? How then shall it oblige man to righteousnesse, being a law, that derogates from any law of God that went afore it, allowing all the promises it tenders without any consideration of righteousnesse? For, I will not here stand to dispute, whether the Covenant of Grace be a law or not; because, every contract is a law to the parties, and this being between God and man, and supposing the transgression of Gods Originall law, necessarily abates the extent and force of it. But, I will demand, what is, or what can be the righteousnesse of a sinner, but repentance? Which, as it is part of righ­teousnesse, so farre as it is understood to be conversion from all sinne; so, as it is understood to be the conversion of sinners to Christianity, is all righteous­ness, because all sinners are called to Christianity. Only with this difference, that, repentance is the way to that end, which is righteousnesse; Repentance in fieri, righteousnesse, in facto esse, according to the terms of the Schoole And, is it not righteousnesse for a sinner, to desire, to purpose, to resolve to be righteous, for the time to come? Or can he, that is truly qualified a sinner, be any other way truly qualified righteous? Therefore that resolution of righteous­nesse, which, he that sincerely undetakes Christianity must needs put on; (the first part whereof is the profession of God, by Christ, the author and rewarder of it) This, I say, is that which qualifies a Christian for the promises of the Gospel, but alwayes, by virtue of Gods free act in tendring the Covenant of Grace, not by any obligation, which his creature can prevent him with. And this is manifestly S. Pauls sense in Rom. IV. 3, 11, 22, 23, 24. where he alleges Moses, that Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse, and David, pronouncing him blessed unto whom God imputeth no sinne; To shew, that the Gospel declareth Christians to be justified by faith no other­wise, then the Fathers understood men to become Righteous, by Gods grace, accepting that, which nothing could oblige him to accept, for righteousnesse. For no man is so wilfully blinde as to imagine, that the Apostle speakes here of our Lord Christ the object, not of the act of faith; whose words are; That Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse, and, blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne: And sinne, as I take it, stands not in opposition to the object of faith. And, when the Scripture saith, Psal. CVI. 30, 31. Then stood up Phineas, and exercised judgement, and so the Plague ceased: And this was imputed to him for righteousnesse, among all posterities for evermore; It is manifest, that doing vengeance upon malefactors is accounted a righteous thing for Phineas to do, though by Gods command, yet without processe of law. And, 1 Mac. 11. 52. Was not Abraham found faithfull in temptation, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse? And, shall not faith be said to be imputed to him for righteousnesse, in the same sense, as we see evidently, in­during temptation is imputed to him, and doing vengeance to Phineas, for righteousnesse? That is to say, that the act of faith, not the object of it (which act, what it is, and wherein it consists, I suppose is decided by the premises) is imputed to Abraham, and his Spirituall seed for righte­ousnesse.

I have said nothing all this while concerning that opinion, which makes that faith which alone justifieth, to consist in believing, that a man is justified, or predestinate to life, in consideration only of Christs obedience imputed to him. And truely, having said so much, why it cannot consist in having trust and confidence in God through Christ; I do not think I need say much more to it. First, whether or no a Christian can have the assurance of faith, that he is for the present justified, or, that he is from everlasting predestinate to life, is a thing that I intend not here, either to grant, or to deny; Nothing hindring me, supposing for the present, but not granting, that such assurance may be [Page 42] had, upon that supposition to dispute, that he is not justified by having that assurance, but, that, by being justified he obtaines it. For, were it not the strangest thing in the world, that any knowledge should produce the object of it, which it supposeth? Can any reason allow the effect to produce the cause, or any thing to depend upon the consequence of it? No more can Christianity allow; the assnrance of this truth; I am justified (supposing it to be true) to be the ground why it is true? And if any man say that justifying faith is not the assurance of this truth, I am justified, but of this truth, I am [...]redestinate to life, (the reason being; Because the obedience of Christ, appointed for the salvati­on of the elect alone, is imputed to him once for all to life, not onely for the pre­sent to righteousnesse) can any reason be given, why this reason should not take effect from everlasting, but depend upon the knowledge of it, wherein justi­fying faith is said to consist? For, if the onely consideration that intitles him to the promises of the Gospel be the obedience of Christ, why shall not that right take place from the same date, from which the consideration tendered for it takes place? Why should not the opinion of the Antinomians, at least, that which I make to be ground of that Heresie take place, rather then this of Presbyterians? For, both of them being equally destructive to the Gospel of Christ, that which agrees best with it self, (the several assumptions whereof, are most consistent with, and consequent to one another) is doubtlesse the more receivable.

Now, whether we make justification, (granted from everlasting to the elect for whom alone Christ was sent) to go before faith, as the object goes before the knowledge and assurance of it; Or, whether we make it to depend upon faith, (though passed meerely in consideration of the obedience of Christ, de­puted for the salvation of the elect alone) there will remaine no obligation upon the elect to performe any obedience to God, being intitled to, and assu­red of salvation, afore it, and without it. For, the Gospel is the last Law of God, derogatory to any declaration of his will antecedent to it, and not suf­fering any other to take place, further then is provided by it; So that, sup­posing that God hath published salvation to the elect meerly in consideration of Christ, without requiring any terms at their hands; Well may it be said, that notwithstanding, he may determine them to do those things, which he would have them do that shall be saved; But it cannot be said, that he can ob­lige them to any condition, to be performed of their free choice; Or, conse­quently, that there can remaine any difference between good and bad in the doings of them, who are free from all obligation to the meanes, because in­titled to the end without them. And truly it is more modesty to say, that the actions of the elect, to which God determines them upon these terms, are not good, then to say, (as, by consequence it must be said) that the actions of the reprobates are bad, which upon these terms, are not their actions but Gods, nor imputable to any will of theirs, but to his. But, this inconvenience being unavoidable, whether we make justification to depend upon that faith, which consists in assureing us of the same, (and that is to make an object to depend upon the act which it produceth) or that faith to depend upon it, as included in predestination to li [...]e; both of them being destructive to Christianity, it is but a poor plaister, by contradicting a mans self, to seem to salve so great an inconvenience. And truly tis much to be wondered at, how those that pro­fesse nothing but Scripture could ever perswade themselves of an imagination, for which there is nothing to be alledged out of the whole tenor of the Scri­ptures. Whatsoever can be produced out of the Old Testament, for that trust, which the people of God might, or ought to have in God, for the ob­taining of his promises; whatsoever out of the New, for that peace and securi­ty with which Christians may and ought to expect the world to come, (suppo­sing but not granting, all that can be pretended thereby) do but demand where it is said that, a man hath this trust, this peace, this security by having it, and all will be mute. And therefore, having shewed, that the trust and peace of a Christian supposeth that ground upon which he is justified, I will spend no [Page 43] more words to shew, that the knowledge and assurance of justification or predestination supposes the being of it, and that, the ground whereupon it takes place.

CHAP. VIII. The objection from S. Paul; We are not justified by the Law nor by Workes, but by Grace and by Faith. Not meant of the Gospel, and the workes that sup­pose it. The question that S. Paul speakes to, is of the Law of Moses and the Workes of it. He sets those workes in the same rank with the workes of the Gentils by the light of nature. The civil and outward workes of the Law may be done by Gentiles. How the Law is a Pedagogue to Christ.

THE last reason, whereby I prove my intent, consists in the assoiling of that Objection, which is alledged from the disputes of S. Pauls Epistles, ar­guing, that a Christian is not justified by the Law, or, by the works of the Law, and therefore, by Grace, and by Faith: For, he that is justified by in­gaging himself to professe Christianity, and to live according to the same, must needs be justified by performing his ingagement; Unlesse a man would say, that he is justified by making a promise which he never observeth, and which it con­cerns him not to keep, being once justified by making of it. And truly, ha­ving said, that God admits a man into the state of his Grace, in consideration of the act of undertaking this profession; I do not onely grant, but challenge for my privilege to maintaine, that he hold him in the same state, in considera­tion of the act or acts whereby he performes the same. And therefore to the Objection, I returne this in generall: That I do not grant any man to be justified by any thing that supposes not of the Gospel of Christ, since the pub­lishing of it; That is, not by such works as can be done by him, that hath not yet admitted and imbraced the Gospel of Christ, and that by virtue of that Grace of God, which sets on foot the Covenant of Grace. For, the Law go­ing before the Gospel, and being unable to produce that obedience which God would accept in lieu of the World to come, further then, as containing in it self the Gospel, and the effects of it; It is manifest, that righteousnesse cannot be attributed to the Law, nor the works of the Law. And yet, if we consider, that the Gospel it self is a law of God, whereby he ties, at least himself, to certain rerms, upon which he declares, that he will be reconciled with his enemies; There is no reason to understand when S. Paul sayes, that a man is not justified by the Law, or the works of the Law, that he meanes to deny, a Christian to be justified by doing according to the Gospel, which is the law that God pretends to introduce, in stead of that law, by which the Apostle denies any man to be justified. For, all Christianity acknowledges, that the Gospel is implied in the Law, neither could the justification of the Fathers before and under the Law, by Faith, be maintained otherwise: And therefore it is no strange thing to say, that, under the Law, there were those that obtained that righteousnesse which the Gospel tendereth, though not by the Law, but by the Gospel; which under the Law, though not published, was yet in force to such, as by meanes of the Law, were brought to embrace the secret of it. But it cannot there­therefore be said, that they were justified by the Law, or by the works of it, but by Grace, and by Faith, though the Law was a meanes that God used, to bring them to the Grace of Faith.

And therefore, when the Apostles inferences are imployed, to fortifie this argument; To wit, that, if a Christian be justified by works depending upon the Covenant of Grace, then he hath whereof he may glory, which Abraham, that was justified by Faith, had not; Then hath he no meanes to attain that peace and security which the Gospel tendereth, all having the conscience of such works as do interrupt it; I do utterly deny both consequences. For, I say, that the works that depend upon the Gospel are neither done without the [Page 44] Grace of God, from whence the Gospel comes; neither are they available, to justify him, whom the Gospel overtakes in sinne, of themselves, but by virtue of that Grace of God from whence the Gospel comes. Now, I challenge the most wilfull unreasonable man in the world, to say, how, he that sayes this challenges any thing, whereo [...] he may glory without God, who acknowledges, to have received that which he tenders from Gods gift, and the promise which God tenders in lieu of it, from his bounty and goodnesse: To say, how a man can be more assured, that he is in the state of Gods grace, then he can be as­sured of what himself thinks and does. For not to decide at present how, and how farre a man may be assured of Gods grace, whatsoever assurance can be attained, must be attained, upon the assurance which a man may have of his own heart and actions, and that as S, Paul saies, 1 Cor. 11. 10. No man knows what is in a man but the Spirit of a man that is in him. For, if it be said; [...]hat this assurance is from the Spirit of God, and therefore supposes not so much as the knowledge of our selves; I must except peremptorily, that which I premi­sed as a supposition in due place, that no man hath the Spirit of God but upon supposition of Christianity; And therefore no man can know, that he hath the Spirit of God, but upon supposition, that he knows himself to be a good Christi­an, otherwise, it would be impossible for any man, to discern in himself between the dictates of a good and bad Spirit, seeing it is manifest, that, among those that professe Christianity, many things are imputed to the Spirit of God which are contrary to Christianity. Now, of the sincerity of that intention where­with a man ingages to live like a Christian, a man may stand as much assured, as he can stand assured of his own confidence in God, or that he doth indeed believe himself to be predestinate to life. And therfore, it is no prejudice to that security and peace of conscience which the Gospel tendereth, that it presup­poseth this ingagement, and the performance of it. This answer, then, pro­ceedeth upon these two presumptions; That the grace of Christ, which is the grace of God through Christ, is necessary to the having of that faith which alone justifieth; Which the heresy of Socinus denies with Pelagius And, that it justifieth not of it self, but by virtue of that grace of Christ, that is, the grace which God declares in consideration of his obedience. These pre­sumptions, it is not my purpose to suppose gratis, without debating the grounds upon which they are to be received, having once purposed to resolve wherein the Covenant of Grace stands. But I must have leave to take them in hand in their respective places, and, for the present, to dispatch that which presses here, which is to shew, that the intent of S. Paul, and the rest of the Scriptures, which he expounds most at large is this; That a Christian is not justified by the Law of Moses, and those works that are done precisely by vir­tue thereof, not including in it the Gospel of Christ; but by undertaking the profession of Christianity and performing the same, (which is in his language, by faith without the workes of the Law) and therefore, consequently, by those workes, which are done by virtue of this faith, in perfor­mance of it.

And first, I appeale to the state of the question in S. Pauls Epistles, what it is the Apostle intends to evict, by all that he disputes; And demand, who can or dare undertake, that he had any occasion to decide that which here is questioned, upon supposition that a Christian is justified by the Covenant of Grace alone, which the Gospel tendereth; Whether by Faith alone, which is the assurance of salvation, or trust in God through Christ; Or by Faith alone which is the undertaking of Christianity, and living according to the same? For, it is evident in the Scriptures of the Apostles, how much adoe they had to perswade the Jewes, who had received Christ, that the Gentiles which had done the like were not bound to keep the Law, which they, it is evident, did keep; These had no ground, had they understood, from the beginning of their Christianity, that their righteousnesse and salvation depended not upon the keeping of it, under the Gospel of Christ. It is evident, that the trouble which Jewish Christians raised, in the Churches to whom those Epistles are [Page 45] directed, which dispute this point fullest, upon occasion of this difficulty, was the subject and cause of directing the same. What cause then can there be, why these Epistles should prove, that a Christian is not justified by such works as suppose the Covenant of Grace, when as the disease they pretend to cure, consists, in believing to be justified by the works of Moses Law, which sup­poseth it not? For, it is evident, that had it been received as now, that Mo­ses Law is void, the occasion of this dispute in these Epistles had ceased, what ever benefit besides might have been procured by them, for succeeding ages of the Church. Is it not plain that the pretense of S. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romanes, is this, that neither the Gentiles by the Law of Nature, nor the Jewes by the Law of Moses, can obtaine righteousnesse, or avoid the judge­ment of God, and therefore, that it is necessary for both to imbrace Christi­anity? He that reades the two first chapters, cannot question this. In the fourteenth chapter, together with the beginning of the fifteenth, you shall find him resolving, upon what terms, these two sorts of Christians were to converse with one another; And through the body of it, upon what grounds the Gentiles are invited to the Covenant of grace, which the Jewes began then to refuse.

This being the businesse of the Epistle, the drift of it is manifest, whether righteousnesse and salvation come by the Law or the Gospel, by Judaisme or by Christianity. The subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews is this. The Jews being priviledged by the laws of the Empire in the exercise of their Religion, disclaiming those of their nation that had professed Christianity, found means by the power of the Romanes, to constrain them, by persecution, to return to Judaisme. The question is, whether they can obtaine salvation turning Jews againe, which, they perswade themselves they might obtaine being such, be­fore they imbrace Christianity: That this is the question, let him that will take the paines to compare the proposition of it, in the the beginning of the II. Chapter, and the reasons which it is pursued with untill the sixth, with the conclusion of the dispute in the thirteenth; (Considering also that discourse which followes, of the intent and effect of the Law;) Let him, I say, give sen­tence. If he refuse me, I will be bold to say of him; That no man is so blind as he that will not see. With the Churches of Galatia, when S. Paul writ to them, the case was somewhat otherwise. It is manifest that they consisted partly of Gentiles partly of Jews. The words of the Apostle require it; Gal. IV. 8, 9. But then truly, not knowing God, ye served those, which indeed are no Gods; But now having known God, or rather being known of God, how turn ye back to those weak and beggerly elements, to which ye desire to be in bondage againe. For, neither could they serve those that were not Gods indeed, unlesse Gentiles, nor unlesse Jewes, returne to those elements. It is manifest, that, to avoid persecution for the profession of Christianity, those whom S. Paul writes against would have them be circumcised; and so, conforme themselves so farre to the Law, that, those who raised that persecution might be satisfied at their hands. Those that would make a fair shew in the flesh, constraine you to be circumcised, onely that they may not be persecuted with the Crosse of Christ. For, neither themselves that are persecuted do keep the Law; But would have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh: Saith S. Paul, Gal. VI. 12, 13. And againe, Gal. V. 11. But I brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still per­secuted? For then the scandall of the Crosse is void. And is not the question then between the Law and the Gospel, between Judaisme and Christianity, whether of them intitles to salvation and righteousnesse? And shall the excluding of the Law exclude those works which suppose Christianity, or rather include what ever the Gospel includes or inferres?

Consider what opinion the Jews had then entertained, to alienate them from Christianity then, and to divide them from it ever since. So long as the nation stood, it is manifest, how much adoe there was to hold them to the worship of the true God, which was the ground of that Law by which they held the Land of promise. Being carried to Babylon, and seeing the menaces of the Law come to passe, and revolving within themselves those things, which Isaiah and other [Page 46] Prophets had preached against the worship of Idols (upon that occasion it seems, but certaine it is (they never departed from the worship of one true God after­ward. But then, with the study of his law, after their returne from captivity came in a curio [...]ity of learning and keeping all punctillos, which the observa­tion of it could require; As supposing the wisdom of the Nation, which the Law it self magnifieth, Deut. IV. 6, 8. together with their righteousnesse and holynesse to consist in these niceties; Whereas this was, indeed, but the civile and outward observation of those precepts, of the externall worship of one God, and civil conversation among themselves, to which the civil happiness of the land of promise was tied, as I shewed in the first book. Hereupon our Lord to his disciples, Mat. V. 10. Ʋnlesse your righteousnesse exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdome of heaven. And again, to shew, that the disease began long afore, though then it was come to the height, he reproves his hearers with these words which the Prophet Esay had charged upon his time, Es. XXIX. 13. In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines the Traditions of men. Mat. XV. 9. Mar. VII. 7. Where he in­stanceth, in the washing of cups and pots according to the Law, of brasse ves­sels, and beds, of the hands before meat, and after they came from market, according to the tradition of the Elders, which the Apostle 1 Pet. I. 18. calls, their vain conversation delivered from their fathers. This is manifestly that righteousnesse whereof S. Paul sayes, Rom. X. 3. That the Jewes, not knowing the righteousnesse of God, and willing to establish their own righteousnesse, were not subject to Gods righteousnesse. For, as it is evident, that, not to be subject to the righteousnesse of God, is neither more nor lesse, then, to refuse the Gospel of Christ; So their own righteousnesse, which they would establish, in oppo­sition to the same, must needs be that righteousnesse which they might be pos­sest of by virtue of the Law. And indeed, it is not possible to imagine that the Jewes should so punctually and superstitiously reverence all these nice obser­vations, traditions, and customes, which the Scribes and Pharisees brought in, to limit the generality of Moses Law, and to determine every clause, circumstance, and tittle, according to which it should be observed, (which now that vast bulk of their Talmud containes) if they did not thinke, that true wisdome and righteousnesse before God, is placed in the nice keeping of these curiosities. Nor can it be doubted, that the undervaluing of them by reason of Christianity, is that which first occasioned them to take offence at the Gospel, and to this day maintaines them in contradiction to it.

It can therefore by no meanes be doubted, that this is the Law, and there­fore the workes which S. Paul means, when he argues, that we are not justified by the Law, nor the workes of the Law, but by grace and by Faith. For, it is most manifest, that he instances diverse times in those precepts which are not of the law of nature, nor can the workes of them be counted to belong to the inward obedience of God, and his worship in Spirit and truth; But meerely formes, which God had tied them up to his service with, that they might have no occasion to seek after strange Gods; And customes, whereby he had so li­mited their civil conversation to one another, that, being divided thereby from other nations, they might have no occasion to learn their Gods. So S. Paul, Gal. IV. 9. 10. But now having known God, or rather being known of God, how turn ye back againe to those weake and beggarly rudiments to which ye desire to be in bondage againe. Ye observe dayes, and monthes, and seasons, and yeares. For, the observation of legall Festivals, according to the moneths and seasons of the yeares, is indeed obedience to that God, by whose Law the differ­ence is made. But, when their conceits of themselves transports them to imagine, that God esteems them for these things, whereby he hath differenced them from other nations, and, that it cannot stand with that esteem, that he should receive the Gentiles into favour upon undertaking that spirituall obe­dience which Christ publisheth, not tying that to the same; Worthily are they called by the Apostle, weak and beggerly rudiments, that did onely pre­pare [Page 47] them to this obedience, by tying them to the true God and his outward service. And is not the precept of circumcision, in the first place, which ob­liges to all the precepts, and intitles to all the promises, of this nature? Hear S. Paul to the Philipians, III. 3. 6. among whom this leaven began to spread [...] We are the circumcision, saith he, that serve God in the Spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I have confidence in the flesh also; If any other man seem to have confidence in the flesh, I more. Circumcised the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of He­brews, also concerning the Law a Pharisee, as concerning zeal, one that perse­cuted the Church, as concerning righteousnesse that is by the law, blamelesse. Are not all these priviledges of that nation by virtue of Moses Law, and of circumcision, which obliges to it? And is not that confidence of righteous­nesse which is by the Law, which S. Paul disclaimes, (though he claime as good a title to it as any Jew beside) I say, is not that it which moved the Jews, out of zeal to the Law, to persecute the Church? And, can that righteousnesse which moveth to persecute Christianity be thought to presuppose it? There­fore, what S. Paul meanes by confidence in the flesh we must learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews IX. 9. 10. Where the tabernacle is called a Parable, or figure for the then present time, in which gifts and sacrifices were offered, which could not profit him that ministred as to conscience, being onely imposed upon meates and drinkes, and severall Baptismes, and righteousnesses of the flesh, un­till the time of reformation came. Where, [...], are those carnall and bodily rites, which obtaine that carnall righteousnesse, which answereth the carnall and earthly promises of the Law; and were mistaken by them, for meanes of obtaining resurrection unto life, and the world to come, which, under the Law so given, they had neverthelesse just cause to expect, though not in con­sideration of such observations.

