28. 19. and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which plainly distinguishes three Persons And Take heed saith St. Paul in the Acts therefore unto your Acts 20. 28. selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud Here we have two persons distinct expressed The Holy Ghost whose act of making Overseers doth infer an Agent and that Agent a Person And in that it is said God purchased the Church with his bloud there is an express Character of Christ in his Passion to whom is expresly given the title of God for that God the Father died nor Christ as God though Christ God is manifest Now of God the Father no Christian can make doubt after so many manifest Texts expressing the same And Rom. 9. v. 5. Whose Rom. 9. 5. are the Fathers and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever The Scholie of Socinus and his followers being meerly cavillous and forced contrary to common reading The Confession likewise of Thomas upon the Miracle wrought by Christ proveth the Deity of Christ crying out My God and my Lord. And in the Epistle to the Colossians Joâ— 20. v. 28. Col. 2. 9. the God-head is said to dwell in Christ bodily i. e. in opposition to figuratively or improperly To these bare Testimonies add we these rational proofs from the Attributes proper to God given to Christ 1. Eternity Micah 5. 2. His goings-out are from everlasting 2. Omnipotence Micah Joh. 3. 31. Joh. 3. 31. He that cometh from above is above all but only God is above all An instance likewise of Christs Omnipotency is given us by St. Paul to the Philippians where speaking of Christ he saith Who shall change our vile Phil. 3. 21. body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself 3. Immensity another property of God is given to Christ Mat. 18. 20. Where he promiseth Where two or three shall be gathered together in his Name he will be in the midst of them which is not possible for him that is not God Christs Church being in all places diffused 4 Divine worship given to Christ implies a divine nature in him but both Old and New Testaments agree herein that Christ the Messias is to be worshipped In the Psalms thus it Psal 72. is written of him Yea all Kings shall fall down before him and all Nations shall worship him And in the second Psalm David adviseth to kiss the Son Psal 2. that is worship him lest he be angry and ye perish from the right way when his wrath is kindled but a little blessed are all they that put their trust in him Now we know the same Psalmist saith Put not your trust in Princes Psal 146. 3. nor in any Son of man in whom there is no help And believing in Christ is a special part of worship but this is required by Christ of his Disciples saying Ye believe in God believe also in me Prayer likewise is made to Joh. 14. 1. Acts 7. Christ by St. Stephen for in the Acts it is written how Stephen was stoned calâ—ing upon Christ and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit The third Person in the holy Trinity is the holy Ghost which we have shewed in part that the learnedest of the ancient Jews were not ignorant of though more obscurely delivered in the Old Testament than in the New The first thing then we are to prove is That the holy Ghost is a Person for that it is there needs no other proof than the words themselves so often used in Scripture And that it subsists personally and not only as an Act or Grace will appear from these two general heads The Acts of it an the Attributes given to it And first In what sense the Scriptures use evil Spirit in the same sense may it be said to use the good Spirit but evil Spirit is frequently used for a Person who is the author of mischief to mankind and therefore the good Spirit must be a Person the author of 1 Joh. 4. 6. Rom. 11. 8. Eph. 2. 2. 1 Sam. 16. 14. 2 Chron. 18. 20 21. good to man We read in Scripture of a Spirit of error and the Spirit of slumber and the Spirit of disobedience and of an evil Spirit that possessed Saul and of a lying Spirit that entred into and moved the false Prophets and in the New Testament as well as humane Authors of divers who have been infested with evil Spirits Now all these were real and personal Subsistences and therefore in parity of reason so should the good Spirit of which we so often read both in the Old and New Testament under the appellation of the Spirit of the Lord as the Spirit of the Lord moved upon the waters at the beginning and the Spirit of the Lord fell upon such persons And if it be here replyed That we are to understand the good Spirits after the same manner we understand the evil and that the evil Spirits being evil Angels the good Spirit should be good Angels only We answer not denying That Spirit may be so used in Scripture divers times and that by the same parity of reason that it is insinuated unto us that the evil Spirit hath one Prince and chief amongst them called Lucifer so the good Spirits have one supreme over them that good Spirit of God Secondly That where Scripture speaks of Spirit absolutely there the divine Spirit is constantly to be understood as St. Hierome hath observed Again We read from the Acts of the Spirit as interceding for us being Rom 8. 26. Eph. 4. 30. Mat. 3. 16. grieved and descending upon Christ in a bodily shape at his Baptism and Christs speech to his Disciples saying in St. John I will ask the Father and he shall give you another Comforter Christ was the one Comforter not only by his Graces but personal presence among his Disciples and answerable to this must the holy Spirit be also here promised And that this divine Person is distinct from the other appeareth from the general Doctrine of the Trinity above and specially out of St. Matthew where Christ saith Baptizing them in the Name of the Father Mat. 28. and of the Son and of the holy Ghost which must imply a distinction And St. John Chap. 1. He that sent me to baptize with water the same said unto Joh. 1. 33. me Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost And so Joh. 14. 16. Joh. 15. 26. From the same place of St. Matthew appeareth the equality of all these three Persons and especially from the immediate operation the Spirit had upon Christ who was God and Man for of it Isaiah thus
prophesieth Isa 61. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for that he hath annointed me to c. which Christ himself applied to himself Luk. 4. 18. Secondly The Attributes of the same Spirit infer a Deity as Omniscience 1 Cor. 2. The Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. And lest this should be understood of a search without success or full knowledge it followeth For what man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of a man which is in him Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God Creation The Spirit of God hath made me and the Job 33. 4. breath of the Almighty hath given me life saith holy Job And Christ casting out Devils by the Spirit of God and the Apostles miraculous acts demonstrating Mat. 12. 28. 1 Cor. 2. 4. the Spirit of God in them the preaching of St. Paul being in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power i. e. being so powerful in outward acts and miracles that it was sufficient conviction that he spake and wrought by the Spirit but miracles cannot be wrought by any thing less than a divine Power And by St. Peter it is called The Spirit of Glory 1 Pet. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 3. 16 17 and of God By St. Paul it is called God himself where he saith Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you If any man defile the Temple of God him shall God destroy for the Temple of God is holy which Temple are ye Here we plainly see how the Temple of God and the Temple of the holy Ghost are the same thing And thus we see confirm'd what St. John very plainly and positively 1 Joh. 5. 7. asserteth of this Mystery That there are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the holy Ghost and these three are one And this may suffice to have spoken according to our purpose compendiously as well of the Unity as Trinity of these Persons in the God-head only adding without any long or curious enquiry the several Notions and Idioms whereby they are distinct in our Faith The Property of the first Person is to be the Fountain and after the manner of first Principle of the other to whom therefore some ascribe a dignity of order above the other two though not of time or duration being all co-eternal and the one not to be conceived anterior to the other Nor of Nature as if the divine Nature were unequally communicated to them but that they are coequal in Being and in Power or Acting externally Another Property of the first Person is to be a Father in respect of the Son the second Person and together with the Son to bear such a relation to the third the holy Spirit for which no proper name hath been yet found out and whether it be possible to express the same aptly in one word I much question It is commonly called Procession on the part of the holy Ghost and in general on the parts of the other two Persons Production which yet is â—imited to the excluding of such a Production as answers Generation and much more of Creation besides which natural Reason can comprehend no other But Christian Faith obliges us to contain our selves modestly in the general Notion of Proceeding Some have indeed presumed to distinguish the production of the Son by the Father from the production of the holy Ghost by the Father and the Son in that the Son proceeds from the Father Intellectually as a word is conceived in the mind but the holy Spirit as act of the joynt will of Father and Son by way of Love Of which explication I shall suspend all sentence leaving others to judge CHAP. V. Of the proper Acts of God Creation and Preservation or Providence What is Creation That God created all things and how Of the Ministers of Gods Providence towards inferior Creatures the Angels of God Their Nature and Office towards Man especially THAT God is the proper Object of Christian Faith or Divinity not only as principal but as all other things therein treated relate to him is before shewed Now therefore we proceed from the Creator to the Creature to which the two hands of God are more visibly and eminently extended or stretched out The first In the Creation it self The other In the Providence of God over the works of his hands as the Scriptures phrase is And first Of Creation we understanding it to be after the nature of an Act must find out the proper term or object of it which is contained in that received definition thereof Creation is the production of a thing out of nothing or more plainly a making something of nothing In which we are not so grosly to conceive of Gods Act as if he made the world so of nothing as a man makes a Statue of something but of nothing or out of nothing is as much as from nothing or nothing concurring by way of pre-existent matter to produce such an effect For if any thing had been which had not its first Being from the first Cause of all God that must have been God also or there could not be said to have been any God at all because there could be no order where was no first and second and where matter is supposed to have been eternal there no priority of time can be admitted So that either such thing must have been God as we have seen in the Relations in the Trinity or no God at all because that is not God to which an equal in any respect distinct in nature from him may be found for Gods Nature is to be above all Neither can any reason be possibly alledged whereby it should appear that if simple matter as some call it might have subsisted before it was made simply by God the Sun and Moon and other compound bodies in Nature might not have pre-existed and prevented Gods workmanship or why an imperfect Being should have the dignity denied to a more perfect but at the pleasure and will of the supream Agent disposing all things For that which was not at all produced by another must necessarily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanasius dâ— Incarnat spring out of nothing or of it self And why might not a Man or Horse or any other thing do so as well as infamous Matter Furthermore Unless there were a productive Power in God of something out of nothing the Power of God would not answer the Nature of God The Nature of God is infinite so therefore must his Power be but the Power of God could not be known to be infinite if such an infinite effect were not producible by him Lastly This denial of Gods Power to produce even the first imaginable matter would also destroy his Power in creating any thing not consisting of such matter and so should the production of Spirits utterly be
Patient or thing that suffereth not according to the full force and vertue which it hath in it self For fire doth not equally prey upon stone and wood nor doth the Physitian give the same strong Physick to a weak body as he doth to a strong nor are Men informed of God after the manner of Angels who behold much more purely and cleerly the Nature of God But mans knowledge is generally taken from the Effects And so comparing those works of God and Acts of God which have some similitude with those of men For as all works of note do imply some care and pains to produce them by men So is God said to labour when he created all things in this world and to rest when he had finished and ended all because this is the manner of men And to be Angry when either just cause is offered by offending him in breaking of his holy Laws or the effects of wrath commonly seen when men are so affected appear by the severe punishments inflicted upon offenders And what is said of the inward affections ascribed unto God may be easily applied to those outward descriptions made of God in Scripture under the form of Man as of Hands Arms Head Heart Eyes and such like which the ancient Fathers against the Heresie of the Anthropomorphites who as Epicurus in Tully took God to be of the same fashion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often mentioned by St. Chrysostome Suidas form with Man do affirm to be by Condescension to Man which Condescension is thus described by one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Condescension is when God doth seem to be what he is not but so declares himself to be as he that is to conceive of him is best able to behold him proportioning the revelation of himself to the imbecillity of the contemplator CHAP. IV. Of the Vnity of the Divine Nature as to number and how the Trinity of Persons may consist with the Vnity and simplicity of the Deity Of the proper Notions pertaining to the Mystery of the Trinity viz. Essence Substance Nature Person The Distinction of the Persons in the Trinity Four Enquiries moved How far the Gentiles and Jews understood the Trinity The Proof of the Doctrine of the Trinity from the New Testament and the Explication of it BUT to the exception taken from the Mystery of the Holy Trininity greater regard ought to be had as well for the explication and confirmation of that Doctrine as for the satisfaction of humble enquirers into the same And for more clear and gradual proceeding herein it will be requisite first to explain such terms as this Doctrine much depends on as Essence Substance Nature Person and Trinity it self Essence is of somewhat larger extent than Substance because Substance signifies properly only that which is opposite to Accident or that which adheres or inheres to Substance but Essence signifies all kinds of Beings as well of Accidents as Substances Nature is the restraint of Essence and Substance both in their general Being to some more special kind of thing as there is the Nature of Man and the Nature of Beast the Nature of Accidents and the Nature of Substances the Nature of Colours and the Nature of Quantities so that Nature is not that whereby a thing simply and absolutely is but whereby it is what it is Hence we say also the Nature of God or the Creator and the Nature of the Creature Nature being that by which as is said a thing is what it is and distinct from others And as for the word Trinity it is true what hath been objected by some of old that it is not in terms t◠be found in Scripture for the word doth not import any one or more things absolutely but rather the manner of such things being the better to settle the mind in the apprehension of that great Mystery Now the Holy Scriptures doth very often only propound the Article of Faith to be believed by us but leaves the manner of expressing and conceiving the same to the holy prudence of Men whom he hath for the instruction of inferior persons ordained in his Church which have agreed so to term that three-fold personal Relation in the Deity A Person is defined to be an entire and absolute Being of reasonable nature Man in general is not a Person because he subsisteth not by himself A Beast in particular is not a Person because void of knowledge and reason The soul of Man though endowed with reason is not a Person because not of it self entire and perfect being part of another thing i e. Man But Peter and John are Persons because single Substances absolute in themselves and rational To collect therefore and conclude from what is thus briefly premised we say that these Notions of Essence Substance and Nature are sometimes taken more strictly and properly according to which we must alwayes hold it as a most fundamental Truth in Christian Religion as it is in the Religion of all civilized People that God is but one in Essence Substance or Nature i. e. the Being and Nature of God as God are but one But if we take the said Notions more largely for that which expresses the manner of Being as well as Being it self then may we speak of the nature of a Person as when we say that the nature of a Person is different from the nature of things simply taken And if Nature be taken as sometimes for the condition of a thing or Person we may truly say that in the Trinity the Three Persons as Persons are of a different nature though they differ not in the nature of the Deity For that they really and not imaginarily or by mans fancy and conception different from one another is a received Truth by all reputed true Believers but nothing can be distinct from another but by somewhat peculiar to it and whatever is peculiar to a thing and ingredient into its Being may be and is commonly called the nature of it in which sense we may say Three Persons are of a different nature because the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost Father or Son for the nature of the Father as Father is to beget the nature of the Son as Son to be begotten the nature of the Holy Ghost as Holy Ghost to proceed But all this hindereth not in the Nature of God they should be one and the same and so but one distinct God and this makes the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity For were not the Persons distinct by somewhat real and not so notional as to be fictitious there could not be said to be a Triplicity or Trinity of Persons And again if in nature they were not the same there could be no Identity worthy of that Mystery For other Creatures differing one from another in subsisting distinctly agree in the unity of a general nature as three men agree in the common nature of man But 't is
