an Oral Tradition which they themselves had not put in writing They do sometimes refer themselves to such things as they had delivered to particular Churches but by Tradition in the Apostles days and for some Ages after it is very clear that they meant only the conveyance of the Faith and not any unwritten Doctrines They reckoned the Faith was a sacred depositum which was committed to them and that was to be preserved pure among them But it were very easy to shew in the continued Succession of all the first Christian Writers That they still Appealed to the Scriptures That they Argued from them That they Condemned all Doctrines that were not contained in them and when at any time they brought human Authorities to justify their Opinions or Expressions they contented themselves with a very few and those very late Authorities So that their design in vouching them seems to be rather to clear themselves from the Imputation of having innovated any thing in the Doctrine or in the ways of expressing it than that they thought those Authorities were necessary to prove them by For in that case they must have taken a great deal more pains than they did to have followed up and proved the Tradition much higher than they went We do also plainly see that such Traditions as were not founded on Scripture were easily corrupted and on that account were laid aside by the succeeding Ages Such were the Opinion of Christ's Reign on Earth for a Thousand years The Saints not seeing God till the Resurrection The necessity of giving Infants the Eucharist The Divine Inspiration of the 70 Interpreters besides some more important Matters which in respect to those Times are not to be too much descanted upon It is also plain That the Gnosticks the Valentinians and other Hereticks began very early to set up a Pretension to a Tradition delivered by the Apostles to some particular persons as a Key for understanding the secret meanings that might be in Scripture in opposition to which both Irenaeus Tertullian and others Iren. I. 3. c. 1 2 3 4 5. Tertul. de presc Cap. 20 21 25 27 28. make use of Two sorts of Arguments The one is the Authority of the Scripture it self by which they confuted their Errors The other is a Point of Fact That there was no such Tradition In asserting this they appeal to those Churches which had been founded by the Apostles and in which a Succession of Bishops had been continued down They say in these we must search for Apostolical Tradition This was not said by them as if they had designed to establish Tradition as an Authority distinct from or equal to the Scriptures But only to shew the falshood of that pretence of the Hereticks and that there was no such Tradition for their Heresies as they gave out When this whole Matter is considered in all its parts such as 1 st That nothing is to be believed as an Article of Faith unless it appears to have been Revealed by God 2 dly That Oral Tradition appâ—ars both from the Nature of Man and the Experience of former Times to be an incompetent conveâ—er of Truth 3 dly That some Books were written for the conveyance of those Matters which have been in all Ages carefully preserved and esteemed sacred 4 thly That the Writers of the First Ages do always Argue from and Appeal to these Books And 5 thly That what they have said without Authority from them has been rejected in succeeding Ages the Truth of this Branch of our Article is fully made out If what is contain'd in theScripture in express words is theObject of our Faith then it will follow That whatsoever may be proved from thence by a just and lawful consequence is also to be believed Men may indeed Err in framing these Consequences and Deductions they may mistake or stretch them too far but though there is much Sophistry in the World yet there is also true Logick and a certain Thread of Reasoning And the sense of every Proposition being the same whether expressed always in the same or in different words then whatsoever appears to be clearly the sense of any place of Scripture is an Object of Faith tho it should be otherwise expressed than as it is in Scripture and every just Inference from it must be as true as the Proposition it self is Therefore it is a vain cavil to ask express words of Scripture for every Article That was the Method of all the Anciâ—nt Hereticks Christ and his Apostles Argued from the words and passages in the Old Testament to prove such things as agreed with the true sense of them and so did all the Fathers and therefore so may we do The great Objection to this is That the Scriptures are dark That the same place is capable of different Senses the Literal and the Mystical And therefore since we cannot understand the true Sense of the Scripture we must not Arguefrom it but seek for an Interpreterofit on whom we may depend All Sects Argue from thence and fancy that they find their Tenets in it And therefore this can be no sure way of finding out sacred Truth since so many do err that follow it In Answer to this it is to be considered That the Old Testament was delivered to the whole Nation of the Iews that Moses was read in the