Another argument hereof we have from S. Paul, which to me seems per­emptory, in that he opposeth that grace and faith, whereby Christians are ju­stified, to those works, which Gentiles, by the Law and light of nature were able to do; Which works, certainly, do not suppose Christianity. Ephes. II. 8, 9. For, by grace are ye saved through the Faith, and that not of your selves, it is Gods gift. Not of workes, least any man should glory. There is nothing moremanifest, then, that the Church of the Ephesians, when S. Paul wrote this Epistle, was gather­ed of those that had been Gentiles, as you may see by Ephes. II. 11, 12. III. 1, 6. Wherefore, when S. Paul sayes to them, being presently Christians, that they were not saved by works, least they should glory; it is manifest, that his meaning is, that their conversation before the Gospel came, could not move and oblige God to provide them the meanes of Salvation which it tendereth. Againe, S. Paul exhorting Timothy to suffer hardship for the Gospel, accord­ing to the power of God, who, saith he, hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose, and the grace that is given us in Christ Jesus before everlasting ages; 2 Tim. I. 9. speaketh of the same Ephesians whose Pastor Timothy was at that time. But most fully Titus III. 4, 7. But when the goodnesse and love to men of God our Saviour ap­peared, not of workes which we had done in righteousnesse saved he us, but, accord­ing to his own mercy, by the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost, which he shed upon us richly, through our Saviour Jesus Christ, that being justi­ed by his grace, we might become heirs of everlasting life, according to hope. For, that those whom Titus had in charge were Christians converted for the most part of Gentiles, appeares by the Apostles words, Titus I. 10. For there be ma­ny and those rebellious, vaine talkers and cheaters, especially they of the circum­cision, whose mouthes must be stopped. And in the words that goe next afore the passage alledged, there is a lively description of the conversation of the Gentiles; For, of Jewes he could not have said; We also were once foolish, dis­obedient, wandring out of the way, in slaved to divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hatefull and hating one another. Titus, III. 3. Seeing then that it concerns the Gentiles as well as the Jews, which the Apostle argues, that [Page 48] men are not justified by works, but by grace and by faith, it is manifest, that he meanes such works as the Gentiles might pretend to no lesse then the Jews, and that while they were Gentiles, because he speakes of that estate in which the Gospel overtook them; And therefore, when S. Paul denies that men are justified by works, he meanes those works which men are able to do before they are acquainted with the preaching of the Gospel, whe­ther by the light and Law of nature, or by the meere instruction of Moses Law.

For, though the law of Moses containe in it many morall precepts of true, and inward, and spirituall obedience, the observation whereof is indeed the worship of God in Spirit and in truth; Yet we must consider, that the same precepts are part of the law of nature, written in the hearts even of Gentiles. And we must consider further, that these precepts may be obeyed and done two severall wayes; First, as farre as the outward work, and the kinde and ob­ject of it goes; and further, as farre as the reason of it, derived from the will and command of God, and the intention thereof directed to his honour and service. Which purpose of heart cannot be in any man, but him that loves God above this world, making him the utmost end of all his actions. I say then, that of those morall precepts of Moses law, which are parts of the law of nature, the outward and bodily observation goes no further then the ob­servation of other rituall and civil precepts of the same law; And therefore, is to be comprised in the account of those works of the Law by which S. Paul denies, deservedly, that we are justified before God. But, the inward and Spirituall observation of them, (at least, the purpose and intention of it) as it depends upon the grace of Christ, which the Gospel publisheth, so must it necessarily be included in that faith, which, in opposition to the works of the Law, qualifies Christians for those promises which the Gospel ten­dereth.

But that which must remove all doubt, of the Apostles meaning, in this point, must be the removing that difficulty, which held the Jewes then, and still holds them in the opinion, of obtaining righteousnesse and salvation by the Law. For certainely, could S. Paul have perswaded them, that the ancient Fathers from the beginning, of whose salvation theyh could not doubt, though under the Law, yet obtained not salvation by the law, but by the Gospel, it had been an easie thing for him to have per­swaded them to it. The Apostles intent therefore is, to perswade them to that, which, because it was hard to perswade them to, therefore they continued Jewes, and refused to become Christians. Now let us suppose that which I have premised, that the Law expressely covenanteth onely for the worldly happi­nesse of that people in the land of promise, requiring, in lieu of it, onely the outward and civil observation of the law. But, the summe of that outward ob­servation thereof, which is expressely covenanted for, consisting in the worship of one God (whose providence, in the particular actions of his creatures, it presupposeth, maintaining also a Tradition of the immortality of mans soul, and of bringing all mens actions to account) shall not all that are born under this Law, stand necessarily convict, that they owe this God that in­ward and spirituall obedience, wherein his worship in Spirit and truth con­sisteth? And seeing the same God tenders them terms of that reconcilement and friendship, which maintaines them in that state of this world, whereby they may be able and fit to render him such inward and spirituall obedience, punctually making good the same to them; Have they not reason enough to conclude, that they shall not faile of his favour and grace, so long as they pro­ceed in a course of such obedience? How much more, having the examples of the ancient Fathers, the doctrine which they delivered by word of mouth, the instructions of the Prophets, (whom God raised up from time to time, to assure them, that this was that principall intent of Gods law, though it made the least noise in it) how much more, I say, must they needs stand con­vict, both of their own obligation to tender God this obedience, and also. [Page 49] that, tendring it, they could not faile of Gods favour toward them, even as to the life to come. Though this cannot be said, to be the Gospel of Christ because it containeth not the dispensation of his life in the flesh, nor the ex­presse tender of the life to come, in consideration of the profession of his Name, and of living according to his doctrine; Yet, if it be truly said, that the Gospel is implied and vailed in the Law, either this signifies nothing, or this is the thing that it signifies. For upon this ground, it is manifest, that there was alwayes a twofold sense and effect of Moses Law, and, by conse­quence, a twofold law; By virtue of which difference, whereas it is said, Heb. VII. 16. That the legall Priesthood stood by the law of a carnall precept; And the precepts thereof are called, [...], as I said afore; And the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of the red heifer, are said to san­ctifie to the cleansing of the flesh. Heb. IX. 10. 13. On the other side, S. Paul saith, that the Law is spirituall, and that the commandment was given to life, and therefore discovers concupiscence to be sinne. Rom. VII. 7, 10, 14. And S. Steven saith to his people, of Moses, that he received living oracles to give unto us, Acts VII. 38. And S. Paul of himself and his fellow Apostles, deliver­ing the doctrine of the Gospel; Which things we speak, saith he, not with words taught by mans wisdome, but taught by the holy Ghost, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things; 1 Cor. II. 13. that is the spiritual things which the Gospel expresseth, with the same spiritual things implied by the law; As I shew­ed afore, that the same S. Pauls meaning is, that the man of God is perfectly fur­nished to every good work, when he is able to make the Scriptures of the Old Testament usefull, to instruct, reprove, teach, and comfort Christians in Christianity. 2 Tim. III. 16, 17. And truly, whatsoever is said in the writings of the Apostles, or the sayings of our Lord Christ, (supposing the difference between that which is Spirituall, and that which is carnall or literall in the Scriptures) must be expounded upon this ground of the Apostle, that all the promises of God are yea in Christ, and in him amen, as S. Paul saith, 2 Cor. I. 20. That is to say, that the temporall promises of Moses law were intended for, and fulfilled in the eternall promises of Christs Gospel. For, upon this ground, there is a Jew according to the letter, and a Jew according to the Spirit, that is a Christian. Rom. II. 28, 29. There are sons according to the flesh, and sons according to promise. Rom. IX. 8. and he that was born of the bondmaide, was born according to the flesh, and persecuted him that was born of the free woman according to the Spirit; Gal. IV. 23. 29. For this reason it is said; That the Fathers all eat the same spirituall meat, and drank the same spirituall drink, as we Christians do; For they drank of the spirituall rock that followed them, which rock was Christ. 1 Cor. X. 3, 4. Because, as Christianity was intended by the law, so was Christ by the figures of the law; neither is there any other reason to be given, why the letter killeth, but the Spirit quick­neth, as S. Paul affirmeth, 2 Cor. III. 6. but this; Because, as the law in the lite­rall sense, provides no remedy for those that fall into Capitall crimes, but leaves them to the justice of the law; So the Spirituall sense of it was not avail­able to bring men to life, though available to convict them of sinne; So that the Jews, (whom S. Paul pursueth as guilty of sinne, by the conviction of the law) stand noverthelesse convict, that they were never able, however convict of sin, to attain righteousnesse by the help of it alone; and therfore, that they are no lesse obliged to have recourse to the Gospel, and to imbrace Christianity, then the Gentiles themselves, who had no other pretense to avoid the judge­ment of God which the Gospel publisheth.

This is the intent of S. Paul in the first chapters of his Epistle to the Ro­manes, which he recapitulates in this generall inference, Rom. III. 9. We have pleaded before, that Jewes and Gentiles, both are under sinne. And againe, Rom. XI. 32. God hath shut up all under disobedience, that he might have mer­cy on all. And, out of the same consideration he argues, Gal. III. 10, 13. That as many as are of the workes of the Law are accursed. For it is written; Cursed is every one that continnueth not in all things that are written in the book [Page 50] the Law to do them; And againe; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. For it is written; Cursed is every one that hang­eth on a tree. For, though the Law provided remedies for many transgressions, the use whereof might, and did restore men to the benefit of those temporall promises, which it tendered; Yet in as much as there was no remedy against capitall transgressions by the Law, (in as much as no remedy against death, which is the punishment allotted to the transgression of Gods originall Law) in so much it is justly said; That, by the law, there was sufficient conviction of that spirituall death, to which, those that retired not themselves under the Spirituall Law of God were necessarily liable; Though that Spirituall Law were never published, till Christ, by submitting to the literal curse of the law, had established the same. To this purpose truly saith S. Paul Gal. III. 18, 19. That the inheritance being allowed Abraham by promise, the Law was added because of transgressions; That is, because there was no relying upon the good nature of that people, (whose benefit, the promises made to Abraham did concerne) that, because they professed the true God and acknowledged his providence, and judgement to come, therefore, without constraint of tempo­rall punishments, they would abstain, even from those sins whereby eivil society is violated. And therefore the Apostle addeth; That God hath concluded all under sinne, that the promise might be given those that believe, by the faith of Jesus Christ. But, before the faith came, saith he, we were guarded by the law, as shut up to the faith which was to be revealed. So that the law is our Pedagogue to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. The office of a Pedagogue in S. Pauls sense, according to the custome of those times, is not that which most men understand, as I said afore. A Pedagogue is not the master of a School, but a governour, such as Fathers then appointed their sonnes, (out of their slaves for the most part, in whose discretion they had some confidence, to trust their children with them) for the conducting of them to Schoole, and for the over-seeing of them when they were dismissed by their masters againe. So that, when he saith; the Law is our Pedagogue to bring us to Schoole to Christ; The sense is most fit and proper according to my intent; That, dis­covering the conviction of sinne by the punishments, wherewith it guardeth and shutteth men up from offending, it leadeth us to the ingagement which Christ requireth of us, that we offend no more. And, upon this ground, and to this effect it is, that S. Paul inferrs, out of the passages of the old Testa­ment which he had there premised, Rom. III. 19, 20, 21. What the Law saith it saith to those that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty to God, thot no flesh should be justified before him by the works of the Law: For, by the Law is the knowledge of sinne. But now the righteousnesse of God is manifested without the Law: be­ing testified by the Law and the prophets. For, how is the righteousnesse of God witnessed by the Law, (which ministreth conviction of sinne) and by the Prophets; but in regard the Law affords sufficient arguments of the truth of the Gospel, by which, that righteousnesse which God accepteth to everlasting life is tendered: And because the Prophets, succeeding the Law, do cleare and publish the same more and more. And againe, Rom. IV. 15, 16. For the law worketh wrath: Because, where there is no Law there is no trans­gression. Therefore of saith, (is the promise) that it may be according to grace; that the promise may be firme to all the seed, not onely that which is of the Law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham, which is the Father of us all. For, if there be a twofold seed of Abraham, one according to the Law onely, which worketh wrath, the other according to the promise; then is there also a twofold Law, because that promise inferres a Law of God, by virtue whereof, those that are of faith are justified by the promise. Now, if the restraining of that people from grosse offences, by those punishments, which the Law threatned them with, were a considerable meanes to prepare that people to submit themselves to the Gospel when i [...] should come to be preached; It will necessarily follow, that, during the time [Page 51] that the Law was to stand, it was appointed by God, to bring them to true spirituall righteousnesse, who, apprehending the secrets of their own hearts open to God, (whom the Laws ties them to acknowledge) and liable to his judgements, in confidence of the goodnesse which he prevented them with, should engage the resolution of their hearts, to worship him in spirit and in truth

Seeing then, that all the arguments, whereby the Law and the Prophets do bear witnesse to the truth of Christianity, are grounded upon the correspon­dence, between the temporall promises of the Law and the spirituall and ever­lasting promises of the Gospel, (whereupon follows the correspondence between that carnall obedience which the Law, and that spirituall obedience which the Gospell requireth) it followeth necessarily; that though there was then no expresse publication of any will of God, to be engaged to give life everlasting, to those that should take upon them to yeeld him that inward and spirituall obedience, which the Gospel now co­venanteth for; yet notwithstanding, this will of his, darkly intimated by the dispensation of the Law, was effectuall to make those that imbraced those intimations, to yeeld him such obedience: and yet the number of them so slen­der, as made the coming of Christ, and his Gospel, no lesse necessary to the salvation of the Jews, then of the Gentiles. And this is that equivocation of the word Law, which Origen, in his exposition of the Epistle to the Romanes, and in his Philocalia, oftentimes complaines to be the occasion of the obscu­rity of that and other of S. Pauls Epistles. The same in a word, which made the Jews stumble at the counsel of God, in voiding that Law, to which he had brought them up, and so well accepted their zeale for it. Onely this we must take along with us, that, whatsoever is here said to be intimated by the Law, and made good under it, concerning the reward of everlasting life to the inward obedience of Gods spirituall Law; is to be understood, by virtue of those promises, upon which the Gospel is established; Which the Fathers from the beginning were bred up in the expectation of, according to that of the Apostle Heb. XI. 13, 16. These all died according to faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afarre of, and being perswaded, and having saluted them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon earth: for they who say such things declare that they seek a country; And, had they been mindfull of that which they were come out from, they might have had time to turn back: But now they desire a better, that is an heavenly; Whereupon God is not ashamed to be called their God: For he had prepared them a City. And againe, 39, 40. These all being witnessed by faith, received not the promises, God having provided some better thing for us, that they might not be perfected without us. Where it is plaine, that they, according to the Apostle, expected the kingdom of heaven by virtue of that promise, which is now manifested, and tendered, and made good by the Gospell, whereof our Saviour saith, John VIII. 98. Your father Abraham leaped to see my day, and saw it and rejoyced: And againe, Mat. XIII. 17. Verily I say unto you that many Prophets, and righteous men have desired to see the things ye see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things ye hear, and have not hard them.

CHAP. IX. Of the Faith and Justification of Abraham and the Patriarkes, according to the Apostles. Of the Prophets and righteous men under the Law. Abra­ham and Rahab the harlot justified by workes, if justified by Faith. The promises of the Gospel depend upon works which the Gospell injoyneth. The Tradition of the Church.

HAving thus shewed, that the interest of Christianity, and the grounds whereupon it is to be maintained against the Jewes, require this answer to be returned to the objection; it remaines that I shew, how the apostles dis­putations upon this point do signify the same. Of Abraham then, and of the Patriarches, thus we read, Heb. XI. 8, 10. By faith Abraham obeyed the calling, to go forth unto the place he was to receive for inheritance, and went forth not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as none of his own, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise: For he expected a City having foundations, the architect and builder whereof is God. Is it not manifest here, that, both parts of the comparison are wrapped up in the same words, which cannot be unfolded, but by saying; That, as Abraham, in confidence of Gods promise to give his posterity the land of Canaan, left his country to live a stranger in it; So, while he was so doing, he lived a pilgrim in this world, out of the faith that he had conceived out of Gods promises, that he should thereby obtaine the world to come? And is not this the profession of Christians, which the Apostle, in the words alledged even now, declareth to be signified by the pilgrimages of the Patriarchs? And is not this a just account, why they cannot be said to have attained the promises by the law but by faith? Therefore, that which followeth immediately, of Sarah, must needs be understood to the same purpose; By faith Sarah also her self received force to give seed, and bare beside the time of her age, because she thought him faithfull that had promised. Therefore of one, and him mortified, were born, as the stars of heaven for multitude, and as the sand that is by the sea shore innumerable. For S. Paul declareth, Gal. III. 16. IV. 22— Rom. IX. 7, 8, 9. that the seed promised Abraham, in which all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, is Christ, and the Church of true Spirituall Israelites, that should impart the promise of everlasting life to all nations. And this promise you saw even now, that Abraham, and the Patriarchs expected. Sarah there­fore being imbarked in Abrahams pilgrimage, as, by the same faith with him, she brought forth all Israel according to the flesh, so must it needs be under­stood, that she was accepted of God as righteous, in consideration of that faith, wherewith she traveled to the world to come. Neither can it be ima­gined, that S. Pauls dispute, of the righteousnesse of Abraham by faith, can be understood upon any other ground, or to any other effect then this. What then shall we say that Abraham our father got according to the flesh? saith he; Rom. IV. 1-5. For, if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not towards God. For, what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse. But, to him that worketh, the re­ward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the wicked, his faith is imputed for righteousnesse. The question, what Abraham found according to the flesh? can signifie nothing, but, what got he by the Law? (which is called the flesh in opposition to the Gospel included in it, which is called the Spirit) Did he come by his righteousnesse through the Law or not? For, had Abraham been justified by works that should need none of that grace which the Gospel ten­dreth for remission of sinnes, well might he glory of his own righteousnesse, and not otherwise; For, he that acknowledges, to stand in need of pardon [Page 53] and grace, cannot stand upon his own righteousnesse. Now Abraham can­not so glory towards God, because the Scripture saith, that his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse, which signifies Gods grace in accepting of it to his account, not his claime as of debt. Whereupon the Apostle inferreth immediately the testimony of David, writing under the Law, in these words; As David also pronounceth the man blessed to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works; Blessed are they whose iniquities are remitted, and whose sinnes are covered: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne. What can be more manifest, to shew that the Apostle intends no more, then that the Fa­thers pretended not to be justified by those workes, which claimed no benefit of that Grace which the Gospel publisheth? Especially, the consequence of Davids words being this; Psal. XXXII. 2. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne, and in whose spirit there is no guile. For, the Prophet David including the spirituall righteousnesse of the heart in the quality of him, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works; the Apostle must be thought to include it in the Faith of him, to whom the Lord imputeth it for righteousnesse. Now when S. Paul observeth in Moses, that Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse; Upon the promise of that posterity which he expected not. Gen. XV. 6. It cannot be said, that Ab­raham had not this faith afore; Or that it was not imputed to him for righteousnesse till now: Because, the Apostle to the Hebrews hath said ex­presly that he had the same faith, and to the like effect, ever since he left his country, to travail after Gods promises; And certainly, it was but an act of the same Faith, to walk after the rest of those promises, whereby it should please God, further to declare the purpose for which he brought him from home. That faith therefore which was imputed for righteousnesse to Abraham, (not as the Jewes challenge righteousnesse, by doing the Law, but as Christians expect it, by remission of sinnes) includes in it an ingagement, of travailing that way that God points out, to the land of promise, upon the account whereof, that faith, which was imputed to the Patriarchs for righte­ousnesse proceedeth. Now, when S. Paul proceedeth further to argue, that, this imputation of Abrahams faith to righteousnesse came to passe, while he was yet uncircumcised, and no way subject to the law; and that by virtue of Gods promise, (which proceeded upon consideration of this righteousnesse) and not of the law, the title of his inheritance stood; (which promise, he argueth further Gal. IV. 18, 19. that the Law, coming four hundred and thir­ty yeares after, could nothing derogate from) I challenge all the world to say, how all this inferrs any more; But, that the righteousnesse of Abraham comes not by virtue of the Law, (by doing whereof the Jewes pretend righte­ousnesse) but by Gods free promise, whereby Christians expect remission of sinnes. To the same effect therefore, S. Paul concludes, Rom. IV. 23, 24. But it was not written because of him alone, that it was imputed to him, but be­cause of us, who believe in him that raised up our Lord Jesus from the dead, to whom it is to be imputed. For, the example of Abrahams faith in the promise of God to give him such a posterity by Sarah, and that it was imputed to him for that righteousnesse, whereby he became qualified for the promises upon which he left his country, is written for the instruction of Christians, upon this account; Because, so sure as we believe, that the New Testament, was intended by the Old, so certaine we are, that the faith whereby we undertake to follow God, and the way to the world to come, which he by Christ points us out, qua­lifies us for the same. But he that will have S. Paul upon these reasons to inferre, that Christians are justified by believing that they are predestinate, or by trusting in God, not supposing that trust grounded upon that obligation which our Baptisme professeth, in plain terms, he makes S. Paul use arguments that do not conclude. For, if Abraham cannot bragge of his righteousnesse before God, because of Gods account, not of debt; If David count happiness not to stand upon any title of purchase, but by remission of sins; If faith were reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse before he was circumcised; If the in­heritance [Page 54] were due by virtue of Gods promise; Then that righteousness which intitles Christians to the world to come, stands by virtue of the Gospel, (which publisheth remission of sins to all whom it overtakes in unrighteousnesse) and, by Gods grace, (in acceping their undertaking of Christianity, and living ac­cording to it, as qualifying them for everlasting life) not by doing the law, without having recourse to that meanes which the Gospel tendereth, for re­mission of sinnes, and right to the world to come. But, it is in vaine to in­ferre from any of those assumptions, Therefore Christians are justified by that faith, in which, no obligation of bearing Christs crosse, or any consideration thereof is included.

