through him and yet not to apply and buckle our selves thereto were indeed to beleeve what is true but yet no saving faith because we embraced not the thing we beleeved as we beleeved it Thou sayest then thou hast faith and beleevest that Christ is the atonement to God for the sins of all such as leave and forsake their sins by repentance Why then repent thee of thy sins that Christ may be an atonement for thee Thou sayest thou hast this faith that God in Jesus Christ will accept thy undeserving works and services unto eternall life why then embrace thou Christ and rely upon him for this end that thou mayest do works of piety towards God and charity towards men that so God in Christ may accept thee and them unto eternall life Now if this be the faith which is saving and unites us unto Christ and no other then it is plain that a saving faith cannot be severed from good works because no man can embrace Christ as he is promised but he must apply himself to do them For out of that which hath been spoken three reasons may be gathered for the necessity of them First it is the end of our faith and justification by Christ yea the end why he shed his blood for us that we being reconciled to God in him might bring forth fruits of righteousnesse which else we could never have done This is no speculation but plain Scripture S. Peter 1 â—p 2. 24. telleth us that Christ his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead to sin should live unto righteousnesse S. Paul Tit. 2. 11 12 13 14. The grace of God saith he that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men wherefore teaching us that denying ungodlinesse and worldly lusts we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world looking for that blessed hope the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Iesus Christ who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purifie unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works These words contain the summe of all I have hitherto told you That Christ is therefore given us to be a propitiation for our sins and to justifie us that in him we might walk before God in newnesse of life so to obtain a Crown of righteousnesse in the world to come Answerable is that place Ephes. 2. 10. where the Apostle having told us we are saved by grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast he addes presently lest his meaning might be mistaken as it is of too many that we are Gods workmanship created in Iesus Christ unto good works which God hath before ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we should walk in them as if he should say Those works of obedience ordained by God aforetime in his law for us to walk in which we could not perform of our selves now God hath as it were new moulded us in Jesus Christ that we might perform them in him namely by way of acceptation though they come short of that exactnesse the Law requireth And thus to be saved is to be saved by grace and favour and not by the merit of works because the foundation whereby our selves and our services are approved in the eyes of God and acquitted of guilt which the Scripture calleth to be justified is the meer favour of God in Jesus Christ and not any thing in us And this way of salvation excludes all boasting for what have we to boast of when all the righteousnesse of our works is none of ours but Christs imputed to us whereby onely and not for any merit in themselves they become acceptable and have promise of reward But that men should be saved by Christ though they be idle and doe nothing I know no such grace of God revealed in Scripture Now that in Christ we may perform works of righteousnesse which God will accept and crown is plain by the tenour of Scripture S. Paul Philip. 1. 11. desires that the Philippians might be filled with the fruits of righteousnesse which are by Iesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God And the same Apostle tels the Romanes Rom. 6. 22. that being made free from sin and become servants to God they have their fruit unto holinesse and the end everlasting life that is as the Syriack turns it Sunt vobis fructus sancti they have holy fruits whose end is life eternall And if we would seriously consider it we should finde that the more we beleeve this righteousnesse of faith in Christ the more reason we have to perform works of service and obedience unto God then if we beleeved it not For if our works would not be acceptable with God unlesse they were compleat in every point as the Law required if there were no reward to be looked for at the hands of God unlesse we could merit it by the worthinesse of our deeds who that considers his own weaknesse and insufficiency would not sooner despair then go about to please God by works He would think it better to do nothing at all then to endevour what he could never hope to attain and so lose his labour But we who beleeve that those who serve God in Christ have their failings and wants covered with his righteousnesse and so their works accepted as if they were in every point as they should be why should not we of all men fall to work being sure by Christs means and merit we shall not lose our labour A second motive why we should do good works is because they are the way and means ordained by God to obtain the reward of eternall life without which we shall never attain it Without holinesse no man shall see God Heb. 12. 14. Look to your selves saith S. Iohn Ep. 2. ver 8. that ye lose not those things ye have wrought for but that ye may receive a full reward The Angels message from heaven to devout Cornelius was Thy prayers and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God whereupon S. Peter inferred that in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousnesse is accepted with him Acts 10. Hence it is that we shall be judged and receive sentence at the last day according to our works Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world For I was hungry and ye gave me meat I was thirsty and ye gave me drink I was a stranger and ye took me in naked and ye clothed me I was sick and ye visited me I was in prison and ye came unto me For in as much as ye have done these unto one of the least of my brethren ye have done it unto me Lord how do those look to be saved at that day who think good works not required to salvation and accordingly do them not Can our Saviour passe this blessed sentence on them think they
neglect of such duties of piety and charity which amongst our Fore-fathers were frequent as also our open profession when being exhorted to these works of piety to God and of charity towards our brethren we stick not to alledge we are not bound unto them because we look not to be saved by the merit of works as they but by faith in Christ alone as though faith in Christ excluded works and not rather included them as being that whereby they became acceptable unto God which of themselves they are not or as if works could no way conduce unto the attaining of salvation but by way of merit and desert and not by way of the grace and favour of God in Christ as we shall see in the handling of this Text. We greatly now a days and that most dangerously mistake the errour of our forefathers which was not in that they did good works I would we did so but because they knew not rightly the end why they did them nor where the value of them lay they thought the end of doing them was to obtain eternall life as a reward of Justice due unto them whereas it is onely of grace and promise in Christ Jesus They took their works to have such perfectness in them as would endure the touchstone of the Law of God yea such worth and value as to merit the reward they looked for whereas all the value and acceptablenesse of our works issueth from the merit of Christ and lieth onely in his righteousnesse communicated unto us and them by faith and no otherwise But setting aside these errours of the end and of the value of works we must know as well as they That not every one that saith unto Christ Lord Lord c. but he that doth the will of his Father c. Now for the Explication of the words To call Christ Lord is to beleeve in him to acknowledge him to look for salvation by him or as the Scripture expresseth it Luke 6. to come unto him every one saith our Saviour there explaining this very Text we have in hand Every