Synagogue in the hearing of the Women and Children that whole Nation was to take their Doctrine and Rules from it All Appeals wâ—re made to the Law and to the Prophets among them And though the Propâ—â—cies of the Old Testament were in their Stile and whole Contexture dark and hard to be understood yet when so great a Question as this Who was the true Messias came to be examined the proofs urged for it were Passages in the Old Testament Now the Question was How these were to be understood No Appeal was here made to Tradition or to Church-Authority but only by the Enemies of our Saviour Whereas he and his Disciples urge these passages in their true sense and in the consequences that arose out of them They did in that Appeal to the rational Faculties of those to whom they spoke The Christian Religion was at first delivered to poor and simple Multitudes who were both illiterate and weak the Epistles which are by much the hardest to be understood of the whole New Testament were Addressed to the whole Churches to all the Faithful or Saints that is to all the Christians in those Churches These were afterwards read in all thâ—ir Assemblies Upon this it may reasonably be asked Were these Writings clear in that Age or were they not If they were not it is unaccountable why they were addressed to the whole Body and how they came to be received and entertained as they were It is the End of Speech and Writing to make things to be understood and it is not supposable That Men Inspired by the Holy Ghost either could not or would
impossible to understand it so we conclude that we are in the Right to understand the whole Period in a mystical and figurative Sense And therefore since a Man born and bred a Iew and more particularly accustomed to the Paschal Ceremonies could not have understood our Saviour's Words chiefly at the time of that Festivity otherwise than of a New Covenant that he was to make in which his Body was to be broken and his blood shed for the remission of Sins and that he was to substitute Bread and Wine to be the lasting Memorials of it in the repeating of which his Disciples were to renew their Covenant with God and to claim a share in the blessings of it this I say was the Sense that must naturally have occurred to a Iew upon all this we must conclude that this is the true Sense of these Words Or that otherwise our Saviour must have enlarged more upon them and expressed his meaning more particularly Since therefore he said no more than what according to the Ideas and Customs of the Iews must have been understood as has been explained we must conclude that it and it only is the true Sense of them But we must next consider the importance of a long Discourse of our Saviour's set down by St. Iohn which seems such a preparation of his Apostles to understand this Institution literally John 6.32 33. that the weight of this Argument must turn upon the meaning of that Discourse The design of that was to shew that the Doctrine of Christ was more Excellent than the Law of Moses that though Moses gave the Israelites Manna from Heaven to nourish their Bodies yet notwithstanding that they died in the Wilderness But Christ was to give his Followers such Food that it should give them Life so that if they did eat of it they should never die Where it is apparent that the Bread and nourishment must be such as the life was and that being Eternal and Spiritual the Bread must be so understood For it is clearly expressed how that Food was to be received he that believeth on me hath everlasting life 40. v. Since then he had formerly said that the Bread which he was to give should make them live for ever and since here it is said that this Life is given by Faith then this Bread must be his Doctrine For this is that which Faith receives And when the Iews desired him to give them evermore of that Bread he answered I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall never hunger 47 48 51. v. and he that believeth on me shall never thirst In these words he tells them that they received that Bread by coming to him and by believing on him Christ calls himself that Bread and says that a Man must eat thereof which is plainly a Figure and if Figures are confessed to be in some Parts of their Discourse there is no reason to deny that they run quite through it Christ says that this Bread was his flesh which he was to give for the life of the world which can only be meant of his Offering himself up upon the Cross for the Sins of the World The Iews murmured at this and said how can this Man give us his flesh to eat To which our Saviour answers That except they did eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man 53 54 55. v. they had no life in them Now if these words are to be understood of a literal eating of his Flesh in the Sacrament then no Man can be saved that does not receive it It was a natural Consequence of the expounding these Words of the Sacrament to give it to Children since it is so expresly said that Life is not to be had without it But the words that come next carry this Matter farther whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life