and meekenesse than Moses did albeit they had no such occasion of murmuring as their forefathers had For their Fathers murmured in their hunger or thirst whereas this great Prophet had prevented this occasion of murmuring by feeding them plenteously before they had sought to him for food That which Moses saith unto the murmuring Israelites Exod. 16. 8. was now exactly fullfilled The Lord saith he heareth your murmurings which you murmur against him and what are wee Your murmurings are not against us but against the Lord. These Jewes murmur against the son as they suppose of Joseph and Mary lesse weening that in murmuring against him they did personally murmur against the Son of God then their Fathers did when they murmured against Moses that they had murmured against their God But the same Lord which heard their murmurings then by the mediate presence or infinite knowledge of his God head heares them now with the eares of man as immediately and as sensibly as Moses heard their Fathers murmur Now as God in the wildernesse though he heard their Fathers murmurings did yet grant them their desire at evening ye shall eat flesh in the morning ye shall be filled with bread and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God Exod. 16. 12 So the same Lord now albeit this foolish people murmur against him to his face not for denying but for proffering them the true food of life is so farre from chiding them as Moses did that he presseth them to make try all of his bountie and to accept his proffer with greater vehemency of words yet with more meeknesse of language than Moses did at any time use Murmur not saith he amongst your selves ver 43. c. I am that bread of life your fathers did eat Manna in the wildernesse and are dead This is the bread which cometh downe from heaven that a man may eat thereof and not dye I am the living bread that came downe from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever and the bread that I will give is my flesh w ch I will give for the life of the world 48 49 50 51. And here again they increase their murmuring for they strove among themselves saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat v. 52. Thus as their Fathers tempted God in their hearts by asking meat for their Lust Ps 78. 18. so have their posteritie They fought him out that they might have their bellye 's filled with corporal bread and yet when he had given them this in great abundance by meanes miraculous they will not beleive that he is able to give them what he promiseth bread from heaven or his flesh to eate which is the bread or staff of life So incredulous their Fathers had been that after the sight of many miracles in Egypt they would not trust him in the wildernesse after the experience of one miracle in the wildern esse they would not trust him for a second They Spake against God they said can God furnish a table in the wildernesse Behold he smote the Rock that the waters gushed out and the streames over-flowed but can he give bread also can he provide flesh for his people therefore the Lord heard this and was wroth so a fire was kindled against Jacob and anger came up against Israel because they beleived not in God and trusted not in his salvation But now this Salvation of God even God himself made their Jesus or Salvation for all is one is come neerer unto this later people and yet they will not beleeve him they will not trust in him Yet his anger is not presently kindled against them for not beleiving The more they doubt the more they question the more they murmur or strive the more he presseth the necessitie of eating his flesh upon them first Negatively verily verily I say unto you except yee eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood yee have no life in you then Affirmatively Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him up at the last day vers 53 54. And lastly he gives the reason as well of the negative as of the affirmative For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed vers 55. So that in him these Jewes were to expect the fulnesse of the body of all those contentments for whose shadowes their Fathers so greedily longed in the wildernesse and for want of which they so murmured against Moses as these men now do against the Lord which appeared to Moses for giving them assurance of them 4. In what sense Christs flesh is said to be truely meate and his blood to be truely drink I have shewd elswhere The summe was this His flesh is meat indeed his blood is drink indeed non Formaliter sed Eminenter meat indeed and drink indeed not in respect of the natural qualities of corporal meat and drink for these must be swallowed concocted digested and finally converted into our bodily substance That Christs flesh according to these qualities is truely meat or his blood truely drink the Romish Church doth not avouch For if his body should be concocted or digested or converted into our bodily substance it should suffer corruption And to be swallowed only and not concocted is no propertie of meat or drink Christs Flesh then is said truly meat and his blood drink indeed in respect of the End whereto all manner of food is destinated The best End of all bodily food is to preserve or continue bodily life And that is the best food or diet which most effectually procureth this End Howbeit bodily life cannot be first given or implanted by the best bodily meat that is but only continuated or preserved But Christs Flesh was given not only to continue life but to give life unto the world it is the root of life as well as the food of life If we speak of life spiritual or Everlasting which onely is life indeed And in as much as his flesh and blood are the rootes and fountaines of this kind of life the one is most truely said to be meat indeed the other most truely drink indeed That is meat and drink more effectuall and more necessary for the attainement of everlasting life than bodily food is for life temporal Again Temporal or bodily life cannot be continued or preserved otherwise than by the corruption or destruction of the bodily meate which preserves it But Christs flesh and blood preserve life spiritual or our soules and bodies unto everlasting life because they are incorruptible and cannot be changed be not so much as subject to alteration Now if all other meat besides this must suffer corruption and lose its nature before it can become a cause or meanes of preserving bodily life Such meat cannot be truely said to remain in us much lesse can wee be said to remain or abide in it But of Christs flesh and