earthy And the like may be said of other Creatures which yet together with man may be said to be created because they were produced of that which was immediately created by God the first matter Where likewise we are not to understand the word Earth so strictly as not to imply water also for the word Earth doth comprehend all things of and pertaining to this Globe called Earthly from the principal part of it Earth And as Adam was made out of the Earth immediately we read Eve to be made immediately out of Adam God causing a deep sleep upon Adam Gen. 2. 22 23. and then taking one of his ribs and closing up the â—lesh instead thereof of which rib he made the woman And there is no such difficulty as Scholastical wits would frame when from hence they would infer That if God took one rib from Adam he had either more at first than were natural to man or fewer afterward and so must have something of monstrousness a strange argument to perswade such a man as Cajetan That God did not this really but that the Scripture here speaks Metaphorically when as this is a direct History which is given us here of the Creation For suppose we that God had made man at first otherwise than now he is by himself altered might it not be well said that both the one and the other were natural to him It is impossible that God should do any thing monstrous or unnatural through an whole species and therefore no scruple ought to be made of allowing God who is the Nature of Nature to dispose his works as he pleases and change nature so that if it should seem good to him now to take away one of mans legs and cause him generally to go upon one only this would be no more monstrons than his going now upon two is And in like manner is it very frivolous that is given as a reason by the Schools of Gods causing such a deep sleep upon Adam lest he should be sensible of too much pain at that act of taking out his Rib when as the same miracle that cast him into a sleep and preserved him from waking under such supposed pain might as well have preserved him from pain waking as sleeping It may be rather to teach us that he would not have us privy to his mysterious Chrysost de Fide Lege Naturae S. S. acts nor pryers too nearly into them And therefore a reason is given by Chrysostome both acutely and soberly why God first made Adams Body before he created his Soul or breath'd into him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost To. 5. pag. 649. the breath of Life Least he should see how himself was made which might be a reason why at the framing of Eve he was cast into a sleep which is the very reason the same Author or as it is thought some other under his name doth give in another place whose words because I judge to deliver the manner of mans Creation more aptly plainly and sincerely than the Schools who are very busie and curious here I shall thus translate God saith he first framing Man made the Instrument of his Body and then put into it the Soul Why so To the end he might thereby declare the Excellency of Man For seeing other Animals and Beasts being dissolved by death their soul and Body perish together he speaks of the production of them as of those things which were to perish absolutely God therefore about to fashion man takes his Body out of the earth and then breaths in his Soul Stay but a little that I may shew to you the manner of this breathing into man so far as I am able For from what went before and from hence he describeth as it were the hope of Resurrection He makes the Body first and Man first received a dead Image and then the quickening vertue of the soul He was first shown dead then living First he made a dead Body into which he was again to return and thus when he had finished that he added the Character or form and did not make his soul first that he might not be a Spectatour of what was made He would not suffer the soul to be present when he made man lest it should glory as an assistant to God in that work and not only that it might not boast but might not so much as behold the manner how it was done And thus doth God still For he frameth every one of us in the womb But how he so frameth us he hath granted no man to see We are sown and we are fashioned nature perfecting the course but the manner no man comprehends O the wonder A Temple is made in a Temple an House in an House is framed and the outward house perceives it not First then he makes man according to a dead Image and then he saith God breathed into the face of Adam the breath of Life and man became a living soul Some have been of opinion that this Breath was his very soul and that it was given him of the very Essence of God But that saying is not only very mild but absurd also For if the soul were the very substance of God It could not be that in this man it should be wise in another it should be foolish and ignorant and in this man a just soul in that man an unjust For the Essence of God is neither divided nor changed but immutable Nay not only are the souls of men mutable but liable to condemnation For so saith the Gospel Mat. 10. 28. Fear not them that can kill the body but cannot kill the soul but fear ye him rather who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell If therefore the soul be of God then should God condemn himself Therefore it is necessary we should see what this is The Breathing This breathing is the Power of the Holy Spirit For as our Saviour breath'd on the faces of his Apostles and said Receive Joh. 20. 22. ye the Holy Ghost so this divine breath heard after the manner of men is that Venerable and Holy Spirit And this Holy Spirit too present was not the soul it self but made the soul it was not it self changed into the Soul but framed it For the Holy Spirit was the Author it was concerned in the making both of the body and Soul For the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost made this work And do not imagin that the Father contributed one part the Son another and the Holy Ghost a third But this I say that though the Father made it it is the work of the Son and the Fabrick of the Holy Spirit c. Thus far that Elegant and Learned Author However some inconsiderable difference is found amongst ancient and Modern Doctours some saying that the Angels were created but when that was there is nothing besides conjecture only they say upon such a supposal that it affords a
How can any man be said to be afflicted for his loss of a great empire or riches unless he knew that he once was possessed of them or they were at least his by Right How can any pain trouble a man which he feels not And if he feels it not how can it be a punishment to him And to this I add the Scripture saying God made man according to his own Image in Genesis Gen. 1. 26. Jam. 3. 9. and in St. James's Epistle After the similitude of God How is it less than blasphemous that a sinful guilty creature such as man must needs be having a wicked Spirit put into him should be said to be according to Gods Image or likeness And how can it consist with the Scripture elsewhere saying God made man upright but they have found out many inventions Eccles 7. 29. For though the Evil Spirit supposed to be put into man were the Author of its own wickedness yet when once that was so wicked for to put it into man is to make man wicked Now this Image of God so much spoken of in Scripture and treated of by Divines to the great honour of Man we may understand to consist in these five things Principally 1. Wisdom and Knowledg 2. Liberty of Will 3. Justice and Holiness 4. Immortality 5. Dominion For when we speak of the Image of God in Man we must be sure not to confound it with that proper to Christ the Image of God For first that of man was made as we have heard that of God Christ was neither made nor created but begotten and that not by way of Carnal Generation but purely divine and Spiritual Secondly That was as well Eternal in respect of what is past as what was to come But the Image of God in Man only everlasting as to the future time Thirdly That of Christ was immediate but that of Man mediate So that he is not the Image of God but as he is the Image of his more express and Natural Image Christ and that first as is said in Wisdom Christ being primarily called the Wisdom of his Father and deriving of the same to us For as St. John saith Of John 1. 16 his fulness have all received and Grace for Grace And God creating all things through his Natural Word his Son signified by that Metaphorical word expressed in the Book of Genesis did in particular through him communicate that Wisdom unto Adam which he excelled in at his first Institution whereby it was natural to him to understand the natures of all Creatures Earthly as well from their Causes from whence they proceeded as from their effects proceeding from them which latter is the principal means of attaining that remainder and as it were ruins of a more perfect Body of knowledg in Adam which we are capable of in the state we now are And not only Natural things but Supernatural also as God and the Holy Spirits were much more perfectly known to him than to us So that the knowledg of the First man exceeded all after him Christ the Second Adam only excepted in these three things First in the manner of enjoying that knowledg which he had it being not acquired by tedious and experimental discursiveness observations or reasoning within himself but by a divine illumination which was not given him after the manner of Revelations given by God to some of his eminent Servants transiently not to continue or to descend to others but it was by way of a connatural habit which should have passed to his posterity Secondly the object of this knowledg or extent of it transcended that of Man now adayes stretching it self to heavenly as well as Earthly things and the minuter things lying hid from us Thirdly It differed in the manner and perfection as being more accurate and less Fallible than ours The Second thing shining eminently in Adam was Liberty of will whereby he resembled his Creatour who is the only absolute and Free Agent For there was no natural inclination nor temptation in him to err or offend in choosing the Evil and refusing Good according to that of Syracides God himself made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his Councel c. Leaving it equally in his power and choice to turn to the Eccles 15. 14. Right hand or to the Left to stand or fall And not only freely to do what he did though propelled thereunto but freely to Act or not to act which is the perfectest and most proper freedom of all From this twofold perfection of the Understanding and Will arose a Third which was perfect Innocency and Holiness which by some is called Original Justice and by others Original Grace both ayming at the same thing For Original Justice or Righteousness it may be called because it was not acquired but connatural and simultaneous to the Being of Man Again It was Grace because though it pleased God to create man with it yet he might also have created him without it and it was separable from him and so not intrinsick to his very nature Which is yet thus further to be understood that it were most absurd and blasphemous to believe that God could make a man a sinner without any precedent or concurrent act of his own will or without this original innocency and Justice for as nothing but God can proceed immediately and directly from Gods hand so neither could man as he was the effect of God be any otherwise than Good This then may be called his natural and Original Justice and Goodness and Original Grace also in some sense because though all the works of God must needs be good as his yet man for example might not have been so perfect either in his understanding and will and yet have retained innocency And this was the Grace of God Besides which may probably be asserted another Grace which to the bare stock of Nature thus put together by God superadded a more special and Free Grace called though not very properly the Grace of Sanctification not as it is in us purifying and restoring us in some competent manner to what hath been decayed or depraved by the fraud and power of the Devil in us or our own vile hearts and affections but by way of Preservation preventing the evils and dangers unto which we were subject Now this as it is called Grace because it was not necessarily due to nature So was it called Natural or Original because God conserred the same at our first being and would so have continued it had we not abused and forfeited the same And from hence sprang a Fourth beam of the bright Image of God in man viz. Immortality as an appendage to the said Natural Justice and a reward of the perseverence in it For God saying In the day thou eatest Gen. 2. 17. thereof the tree of the knowledg of Good and Evil Thou shalt surely die did imply that so long as he persevered in due
They are of three sorts Some profess him to be God but deny him to be true and real Man Others believe him to be Man but deny him to be God But the Faith truly Christian professes both viz. That Christ was God and Man We shall remit for brevities sake the Reader to what hath been said before proving the mystery of the Trinity out of the Scriptures and that Christ the second Person in the Trinity is the Son of God by natural Generation supernatural to us And to prove the second out of the word now there is scarce one such Heretick who denyes it may seem superfluous That which is to be demonstrated is That there was time of union of that second Person in the Trinity with Man and that this union was such that it constituted not two Persons but one as St. Paul plainly writeth to Timothy There is one God and one Mediatour between God and man the Man Christ 1 Tim. 2. 5. Jesus And therefore whatever doctrine so speaks of this Mystery as to divide the Natures into two Persons as if there were two Mediatours two Saviours two Christs between God and Man destroyeth the Faith of a Christian no less than that doth which denyes these two Natures to concur in one Person the Eternal and Divine Nature and Person assuming in the fulness of time humane Nature inconfusedly into the Divine To the proving this we take that as a sure ground and founadtion which St. John hath laid to build his Gospel on That there was an Eternal Divine Nature in and from the beginning and that this Divine Nature was diversified by three distinct Persons that one of these Persons is called the Word For he saith In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with John 1. 1. God and the Word was God Ridiculous are the violences offered to these words by Hereticks who first take here Beginning not for that highest and higher than the Creatures comprehension can mount to of all durations which none is afore and none come properly after but for a tearm of time properly fixt and for want of more remarkable do pitch upon the first publication of the Gospel as that beginning answerable forsooth unto that speech of Moses In the beginning God created the heaven and the Gen. 1. 1. earth but the agreement is too little to make such interpretation because it is plain that heaven and earth not only had a beginning but gave beginning to time it self measured and observed by them And it is plain that the Gospel did not begin so soon by almost thirty years as Christ began according to his humane nature And if it be taken of the Person of Christ What can be more absurd than to say In the beginning was the Word that is Christ began when he began Therefore the word here can neither be taken for the Gospel or Word preacht but it must be meant of a word superiour and anteriour to both as doth yet more plainly appear from the phrase used The Word was with God and the Word was God For the heavens and earth which are said in Genesis to be made in the beginning cannot be said either to have been with God or to have been God nor can the humane nature of Christ not extant till some thousands of years after the first Creation be said to have been in the beginning with God and much less to have been God And the like may be said of the Word spoken by Christ and his Apostles which the Scriptures do not reckon to have begun at Christs birth nor many years after For thus saith St. Peter in his Sermon to Cornelius That Word ye know which was published throughout all Acts 10. 37. Judea and began from Galilee after the Baptism which John preached The Word therefore according to this account was not at the beginning but after Johns Baptism But this is not all this is nothing in comparison of what is added The Word was God The humane nature of Christ precisely taken was not God therefore another Word must be allowed to be God And that must be the Word Eternal and Personal And if this be doubted of I thus argue from the words following In that sense that Christ is said to be Light is he said to be the Word but Christ is said to be Light and the Light is said to be Christ and St. John Baptist disavows that Light John 1. 7 8 9 10. and ascribes it to Christ And therefore as the Person of Christ is signified by the Light so is it by Word And how can we possibly make sense of Christs words in St. John if Christ prae-existed not before he came into the World in the flesh And now glorifie thou me O Father with that glory which I had with thee before John 18. 5. the foundation of the World It may be said that before the foundation of the World such decree of glory might be given to one future but thus it cannot be said of him who is described to be actually possessed of it before the foundation of the World and that a man is said to be possessed of which he is said to have had as here And how could Christ say truly Before Abraham was I am when he was not Fifty years old according John 8. 57 58. to the Jews account And that he puts a distinction between his comming from the Father and his seeing the Father otherwise than any before him or of his time proves a prae-existence and presence singular with God Not any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God he hath seen the John 6. 46 62. Father And to this adde what follows What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before Doth not this plainly imply that as Christ did really ascend after his Resurrection and sate at the right hand of God in his humane nature so he was there before some way or other and no way can be thought of but his Divine nature as St. Paul intimated to the Ephesians He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above Ephes 4. 10. all heavens Now if any will be so captious as to except against this because the Divine Nature cannot properly be said to descend because it filleth all things it is true in rigour of speech what they say but not according to the form of speech frequent in Scripture which then affirmeth God to descend when as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrha he appeareth Gen. 18. 21. and revealeth himself more sensibly as Christ did taking humane nature on him And this prae-existent Nature of Christ to his humane being proved that these were so united together must be also shown And to this the single express testimony of St. John may suffice an equal mind The Word John 1. 14. was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us And we beheld his glory the glory
to the phrase of Scripture often ascribed unto God As where we read a Sleep from the Lord was fallen upon the servants of Saul that is a prosound or as it 1 Sam. 26. 12. is there said a deep sleep though I deny not but this might be literally verified And we read according to the original of Oaks of God and Hills of God which import no more than exceeding high and stately ones And I make no doubt but when it is said The sons of God saw the daughters of Genes 6. 2. men that they were fair c. Angels are not thereby intended and doubt whether as is commonly conjectur'd The children of God or holy Seed be there aimed at For no reason can be given why Gyants should be rather born of them than wicked men but rather that they were a race of Men of extraordinary stature called therefore the Sons of God because of their excessive greatness as all other mighty things are said to be of God in which sense egregious hardness is imputed unto God But to the main difficulty we must answer from the various manifestations of Gods love to Mankind And where can we better begin to judge hereof than from the first and second state of Man his Institution and Restauration It is here taken for granted That whole Mankind fell at once in Adam from its pristine perfection And it is no less apparent that God purposing to restore Man again and recover him treated as it were and concluded with the same person Adam and in the same capacity that he fell in He fell as is said equally to all men future without any discrimination of worse or better higher or lower and God treated and covenanted with him without any clause of distinction or exception of any one single person For in truth though all actions relate immediately to persons yet the substance of the Treaty concerned principally the nature in general of Man the promises of God being made with the Seed of the Woman and Man without any restriction or limitation as St. Paul teaches thus saying God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself by which 2 Cor. 5. 19. is signified a general and indistinct gift of God towards the lapsed mass of Mankind which gift likewise is expressed in the same latitude by St. John For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever Joh. 3. 16. believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life But if there were in the first intention of God any disparity in exhibiting his son to the world of that nature that thereby certain persons should be excluded remedilesly from the number for whom Christ dyed then could it no more be said that Christ became incarnate for them then for the Devils whose nature Christ took not But surely there was a distinction made between reprobate Men and reprobate Spirits But this is not answered by the distinction in general of Sufficiencie and Efficiencie or efficacie of Christs death used by Perkins saying That Christs death was sufficient for all but became not effectual to all This is notoriously true and undenyable and that as he sayes it was sufficient for the redemption of many worlds if case required For so it might be said It was sufficient for the redemption of Devils too for ought we know And what of this But Perkins seems to make a little bolder and farther step where he grants a kind of efficacie too but somewhat of the harshest sense For distinguishing between Potential and Actual Efficacie he addeth Christ dyed potentially effectually for all men but not actually effectually But this potential efficacie rightly understood amounts to no more than a simple Sufficiencie in regard that this Vertue according to him was never intended by God to be actuated in the behalf of the unpredestinated to life and glory A second prejudice against that interpretation is That the Scripture speaking of the death of Christ and his Passion doth not speak of it as of a sufficient rate and price in general but a payment also actually made for all for such is the importance of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which signifie an actual payment in relation to an obligation of Debt or Bondage which places of Scripture we have before given Thirdly the Decree of exhibiting Christ actually and effectually in special manner to some elect persons who receive him by Faith being thereunto moved and enabled by Gods inspirations is altogether posteriour to the exhibition of Christ to Mankind in general and therefore can be no real cause of Gods distinct intention then or that God should at his first propounding put a difference in the manner of exhibiting Christs Persons For all this while we must allow two distinct Periods of Gods favourable Providence toward Man in restoring him the one in his general Ordination of his Son to redeem him the other in the special collation and application of that benefit to man God gave his Son and in him his Obedience both in life and death to All men But the effect and benefit of these redounded actually only to some select persons This latter is undenyable by all sides For who did ever say that all men were actually saved by Christ I know the former i. e. That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Payment made for all is rejected by Perkins and his Assertour and Apologist Twisse And true it is that in very tearms above-mentioned it is scarce to be found that Christ gave himself without a note of Restitution and Limitation such as Many or To them that receive him and believe in him But then as the Scripture saith not in express tearms that Christ was a Ransom or Payment made for all so neither doth it say Only for the Elect exclusively And when it saith Christ was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World And that God John 1. 29. John 3. 16. 1 John 4. 14. so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son And elsewhere That the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World We shall not need to shew how the Scripture doth frequently use the word World in opposition to true Believers as where St. John hath these words The World knew him John 1. John 17. 9. not And again I pray for them I pray not for the World c. and so in other places which do imply a Right the very Wicked and Reprobates have in Christ And whereas a principal argument is drawn from the words in St. John last cited to prove an inequality of interest in Christs death and mediation thus Christ only dyed for them he prayed for but Christ prayed not for the World i. e. the Wicked Therefore he dyed not for them If this were true that Christ never prayed for the wicked or for those that were not then given actually
In his state of innocencie and perfection or imperfection and blindness of mind God certainly knew that man was frail and apt to mistake when he delivered his Law How then is this an Apologie sufficient for him who gave such a Law as was disproportionable to his understanding at the time of giving it But then secondly considering that the understanding and the thing to be understood are Relatives and that it comes to the same end whether the Facultie be unapt to conceive or the Object unapt to be conceived such an excuse is to no purpose But yet withal wo must note that man is not to be excused from guilt in misunderstanding First be cause he willingly brought this defect upon himself by his Original â—â—lly and Falâ— of Secondly Because he through vile and vitious affections doth oftentimes contract a greater darkness and disorder than is natural to him even in this state of Original sin And God as all other Law-givers did not proportion the Law given according to the contingent dispositions of particular mens understanding but according to that common Scantling found generally in Man So that undoubtedly some men are the proper authors of their own ignorance in divine matters through their affected evil manners as the Scripture and the Fathers jointly shew A second General reason is from God 1. Calling man to the knowledge of himself and that by his word and never intending to alter the course of nature and general state of man in this life which was and is to be fallible Infallibilitie being the portion of the blessed in the life to come â—t were not impossible that God should either by so framing his word or so reframing man have secured him from erring about it but he hath not so done neither doth it appear how such Exemptions and priviledges could consist with his Providence more general For Secondly The Providence of God having determined to preserve humane and divine Societies as he had constituted this can hardly be understood to be more readily and safely effected than by mutual obligations and a necessity of mutual offices to be done one towards another And the first thing conducing hereunto is the Order of Governors and Governed of Masters and Scholars of such as teach and such as are taught in the Word But if every man were wise in the Laws of man had the power of the Sword justly given into his own hands or the power of the Word in his own breast then would there be no need at all of Rulers or teachers to teach or instruct or reprove and redress errours in manners because Every man is supposed to be an independent Prince and though he should offend against nature it self was not to be punished by one who had no autority over him Hence there fore it is that God most wisely hath suffered an inequalitie of Persons in all Ages all Faculties all Policies as well divine as humane that the more strickt the bond is the more intire the societie and unity might also be Thirdly As this discrimination secures the necessary relations between men within themselves so doth it the dependance between God and Man which must never be forgotten For as for the Father to deliver all the writings of his Estate to his son and to put him in present and full possession of all his wealth is the next way to tempt his son to forget and disrespect him and no more to acknowledg any duty to him in like manner were it so that God at once should have put man in ample and absolute knowledg of his holy writings and will without reserving to himself the farther manifestation of difficulter matters there would be no address to God no worship no seeking to him for satisfaction and information in the Care of his Soul One main end and office of prayer would be extinct So we read that God designing the Law to the Israelites provided aforehand That the ordinary Rulers should judg the people at all time but the hard causes they should bring to Moses and Moses himself cases too hard for him to God As in the Case of him that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day and of Zelophehads daughters Fourthly God suffers this to the end he might quicken and excite our Endeavours and industry in the search after his holy will so reveiled unto us For were it so that all things were presently and readily obvious unto us there would be wanting that excellent vertue of labour to which God hath ordained all men since the fall to perserve them from greater mischiefs incident to weak man And besides contempt and slighting are Besides those Texts of Scripture which by reason of wisdom and depth of sense and mystery laid up in them are not yet conceived there are in Scripture of things that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemingly confused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carrying semblance of Contrariety and Achronisms Metachronisms and the like which brings infinite obscurity to the text There are I say more of them in Scripture then in any writer that I know secular or divine Dr. Hales Serm. 1. p. 22. alwaies the consequent of what is plain and familiar to us And therefore that argument which some use to prove all things evident in Scripture and others contrariwise that all things are unquestionable in the Church so that according to the opinion of the one a man committing himself to the holy Scriptures and according to the other submitting himself to the Church in all things he may promise himself security rather than safety do make more against this It being more certainly the Will of God while we war in the Church militant we should never rest secure from due solicitudes and temptations but by often contentions with him to preserve our selves from falling from the true Faith or falling into a false Faith A third General reason of the obscurities in Scripture may be taken from the Scriptures themselves which not compared with the general ability of mans reason and understanding only but with other writings also are of difficult access and that will be thought no calumnie if it be considered First That the languages in which they were originally written are so far perished now adayes that they are familiar to no nation neither can the many Idioms and proprieties of the phrase be well understood by us Secondly The Histories thereof and the several customes rites Civil and Religious amongst the Heathens as well as Jews and Christians the habits gestures and acts very easily known and readily apprehended by such as lived in those dayes and places are now hardly to be understood Thirdly The difficulty of distinguishing between Canonical and Uncanonical Writings Fourthly The subtilty and artifices of Heretiques in their corrupting if not the Letter yet perverting the genuine sense Yea the very Orthodox Expositors are themselves so various and unconsenting in the true meaning that they much more distract and unsettle
sides we are obliged by conscience to our proper Fathers in Christ For to do otherwise is to provoke God to deliver such over as light and gadding Huswifes to the impure embraces of any seducer to Schism and Heresie But when such a conviction shall be wrought in us of the errors and unsafety of that communion in which we were educated That we must either forsake that or Christ then must the advice and sentence of our Saviour prevail with us in St. Luke If any Luâ— 14. 26. man comes to me and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and Brethren and Sisters yea and his own Life also he cannot be my Disciple And as we should go against common prudence and humanity it self out of an opinion That our Parents natural may err and set us upon unwarrantable Acts to turn them off and deny all obedience unto them least they should lead us into errors so should we do very unchristianly and against apparent precepts of Scripture contemptuously and proudly to deny submission both of Judgement and practise unto our spiritual Parents because forsooth they are men and may err the Spirit of disobedience tacitly insinuating unto us a much more pestilent opinion That while we do as best liketh our selves we shall be much more safe if not infallible as if we might not err But of this as we have already spoken in part so may there offer it self a more proper place more fully to speak afterward A second general means to attain the true sense of Scripture is indeed the Spirits assistance by which it was at first composed There is certainly none like to that For as St. Paul hath it What man knoweth the 1 Cor. 2. 11. things of a man save the Spirit of a man which is in him Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God The only hazard we here run is and that no small one That we presume not lightly upon such a peculiar guidance of the Spirit which we have not The general remedie therefore of this evil is that prescribed by our Lord Christ viz. Prayer For Thus he speaketh by St. Mathew All things whatsoever ye ask in prayer believing ye shall receive And more Mat. 21. 22. Luk. 11. 13. particularly by St. Luke If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask them And a Third means is when being soundly and well instructed in the general Augustin de Doct. christ Lib. 3. cap. 2. drift and design of Faith or Gods holy word we by the Analogy which one part of Faith must bear with another do judge of the truth or error of any thing contained in Scripture And To this belongs a Fourth as it is commonly reckoned viz. due and Id. 16. cap. 3. prudent comparing of several places of Scripture knowing that no sense can be admitted of Scripture which disagreeth with any part of Scripture Skill or knowledg of the original tongues in which they were wrot may be accounted a Fifth meanes and herein a special observation of the several Idioms of both Old and New Testament Lastly Consideration of the Histories of Countries Persons and Customes to which Holy writ do relate To these several others of inferior Order might be named but I here pass them to come to a more exact and seasonable treatise of Tradition so much conducing to the abovesaid ends CHAP. XII Of Tradition as a Means of Vnderstanding the Scriptures Of the Certainty of unwritten Traditions that it is inferior to Scripture or Written Tradition No Tradition equal to Sense or Scripture in Evidence Of the proper use of Tradition TO this place is due the Treating of Tradition as well for the better compleating of what may yet seem wanting in directions for the attaining the proper sense of the Rule of Faith the Scripture as because of the pretensions in its behalf made by some to an equal share in the Rule it self by laying down this fundamental Division of the Word of God into Written commonly called Scripture and Unwritten called Tradition And That the Word of God may be left unwritten as well as written is Moreman said the Church was before the Scriptures Philpoâ— shewed that his argument was fallacious For he took the Scriptures only to be that which is written by men in letters whereas in very deed all Prophesy uttered by the Spirit of God was counted to be Scripture Fox Martyr Vol. 3. pag. 29. undeniable nay That actually it was delivered by word of mouth before it was committed to writing is evident from the infinite Sermons of the Apostles Evangelists and Evangelical Preachers who declared the same For To them who were contemporary to the immediate Disciples of Christ the word of God was delivered by speech to the end it might be written so far as it seemed expedient to Divine Providence for the perpetual benefit of succeeding generations but to us The word of God is preached vocally or orally because it is written And so we read our Saviour himself used it against the Devil and incredulous Jews not quoting the uncertain and unecessary Traditions remaining with the Jews but the written Word saying by St. Mathew * Mat. 4. V. 4. 7. 10. Joh. 8. 17. It is written man shall not live by bread alone And verse the seventh It is written again And the third time It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God c. And so by St. John and innumerable other places It is written in your Law Christ in all his disputes against his Jewish adversaries seldome or never arguing from their Traditions which were many but from the written word of God only And notwithstanding speaking Philosophically it is not repugnant to reason That things delivered from Father to Son through many ages should persevere in their pristine integrity and be preserved incorrupt in the main yet is it inconsistent with the Fallibility of humane nature to secure them in all Points from violation either without writing or with All the world concurring in this That the Invention of Letters was a special gift of God towards Mankind for the more safe and profitable continuance of things passed to following times Such an intollerable Paradox Cresies Exomologesis is that which modern Wits their scarce tollerable Tenets urging them thereunto have of late vented and to their best defended That Tradition taken in contradistinction to Writing is more safe than writing as if writing had not all the priviledges belonging to oral Tradition with great advantage or because written monuments may suffer by tract of time and passing so many hands unwritten traditions might pass so many ages and mouths inviolate When while we see too great variety in the reading or letter of books we could be so blind as not to behold infinite more of the same nature in
particular defects and exigencies each man is subject unto in a separate condition And this Society thus combining or concurring together is commonly called a Republick the word signifying The common good it being the design and end of all Republicks or Common-wealths for men first in order to seek the common interest and good of the whole Society and so through that to derive particular and private benefit to each member thereof and not as some blindly and brutishly addicted to their private personal profits to begin at home and not to secure the Publick stock These are no better than such Pilferers and Thieves who being in partnership with others pocket up in the first place all that they can lay hold on and contribute no more to the common stock than they are by force constrained unto Now this Society may be divided into three sorts Natural Civil Divine or Ecclesiastical Natural is that Order and Regiment constituted Ordâ— est parium disparium rerum sua cuique loco triâ—uens dispositio Aug. Civ Dei 19. 13. Bernardus Gerson entitiloquio Gubernare est movere aliquos indebitum finem sicut nanta gubernat navem emendo eam ad portum Thomas 22. Q. 102. 2. co by God in every mans soul which consisteth of the Superiority of the Rational faculties and the Subjection and Obedience of the Inferiour or Sensitive Affections For Order as several of the Ancient have described it is nothing else but The Disposition or placing of equal and inequal things into their proper places which Order is the foundation of Government And Government according to Thomas is the moving of men to their due end There being therefore a twofold end of man secular and spiritual Government likewise must be answerable And both agree in this viz. to be the Administration of the Weal Publick to ends agreeable unto them In which we are yet farther to consider these things 1. The Original of Government 2. The Form of Government 3. The Rule and Reasons of Government 4. The Obligation upon Men under Government And of these briefly as a necessary Introduction to the Doctrine of the Church And concerning the first the Cause and Fountain of all Government Some pretending to fetch the Fountain head of all humane Rule from its first rise have quite forgot what they went about and inverting the order of nature have begun at the end which is rather the effect then cause For now we do not enquire why or to what end it is but who made it and whose hand it was that framed this Tool to bring to pass such a work as humane safety and tranquility That this must be the same cause with that of man himself seems reasonable to me to conclude from the necessity of the same and the wisdom of Divine Providence which having given generally such instinct and common prudence unto Creatures to do nothing which shall serve for nothing nor to erect any thing but with competent provision to conserve and continue the same in that being so far as the Supream Wisdom shall not oppose the same How is it credible that God should make that Master-piece of his Man upon earth and not at the same time provide for that subsistance and continuance Sevorum bestiarum inquit Aristoteles Polit. 3. cap. 6 non est Civitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are necessary But it is plain that man though as brutish and a sensible creature he may wear out possibly an unhappy ignoble life yet without society and community and unity through the bands and ligaments of sound and reasonable Laws cannot subsist as civil or rational or as easily improvable to perfection of natural state upon earth but must necessarily degenerate into the rank of Brutes Therefore sure Divine Wisdome left him not destitute of such helps as were proper to this end but together with his very nature instills into him an inclination to Society and by his own Act and Ordinance whereby he ordained that man should propagate and multiply prescribed the best and only manner of civil Regiment investing some with a natural right of dominion over others As the man over the woman and the parents over the children from whence it is ready and easie to approach to a community and that with a subordination This is so plain that the perspicuity and simplicity doth rather then any thing else offend the unsatisfied acuteness of rarer wits and move them to pry farther to confound themselves others and the Order God hath set in the world beginning at the feet and ending in the head and putting counsel into the tail to teach the head how it should rule the body and empowring children to enact Laws for Parents how they ought to govern which they certainly do who affirm that the grosser body of the people did first of all agree upon Government and constitute their Ruler which dogmes have no fewer nor higher arguments to confute and oppress them than these First they are Ridiculous Secondly Sacrilegious and Impious Thirdly Impossible Fourthly Pestilential and Pernicious to all Government It is first ridiculous as that opinion which inverts all order and contrary to a much more sound and sober Rule in Politicks viz. That no man can create one greater than himself And if it be said that therefore no single one can confer greater power than he himself is possessed of on another but Many who are greater than one may I answer This is true where the supposition which is here false and taken for true is granted viz. That many men have in such cases as these any more power then one For I wholly deny that any are or altogether have any right whatsoever power they may usurp to create such Powers And it still remains absurd to suppose that any or all whose only place and capacity it is to serve should more then command For 't is a true saying It is more to make a King than to be a King For still I hold this which I have not found shaken by the many attempts of innovating Wits that there is a real Paternal Power in lawful Princes And though we should suppose that which was rarely if ever done that a man should adopt any man into the place of a Father as men usually did some as their sons yet can we not suppose that hereby any paternal Power is really conferred on such an one but only imaginary and impediments removed whereby Paternal power which hath an acknowledged common right to Rule take place over such a person as hath so submitted unto it So in like manner it cannot be denyed against innumerable instances to be given that the People in certain exigencies and faileurs have as it were adopted one man specially as their civil Parent whom we call commonly a King and hereupon absurdly and proudly conclude they have made a King but we know this to be nothing so For 't is not choice but Power that makes a King and