It is plain that Christ is here speaking of that without which no Man can have Life and by which all who receive it have Life if therefore this is to be expounded of the Sacrament none can be damned that does receive it and none can be saved that receives it not Therefore since eternal life does always follow the eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking his blood and cannot be had without it then this must be meant of an Internal and Spiritual feeding on him For as none are saved without that so all are saved that have it This is yet clearer from the words that follow my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed It may well be inferred that Christ's Flesh is eaten in the same Sense in which he says it is meat now certainly it is not literally meat For none do say that the Body is nourished by it and yet there is somewhat Emphatical in this since the word indeed is not added in vain but to give weight to the Expression It is also said He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him â—6 v. Here the description seems to be made of that eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood that it is such as the mutual indwelling of Christ and Believers is Now that is certainly only Internal and Spiritual and not Carnal or Literal And therefore such also must the eating and drinking be All this seems to be very fully confirmed from the Conclusion of that Discourse which ought to be considered as the Key to it all for when the Iews were offended at the hardness of Christ's Discourse he said It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing v. 6â— The words I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life Which do plainly Import that his former Discourse was to be understood in a spiritual Sense that it was a divine Spirit that quickned them or gave them that eternal Life of which he had been speaking And that the Flesh his natural Body was not the conveyer of it All this is confirmed by the Sense in which we find eating and drinking frequently used in the Scriptures according to what is observed by Iewish Writers they stand for Wisdom Learning and all intellectual Apprehensions through which the Soul of Man is preserved by the Perfection that is in them as the Body is preserved by Food So buy and eat eat fat of things drink of wine well refined Maimonides also observes Mâ—râ— Nevochim that whensoever eating and drinking are mentioned in the Book of Proverbs that they are to be understood of Wisdom and the Law And after he has brought several Places of Scripture to this Purpose He concludes that because this acceptation of eating occurs so often and is so manifest as if it were the primary and most proper Sense of the Word therefore hunger and thirst stand for a privation of Wisdom and Vnderstanding And the Caldee Paraphrast turns these Words ye shall draw Water out of the Wells of Salvation thus
Name This increased daily We have a full Account of the special Declaration that a Bishop was obliged to make in the First Canon of that which passeth for the Fourth Council of Carthage But while by reason of new Emergencies this was swelling to a vast Bulk General and more Implicit Formularies came to be used the Bishops declaring that they received and would observe all the Decrees and Traditions of Holy Coâ—â—cils and Fathers And the Papacy coming afterwards to carry every thing before it a Formal Oath that had many loose and indefinite words in it which were very large and comprehensive was added to all the Declarations that had been formerly established The Enlargements of Creeds were at first occasioned by the Prevarications of Hereticks who having put Senses favouring their Opinions on the simpler Terms in which the First Creeds were proposed it was thought necessary to use more express words This was absolutely necessary as to some Points for they being obliged to shew that the Christian Religion did not bring in that Idolatry which it condemned in Heathens it was also necessary to state this matter so that it should appear that they worshipped no Creature but that the Person to whom all agreed to pay Divine Adoration was truly God And it being found that an Equivocation was used in all other words except that of the same Substance they judged it necessary to fix on it besides some other words that they at first brought in but which were afterwards made more doubtful by the Glosses that were put on them At all times it is very necessary to free the Christian Religion from the Imputation of Idolatry but this was never so necessary as when Christianity was engaged in such a Struggle with Paganism And since the main Article then in dispute with the Heathens was Idolatry and the Lawfulness of worshipping any besides the Great and Eternal God it was of the last Importance to the Christian Cause to take care that the Heathens might have no reason to believe that they worshipped a Creature There was therefore just reason given to secure this main Point and to put an end to Equivocation by establishing a Term which by the Confession of all Parties did not admit of any It