blood he himselfe here saith it He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him and for this reason his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drink indeed the onely meat and the onely drink which men should hunger and thirst after Other meates and drinks should be sought for yea life bodily it self should be desired onely to this End that by the prolonging of it wee might be partakers in greater measure of this meat and drink which preserves the Bodie and soul unto everlasting life 5. The Questions then to be discussed are Two First What it is to eat Christs flesh and drink his Blood Secondly What it is for Christ to Dwell or abide in us and us to dwell or abide in Him All agree that there is A Twofold eating of Christs Bodie and A Twofold drinking of his Blood One meerly Sacramental and another Spiritual Which agreement notwithstanding There ariseth A Third Question viz. What manner of eating Christs Flesh and drinking his Blood is in this place either onely or principally meant For the Resolution of this Question we are breifly to explicate each member of this Division viz. 1. What it is to eat Christs Bodie and drink his Blood Sacramentally onely 2. What it is to eat his Bodie and Drink his Blood Spiritually First then All that are partakers of this Sacrament eat Christs Bodie and Drink his Blood sacramentally that is they eat that Bread which Sacramentally is his Bodie and drink that Cup which Sacramentally is his Blood whether they eat or drink faithfully or unfaithfully For All the Israelites 1 Cor. 10. Drank of the same Spiritual Rock which was Christ Sacramentally All of them were partakers of his presence when Moses smote the Rock Yet with many of them God was not well pleased because they did not faithfully either Drink or participate of his presence And more displeased he is with such as eat Christs Bodie and Drink his blood unworthily though they eat and drink them Sacramentally For eating and drinking so onely that is without faith or due respect they eat and drink to their own Condemnation because they do not Discern or rightly esteem Christs Bodie or presence in the H. Sacrament May we say then that Christ is Really present in the Sacrament as well to the unworthy as to the faithful receivers Yes this we must grant yet must we add withal that he is really present with them in a quite contrary manner really present he is because virtually present to both because the operation or efficacie of his Bodie and blood is not metaphorical but real in both Thus the bodily Sun though locally distant for its substance is really present by its heat and light as well to sore eyes as to clear sights but really present to both by a contrarie real operation and by the like contrary operation it is really present to clay and to wax it really hardneth the one and really softeneth the other So doth Christs Bodie and Blood by its invisible but real influence mollifie the hearts of such as come to the Sacrament with due preparation but harden such as unworthily receive the consecrated Elements If he that will hear the word must take heed how he hears much more must he which means to receive the Sacrament of Christs bodie and blood be careful how he receives He that will present himself at this great Marriage Feast of the Lamb without a wedding garment had better be absent It was alwayes safer not to approach the presence of God manifested or exhibited in extraordinarie manner as in his Sanctuarie or in the Ark then to make appearance before it in an unhallowed manner or without due preparation Now when we say that Christ is really present in the Sacrament our meaning is that as God he is present in an extraordinarie manner after such a manner as he was present before his incarnation in his Sanctuarie in the Ark of his Covenant and by the Power of his God-head thus extraordinarilie present he diffuseth the vertue or operation of his Humane Nature either to the vivification or hardning of their hearts who receive the Sacramental Pledges So then a man by eating Christs bodie meerly Sacramentally may be hardned may be excluded from his gracious presence But no man hath Christ dwelling in him by this manner of eating his flesh and drinking his blood unlesse withal he eate the one and drink the other Spiritually The Eating then of Christs bodie and drinking his blood meerly Sacramentally is not the eating and drinking here meant 6. They are said to eat Christs Flesh and drink his Blood Spiritually which rightly apprehend his Death and Passion which by Faith meditate and ruminate upon them making application to themselves aswel of the great danger which may ensue upon the neglect of such great benefits as he hath purchased for them as of the inestimable good which alwayes accompanies the right esteeme or contemplation of his Bodie which was given for them and of his Blood which was shed for them He which thus eateth Christs Flesh and drinketh his Blood by Faith although he do not for the time