be he no where affirms but saith expresly I do not therefore affirm because I oppose it not But the supream folly of cutting off scores hundreds and thousands of years of torments by Indulgences upon earth was such an imposture as could never enter into the head of any of the sober Ancients and not to be endured amongst Christians Many are the Suffrages of the Fathers to that of the word of God Blessed are the dead which dye in the Lord from henceforth yea saith the Spirit Rev. 14. 13. that they may rest from their Labours and their works do follow them Implying a direct and comfortable passage from this miserable to that happy life in heaven And whereas they say That they who go to Purgatory may be said to dye in Christ because they shall at length be delivered by Christ How can that stand with such excessive pains there suffered to which none on earth are equal either in degree or continuance How can these wretched souls be said to rest from their labours and sorrows Must they not make God a mocker of his servants in comforting them against their affections in this world by telling them they shall one day be delivered from them and go to greater in Purgatory Besides What grounds do they find in the Word of God or the word of the primitiye Fathers which makes a a twofold state in Christ One of them who by Saintly lives pass immediately to bliss Another of them who are in a middle state and are partly miserable and partly blessed But to their prime argument the Answer is easie We are not generally purged wholly from sin nor have we made full satisfaction of punishments for our sins in this Life unless by Martyrdom or some heroical and eminent Sanctity Both are false which are here supposed First That Martyrdom for Christ or the most holy and exemplary life lead here in this world do so perfectly purge us that we need not further cleansing Again it is denyed that true and sincere repentance acted in this life both in forsaking sin and in true conversion unto God sufficeth not to purge us from all our sins in this life as to the guilt and penalty of them and the odious stain rendring the soul unaccepted to God though men arive not to the perfection of Martyrdom or the eminencie of Sanctity attainable here as St. John witnesseth But if we walk in the light as he is in the light 1 John 1. 7. we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin He doth not here intend to speak of the supreamest sanctity only but of that general state of grace and holy life in which whoever is the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth him from all his sins and dying in that state needs no more cleansing to make him capable of entring immediately into everlasting bliss which is far from all torment though not so consummate as to be capable of no addition at the Resurrection when the Body shall be re-united to the Soul Nor doth this take away what of prerogatives is justly due to Martyrdom or eminent Holiness in this Life because there remains proper to them first a greater measure of comfortable assurance of Gods favour and bliss hereafter and a much greater and higher degree of glory when possessed than inferiour degrees of holiness here can lay claim to And this is sufficient encouragement next to the pure intention of holiness it self and Gods glory to any Christian to abound in good works knowing that his 1 Cor. 15. labour is not in vain in the Lord. And thus much of those we call Aequivocal Sacraments and improper For though all true Sacraments are ordinarily necessary to salvation yet all things ordinarily necessary to salvation are not Sacraments as Repentance which in its nature consisting of true Contrition of heart and conversion unto God and thereby putting us into capacity of mercy from God is not pretended to be a Sacrament until the Priest acteth his part towards the Penitent And if Contrition thus understood or Repentance be no Sacrament surely neither can Confession or Satisfactions which are said to be parts of Repentance be Sacraments nothing being in the parts which may not be in the whole But so moderate sound Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops a course hath our Church taken as to call them Sacramentals as being above the order of general acts and duties of Piety and not amounting to the dignity of the two proper ones Baptism and the Eucharist CHAP. XL Of Baptism The Author Form Matter and Manner of Administration of it The General necessity of it The Efficacy in five things Of Rebaptization that it is a prophanation but no evacuation of the former Of the Character in Baptism MANY Acceptations are found of the word Baptism in Holy Scripture which I leave to others who have collected them and betake my self to the thing it self commonly understood by it And thus Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ consisting of the outward signs of Water and the Word and the inward Grace of Regeneration and remission of sins and outward Communion with the Church of Christ all which I conceive to be contained in our Church Catechism where it is first described by its outward Sign to be Water wherein the Party is baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And by its inward Grace to be A death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness for being by nature born in sin we are hereby made the Children of Grace This Sacrament then of baptism is said truly to succeed that of Circumcision and to have the same Spiritual effect upon the Spiritual and inward man which that had over the Outward The agreement and difference between which two will sufficiently appear from the comparing of this as we now shall explain it with that which we shall do by considering the Form the Matter The Subject The Efficacy and the Minister of Baptism The Form we have propounded to us by Christ when he first instituted the same and commanded his Disciples to go and teach all nations baptizing Mat. 28. 19. them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you From whence it doth appear that taking Baptism simply for the Act it consisteth in that form of words here prescribed by Christ and the outward Action of baptizing with Water But taken more Concretely and complexly for all things concurring to that Sacrament essentially It is a Covenant made between God and Man whereby is promised on Gods part remission of sins and salvation and on mans part Faith and Observation of the terms of the Gospel as St. Mark more expresly hath it He that believeth Mar. 16. 16. Eph. 2. 12. and is baptized shall be
by us For passing by that which we now believe they could wish themselves unsaid and are well content to lay aside Antichristianism Popery Baalism Idolatry and what not of most foul bitter and false slanders and reproaches unbecoming the mouth of any sober Christian with which notwithstanding they thriv'd so exceedingly at first into Power and estimation there remains nothing now but such starv'd allegations and pittiful exceptions as may call in question their discretion as well as conscience to urge them Will all the Prophecies and Prefigurations and descriptions of the Old Testament concerning the unity of Christs Church under the Gospel all the Predictions Injunctions Obtestations of Christ and his Apostles All the solemn and Sacred Acts and Endeavours of Apostolical Postours to keep up unity in the Church All the detestations of Discord and Disuniting All the Denunciations of the most severe Judgements of God against causeless breakers of the Churches peace be put off and made void upon such sorry grounds as are of late found out to countenance separation They are so well and generally known by frequent use that aiming at brevity here I hold it not necessary to enlarge upon them especially after so many who out of the Ancients have dissected this Monster to the horrour of any truly conscientious Yet one or two I shall instance in Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria as Nicephorur Nicephor Calixt Lib. 6. Cap. 4. Calixtus relateth affirmeth it to be no less glory yea greater in his Judgement not to divide the Church than not to sacrâ—fice to Idols Which in plain terms is to say It is as great a sin to be a Schismatick as to be an Idolater or yet more home to our Case to be a Papist St. Augustine tells us that it is manifest that he who is not a member of Christ cannot have the DeVnitate Eccles C. 2. salvation of a Christian But the Members of Christ he goes on are conjoined together by the love or Charity of Unity and by the same do stick to their Head which Head is Christ Jesus Now if it be impossible that any man should be a member of Christ the Head who is not a member of his Body the Church also and that it is impossible a man should be a member of the Body from which he is divided and that Schism doth so divide a man from the Body How can a man that is a Schismatick be saved Will they say by being of the Mystical Body of Christ though not Visible In this excuse they fall into many dangerous absurdities First in conceiving of Christs Visible Church as not the Mystical Body of Christ For it is called Mystical not because it is internal and invisible but because it is not a Natural but a Spiritual Body It is not a Political as Political signifies Civil or Humane Society but a Divine Body It is not administerd so much by Lawes of humane and common Invention as Spiritual Secondly In that it is supposed here what we have before disproved that they are two distinct Bodies the Invisible and Mystical as they speak from the Visible So that a man may be of the one and not of the other which cannot be understood For though a man may not be Visibly of the outward Church yet he must be and may be of the Visible Church They are not Visibly of the Visible Church who by far distance of Place and time are involuntarily separated from the Communion of the Church but they who live within the communion of the Church and uncharitably divide from its communion are not of the Visible Church at all nor yet for ought can be made appear of that they call Invisible any more than an Heretick For as the same St Austin saith in another place Neither the Heretick pertains to the Lib. De side Symb. C. 3. Catholick Church because he loveth not God neither the Schismatick because he loveth not his neighbour And Luther in his Colloqules tells us that Colloquia Mensalia The Heathen sins against God the Father The Heretick against God the Son And the Schismatick against God the Holy Ghost Therefore if there be such notorious guilt on the part of him that sinneth against the Holy Ghost above that of him who sinneth against the Son what mercy can they expect who thus wilfully offend For who saith Austin sighteth with such evidence Aug. Exposit in Rom. inchâ—ata To. 4. against the Holy Ghost as he doth who rageth against the Church with such proud contentions Sectaries and Schismaticks have made way to their divisions and alienations of mens minds and affections from the Church by reproaching it with Antichristianism which if they could have many sober or tollerable manner have made good they needed nothing more to excuse them but alas they have the good Nature now to blush at such gross follies and give over such foul slanders though not the Grace to repent which they can never do without a recognition of their errour But now they have almost done with that wicked lye they must expect we should begin to tell them a manifest truth That the Antichristianism is on their sides upon many accounts of which this of Schismatizing is a principal proof as we and they both are taught by Cyril of Jerusalem thus Hatred of our Cyrril Hieron Catâ—c pa. 161. brethren doth open a Gap to Antichrist For the Devil doth preapre Schisms of the people or Laity that be who is to come may be more readily received These and such like intollerable if not unpardonable Evils of Schism made St. Hierome say plainly that Schism was worse than Heresie And so Hieron contra Luciferanos indeed it is in this respect that Heresie of itself and own nature ruineth only the person so infected but Schism sweepeth away many from the truth and Charity of the Church As therefore it is better for a City that one man in it should die of the plague than that through the infection of any one the whole City should be troubled with the Itch or some such disease which should make them all keep their beds though possibly they may at length recover so an Heretick in a Church not so divulging his errour as to infect the Church in general and thereby divide it from it self and others shall undoubtedly find an easier Judgement at Gods hands than the Schismatick who dissolves the members of it from the Head and one another and doth far less mischief And whereas two things are popularly alledged in their Vindication The one that they would have lived in peace might those things have been granted which might have been yielded them certain indifferent things acknowledged to be so And that they have done no otherwise than was done by the Church against the Church of Rome to reform against their consent The First of these is in part very ridiculous as we have shewed and in part very false Ridiculous it is because
be made apparent in how many and great things they have degenerated in their Doctrine and Worship since it pleased God to withdraw his holy Spirit from that Church upon their rejecting of the true Messias sent them and to translate it to the Church of the Gentiles And no wonder that they who observe not that now should argue against it as a thing not to be done and moreover deny that ever it was believed or practised by their Forefathers for there remains no other way to excuse themselves in their present error but to maintain that it was never otherwise held This is a common evasion of all Hereticks and Sectaries But that the Scriptures of the Old Testament contained this Doctrine in substance though the more perspicuous and glorious manifestation of the same was reserved for the New is not to be denied especially if we consider how that many of their own Doctors and Rabbies have so interpreted the same And some have admired the Hebrew Language as the holy Tongue not so much as some of moderner standing amongst them have given out because of the neat and modest expression of things of impure and obscene nature for it is very plain that the most obscene things are there as broadly and manifestly expressed as elsewhere but from the matter which it treats of generally very divine and particularly from the nature of that Tongue in every word of which being a Radix or original the Mystery of the Trinity is implied in that it consists but of three principal Letters which Letters make but one word But there are more sure words of Prophesie than they and such are these together with the Comment and approbation of the Chaldee Paraphrast Gen. 3. v. 8. it is said They heard the voice of the Gen 3. 8. Lord God walking in the Garden which words Onkelos renders thus And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God where we see that Voice and Word are distinguished the one being taken for the Word spoken the other for the Word subsisting or personal And again v. 22. where the Hebrew hath And the Lord God said c. Jonathans or as some more properly the Hierusalem Targum hath The Word of the Lord said And the same Hierusalem Targum on Deuteronomy the 33. 7. hath The Word of the voice of the Lord heard Judah where the Original and other Translations have Hear Lord or receive Lord the voice of Judah And so in other places which doth argue a Personality ascribed unto the Word of God Which doth farther appear for that the action of Creation extending the Heavens and Repenting is attributed unto the Word of God But I leave the asserting of the Mystery of the Trinity from the Scriptures of the Old Testament interpreted by the learnedst and most renowned of the Jewish Doctors to such who have made it their design to convince them from testimonies of their own Authors as Petrus Galatinus and more exactly Josephus de Voisin in his Comments on Prigro Christianae Fidei and especially de Trinitate I shall only add here that memorable passage in Bibliander out of the Jewish Rabbies upon that place in Bibliander de Paschate Israel Gen. 28. 11. Gen. 28. And he lighted upon a certain place and tarried there all night because the Sun was set and he took of the stones of the place and put them for his pillows and lay down in that place to sleep Where some Rabbies saith Bibliander do understand that he took two stones but others as Rabbi Nechemias that he took three and in this manner prayed to God If God shall write his Name upon me as he did his Name upon mine Ancestors let all these become one and he found them all one By which type of the stone they give to understand God to be the Original of all things for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Hebrew is a stone implies in a mystery the Trinity for in Aben Ab intimates the Father Ben signifies the Son and ◠or N. Neshanna or Spirit Thus they Which their interpretation whether it hath not more of wit than solid Argument I am not here to determine it sufficing our present purpose to shew that the Doctrine of the Trinity is no invention of Christians as moderner Jews vainly give out for if their forefathers mention the same though their grounds may not be of the soundest it argues they knew and received it Other Texts from the Old Testament implying this Mystery are chiefly these 2 Sam. 23. 2. Isa 48. 16 17. and chap. 61. 1. and chap. 63. 9. Psal 33. 6. compared with Joh. 11. 1 2 3. Haggai 2. 5. compared with Gen. 1. 26. Isa 6 3 c. Concerning all which it is to be observed First That it is not to be expected the testimonies of the Old Testament whose design it was to deliver all things more covertly and obscurely should be altogether so literally and expresly taken as that none other may be found as proper as that sence given by Christians but it may suffice that an apt accommodation may be made to the confirmation of our Faith and that by the chief enemies to it Secondly That the Tradition of the Jewish Church differed from the historical or literal sence Hence our Saviour Christ proves the Messias to be God out of Psalm 110. v. 1. The Lord said Psal 110. Matth. 22. 42. unto c. arguing to this effect He who was greater than David himself from whom the Messias should come must needs be God David calling him in Spirit Lord but David in Spirit calls the Messias his Lord whereas David being himself absolute Soveraign had no mortal greater than he therefore he must be God This was then generally received amongst the wisest of them That the Messias was there intended though the words might be capable of a more literal sence And the like may we judge of the Arguments of St. Paul drawn out of the Old Testament to confirm the Doctrine of the New and particularly this for it is confessed that he bringeth many proofs as do also the other sacred Pen-men out of the Books of the Old Testament which have a literal sence much differing from that purpose to which they are alledged But it is certain that the ancient Jews did maintain two sences a Literal and a Mystical and that St. Paul being educated in the prime Traditions and Mysteries of their Divinity used them according to the known sence of the learned For otherwise it had been as easie then for the Jews to have put in their exceptions against his Doctrine as now it is for Jews to cavil at them But besides the Autority of the Old Testament principally to be used against Jews the Autority of the New must be enforced against the Heresies of Christians against this great Mystery Go ye saith Christ in St. Matthew and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Matth.