had been a great Blessing to the Church if a Stop had been put here and that those nice Descantings that were afterwards so much pursued had been more effectually discouraged than they were But men ever were and ever will be men Factions were formed and Interests were set up Hereticks had shewed so much Dissimulation when they were low and so much Cruelty when they prevailed that it was thought necessary to secure the Church from the Disturbances that they might give them And thus it grew to be a Rule to enlarge the Doctrines and Decisions of the Church So that in stating the Doctrines of this Church so copiously our Reformers followed a Method that had been used in a course of many Ages There were besides this common Practice two particular Circumstances in that time that made this seem to be the more necessary One was That at the breaking out of that Light there sprang up with it many impious and extravagant Sects which broke out into most violent Excesses This was no extraordinary thing for we find the like happened upon the first spreading of the Gospel many detestable Sects grew up with it which tended not a little to the defaming of Christianity and the obstructing its Progress I shall not examine what Influence Evil Spirits might have both in the one and the other Bâ—t one visible occasion of it was That by the first Preaching of the Gospel as also upon the opening the Reformation an Enquiry into the Matters of Religion being then the Subject of mens Studies and Discourses many men of warm and ill-govern'd Imaginations presuming on their own Talents and being desirous to signalize themselves and to have a Name in the World went beyond their Depth in Sâ—udy without the necesâ—ary degrees of Knowledge and the yet more necessary dispositions of Mind for arriving at a right understanding of Divine Matters This happening soon after that the Reformation was first set on foot those whose Corruptions were struck at by it and who both hated and persecuted it on that account did not fail to lay hold of and to improve the Advantage which these Seâ—ts gave them They said That the Sectaries had only spoke out what the rest thought and at last they held to this That all Sects were the Natural Consequences of the Reformation and of shaking off the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church To stop those Calumnies the Protestants in Germany prepared that Confession of their Faith which they offered to the Diet as Ausburg and which carries its name And after their Example all the other Churches which separated from the Roman Communion published the Confessions of their Faith both to declare their Doctrine for the Instruction of their own Members and for covering them from the Slanders of their Adversaries Another reason that the first Reformers had for their descending into so many Particulars and for all these Negatives that are in their Confessions was this They had smarted long under the Tyranny of Popery and so they had reason to secure themselves from it and from all those who were leavened with it Those here in England had seen how many had complied with every Alteration both in King Henry and King Edward's Reign who not only declared themselves to have been all the while Papists but became bloody Persecutors in Q. Mary's Days Therefore it was necessary to keep all such out of their Body that they might not secretly undermine and betray it Now since the Church of Rome owns all that is positive in our Doctrine there could be no Discrimination made but by condemning the most important of those additions that they have brought into the Christian Religion in express words It is true that in Matters of Fact or in Theories of Nature it is not safe to affirm a Negative because it is seldom possible to prove it yet the Fundamental Article upon which the whole Reformation and this our Church depends is this That the whole Doctrines of the Christian Religion are contained in the Scripture and that therefore we are to admit no Article as a part of it till it is proved from Scripture This being laid down and well made out it is not at all unreasonable to affirm a Negative upon an Examination of all those places of Scripture that are brought for any Doctrine and that seem to favour it if these are found not at all to support it but to bear a different and sometimes a contrary sense to that which is offered to be proved by them So there is no weight in this cavil which yet may look plausible to such as cannot distinguish common Matters from Points of Faith This may serve in general to justify the largeness and the