present eat his Bodie or drink his blood Sacramentally hath a true interest in this promise He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him so he do not neglect to eat his Bodie and drink his Blood Sacramentally when occasion requires and opportunitie serves So that Spiritual eating and drinking Christ by Faith is the true preparative for the worthy receiving of his bodie and blood Sacramentally He that doth not so prepare himself for the receiving of his body and blood doth receive him unworthily whilest he receives him Sacramentally The main Question is Whether Christs words be to be understood at all of Sacramental eating and drinking or of Spiritual eating and drinking onely 7. Many there were and yet are in Reformed Churches which deny this place to be meant of Sacramental Eating But as Beza amongst others well observes they which deny this place to be meant at all of Sacramental eating err no lesse then they do which restrain it only to Sacramental eating Their error which deny it to be meant at all of Sacramental eating is so much the worse because it gave advantage to our Adversaries of the Romish Church which want no wit to work upon all advantages given To omit others Jansenius and Dr. Hessels two of the most exquisite expositors of Scriptures and most Judicious Divines which the Romish Church had after the Reformation was begun by Luther and Zuinglius and prosecuted by Calvin expressely deny our Saviours dispute in this Chapter with the Jews to be meant at all of Sacramental eating or drinking The Reason which enforced these two great Divines to slight the authoritie of most writers in their own Church and to wave the authoritie of most ancient Fathers which it is evident do understand this
place of Sacramental eating and drinking was because they saw no possibilitie how to maintain the peremptorie decrees of the Councels of Constance and Basil concerning Communion under one kind if the words of our Saviour ver 53. of this Chapter be to be understood of Sacramental eating and drinking For it is granted by all that the Consecrated bread is Sacramentally his Bodie not his Blood and that the Cup is Sacramentally his Blood not his Bodie And yet our Saviours words are express Except ye eate the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you So that all which hope to have life must Sacramentally drink his blood aswel as eat his flesh if this place be meant of Sacramental eating That evasion which most oâ—â— modern Priests and Jesuites use for eluding rather then answering this Objection was too palpable in the Judgement of these two great Divines as it since hath seemed to others of that Church which yet maintain that the former words of our Saviour are to be understood of Sacramental eating Christs flesh and drinking Christs blood The evasion of modern Priests and Jesuits is that he which Sacramentally receives Christs Bodie under the shape or form of Sacramental bread doth with it receive his blood per Concomitantiam by way of concomitancie because there is blood conteined in his bodie which they thus receive But this cannot satisfie any Romish Divine which understands himself or the ancient Doctrine which that Church pretends to follow For this device of receiving Christs blood in the bread per concomitantiam was but a late invention little above 200. years before Jansenius or Hessels lived And the newnesse of this imagination or invention which was generally applauded in the Romish Church in his time was one special motive why that Reverend Pastor of Blessed memorie Mr. Gilpin did disclaim the Romish Churches Doctrine in the Point of Transubstantiation as Bishop Tunstall his Uncle before him had done Secondly Admitting the bread were turned into Christs very bodie and after this conversion had blood in it as truly as flesh and bones yet all this would not salve the literal sense of our Saviours words in the 53 d verse if the eating and drinking which he there speaks of were Sacramental For suppose a man should feed upon raw flesh or upon flesh which had visible or material blood in it we might say indeed that he did eat blood per concomitantiam by way of concomitancie because the flesh which he eats had blood in it But no man would say That he did drink blood per concomitantiam For eating and drinking are two distinct acts and incompatible at one and the same time He that eateth flesh with blood in it doth not eat the flesh and drink the blood whilest he only eats but eats both together the one as principal the other as an appurtenance if he eat as a man and not as Swine do draugh which is no more an eating then a drinking Or if a man should drink blood mingled with some small portions of flesh we might say He did drink flesh by way of Concomitancie but no man would say that he did eat blood per concomitantiam albeit there were flesh in the blood which he drinks for he drinks both together he doth not eat either And for these reasons Pope Innocent expressely denies that he which eats Christs bodie whilst he only eats it doth drink his blood In his fourth Book Myster Evangel Legis ac Sacramenti Eucharist Chap. 21. Edit Venet. in quarto 8. The only refuge which the most learned in the Romish Church since Jansenius and Hessels dyed have found out for answering the former Objection of Reformed Writers is That the words of our Saviour Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man And drink his blood ye have no life in you are to be Expounded disjunctively as thus Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man Or drink his blood ye have no life in you The use or Corollarie of this Exposition is That if Christian people do Sacramentally Either eat Christs flesh Or drink his Blood as they ought that is with due preparation this will