With this, which hath been said of that faith whereby Abraham was justi­fied, let us compare that which follows of the faith of Moses Heb. XI. 24, 25, 26. By faith Moses, growing great, refused to be called Pharaohs daugh­ters sonne; chusing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, then to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a time, counting the reproach of Christ greater riches, then the treasures of Egypt: Because he looked upon the reward to be rendred. The faith by which Moses was justified, consists in this, that he renounced his quali­ty in the Court of Egypt that he might have a share in the promises made to Gods people. And this the Apostle justly calls, undertaking the reproach of Christ, because it was the same thing in effect to the people of God then, as now is the bearing of Christs crosse, which Christians at their Baptisme pro­fesse; and because the promises which the Fathers looked after are fulfilled in Christ, as I shewed afore. And herewith let us compare the faith of Enoch, Heb. XI. 5, 6. By faith Enoch was translated not to see death, and was not found, because God had translated him, for before his translation, he is witnessed to have pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please God. For, he that com­eth to God, must believe that he is, and that he rewardeth those that seek him. Well may we conclude from hence, that Enoch was not justified by the Law, nor by the works of it, but by that perswation, upon which he sought God; as Christians, by obliging themselves so to do, not by that faith, which includeth not, nor supposeth any resolution and obligation so to do. Compare now herewith the conclusion of the whole dispute, concerning the righteous men and Prophets under the Law, Heb. XI. 32. 37. And what shall I say more? For, the time will saile me to tell of Gideon and Barak, and Sampson, and Jephtah, and Da­vid, and Samuel, and the Prophets; Who by faith conquered kingdomes, wrought righteousnesse, obtained promises, stopped the mouthes of Lions, quenched the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword. recovered of weaknesse, became strong in war, put to flight armies of strangers, women received their dead raised to life againe, others were tortured to death, not expecting deliverance, that they might obtaine a better resurrection, others had triall of mockings and scourgings, and besides, of bonds and imprisonment, were stoned, sawne asunder, tempted, died slain by the sword, went about in sheeps and goats skins, in want, afflicted, distressed, wan­dring in deserts, and mountaines, and caves and holes of the earth. Will this conclude, that all these were justified by that faith, which neither includeth nor presupposeth a resolution and obligation to righteousnesse; who, out of the hope of Gods promises to his people, acted against the enemies thereof, or suffered for righteousnesse, the same things, in that state of Gods people, which Christians now suffer and do, for the profession of Christs Crosse, into which they are baptized? In fine, the whole dispute of the Apostle here, and of S. Paul, in so many of his Epistles, concerning faith, and the righteousnesse that Christians have by it, is the same with that which the Fathers of the Church maintained against the Jews, that Christianity is more ancient then Judaisme; That, as the Fathers before the Law obtained not that right, (which both Christians and Jews allow them) to the promises of the world to come, by the works of the Law; So the Prophets and righteous men under the Law had not that hope, by doing it, but by the assurance, which, under the dispen­sation of the Law they had conceived, (as of reason they ought) that God would not faile them in the world to come, that should heartily and faithfully [Page 55] serve him in this: Which, (adding to it the profession of the Name and warrant of Christ, as the Author of that contract, whereby we undertake so to do) is Christianity.

I have yet said nothing of the passage of S. James II. 14—, where he disputes expresly, that faith alone justifieth not, but Faith with works, for it seemes to make a generall argument by it self, though in truth, the reason which he brings that Abraham was justified by works, necessarily depends upon the true reason why S. Paul saith; That Abraham was justified by faith; Which reason they that will not admit, deserve to crucifie themselves everlastingly, to find, how he can be truly said to be justified by workes, that is justified by faith alone with­out works afore; were it not pitty, that the Scriptures should be set on the rack, to make them confesse a meaning, which the words in no language, by any custome of humane speech will bear. For, if the Faith of him that hath no good works will not save him, not justifie him, as the Apostle expresly affirmeth, can the workes that are said to do this be said to do it Metonymi­cal [...]y because, they are signes or effects of Faith which doeth it, when it is said that faith without them doth it not? And though, by the way of Meto­nymy, the property or effect of the cause may be attributed to the effect of that cause; Yet when that property or effect is denied the cause, and attri­buted to the effect, will any language indure, that it should be thought proper­ly to belong to the cause which is denied it, and attributed to the effect only by Metonymy, that is, in behalf of the cause that is denied it? Is there any need to come into these straits, when, by saying, that a man is justified by faith alone according to S. Paul, (meaning by undertaking Christianity) a man will be obliged to say, that he is justified by works also, according to S. James, (to wit, by performing that which he undertaketh) unlesse you will have him justified by undertaking that which he performes not? For, when it is said, that a man is justified by undertaking Christianity, it is supposed, that he un­dertakes it sincerely and heartily; Which sincerity, containing a resolution of all righteousnesse for the future, justly qualifies him for those promises which overtake him in sinne, so that, for the present, he can have nothing to justi­fie him but the righteousnesse of this faith alone, which the Gos­pel tells us that God accepteth: But for the time to come, just ground is there to distinguish a second justification, (which proceeds upon the same con­sideration, but supposes the condition undertaken to be performed) from that first, which, though done by faith alone, inferreth the necessity of making good what is undertaken, that it may be available. Is not this that the Apo­stle saith James 11. 15, 16, 17. If a brother or sister be naked or want daily food, and one of you say to him; Go in peace, be warmed and fed, and yet give them not things fit for his body, what is he the better? So also faith, if it have not workes, is of it self dead. Where lies this comparison but in this, that he who professeth Christianity, but doth not according to it, is like him that professeth love to his brother, but relieves not his necessities. And so, when it followes; But a man may say; thou hast faith and I have workes, shew me thy workes by thy faith, and I will shew thee my faith by my workes; For he that liveth like a Christian, it is plaine he sheweth his Faith by his workes, which is evidence that he pro­fesseth Christianity sincerely; but he that onely professeth, is: yet to make evi­dence by his workes, that his profession is sincere. As for the example of Abraham, the Apostles words are these, Abraham our Father, was he not justi­fied by works, when he offered Isaac upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his workes, and by works was his saith perfited. And the Scripture which saith; Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse; was fulfilled, and he was called the sonne of God. What is this, but that which we read, 1 Mac. 11. 52. Was not Abraham found faithfull in triall, and it was counted to him for righteousnesse? For it was counted to him for righteous­nesse, that, not being weak in saith, he considered not his own body already morti­fied, as being a hundred years old, nor the mortification of Sarahs wombe, nor doubted through want of belief in Gods promise, but was strengthened in faith [Page 56] giving glory to God, and being satisfied, that he is able to do what he hath pro­mised; As S. Paul saith Rom. IV. 19, 20, 21. And therefore, much more must it needs be counted to him for righteousnesse, that, by faith he offer­ed Isaac when he was tempted, and that he who had received the promises offered his onely begotten sonne of whom it had been said; In Isaac shall posterity be count­ed to thee. Reckoning that God was able to raise him from the dead. Whence also he received him in a parable; As the Apostle saith, Heb. XI. 17, 18, 19. For here, as I shewed afore, it is the act of faith, and not the object of it that is imputed to righteousnesse: And, in that obedience whereby this temptation was overcome, though there was a good work, yet there was an act of that faith: And therefore the Apostle deservedly addeth, that his faith wrought with his workes; But the faith that moved him to travail after Gods promise, was perfected by this work, wherein that faith moved him to tender God obedi­ence. And therefore the Scripture was fulfilled which saith; Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse; Because that which Moses had said, that God counted Abraham righteous for his faith, was made good, and proved not to have been said without cause, but that he was righte­ous indeed, (as righteous he must be, whom God so accounts) that obeyed God in such a triall as this. So, that which S. James addeth of Rahab; Likewise Rahab also the harlot, was she not justified by works receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? How shall it agree with that of the other Apo­stle, Heb. XI. 31. Through faith Rahab the harlot perished not with the unbe­lievers, receiving the spies in peace; But by virtue of the same reason; that, ha­ving conceived assurance of the promises of God to his people, that she might have her share in them, she resolved to become one of them upon such terms as the case required, wherein certainly, the preservation of their spies was required? So, if by Faith, then by Workes, if by Workes, then by Faith.

I must not leave this point till I have produced another sort of Scriptures, in which the promises of the Gospel are made to depend upon workes which Christianity requireth; AS namely, when forgivenesse of sinners is promised upon condition that we forgive our brethren their offences against us; Mat. VI. 14. 15. Our Lord rendring a reason why he had taught his disciples to pray; Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespasse against us; For if it forgive men their sinnes, your heavenly Father will forgive you also: But if you forgive not men their Transgressions, neither will your Father forgive your Transgressions. And the Apostle, James II. 13. to the same purpose; Judgement shall be without mercy, to him that sheweth not mercy. And the foote of our Saviours Parable, Mat. XVIII. 35. So also shall your bravenly Father do to you, if from your hearts yee forgive not every one his Brother their transgressi­ons. So Mar. XI. 25. 26. And Luc. VI. 37. 38. Judge not and yee shall not be judged, condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, pardon and ye shall be pardo­ned give, and there shall be given to you, good measure, crouded and shaken, and runing over, shall be given into your bosome, for, the measure that ye mete with, shall be measured to you againe, And againe Luk. XI. 41. But give Almes according to your power, and all things shall be cleane to you. So Solomen, Prov. XVI. 6. By mercy and truth shall inquity be expiated And Daniell to Nebuchodonosor, Dan. III. 5. Redeeme thy sins by righteousnesse, or, Almes deeds, and thy iniquity by shewing compassion upon the afflicted. For the verbe [...] can signifie nothing but, Redeem in the Caldee, though there is a figure of speech in the Prophets Language, intending, redeem thy self from thy sinnes as I shall have occasion to say in another place, and therefore tis in the Greek; [...]. And from hence come those sayings, Tobit IV. 11. [...]. And againe Tob. XII. 9. [...]. Almes delivereth from death, and suffereth not to enter into darknesse. And; Almes delivereth from death, and purgeth away all sinne. And Ecclus. III. 33. Water quencheth flaming fire, and with almes shall he make prepitiation for sinnes. And XXIX. [Page 57] 15. Shut up almes in thy store houses, and they will deliver thee from all afflictions. And, the words of the Apostle are plainest in this sense, I Pet. IV. 8. Charity shall cover a many sinnes. The Prophet also to the same purpose, Isa. I. 17. For they that make that filth which alone justifieth not to include, or presup­pose that condition, to which Baptisme tieth Christians, must needs crucifie themselves, and set the Scriptures upon the rack, to finde another meaning for them then the words bear; By which, that which God hath made due without and before any condition, may turely be said, to be given in consideration of it; Which, reason and the common sense of all men abhors. But supposing that faith which onely justifieth to include the profession of undertaking Christianity, as the condition upon which the promises of the Gospel are to be expected; So certaine as it is, that this will not be due if the condition be not fulfilled, so necessary and so proper it will be to say; That, whatsoever that condition includeth, is the consideration upon which the promise cometh, though, not by virtue of the thing done, but by virtue of Gods tender, and the Covenant of Grace, and the promise which it containeth, and the free good­nesse of God which first moved him to tender that promise. And therefore you shall find those that suppose it not, alwayes tormenting themselves, to force upon the Scriptures such a meaning as the words of them doe not beare.

And in the last place, concerning the consent of the Church, though the Fathers are free, in acknowledging with S. Paul, justification by faith alone; yet notwithstanding they are, on the other side, so copious in attributing the promises of the Gospel to the good workes of Christians, that it may truly be said, there is never a one of them, from whom sufficient authority is not to be had for evidence thereof; Which will amount to a tradition of the whole Church, in this point. In particular, S. Augustine (to whom appeal is wont to be made, in all parts of that dispute which relateth to the Heresie of Pelagius) hath so clearly and so copiously delivered the answer which I maintaine, to those texts of S. Paul, where he denieth that Christians are justified by the workes of the Law; that those that challenge him in other points of this dis­pute, concerning the Covenant of Grace, doe not pretend to be of his mind in this. Though the ground of this answer, consisting in the twofold sense of the Law, deserved as I conceive, to be further cleared, even after S. Augustine and the rest of ancient Church-writers.

I would therefore have the reader here to understand, that I account all the rest of this second book, to be nothing else, but the resolution of those difficul­ties, the answer to those objections and demandes, which arise upon the de­termination here advanced. The chief of them is that which followes in the next place; How the promises of the Gospel can be said to be the effects of Gods free grace, requiring our Christianity, as the condition, upon which they become due and not otherwise. But there are also others, concerning the possibility of fulfulling Gods Law, by the new obedience of Christians; concern­ing the goodnesse and perfection of it; concerning the force and effect of good workes, either in making satisfaction for sinne, or in meriting life everlasting; Which I shall allow that consideration, in due time, which the model of this abridgement will bear. As for the sense of the Fathers, evidencing the Tradition of the Church, I am yet to learn, that there ever was any exception alledged to infringe the consent of the Church, in the necessity of good workes, to the obtaining of salvation for Christians: But onely the case of those, who, being taken away by death upon professing Christianity, have not time to bring forth the fruits of it. And how good workes can be the necessary meanes to pro­cure the salvation of Christians, but by virtue of that Law, or condition for obtaining salvation which the Gospel now expresly enacteth, and alwaies did covertly effectuate, no sense of man comprehendeth. For, that the ancient Church agreeth, in allowing the force of satisfaction for sinne to workes of Penance, of Merit for the world to come, to workes done in the state of Grace, none of the Reformation, (which either disowneth [Page 58] or excuseth it for so doing, according to the respect they have for it) can make questionable. And therefore, though this be not the place to justifie the ancient Church in these particulars, yet this is evident, that those, who main­taine more then my position requires, do agree in that which it containes. I shall therefore content my selfe for the present with producing some speciall passages of the Fathers, expressing in my opinion, the markes of my position, and the reasons whereupon it proceeds; As limiting the position between faith and workes, in the matter of justifying, to those works which go before faith, (that is before baptisme) and are done without faith, not to those that issue upon it; and therfore, placing that faith which alone justifieth, in the pro­fession of Christianity by Baptisme: and that justification which insueth upon it, not in effecting that faith, but in those rightes which God alloweth him that hath it, upon the account of it. S. Jerome upon that of Zach. VIII. 10. There was no reward for man or beast. Priusquam fidem Christi quis recipiat, & in eo Spiritus Sancti fundamenta radicantur, nullus audire poterit; Est merces ope­ri tuo; Sive ille Judaeus sit, sive Haereticus, sive Gentilis, quiequid boni operis fe­cerit, nisi in Christi nomine fecerit, mercedem sui operis non habebit. Videmus Haereticorum virgines, Philosophorum rigorem, Judaeorum in escarum varietate observantiam, & tamen dicimus, juxta Aggaeum, quod comedant & non sa­tientur, bibant & non inebrientur, operiantur, & non calescant, & qui mercedes congregat, mittat eas in sacculum pertusum. Before a man receive the faith of Christ, and the foundations of the Holy Ghost be laid in him, no man shall be able to hear; There is a reward for thy work. Be he Jew, or Heretick, or Gentile, whatsoever good work he shall do, not doing it in the Name of Christ, he shall have no reward for his worke. We see the Virgines of Hereticks, the rigor of Philo­sophers, the scrupulosity of Jews in diversities of meates, and yet we say according to Aggai; They eat and are not filled, they drink and are not merry, they are clothed, and not warmed, and he that gathers wages puts them into a purse with a hole in it. Upon Galat. III. 2. Consideremus autem diligenter, quid non dixerit; Ʋtrum ex operibus Spiritum accepistis; Sed adjecerit ex operibus Legis. Sciebat enim & Cornelium Centurionom, Spiritum ex operibus accepis­se, sed non ex operibus Legis, quam nesciebat. Si enime contrario dicatur; ergo & sine eruditione fidei accipi Spiritus Sanctus potest, nos respondebimus; acce­pisse quidem eum Spiritum, sed ex auditu fidei, & naturali lege, quae loquitur in cordibus nostris bona quaeque facienda, & vitanda mala, per quam dudum quoque Abraham, Mosen, & caeteris Sanctos justificatos retulimus, quam augere de­inceps potest operum observatio, legis quoque notitia, non tamen carnalis legis quae praeterit, sed spiritualis, quia lex spiritualis est. Neque vero quia sidem prae­ferimus, legis opera destruimus, aut dicimus, secundum quosdam; Faciamus mala donec eveniant bona, quorum damnatio justa est; Sed servituti gratiam anteponimus, dicimusque, quod Judaei propter metum faciunt, id nos facere pro­pter charitatem: Illos cogi ad bonum, nos bonum sponte suscipere. Non igitur ex fide Christi licentia nascitur delinquendi, sed ex dilectione fidei voluntas boni operis augetur, dum bona ideo facimus, non quia judicem formidamus, sed quia sci­mus ei placere in quem credimus. Now let us diligently consider, that he saith not; Whether have ye received the spirit by works, but addeth, by the workes of the Law. For he knew that even Cornelius the Centurion received the spirit by workes, but not by the workes of the Law which he knew not. For if it be said on the other side; That then the holy Spirit may also be received without the hearing of faith; We will answer; That he received the Spirit, but by the hearing of faith, and the Law of nature, which sayes in our hearts that all good is to be done, and evil avoid­ed, whereby we told you afore that Abraham, & Moses, and the rest of the Saints were justified; which the observation of workes succeeding may increase, and knowledge of the Law, but not the carnal law which is past, but the Spirituall, be­cause the law is spirituall. Nor do we destroy the workes of the Law, because we preferre faith, or say, according to some, let us do evil till good come, whose damna­tion is just: But we preferre Grace before bondage, and say, that we do for love that which Jewes do for feare; That they are constrained to that good which we do [Page 59] of our own accord. Therefore there rises no license to sinne from the faith of Christ, but from the Law of Faith the lust of well doing increaseth, while we do good, not because we are afraide of the Judge, but because we know it pleases him in whom we believe. Here, the difference which I make betweene workes, and workes of the Law, is S. Jeromes. Here, the righteousnesse of the Fathers under the Law of nature is ascribed to Faith, out of which they submitted themselves to it; as also Cornelius his title to that grace of the holy Ghost which the Gospel promiseth. Here the reason is set forth, why the workes of the Law justifie not, because the preaching of the Gospel supposeth that the Law can effect no more then an outward and carnal obedience to the precepts thereof, for fear of punishment; Whereby it appeareth, that those workes which justifie not, are not onely those of the ceremonial Law, but all that goes before the preach­ing of Faith, whether as under Christianity, or as before it, according to S. Jerome. The Gospel, both requiring and effecting that inward and spiritu­all obedience, which love constraineth. I am not afraid, after this to name the short commentary upon S. Pauls Epistles, which usually goeth with S. Jeromes workes, though I will suppose it to be Pelagius his, upon Gal. III. 10. Quae­ritur sant hoc loco, si fides sola sufficiat Christiano, & utrum non sit maledictus qui praecepta Evangelica contemnit. Sed fides ad hoc proficit, ut in promitiis credulitatis accedentes ad Deum justificet, si deinceps in justificatione permaneat; (lege permaneant) caeterum sine operibus fidei non Legis mortua est fides. Qui enim non credunt mandatis, & qui precepta Evangelica contemnunt, maledictos esse & servator edocuit, dicens; Dis­cedite a me maledicte in ignem aeternum. Et Jacobus Apostolus unius mandati transgressorem omnium reum esse ostendit. Here forsoeth, it is questionable, whe­ther faith alone be enough for a Christian, and whether he be not accursed, that shall neglect the praecepts of the Gospel. But faith availeth so farre, as, in the be­ginning of belief, to justifie those that come to God, if they abide in justification thenceforth. But without the workes of Faith, not of the Law, Faith is dead. For that those who believe not the commandments, and neglect the precepts of the Gospel are accursed, even our Saviour hath taught, saying; Go ye cursed from me into everlasting fire. And the Apostle James sheweth, that he who transgresseth one commandment is guilty of all. Againe, upon 1 Tim. II. 15. Notandum quod sola fides ei, qui post Baptismum supervixerit, non sufficiat, nisi sanctitatem mentis & corporis habeat, quae sine sobrietate difficile custoditur. It is to be noted, that faith alone is not enough for him that survives after Baptisme, unlesse he have the holinesse both of mind and body, which without sobriety is hardly preserved. Here you have S. Jeromes distinction between the works of Faith and of the Law, and Baptisme the boundary of righteousnesse by Faith alone, without the works of Faith. And if any man be so impertinent as to suspect S. Jerome for a Pela­lagian, wherein he agrees with Pelagius, S. Austine may perswade him, that Pelagius is no Pelagian in this, but speakes the sense of the Church. Serm. LXXI. De Tempore. Quomodo fides per dilectionem operatur? Et quomodo justi­ficatur homo per fidem absque operibus legis? Quomodo, intendite fratres. Cre­dit aliquis, percepit fidei Sacramenta in lecto, & mortuus est: Defuit illi operan­di tempus. Quid dicimus? Quia non est justificatus? Plane dicimus justifica­tum, credentem in eum qui justificat impium. Ergo rite justificatus est & ope­ratus non est. Impletur sententia Apostoli dicentis; Arbitramur, justificari ho­minem per fidem sine operibus Legis. Latro qui cum Domino crucifixus est, corde credidit ad justitiam, ore confessus est ad salutem. Nam fides quae per dilectionem operatur, etsi non sit in quo exterius operetur, in corde tamen illa fervens servatur. Nam erant quidam in l [...]ge qui de operibus Legis gloriabantur, quae fortasse non dilectione sed timore faciebant, & volebant se justos videri, & praeponi Gentibus quae opus legis non fecerant. Apostolus autem praedicans fidem Gentibus, cum eos qui accedebaut ad Dominum videret justificaetos ex fide (utram quia crediderant bene operarentur, non quia bene opetati sunt credere mererentur) exclamavit securus, & ait; Quia potest justificari homo ex fide sine operibus Legis; Ʋt illi magis non fuerint justi, qui quod faci [...]bant timort faci [...]bant. Cum fides per dilectionem ope­retur [Page 60] in corde, etiamsi foris non exit in opere. How workes Faith by Love? And how is a man justified by Faith without the workes of the Law? Brethren marke how. A man believes, receives the Sacraments of Faith in his bed, and dies, wants time of working. What shall we say? That he is not justified? Plain­ly we say he is justified, believing in him that justifies the wicked. So he is justi­fied but wrought not. The saying of the Apostle is fulfilled; I suppose a man is justified by Faith without the workes of the Law. The thiefe that was crucified with our Lord, believed with the heart to righteousnesse, and confessed to salvation with the mouth. For Faith that worketh by love, when there is nothing to work upon outwardly, remaines neverthelesse fervent in the heart. For there were those under the Law that boasted of the workes of the Law, which perhaps, they did not for love but for fear, and would seem righteous, and be preferred before Gen­tiles, that had not done the work of the Law. But the Apostle, preaching the Faith to the Gentiles, and seeing those who come to the Lord justified by Faith, (so that they did well because they had believed, and not merited to believe by well doing) cries out securely and sayes, that a man may be justified by saith with­out the workes of the Law: So that, they who did what they did for fear of the Law rather, were not righteous; Whereas faith may work by love in the heart, though it go not forth in any work. Againe, Libro quaestionum LXXXIII. quaest. LXXVI. Si quis cum crediderit mox de hac vita discesserit, justificatio fi­dei manet cum illo; Non praesentibus bonis operibus, quia non merito ad illam sed gratia pervenit; Nec consequentibus, quia in hac vita esse non sinitur. If a man depart out of this life straight after he hath believed, the justification by faith remaineth with him, good workes neither accompanying, because he came not to it by merit but by grace, nor following, because he is not suffered to live. The rea­son being the same, for which, those who depart without Baptisme, if not by their own fault, are held to be saved: In regard whereof S. Bernard Epist. LXXVII. thinkes, that the Gospel, Mark XVI. 16. Having said; He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; Doth not repeat, He that is not bap­tized shall be demned; But onely, He that believeth not shall be demned.