one saith he that commeth unto me and heareth my words and doth them I will shew you who he is like where to come unto Christ is put in stead of that which in the former was to say unto him Lord. The doing of his Fathers will is the doing of those works of obedience which his Father hath commanded in his Law and now committed to his Son whom he hath made the head and King of his Church to see executed and performed by those he bringeth to salvation But how and in what manner we shall see by and by The Text consists of two parts The one negative Not every one that saith unto Christ Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven The other affirmative But those who doe the will of his Father shall onely enter thither But these are so nearly linked together that they cannot be handled asunder And the observations which I shall draw thence depend on the whole Text the first and chiefest whereof is this That faith in Christ without works of obedience and amendment of life is not sufficient for salvation and consequently not that faith whereby a Christian is justified For if it were it would save us If it be not sufficient to save us it cannot justifie us This floweth directly from the Text and cannot be denied if ye remember what I said before that to call Christ Lord is to beleeve in him For the better understanding of this you must take notice that there is a threefold faith whereby men beleeve in Christ There is a false faith There is a true faith but not saving and thirdly there is a saving faith A false faith is to beleeve to attain salvation through Christ any other way then he hath ordained as namely to beleeve to attain salvation through him without works of obedience to be accepted of God in him which is a faith whereof there is no Gospel A true faith is to beleeve salvation is to be attained through obedience to God in Jesus Christ who by his merits and righteousnesse makes our selves and our works acceptable to his Father A saving and justifying faith is to beleeve this so as to embrace and lay hold upon Christ for that end To believe to attain salvation through obedience to God in Christ so as to apply our selves and rely upon Christ for that end namely to perform those works of obedience which God hath promised to reward with eternall life For a justifying faith stayeth not onely in the brain but stirs up the will to receive and enjoy the good beleeved according as it is promised This motion of election of the will is that which maketh the difference between a saving faith which joyneth us unto Christ and that which is true indeed but not saving but dogmaticall and opinionative onely And this motion or applying of the will to Christ this embracing of Christ and the promises of the Gospel through him is that which the Scripture when it speaks of this faith calleth comming unto Christ or the receiving of him Joh. 1. 12. As many as received him to them he gave power or priviledge to be the sons of God even to them that beleeve on his Name where receiving and beleeving one expound another So for comming Come unto me saith our Saviour all ye that are heavy laden and I will ease you The last is very frequent Iohn 5. 40. Ye will not come to me saith our Saviour that ye might have life And Chap. 6. 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me ver 44. No man can come unto me unlesse the Father draw him 45. Every man that hath heard and learned of the Father commeth unto me and such like All which expresse the specification of a saving faith which consists in the embracing receiving and applying of the will to the thing beleeved What this embracing receiving or applying unto Christ is I will farther make plain thus He that beleeveth that Christ is an atonement to God for the sins of all repentant sinners and surely he is an atonement for none else must repent and turn from all his sinnes that so Christ may be an atonement for him else he embraceth not what he beleeveth He that beleeves that God in Christ will accept and reward our obedience and works of piety though short of perfection and of no worth in themselves must apply himself accordingly to doe works of Religion and Charity that God in Christ may accept and reward them For our beleef is not that saving beleef untill we apply our selves to what we beleeve To beleeve to attain salvation through Christ without works of obedience to be accepted in him is as I have already said a false faith whereof there is no Gospel no promise To beleeve the contrary that Christ is given of God to such only as shall receive him to perform acceptable obedience to God
observation of those precepts whch the Hebrew Doctors call the precepts of the sons of Noah namely such as all the sons of Noah were bound to observe These precepts are in number seven recorded in the Talmud Maymonides and others under these following titles First the precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to renounce Idols and all Idolatrous worship Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship the true God the Creator of Heaven and Earth Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bloodshed to wit to commit no murder Fourthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 detectio nuditatum not to be defiled with fornication incest or other unlawfull conjunction Fiftly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rapina against theft and robbery Sixtly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning administration of Justice The seventh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Membrum de vivo so they call the Precept of not eating the flesh with the blood in it given to Noah when he came out of the Ark as Maymonides expresly expounds it and addes besides Quicunque haec sep tem praecepta exequenda susceperit ecce is est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex piis gentium mundi habetque partem in seculo futuro Note that he saith ex piis Gentium for this kinde were still esteemed Gentiles and so called because of their uncircumcision in respect whereof though no Idolaters they were according to the Law unclean and such as no Jew might converse with wherefore they came not to worship into the Sacred Courts of the Temple whither the Jews and circumcised Proselytes came but onely into the outmost Court called Atrium Gentium immundorum which in the second Temple surrounded the second or great Court whereinto the Israelites came being divided there-from by a low wall of stone made battlement-wise not above three Cubits high called saith Iosephus from whom I have it in the Hebrew Dialect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Lorica close by which stood certain little pillars whereon was written in Latin and Greek Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In atrium sanctum transire alienigenam non debere And this I make no question is that which Saint Paul Ephes. 2. alluded unto when he saith That Christ had broken down the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the partitionwall namely that Lorica which separated the Court of the Gentiles from that of the Circumcision and so laying both Courts into one hath made the Jews and Gentiles Intercommoners whereby those that were sometime far off were now made nigh and as near as the other unto the Throne of God But in Solomons Temple this Court of the Gentiles seems not to have been but in the second Temple onely the Gentiles formerly worshipping without at the door and not coming within the Septs of the Temple at all This second kinde of Proselytes the Talmudists call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proselyti portae or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proselyti inquilini because they were under the same condition with those Gentile strangers which lived as inquilini in the land of Israel For all Gentiles dwelling within the Gates of Israel whether they were as servants taken in war or otherwise were bound to renounce their false Gods and to worship the God of Israel but not to be circumcised unlesse they would nor farther bound to keep the Law of Moses then was contained in those precepts of the sons of Noah These are those mentioned as often elsewhere in the Law so in the fourth Commandment by the name of the Stranger within thy gates whereby it might seem probable that the observation of the Sabbath day so far as concerneth one day in seven was included in some one or other of those precepts of the sons of Noah namely in that of worshipping for their God the Creator of heaven and earth and no other whereof this consecration of a seventh day after six dayes labour was a badge or livery according to that The sabbath is a signe between me and you that I Iehovah am your God because in six dayes the Lord made heaven and earth the sea and all that in them is and rested the seventh day vide Exod. 31. 