suffice seeing as they pretend there is no Divine precept which enjoynes all Christian People Sacramentally to receive Christs bodie and blood under both kindes Nor all Priests but only such as do Officiate or Consecrate The precept of Institution Bibite ex hoc omnes Drink ye all of this was punctually directed as they alledg to our Saviours Apostles only who were at this time made Priests and authorized to minister Christs bodie and blood after his death Yet were they not by their leave at this time Sacerdotes conficientes Our Saviour Christ himself did Consecrate both the Bread and Wine the Apostles were as much inferior to him as the meanest Lay-people are to the greatest Priest in the Romish Church to the Pope or summus Pontifex himself But the further Discussion of this Point belongs more properly to the words of the Institution The other Point of expounding et by vel or of shuffling in Or for And belongs to the Cognizance of the 53 and 56. verses To justifie this exposition Cardinal Tollet would perswade us That St Johns Greek Text is full of Hebraismes and there is nothing more familiar with Moses or with other sacred Hebrew writers then to use And for Or Et for Vel. And he brings divers instances to this purpose As for example that in Exod. 21. 17. He that curseth father And mother shall surely be put to death So it is word for word in the Hebrew and yet our English Translation as well as the Vulgar Latin renders the Original thus He that curseth father Or mother shall surely be put to death And it would be an ungodly Evasion for any Magistrate not to censure him as a transgressour of this Law which curseth his father albeit he do not curse his mother or which curseth his mother albeit he do not curse but rather blesse his father But must the true interpretation of such as are to judge according to this Law be derived from the peculiar phrase or dialect of the Hebrews No this was Cardinal Tollet's Errour for the Rule of Interpretation so the matter or circumstance be the same would hold as true in any dialect or language whatsoever The Question then is What certain general Rule we have when or in what cases the conjunctive particle And doth produce this or the like disjunctive sense or may warrant this or the like Exposition of this Law He that curseth father And mother shall surely die that is he which curseth Either father Or mother shall surely die For the like Exposition the Rules are Two One General and infallible Rule is this Whensoever the particle And doth couple not two parts of one and the same proposition but two intire propositions together That which is thus conjunctively affirmed of
two propositions coupled together must be disjunctively expounded of either proposition divided one from the other Now when it is said He that curseth Father And Mother shall die there be two intire propositions coupled together by this particle And implicitly the explicit sense or Resolution of which speech is this He that curseth his Father shall surely die And he that curseth his Mother shall surely die And if both these propositions conjunctively taken be true this disjunctive will be as true He that curseth either father or mother shall die Secondly the Rule is universally true When two incompatible attributes are conjunctively avouched of one and the same subject in one and the same ê“position universally taken the particle And in this case must be resolved into the particle Or when the universall ê“position or subject of it is divided into its parts Quae dicuntur conjunctim de genere dicuntur divisim de specie As for example the Philosopher describing the native propertie of quantitie saith maximè proprium est quantitati ut ex ea dicantur res aequales inaequales But in as much as equalitie and inequalitie are incompatible if wee apply them to the the same particular things which are compared together for quantitie hence it is that every particular substance which is compared to or measured with another must either be equal or unequal unto it That one and the same particular substance should be both equal and unequal to another for quantitie is impossible So the Philosopher saith and it is a naturall truth which none can deny that the living or sensitive creature universally taken is rational and irrational but because one and the same living Creature cannot be both rational and irrational when wee descend to particular living creatures wee cannot say that any of them is both rationall and irrationall but either rationall or irrationall Yet in as much as every particular living creature is either endowed with reason or not endowed with reason the living creature universally taken that is as it comprehends every particular living creature must be both rationall and irrationall For Quicquid dicitur divisim de Specibus dicitur conjunctim de Genere 9. To give such a direct and punctuall answer to the Cardinals instance out of Exod. 21. 17. He that curseth father and mother shall dye as may satisfie all the rest which he brings or can be brought to like purpose we say as was intimated before there be two intire propositions 1. He that curseth his father shall dye 2. He that curseth his mother shall dye and the explication or unfolding of these two propositions is disjunctively set down by our Saviour himself Matth. 15. 