Here, the onely case in which a Christian can be saved without good workes is, when time obliges him not to bring them forth. And the onely reason why the workes of the Law justifie not, is; Because the Spirituall obedience of the Law presupposeth faith, the knowledge of the Law according to the letter, reaching onely to produce the outward work, without that inward dis­position, which onely Christianity effecteth, as well as requireth; A thing which S. Austine, in the dispute with Pelagius, so often repeateth. De Spiritu & Litera, Cap. VIII. & XXIX. Contra duas Epistolas Plagianorum, III. 2, 7. De Gratia Christi & peccato Originali, I. 13. II. 24. De Gratia & lib. arbitrio Cap. XII. Origen in Rom. III. Libro III. Indulgentia namque non futurorum sed preteritorum criminum datur. Igitur, ut ad praepositum redeamus, justifica­tur homo per fidem, cui ad justificationem nihil conferunt opera Legis. Ʋbi vero fides non est, quae credentem justificet, etiamsi quis opera habeat ex lege, tamen qui [...] non sunt adificata supra fundamentum fidei, quamvis videantur esse bon [...], opera­torem suum justificare non pessunt, si eis deest fides, quae est signaculum corum qui justificantur a Deo. For faith granteth indulgence of s [...]nnes past, not to come. He therefore is justified by Faith, to returne to our purpose, to whose justification workes of the Law contribute nothing. But where that faith which justifieth him that believeth is not, though a man have workes according to the Law, yet, because they are not built upon the foundation of Faith, though they seeme good, they cannot justifie their workers, wanting Faith, which is the ma [...]ke of those that are justified by God. The same Origen in the same book, bringeth in the example of the thiefe upon the Crosse, and of the woman that had been a sin­ner but was saved by her Faith Luke VII. to the same purpose. And I will not omit the wordes of S. Jerome upon that of Isa. LXIV. 5. All our righteousnesse is like a menstruous ragge. Libro XVII. In quo considerandum, quod justitia quae in Lege est, ad comparationem Evangelic [...] puritatis immunditia nominetur. Etenim non est glorificatum quod prius glorificatum suit, propter excellentem [Page 61] gloriam. And by and by; Si quis igitur post Evangelum Christi, & adven­tum filii Dei, Paedagogae Legis observat ceremonias, audiat populum consitentem quod omnis illa justitia panno sordidissimo comparetur, cui & Esther diadema su­um, quod erat regiae potestatis insigne comparat. Where it is to be considered, that the righteousnesse which is in the Law, in comparison of the purity of the Gospel, is called uncleannesse. For that which was counted glorious, is not glorious, in re­gard of that glory that excelleth. And, If any man then, after the Gospel of Christ, and the coming of the Sonne of God, observe the ceremonies of that Peda­gogicall Law, let him hear the people confesse, that all that righteousnesse is com­parable to a most filthy ragg [...]; Wherewith also Ester compares her diadem, though the ensigne of Royall Power. The Prophet brings in the Synagogue confessing it self destitute of righteousnesse. The Apostles shew, that the Church onely furnisheth that righteousnesse through faith, which the Synagogue, by the Law, cannot have. And shall we say that S. Jerome abuses the Prophet in limitting that uncleannesse, which the Prophet acknowledgeth even in their righteousnes, to that which is to be had by the Law? For, though he name onely the workes of the Ceremoniall Law, yet is all the righteousnesse that is to be had by the learning of the Letter of the Law, of the same nature, not attaining to be done with that disposition of the heart, which onely the Gospel produceth. O Ecumenius upon James II. 14. speaking the sense of some Fathers, hath expressed all the points of my position in these tearmes; [...]. But some of the Fathers have thus judged of this businesse. For they say, that, distinguishing Abraham by times, he is the patterne of both Faiths; Whereof one going before Baptisme, requires no Workes, but onely Faith, and the profession of salvation, and the word whereby we are justified, believing in Christ: The other is coupled with workes. So the Spi­rit that spoke in the Apostles, shewes no contrariety; The one justifying him that approcheth by profession alone, in case he presently depart this life: (For such a one hath no workes, but the cleansing of Baptisme is to him a sufficient passe­port to salvation) The other demanding of him that is already baptized, that he should shew good workes. He had proposed before another way of reconciling the Apostles, by distinguishing severall significations, in the terme of Faith, which in that effect and consequence, falls in with this. S. Gregory, In Evang. Hom. XIX. Quod cum it a sit, fidei nostre veritatem in vitae nostre consideration [...] debemus agnoscere. Tunc enim veraciter fideles sumus, si quod verbis promitti­mus operibus complemus. In die quippe baptismi, omnibus nos antiqui hostis ope­ribus, atque omnibus pompis abrenunciare promisimus. Itaque unusquisque ad considerationem suam mentis oculos reducat, & si servat post baptismum, quod ante baptismum spopondit, certus jam quia fidelis est, gaudeat. Which see­ing so it is, we are to acknowledge the truth of our faith in the consideration of our life. For then are we truly faithfull, (or believers) if we accomplish by workes what we promise by words. For at the day of our Baptisme, we promise to re­nounce all the workes, and all the pompes of our ancient foe. Let every man there­fore turne the eyes of his minde to the consideration of himself, and if he observe after baptisme, that which he promised before baptisme, being now assured that he is faithfull, (or a believer) let him rejoyce.

He ascribeth that justification which requireth good workes, to the fulfil­ling of that promise, which our Baptisme presupposeth. To the same pur­pose, the commentary upon S. Pauls Epistles that goes under S. Ambrose his name, upon Rom. III. 8. Manifeste beati sunt, quibus, sine labore vel opere ali­quo remittuntur iniquitates, & peccata teguntur, nulla ab his requisita poeniten­tiae [Page 62] opera, sed tantum ut credant. By and by; Quemadmodum autem ad paenitentium potest pertinere personam, cum dicit; Beati quorum tectasunt pec­cata; Cum constet, paenitentes labore ac gemitu peccatorum remissionem acquirere? Aut quomode Martyrio congruit, quod dicit; Beatus vir cui non imputabit dominus peccatum; Cum sciamus gloriam martyrii passionibus & pressaris acquiri? Pro­pheta autem tempus foelix in adventu servatoris praevidens, beatos nominat, quibus sine labore, vel aliquo opere, per lavacrum remittuntur, & teguntur, & non im­putantur peccata: Manifestly they are happy, whose iniquities are remitted, and whose sins are covered, without the labour of any work, not requiring of them any paines of Penance, but onely to belivee. And; But how can it belong to the person of Penitents, when he saith, Blessed are they whose sins are covered: See­ing it is manifest, that Penitents attain remission of sins by labour and grones? Or, how agrees that which he saith with Martyrdome: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin; Seeing we know, that the glory of Martyrdome is at­tained by sufferings and pressures? But the Prophet foreseeing a happy time at our Saviours coming, names them blessed whose sins are remitted and covered, and not imputed by the laver of Baptisme, without the labour of any work. Whether or no this opposition between remission of sins which Baptisme alone, and that which Penance and Martyrdome giveth: he pertinently here alledged, and like a Divine (for Baptisme is the undertaking of Martyrdome if God require it, and Penance is the voluntary undergoing of it, when sin requireth it) evident it is, that Baptisme is here the boundary of that justification which faith alone promiseth. And upon Heb. IV. 16. he saies that God gives requiem sempiter­nam fidem habentibus, eam tamen quae per dilectionem operatur, non credentibus poenam perpetuam. Ne forte relicta pollicitatione quam dedimus Deo in bap­tismo, iterum revertamur ad opera infidelitatis quae, abdicamus coram multis te­stibus. Everlasting rest to those who have faith, but that which worketh by love, perpetuall paine to those who believe no. Least peradventure, abandoning the promise which we made to God at our Baptisme, we return againe to the works of infidelity, which we renounce before many witnesses. Where the damation of a Christian is imputed to the transgressing of that promise which he makes to God in Baptisme. And the true S. Ambrose when he saies, lib. 1. Epist. 1. Nec e­nim fides sola ad perfectionem satis est, nisi etiam baptismatis adjiciatur gratia, & sanguinem Christi redemptus accipiat. For, neither sufficeth faith alone to persection, unlesse the grace of baptisme be added, and be that is redeemed receive the blood of Christ; Cleerly compriseth the Sacrament of Baptisme (after which, the baptized alwaies received the Eucharist in the ancient Church) whereupon S. Augustine afore mention Sacramenta fidei, in the plurall number, the Sacra­ments of faith, within that faith which alone justifieth. But the same S. Am­brose Offic. II. 2. Habet ergo vit [...]m aternam fides, quia fundamentum bonum est, habent & bona facta, quia vir justus & dictis et rebus probatur. Therefore faith hath eternall life, because the foundation is good: And so have good works because a man is tried, to be righteous, by both saying and doing. That is, by do­ing as he saies: By doing these works, which, by his Baptisme he undertakes to do. S. Basil, De spiritu sancto, cap. 12. [...]. For faith is perfected by Baptisme, and Baptisme is founded upon faith, and both are fulfilled by the same names: For as we believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so are we baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And profession goes afore, introducing to Salvation, but baptisme followes, sealing up our assent; Not onely to the demand; doest thou believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? but when it is further demanded, wilt thou be baptized upon these termes? And this profession so sealed is that which saveth him that departs upon it, not him that survives to falsifie it. S. Chrysostom in Rom. IV. 2. Hom. VIII. makes a long comparison to shew that man glorisies God more by believing, [Page 63] then by keeping his commandments; Which certainly proceedeth, not not can hold in those workes, that presuppose faith, having in them all that where­by faith glorifyeth God and more: And therefore is to be limitted to works done before faith. And therefore of those workes is S. Chrysostme to be understood, when he sayes, as oft times he doth, that a man is justified without workes, by Faith or by Grace, in Gal III. 12. In Rom. III. 27. Homil. VII. In Ephes. II. 10. Homil. IV. The reason being alwayes that of Theodoret upon Galat. III. 22. [...]. The Seripture of God convinceth both those that were afore the Law, and under it, as transgressors, as well these of Moses Law, as those of the Law of Nature; Offer­ing the salvation that is promised by faith, for an antidote, both for these and for those. If the Law of Moses were not of force to justify, much lesse the Law of Nature. Now the Gospel supposeth both Jewes and Gentiles under sinne, and liable to Gods wrath, till the Gospel come, as S. Paul, in the beginning of his Epistle to the Romanes, declareth. Not as if no man had been saved under the Law, or before it; But because they who then were saved belonged not to the Law of Moses, or that of Nature, but to the Gospel, as saved by the meanes of it. So said S. Jerome afore, that they were saved by the preaching of Faith, under the Law of Nature. And thinne was the number of them who thus were saved, that it was requisite the Gospel should come, least the meanes which God had used to restore man afore might seem to have been imployed to no purpose. So, to be saved by faith and not by workes, is the same with S. Paul, according to the Fathers, as to be justified by being a Christian, and not by being a Jew, by the Gospell and not by the Law. So Tertullian, cont▪ Marc. V. 3. Ejus ergo Dei erit fides, in qua vivit justus, cujus & Lex in qua non justificatur operarius. Pro [...]nde, si in Lege maledictio est, in Fide benedictio. Therefore, that faith whereby the just liveth, shall be the same Gods whose the Law is, whereby he that worketh is not justified. Accordingly, if the curse come by the Law, then the blessing by faith. For that Faith, which properly stands in oppostion to the Law, is Christianity. S. Hilary In Mat. Can. VIII. Mo­vet Scribas, remissum ab hommine peccatum; Hominem enim tantum in Jesu Christo intuebantur, & remissum ab eo quod Lex laxare non poterat. Fides enim sola justificat. The Scribes are moved that sinne should be remitted by a man; For they looked upon Jesus Christ as a meere man, who remitted that which the Law could not loose: For Faith alone justifieth. Faith onely justifieth, in opposition to the Law which remitteth no sin; Therefore faith is Christiani­ty. Clemens Alexandr. Strom. II. To learn is to obey the commandments, which is to believe God. Because, forsooth, to professe the Faith, is to undertake to live by Gods com­mandments. Strom. IV. [...] He therefore playes false with God, that believes not God. But he that keepeth not the commandments, believes not. Againe; [...]. All there­fore, whatsoever ye do, do to the glory of God, whatsoever it is permitted to do, under the rule of Faith. Here, that part of Christianity, which prescribes a Christian, what he is to do, what not, is called the Rule of Faith; Because he believes that God requires it at his hands, though he undertake more then to believe it. Strom. VII. [...]. He is a believer, (or faithful) that receives the com­mandments upon due consideration, and keeps them. Pelagius upon Rom. X. 4. Talis est ille qui in Christum credidit, die qua credidit, qualis ille qui universam legem implevit. Such is he that believeth, the day that he believeth as is he that hath ful­filled the whole Law. In the day of his Baptisme, that is, if he lives not to trans­gresse it. His title to heaven is as good, as if he had done whatsoever the Law requireth. I shewed you before, that Pelag. in the matter of justification departs not from the Church. Clemens of Rome S. Pauls Scholar, whom I will end with, [Page 64] in his Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 13. [...]. Abraham who was called friend, was found faithful in that he became obedient to the word of God. p. 40. [...]. Wherefore was our Father Abraham blessed? was it not because he did righte­ousnesse and truth through Faith? p. 41. [...], They were all, therefore, glorified and magnified, not by themselves, or their owne workes, or just actions which they had done, but by his will. And therefore we who are called by his will through Christ Jesus, are not justified by our selves, or our owne wisdome, or understanding, or workes that we have done with holinesse of heart: But by faith, whereby Almighty God hath justified all from the begin­ing of the world. The Fathers were not justified by their own workes, but be­cause, being called by the will of God, as we to Christianity through Christ Jesus, they were found faithfull, in doing righteousnesse & truth through faith, as he said of Abraham before. For, the workes of Faith cannot be counted our own works, which we had never done, had not Gods call gone afore. That Faith then which alone justifieth importeth as great and as reall a change in the jugdement and resoution of him that attaineth it, from unrighteous to righteous, as the difference between the Law of all righteousnes and the Law of all unrigh­teousnes signifieth For, upon other terms can no man professe himself a Christi­an. And as great and as reall a change it is that succeeds, upon that change, be­tween the relation, which he that is so changed did hold towards God afore, and now holds afterwards, as the difference between the heir of Gods wrath and of his kingdome importeth. But, supposing that change which justifying faith importeth, already in being, that change which the effect of it, in justify­ing importeth, is of necessity, meerly morall, and consisteth onely in the dif­ference, between that remission of sinnes and Gods kingdome, which the pro­mise of his grace, and the debt of punishment, which the sentence of his justice declareth. Whether therefore justifying faith be Gods work or not, (which here I dispute not, because here I cannot resolve) for the cause of it. the effect of it in justifying, which here I debate, will signify no more then an at­tribute due by right to him that hath it, upon Gods promise; importing no change in him, but that which it supposeth, how much soever it import his sal­varion, that his relation to God be so changed. For, I may safely here suppose that, which the title of this dispute, and the very name of the Covenant of Grace attributed to the Gospel of Christ involveth; That Faith justifyeth not by virtue of the work naturally, but morally, by that will and appointment of God, by virtue whereof the Covenant of Grace standeth. And this necessari­ly holds in the sense of the Church, when it ascribeth justification to faith alone, in opposition to the workes of the Law.