here total Causes But here I call to mind a Maxime amongst Logicians and others teaching of Natural Causes That it is not possible that Two total Causes should be subordinate as principal and instrumental Cause one to the other but must alwayes be Co-ordinate as two horses moving a Chariot no otherwise than one might well do alone and two Candles giving but one light to the same place I might question this Axiome and the Instances both because in the first though both Horses are the Causes equally of such a motion and so total yet the immediate causes are not total For it is certain that the same force which is used by one not rising to that of both would not in like manner move the Chariot that both actually do though there be nothing more easie then for one so to move it Neither are two Candles total Causes of that degree of light which is in the Room though of light they may be But whethen these mine exceptions against the presumed Rule be rational or not it matters not at present it being to me certain that it holds only in secondary Causes jovntly working and not in the concurrent motions of first and secondary Causes because of the essential dependence the second Cause hath upon the first So that St. Basil saith highly and truly The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas in Hexaen Hom. 8. Divine word and that is here as much to say as the Divine vertue is the nature of things produced There remains yet one more difficulty to be here touched to which many may be reduced and that is That Man being thus determined and lying under this necessity of Acting he cannot in justice be responsable for his Actions whether good or evil He cannot be the subject of praise or dispraise All preaching by Exhortation and Dehortation All reward of Punishment and Benefits Lastly All Prayers and the use of it must needs cease To these in order briefly And first in general denying the reasonableness or validity of such consequences upon this common ground That if indeed this were a necessity from a Co-ordinate Cause not natural to the Agent moved by it then it were to be lookt on as no act proper and free in the Creature but strange to it and violent and by consequence refunding all praise and dispraise upon the unresistible impulse of that external Cause but this is internal natural and one act really of the first and second Mover and so properly principally as any Creature can be said to be principal Agent under the Creature and totally is the act of the second Cause which in external motions otherwise than from God it is not And if it be said that from hence would follow The Creature acting evilly that this Evil might be equally imputable unto God and to the Creature It may be replayed that two things are to be consider'd in Actions the nature of the Action it self and the morality of it And that all things being good in nature the act it self is good and may be imputed to God though the morality of the act be otherwise But it may be demanded yet further Have not this morality it self a Nature and consequently upon the grounds laid imputable to God as well when the act offends against justice and honesty as when it agrees with both To this Nature indeed as hath upon another occasion been shewed is sometimes taken very largely for any thing that hath a being but here we take it only in the physical sense whereby things are said to have a proper being But Good and Evil are rather modi reales as they speak in Metaphysicks then res Manners of Being rather than proper Beings of themselves Again we must and do hold with Austine that Evil morally taken hath not such a real being as Good hath but is only the absence or privation of Good being no real Entity and we pity rather than fear such an argument as we have found against this that if Evil be nothing then God should be angry for nothing when he is offended at sin For surely there is a great difference between Gods being angry for nothing and Gods being angry with nothing What would they say I marveil when the Father in the Gospel commanded his Son to go work in his vineyard and he would not go might he not be angry even because there was nothing done And must this be called being angry for nothing So surely God may be angry with mans doing nothing Here in order to a more full account may be given of the objection we leave in pawn this distinction of the Act of Sin and the Sin of the Act And that God may concur to the former constantly and never have a singer in the latter which is properly the sinfulness Now to the matter of praise or dispraise of which they are only said to be capable who act freely and upon election and not upon necessity I make no seruple directly to deny the truth of it as famous as it is amongst the Fathers Philosophers absolutely taken Nothing is more plain than the contrary every day For we praise handsome Horses and handsome Men and infinite other things when there was not the least concurrence of the will but God and Nature did all to such a laudable state much less any act conducing thereunto And do we not in our Judgments discommend the disproportions of natural monsters and creeples though we out of affection and pity declare not so much to their reproach And this seems to have deceived Aristotle in his Ethicks who laid it down for a current Rule that he distinguished not these two For certainly Commendation and Discommendation rightly used are the effects of our Judgment and Will and Affections But more nearly to the case we answer That such Praise and Dispraise are only vacated by such a necessity as is extrinsecal to and contrary to the will but where the Act is affectedly done there a supposed necessity doth not exempt from such Rewards of Praise and Dispraise or Punishment or Benefits But it is certain a man may strongly affect that which he cannot choose but do And the like may be answered to that of Instruction Exhortation and Dehortation all which they say ought to cease and would become unnecessary if mans will were so immoveably determined to one thing Yea all Prayers and Deprecations were to no purpose And why so because it is not in mans power to relieve himself and whatever he saith believeth or doth nothing can do any good if the Decree be so against him and nothing of all these omitted or the contrary committed hurt or endanger him such a Decree being for him And what grounds of comfort to a troubled mind may be laid the Case thus standing This is the sum of all we are here at least bound to take notice of And this were much more than it seems to be were it so that they who hold the contrary opinions were
Apostle speaks of the state of Evil or Condemnation in the next of the state of Restitution and Justification For as all persons were included in the Condemnation of Adam so were all included in the Justification of Christ But as of all them only some many were through his disobedience made Sinners that is became such sinners as not to return to actual Righteousness and Salvation so by the obedience of Christ not all who were called and chosen came to Life and Holiness but many only were made Righteous actually and not all Or if we take the word Sin as he of whom we speak doth not so much for the real inward vitiousness of the soul but for any outward defect and which is yet more for the Punishment of Sin in which sense the Sacrifice for sin was called Sin in the Old Law and Christ in the New Testament is said to be made Sin for us that is a Sacrifice for Sin so that to be made sinners should import as much as to be made lyable to the punishment of sin the matter is the same But because this Authour not only inclines to the Opinion of Pelagius and of Socinus after him making the corruption of nature nothing and therefore exempting Infants from any such natural infection as we here suppose but uses the same evasion of Imitation of Adams sin and not propagation as the original of all Evil to us therefore let us hear what St. Austins argument was against that Opinion If saies he the Apostle spake Aug. Epist 87. of Sin by imitation and not propagation entring into the world he could not have said that by one Man Sin entred into the world but rather by the Devil for he sinned before man and as the Wiseman saith Through envie Wisd 2. 24. of the Devil came death into the world And Christ tells us how aptly the Devil may be said to propagate sin by imitation as well as Adam thus reprehending the Jews Ye are of your Father the Devil and the Lusts of John 8. 44. your Father ye will do he was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him when he speaketh a lye he speaketh it of his own for he is a lyar and the Father of it And when St. Paul saith We were by nature the children of wrath as well Ephes 2. 3. Psalm 51. 5. as others And the Psalmist Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in Sin did my mother conceive me that these places must be accounted hyperbolical and not to have a proper sense is the special evasion of Modern Wits not comparable to Ancienter Judgments more simply understanding them I know a more colourable interpretation is made by others who interpret Conceiving in sin as relating to the Parents and not to the Children But this is less probable than the ordinary and obvious sense applying it to David For though it may be probable enough that Parents may offend in acts of Procreation and so the child may be said to be conceived by them in sin yet David being at the speaking of these words in deepest repentance for his own sins cannot be said to leave off that subject and to confess the sins of others and charge his parents with that which concerned him not Again when he says He was shapen in iniquity nothing could he say more intimately to signifie his proper state at the time of his first conception But the Scriptures do not only barely say we are originally thus infected and sinful but by the effects and certain other indications declare the same The first and chiefest of which may be Death and punishments sticking close to infants at their birth and even before they come into the world Now the Law of God being unalterable that punishment should follow and not go before sin it must be that somewhat of the nature of sin must prepare the way for such sufferings Secondly That all men come to years of discretion are effected with Actual sin few of the opposers of Original sin deny But according to Reason and Scripture both the fountain being so infected and corrupted whatever flows from it must of necessity partake of the same evil For Job 14. 4. Jam. 3 11 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Anâ—ae Gazaei Thâ—â—â—hrastus Biblioth P P. pag. 392. To. 8. Non eniâ— es ex â—â—lis qui modo nova quaedam gannire câ—perunt dicentes nullum reatum esse ex Adam tractum qui per baptisâ—um in infante sâ—lvatur Aug. Epist 28. Hieronymo Ad neminem ante bona mens â—enit quam mala Omnes prâ—â—ccupati sumus Sen. Ep. 50. Nemo difficulter ad naturam reducitur nisi qui ab â—a defecit ibid. who saith Job can bring a clean thing out of an unclean not one And St. James Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter Can a fig-tree my brethren bear olive-berries either a vine figs so can no fountain yield both salt water and fresh From whence it follows by way of just Analogy That the Fountain being corrupt there must be derived to the Rivolets the like unsoundness And thirdly we see this by experience that both bodily and mental infirmities and disorders are traduced from Father to Son in actual Evils as the Gout Stone and Leprosie are transinitted to posterity from the Father and Anger and other passions in like manner It may as well be said That the Son hath the Gout and halts by imitation and not by propagation as that such other affections which are common to Father and Son so proceed Fourthly The Argument which St. Augustine could never by the Pelagians be answered taken from Baptism For this they could not deny but the Church universally practised Paeda-baptism that is held an opinion manifested in practise that Children were capable of that Sacrament and received the benefit of it however some particular persons deferred the same and held it of use unto them for the entring into the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore surely there must be some impediment and that impediment could be nothing but what hath the nature of sin in it therefore they bring sin with them into the World Pelagius had a good mind indeed as Austin observed to have denyed the use of Baptism but as bold as he and his great second Julian of Capua was the general Judgment of the Church declared in the practise of it put a stop to his inclinations but Socinus bolder than any Heretick before him sticks at no such thing but flatly denyes the use of it to all but such as are converted newly to the Christian Faith as in the times of the Apostles This was freely and roundly invented and uttered and which suffices alone to convince us of the former errour denying Original Sin which was alwayes held a principal cause of Baptism Lastly Thus much may be observed by natural Reason to the confirmation of Original Sin
as of the only begotten of the Father And when St. Paul saith that God sent Rom. 8. 3. his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh he implyeth that there were two tearms considered in Christ as in all other things sent First there is the Person by whom or from whom the Party is sent and that here was God Secondly there was the Party or tearm to whom and that was either to the World in general or to that individual substance of Flesh so assumed by him and which is here intended Now it cannot be that the Act of sending should be the same with making but first a Thing is before it is sent and the rearm to which must be distinct from that which is sent Therefore Christ according to the Phrase of holy Scriptures being sent to take Flesh must have of necessity a subsistence before which subsistence must be of a Divine Nature as is also witnessed in the Epistle to the Hebrews For as much then as children Hebr. 2. 14. are partakers of flesh and bloud he also himself took part of the same That is the person of Christ took part of the mass of humane Flesh and Nature when he was formed of the substance of his Mother in her womb And in that it follows Verily he took not on him the nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham v. 16. What can be more necessarily implyed than a Person prae-existing to whom according to the nature of the thing it was indifferent to have taken the nature of Angels or the Flesh of man and that it pleased God to send his Son to man and it also pleased his Son to elect humane nature to dwell in so that the manner of Christ thus consisting of two Natures is matter of difficulty rather than the thing it self i. e. how two Natures can be and how they were and are actually united in Christ Suidas observes ten sorts of unions to be found in the World of which Suidas in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Qu. 2. 1. we cannot stay here to speak Thomas reduces all unto three One union is of things that are absolute and perfect in themselves as many stones make one heap Another is when things in nature perfect are so united that they cease thereby to be perfect of themselves as when the Elements concurr to make one perfect mixt body Thirdly when diverse things being in nature imperfect not absolutely but in that they are naturally capable of greater perfection and tend thereunto as the soul and body and the several members of the body constitute one man But after none of these exactly can Christ be said to consist of two natures united Not the first way because such things are rather relatively and denominatively one than really Not the second because it were to suppose that the Divine Nature could be alterable and mutable and because if such a composition were made both the Divine and Humane nature must loose their natural being and kind and so neither of both remain but a third thing Not the last because both Divine and humane nature are perfect of themselves in their kind So that in truth speaking strictly no precedent in Nature can be found answering this Union called Hypostatical or Persâ—nal because it is the union of two intire Natures into one Person and that the Second person of the Trinity God blessed for evermore But of the former the last representeth this Mystery most clearly and is often used by the ancient Fathers to express the same and especially by Athanasius in his Creed who thus declareth this mistery sufficiently to the sober and modest and not curious mind Christ is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds and man of the substance of his mother born in the world Perfect God and perfect man of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting Equal to God as touching his God-head and inferior to his Father as touching his Manhood Who although he be God and man yet he is not two but one Christ One not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the manhood into God One altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of person For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man so God and Man is one Christ Now the ground of this great mistery is taken partly from the testimonies and descriptions of Christ the Mediator made in the Scripture where besides those already given diverse proper to God are ascribed to him and many which are proper to humane nature are attributed to him and because there can be nothing more absurd in nature or Christian Religion than to imagine that Christ is more than one Person one Son one Mediator therefore it follows necessarily that this one Person must consist of more than one nature and partly because the end of Christ being Incarnate seemed to require this most necessarily As First there was all reason that the nature which sinned and offended should suffer and satisfie but none but humane nature had so sinned Secondly that he should be a Prophet to instruct and teach his Church Thirdly that he should be a King to rule and direct his Church according to the Prophesies of old concerning him For Moses truly said unto the Fathers a Prophet shall Acts 3. 22. the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me which must be of humane condition Now according to this union of the Divine and Humane nature in one Person may Christ in some sense be said to be a Mediator Essential being a Mean Person not simply God nor simply Man but this is not the proper Mediation of Christ between God and Man but this rather consisteth in Acts performed and Offices of Christ And these acts of Christ may be distinguished into two sorts Preparatory and Consummatory The former I call preparatory because they were ordained as useful expediencies not as essential to Reconciliation between the parties at distance And the first act of this nature was after the manner of Civil Arbitrements to take the Case into serious consideration and to deliberate with himself about the most proper means of attaining an amicable composure of differences on foot And as the Scripture Heb. 2. 14. saith forasmuch then as the children of God to be redeemed are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death that is the Devil It appearing unto him that there was no such proper or convenient means to Arbitrate between God and Man as the taking upon him humane nature For by this means as Moses is said to be the Intercessour medius et sequester between God and the People of Israel and therefore the Law is said to have been given in the hand of a Mediatour Deut. 5. 5. Gal. 3. Hebr. 9. 15.