16 17. Ezek. 20. 20. From the example of these inquilini all other Gentiles wheresoever living admitted to the worship of the God of Israel upon the same terms were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proselyti Portae or Proselyti inquilini of which sort there were many in all Cities and places of the Gentiles where the Jews had Synagogues and used to frequent the Synagogues with them though in a distinct place to hear the Law and the Prophets read and expounded But in the New Testament they are found called by another name to wit of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Worshippers so often mentioned though not observed in the Acts of the Apostles For first these are those meant in that of the Acts 17. 4. alleadged at my entrance into this discourse where it is said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great number of the worshipping Greeks beleeved and adhered to Paul and Silas which the Vulgar rightly translateth de colentibus Gentilibus multitudo magna taking the name of Greeks here as elsewhere in the New Testament to be put for Gentiles in generall And this place will admit of no evasion For that they were Gentiles the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betokeneth expresly being given them by way of distinction from the Jews then and there present also That they were worshippers of the true God the God of Israel their coming into the Synagogue their name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their capablenesse of S. Pauls discourse which was to prove out of the Scriptures that Messiah was to suffer death and that Iesus was he argues sufficiently yea abundantly For who could have profited by such a Sermon as this but those who already had knowledge of the true God and beleeved the reward of the life to come This place therefore may serve as a key to all the rest of the places in this Book where these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned To that in the same Chapter ver 17. where it is said that Saint Paul in the Synagogue at Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disputed with the Iews and the worshippers To that Acts 16. 14. where Saint Paul preaching the Gospel in the Jews Proseucha or Oratory at Philippi a woman named Lydia a seller of purple of the City Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A proselyte worshipper was converted unto the faith and baptized with all her houshold In the like manner to Acts 18. 4. when S. Paul is said at Corinth to have reason'd in the Synagogues every Sabbath and to have perswaded the Jews and the Greeks For these Greeks were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what did they in the Synagogues else so regularly every Sabbath day True the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here wanting But it
presently follows when the Jews opposed Paul there testifying Jesus to be Christ and blasphemed that he shook his rayment and said Your blood be on your own heads From henceforth I will go to the Gentiles And he departed thence saith the text and entred into the house of one Iustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Gentile-worshipper whose house joyned hard to the Synagogue But above all that narration Acts 13. deserves our consideration and attention There ver 43. it is said that Saint Paul having preached the Gospel in the Jews Synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia there followed him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many of the Jews and worshipping Proselytes and vers 42. That when the Jews were gone out of the Synagogue the Gentiles that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besought the Apostles that the same things might be preached unto them the next Sabbath which being accordingly done and many of the other Gentiles who were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the same of such a new Doctrine unwontedly assembling with them it is said that the Iews when they saw the multitude were filled with envy contradicted and blasphemed That then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken unto you but seeing you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of eternall life Lo we turn to the Gentiles as the Lord saith I have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles c. 48. That when the Gentiles heard this they were glad and glorified the word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were already in procinctu and in the posture to eternal life The Jews blasphemed the rest of the Gentiles were uncapable onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were already Candidati vitae aeternae having been instructed in the worship of the true God and hoping for the reward to come they beleeved Yet perhaps not all of them neither the words require not so much but that none but such And it follows that the Jews found out some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshipping women such as were of fashion who yet perhaps had not been at the Apostles Sermon by whose means they stirred up the chief men in the City and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas This I take to be the true and genuine meaning of this passage upon which no charge of Pelagianism can be fastened nor needeth it any spinous Criticisms for its explication The use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de acie collocatione Militum de ascriptione in ordinem vel classem in which signification the passive is most frequent is well enough known 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xenophon In cam classem me ascribo Plutarch in Solone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In pauperum ordinem se redigit inter pauperes se numerat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicuntur milites unde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellantur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est in numerum virorum ascribi Compare the 1 Cor. 16. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to which sense and notion the words might be rendred Crediderunt quotquot nomina suae dederant vitae aeternae or per Ellipsin Participii Qui de agmine classe fuerant sperantium vel contendentium ad vitam aeternam otherwise Qui in procinctussabant ad vitam aeternam or most fitly sensu modò militari Quotquot ordinati fuer ant ad vitam aeternam De re tota judicent viri docti à studio partium alieni Besides it will not be impertinent as a Mantissa to these quotations for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to note that the same persons are otherwise namely twice characterised by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As first of Cornelius concerning whom there is no question but he was a Gentile worshipper The Text saith There was a man in Caesarea called Cornelius a Centurion of the Italian Band 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again in that 13. of the Acts whereon we have dwelt so long S. Paul speaking at first to that mixt multitude assembled in the Synagogue consisting partly of Jews and partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he compellates them verse 16. both distinctly in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the former meaning the Jews by the latter the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gentile worshippers Of this kinde of Converts as I have in part already intimated were in our Saviour and his Apostles time very many in every Nation and City where the Jews lived and had their Synagogues yea far more in number then of that other sort of Proselytes which were circumcised The reason being because it was the more easie condition and not so prejudiciall to their outward liberty as the other in as much as they might notwithstanding still live