A necessary consequence whereof is this; That the forgivenesse of our sinnes will presuppose and require of us, that we forgive others their offenses against us: Because we hold the forgivenesse of our sinnes by the title of our Christi­anity; Whereof, seeing it is one point, that we forgive other men their offen­ses against us, of necessity, failing of the condition required on our part, we faile of the promise tendered of Gods. Therefore the Fathers also, as the Scri­ptures afore, attribute remission of sinnes to Charity, to almes deeds, and to forgiveing of offenses against us. Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 65. [...]. Happy were we if we did do the commandments of God in the concord of Love. that our sinnes might be for­given us through Love. The Apostolicall constitutions VII. 13. [...]. If thou hast, give by thine own hands, that thou [Page 65] mayest act to the redemption of thy sinnes: For by almes and truth sinnes are pur­ged away. Lactantius, VI. 12. Magna est misericordiae merces, cui Deus pol­licetur, peccata se omnia remissurum. Si audieris, inquit, preces supplicis tui, & ego audiam tuas: Si misertus laborantium fueris, ego & in tuo labore mise­rebor. Si autem non respexeris, nec adjuveris, & ego animum contra te geram, tuisque te legibus judicabo Great are the wages of mercy, which God hath pro­mised, that he will remit all sinnes. If thou hearest, saith he, the prayers of thy sup­pliant, I also will hear thine. If thou takest pitty on them that are in paine, I also will take pitty upon thy paine. But if thou respect not, nor help them, I also will carry a mind against thee, and judge thee by thine owne Law. S. Chrysost. Tomo VI. Orat. LXVII. [...]. But there is another way of cleansing sinne, not inferiour to this, not to remember the ma­lice of enemies, to containe wrath, to remit the sinnes of fellow-servants. For so, those which we have done against our Lord shall be forgiven us. Behold also a se­cond way to purge sinnes. For if ye forgive saith he— And by and by; [...]. But if you will learn a fourth, I will name almes: For it hath great force and not to be expressed. For to Nabucodonosor, being arived at all kinde of wickednesse, and going over all goodnesse, Daniel saith; Redeem thy sinnes with almsdeeds, and thy transgressions with pittying the poor. To the same purpose the same S. Chrysost. makes forgiving of injuries, giving thanks in affiction, mercy in helping our neighbours, the cure for sinne, as well as humility, confession, and prayer. In 2 ad Corinth. Hom. II. Because thereby a Christian retires to his promise in Baptisme, expecting remission only from Gods promise in the same. So also, In Epist. ad Rom. Hom. XXV. S. Ambrose, De poenitentia II. 5. David beatum praedicavit & illum, cui pec­cata per Baptismum remittuntur, & illum, cujus peccata operibus teguntur. David proclaimes for blessed, both him whose sinnes are remitted by Baptisme, and him whose sinnes are covered with workes. So charity covers many sinnes done after Baptisme. Caesarius of Arles, Homil. I. Quoties infirmos visitamus, in carcerem positos requirimus, discordes ad concordiam revocamus, indicto in Ec­clesia jejunio jejunamus, hospitibus pedes abluimus, ad vigili [...]s frequentius conve­nimus, eleemosynam ante ostium praetereuntibus pauperibus damus, ini [...]icis nostris quoties petierint indulgemus, istis operibus & his similibus minuta pecca­ta quotidie redimuntur. As oft as we visit the sick, seek those that are put in prison, reduce those that fall out to agreement, fast when a fast is published in the Church, wash the feet of strangers, assemble more frequently to wakes, give almes to the poor that go by the doore, pardon our enemies as oft as they demand, by these works and like to these, small sinnes are every day redeemed. S. Austine. Libro L. Homil. Hom. L. Cap. VIII. Non enim ea dimitti precamur, quae jam in Bap­tismo dimissa sunt, & nisi dimissa credimus, de ipsa fide dubitamus: sed utique de quotidianis peccatis hoc dicimus, pro quibus etiam sacrificia eleemosynarum, jejuni­orum, & ipsarum orationum & supplicationum quisque pro suis viribus offerre non cessat. For we pray not for the pardon of those which are already pardoned in Baptisme, which, if we believe not that they are pardoned, we call the faith it self in doubt: But this forsooth, we speak of daily sinnes, for which also no man ceas­eth to offer, according to his power, the sacrifices of almes, and fasting, and even of prayers, and supplications. S. Gregory, In Psalm. II. Poenitent. Habent enim sancti viri aliquid quod in hac vita operire debeant: Quia omnino est im­possibile, ut in loquutione, aut etiam in cogitatione nunquam delinquant. Stu­dent igitur viri Dei, oculorum & linguae culpas tegere meritis vita, student pon­dere bonorum operum premere immoderata verborum. For holy men have some­thing in this life which they ought to hide: Because it is altogether impossible that in speech, or at least in thought they should never faile. Therefore the [Page 66] men of God study, to cover the faults of the eyes and tongue, with the merits of their lives: They study to presse down immoderate words, with the wait of good works. And by and by, Quia hoc quod tegitur, inferius ponitur, & aliud aliquid super­ducitur, ut quod est subterpositum tegatur, tegere peccata ducimur, quae, quasi subterponentes, abdicamus. Quibus nimirum, quasi tegmen superdicimus, dum bonorum operum nos indumento vestimus. Peccata itaque tegimus, si bona facta malis actibus superponamus. Because that which is covered is laid beneath, and something drawn over it to cover that which lies beneath; we are said to cover those sinnes which we give over, as laying them beneath; Over which we draw a kind of covering, when we invest our selves with the covering of good workes. Therefore we cover sinnes if we lay good deeds over evil workes.

CHAP. X. What Pelagius questioneth concerning the Grace of Christ, what Socinus further of the state of Christ before his birth. The opposition between the first and se­cond Adam in S. Paul, evidenceth originall sinne. Coucupiscence in the unre­generate, and the inability of the Law to subdue it, evict the same. The second birth by the holy Ghost evidenceth that the first birth propagateth sinne.

NOW, though all agree, that we are justified, not by the Law, nor by Workes, but by the Gospel, and by Grace, (because it is the meer Grace of God that moved him to send our Lord Christ, by him to convince the World, that the Gospell is true, and ought to be imbraced) yet, that the Grace of Christ; that is, those helpes of grace which God gives in conside­ration of his merits and sufferings, are requisite to inable those to whome this conviction is tendred, to imbrace it and to persevere in it, neither Pelagius of old, nor Socinus at present will yeild; Nor, that Abraham should have any thing to bragge of, if he should pretend to be justified by those workes, which the free will of him, whose understanding is convict that the Gospel is true, is, without other help able to produce; Or, that, in consideration of any such help, the Gospel is to be counted Grace, which if the helps it requi­reth should be purchased by obeying, it were not to be counted of free Grace. The words of Pelagius are well enough known, remaining upon record in S. Austine, De Gratia Christi, 1. 7. Adjuvat enim nos per doctrinam & revelatio­nem suam, dum cordis nostri oculos aperit, dum nobis, ne praesentibus occupemur, futura demonstrat, dum Di [...]boli pandit insidias, dum nos multiformi & ineffabili dono gratiae coelest is illuminat. For he helps us by revealing his doctrine, while he opens the eyes of our heart, while he shewes us things to come, least we be busied about things present, while he layes open the ambushes of the Devil, while he in­lightens us with the manifold gift of heavenly grace. And againe, Cap. X. Ope­ratur in nobis Deus velle quod bonum est, velle quod sanctum est, dum nos terrenis cupiditatibus diligentes, & mutorum amantium more tantum praesentia diligentes, futurae gloriae magnitudine; [...] praemiorum pollicitatione succendit, dum, revelatione sapientiae in desiderium Dei stupentem suscitat voluntatem, dum nobis suadet omne quod bonum est. God works in us the willing of that which is good and holy, while he inflames us, being addicted to earthly lusts, and loving onely things present, like mute creatures, with the promise of great reward of glory to come, while by re­vealing of wisdome, he raises the dull will to the desire of God, while he perswadeth us to all that is good. Where, besides the Grace of God in making us reason­able creatures, he acknowledgeth also the grace of the Law, meaning thereby the doctrine and motives of Christianity, whereby saith he, the mind is in­lightned to understand the difference between things transitory and everlasting, and the will is inclined and perswaded to preferre true good before that which is counterfeite; Which being said by a Christian, though, I see no expresse [Page 67] mention that he makes of the Gospel of Christ, necessarily infers, that not­withstanding, he supposed the same with Socinus; To wit, that, the convicti­on which the motives of faith tender to all men that are made acquainted with it, as it is necessarily the production of Gods meer Grace, so is it enough to inable a reasonable man (being so convict, how much the world to come is to be preferred before this) to imbrace, and to persevere in that course by which a man stands convict that he may attaine it. And though Socinus hath more expresly maintained that, upon the imbracing of Christianity, the holy Ghost is given to inable Christians to preferre that which their profession im­porteth; Yet, as I find the truth thereof so manifestly layd down in the Scrip­tures of the New Testament, that I cannot see how he should pretend to be a Christian, that should deny it; So can I not remember that Pelagius ever went about to deny it. On the contrary, there is appearance enough, that Pelagius acknowledgeth the grace of the holy Ghost, whether in bringing a man to be, or to persevere unto the end a Christian. His own words are yet extant upon 1 Cor. 11. 10. To us who by believing have deserved to receive the Spirit of God, which shewes us his will; Nobis, qui fide meruimus Sp. Dei ac­cipere, qui voluntatem suam nobis ostendit; Hath God revealed it. And by and by; Sensum Domini, qui est in viris Spiritualibus, sine Spiritu Dei nemo cogno­vit. No man knowes the meaning of God which is in spirituall men, with­out Gods Spirit. And upon Rom. IV. 17. Quare multa peccata donavit abun­dantia donationis Sp. Sancti? Quia multa sunt dona. Ipsa enim justitia dona­tur in baptismo, non ex merito datur. Why hath the abundant gift of the holy Ghost pardoned us many sinnes? Because Gods gifts are many. For righteousness it self is given in Baptisme, not rewarded as of merit. For why might not Pela­gius as well as Socinus, make it the purchase of mans free will, upon the tender of Christianity, which is Gods Grace. For, the appearance is sufficient and evident, that Socinus was so disgusted with the opinion; That justifying faith consists in believing that a man is predestinate to everlasting life, in conside­ration of the obedience of Christ imputed to his account, because given for him and the elect, in opposition to the rest of mankind; that, supposing the ten­der of the Gospel, the accepting of it he placeth in the meer act of free will, upon which the gift of the holy Ghost, necessary to the performance of that which Christianity professeth depends, as due debt by Gods promise; Who, having prevented mankinde with that promise, hath suspended that which fol­lows upon this compliance.

It is further to be considered, that Socinus also acknowledgeth the Grace of the holy Ghost preventing the undertaking of Christianity on our part, under the title of the Spirit of patefaction, as you may see by Volkelius Instit. III. 14. Signifying hereby as it seemeth, that conviction which the Spirit of God ten­dereth by the motives of Christianity, to manifest the truth of the Gospel, pre­venting the will with help to inable it, but not effecting either the outward act or the inward resolution to do it, as you may see S. Augustine distinguish upon his own words, related out of his Bookes of free will. De Gratia Christi. I. 41. This I here lay forth on purpose to shew, that I cannot come cleare of that which I have undertaken to resolve, concerning the Covenant of Grace, nor any man be satisfied in the difficulties that concern it, without taking in hand the whole dispute concerning the free will of man, and the free Grace of God. For having, by the premises, shewed, that the condition which the Co­venant of Grace requires on our part, is an act of free will: (Though such an act as compriseth the ingagement of a mans whole life to Gods service:) Un­lesse it appeare, that the grace of the holy Ghost, which God found requisite for the performance of Christianity, can never be ascribed to the free will of man as due to the right useof it, it will not sufficiently appear, how the Gospel may be called the Covenant of Grace.

But, before I go further, I must not omit to observe a great difference be­tween Socinus and Pelagius, and how that difference seems to reflect upon the present dispute. For Socinus, first had conceived such disgust, as I said, [Page 68] of that predestination, which appoints men to life, meerly in consideration of the obedience of Christ, as their own for whom it was appointed. Then considered well, that free will serves not, so long as the helps, whereby we are inabled to imbrace Christ, and to persevere in Christianity, may be attributed to the obedi­ence of as assigned by God to the consideration and recognizance of it. And therefore found it the onely clear course of establishing that force of freewil, that he had imagined, without consulting the proceediugs of the Church against Pe­lagius, to say; That the merits and sufferings of Christ were not valuable for such a purchase, as being a meer man, from his birth, onely, that he was conceived, not by the way of humane generation, but by the holy Ghost of the blessed Virgine: And that afterwards, being thirty yeares of age, or there­abouts, according to the time that John the Baptist began to preach, he was ta­ken up into heaven to God, and there made acquainted with his message of the Gospel to mankinde, which he undertaking, upon the perill of all the hardship which he was to indure at the Jewes hands for it, it pleased God to advance him for his obedience, (though due as to God from his creature) to be God, to the true power and worship of God, though, in dependance upon himself original­ly God. For, the obedience of Christ being thus over rewarded in his own person, it remaineth, that the gift of the holy Ghost, howsoever requisite to the performance of Christianity, be ascribed to the meer goodnesse of God, which moved him to propose the promise thereof, to those who should im­brace the Gospel, as a recompense for so doing, not as any grace of Christ, that is, any help of grace given in consideration of Christ, resolving a man to imbrace it. It cannot be said, that Pelagius had any hand in this part of Socinus his Heresie, who could not have been heard in the Church at that time, had he once advanced any such ground as this, though so pertinent to his position as you see by Socinus. But, as Pelagius thought of no such thing when he began first to dispute against the grace of Christ, so can it not be said that his followers never thought of having recourse to this plea, as the onely clear ground for their position to stand upon, could it be made good. But for the truth hereof, there being no cause why I should swell this Book with those things that have been said already; I will remit the reader to Jansenius his August, where he shall find what remaines in the records of the Church, how the Pelagians went about to joyne with the Nestorians, and to make our Lord Christ to have purchased his Godhead, by the actions and behavoiur of his humane nature, and how, in this regard they remaine involved in the condemnation of Nestorius at the council of Ephesus. Though, whereas the beginning of this error is there as­cribed to Origen, it is easie to observe a vast difference between this pretense and that conceit which is found at present in his books [...], (but whether resolutely deliverd by him may be questioned) that the humane soul of Christ was chosen by God for the word to be incarnate in, in consideration of that which it had done in the other world. For, this supposes the Godhead of Christ before his incarnation, and the truth of it, which Socinus his opinion, (to which these relations make the Pelagians to have inclined) destroyeth. And so it is manifest, that, according to Socinus, there can be no such thing as the Grace of Christ, according to Pelagius there is not. But, that which is common to both, proceeds upon a supposition common to both; That man is presently, in the same state of free will in which he was created, that the fall of our first parents did no harme to their posterity, neither can their children, that are baptized, be baptized into the remission of sinne, when they have none of their own; Though for Socinus his part, he laughs at the baptizing of infants, who allowes the baptizing of men that have sinned themselves, but as a cere­mony of indifference, which Pelagius, though he be content to allow and re­quire, yet, not to the purpose of remission of sinne in infants. Now the Church of God, in which the Baptisme of infants hath been practised ever since the times of the Apostles, alwayes understood the Gentiles, (that had been left to themselves to fall away to the worship of Idols) to be wholy under the power of Satan, by virtue of that advantage which he had of our forefa­thers: [Page 69] And the Jewes who had retired themselves to the worship of one true God, so little able by that Law, to withdraw themselves from under sin, that few of them were vouchsafed Gods Spirit: acknowledging therefore all this to proceed from the leaven of the first sinne, they acknowledged the necessity of Christs coming for the cure of it, the sufficience of the cure in his Godhead, from everlasting, and the obedience of our flesh, wherein it was incarnate. This being the state of the dispute, it appeareth, that the intent which I propose obligeth me, not to dispatch, without maintaining the eternall Godhead of our Lord Christ; Though not so as to consider the whole controversie of the ho­ly Trinity, but onely that of the person and natures of Christ, how farre it is declared to us by the Scriptures, and original Tradition of the Church. Know­ing neverthelesse, that, this being resolved, the rest of the controversie con­cerning the holy Trinity necessarily falls to the ground of it self, as having no­thing whereupon to subsist, when the everlasting Godhead of Christ is once maintained afore. Now, the ready way that I can think of, to go through so great a dispute as briefly as is possible, is to take in hand first the point of origi­nall sinne, in which, the dispute between Pelagius and Socinus on the one side and the Church on the other side is grounded. For, therefore, I hope, it will appear the shortest way to dispatch the whole dispute, because, that be­ing decided, (together with that which dependeth upon it, as incident to it, concerning the state of our Lord Christ before his coming in the flesh) the rest will appear to consist, either in controversies of Divines, or in mistakes and disputes about words.

I begin with S. Paul, because he it is, who, having laid forth the necessity of Christianity to the salvation as well of Jewes as of Gentiles, in the begin­ning of his Epistle to the Romanes, and in the fourth chapter, by the Example of Abraham confirmed the same; Or, if you please, answered the objection concerning the salvation of the Fathers, before and under the Law; pro­ceeds in the fifth Chapter to lay forth, both the ground upon which it is effectu­all, which is the death of Christ, and the ground upon which it was necessary, which is the sinne of Adam. Thus then saith S. Paul Rom. V. 12, 13, 14. Therefore, as by one man sinne entered into the world, and death by sinne, and so death passed upon all, in whome all sinned. For, untill the Law sinne was in the world; Now sinne is not imputed where there is no Law; And yet death raigned from Adam until Moses, even upon them that had not sinned after the likenesse of Adams transgression, who is the figure of him that is to come. It is said, that the wordes, [...], are to be translated in asmuch as all had sinned; To signifie, that Spirituall death came, after Ad­am, upon all that had sinned as Adam did, inasmuch as they had sinned: For, as for bodily death, they believe not, no more then Pelagius, that it was the punishment of Adams sinne, but the condition of mans birth; Onely the trou­bles, the cares, the sorrowes by which men come to their graves, these, as they acknowledge to be consequences, as of Adams sinne, so, of all those sinnes whereby men follow and imitate Adam; so, they think to be meant by the sentence; In the day wherein thou eatest thereof shalt thou die the death. But this is no lesse then to deny the literall sense of the Scripture, which the Church hath received for one of Origens errors, in the interpretation of the beginning of Genesis. What is it else to say; That Adam was liable to bodily death by nature, but to spiritual death by sinne? For it is manifest by the premises, that through all the Old Testament, the second death is no otherwise preached, then under the figure of the first death; and that, by virtue of the ground laid from the beginning that the Covenant of Grace, which tendreth life and death everlasting, was onely intimated under the Covenant of nature, (which the Law only received, and limited to the happiness of the land of promise, as to the Is­raelits) tendring expresly only blessings and mercies of this life, to the civil and outward obedience of Gods commandments. And can it be imagined, that, in the very first tender that God made to man, of life in consideration of obe­dience, and death of disobedience, this life and this death must be understood [Page 70] to be the second, when the obedience was onely in abstaining from the for­bidden fruit? What was then that fruit of the tree of Life, by eating whereof they might have preserved themselves from death? I aske not what it signified, but what it was. For, all reason will require, admitting the premises, that it signified that, whereby the soul escapes spirituall death: But the same reason will inforce, that it must be the fruit of a tree, which, so long as they eat not of the tree of knowledge, they were licensed to eat, to preserve them from bodily death. Neither is there any difficulty in that they aske; How all the posteri­ty of Adam should have come by the fruit of that tree, that grew no where but in the garden of Eden; For, I suppose it had been as easie, to have plant­ed all parts of the world with the same tree, as with the posterity of Adam, had he continued in obedience: Who, being not driven out of Eden, as upon his disobedience, but sending his posterity, to do that, in the rest of the world, which he did there; had made all the world Eden, by placing the Paradise of God wheresoever innocence dwelt. In this case, I see not why any man should take care for the tree of Life, that no posterity of Adam might die. No more, then, what should become of that innocent posterity, which, when it had so planted the World, the counsel of God, concerning the propagation of man kind, may well be thought to have been come to ripenesse. The Socinians in­deed do alledge Josephus, who, speaking of the tree of life, doth not say, that it should have made man immortall, but onely, that it should have made him live to very great yeares. But that is of no consequence; In regard that it is not ex­pressed in the Scripture, that God would have had man live everlastingly upon the earth, had he lived in obedience. For, supposing that it was a question among the Pharisees, (to which sect it appeares Josephus inclined most) whe­ther so, or, whether God would translate them to a heavenly life after a time of obedience here, (which, to the Pharisees that acknowledge the resurrection and the world to come, must needs seem credible enough) it is no marvaile, that Josephus should say; That, by virtue of the tree of life, they had lived to a very great age, though, in case not translated, they might as well have lived alwayes by virtue of it.

But let us hear S. Paul. 1 Cor. XV. 21, 22. For, since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For, as by Adam all died, so by Christ shall all be made alive. Is there any rising from bodily death but by Christ? I say not any rising, in the quality of those, in whom the Spirit of Christ dwel­leth, of whom S. Paul saith, that He who raised Christ from the dead, shall al­so quicken your mortall bodies, through his Spirit dwelling in you. Rom. VIII. 11. But, setting aside this quality, it is the coming of Christ, and his trump, that raiseth againe, even those that shall rise to judgement. And can it, for all this be doubted, whether that life was lost by Adams fall, which the rising of Christ shall restore? And supposing, that Christ raises onely those that are Christs, as S. Paul speaks, it is their bodies that he raises at last, and that from that death which came by Adam. Seeing then it cannot be doubted, that S. Paul, when he saies that by one man came death, meanes the death of the body, and seeing death passed upon all, it is manifest, that, Adams sin passed upon all, upon whom the death passed, which it brought after it. For, otherwise how can it be said, sinne came into the world by one man? Is it possible to imagine, that all men should propose to themselves to imitate the sinne of Adam? Not possible. Supposing all Adams posterity sinners to God, they may be understood all to have imitated their first Father Adam, two wayes: For, in as much as they sinne against God as he first did, they may be said to imitate him in doing the like of that which he did, though they had no knowledge of what he did, much lesse propose to themselves his example, to do that wherein they are said to imitate him, in sinning against God. This I confesse may truly be said, but not to S. Pauls purpose; Who intends not to say, wherein sinne consists, as to say, in doing what Adam did: But, from whence it proceeds, that from thence he may shew how it is taken away. Now if it be said, that all men in sinning do imitate Adam, as proposing his example to themselves in the nature of a motive, [Page 71] so that, therefore, it might be said, that sinne came into the world by one man and death by sin, which the Apostles discourse requires; This would be evidently false: In as much as the greatest part of the sinnes of mankinde, are and have been committed, by them that never knew what Adam did, so farre from propo­sing to themselves, to do the like. So that it cannot be avoided, that, by the sinne of Adam all sinne came into the world, as well as all death. And there­fore, [...], seemeth to signifie in whom, that is, through whom, all have sinned, as Acts V. 16. [...], through the faith of his name. 1 Cor. VIII. 11. [...]; shall perish through thy knowledge. For, if it be said, that it is not a handsome manner of speech that [...] in whom, should relate to [...] by one man, which it stands in such a distance from; Let him be sure, that there is nothing more ordinary in S. Pauls language, then such transpositions. And seeing death, which I have shewed the Apostle speakes of, hath equally passed upon all mankind, it would be very impertinent to say; that it passed upon all men, in as much as every man had sinned, And truly though [...], may signifie in Greek, in as much as all had sinned, or, so farre as every man had sinned. or, be­cause all had sinned, to wit in Adam; by the same reason as [...], or, [...] in the language of the Poets, signifies the same, (as in the beginning of Homer, [...]) yet it seems to me evident, that the sinne which S. Paul speakes of, when he saies; that, Through the disobedience of one man sin came into the world, and death by sinne; is the sinne that every man does in the world; And therefore when it followeth [...]; the meaning must be, through whom all men have sinned those sins which themselvs do. For, seeing there was mention of one man afore, by whom sinne came into the world, it is more reasonable, that [...] should be personall, relating to that one man through whom all have sinned, then reall, to signifie because all had sinned. And so it is not said by these wordes that all Adams posterity did commit the sinne of Adam, in his com­mitting of it, But it is said, that all the sinne that Adams posterity commits comes by the meanes of Adams sinne, that is, originall sinne is not expresly, but metonymically, not formally, but fundamentally signified, in that all sinne is affirmed to come from that of Adam, and evicence also, in that death, is said to come by it.