4. He that curseth father or mother shall surely dye But there are not two propositions but one proposition in this Text He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him He doth not say here or elswhere He that eateth my flesh dwelleth in me and I in him and he that drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him Nor is this disjunctive any where in Scripture exprest That he which eateth Christs flesh or drinketh his blood dwelleth in Christ and he in him That instance which the Cardinall would wrest to justifie his interpretation of our Saviours words in the 53. and 56. verses doth make against him His instance is 1 Cor. 11. ver 27. Whosoever shall eat this bread or drinke the cup of the Lord unworthily is guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord. For in as much as S t Paul had said before vers 26. that as often as wee eat this bread and drink this cup wee shew the Lords death till he come it will necessarily follow that albeit wee eat the bread not unworthily and yet put such a Case drink the cup unworthily we become guiltie both of his Body and Blood because in both wee solemnize the memory of his death and he that should both eat the bread and drink the cup unworthily is twice guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord As he that curseth both farther and mother is worthy of double death because he that curseth either father or mother is guiltie of death Nor can it be alledged that the severall parts of this proposition He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me are incompatible or cannot be performed at one and the same sacramentall action by one and the same man or that they are to be universally or collectively understood of the whole Church as consisting of Priests and Laicks and not distributively of every man and therefore to seek a disjunctive sense of these words to this or like effect he that eateth my flesh or drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him is to seek a knot in â—â—ulrush or a division in Unitie Again The form of our Saviours speech ver 53. is exceptive Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you The form is the very same as if we should say Except a man honour his Father and Mother his seed shall not long prosper upon earth Now it would be impiously absurd to make this construction of that Commandment Except a man honour Either his Father Or his Mother his seed shall not long prosper upon the earth And no better then Thus is the Construction which Cardinal Tollet or his followers make of our Saviour's words in the 53. verse Our Saviour had told them before that He was the Bread of life which came down from heaven And pressing the Belief of this Point upon them further not by division but by addition he addeth ver 51. That The Bread which he meant was his Flesh And when the Jews ver 52. strove about this He further adds ver 53. Verily Verily Except ye eat and drink ye have no life in you 10. But besides the former plunge whereto the best Scholars in the Romish Church are put in justifying their practice for Deteining the Cup from the Laitie if This Chapter be meant of Sacramental eating there is another Difficultie which neither the late Device of Drinking Christs Blood per concomitantiam nor the Cardinals interpretation of ver 56. by Disjunction will any way touch much lesse satisfie And the Difficultie is this If these words be literally meant of Sacramental eating and drinking their literal sense must be as plain and as void of all Trope or Metaphor as the words of the Institution related by Saint Matthew Chap. 26. 26. are by them supposed to be Now when Christ saith in Saint Matthew That the bread is his Bodie this speech in the literal sense as they contend inferreth a substantial change of the Bread into the substance of his bodie Now our Saviours words are in this place as plain and as certain as in that He avoucheth again and again that he is the bread of life that the bread which he will
work let us still call to mind that it now is in Executione Officii and its Office is to be our Remembrancer of that which our Apostle admonisheth us 1 Cor. 11. 31. If we would judge our selves we should not be judged In this Judgment or examination of our selves Nature her self would teach us thus much so we would be observant of the Process That seeing Conscience is not onely the Lamp of the Lord but also a part of our selves a principal Ray or beam of our souls it could not be so suspitious of our actions or so inquisitive after every circumstance that may make against us when we do evil unless it were deputed by a supreme Judge to bring us to a Judgment and either in this life to acquit us by perswading us to judge our selves or in that last day to accuse and condemn us It would teach us again That albeit there be a General day for final Judgment appointed wherein Christ himself shall sit as Judge yet he every day holds or cals A private Sessions within our brests wherein Conscience sits his Atturney or Deputy Again let us still remember that albeit the work of the Law be written in our hearts so it was in the hearts of the very heathens that albeit we give Conscience full Audience and leave to examine us by the Law of God whether written in our hearts or in the sacred Book yet is it but a small part of our accounts which we shall be able to read in the Register of our own Consciences in respect of what is to be found written in that Book or Scrowl which shall be opened and unfolded in the day of final Iudgement Rev. 20. 