and converse with their friends kindred and Countrymen bear office and enjoy honours among them as Naaman the Syrian did who was of this kinde which the other might not do These impediments being out of the way the hope of the Resurrection from the dead and the reward of the life to come were powerfull inducements to draw many to the worship of that God who onely among the Gods at that time promised this reward to such as worshipped and served him and no other which was the bait wherewith the Jews allured them and that to their own no small emolument this kinde as it were to recompence their want of Circumcision seeming to be very bountifull towards their Nation as may be gathered both from Cornelius who is said to have given much alms to the people namely of the Jews And the Story of that Centurion Luke 7. whom the Jews besought our Saviour so instantly for alledging that he loved their Nation and had built them a Synagogue and therefore deserved that favour they sued for on his behalf Now out of this discourse besides the clearing of the passages afore-mentioned we may learn two things One how so many of the Gentiles by the preaching of the Apostles could so soon and so readily be converted to the faith of Christ. It was because they had already embraced the principles which led thereunto For we are to take notice that the foundation of the Church among the Gentiles was laid of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had already embraced the worship of the true God had knowledge of his promises beleeved and hoped for the life to come For was not S. Peter to whom the instructions for this Embassage were first given sent first to Cornelius a Centurion a Gentile the first of this order wherefore but that this might be for a pattern for them with what kinde of men they were first to deal in this great work namely with such as were idonei Auditores Euangelii those which were puri puti Gentiles being not so as who knew nothing of the principles requisite thereto This
founded in an inflammation of flegme returns every day an Ague which comes from choler every other day from melancholy every third day Now if a body may be kept so long unburied it is supposed it may be kept so long uncorrupted namely where a corruption is not begun before death as in some diseases but longer it will not continue When therefore it is so often inculcated in the New Testament that our Saviour should rise again the third day the Holy Ghost in so speaking respects not so much the number of dayes as the fulfilling of Scripture that Messiahs body should not see corruption but should rise before the time wherin dead bodies begin to corrupt and indeed our Saviour rose again within forty hours after he gave up the Ghost and was not two full dayes in the grave Therefore if there be any other Scripture which implies Messiah should rise before his body should see corruption that Scripture whatsoever it be shews he should rise again within three daies EXODUS 4. 25. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the fore-skin of her son and cast it at his feet and said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es THEN that is when she saw the Angel of the Lord ready to kill Moses her husband in the Inne because his son was not circumcised she took a sharp stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is she took a knife which according to the custome then was made of stone sharped This we may learn out of Ioshuah 5. 2. where the Lord sayes to Ioshuah Make thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sharp knives say we ad verbum cultros petrarum and circumcise again the children of Israel The Chaldee Paraphrast hath Make thee novaculas acutas the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus far all is clear but for the rest we are to seek First on whom the fault lay and what was the reason of this omission of circumcision Then who and what is meant when it is said she cast or made the foreskin to touch his feet and above all what is meant by sponsus sanguinum Zipporah is commonly reputed to have been a perverse and froward woman and Moses the meekest man on earth to have had that mishap in his choice which many a good man hath The reason because she not onely hindred her childe from being circumcised out of some nicety and aversation thereof as a cruell ceremony but also when she saw there was no remedy but she must do it to save her husbands life yet she did it with an upbraiding indignation telling him that he was a bloody husband who must have such a thing done unto his poor childe But I see no ground either for the one or the other For that the circumcision of the childe was not deferred out of any aversation of hers of that ceremony may be gathered First because she was a Midianitesse and so a daughter of Abraham by Ketu rah and therefore well enough acquainted and inured to that Rite which not onely her Nation the Midianites but all the Nations descended of Abraham observed as may be seen in the Ismaelites or Saracens who learned not this ceremony first from Maâ—…met but retained it as an ancient custome of their Nation Secondly she had suffered already her elder son Gershom to be circumcised wherefore then should we think she was averse from the circumcision of this For that this childe for whom Moses was now in danger was Fleezer his youngest son it cannot be denied for as much as it is evident that Moses at this time was the Father of two sons which by reason as may seem of this disturbance he sent back with his wife unto her Father Iethro as we may reade in the eighteenth Chapter of this Book By which it may be gathered that the cause of this omission of circumcision was not any aversenesse in Zipporah from that rite but rather because they were in their journey when the childe was born and so having no convenient time or place to rest in till the wound might be healed and thinking it might endanger the infants life to be tossed up and down whilst the wound was green in so long and tedious a voyage they resolved to deferre the circumcision And that Zipporah was delivered of this childe when they had begun this journey for Egypt may be gathered by this because Moses before Gods sending him hath but one childe mentioned namely Gershom For what reason can be given why if Eleezer had been then born he should not have been mentioned also But howsoever this case of travell afterward excused the Israelites in the Wildernesse for deferring the circumcision of their children then yet could it not excuse Moses here in regard it was necessitas accersita he being not forced to take his wife and children with him especially his wife being in that case but might have sent her and them back presently to her Father as upon this admonition he did Nor was it indeed fit when God sent him upon such a businesse to carry such an incumbrance with him Thus have we freed Zipporah from the first charge of being the cause of this omission out of any aversenesse to the Divine Ordinance Now I come to shew likewise that the words she spake at the time of circumcision Sponsus sanguinum to mihi es were no words of upbraiding indignation to her husband as is supposed but have a far other meaning For I beleeve not she spake these words to Moses but to her Childe whom she circumcised as the Formula then used in circumcision namely that as the fore-skin fell down at her childes feet not Moses or the Angels feet she pronounced the Verb 〈◊〉 solennia Tu mihi sponsus sanguinum My reasons are First because a Husband is not wont to be called sponsus after the wedding solemnity is past nor can there any such example be shewn in Scripture Ergo it is not like that Zipporah after she was the mother of two children should say to her Husband Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es Secondly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word here translated Sponsus properly signifies Gener a son in Law and Sponsus onely by way of equivalence or coincidence because to be made son in Law to the Parents is by being the daughters Sponsus My meaning is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used signifies not the relation of the Bridegroom to his Bride but his relation to his Brides Parents by taking their daughter to wife And therefore in the whole Scripture we shall never finde it relatively used or with an affix but onely in respect to the wives Father or Mother And of the same condition is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we often by equivalence translate a Bride but properly signifies Nurus wherefore we shall never finde the Bridegroom call the Bride his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor the Bride the Bridegroom her