That which hath been said makes me stand astonished, to see a Doctor of the Church of England acknowledge no further signification of the Apostles words; As by one man sinne came into the world, and death by sinne, and so sinne passed upon all, in whom all have sinned; But this; That Adam sinned first, and so all his posterity after him: So that by one man sinne came into the world, because, coming upon all, it must needs come first upon the first; Not because his sinne had any influence upon others to cause their sinnes. For, seeing Pela­gius, whom it concerned so much to maintaine, that Adams sinne did no harme to his posterity, having made it the ground of his Heresie, could not never­the lesse put off the force of these words without a shift of imitation, though so pittifully [...]ame, that it could not reach the farre greater part of his posteri­ty; It may justly seem strange, that he who pretends not to go any thing so farre as Pelagius, should not allow that sense of them which Pelagius could not refuse. But if he oversee that which obliged Pelagius to grant, that they intend to set forth the meanes by which sinne came into the world, the obser­ving of it will be enough to exclude his devise. For, to let passe that which is peremptory in them, the comparison between the first and second Adam, (by whom this Doctor will not deny the righteousnesse of Christians to come otherwise then as the first righteous, whatsoever Pelagius or Socinus doe) because I cannot void that issue in this place; The very processe of S. Pauls, dispute having first convicted both Jewes, and Gentiles of sin, then Chap. IV. shewed, how that faith which he preached promiseth righteousnesse, requireth us to understand, that he comes now to set forth, by what meanes this sinne on the one side, and this righteousnesse on the other comes into the world. Nei­ther [Page 72] will the words of the text be so satisfied, wherein we find the same sense repeated in divers expressions, which are not all capeable of that equivocation whereof these words, by one mans disobedience are. For S. Paul saith not one­ly [...] by one man, but, (according to the reasons premised) [...], through whom all have sinned, and, [...], by, that is, through the transgression of that one, and, [...], judgement to condemnation out of one, besides on the otherside, [...], the gift through Grace, Rom. V. 12, 15, 16. And this shall serve for the pre­sent to shew how unable this conceit is to stand against the evidence of the words; Reserving that which is most peremptory in the matter, and the con­sequence of it, till I come to shew that our Lord Christ, the second Adam, is the meanes of our righteousnesse, and therefore by that likenesse of reason which S. Pauls discourse proceeds upon, the first Adam the meanes of our sinne.

And to this purpose speaketh that which followeth; For, when the Apostle argueth, that, whereas sinne is not imputed when there is no Law, notwithstanding, death raigned upon all those that had not sinned as Adam did; That is, by transgressing such an ex­presse law of God as Adam did transgresse; (Observing, that the Fa­thers, who walked with God, whom Adam offended, tasted neverthelesse, of that death which Adam incurred) he inferreth to us, that the effect of Adams sinne, remaines in the whole kind of his posterity, to which death, the punish­ment thereof belongeth. And, I beseech you, of whom speaketh S. Paul but of all mankind, when he writeth thus? Rom. VII. 5-13. For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sinne which were by the Law were exercised in our mem­bers, to bear fruit unto death; But now are we voided to the Law, that being dead by which we were held, that we may live in the new Spirit, not in the old letter. What shall we say then? Is the Law sinfull? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sinne but by the Law. For, I had not known concupiscence, had not the Law said, Thou shalt not covet. But sinne taking advantage by the commandment, wrought in me all concupiscence. For, without the Law sinne was dead. Now I lived somtime without the Law. But the commandment coming, sinne revived and I died. And, that commandment which was for life, to me was found to death. For sinne taking advantage by the commandement, deceived me, and slew me by it. So the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good. Did then that which was good become death to me? God forbid. But sinne, that it might appear sinne, wrought me death by that which was good, that sinne by the commandment might become sinfull above measure. For, though S. Pauls speech here be concerning a Jew, in the person of one, that of a Jew was become a Christian, yet, seeing the proposition of the Apostle bears, that the Gentile is much more involved in that condemnation, to which the Jew is liable; that which belongs to every Jew that comes to Christianity, will be true much more a fortiori, of the Gentile, all mankinde being then compleatly divided into Jew and Gen­tile. And therefore, let no man think, that my present purpose shall ingage me, before I can make use of this Scripture, to decide the question now on foot among Divines, whether S. Paul here speakes, in the person of an unre­generate man or regenerate, which notwithstanding, in another place I may be ingaged to decide. For the present, it is enough for my turn, that an unre­generate man, admitting S. Paul, cannot refuse his owne case to be that, which S. Paul here sets forth to be this; That, being in the flesh, the passions of sinne were exercised in his members, and so forth. For, I know it is said, that, to be in the flesh is to be in the custome of sinne; But what difference makes that in the case, when all to whom the Gospel first comes, are in the flesh, excepting those who, under the Law, though not by the meer Law, came to that state of Grace in which the Fathers stood? And therefore it is to me of no consequence, whatsoever the meaning of the Apostle may be, when he describes those sinfull passions, which he saith were exercised in their members, to be those that were through the Law. I see there are two opinions of his meaning, when he saith [Page 73] afterwards; That sinne, getting advantage by the comandment, (without which it was dead, but, the man alive, and when it came, sinne revived and he died. So that the Law which tendred life, became to his death, because sin by advan­tage of the Law slew him deceitfully) wrought in him all concupiscence. For, one opinion saies; That, when an unregenerate man becomes convict, that the Law of God takes hold of his inward inclinations, which he findes to be evil, the inbred corruption of nature, not submitting thereto upon this meer conviction, flies out into utter defiance of God and his Law, in all disobedience to it, whereby the concupiscence that is opposed may be satisfied. The other saith; That the Law of Moses, in the outward and literall sence thereof requiring onely civil obedience, answerable to that temporall happinesse which it tendereth; It is no marvaile, that Jewes, being tied to the letter of the Law, as their study and businesse, should think the outward and civile observation thereof to be the utmost intent of it, which we see, to this day, to be the error that detaines them from Christianity: And therefore it is properly said, ac­cording to this opinion, that sinne, taking this advantage by the Law, slew me by deceit. But, to me this dispute is of no consequence; Or rather, both o­pinions are to be admitted, in relation to the two severall senses of the Law, which I have advanced. For, as to the literall sense of the Law, (which the Gentile could have nothing to do with) it is manifest this might be. For it is manifest that it is become a scandale to the Jew, to make him think, that he stands right in Gods Court, without any Gospel of Christ, and thereupon, to induce him to defie it. But, as to the spiritual sense of the law (in which the Gen­tile also hath his interest, as concerning things) written in the hearts of all men whatsoever the occasion is, by which it becomes revived in the heart, in which at any time it may have been dead, (because it neither gives rule to the acti­ons thereof, nor bindes it over to judgement) most certaine it is, and most evident the meaning of S. Paul, that when it cometh to convict a man of his duty, and, by consequence what he is liable to upon the faileure, the Law that is for life will prove to death: That is, if Grace help not, sinne will over­come. For, if the helpe of the Law, convicting of one true God, his pro­vidence and judgement, even upon the secrets of the heart, were not able to reclaime those that were bred under it to spirituall righteousnesse; much lesse shal that conviction, whereby the light of nature evidences the same, be of force to the same purpose.

And this is that which S. Paul intimates Rom. VIII. 3, 4. For, whereas the want of force in the Law was weake through the flesh; God, sending his sonne in the likenesse of sinfull flesh, and concerning sinne, condemned sinne in the flesh, that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us, that walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For, if the doctrine of Moses Law, (which, as I have shewed, giveth so really eminent advantages towards the choice of true righteousnesse) was uneffectuall to the Jewes, by reason of the flesh; of necessity, the light of nature must needs become uneffectual to the Gentiles, in the same regard, of the flesh; Which is therefore the common principle, by meanes whereof true righteousnesse can take no place, without the Gospel of Christ, neither in Jews nor Gentiles. And therefore, that which follows in S. Pauls discourse Rom. VII. 14—, (leaving for the present the dispute, how farre it takes place in the regenerate) in all opinions must take place in the unregenerate, upon a principle common to all mankind; Which is this, that as the Law of God is spirituall, so, man is carnall, and by consequence sold under sinne. For, in whom there is a contradiction to the Law of God, and that righteousnesse which it requireth of man, from the inward motions of the heart, so soon as the understanding becoms convict, that, this it requireth, [...]n him there is, unquestionably, a principle of rebellion against God, for some­thing that he is inclined to desire for himselfe, without, and against all respect of God. Now, by the processe of S. Pauls discourse, all Christians that admit S. Paul must allow, that it supposeth such a principle, in all that come to Chri­stianity, whether or no it inferre the like, in those that are already come to it; [Page 74] To wit, not to do what they like, but what they hate, and, approving the Law to be good that forbids it, to do the evil which they would not do, not the good which they are willing to do: So that, though there be a Law of God which in their judgement they approve, yet there is another Law in their men­bers, which prevailes against it, to captive them to the law of sinne. Which law, be it the custome of sinne as much as you will, provided that this custome have passed over all mankinde, all that the Gospel is tendred to; Seeing it is the choice of no man, no nation, but common to Adams poste­rity, it must needs be derived by propagation from his sinne, whom his posterity not knowing, could not purpose to imitate.

The words of S. Paul Gal. V. 16, 17. are to the same purpose. Now I say; Walk in the spirit, and fulfill not the desires of the flesh. For the flesh Iusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, and these are opposite to one another, so that ye may not do that ye would. For, supposing the same dispute, whether they be meant of Christians, or of the unregenerate; at least, when Christiani­ty is tendered, when men are exhorted to imbrace it, then is there in man a principle opposite to that, which the spirit of God, bringing the Gospel, and brought by the Gospel, requires: And that inferrs the same consequence as afore. But I must not forget the passage of S. Paul Ephes. I. 1, 2, 3. And you, being dead in trespasses and sins, in which once ye walked, according to the age of this world, according to the Ruler of the dominion of the aire, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom, all we also conversed once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of our flesh, and thoughts, and were by na­ture the children of wrath as the rest also. For I must observe, that Paul, writing to a Church of Gentiles converted to be Christians, himself of a Jew, first con­cludeth the Gentiles to be under the power of Satan; And then, least it should be thought that the Jews, of whom himselfe was one, were invited to be Chri­stians upon other termes; he inferreth of them, that, we also among them Gen­tiles, were by nature children of wrath. Where it is plaine, that S. Paul, ha­ving expressed the sinnes of the Gentiles, in which he saith they were dead, and having aequalled the Jewes to them, for walking according to their lusts, cannot possibly be understood to speake of the common birth of all men, when he saith we were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. Whosoever shall peruse Epiphanius, a Christian Writer, but in such a stile, as those that were not bred to the learning and elegance of the Greeks language may be supposed to use, (and therefore much resembling the stile of the Apostles, and of very good use for them, who would inwardly be acquainted with their language) he shall find this word [...] very ordinarily used by him, not to signifie as com­monly it doth, by nature, or, by birth, but truly and really. Which significa­tion, how well it suits with the words of S. Paul, when he saith; We Jewes were [...], really the children of wrath, as also the rest that were Gentiles; Let any man that can judge of learning judge. So, I insist not upon this word [...], but upon S. Pauls discourse: and upon the ground hitherto perswaded, I argue; That, Jewes as well as Gentiles, being thus concluded under the ne­cessity of the Gospel, which is the grace of Christ, the ground of it can be no other, then the corruption of all the posterity of the first Adam which onely the second Adam can cure.

I come now to our Saviours instruction to Nicodemus, when, of a Doctor of the Jews, he became first a disciple of Christ, John III. 3, 5, 6. Verily, verily, I say unto thee; Ʋnlesse a man be born againe, that is, of water, and of the holy Ghost, he cannot see, or enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Marvaile not that I said to thee; We must be born again. And to the same effect S. John himself speaking in his own person of our Lord Christ, John I. 12, 13. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, to wit, to those that believe in his name: Who were not born of blouds, or of the will of the flesh, but of God. In these words I acknowledge a very considerable difficulty, though, perhaps, it is not that which most men do forecast; But I, that do maintaine, that the [Page 75] Baptisme of Christ was not instituted when these words were said; having said already, that the Baptisme of Christ is that, to which the promise of re­mission of sinnes is allowed, must needs find it hard to answer, what our Lord meant when he said; Ʋnlesse a man be born of water and of the holy Ghost. For, if the Sacrament of Baptisme were not then instituted, when our Saviour spake these things to Nicodemus, how shall we say, that originall sinne is signi­fied by these words, wherein there is no mention of the cure of it? Surely, upon the ground afore setled, that the second birth is by the holy Ghost, and the holy Ghost given, in consideration of the profession of Christianity, by being baptized. For this being setled, it may remaine questionable, what Ni­codemus could then understand by the name of water; but, it cannot be questi­onable, that there is no regeneration without the holy Ghost, and no holy Ghost without that condition upon which the gift of the holy Ghost is due, that is, without Baptisme. To answer this question then, which, we are thus secured, that it cannot be answered to the prejudice of the Church, and the faith thereof; It will be worth the while to compare the discourse of our Lord, to the company that followed him to Capernaum, in the sixth of John, with this to Nicodemus. For, no man can be so unreasonable as to imagine, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by our Lord, at the time of that discourse, or by virtue of it, of the institution whereof we have so due ac­count in the Gospells, before the suffering of our Lord. And yet it would be a strange thing to imagine, that all that long discourse of our Lord should have no relation to that Sacrament: Especially, seeing it is so agreeable to all reason, that our Lord should deliver unto his disciples the effect of his Gospel, in such terms as suted best with the ceremony of that Sacrament, wherewith he intended to establish the same. For supposing, the eating of the flesh of Christ crucified, and the drinking of his blood, to be the consideration of his passion, tending to a resolution of taking up his Crosse; we have in it the summe of Christianity, consisting, in the bearing of Christs Crosse, that is, in conform­ing our selves to his sufferings. Report we this to the discourse of our Lord with Nicodemus, and it will seem strange to me, that any man should marvaile, that, when the Sacrament of Baptisme was not yet instituted, our Lord should propose his Gospel to him, upon this ground, that no man born of the flesh could attain to the kingdome of God, without being born againe of water and the holy Ghost. Seeing that, whether he understood or not, what our Lord meant by water, it is enough, that the Spirit, which reneweth the old birth of the flesh, dependeth upon that which it signifies, whatsoever it is. Whether Nicodemus, for the understanding of our Lord, betake himselfe to the conside­ration of the several Baptismes of the law, or to the Baptism of John the Baptist, or to the Baptisme by which proselytes were made Jews, which divers learned men have both declared and alleadged, to the clearing of this difficulty, to very good purpose; certaine it is by the premises, that the condition of salvation is the profession of Christianity, by baptisme; that the gift of the holy Ghost is not promised upon any other terms. Therefore, the Sacrament of Baptisme be­ing instituted, there is no assurance of salvation without it, where the precept thereof takes place, therefore the first birth of the flesh is liable to originall sinne.

CHAP. X. The Old Testament chargeth all men as well as the wicked to be sinfull from the wombe. David complaineth of himselfe as born in sinne, no lesse then the Wise man of the children of the Gentiles. How Leviticall Lawes argue the same. And temporall death under the Old Testament. The book of Wisdome and the Greek Bible.

BUt it is requisite that we look into the Old Testament, to see what argu­ments of the same will discover themselves there, provided that we be ad­vised, not to expect, the reasons upon which the necessity of the Gospel is grounded, clearly expressed there, where the Gospel it felf is but intimated. Those that will not admit the Faith of the Church, without such proofes as themselves require, may with the Jewes, disbelieve the Gospel, if our Lord will not prove it by such miracles as they would have, and when and where they would have them done. But, admitting the truth of Christianity upon such reasons as God hath made effectuall to subdue the world to it, it will be consequently necessary, that there should be arguments of originall sinne in the Old Testament, but darker then those which have been, and shall be pro­pounded out of the New. Certainly it deserveth much consideration, that Moses saith, Gen. VI. 5. And the Lord saw that great was the evil of man up­on earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart onely evil all the day long. And againe, Gen. VII [...]. 8. Upon smelling Noahs sacrifice, God saith to himself; I will no more curse the earth for man, because the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth. For, first God declares himselfe, as a severe judge, to take vengeance upon the sinnes of mankind by the deluge, because the world was overflowed with sinne: And afterwards, either for the same reason, (be­cause sinne cannot be washed out, no not with the waters of a deluge, so long as mankind is in being upon the earth) or, notwithstanding it, he declares, that he will curse the earth no more for mans sake. Here it will be impossible, to render a reason of that deluge of sinne (which first, brought a deluge of wa­ters, but could not overcome Gods goodnesse for mankind) without a prin­ciple common to all mankind. Such variety there is in their fansies, such con­trariety in the inclinations which they produce, that it is impossible that they should agree in mischief, were they meerly of Gods making. And therefore Solomon having premised a hard word for women; That, seeking account one by one, he had found a man of a thousand, but a woman of all these he had not found; inferreth, Eccl. VII. 29. Onely this, behold, I have found that God made man right, but they have found out many devises. Where, I suppose he summon­eth all men to inferre, that between the uprightnesse in which God made man, and the many crooked devises which they have found out to themselves, there must something have fallen out to create a common principle, to which those many inventions may be imputed. But the act of Adam, which passed away so soon as it was done, had it left nothing behind it, could have born the blame of it self alone, and of nothing else. When God commandeth the Israelites to put a fringe upon the corners of their garments, he giveth this reason for it; Numb. XV. 39. And ye shall see it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them: And not look after your hearts, and your eyes, after which ye commit whoredome. Surely, when he sets the lusts of their eyes and the imagi­nation of their hearts in opposition to the commandment of God, he justifies the words of our Lord, Mat. X. 36. taken from the Prophet. Mich. VII. 6. to be fulfilled in every mans heart; A mans enemies are those of his own house. And Solomons taunt to the young man, Eccles. XI. 9 Walk in the wayes of thine heart, and in the light of thine eyes; But know thou, that for all these things, God will bring thee to, judgement. Gods complaint by the Prophet [Page 77] Ezek. VI. 9. I am broken with their whorish heart, which hath departed from me; and with their eyes, which go a whoring after their Idols: Leadeth us (for the reason and ground of both) to that of the Apostle, 1 John II. 16. For what­soever is in the World, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father but of the World. But what is there between God and the world, but the old serpent, and the leaven which he hath poisoned man with? And this is that venim which we read of, Psal. LVIII. 4 5, 6. The wicked are estranged from their mothers womb as soon as they are born they go astray and speak lies: They have venime like the venime of a serpent, like the deaf addar that stoppeth his eare; That will not hear the voice of the inchanters, that inchant with charmes cunningly.

For, if it be said, that all this speakes onely of the wicked, which, of their own choice have addicted themselves to sinne, and that, by being bred to it by their Fathers, and predecessor, and so debauched from their own natural innocence; I shall presently appeale to David himself, and his confession, with which he pretends to grace, Psal. LI. 7. 8. Behold I was formed in wickednesse, and in sin did my mother conceive me. But behold, thou requirest truth in the intrailes, and shalt make me to understand wisdome secretly. I know it is said, that this is nothing but an hyperbolicall expression of the Prophet, whereby he chargeth himselfe with sinne even before he could understand what sinne was, and that, from the time of his conceiving in the womb, were that possible, he hath been liable to sinne, and so left, without mercy. And to this purpose is alledged that of the Pharisees to the blind man. John IX. 34. Thou wast wholly born in sinne, and dost thou teach us? To argue that among the Jews, it was an ordinary expression to aggravate a mans sinne, by saying; That he was borne in sinne. And truly, what the Jews of that time might conceive, of the coming in of sinne, is not alltogether so cleare, in regard of the Apostles words to our Lord, upon the occasion of the same man, when they askt our Lord; whe­ther he was born blinde for his owne sinne, or for the sinne of his parents, John IX. 2. Which our Lord answering: for neither, but for a particular intent, of shewing a particular work of God upon him; Denies not the common taint of our nature, when he affirmes; That, particualr workes of providence upon particualr persons, have particular reasons and ends, for which God will have them come to passe: But shews, that there were severall opinions in vogue at that time through the nation, and, that there might be a conceit, of mens soules sinning in other bodies, or, before they came into these bodies, ac­cording to the position of Pythagoras, or the conjecture of Origen; (Though, the opinion of Herod concerning John the Baptist, that he should be alive againe in our Lord, Mat. XIV. 2. doth not appeare to proceed from any such pre­sumption as this, but from an imagination, that dead mens soules might come and live againe in the world, whether in the same or other bodies) From this opinion then, the reproach of the Pharisees to this man, that he was born in sinne may well seem to proceed. And their error will not prejudice the truth, that all men are indeed born in sinne.