12. Howbeit even so much as every man which will diligently hearken to his own Conscience shall in this life be able to read and hear distinctly will make deep impression in his heart and wound his very spirit And as Solomon speaks a wounded Spirit who can bear rather who can heal it None but he that shall be our Judge Yet may we not look that when he shall come to judge all he will vouchsafe to heal any He healeth all our infirmities as he is our High-Priest not as he is our Judge And so healed by him our Consciences must be in this life otherwise the wound will prove deadly and incurable in that last day Nothing besides the wounds of Christ can cure the wounds and sores of our spirits and consciences Therefore was he smitten and bruised therefore was he wounded unto death that his blood poured forth might be as a Fountain of Oyl or Balm to cure and heal the broken hearted For The broken hearted onely are his true Patients All of us one time or other must feel the sting of Serpents more fiery then such as stung the Israelites in the wilderness even the sting of death and of that old Serpent which in our first Parents envenomed our nature before we can thirst after this fountain of life with that fervencie of spirit which he requireth in his Patients without this thirst thus occasioned by this sting of conscience and poyson of sin in some measure apprehended by us we cannot drink the water of life or suck in the balm of health and salvation which issued out of Christs wounds in such a plentiful measure as may cure the festered wounds of our souls and consciences and purge us from that corruption which we and our Fathers have sucked from our first Parents or contracted by the incessant overflow of our actual and daily sins 10. Yet is not this apprehension of our actual and daily sins or the smart or sting of conscience so perpetually uncessant in any one of us but that we may feel or perceive some interposed gleams of joy and comfort some Gratulations of our Consciences for businesses sincerely managed by us or for those particular actions or good deeds which in respect of some one or other circumstance we have done amiss but for their substance well and with a good intention and without a sinister respect to our own private temporal ends or to the prejudice of others with whom we live So that no man unless he be much wanting to himself can want undoubted Experiments in himself of a future and Final Judgement or of the Two-fold sentence which in it shall be awarded to all according to the diversity of their ways As often then as any of us shall feel the sting or perceive the check of our consciences for the evils we have done let us take this irksomness or indisposition of our minds and souls not for a meer effect of natural Melancholie though that perhaps may concur as a cause to increase our heaviness but rather take all together as a Crisis of that disease growing upon our souls which unless it be cured by our heavenly Physician in this life will prove incurable in that last and dreadful day and will bring upon us perpetual weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth If our Consciences again at any time shall Congratulate us for well doing we may take these Congratulations or Applauses of our souls and spirits as so many undoubted pledges or earnests of that unspeakable and uncessant joy which the supream Iudge shall award to all that by constancy in well-doing acknowledge him for their Soveraign Lord and expect him as their supream Iudge If we cease not to continue these good actions or performances he will not cease to renew the undoubted pledges or earnests of eternal Joy unto us daily For so S. Paul saith He will render to every man according to his deeds To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortalitie eternal life But unto them that are contentious indignation and wrath tribulation anguish c. 11. The best use which the Heathens as meer Heathens made of such Notions as nature had implanted in them of a future Judgement or rather their misapplications of what nature did rightly suggest unto them to this purpose cannot better be resembled then by the use or applications which men naturally make of Dreams Now of Dreams some are vain and idle as arising onely from the Garboils of the Phantasie most frequent in men sick or distempered or from such thoughts discourses or speeches as we have entertained by day or been entertained with for some short time before Of these Dreams and of their serious observation that of The Son of Sirach Eccl. 34. 1 2 3. is most true The hopes of a man void of understanding are vain and false and dreams lift up fools Who so regardeth dreams is like him that catcheth at a shadow and followeth after the wind The vision of dreams is like the resemblance of one thing to another even as the likeness of a face to a face Howbeit even such Dreams may be resolved into some natural Causes precedent Nor do men fail in the apprehension of particulars represented
Kingdom to give it countenance And whilst either the Church or Lawes of the Kingdom do enjoyn you to do these things which in themselves are not unlawful in obeying them you obey Gods Law which commands obedience in disobeying them you disobey the Lawes of God which forbid disobedience to the higher powers If then you will obey the Lawes specially where they command fasting or abstinence or devotion in publick God will blesse your private devotions and your use of meat and drink the better CHAP. XXVII ROMANS 6. 23. For the wages of sin is Death but the Gift of God is Everlasting Life through Jesus Christ our Lord. About the Merit of Good Works The Romanists Allegations from the force of The word Mereri amongst the Ancients and for the Thing it self out of Holy Scriptures The Answers to them all respectively Some prove Aut nihil aut nimium The different value and importance of Causal particles For Because c. A difference between Not worthie and Unworthie Christs sufferings though in Time finite of value infinite Pleasure of sin short yet deserves infinite punishment Bad works have the Title of Wages and Desert to Death But so have not good works to Life Eternal 1. DEath as was expressed in the 21. verse is the End of sin and Life Eternal as you have it verse the 22. is the End of Holinesse or of the service of God The Proof of both Assertions you have in this 23. verse because Death is the wages of sin and Life Eternal the Gift of God the last and best Gift