water of Baptism in the New Testament but to the rite and manner of sacrificing in the Old where the Altar was wont to be sprinkled with the blood of the Sacrifices which were offered and that which was unclean purified with the same blood whence is that elegant discourse of Saint Paul Heb. 9. comparing the sacrifices of the Law with that of Christ upon the Crosse as much the better And that whereas in the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Almost all things were purified with blood so much more the blood of Christ who offered himself without spot to God cleanseth our consciences from dead works But that this washing that is cleansing by the blood of Christ should have reference to Baptism where is that to be found I suppose they will not alledge the water and blood which came out of our Saviours side when they pierced him For that is taken to signifie the two Sacraments ordained by Christ that of blood the Eucharist of water Baptism not both to be referred to Baptism I add because perhaps some mens fancies are corrupted therwith that there was no such thing as sprinkling or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in Baptism in the Apostles times nor many ages after them and that therefore it is no way probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Peter should have any reference to the Laver of Baptism Let this then be our conclusion That the blood of Christ concurres in the mystery of Baptism by way of efficacy and merit but not as the thing there figured which the Scripture tels us not to be the blood of Christ but the Spirit And so I come to my other Quaere From what property or use of water the washing therewith is a Sacrament of our new birth for so it is here called the washing of regeneration and our Saviour sayes to Nicodemus Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God For in every Sacrament there is some analogy between what is outwardly done and what is thereby signified therefore in this But what should it be It is a thing of some moment and yet in the tractates of this mystery but little or seldom enquired after and therefore deserves the more consideration I answer this analogy between the washing with water and regeneration lies in that custome of washing infants from the pollutions of the womb when they are first born for this is the first office done unto them when they come out of the womb if they purpose to nourish and bring them up As therefore in our naturall birth the body is washt with water from the pollutions wherewith it comes besmeared out of the matrix so in our second birth from above the soul is purified by the Spirit from the guilt and pollution of sin to begin a new life to God-ward The analogy you see is apt and proper if that be true of the custome whereof there is no cause to make question For the use at present any man I think knows how to inform himself For that of elder times I can produce two pregnant and notable testimonies one of the Jews and people of God another of the Gentiles The first you shall finde Ezek. 16. where God describes the poor and forlorn condition of Jerusalem when he first took her to himself under the parable of an exposed Infant As for thy nativity saith he in the day thou wast born thy navell was not cut neither was thou washed in water to supple thee thou wast not salted at all nor swadled at all None eye pitied thee to do any of these things unto thee to have compassion on thee but thou wast cast out in the open field to the loathing of thy person in the day that thou wast born Here you may learn what was wont to be done unto infants at their nativity by that which was not done to Israel till God himself took pity on her cutting off the navell string washing salting swadling upon this place S. Hierome takes notice but scarce any body else that I can yet finde that our Saviour where speaking of Baptism he says Except a man be born of water the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God alludes to the custom here mentioned of washing Infants at their nativity The other testimony and that most pertinent to the application we make I finde in a story related by Plutarch in his Quaestiones Romanae not far from the beginning in this manner Among the Greeks if one that were living were reported to be dead and funerall obsequies performed for him if afterward he returned alive he was of all men abominated as a pro phane and unlucky person no man would come into his company and which was the highest degree of calamity they excluded him from their Temples and the Sacrifices of their gods It chanced that one Aristinus being faln into such a disaster not knowing which way to expiate himself therefrom sent to the Oracle at Delphos to Apollo beseeching him to shew him the means whereby he might be freed and discharged thereof Pythia gave him this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arastinus rightly apprehending what the Oracle meant offered himself to women as one newly brought forth to be washed again with water from which example it grew a custome among the Greeks when the like misfortune befell any man after this manner to expiate them they called them Hysteropâ—tmi or Postliminiâ—nati How well doth this befit the mystery of Baptism where those who were dead to God through sin are like Hysteropotmi regenerate and born again by water and the Holy Ghost These two passages discover sufficiently the analogy of the washing with water in Baptism to regeneration or new birth according as the Text I have chosen for the scope of my discourse expresseth it namely that washing with water is a signe of spirituall infancy for as much as infants are wont to be washed when they come first into the world Hence the Jews before Iohn the Baptist came amongst them were wont by this rite to initiate such as they made Proselytes to wit as becomming infants again and entring into a new life and being which before they had not That which here I have affirmed will be yet more evident if we consider those other rites anciently added and used in the celebration of this mystery which had the self-same end we speak of namely to signifie spirituall Infancy I will name them and so conclude As that of giving the new baptized milk and honey ad infantandum as Tertullian speaks ad infantie significationem so S. Hierome because the like was used to infants new born according to that in the seventh of Isay of Immanuels infancy A Virgin shall conceive and bear a son butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse evill and chuse good Secondly that of salt as is implied in that
their Brethren 14. Remember me ô my God concerning this c. There needs no more for understanding the meaning of the words Now therefore let us see what Lessons we may learn therefrom And in the first place that which is most pregnantly to be gathered thence and best fits our turn namely That to make provision for the maintenance of Gods worship and the Ministers thereof is a worthy work and of high esteem and favour with God forasmuch as Nehemiah commendeth himself unto the Divine favour and remembrance under that name of having done good deeds or kindnesses unto the House of God and the Offices thereof a manifest argument he took them to be most pleasing and acceptable unto him The truth of the observation appears not only by this but by other places of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament Let us take some survay of them And first for the furnishing a place for Gods worship take notice of that famous benediction and prayer of King David when his people offered so willingly and liberally towards the building of the Temple In the uprightnesse of my heart saith he I have willingly offered all these things and now I have seen with joy thy people which are present here to offer willingly unto thee O Lord God of Abraham Isaac and Israel our Fathers keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people and prepare their hearts unto thee 1 Chron. 