But I observe further, that the people of God, as they were totally divided from the worship of Idols, so from the consequences thereof, which Paul, in the first of the Romanes, sheweth to have been all sorts of uncleanness in the first place, and then, the rest of those evils, which, towards the end of the Chapter he quali­fies the Gentiles with. For, it is manifest, that uncleannesse which contained no civil in justice was counted but an indifferent thing with all the Gentiles. Let him that would be satisfied of this peruse what the Wise man hath said of the seed of the Gentiles, which he compareth with the Jews whom they persecuted, all along his whole work, Wisdom III. 12-IV. 1-6. Where it is manifest, that he setteth forth the posterity of the Gentiles, as defiled with the unclean­nesse wherein they were bred and born. And this is most certainely the reason why S. Paul saith of Christians married to Gentiles 1 Cor. VII. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; Else were your children uncleane, but now are they holy. [Page 78] To wit, that a heathen husband or wife, consenting to dwell in wedlock with a Christan, is sanctified by a Christian husband or wife, by whose meanes he is brought to this ingagement. For, when S. Paul adviseth the Christian party to con­tinue in wedlock contracted with an Idolater before Christianity, he presuppo­seth, that the Gentile shall be willing to forbear the vulgar uncleannesses of the Gentiles, for the love of a Christian yokefellow. Otherwise it could not be honest, nor for the reputation of a Christian among the Gentiles, having power of di­vorcing, (as both parties had in the Romane Empire) to continue in wedlock with him that acknowledged not Christian, but onely civil wedlock; That is, the wife to be tied in regard of the issue, but the man free to all uucleannesse, which the Romane Lawes no way restrained. And therefore their children so farre from being unclean, according to the manners of heathen parents, that they are holy, upon presumption, that they shall be bred in the instruction of Christianity, by the meanes of that party which was Christian. I observe againe that the Prophet David, speaking of his wicked enemies, (the figure of the Jewes, whom thereby he designeth aforehand to be the enemies of our Lord and his Church) applieth the same expression to them, (being of the carnall people of God, but farre from Jewes according to the spirit) which the people of God other whiles use concerning the Gentiles; when he saith, that they are estranged from the wombe, and, as soone as they are born, go astray and speak lies. For, it is manifest, that he calls them [...] Psal. LIX. 6, 9. which, by the title, appeares to be written of the Jewes his enemies. And so Psal. XLII. 2. Which word commonly stands in as ill a sense with the Jewes, as [...], Gentes, &, Na­tiones to the Christians, not for people, [...], or, [...] but for Eth­nicks or Gentiles, that is to say, Idolaters. And so to this day the Jewes call us Christians [...], that is to say Gentiles. And upon these observations I am induced to believe, that the Pharisees, and those of the Consistory, (out of the confidence they had of their own holinesse, which they presumed of upon the Curisity which they kept the Law with) did judge of those that pretended not to the same, as of people once removed from Gentiles, and so sinners from their birth, by the grossenesse of those manners in which they were bred. But when David comes to confesse of himself that he was altogether born in sinne, and conceived by his mother in wickednesse; It is not possible that any such reason should take place, but rather such a one as may make good whatsoever can be attributed to the spirit of God, speaking of Gods own people, in the mouth of David.

And without doubt, as Idolatry was the originall of the most gross customes of sinne, as appeares by the premises; So can there be no greater argument of the corruption of mans nature, then the departure of all nations, from the worship of one true God, to the worship of they knew not what. That all nations coming of one blood, from one God, which at their first apo­stasy was so well known to them, and not able to blot out of their own hearts the conscience of the service they ought him, should imagine themselves dis­charged of that obligation, by tendring it to what they pleased, (saving a small part of mankinde, whom he reserved to himselfe, by making them acquainted with himself, through the familiarity which he used them with) if all other arguments, of a common principle of corruption, in our common nature, were lost, is enough to make the apostasy of our first forefathers credible, which the relation of Moses makes truth. Wherefore, when David attributes to himselfe by nature, that which the people of God attribute to the Gentiles, it must needs be understood in regard of a principle common to both, which the Grace of God suffereth not to come to effect, but preventeth in his people. And when he attributeth the same to his malicious enemies, Jewes onely by the first birth, he warranteth us to say the same of those that are Jewes by the second birth, so farre as the birth of both is the same.

I will not forbear to alledge here the Law of Leviticus, that appoints a time of impurity for women that have brought forth, as no lesse fit to signifie, the [Page 79] evil inclination, to which our nature by the fall of Adam, is become liable, then the ceremonies of the Law are fitly used by God, to shadow the truth of the Gospel. Not that I make any doubt, that this impurity, of it self, is but legall, as the impurity contracted by touching a dead man, or a living creature that was unclean, or that of the leprosie, or by the custome of women, or the like; Which, I am resolved, amounts to no more, then an incapacity of freely conversing with Gods people, or an obligation to a sacrifice, which is there called [...], or, [...], because it purged this incapacity, which in regard of that positive Law, may be called sinne. But this being granted, and these Legall incapacities being, by the correspondence of the Law with the Gospel, to signifie the cause for which men are uncapable of heaven; As the leprosie of the body, and the touching of a dead man, or a living creature that is unclean by the law, necessarily signifieth that incapacity, which cometh by the custome of sinne; So that uncleannesse which ariseth from those things which come from our own bodies seemeth, by necessary correspondence, to signifie that incapacity of coming to heaven, which ariseth from the inward in­clination of our nature to wickednesse. Neither will I omit to allege the say­ing of the Prophet David, alleging the reason of Gods compassion to his peo­ple in their sinnes, to be their mortality, Psal. LXXVIII. 40. For he consider­ed that they were but flesh, and even as a wind that passeth away and cometh not againe. And Psal. CIII. 14-17. For he knoweth our frame, he remembreth that we are dust. The dayes of man are as of grasse; as the bud of the field so springeth he. For a wind passeth upon it and it is not; And the place knoweth it no more. But the goodnesse of the Lord is from generation to generation upon them that fear him, and his righteousnesse upon childrens children. For, having shew­ed, that the bodily death to which Adam was sentenced, implied in it spritituall death, and supposed the same according to S. Paul, I may well say, that he could not expresse that reason, which Christians alledge to God for his compassion upon their infirmities, more properly to the time and state of the Law, then by alleging the death which our bodies are subject to, as an argument of sinne which it is allotted to punish. And the antithesis which follows between our short life, and the continuance of Gods mercies to his servants of their poste­rity, comes corespondently to set forth the grace of the Gospel, though sparing­ly signified, as under the Law. And here I must not forget the Wise mans ex­hortation Wisdome I. 12—. Affect not death, through the error of your life, nor purchase destruction through the workes of your hands. For God made not death, nor taketh pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he made all things to in­dure: And the beginnings of the world were healthful, and no deadly poyson among them, nor any dominion of hell upon the earth. For righteousnesse is immortall. But the wicked with their words and works purchased it. And, thinking it their friend, decayed, and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to be on the side of it. Here it is evident, that the speech is of temporall death, but so, that by it is intimated spirituall death, according to that which hath oft been obser­ved, and will oft come to be observed, that the mystery of Christianity, inti­mated in the old Testament, begins more plainly to be discovered in these books, then in the canonicall Scriptures. And therefore, though the purchase of death is attributed to the evil words and works of the wicked; yet, seeing it hath taken place over all the world, contrary to the first institution of God, thereby he leaves us to argue the corruption of nature, which moveth mankinde to take pleasure in those workes by which death takes place. Last of all, I will allege, not the authority of the Book of Job, which is not questionable, but the authori­ty of the Greek Translation of it. Be the author thereof who may be, be the authority thereof what it may be, it is manifest how ancient it is, and that it came from the people of God, while they continued the people of God, and hath passed the approbation of the Apostles. When therefore it is said, that no man is clear of sin, no not the infant of one day old upon earth; It remaineth manifest, that this was the sense of the then people of God. As it appeares also by Philo; [...] [Page 80] [...]. That to sinne, is a property born with all that are born, in as much as it is come to birth. And divers sayings of the Heathens might be alledged, as ob­scure arguments of that truth which the Gospel is grounded upon: But that I conceive, the disorders of the world, the greatest whereof that can be named, is that which I named even now, of the worship of Idols, are greater and more evidences of the same, then any sayings of Writers; Which therefore, it will not be requisite to heap into this abridgement.

CHAP. XII. The Haeresie of Simon Magus the beginning of the Gnosticks. That they were in being during the Apostles time. Where and when the Haeresie of Cerin­thus prevailed, and, that they were Gnosticks. The beginning of the Encra­tites under the Apostles. It is evident that one God in Trinity was then glorified among the Christians, by the Fullnesse of the Godhead which they intro­duced in stead of it.

I Should have propounded that evidence for originall sinne which is drawn from the necessity of the Grace of Christ, before that which is drawn from the Old Testament, had it not been for that exception which the Socinians make to it, by questioning the state of our Lord Christ, before his coming in the flesh; In regard whereof, I hold it the shortest course to void this issue first, and then see what witnesse, the necessity of the Grace of Christ renders to originall sinne. And because that Tradition of historicall truth, which remaines in the records of the Church, evidences that meaning of the Apostles writings, which I shall advance; I shall not make difficulty to propound in the first place, some things upon undeniable record, in the Fa­thers, that may serve to argue the intent of the Apostles in this point. I say then, that it is a thing undeniable to common sense, that, what time the Apostles writ, there were divers Hereses in being, whether openly divided from the church, or lurking within it, under the common profession, to get opportunity to pervert the simple, and in fine, to withdraw them from the Church. The first whereof was that of Simon Magus, who, being discove­red by the Apostles, to have onely counterseited himselfe a Christian, to get the power of doing those miracles which the Apostles did, that he might draw followers after himselfe; fell away from Christianity, to declare himselfe, among the Samaritanes, (who expected the Messias no lesse then the true Jewes) to be the Christ, whom the Apostles preached our Lord Jesus to be. But with­all it is certaine, that he taught his disciples, that he alone could reveale unto them God, whom their Fathers knew not, for that the world had been at first made by Angels, in opposition to him, who also gave the Law, and brought in among men the difference between good and bad, which he, by that knowledge of God which he professed, undertook to teach how men should become free from, and by this freedome attaine the fellowship of God in the world to come. It cannot then be said, that the author of this heresie conti­nued any longer in the Church, because when S. Peter saies to him; Acts VIII. 22. 23. Repent thee of this thy malice, and beseech God, if perhaps this devise of thy heart may be forgiven thee; For, I see thou art in the gall of bitternesse, and the bond of unrighteousnesse; Though he answer; Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of the things which you have said come upon me. For we find not, that his after behaviour deserved that he should be admitted to penance and recon­cilement with the Church. And when he declared himself to be the Christ, (as did after him his disciple Menander (witnesse Iren [...]us Epiphanius and Theodoret) when he being dead and gone, his pretense appeared vaine) then was he of necessity, at defiance with the Church and all Christians. But [Page 81] this must be said, (which upon the faith of historicall truth is averred by the same witnesses) that of him, and the seeds of his doctrine, came afterwards many Sects, the authors whereof, not pretending themselves to be the Christ, pretended all to make known God, otherwise unknowne, to their disciples, and by that knowledge, to save them in the world to come, through abandon­ing them to all licentiousnesse in this; Which sects, were therefore called by the common name of Gnosticks, or, knowers, though, there was one of those Sects, which had no other particular name besides. Among these one was set up by Nicolas one of the seven, Acts VI. 5. Or at least, under his name. For, though some, in Clemens Alexandrinus, seem to hold him an holy man, yet no man doubts that there was a sect of Gnosticks, which, either because raised by him, or by others upon mistake of some things that he had taught, bore his name. Which, though it be not requisite here to decide, yet it is evident by S. John Apoc. II. 6. that then the Sect was on foot. And though we dispute not the time when Bas [...]lides at Alexandria, Saturninus at Antiochia, Valentine at Rome, or in Cyprus and Aegypt, Carpocrates, Marke the Magi­cian or others set up, (so as to affirme that they were in being when the Apo­stles writ) yet it is evident, that under the Apostles there were such as coun­terfeited themselves Christians, with an intent to withdraw the simple sort of Christians to this doctrine, which these Fathers of Hereticks in their severall times were the heads of, whosoever then set them on work.

I will use but two arguments to evidence this. The first is, the common infection which they brought in every where, of eating things sacrificed to Idols, that is to say, of worshipping Idols. For, the feasts and entertainments of Idolaters consisting of those things, which had been sacrificed to their Idols, to feast with them was to communicate in their Idolatries. This cannot be more evident then it is evident by S. Paul, 1 Cor. X. 7. Nor be ye Idolaters as some of them were as it is written; The people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. The Idolatry of the Israrlits consisting in the feast, as well as in their sacri­fices: And by Moses, Exod. XXXIV. 15, 16. Least thou make a league with the in­habitants of the Land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and sacrifice to their gods, and invite thee, and thou cat of their sacrifices: And thou take of their daugh­ters, to thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. Which you see how punctually it came to passe in the businesse of Baal Peor, Num. XXV. Now it is manifest, by the most ancient Writers of the Church, Justine the Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Iren [...]us, Tertulliane. Origen, that the Gnosticks did generally communicate in the Idolatries of the Gentiles, whose testimonies have been produced by Doctor H. Hammond in divers of his writings. And the reason is plaine, by that old observation; That the gods of the heathens are good fellows, but the true God onely a jealous God: That is to say; That false gods never grutched one another the worship of God, because all set up by the devil, to whose service that worship redounded. For the Gnosticks being themselves Idolaters and Magicians, it is no marvaile, that they communicated as freely in the Idolatries of the Gentiles, as they in one anothers Idolatries. But it is no lesse manifest, that these Heresies, which the Apostles writ against, agreed all in teaching to eat things sacrificed to Idols, and to communicate with Ido­laters. For, the way of Balaam, in which they are by the Apostles charged to go astray, Jude 11. 2 Pet. II. 15. Is interpreted Apoc. II. 15. That then were in the Church of Pergamus, those that held the doctrine of Balaam that taught Balak to lay a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat of things offered to Idols, and to commit whordome. So hast thou, saith he, those that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes; Which by and by, is attributed to Jezabel the Prophetesse.

The second argument is, that both S. Peter and S. Jude, in the places alledged, do manifestly shew, that the doctrines which they writ against, tended to re­concile the licentiousnesse of the flesh with the hope of the world to come, [Page 82] which, I have shewed, was the pretense of the Gnosticks; And makes it very probable, that the same Hereticks found accesse to those Christianes to whom S. James writes, and intimated to them hope of salvation through the bare profession of Christianity, without those workes whereby it is fulfilled; which is the occasion that he takes James II. 14.—to lay down those termes of the justification of Sinners which I have declared in due place.

For, consider the terms in which S. Peter writes; Many shall follow their corruptions, for whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed. For what can this signifie, but that which is witnessed by so many of the Fathers, that the ill opi­nion which the Gentiles had of Christianity, was unjustly occasioned by the vi­lainies of the Gnosticks, who, though holding in secret a faith utterly destru­ctive to Christianity, neverthelesse counterfeited themselves Christians, to withdraw Christians to themselves. Againe, Those that go after the flesh through the pollution of concupiscence. And; Thinking it pleasure to revel it by day, spots and staines, making good chere in their deceit [...], when they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery, not to be quieted from sinning. And, they beguil with the lusts of the flesh those who had truly escaped those that live in error, promising them liberty, but being slaves to corruption themselves: For by whom a man is subdued his slave he becoms. 2 Pet. II. 2, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19. And S. Jude, These dream­ing defile the flesh. And, the things which they know by nature as bruit beasts, in them they corrupt themselves. Comparing them to Sodom and Gomorrah, who went a whoring in like manner as these, following after strange fl [...]sh. Jude 7, 8, 10. Which, he who compares with the vilainies of the Gnosticks related by Irenaeus, Epiphanius and others, either he hath lost his right senses, or (knowing by Iraeneus, that all the Gnosticks sprang from Simon Magus, and that Simon Magus pretended to shew how to attain the world to come by loo­sing the raines to all vilainy) must needs allow, that they are of this traine whom these▪ Apostles writ against. Nor is the testimony of Hegesippus related by Eusebius. Eccles. Hist. III 32. to the contrary. He saith indeed that the Church had continued a pure Virgine under the Apostles and their hearers, he saith that it began to be defloured in the next age; Not by the com­ing in of Anti-Christ, as some imagine, (unlesse they will have Simon Magus to have beene Anti-Christ, which though true, is not for their turne) but by the coming in of the Gnosticks. For, though it appeare by the writinges of the Apostles, that they were very busy during their time, in seducing Christians by counterfeiting themselves the like; yet may it well stand good that the Church continued a Virgine by casting them out, according to the precept of S. Jude, which I spoke of afore But, that aster the death of them and their hearers, they prevailed so farre, that they might be said to have de­floured the maidenhead of Christianity, for the number of Christians whom they had seduced. Besides, it is easy to take notice, that the relation of Hege­sippus concernes particularly the Church of Jerusalem, as following upon the martyrdome of Simeon, and the confession of our Lord Christ to Domitian made by his kindred according to the flesh; For so Eusebius expresly affirm­eth. And truly, having related afore the Heresies of Simon Magus, and Me­nander, of Ebion, of the Nazarites, and of Cerinthus, he must have given him­self thely, had he intended to say, out of Hegesippus, that the Gnosticks, be­gan under Adriane, though being the time when Saturninus, Basitides, Va­lent ne, and probably others set up for themselves. But I will wish the ene­mies of this light, which the knowledge of good learning (that will surely be revenged of them who neglect it) tenders to the obscure passages of the Apostles, no worse punishment, then to be bound to expound them without it: For, make use of it, and all is plain and smooth before you, unlesse it be a small circumstance, that they tremble not to blaspheme glories. 1 Pet. II. 10. Or as S. Jude 8. that they despise dominion and blaspheme glories; Whereas, if you put it out, you will necessarily reason of the Apostles discourse as blind men do of colours. And in truth there are two severall passages of Hegesippus related by Euseb the former whereof I have quoted, assigning this deflouring of the [Page 83] Church to the time of Simeons martyrdome. But the other, though related by Eusebius, IV. 22. at the time of Hegesippus, assignes it unto his beginning, immediately insuing upon the martyrdome of S. James, and the choice of Si­meon for Bishop of Jerusalem, and that by a very expresse mark of the author thereof, one Thebulis, (so R. Stevens copy reads it not T [...]ebuthis) that missed the Bishoprick there, and upon that attempted to deflour the Church which they called then a Virgine, saith Hegesippus expresly there. Now it is manifest that the martyrdome of James was before the warre which the Ro­manes, the same year that Festus left the Province, as you have it in Eusebius, II. 23. at which time it may be a question whither either the second Epistle of S. Peter, or that of S. Jude were written at all, or not. Wherefore it is manifest, that Hegesippus assigneth the deflouring of the Church to the time of Simeons martyrdome, when none of the Apostles remained alive: But so that Thebulis began to deflour it from the death of S. James, and the beginning of Simeon; That is, the Church of Jerusalem, because he was refused the Bishop­rick of it.

But I must not forget Epiphanius his relation of Cerinthus, that he was one of those that first contended with S. Peter, about admitting Cornelius and his company to baptisme, that afterward raised the contention about Circumci­sion in the Church of Antiochia, (which we see decided by the Apostles Acts XV.) and, that afterwards, it was he, or his disciples, that troubled the Church of Corinth, and the doctrine which S. Paul had taught it. For the argument is undeniable, that, the things done under the Apostles have in them expresse markes, of that which the succeeding Hereticks, did and taught afterwards. [...], saith he, [...]. For those men, stepping aside, and becoming false Apostles, and sending other false Apostles, as I said afore, in thebeginning to Antiochia, and other places, saying, that unless ye be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, ye cannot be saved; there came no small trouble, as I said afore, and these are they, that in Paul, are called false Apostles, deceitfull wor­kers transforming themselves into Apostles of Christ. For here Epiphanius, di­stinguishing two kinds of false Apostles, one that pretended to be sent by our Lord Christ, another by his Apostles, applyes unto them the words of S. Paul, 2 Cor. XI. 23. by virtue of that, of the Synodicall Letter of the Apostles, Acts XV. 24. to whom we gave no such charge; and sayes, that, whatsoever they pretended, they were neither sent by our Lord Christ, nor yet by his Apostles, commission from Christ.

Herewith agrees, all that which the Apostle writes, against eating things sacrificed to Idols in the VIII. and X. Chapters of this first Epistle. For there is no question to be made, that the Sect of Cerinthus was one of the Gnosticks, because it is expressed in Epiphanius, that they also taught the unknown God, whom they pretended to make known. And therefore, when S. Paul saith in the beginning of that eighth chapter; As concerning things offered to Idols, we know that we all have knowledge: knowledge indeed puffeth up, but charity edifieth; It is manifest that he civily reproveth that pretense of knowledge, which some weak Christians were then in danger to be carried away with, to believe; That those who knew the true God, (whom their masters pretended to teach) and, the Idols of the Gentiles to be nothing, might, without scru­ple of conscience, communicate in the worship of those whom they scorned and thought to be nothing; Intending in the X. Chapter to protest, that they could not communicate in the same without renouncing their Christianity: And if any man say, that Cerinthus, according to Epiphanius, saith; That our Lord Christ is not to rise againe till the last day, and therefore, that the opini­on of those that deny the resurrection which S. Paul disputes against, 1 Cor. XV. can neither be imputed to Cerinthus, nor the C [...]rint [...]ians: It is answered, [Page 84] that Epiphanius himself declares, that the Cerinthians were not all of a minde. Some of them denying the resurrection of Christ, and by consequence of Chri­stians▪ against whom the maine of that Chapter argues; Others affirming, that Christ was not to rise again till all should rise againe at the worlds end. And truly I see not why S. Paul should argue that it is necessary that we should be­lieve the resurrection of Christ, saying; If Christ be not risen againe, then is our preaching vaine, and we are found false witnesses, then is your faith vain, and y [...] are yet in your sinnes, 1 Cor. XV. 14-17. Unlesse, among those whom he ar­gues against, the resurrection of Christ had been questioned, which is Epiphani­us his argument. And, I would faine hear, who can give a better account of that everlasting difficulty in S. Pauls words, that follow, 1 Cor. XV. 29. For, what shall those that are baptized for the dead do, if the dead rise not againe? why are they baptized for the dead? then Epiphanius gives according to this supposition, and that upon the credit of Historical truth, not of any conjecture of his owne; [...].. For, in this coun­trey, I mean Asia and Galatia this Sect flourished much. Among whom a point of Tradition is come to us, how some of them dying before Baptisme, others are bapti­zed for them in their name, that, rising at the resurrection, they may be liable to no sentence of punishment, as not having received Baptisme, and become obnoxious to the power of him that made the world. Where, by the way, you see the Cerin­thians were Gnosticks, because, by baptisme, they pretended to free men from the bad principle which made the world; This being the doctrine of the Gno­sticks.