Figuratively of the Wrath of God due for Sin which Christ bore in his Soul besides the Torments that he suffered in his Body And they think that these are here mentioned by themselves after the Enumeration of the several steps of his bodily Sufferings And this being equal to the Torments of Hell as it is that which delivers us from them might in a large way of Expression be called a descending into Hell But as neither the word descend nor Hell are to be found in any other place of Scripture in this sense nor in any of the Ancients among whom the Signification of this Phrase is more likely to be found than among Moderns So this being put after Buried it plainly shews that it belongs to a period subsequent to his Burial There is therefore no regard to be had to this Notion Othets have thought That by Christ's descent into Hell is to be understood his continuing in the State of the Dead for some time But there is no Ground for this conceit neither these words being to be found in no Author in that Signification Many of the Fathers thought That Christ's Soul went locally into Hell and preached to some of the Spirits there in Prison 1 Pet. 3.19 that there he triumphed over Satan and spoiled him and carried some Souls with him into Glory But the account that the Scriptures give us of the Exaltation of Christ begins it always at his Resurrection Nor can it be imagined That so memorable a Transaction as this would have been passed over by the Three first Evangelists and least of all by St. Iohn who coming after the rest and designing to supply what was wanting in them and intending particularly to magnify the Glory of Christ could not have passed over so wonderâ—ul an Instance of it We have no reason to think that such a matter would have been only insinuated in general words and not have been plainly related The Triumph of Christ over Principalities and Powers is ascribed by St. Paul to his Cross and was the Effect and Result of his Death The place of St. Peter seems to relate to the Preaching to the Gentile World by virtue of that Inspiration that was derived from Christ which was therefore called his Spirit and the Spirits in Prison were the Gentiles who were shut up in Idolatry as in Prison Eph. 2.2 2 Cor. 4.4 Isa. 61.2 and so were under the Power of the Prince of the Power of the Air who is called the God of this World that is of the Gentile World It being one of the ends for which Christ was Anointed of his Father to open the prisons to them that were bound So then though there is no harm in this Opinion yet it not being Founded on any part of the History of the Gospel and it being supported only by passages that may well bear another sense we may lay it aside notwithstanding the Reverence we bear to those that asserted it and that the rather because the first Fathers that were next the Source say nothing of it Another Counceit has had a great course among some of the latest Fathers and the Schoolmen They have fancied that there was a place to which they have given a peculiar name Limbus Patrum a sort of a Partition in Hell where all the Good Men of the Old Dispensation that had died before Christ were detained and they hold that our Saviour went thither and emptied that Place carrying all the Souls that were in it with him to Heaven Of this the Scriptures say nothing not a word either of the Patriarchs going thither or of Christ's delivering them out of it And though there are not in the Old Testament express Declarations and Promises made concerning a Future State Christ having brought life and immortality to light through his Gospel yet all the Hints given of it shew that they looked for an Immediate Admission to Blessedness after death So David Thou wilt shew me the path of life Psal. 16.11 Acts 2.31 Psal. 73.27 Isa. 37.2 in thy presence is fulness of joy and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore Thou shalt guide me here by thy counsel and afterwards receive me to glory Isaiah says That the righteous when they dye enter into peace In the New Testament there is not a Hint given of this for though some Passages may seem to favour Christ's delivering some Souls out of Hell yet there is nothing that by any management can be brought to look this way There is another Sense of which these words descended into Hell are capable See Bishop Person on the Creed by Hell may be meant the Invisible Place to which departed Souls are carried after their death For though the Greek word so rendred does now commonly stand for the Place of the Damned and for many Ages has been so understood yet at the time of writing the New Testament it was among Greek Authors used indifferently for the place of all departed Souls whether good or bad and by it were meant the Invisible Regions where those Spirits were lodged So if these words are taken in this large sense we have in them a clear and literal account of our Saviour's Soul descending into Hell it imports that he was not only dead in a more common acceptation as it is usual to say a man is dead when there appear no signs of life in him and that he was not as in a deep Extasy or Fit that seemed Death but that he was truly dead that his Soul was neither in his Body noâ— hovering about it ascending and descending upon it as some of the Iews fancied Souls did for some time after death but that his Soul was really removed out of his Body and carried to those unseen Regions of departed Spirits among whom it continued till his Resurrection That the Regions of the Blessed were known then to the Iews by the name of Paradise as Hell was known by the name of Gehenna is very clear from Christ's last Words To day thou