29. 17 18. Surely therefore it was a most excellent disposition and such as he knew God prized and esteemed For entertainment and provision for his Prophets and Ministers in what account God hath it appears by his great sollicitude in his Law that they should not be neglected Take heed to thy self saith he Deut. 12. 19. that thou for sake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon the earth What expression can go beyond this Again by that story of the Shunamite woman 2 King 4. 9. who entertained the Prophet Elisha and made provision for him when he should have occasion to passe that way Behold said she to her husband this is an holy man of God which passeth by us continually 10. Let us make I pray thee a little chamber on the wall and let us set for him there a bed a table and a stool and a candlestick and it shall be when he commeth unto us then he shall turn in thither How acceptable to Almighty God was this good office done to his Prophet appears by the double miracle he wrought for her both in giving her a childe when her husband was now so old she despaired and in raising him again to life when he was dead But let us come now to the New Testament and see whether the like be not to be found there lest otherwise any might think as some are prone enough to do the case were now altered And first also to begin here with the provision of a place for Gods worship the story of that Centurion of Capernaum in S. Lukes Gospel is worthy our consideration Who when he heard of Iesus saith the Text sent unto him the Elders of the Iews beseecbing him he would come and heal his servant The Elders came to Iesus and besought him instantly saying He was worthy for whom he should do this Why so For say they he loveth our Nation and hath built us a Synagogue Luk. 7. 4 5. Then Iesus saith the Text without any more ado went with them namely as well approving of their motive that he who had done such a work deserved that favour should be deign'd him Also concerning provision and entertainment for his Apostles and Ministers Are they not our Saviours own words and promise when he sent them forth He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet shall receive a Prophets reward Nay He that should give them but a cup of cold water should not lose his reward According to which S. Paul speaking of the Philippians bounty and communication towards him I have received saith he of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you an odour of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable well-pleasing unto God And 2 Tim. 1. 16. concerning the like good office done him by Onesiphorus he speaks in this manner The Lord saith he give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus for he oft refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain The Lord grant unto him that he may finde mercy of the Lord in that day Which is not much unlike this of Nehemiah in my Text if it had been spoken in the first person by Onesiphorus himself as it is in the third by Saint Paul Howsoever who will deny but it implies the same thing Now then if this be so as I think we have proved What shall we think of the times we live in when men account them the most religious to Godward who do or would unfurnish the House of God most who rob his Priests most But they have an excuse sufficient to bear them out and what is that The Priests they say have too much If this excuse would serve turn some of themselves perhaps might soon have lesse then they have for sure some body else as well as the Priest have more then they need and might spare some of it But whether the Priests have too much or not will not be the question Suppose they had hath God too much too For these men consider not that the propriety of such things as these is Gods and not the Priests and that to change the propriety of what is sacred by alienating thereof to a profane and private use I say not by diverting it from the Priests livelihood to any other holy use in case the Priest have more then needs is to rob God himself yea God tels us so much Malach. 3. 8. Will a man saith he rob his God as if it were a thing intolerable and scarce ever heard of yet ye saith he have robbed me But ye say Wherein have we robbed thee In Tithes and Offerings Ye are cursed with a curse because ye have robbed me For that 's the burden that goes with things consecrated Cursed be he that alienates them This Malachi lived at the same time with Nehemiah and the Jews say 't was Ezra whence this exprobration of his and this fact of Nehemiah in my Text may justly seem to have relation one to the other And thus much of my first Observation My second is That God rewardeth these and so all other our good deeds and works not for any merit or worthinesse that is in them but of his free mercy and goodnesse Remember me ô my God saith Nehemiah and wipe not out my good deeds Why is there any reward due to them of Justice No But remember me ô my God and spare me according to the greatnesse or multitude of thy mercy Thus he expounds himself And S. Paul taught us even now the self-same thing in his Votum or
stature of mankind was diminished after the stood in a manner throughout the world and for many ages yet was there by Gods disposition still a race of Giants left even till the time of David for a monument and witnesse of the truth of a far bigger stature in former times which else could not so easily have been beleeved or imagined Such were the Zanzummims in Abrahams time the sons of Anak in Moses and Goliah in the time of David and it may be there are yet some in some part of the world to be found So I say as these seem to have been preserved by God as a memoriall unto men that they were not now as at the first so it may be it was the will of God and is amongst so many kinds of Serpents to preserve this one that it should not as the rest go groveling upon the earth but might be as a monument of the truth of the malediction of the rest to all posterity Thus much of the possibility which would be far greater if we should with S. Basil Ephrem Bar Cephas and many others affirm that the Serpent had feet namely some short ones beneath the navell for feet are not essentiall to the nature of a thing as appears by the lame who can live without them and by others sometimes by the defect of nature born without them And those who can beleeve the wonderfull change of man by his fall of an immortall creature to become mortall of one to have been born with all glorious endowments both of body and soul now to be brought into the world the most unfurnished of the creatures Those who beleeve the great alteration of the earth it self when it was accursed for mans sin the diminution of the time of mans life and of his stature even since the flood Can any who believe these things think it so incredible for the Serpent once to have had some small feet and afterward to have had none being a creature wherein God intended to leave a monument for ever But of this I will determine nothing neither doth my assertion simply depend upon it but may well enough consist without it But because possibility is not sufficient of it self alone to infer a probability I have therefore one thing to adde more thereto namely the reason and cause even in nature supposing still Gods abasing of the Serpents first creation of this alteration of the posture of the Serpents gate from that it was at the beginning First we know the more excellent and sublime the nature of a creature is the more it raiseth it self upward the more ignoble and baser the more it fals downward This we see in the elements themselves the fire the most excellent and operative of the four raiseth it self above the rest The earth the basest and most unactive of all is also of all the most dejected Secondly as there is this difference in the elements so there is in the mixed bodies some consisting of a more sublime and excellent temper others of a more base and ignoble mixture and that as in other so amongst such creatures as live and move upon the earth Thirdly this their noblenesse within discovereth it self in the body without by advancing them naturally in their gate and gesture whence man being of all creatures living upon the earth of the most excellent temper and sublimed condition of nature is therefore of