Now, if it be true, as Epiphanius understood, that the Cerinthians in Asia and Galatia baptized others for those that were dead without baptisme, shall we think it strange, that those false▪ Apostles, who transformed themselves into Apostles of Christ, as Satan into an Angel of light, should teach the Corin­thians to do the same? And what need S. Paul stand to condemne this, condemning all their impostures, by the dispute of both Epistles.

Neither is it more difficult, to discerne, those whom S. Paul disputes against in the second Chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians, to be of the same stamp, if we observe two points of his reproofe; The one, the worship of Angels, the other abstinence from certaine meats, and from women, which S. Paul couches in these words, Colos. II. 21. Touch not, taste not, come not nigh those things, which all tend to perish in the using. This you may perceive by the warn­ing he gives Timothy of the like men, who afterwards should depart from the faith, giving [...]eed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of devils, who should forbid marriage, and injoyne abstinence from meats, which God hath made, to be re­ceived of those that know him, with thanksgiving, 1. Tim. IV. 1, 2, 3. I know there is a plausible opinion abroad, that, these doctrines of devils, as I translate it, are the Traditions which have crept into the Church, for the worshiping of the souls of holy men departed; which some Christians have brought into the ranke of those secondary gods, which the Gentiles call daemones, or daemonia. But this opinion cannot be true. First, because it is plaine, that the second, [...], serves to interpret the first, [...]. Now it is manifest, that by seducing spirits, S. Paul can mean nothing but those inspira­tions, (true or pretended) which the devil and his ministers corrupted Chri­stianity with. And therefore, when he declares himself further, by adding, and doctrines of devils; He meanes doctrines taught by devils. Secondly, be­cause the word daemones, or daemonia, is never used in a good sense among Chri­stians, as it is among Pagans. For those that knew not the difference between good spirits and bad, but in effect, as S, Paul saith, 1 Cor. X. 20, 21. worship­ed devils, it is not to be expected, that they should expresse a meaning to [Page 85] scorne or detest those whom they worshipped. And whatsoever opinions, those Philosophers which followed Plato and Pithagoras had, of the vulgar Ido­latries of their countryes; seeing there is so much appearance, as I have shew­ed in another place, that they were Magicians, it is no marvaile, that they make not the difference between good and evil spirits, which Christianity alone fully declareth; The Jewes themselves not having sufficiently discovered it, in and by the Scriptures of the Old Testament. But, as the word [...], an Idol, signifying, of it self indifferently any image or representation, to Christians and Jewes who understand the Gentiles to worship false gods, signifies the image of those Gods in an ill sense; So, to those that understand the devils to put themselves upon the world, to be worshipped for gods, the doctrines of devils must needs be those which, men guided by devils do advance. I must here suppose further, that which I reade in Epiphanius that Marcion and Ta­tianus, with his Scholars the Encratites, (who enjoyned their disciples to abstain from women, and certain kindes of meats, as not of Gods making) had their beginning from Saturninus, he from Simon Magus, as Iraeneus, I. 30. af­firmeth. Whereby it cannot seem strange, that their doctrine should be in vogue during the time of the Apostles. I demand then, what reason can be given why they, who taught the worshipping of angels, should also injoyne abstinence from women, and meates, were there not in the case an opinion, that marriage and those creatures come not from God, but, by some failleur of his, as Simon Magus said from the beginning, from the Angels? To which purpose we must observe, that S. Paul gives them warning of Philosophy. Col. II. 8. because it is certaine, that these sects took their rise from the writitings of Plato and Pythagoras, and their followers, whom Tert [...]llian [...], therfore, stileth the Patriarchs of Hereticks.

But the words of Irenaeus deserve here to be considered. Having promised to refute Marcion in due place; Nunc autem necessario meminimus ejus, ut scires quoniam omnes qui quoquo modo adulterant veritatem, & praeconium Eccle­laedunt, Simonis Samaritani Magi discipuli & successores sunt. Quamvis non con [...]i [...]eantur nomen magistri sui, ad seductionem reliquorum attamen illius sen­tentiam docent; Christi quidem Jesu nomen tanquam irritamentum praeferentes, Simonis autem imp [...]etatem varie introducentes. But it was necessary that we should remember him now, that thou mightest know, that all those who any way adulterate the truth, and wrong that which the Church preacheth, are the Scho­lars and successours of Simon the Magician of Samaria. Though to deceive others they professe not their masters name, yet they teach h [...]s sense; Pretending indeed for a Stale the name of Christ Jesus, but divers wayes introducing Simons impious doctrines. And by and by; Ʋt exempli gratia dicamus, a Saturnino & Marci [...] ­ne qui vocantur Continentes▪ abstinentiam a nuptii [...] annu [...]ciaverunt, frustrantes antiquam plasmationem Dei▪ & oblique accusantes, eum qui & masculum & foeminam ad generationem hominum fecit, & [...]orum quae dicuntur apud eos ani­malium abstinentiam induxerunt, ingrati existentes ei qui omnia fecit Deo. To speak for example, from Saturninus and Marcion, those that are called Encrati­tes, preach abstinence from marriage, frustrating that which God framed of old, and indirectly blaming him that made male and female for the procreation of man­kind, and introduce abstinence from those which they call living creatures, being ungratefull to God that made all things.

If Marcion and Saturninus had this doctrine from Simon Magus, of ne­cessity it must have been on foot during the time of the Apostles. Onely, here will ly a difficult objection from that which I shewed a little afore, that Simon Magus baited his doctrine with the pleasures of sensuall concupiscence, as the meanes to gaine followers, if, in stead of the hardship of Christs Crosse, he could perswade them, that, believing the secret knowledge, which he taught, the free use of them was the meanes to attain the world to come. And of Cerin­thus in particular, he that shall peruse what Eusebius hath related out of Cai [...]s and Dionysius of Alexandria, Ecclesiast. Hist. III. 28. shall easily perceive the whole aime of his Sect to have been the injoying of sensuall plea­sure, [Page 86] So that the saying of those whom Saint Paul writes against, 1 Cor. XV. 32. Let us eate and drink for to morrow we shall dy; exactly fits his followers. And so doth the pretense of those who seduced the Galatians to observe the Law, though themselves kept not the Law that they might not be persecuted with the Crosse of Christ. Gal. VI. 12, 13. That is, that would have them comply with the Jewes in keeping the Law, so farre as might save them from being persecuted by the Jews; as well as with the Gentiles in their Idolatries, to save them from persecution at their hand. According to the common principle of the Gnosticks, that it was a folly to suf­fer for professing the Faith.

To this it is easie to answer; That the devil might have severall baits for severall qualities of persons, even in the same common principles of Simon Magus; whereof, if we see some sects imbrace some, others those that seem inconsistent with them, being certified, that both spring from the same source, it is no wayes incredible that the seeds of all of them were sowen in his com­mon doctrine. That Carpocrates, that Prodicus and the Gnosticks that followed Nicolas, according to Epiphanius, should be remarkable for unnaturall unclean­nesse, having the way plained for them by Simon, how can it be strange? that re­fined spirits should be taken with such grosse pretenses as brutish people are apt to be seduced with, would be strange on the other side. And that Magick which Simon and Menander, with the Basilidians, and Carpocratians frequent­ly practised, (whatsoever the rest did) had alwayes pretenses of austerity in discipline, not onely as a meanes to obtaine influence from pow­ers above, but to seduce the simple with a colour of severity and abstinence. Seeing then that Saturninus, upon Irenaeus his credit, derived this discipline from the doctrine of Simon Magus, how can it seeme improbable, that during S. Pauls time some branch of the same doctrine should spread over the parts of Asia concerned in S. Pauls Epistles to Timothy and to the Colossians. Whe­ther by Cerinthus or by whom besides him, I need not dispute. There is no doubt indeed, but, according to Epiphanius, his Heresie had vogue in these parts; As in Galatia, besides Epiphanius, Sirmondus his Praedestinatus saith, that it is condemned there by S. Paules Epistle. And Gaius in Eusebius III. 28. testifieth, that Cerinthus pretended revelations by Angels, and Tertulli­ane, contra Marc. V. that those who seduced the Colossians did the like. But whether Cerinthus, or some other branch of Simon Magus, the source of his doctrine is plainly from the same principle with Marcion and the Eucratites afterwards.

Now, if any man demand, what all this may conduce to the understanding of those Scriptures which speak of our Lord Christ; let it be but considered, that Simon Magus, pretending to be the Christ, and to seduce Christians, from our Lord Jesus, to himself, and withall, and to be worshipped with honours due to God, doth hereby effectually suppose, that our Lord was effectually so worshiped by Christians from the beginning. Irenaeus saith further, of the doctrine of Simon Magus, I. 20. That he was glorified of many as God, and taught that he was the man who had appeared among the Jewes as the Sonne, (that is, the Messias) had come in Samaria as the Father, but to the rest of the Gentiles, as the holy Ghost. So that being indeed the soveraigne power of all, that is, the Father, he was content neverthelesse, to be whatsoever they called him. Hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorifi catus est, saith Irenaeus, & docuit semetipsum esse qui inter Judaeos quidem, quasi filius appar [...]erit, in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus sanctus adventaverit. Esse autem se sublimissimam virtutem, hoc est, eum qui sit super omnia Pater, & sustinere vocari s [...] quodcunque [...]um vocant homines. Where pretending first to be both Father and Sonne and holy Ghost, Secondly to be worshipped for God, it is manifest, that, setting up himself in stead of our Lord Jesus, for the Messias, whom the Samaritanes expected as well as the Jews, he had no other reason to pretend to be also the Father, and the holy Ghost, but because he knew our Lord, whom he counterfeited, had taught that he is one and the same with the Father and the holy Ghost. And so, by [Page 87] what the counterfeit would be, it appeareth what the truth is, and taught him­self to be; To wit, the Sonne of God, to be worshipded as one God with the Father and the holy Ghost. For, we are not to think that Epiphanius contra­dicts his Master Jrenaeus, when he saies, that Simon, who praetended to be the Father among the Samaritanes, (as the Son among the Jewes) made his con­cubine Selena to be the holy Ghost, whom he called also the Ennaea, or, Con­ceit of him the Father, whereby he made the angels that made the world and mankind. But rather to understand that, intending to adulterate the Christi­ane Faith by bringing in a counterfeit imitation of it, on purpose he pretended himself and his Conceit to be both one, because he knew, that, according to the Christian faith, both Father and Sonne, (both which he pretended to be, as you have heard) are one and the same God with the holy Ghost; which, he pretended his Conceite to be, according to Fpiphanius, but himself among the Gentiles, according to Irenaeus. The Heresie of his Scholar Menander is thus described by Irenaeus L. 21. Qui primam quidem virtutem in [...]ognitam ait om­nibus, se autem [...]um esse qui missus sit ab invisibilibus salvatorem pro sal [...]te homi­num. Mundum autem factum ab Angelis, quos & ipse similiter ut Simon, ab Enn [...]a emissos dicit. Who saith, that the first Power is unknown to all, and that himself was the Saviour that was sent by the invisible Powers for the salvation of men. But that the world was made by the Angels, whom he also, like as Simon, sayes, were put forth by the Fathers Conceit. Where you see, above the Angels, whom he maketh Creator of the world, the unknown Father, whom he pre­tendeth to make known, his Conceit from whence the Angels came, and the in­visible Powers, that sent him for the Saviour of the world. Both these then, pretending to be that which our Lord Christ indeed and in truth is, did make themselves one ingredient or parcel of that unknown and invisible Godhead, from whence they so made the angels to proceed, that neverthelesse, banding a faction against the same, they make the coming of a Saviour ne­cessary for this end, to deliver mankind from the servitude of these Angels that made the world. As for Saturninus, pretending the father of all to be unknown, (otherwise then as he pretended to make him known) it appears why he is a­mong the Gnosticks. But he pretends that two sorts of men were made by the Angels: One by the good; beeing an Image of the Power which is above, which being infinitely taken with, they said; Let us make man after our image, because it was instantly with drawn from their sight. But so that it had not come to life had not the power above struck a sparke of light into it. The other by the devils, which the Saviour, who is indeed unknown, onely seemed a man, came to subdue. So Irenaeus l. 22. But Basilides; Ʋt altius aliquid & veri [...]imilius adinvenisse vid [...]atur, in immensum extendit sententiam doctrinae suae, ostendens, Nun primo ab i [...]noto natum Patre. ab hoc autem natum Logon, deinde a Logo Phronesin, a Ph [...]onesi autem natas Sophian & Dynamin, a Dynami autem & Sophia Virtutes & Principes & Angelos, quos & Primos vocat, saith Irenaeus l. 23. He, that he may seem to have added some higher thing, and more likely to their invention, extending the meaning of his position beyond all bounds shews, that Nus (or Meaning) was first born of the Father who was not born: Of him Logos, (Reason or the Word) of him Prudence, of it Wisdom and Power, of them Virtues Princes and Angels, whom he calls the prime on [...]s. Where you see manifestly, the fullnesse of the Godhead is made to consist of the Titles and Attributes of our Lord Christ. Which Valentinus after these makes to consist in XXX. Aeones, or intelligible worlds, which he derives from the unknown Father, and silence, or his conceit and Grace, ( Bythos or the bot­tome, and Charis Ennaea or Si [...]) in whom he placed the first source of this Fulnesse. And it hath been observed already, that his number of XXX. is the same that the heathen Gods are contrived into by He [...]iod [...] Theogonia. Much to my purpose. For S. Cyril. Catech. V. calls Valentine [...]. The Preacher of the XXX Gods. This fullnesse of the Godhead which they taught being the deity which they worshipped. As did also not onely Ptolemaeus and Secundus who followed Valentine, and changed what they thought fit in his [Page 88] designe, or, the Gnosticks which followed Nicolas, as you may see by Epi­phanius; But the rest from Simon Magus, whose followers worshipped him and his Trull Selene▪ under the images of Jupiter and Minerva, saith Irenaeus expresly. For Menanders first Power, and the Ennaea or Conceit thereof, and the invisible Powers by whom and from whom he pretended to be sent for the Saviour of mankind, shew, that this was that fullnesse of the Godhead in which he taught his followers to believe. And when Ep [...]p [...]nius, confuting Saturninus, saith, that according to him, [...]; The [...]e shall be found no fullnesse in the Power above; It is manifest that he taught his followers to worship that fullnesse which Epiphanius refuseth Simon Magus himself meant the like when he said, according to Epiphanius; that the Angels, though they proceeded from his Ennaea, or Conceit, yet were without the Fullnesse, that is, not comprehended within it.

As for C [...]inthus, whom all agree to have made our Lord Jesus the Sonne of Joseph and Mary, born as other men are, Epiphanius saies further of his sense; [...]; But, that after Jesus was growne a man, who was borne of the seede of Joseph and Mary, the Christ came downe upon him from the God that is above, that is the Holy Ghost in the shape of a dove at Jordane, and revealed to him the Father that was unknowne, and by him to his disciples, whereby, after the power came downe upon him from above, he did miracles. And that, when he had suffered that which came from above fl [...]w up againe from Jesus. So that Jesus suffered, and rose againe, but the Christ which came upon him from above flew up againe without suffering, which is that which came downe in the shape of a dove, and that Jesus is not the Christ. Where, you see, he makes the coming of Christ to be nothing else, but an escape made by the Holy Ghost, when he came upon our Lord, out of the Fullnesse of the Godhead, to return thither againe when he had suffered. Now it is agreed upon, that Cerinthus had spread his Here­sies in Asia, when Saint John writ his Gospell: And though Epiphanius report, that it was Ebion whom Saint John met with in the bath, and refused to come in it so long as he was there, calling away his Scholars with him; Yet it must be resolved, that it is a meere mistake of his memory, because him­selfe testifies, as afore, that the Heresy of Cerinthus flourished in Asia and in Galatia, and because Eusebius after Irenaeus, (who conversed with Saint Johns Scholar Polycarpus) reports it of Cerinthus. As for the Heresy of Ebion, it is manifest by Epiphanius himself, in his Heresy that it sprung up first, and flourished most in the parts of Palestine, beyond, or besides Jordane, which they called Peraea, what time the Church of Jerusalem had forsaken the City, to remove themselves to Pella, where God had provided for them at the destruction of it. So that it appeareth not that Saint John saw the birth of it, being probably, removed into Asia before that time. I shall therefore neede to say nothing of the Heresy of Ebion, having Saint Jerome in Catalo­go to witnesse, that the Gospell of Saint John was written at the request of the Bishops of Asia, in opposition to Cerinthus: But, the stocke of that evidence which I shall bring out of the Scripture, for the state of our Lord Christ, and his Godhead▪ before his coming in the flesh, lying therefore in the beginning of that Gospell which was writ on purpose to exclude it; I shall referre the rest of that which I shall gather out of the New Testament, to the sense and effect of it.

CHAP. XIII. The Word was at the beginning of all things. The apparitions of the Old Testa­ment Prefaces to the Incarnation of Christ. Ambassadors are not honoured with the honour due to their Masters. The Word of God that was afterwards incarnate was in those Angels that spoke in Gods Name. No Angel honour­ed as God under the New Testament. The Word was with God at the begin­ning of all things, as after his return.

THE Gospel of Saint John then beginneth thus; In the beginning w [...]s the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; The same was in the beginning with God. In which words, the Socinians will not have the be­ginning to be the beginning of all things, but the beginning of preaching the Gospel; That is to say, when John the Baptist began to preach; And the Word to be the man Jesus, so called, because, he was the man whom God had ap­pointed to publish it. So that, in the beginning was the Word, is, in their sense; When John the Baptist began to preach, there was a man whom God had ap­pointed to publish the Gospel. And truly, I cannot deny, that the beginning here, might signifie the beginning of the Gospel, by the same reason, as in the Scripture, and in all Languages, words signify more then they expresse. But that reason can be no other then this, because a man speakes of things mention­ed afore in discourse, or, of that which is otherwise known to be the subject of his discourse. So, words signifie more then they expresse, because something that is known need not be repeated at every turne. What is the reason then why this addition, not being expressed, is to be understood? Forsooth, Saint Mark beginneth his Gospel thus; The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Sonne of God. As it is written in the Prophets; Behold I send my Messen­ger before thy face, that shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of him that cry­eth in the wildernesse: Prepare [...]e the way of the Lord, make his path plaine. John was baptizing in the wildernesse. Is not this a good reason? Because, in one Text of Saint Marke, you find the beginning of the Gospel to be the preach­ing of John, therefore, wheresoever you read the beginning, you are to under­stand by it the beginning of the Gospel? At least, in the beginning of S. Johns Gospel we must seek no other meaning for it? But who will warrant, that the word Gospel in S. Marke signifies the preaching of the Gospel, as sometimes it does, or, this book of the Gospel, which S. Mark takes in hand to write? The words, it is manifest, may signifie either, and therefore it cannot be manifest, that the word beginning, without any addition is put to signifie the one and not the other. For, if you understand the beginning of the book of the Gospel, when S. John saies; In the begining was the Word; Their turne is not served. As for the title of the Word, which scarce any of the Apostles but S. John attributes to our Lord; Look upon the beginning of his first Epistle; That which was from the beginning, which we have heard and seen, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life, (for the Life hath been manifested, and we have seen and bear witnesse, and declare unto you that everlasting Life which was with the Father and hath been manifested unto us.) That which we have heard and seen declare we unto you. Here, it must be a man that S. John calls the Word, when he speakes not onely of hearing, but of seeing and handling the Word of Life; But when he saies, that the Word was with God from the beginning, and since hath been made manifest to us, is there nothing but the man, and his office of preaching the Gospel to be considered, for the reason why he is called the Word? What meant then the Apostle Ebr. IV. 12, 13? The Word of God is quick and active and cutteth beyond any two edged sword, and cometh so farre as to divide between the soul and the spirit, to the joints and marrow, and judgeth the thoughts and [Page 90] conceits of the heart. Neither is any creature obscure to it, but all things naked and bare to the eyes of him whom we have to do with; Where you see, he begins his discourse concerning the Gospel, but ends it in God: And therefore at­tributes to the gospel under the name of the Word, those things which onely God can do; because, to the Author of it, under the Name of the Word, he attributes the knowledge and governing of all things.