to him as were his Disciples for whom he there particularly prays the argument would be of the greater force but it is not so any more then it is true in all respects what Christ saith of himself in St. Matthew I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel So Matth. 15. 24. that as Christ before his resurrection shewed himself very nice how he dealt the Word of Life to the Gentiles so might he at the same time declare a more special desire of the salvation of his elected Servants than of others For we know which is another answer how the Scripture frequently by a note of Denyal doth not intend an absolute exclusion of a thing but comparative only as where God says I will have mercy and not sacrifice Christ prayed not for the world so intensly and particularly or at that time Therefore he prayed not at all is no good consequence And no more is that which is made from an adequateness of the Death of Christ to the actual application of the merits of the same death by such intercession as Prayer So that though Christ did not actually pray for all yet he might dye for all according to the distinction of a twofold Quantum in Medico est sâ—nare merit aegrotum Ipse se interimit qui pâ—aecepta Medici â—â—servare non vult Aug. in Joan. cap. 3. 17. Exhibition of Christ abovesaid For Christ was exhibited as an efficacious Means of Salvation and as an efficacious Cure A precious Antidote or Salve is in its own nature and the intention of the Compounder equally operative and effectual to all Persons in like manner affected All men naturally were involved in the same evil alike affected and infected And Christs Death and Passion alike soveraign to all persons and ordained for all And the difference in the first Case and the second is only in the actual Application thereof For as many as receive that are certainly cured And the Scripture tells us As many as receive him Christ to them gave John 1. 12. he power to become the Sons of God to them that believe in his name Therefore the main enquiry is much more about the difference and variety outward then in the means it self And how and whence it comes to pass that the Death and Passion of Christ are so applyed to one above another that to one they become actually efficacious and to another in aptitude and general institution only If in answer to this doubt we shall say That by Faith and Repentance we are made partakers of Christ we shall answer most truly but not sufficiently because the same difficulty returns upon us How some believe and embrace Christ and are made partakers of his benefits and not others seeing so great salvation is tendered to all Here it is absolutely necessary to take in the Grace of God and his free love towards Mankind in some sense at least by all that will be accounted Christians and not by wisdome make void the Cross of Christ For supposing that God hath made a free and general Covenant with Mankind which Covenant neither is nor can as it is a Covenant be simple and inconditionate so far as nothing should be required thereby of Man to the being capable of the benefit of it it will of necessity follow that the knowledge of this Covenant of Grace must be had by such as receive any benefit thereby For else how is it possible that they should fulfill in any manner the Condition required were it no more than some will make it to receive it by Faith without any more ado then to believe themselves into Gods Grace and Favour by a tacite internal act And this and no more being supposed that such love and gracious purpose for which no natural Cause can be found out to certifie or satisfie any man in the truth thereof were ordained for any specially it must be known by Revelation and not Ratiocination And all extraordinary Revelations besides and above what Nature can discover are purely Acts of Grace and not of Work And therefore why God doth reveal his Gospel to one people or person and not to another can have no other original Cause then the Beneplacitum Good pleasure of God as is plainly Matth. 11. 27. affirmed by Christ himself Neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him And before I thank v. 25. thee O Father Lord of Heaven and Earth because thou hast hid those things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes And in St. Peters Matth. 16. 11 1 Cor. 2 14. case Flesh and bloud hath not revealed this unto thee And St. Paul saith The Natural man cannot know the things of God because they are spiritually discerned From whence it is manifest that though God hath decreed the Salvation of a man by Christ yet this general intention cannot possibly take effect without a super-added Act of Free Grace whereby this Reparation is made known Again it follows That there is no obligation upon God antecedent to his own will and inclination moving him to reveal the same and that only out of Congruity not of Justice or Necessity as supposing a decree given to Man which would be wholly unprofitable and vain without such revelation But why one Man or Nation should be blessed with this gift rather than another there is not so much as congruity to be fairly alledged or reasonably offered And as this is the first act of God on the understanding of Man towards his restitution so is the second act of Man flowing mixtly from his Will and Understanding both altogether owing to Gods Grace and that is believing what before he knew For that this is necessary no doubt can be made or that this is the true cause of being profited or not by Christ St. Paul thus writing For unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them Hebr. 4. 2. but the word preached did not profit them not being mixed with Faith in them that heard it This diversity is very great but what is the cause of it is not agreed upon For if any shall say It comes from the difference found in Christ as Mediatour he is known to be mistaken by what is said If any one shall say It proceeds from the will and free Election of Man he falls into a worse absurdity for the will of man as free acts or works nothing at all but as determined either by its self or by some other And if by it self either simply and absolutely or joyntly with another cause And this cause must be either taken from somewhat outward as the object duly propounded or inward by way of efficiencie But it cannot be any outward object presenting it self only as a final cause which hath only a moral and not natural influence For if it be demanded to what end such an inward act of the will
God in Christ Jesus necessary to a Christian Sanative Grace and Operative or Healing and Helping Grace The soul of Man being maimed and disabled by his Fall must have a Grace to cure and restore the broken state thereof before outward means can avail to the enabling it to be obedient and to perform acts of a new and spiritual Life adding That it would be all one for to offer Grace to the soul of man so diseased as it would be to offer a pair of Spectacles to a blind man or a staff to him whose leggs be broken And I wonder much to find him charged by a very learned Authour of late that he hath not given us the true efficient cause of the wills of obedience wherein as he well observes consisteth the principal difficulty of all but only the Formal and wherein the efficacie of Grace consisteth For he that shall consult his Fourth Book De Gratia Christi cap. 1. and so on will easily perceive he Id. Tom. 3. lib. 3. c. 1. makes it to be The Grace of God sweetly and unutterably delighting by which the Will is prevented and bowed to will and do whatever God hath ordained it should do and will Surely this is much more than a formal Cause whereby a thing actually is whatever it is And in this manner is the true Believer made partaker of the benefits of Christs Death and Passion to his Sanctification and Justification CHAP. XVIII Of the effect and benefit of Christs Mediation in suffering and rising again seen in the Resurrection of Man The necessity of believing a Resurrection The Reasons and Scriptural Testimonies proving a Resurrection Objections against the same answered OF the Justification and Sanctification of a man by Christ we have heretofore spoken it remains now for the Conclusion of this First Part that we here speak of the most perfect and noble effect of Christs mediation seen in the salvation of Man or his state of perfect Restitution in bliss to which Grace here in this life is but a Prelude and an Introduction And to this end the immediate way hereunto the Resurrection is to be explained as a principle Article of Christian Faith For this also is an effect of Christ our Mediatour as St. Austin witnesseth in these words The Resurrection Aug. Tract 23. in Joann John 6 54. of souls is effected by the eternal and immutable substance of Father and Son but the Resurrection of the Body is by the temporal and not co-aeternal Dispensation of the humanity of the Son And St. Ambrose speaks well to this Ambros de Fide Resurrect Illi quidam qui dicunt animas c. purpose They who think that souls are immortal do not sufficiently pacifie me while they redeem me but in part For what great favour can it be to me when I am not wholly delivered What life can that be if the work of God in me must perish Where is Gods justice if the same natural end be to the just and wicked in common They that would therefore make sure work against infidelity bring their grounds for this point from the Gentiles themselves whom they would convert to this opinion But both the artificial and inartificial arguments reason and testimony of the most famous Philosophers not taken from and grounded upon Divine Revelations will certainly be found insufficient For surely it may be said of the profession of this Article of Faith what Christ saith of Peters confession of him Flesh and Bloud hath not revealed it unto thee For what the Heathen invented of their own heads concerning the Immortality of the Soul if that they invented and not rather received from others better informed they soon corrupâ—ed into an opinion of Transmigration and shifting of Possessions as men do Farms when their Lease is expired or as Liquor is transfused from vessel to vessel For so much one of their principal words imports used to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their meaning And of the Bodies Resurrection little or nothing do we read amongst them But this is the chief point in our Christian Faith and this is that which the ancient Fathers contend for proving there is no proper resurrection but this as particularly the Constitutions of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Cons Apost Lib. 5. c. 6. Epiphan Lib. 2. Haeres 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theodoret. Haeretic Fabular lib. 5. cap. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas de Incarnatione 2 Macch. 7. 9. Heb. 11. 35. 2 Kings 4. Wisd 3. Resurrection say they is of things that were fallen Which solid argument is also used by Epiphanius shewing that because the Body only properly falls to earth therefore it is the body chiefly we are to believe shall be raised again And therefore the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds as supplements to the Apostolical express the body in particular and the flesh to be restored And however fair and laudable attempts are made by the Ancients to perswade rather then prove a Resurrection from the several prettie Analogies found in nature of things perishing and after a while returning again to their pristine beauty and perfection yet not to except against them particularly How can we suppose they who knew little of the true God should understand so much as Gods people who had not this revealed in direct terms but in types and shadows and resemblances which have a more litteral and historical sense than this would be And it hath exercised the Pens of learned men both wayes to enquire Whether the Jews generally believe any more than Pythagoras or Plato might have learnt of them a life after the dissolution of the body and a state of bliss after a just and miserable life and death in this world all which as they prove not the Resurrection of the body which is the chief point of Christian Faith The expressions in the Book of Maccabees of the Mother expecting to have her children raised again especially taking the Comment of St. Paul upon that Text as is generally believed along with it though it may well be understood of those more Canonical Histories relating how the Shunamites son was restored to Life again by Elisha And the many divine sayings in the Book of Wisdome do declare a great and glorious prerogative belonging to the Just and Righteous above the wicked in the world to come but what is said may be restrained to the Immortality of the Spirit of men little or no mention being made of the Resurrection of the Body Yet in Esdras we have these words expresly Wheresoever thou findest the 2 Esdr 2. 23. dead take them and bury them and I will give thee the first place in my Resurrection But this Book is not received by the Romanists themselves and in all probality was much later then the rest however it may be said to deliver the current opinion of that Church then And in Maccabees there 2 Macc. 7. 14. is mention
the matter before such as they find startled and impatient at such plain derogation of Gods honor But they who openly profess to give Divine honor to Saints thus state the matter as doth Azorius Hoeretiques Azor. Instit Moral l. 9. c. 10. Quinto quaeritur c. saith he no wayes deny that Saints are to be honoured with that worship and honor which men eminent for vertue power wisedom nobility and Authority may be worshipped with for such honor as this is altogether civil and human but they tax Catholiques for worshipping them as God that is that they give divine honor to them But greatly are they mistaken For Catholiques worship them not as God but for Gods sake worship and honor them For as before Minime cols pro Deo sâ—d propter Deum c. we said Catholiques worship not the Image for God but for Gods sake So in like manner we honor not Saints only with that honor wherewith we honor vertuous wise and noble men but with divine honor and worship which is an Act of Religion But we give not divine honor to them for their own sakes but for Gods sake Thus he Against which we object sacriledg and Idolatry thus loosly delivered For as for the distinction it serves their turn nothing at all It implies with us a contradiction For to give Divine honor to any Creature is Idolatrous for what reason or for whose sake soever it be given Neither is it possible a man should give it to a Creature for Gods sake meaning as I suppose they do for the honor of God For divine worship being proper to God and incommunicable to any but him can no more be given for his sake to the Creature than supream honor to a Villain for the Kings sake And therefore as he goes on to erect Temples and Altars and offer Sacrifices in honor of Saints which is to tell us more plainly what they mean by Divine worship and this as they say for Gods sake is with us Idolatry who deny that any such things can be done really to Gods honor and much more that God would have them so honour'd or himself by them And whereas a little before he saith It was the Heresy of Eustathius as Socrates writeth in his History l. 2. c. 33. That Saints were not to be worshipped but God alone as being against the first Commandment There is no such thing to be found in that place but this we find which expresses the dealing of the Romanists in this and other controversies viz. how that Sccrat l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eudoxius being in Julians dayes placed in the Episcopal Throne of Constantinople he uttered these words in publique God the Father is impious but God the Son is pious at the hearing whereof the minds of all present being much troubled and beginning to mutiny He added Let not this saying trouble you For 't is true thus God the Father is impious because he worshippeth none but God the Son is pious because he worshippeth the Father Which being heard the tumult was appeased and instead of it they all fell out into laughter and so was that saying ever after look'd on as ridiculous In like manner when these new Divines come with great swelling language of divine honor to be given to the Creature in their interpreting themselves they must be very heretical and prophane or very ridiculous Or rather it is both to say We must give divine honor to Saints for Gods sake yea an abomination yet greater to make God the author of his own injury and degradation as it were to set up a competitor to a King against his will or at least without his will for his sake But suppose what may not be granted that there is a favourable interpretation and tolerable practise in the Church of Rome of these things I am sure this is not tolerable that such sayings as these and many more should pass untouched or uncersur'd by them yea are kept and nourished and preferred much by the most Visible autority of their Church and the other softer inferior sense allowed and made use of chiefly to dispute with and to decline the force of a resolute accuser and to satisfie green proselytes with who are not able to digest the stronger and ranker Divinity they have for them in store when it shall be too late to see the truth and must have their mouths stopt and all objections and scruples answered with this The Church cannot err It is most apparent that God neither in Old nor New Testament hath given any such warrant as Ahasuerus did to Haman to exalt Mordecai or Pharaoh to honor Joseph for us to honor Saints in exhibiting any thing of divine worship to them I shall not need therefore trouble this place with their citations to that purpose which is not to the purpose when it was there manifest to all that such honor was the honor not of a King but a principal subject and Minister of state Neither do Scriptural reasons advance their cause Whereof some are so parabolical and forced that they fall to nothing before they come to us as that of Mat. 24. 26. and that of Saint Peter 2 Pet. 1. 14. 15. being plainly intended of the records he would leave with them he wrote to to bear in memory what he delivered to them as Cajetane hath noted And the Power promised Rev. 2. 26. to them that overcome is not as they violently give out a power to dispense blessings and therefore to be sought to by Invocation but a power to be victorious in the Faith against all persecutions And those reasons drawn from Apoc. 5. 8. and 6. 10. and 8. 3 4. Are all besides the vanity of the form of the argument it self upon a false foundation and supposition viz. as if those things there related were acted in Heaven and not upon earth True it is as hath been noted before that the Vision of the Apostle is implyed to have been in Heaven concerning things there revealed to him but it was of things only to be fulfilled on earth And though it is most easie fit and obvious to interpret the Angel offering incense as the servent prayers of the holy Saints upon earth to God the Father yet it is I conceive more literal and agreeable to the intent of the Revelations made to interpret them partly as descriptions of things doing then in the Church and partly as prophesies of the future condition of the Church in the publique Service of God where by the Angel we are to understand the Bishop who in the first dayes of the Church was wont in presence and behalf of the people to offer up the common prayers of the People at the golden Altar viz. The special place of his ministration which prayers and worship did like incense ascend unto the holy Throne of God And the fire which is said to be cast from the Censer and Altar unto the earth is