all other the most advanced in body Pronáque cum spectant animalia caetera terram Os homini sublime dedit c. Yea experience will tell us that even amongst men themselves those who are of a more exalted nature either by heroick temper or predominancy of heat are also more advanced in the posture of their bodies Among beasts themselves the basest is the most creeping the noble Lion advanceth his head and brest so far as the frame of his body is thereof capable and so the rest and of all creatures we may observe besides that such creatures have the most sagacity who come most near to walk upright as a man doth If therefore the Serpent were of so sublime a nature at the first as thereby it was more subtle then any beast of the field which God had made how could so excellent a temper the ground of so much sagacity but advance the body thereof as far as the frame and shape thereof could admit On the contrary if afterward the Serpent became the most abased and accursed of all the beasts of the field how should not this alteration of his former temper and disposition of nature make the gesture of his body also sutable by stooping and groveling upon the earth Who knows not that the naturall position of man is erected agreeable to his excellency above other creatures having life and motion and yet notwithstanding so much hath the dejection of his primitive nature for sin weakned in him this propension that were it not for education it is supposed yea and by experience confirmed that he would walk upon all four like a beast And shall we wonder that the malediction of the Serpent exceeding that of mans should produce as much as this So then to conclude this first particular of the Serpents curse I understand it from the ground aforesaid as insinuating the cause by the outward and sensible effect according to the manner of the Scripture namely the abasement and fall of the Serpents whole nature from his primitive perfection discovered by the fall of his once advanced body thenceforth to go groveling upon the earth Even as the despoiling of the nature of man of the inward indowments of perfection is by the same sacred trope insinuated by his outward nakednesse that is the obsruration of that glorious and celestiall beauty which he had before his sin The difference whereof was so great that he could not endure afterward to behold himself any more but sought for a covering even to hide himself from himself And now I come to the second particular Dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life The coursest diet that any living creature hath allowed him None of the beasts of the field with whom he is compared are thus poorly provided for nay not any other unlesse the base earthworm not worthy to be named among the creatures Even with this vilest of creatures is now ranked that once so noble a creature the Serpent Which yet is not so to be understood as though the Serpent did not sometime eat something else for they sometime devour birds frogs and such like but that this is the ordinary fare which God hath provided him and if at any time he getteth any other he goeth beyond his limits Whence Esay 65. among the blessings of the new Jerusalem this is reckoned for one That the Serpent should eat dust that is be made contented with the diet God had appointed him and not to encroach upon the food appointed for others But why did God appoint him this food I answer
the Acts of the Apostles nor in S. Paul and S. Peters writings yet this proves not they were not used in the Apostles times no more then that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not whose case in this point is the same with the other But to confine the Apostles Age within the limits of Saint Pauls and S. Peters lines is a generall mistake For the Apostles Aage ended not till S. Iohns death Anno Christi 99. and so lasted as long within a year or thereabouts after S. Paul and S. Peters suffering as it was from our Saviours Ascension to their Deaths that is one and thirty years And this too for the most part was after the Excidium of Ierusalem in which time it is likely the Church received no little improvement in Ecclesiasticall Rites and Expressions both because it was the time of her greatest increase and because whilest the Iews Polity stood her Polity for its full establishment stood in some sort suspended This appears by S. Iohns writings which are the onely Scripture written after that time and in which we finde two Ecclesiastick terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Deitie of Christ and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the first day of the week neither of both seeming to have been in use in S. Paul and S. Peters time and why may we not beleeve the like happened in others and by name in these now questioned Which that I may not seem onely to guesse I think I can prove by two witnesses which then lived the one Clemens he whose name S. Paul says was written in the Book of life and the other Ignatius Clemens in his undoubted Epistle ad Corinthios a long time missing but now of late come again to light In this Epistle the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is three times used of the Christian service pag. 52. Debemus omnia saith he rite ordine facere quae Dominus nos per agere jussit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praestitutis temporibus Oblationes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obire And a little after Qui igitur praefinitis temporibus oblationes suas faciunt accepti beati sunt Domini enim mandata sequentes non aberrant The other Ignatius in his Epistle Ad Smyrnenses hath both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non licet saith he absque Episcopo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cals in a stricter sense the first part of this sacred and mysticall Service to wit the Thanksgiving wherein the Bread and the Wine as I told you were offered unto God to agnize his Dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cals the mysticall Commemoration of Christs Body and Blood and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the receiving and participation of the same For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used for the whole Action and sometimes thus distinguished Of this Epistle the learned doubt not but if any one do I suppose they will grant that Theodoret had his genuine Epistles Let them hear then a passage which he in his third Dialogue cites out of the Epistles of Ignatius against some Hereticks Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Servatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae passa est pro peccatis nostris Here you see oblationes Eucharistias exegetically join together And so I think I have proved these terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been in use in the Church in the latter part of the Apostles Age. But what if one of them namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were used sooner even in S. Pauls and S. Peters time In the first Epistle of Peter 2. 5. You are saith he speaking to the Body of the Church a holy Priesthood to offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to God by Iesus Christ. In the Epistle to the Heb. 13. 