wherewith he crowneth such as serve him in holinesse and righteousnesse Now the final recompence or reward whether that be good or bad is the End or Period of all our wayes or works Herein then doth Life and death everlasting only agree that as well the One as the Other is the End or issue of mens several wayes or courses here on earth Yet these Ends are Contrary the one to the other and so are the wayes which lead unto them The only way to the One is Righteousness and holiness the ready way unto the other is sin and wickedness But however sin be injustice and the author of sin be most unjust yet herein they both observe the Rule of Justice that they pay their servants their wages to a mite and unlesse the righteous Judge did moderate their cruelty they would pay their servants more then is their due But doth not the Just Judge deal so with his servants Yes he payes them more then is their due yet this he doth without injustice for he rewardeth them not according to the Rule of Justice but according to his Mercy and Bountie To punish men beyond their desert is injustice But to Reward men above their deserts is no way contrary to Justice but an Act of mercy triumphing over Justice But hath Justice no hand no finger in distribution of the Final Reward of Holinesse This is or should be the brief issue of that great Controversie between the Romanists and Reformed Churches An bona opera renatorum mereantur vitam aeternam Whether the Good Works of men regenerate do deserve or merit eternal life And it is a very Good Rule which a Great Champion of Reformed Churches hath given us To reduce all Controversies to those places of Scripture wherein they are properly seated and out of whose sense or meaning they are emergent To handle them especially in Pulpit upon other occasions or to go out of our way to meet with them is but to nurse Contention And of all the places in Scripture which are brought either Pro or Con for the Merit of Works none is more pertinent none more fit to be discussed then this 23. verse of Rom. 6. Those Answers which are often given by Romanists unto other places of Scripture alleadged by our Writers will appear impertinent if they be rightly examined by our Apostles Conclusion in this Chapter Our Method in handling this Controversie shall be this First To set down the Arguments brought by the Romanist for establishing the Merit of Works Secondly To press the sense and meaning of our Apostle in this 23. ver of Rom. 6. against them Thirdly To joyn issue with them or to set down The true State of the Question not only betwixt us and them but between the just Judge and our own souls and Consciences 2. First They alledge That the word Merit is frequent in the Antient Fathers of the Church and that albeit the same Word be not so frequent in the Scripture yet the matter it self which the Fathers expresse by the word mereri is often intimated or necessarily implyed in Terms Equivalent And if we agree upon the Matter it is but a vanity to wrangle about Words Both points of their Allegation deserve the scanning To the First Concerning the word mereri or to merit in the Latine Fathers we reply that as Coyns or metals instamped so Words do change their value or importance in different Ages and in several Nations Custom hath as great authority in the one Case as Soveraign power hath in the other Mereri to merit imports as much in the antient secular Roman or Latine Writers as to deserve that which we sue for or attain unto or to have a just Title unto it So a Souldier is said to merit his pay a servant his wages and good States-men or Commanders in warre their honours But unto this pitch or scantling the Ecclesiastick Writers as St. Austine St. Jerome or later as St. Bernard do not extend the word Merit Mereri according to their meanings is no more then Assequi that is to attain or get that which men desire So Turonensis brings in a blind man supplicating to an Holy Man of his time in this form Ut possim per preces tuas mereri visum that I may merit my sight through your prayers In which words the word Mereri to merit can imply no more either in the poor mans meaning or in this Historians then Assequi to get or obtain For no man can merit any thing by anothers prayers If these could properly merit or deserve any thing at Gods hand the merit should be his whose prayers God vouchsafed to hear not his for whom he prayed The same word Mereri with some Writers doth not import so much as to obtain or get any thing at Gods hands by vertue of our own or others prayers but only to be an Occasion or Condition without which that which befals us though not desired by us should not have befallen us So as we said before one speaks of Adams sin Felix peccatum quod talem meruit redemptorem O happy sin which merited such a Redeemer Now there is nothing in the world which could less deserve any benefit at Gods hand then sin which yet was the Occasion or Condition without which the Son of God had not been incarnate at least had not been Consecrated through Affliction