and purpose declaring that such a sin as this shall certainly be the ruin of the Family For he will visit the sin of the Fathers upon the third and fourth generation of them that so hate him That is either He will after some intermission and when it may be supposed that God will take no notice of the iniquity of them that thus offend him by Idolatry or Sacriledge which the Apostle matches together as both offending Rom. 2. 22. against this Commandment then will God arise and revenge himself upon the Posterity of such Malefactours Or secondly to the third and fourth Generation that is beginning to plague the unhappy Off-spring of such ungodly Progenitours he will not give over till the third and fourth Generation by which kind of persecution it may well be believed an utter destruction may have consumed that race And to the common Querie here raised How God can justly punish the Children for the Parents Iniquity not to trouble men with the many diverse and tedious subtleties wont to be shown in answer hereunto This plain and simple Answer may suffice First that in matters of rapine injustice fraud and the like whereby men design to enrich themselves and Posterity with great injury done to God or Man for God out of his wise and just Providence to take away from the third and fourth Generation that which was wickedly acquired and possessed properly the first Offender is in strictness of speech no hard measure or punishment properly but common justice and equity yea a favour in forbearing to exact that till so long time after which he might the same day have most justly required back again from the first offender in that kind or his immediate succeeder in that injustice For ill-gotten or unjustly detained goods can never in the eyes of God acquire a good title to him that possesses or inherits them And therefore the world indeed may well call the impoverishing of such offenders a blasting and cursing of them and their Estate but in truth it is a kindness in God to deferr the execution of his justice for some times that Repentance and Restitution might prevent his wrath Neither can it be thought injustice that God doth not alwayes punish in the very same kind as the offense was committed in For certainly if with man it be just to punish the Body of Malefactours as well as in their Estates wherein perhaps the offence hath been committed it is no less just with God who is absolute Soveraign over us to choose his way of afflicting an Offender But in some Cases there seems to be rather a personal punishment inflicted upon Heirs of wicked Parents and this seems to be hard when it is suffered for their sakes rather than for any guilt of their own To which the Answer is That every man hath so much guilt of sin upon him that God might at his pleasure have inflicted what punishment and when he pleases yet those general sins incident to most men would not have excited Gods displeasure to that height nor caused him to execute his just vengeance but he considers that such of his Predecessors offended in such a kind as he will early or late revenge and takes occasion from thence to punish the innocent Posterity as to those things which otherwise though out of severe justice he might have punished upon other respects he would have respited and passed over But then indeed is there more apparent reason on Gods side when as Thomas resolves the doubt the Children inherit the Evil minds and Consciences of their Parents as well as the Effects of their Evil Consciences And thus is this Commandment found consistent with the large vindication God by the Prophet Ezekiel makes of himself wherein Ezek. 18. 4. 20. he shews that the Child shall not dye for the sin of his Father which was the principal doubt And it is much more easie by the Rule of Contraries to understand the reason why God promises to be merciful to thousands in them that love him and keep his Commands For God being absolute and able to dispense with his own Laws though a Righteous Father should have a wicked Son God may for the Fathers sake spare the executing his just anger on the Posterity for the Fathers sake taking occasion from thence as many Instances of Scripture do plainly inform us The third Precept of the Decalogue is Thou shalt not take the Name §. III. of the Lord thy God in vain For the Lord thy God will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain Which consisteth also of two principal Parts The Precept it self and the Reason confirming and enforcing the same Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain is the Precept and in its strict and proper sense doth only forbid false swearing or forswearing in the use of the Name of God And Oaths are usually distinguished into two sorts Assertorie and Promissorie An Assertorie Oath is that whereby a man doth affirm or deny any thing and that in the Name of God If therefore a man shall make use of Gods Name to give credit and weight to his Assertion which is false as he frames it he notoriously abuses the Name of God and incurs the severe punishment annexed to and denounced against the breach of this Commandment He takes Gods Name in vain with a witness as we say Again a Promissorie Oath being the Declaration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Philo Judaeus de Decalog Hebr. 6. 16. of a mans mind and intention whereby he obliges himself to perform some act to another acceptable to him and that by the Name of God used to assure the same For a man to neglect or disregard or willingly to violate this Promise so confirmed by Oath is to take Gods Name in vain To trifle and dally with that most sacred Name and Majesty yea to bring it down so low as to serve base offices and acts of drudgery and wickedness that no ingenuous or honest man with patience could endure It is not only to belye and slander God affirming that he knows such a thing to be true which is known by him to be utterly false but to make him as far as may be accessary and instrumental to such villanies as he wickedly purposes to commit It is plainly to mock him and to give and take away again presently Nay lastly seeing as St. Paul saith An Oath is the end of all strifes and there is scarce found any other means and to be sure none like it to determine Controversies between man and man without which no justice can take place and without which humane Society cannot subsist or continue To be paltry and frivolous or frivolous or mercenary or careless or impudent in swearing for fear or love of any thing but God and his sacred Truth for God is Truth is the highest affront can ordinarily be put upon the Divine Majesty And therefore when
Traditions It is as seldome found That a tale should be reported in the very same phrase or words it was at first told as it is that things transcribed with any common honesty or diligence should fail considerably so much as in the Letter And if they say in Tradition forms of words are not so much to be stood upon doth it not altogether hold as good when this Tradition is written How then do not men blush to argue so boldly and at the same time so weakly There is therefore a twofold Infallibility to be distinguished as well in Relation to unwritten Doctrines as written the one consisting in the Matter delivered the other in the manner so delivering And truly as to this later it cannot be said without some strong Presumption to the contrary the written Traditions which are the Scriptures have been so preciseâ—y and absolutely defended from either the common injuries of time or special miscarriages incident to humane frailty or perhaps as some conjecture the studious mischiefs of sacrilegious hands laid on them as not one title one word one period should not have been damnified thereby The Providence of God granting some such minuter defections from the Original Copies hath been singular in preserving them in that degree of perfection and entireness we now enjoy them So that infinite is the disparity in this case between them and unwritten Traditions which none have been so audacious positively to affirm though indeed their large and loose reasons seem to tend that way that any one unwritten doctrine hath been conserved unto us in the same form of words it was at first delivered to the Church And the like though not so great advantage is to be acknowledged on the Scriptures part compared with the pretended unwritten word of God in reference to the matter and that in these three respects 1. The Evidence 2. The Importance and 3. The Influence that the doctrine of the Scriptures have and ought to have over all Traditions And for the first It is impossible taking traditions as they are distinguished from Scripture that the like grounds of Faith should be offered to us as we have above shown are to be found proving the Scriptures to be the word of God For are all or some only Gods word All cannot be because Traditions in several Places of the world have been diverse and even contrary Because some are acknowledged to have been the Constitutions of Men or the Church since the Apostolical Age. Because many are acknowledged to have been quite lost Because many have been confessed to be changed of them which remain Now if the Church hath failed in the due Custodie of such treasures committed to her How can any man be assured sufficiently of the integrity of the remainer How can the Church be esteemed an Infallible Witness of traditions And who can but admire the Confidence of such Patrons of the Churches fidelity or rather felicity for I would not nor need I call in question its good will and Honesty in her Office of Preserving the Monuments of our Religion untouch'd by errors who by reasons would demonstrate that that cannot be which we see done before our eyes For at other times the same Party if not the same persons stick not to profess that divers Antienter Traditions are perished and more modern have succeeded them They say that some Traditions are as 〈◊〉 as sense can make them The Tradition that there were such famous Cities as Nineve and Babylon and are such as Constantinople and Rome requires the same Faith as the beholding them with our Eyes But first It should have been said in the argument They are as evident as those things we are informed of by our senses but this is far from truth All the testimonies of Past and present persons affirming that to be so which I have no sense of immediately being abundantly sufficient to beget a belief but not equalling in evidence the testimonie of any mans well-disposed senses For does not this so general testimonie it self depend upon a mans senses receiving the same Or can any man be so well assured upon the Credit of any persons whatever that the Apostles delivered such things to be believed and observed by the Church as if he himself immediately received the same from them If it be said that the case of Ecclesiastical Tradition is far different from humane in that the Church is divinely assisted to such ends supposing this at present still we are no less intregued then before For as is said The truth of a thing and the Evidence whereby it appears to be true are very much different And here it will be no less difficult to make such a supposed Assistance appear then the tradition it self which it commends to the World upon such pretences And therefore they who have sifted this matter more narrowly and stated it most rationally have thought it best to forsake such topicks at present as Extraordinarie Assistances and Hen. Holdeni Analysis Fid. tell us plainly that what the Church doth in this case she doth it not as divinely directed but as so many Men delivering their testimonie which is true but then what becomes of Infallibility all men singly and conjointly as men being fallible Well therefore they proved to tell us That to a jugde of Controversies Credible Testimonie or moral infallibilitie may suffice and to this I agree in the main though the term Moral Certainty and Moral Infallibilitie seems to me as vain and improper as it is modern it upon enquirie amounting to no more then the old Probabilitie well and reasonably grounded The next thing in Holy Writ is the much greater importance the things therein contained are of above unwritten doctrines For who of all the Ancients but such as are by tradition stigmatized for Heretiques for such their Basil Ma. de spiritu sancto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opinions did constitute any rule of Faith distinct from the Scriptures or bring any to stand in competition therewith Some 't is true have distinguished between Dogmes of Traditions and doctrines of the Scripture and haveaffirmed That as well the one as the other ought to be received by a good Christian All this we agree to how we shall show by and by more fully and here by comparing this by the words of St. John saying This Joh. 4. 21. Commandment have we from him that he that loveth God love his brother also By which it is not required that any Christian should with the same kind or degree of Love love his neighbour with which he loveth God For we must love God only for his own sake and our brother for Gods sake Nay when God sayes we must love our neighbour as our selves he does not exclude difference in degrees of love In like manner when it is said That we ought to believe and receive the unwritten as well as written traditions it was never intended by that excellent Father that we should admit