15. By him that is through Christ our Altar let us offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sacrifice of praise to God continually Why should I not think S. Paul and S. Peter speak here of the solemn and publick Service of Christians wherein the Passion of Christ was commemorated I am sure the Fathers frequently call this sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in some ancient Liturgies immediately before the Consecration the Church gives thanks unto God for choosing them to be an holy Priesthood to offer sacrifices unto him as it were alluding to S. Peter Thus you see first or last or both the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were no strangers to the Apostles Age. I will now make but one Quaere and answer it and so conclude this point Whether these words were used seeing they were used properly or improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the subject we speak of I answer briefly This Christian service as we have defined it is an Oblation properly for wheresoever any thing is tendred or pretended unto God there is truly and properly an Oblation be it spirituall or visible it matters not For oblatio is the Genus And Irenaeus tels me here Non Genus oblationum reprobatum est oblationes enim illic oblationes autem hîc sacrificia in populo sacrificia in Ecclesia sed species immutata est tantùm But as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacrifice according to its prime signification it signifies a slaughter-offering as in the Hebrew so in Greek of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 macto As the Angel in the Acts sayes to S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter kill and eat Now we in our Christian sacrifice slay no offering but commemorate him onely that was slain and offered upon the Crosse. Therefore our Service is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 improperly and metaphorically But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be synecdochically taken for an offering in generall as it is both in the New Testament and elsewhere then the Christian sacrifice is as truely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SECT II. NOw I come to the second particular contained in my Definition to prove that the Christian sacrifice according to the meaning of the ancient Church is an Oblation of Thanksgiving and Prayer My first Author shall be Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew where to the evasion of the Jews labouring to bereave the Christians of this Text by saying it was meant of the Prayers which the dispersed Jews at that time offered unto God in all places where they lived among the Gentiles which Sacrifices though they wanted the materiall Rite yet were more acceptable unto God in regard of their sincerity then those prophaned ones at Jerusalem and not that here was meant any Sacrifice which the Gentiles should offer to the God of Israel to this evasion Iustin replies Supplicationes gratiarum actiones quae à dignis peraguntur
whereof is concerning sacrifices There God saith Gather my Saints together unto me which make covenant with me by sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And vers 16. of the sacrifices of the wicked and such as amend not their lives Vnto the wicked God saith What hast thou to do to declare my statutes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest instruction c. Statutes here are Rites and Ordinances and particularly those of Sacrifice which who so bringeth unto God and thereby supplicates and cals upon his Name is said to take the covenant of God in his mouth Forasmuch as to invocate God with this Rite was to do it by way of commemoration of his Covenant and to say Remember Lord thy Covenant and for thy Covenants sake Lord hear my prayer and supplication For what hath man to do with God to beg any favour at his hands unlesse he be in Covenant with him whereby appears the reason why mankinde from the beginning of the world used to approach their God by this Rite of sacrificing that is ritu foederali I adde in this last place for a farther confirmation That when God was to make a Covenant with Abraham Gen. 15. he commanded him to offer him a Sacrifice Offer unto me saith he so it should be turned a heifer a she-goat and aram each of three years old a turtle Dove and a young pigeon All which he offered accordingly and divided them in the midst laying each piece or moity one against the other and when the sun went down God in the likenesse of a smoaking furnace and burning lamp past between the pieces and so as the Text sayes made a Covenant with Abraham saying Vnto thy seed will I give this land c. By which Rite of passing through the parts God condescended to the manner of men And note here that the Gentiles and Jews likewise in their more solemn covenants between men and men which were made under pain of curse or execration used this Rite of Sacrifice whereby men covenanted with their God as it were to make their God both a witnesse and a party with them And here the Jews cut the Sacrifice in sunder and past between the parts thereof as God did here with Abraham which was as much as if they had said Thus let me be divided and cut in pieces if I violate the oath I have now made in the presence of my God The Gentiles besides other ceremonies used not to eat at all of these sacrifices but to fling them into the sea or bury them in the earth as if they had said If I break Covenant thus let me be excluded from all amity and favour with my God as I am now from eating of his Sacrifice Hence came those phrases secare foedus in the Hebrew of ferire percutere icere foedus in Latine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Homer à feriendis percutiendis secandis sacrificiis in foederibus sanciendis Though this manner of speech may be also derived from their ordinary Epula foederales wherein they killed beasts which the Ancients in their ordinary diet did not Having thus seen what is the nature of a Sacrifice and wherein the ratio thereof consisteth it will not be hard to judge whether the ancient Christians did rightly in giving the Eucharist that name or not For that the Lords supper is Epulum foederale we all grant and our Saviour expresly affirms it of the Cup in the stitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup is the Rite of the new Covenant in my Blood which is powred out for many for the remission of sins evidently implying that the bloody sacrifices of the Law with their meat and drink-offerings were Rites of an old covenant and that this succeeded them as the rite of the new That that was contracted with the blood of beevs sheep and goats but this founded in the blood of Christ This parallel is so plain as I think none will deny it There is nothing then remains to make this sacred Epulum a full sacrifice but that the Viands thereof should be first offered unto God that he may be the Convivator we the Convivae or the guests SECT V. MY last task was to prove that the rite of the Lords Supper is indeed a Sacrifice not in a Metaphoricall but a proper sense and this if the nature of Sacrifice be truly defined is no whit repugnant to the reformed Religion To evidence which I shewed that a Sacrifice was nothing else but a Sacred-feast wherein God mystically entertained man at his own Table in token of amity and friendship with him which that he might do the Viands of that feast were first made Gods by oblation and so eaten of not as of Mans but Gods provision There is nothing then wanting to make this sacred Epulum of which we speak full out a Sacrifice but that we shew that the Viands thereof were in like manner first offered unto God that so being his he might be the Convivator man the Conviva or the guest And this the ancient Church was wont to do this they beleeved our blessed Saviour himself did when at the institution of this holy Rite he took the Bread and the Cup into his sacred hands and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed And after his example they first offered the Bread and Wine unto God to agnize him the Lord of the Creature and then received them from him again in a Banquet as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of his Son This is that I am now to prove out of the testimonies of Antiquity not long after but next unto the Apostles times when it is not likely the Church had altered the form they left her for the celebration of this Mystery I will begin with Irenaeus as the most full and copious in this point He in his fourth Book cap. xxxii speaks thus Dominus Discipulis suis dans consilium Primitias Deo offerre ex suis Creaturis non quasi indigenti sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint eum qui ex Creatura est panis accepit gratias egit dicens Hoc est corpus meum Calicem similiter qul ex Creatura est quae est secundum nos suum sanguinem con fessus est Novo Testamento novam docuit oblationem quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens offert Deo ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento And Cap. xxxiii Igitur Ecclesiae oblatio quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum acceptum est ei non quod indigeat à nobis sacrificium sed quoniam is qui offert glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert si acceptetur munus ejus Per munus enim erga Regem honos affâ—ctio ostenditur He alludes to that in the first of Malachi I am a great King