servant Mat. 18. 23. We are in many respects bound most strictly to render unto God himself according to his reward It was Hezekiahs sin that he did not so 2 Chro. 32. 24 First because he hath prevented us with his blessings he gave us Being before we could desire it and with it He gave us a desire of continuing it Secondly he gave it Us of his meer freewill and abundant kindness And therefore in all equitie we are bound First to render what possibly we can unto Him and that with greater alacritie and cheerfulness then unto man for his sake as Reason teacheth us to perform our personal duties and services to our Parents Patrons and Benefactors with greater care and forwardness then such offices as for their sakes we owe to their Followers or Favorites Hence may we descry the equitie of those two main Commandments on which the whole Law and Prophets depend Love God above all and thy neighbor as thy self All the services of worship of praise thankfulness or the like which we return immediately to God himself belong unto the First Table All the duties we perform to men either because we have received or could desire like kindness from them or because we expect some greater matters from God belong unto the second Table It remains we see how this Rule doth direct our thoughts for the true practice of every particular Commandment What I omitt your own meditation may easily supply 8. None of us as in charity I presume is so ignorant of God or his Goodness but often prayes that he would continue his blessings of life and health unto us desiring withall that he would do some other good unto us which yet we want Could we in the next place take a perfect measure of our own desires of what we want whilst they are fresh and at the height and withall duly weigh those Blessings of life and health considering the full and sole dependence they have on the good-wil and pleasure of our God the strength of the one and weight of the other could not but impell and sway our minds to performance of such duties towards God as his Law and this Rule of Reason require These are good Beginnings of such performances as this Rule requires But here we usually commit a double oversight First We do not weigh blessings received as duly and truly as we should For who is he that truly considers what life is till he come in danger of death Or how pleasant health is till he be pained with some grievous sickness wound or other maladie Or if we come by such occasions duly to esteem of life and health or other blessings already injoyed or to take a true measure of our desires of what we want whilst they are fresh and at the height yet either we apprehend not or we consider not what absolute and intire dependance the beginning or continuance of benefits received or the compleating of others desired have on the good-will and pleasure of our God We think we are in part beholden to our Parents for our Life to our Physician to our strength of nature or good diet for recovery of health to our own wit or friends for obtaining such things as we desire These or like conceits arising from ignorance of Gods providence or want of faith in his Goodness are as so many props or stayes that hinder the weight of his best Blessings or the strength of our desires of further good to have their full shock upon our souls and minds Otherwise the true consideration or feeling of their dependence on Gods will and pleasure would sway and impel us to do our duty to him with the same alacritie we desire good from him to love him with all our heart with all our souls with all our strength yea we would be as desirous to do his will and pleasure as we are to obtain the things that please us as unwilling any way to displease him as we are to forgo any thing we have from him As willing to consecrate our lives and actions to his service as we are to injoy life and use of limbs If a Land-lord should command his Tenant at will to do him such a business perhaps to go some errand of importance for him or else he should go without his Tenement but promise him a better if he did it faithfully The sweetness as well of what he injoyed as of the Reward he looked for would disperse it self throughout his thoughts and season his labour with chearfulness and make all his very pains sweet unto him But if he had lately received an Estate for Lives and could not hope for any further good shortly to come from him although perhaps he would do what his Lord bad him least he should be upbraided with unthankfulness Yet his service would but be faint and cold in respect of the former like his that wrought as we say for the dead Horse This may serve to set forth the difference betwixt the faithful or true believers and the unfaithful or unbelievers heart in the performance of this great Commandment The unbeliever although he acknowledge in some sort That he received all he hath and must expect all he hopes for from God and in this respect must do what God commands yet if at any time he do his Will it is without all Devotion or Chearfulness partly because he thinks the Blessings he looks for must be gotten by his own indeavor and such as he hath have been improved by his own good husbandrie nor doth he fear that the Lord should dispossess him of life or health but there will be time enough to gain or renue his Favour before his Lease as he takes it of life of health and prosperitie be run out The faithful man stedfastly believes and knows that God is the Lord and giver of life that he kils and makes alive that he wounds and alone makes whole that we have no hold of either but only during the Term of his Will and Pleasure he firmly believes all the threatnings of his Law as that either God will punish sinners with sudden and unexpected death saying unto them as he did unto the rich man in the Gospel Thou Fool this night shall thy soul be taken from thee or else suffers them to injoy life and health and other Blessings to their greater condemnation He believes likewise all his promises to the righteous to such as do his will Whence as well the Goodness of all the Blessings he injoyes life health wealth and estate as of those which he hopes for whether in this life or in the life to come do as it were provoke a desire in him of worshipping God and doing his will equal at least to his desire of either having present blessings continued or greater bestowed upon him His joy in praysing God and keeping his Laws is greater then in the injoying of life of his soul his strength or other endowments His life is