them in equal veneration For most things there by him instanced in are apparently extrinsical to Faith Therefore the true meaning is That no good Son of the Catholick Church can or ought to refuse the customes or practices or forms of words concerning the doctrine of Christ because they are not so express'd or contain'd in Scripture as other matters are And if we mark we shall not find any one thing exacted of Christians in the purest and most flourishing state of the Church as points of Faith which only depended upon unwritten Tradition and were not thought to have the written word of God for their warrant and foundation And in this one thing were there no more doth the prerogative of the Scripture manifest it self sufficiently above Traditions distinct from it That whatever vertue or credit they have is first of all owing to the Scriptures For otherwise why should not the Traditions of the Jew or Mahometan be as credible to a Christian as they of the Church but that he suck'd in his principle with his Mothers milk That the written word of God hath given so fair testimonie of the Church and its traditions For the testimonie of the Church otherwise would certainly be no more to be valued than that of any other societie of like moral honestie So that the Scriptures must be the very First principle of all Christian belief But here steps in the old objection drawn from a most eminent Father of the Church which Extollers of tradition can as well forget their own names as leave out of their disputations on this subject though according to their Augustin custome they have a very bad memory to bear in mind what hath been sufficiently replied to it I should not saith that Father have believed the Scriptures but for the Church and yet we have said we should not have believed the Church but for the Scriptures How can these stand together Very well if we please to distinguish the several wayes of information for in the same there must be granted a repugnancie And the distinction is much the same with what we have before laid down viz. Of the Occasion and the direct Cause of Faith For though the Churches tradition be an Introduction to the belief of the Scriptures and such a necessary Cause without which no man ordinarily comes so much as to the knowledge of them yet it doth not at all follow that through the influence of that supposed Cause an effect of Faith is wrought in the Soul concerning them but from a superiour illumination and interiour power which has been generally Joh. 4. required to such praeternatural Acts. As the Woman of Samaria brought her fellow Citizens to Christ but was not the author of that faith which after they had in him as the true Messias or as the Horse I ride on carrying me from London to York is not the proper Cause that I see that City but mine own senses though I perhaps should never have seen it otherwise But another more Ancient and no less venerable Father of the Church is Irenaeus here brought in demanding What if nothing had been written must we not then have altogether depended on the Traditions To such as extend this quaerie too far I move the like question What if we had no Traditions at all must not then every man have shifted as well as he could and traded upon the finall stock of natural reason in him Or was it impossible that man should come to bliss without the superadded light outwardly exhibited That as the case stands man ordinarily cannot be saved without such received revelations as are dealt to us from the Church I believe But upon supposal that no such means were extant that there should be no other Ordinary way of Gods revealing himself to man in order to his salvation believe it who will for me I answer therefore directly No question but tradition would have sufficed if nothing had been committed to writing For either God would have remitted of that rigour as no man can doubt but he might have made the terms of the Covenant fewer and lighter with which we now stand obliged to him according to that most equal Law of the Gospel as well as Reason Unto whom much is given of him shall be much required and to Luk. 12. 48. Mat. 25. whom men have committed much of him they will ask the more Neither is it probable against the intent of Christs most excellent Parable in St. Mathew that of that Person or that People to whom he hath delivered but two or five Talents he should extort the Effect of ten Well therefore doth that Father argue against such as should dare to consine God only to Scripture and so superciliously or contemptuously look on the Traditions of their Christian Fathers as not worth the stooping to take up yea as necessarily warring against the Word written Whenas it is certain a thing is written because it is first declared and is the Word of him that speaketh no less before than after it is written and not so because it is written St. Paul therefore joyns them both together in his Epistle to the Thessalonians saying Therefore brethren stand stedfast and hold 2 Thes 2. 15. the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle Here are plainly both written Traditions and unwritten and written Word of God and unwritten and they differ only in the several ways of promulgation and not in the Law of God And it is more then probable That those first principles of Christian Faith were not received of St. Paul in writing of which he speaks in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 15. 1 2 3 4. concerning the Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour nor delivered in writing at his first publication yet were no less the word of God then than afterward Yet as this sufficiently allayes the heat of hostility indiscreetly conceived against all Traditions even for the very names sake which is become odious to us so doth it not so much favour the contrary party as hath been phantasi'd For 't is observable That there is a very great difference between the Tradition now touched and that so commonly and passionately disputed of in the Church That was and may be called a Tradition as every thing expressed by Word or Writing whereby one man delivers his mind for so the English Phrase hath it not amiss to another transiently But the Tradition now under debate may be described A constant continuation of what is once delivered from Generation to Generation For No man can with any propriety of speech term what is not a year or two in standing Tradition Tradition is a long custom of believing The things which are so called in the Scriptures are not such and therefore can be no president for those of these dayes There being not the like reason that we should give the same respect or esteem so
in general concerned himself in the marriage of others And to declare how that state was not at all inconsistent with a state Clerical of twelve Disciples John 2. 1 2. which Christ chose to minister for him Eleven are supposed to be married persons or at least to have been married formerly To answer which by saying that after they were chosen they forsook their wives is to evade and not really to answer First because it had been as easie for Christ surely to have picked out a dozen persons free from the knowledge of women as to make choice of such as were wedded had he judged any incapacity in these to the Evangelical Ministery But secondly do we find any thing in special prescribed by Christ for such separation from wives more than for other Christians who were not Ministers of the Gospel For of all faithful Christians it is spoken in certain junctures that whoever forsaketh not Father and Mother and Brethren and Sisters and Wise and Children for Christs sake cannot be his Disciple And there is no rule but common necessity and prudence not Divine prescription which requires any man for the Gospels sake to forsake his Wife rather than his Father and Mother Yet that the Apostles did actually absent rather than separate themselves from their Wives and that others who enter'd into the ministration to the Church under the Apostles foreseeing what St. Paul expresseth the present distress of the Church as well in regard of the 1 Cor. 7. 26. persecutions of the Church as the paucity of Preachers the greatness of the Harvest and the small number of Labourers did decline the state of marriage is very probable because they were required by Christs Injunction to Go and teach all Nations which travelling life ill could consist with cohabitation with Wives And therefore it must be given them Gratis and not by the merits of any reason oâ— grounds they can show that that such relinquishing of their Wives was either total or upon conscience made of the thing it self Doth not St. Paul say expresly in the words before those now touched Concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord If such as served at the Altar were to be excepted surely he 1 Cor. 7. 25. would not have left the Rule so general as we find speaking only according to humane prudence And though they search with their best eyes they shall not be able to find in any other writings of the Apostles one Text o Scripture obliging Bishops or Priests to singleness of life more than those of the Laity unless they argue from reason That Virginal Chastity is more severe more pure more spiritual than conjugal which is yielded and therefore more obliging the Clergy who should be more spiritual persons then others all which I deny not but say that this binds them no more from marriage than it doth from wine and strong drink which if none of the Clergy ever used they were the more to be commended unless in such cases as St. Paul advises Timothy For their stomachs sake and often infirmities And thus is Bellarmin's first proof laid Bellarm. de Clericis l. 1. c. 19. The sole grounds then of unmarried state of Priests must be fetch'd from Tradition and Reason of both which we shall presume to speak a word or two Apostolical Tradition is pretended but not trusting much to that recourse is had to the Old Testament from certain allegorical interpretations made of some Rites in Moses's Law which may do well in the Church where they used them to perswade but ill in the Schools to prove the same as a necessary duty The argument taken from the custom of the Priest abstaining from their Wives during the time of their ministration I do really 1 Chron. 24. believe to have had an influence upon Primitive Christians Judaizing in many other things of like nature to restrain them from the use of their Wives upon solemn ministrations But this was without Law or Canon freely undertaken and embraced as was Celebacie it self at first until about the year 385. Siricius Bishop of Rome made a constitution that it should and ought to be and that on that ground And that the inferiour Orders such as Ostiaries Readers Exorcists and Acolythites should only be permitted to marry But Alexander the third about the year 1160 proceeded according to the method of that Church to shut them also out the doors of Orders that should presume to marry But all that was done against those in greater or sacred Orders in the Church for more than three hundred years after Christ was to deny such as were married access to the Altar by way of ministration who from that time abstained not from their Wives as did the Council of Arles and some in Spain Only a custom prevailed very generally and anciently to suffer none who were in those called Sacred Orders such as were Bishops and Priests and Deacons to marry after they were so ordained for if they did they were dismissed of their Office or their Wives The Eastern Church ever accepted of married persons into the Clergy and at length understanding the Apostle Let the Bishops be the husbands of one wife as a Precept rather than a Caution that they should be husbands of no more then one which in all likelyhood the truest sense in the Sixth Council In Trullo decreed they only should be received into Priestly Orders who were married And therefore all antiquity for twelve hundred years together fails them in this that it was otherwise then voluntary that married Priests lived from their Wives who had before orders or that married Men might not be made Priests though 't is confessed they preferred unmarried Persons before them until that Sixth Council which for that reason amongst others Bellarmine calls a Profane Synod and Baronius impious such a great veneration have they for the Autority of the Church when it speaks not their sense Yet as we are far from giving an exact and full account of this long controversie here so are we so far as I can Divine at the judgment of our Church willing to accommodate the matter with others that can digest any thing but their own stout devises to acknowledge a Power in the Church to bind or loose her sons of the Clergy to an unmarried state or to leave them free For to aggravate matters to that height as to make it absolute tyranny or Antichristian and to be against the word of God which saith Marriage is honourable in all things and the like implyes more of the weakness of the Arguer than strength in the Argument more of spite and passion than ingenuity or soberness For 't is answered very sufficiently marriage is not condemned but virginity commended before it Marriage is not at all declared to be evil when Celebacie is said to be much better Marriage is not condemned when certain persons are condemned for marrying Doth a Father that should cast off
his Son for marrying without his liking and approbation fall into the guilt of those Hereticks against which the Scripture and Antiquity both make who simply condemn Marriage in it self as unclean and evil No more surely doth that Church which prohibits it conditionally to her children We hear of many husbands dying who leave their wives such an additional Estate as they could not by any Law challenge so long as they continue unmarried or upon condition of continuing in the state of widowhood And so may a Father gratifie and oblige his children if he pleases without incurring the suspicion of holding marriages unlawful whatever other censure may pass upon them And when the Church saith she will not admit any to minister in her Family more immediately before God what doth she say more than that Master of a Family who will not have a married servant in his house about him but likes it very well to use his service in other matters And does this deserve such noise and out-cryes as are made against it Undoubtedly it is as free for the Church to judge of persons fit and unfit for her use as for any Lord or Master whatever And to make a Law not absolute that such a thing should not be done but that none that do such things should beimplyed in such offices And what reason is there that Civil Policie shall directly deny this but Ecclesiastical prudence may not Are there not many other Societies as well as Ecclesiastical which without reproach do the very same thing Men have a Freedom to do the thing or not to do it and more the Scripture hath not left us but to do it without observing any condition from Superiour neither the Law of God or Man hath left free Can there be therefore any more moderate or equal course than so to leave the matter that the one singleness of life shall be commended above the other and peradventure countenanced and encouraged but the other accepted too Yet neither extream will be content with this But one will have a Law to abstract and the other as it should seem by their reasons out of Scripture have it enjoyn'd though they put a stop to the conclusion and will not have it contain what if their Premisses be good it must For if every Bishop must be the husband of one wife and every Priest be a Bishop surely every Priest must marry And if innocencie and purity can be no otherwise maintained surely the Scripture requiring these requires that too But now we come to the conveniencies and incommodities of the state Virginal and Vidual in reference to the Clergy For now waving the supposition of any Divine injunction several Divine and Political reasons have been invented sufficient to determine against Priests some of which being ridiculous some profane and some heretical we shall mention only such as have somewhat of sobriety The first whereof may be That it becometh such as attend on so sacred a thing as Gods Altar to be pure of body and mind too And therefâ—re to abstain from all fleshly acts We know how that Flesh in Gods word goes under suspicion generally of somewhat impure and contrary to spiritualness and true purity and so indeed all fleshliness must be avoided But in it self it implies no more than a state of imperfection not inconsistent with though much inferiour to spiritual acts In the first sense Covetousness Ambition Pride and such like are Fleshly lusts no less than Venery In the second Conjugal acts and state are in the sense of the Gospel no more Fleshly than eating and drinking But whereas we find many to have been willing to be mistaken in so colourable a piece of Religion as to declare even against the natural pollutions as they may be called as prejudicial in themselves to spiritual perfection whether the will concurs thereunto or not and though proper circumstances be duly observed I cannot excuse them from Munichaean errour wholly or at least Judaical And Zonaras hath in a learned and sober Tractate on purpose declared Zonaras apud Leunclavium Jur. Graeco Lat. Tom. 1. p. 351. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 6. Serm. 19. the contrary showing it no more a pollution of the Flesh than a foul nose may to which I refer the learned as also to a peculiar Treatise Chrysostome hath of Virginity where he satisfies both the superstitious and brutish Christian him who though he declares against ancient Heresies concerning lawful marriage yet advances such arguments to commend and prefer Virginity which Hereticks were condemned for using this man in that he at large disputeth against Marcion Valentinus and Manes by name for their excessive magnifying Virginity to the absolute condemnation of marriage and yet withal abounds in the praise and prelation of Virginity and sheweth that it is necessary to hold marriage lawful and of God before any man can please God in virginity He sheweth first that no such Heretick as condemns Marriage absolutely shall be rewarded for their pretended purity He proveth next They shall be damn'd rather for it while the Catholicks shall be promoted to the Societies of Angels become bright Lamps in Heaven and which is above all abide with the Bride He showeth they are worse than the Heathen Greeks who so judge of Virginity and Marriage The Gentiles saith he shall surely go to Hell but yet with this advantage that they enjoy the pleasures of Marriage Riches and other worldly comforts for a time But Hereticks shall be punished both here and hereafter Here they they are punished by voluntary abstinences there by involuntary Plagues The Gentiles shall neither be the better nor worse for their Fastings and Chastities but Hereticks shall suffer extream punishment for the things they expected ten thousand thanks For Fasting and Virginity are neither good nor evil in themselves but only according to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys ib. the choice of them that use them they may be either Nay says he afterwards the sobriety of Hereticks is much worse then the riotousness of any Heathens For this only opposes Man but that fights against God And afterward Hereticks professing Chastity not only pollute their souls but bodies also And again He that condemneth marriage injureth Virginity also And much more to this purpose Now if after all this he abounds in the extolling of Virginity above Marriage making it an Angelical life at which Puritans are wont to mock and scoff which have stood them in more stead then Scripture it self to make way for their opinions with what pretense of antiquity can the Levellers of all orders and states of Christianity object against Virginal or Vidual Chastity either as not possible or not lawful or not more commendable than a wedded state And with what hazard of incurring the censure upon ancient Hereticks do modern Patrons of Chastity raise their building upon their rotten foundations as too many who are ashamed of it do notwithstanding Surely this may