shalt be with me in Paradise â—uke 23 4â— â—6 and into thy hands do I commend my spirit This is a plain and full account of a good Sense that may be well put on the Words though after all it is still to be remembred That in the first Creeds that have this Article that of Christ's Burial not being mentioned in them it follows from thence as well as from Ruffin's own Sense of it that they understood this only of Christ's Burial ARTICLE IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ. Christ did truly rise again from Death and took again his Body with Flesh Bones and all things appertaining to the Perfection of Man's Nature wherewith he ascended into Heaven and there sitteth until he return to judge all Men at the Last Day THere are Four Branches of this Article The First is concerning the Truth of Christ's Resurrection The Second concerning the Compleatness of it That he took to him again his whole
Testimony that Christ and his Apostles gave to those Books as they were then received by the Iewish Church to whom were committed the Oracles of God Now it is not so much as pretended that ever these Books were received among the Iews or were so much as known to them None of the Writers of the New Testament cite or mention them neither Philo nor Iosephus speak of them Iosephus on the contrary says they had only 22 Books that deserved belief but that those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes were not of equal credit with the rest And that in that Period they had no Prophets at all The Christian Church was for some Ages an utter Stranger to those Books Melito Bishop of Sardis being desired by Onesimus to give him a perfect Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament took a Journey on purpose to the East to examine this matter at its Source And having as he says made an exact Enquiry he sent him the Names of them just as we receive the Canon of which Eusebius says that he has preserved it Euseb. hist l. 4. c. 26. because it contained all those Books which the Church owned Origen gives us the same Catalogue according to the Tradition of the Iews who divided the Old Testament into 22 Books In Psal. 1. according to the Letters of their Alphabet Athanasius reckons them up in the same manner to be 22 and he more distinctly says that he delivered those In Synop. as they had received them by Tradition In Eppasch and as they were received by the whole Church of Christ because some presumed to mix Apocryphal Books with the Divine Scriptures And therefore he was set on it by the Orthodox Brethren in order to declare the Canonical Books delivered as such by Tradition and believed to be of Divine Inspiration It is true he adds That besides these there were other Books which were not put into the Canon but yet were appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who first come to be instructed in the way of Piety And then he reckons up most of the Apocryphal Books Here is the first mention we find of them as indeed it is very probable they were made at Alexandria by some of those Iews who lived there in great Numbers Both Hilary and Cyril of Ierusalem give us the same Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament and affirm that they delivered them thus according to the Tradition of the Ancients Cyril says That all other Books are to be put in a Second Order Catech. 4. Gregory Nazienzen reckons up the 22 Books and adds that none besides them are genuine The words that are in the Article are repeated by St. Ierom in several of his Prefaces And that which should determine this whole matter is Can. 59. and 60. That the Council of Laodicea by an express Canon delivers the Catalogue of the Canonical Books as we do decreeing that these only should be read in the Church Now the Canons of this Council were afterwards received into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church so that here we have the concurring sense of the whole Church of God in this matter It is true the Book of the Revelation not being reckoned in it this may be urged to detract from its Authority But it was already proved that that Book was received much Earlier into the Canon of the Scriptures so the design of this Canon being to establish the Authority of those Books that were to be read in the Church the darkness of the Apocalypse making it appear reasonable not to read it publickly that may be the reason why it is not mentioned in it as well as in some later Catalogues Here we have four Centuries clear for our Canon in Exclusion to all Additions It were easy to carry this much further down and to shew that these Books were never by any express definition received into the Canon till it was done at Trent And that in all the Ages of the Church even after they came to be much esteemed there were divers Writers and those generally the most learned of their time who denied them to be a part of the Canon At first many Writings were read in the Churches that were in high reputation both for the sake of the Authors and of the Contents of them though they were never lookt on as a part of the Canon Can. 47. Such were Clemens's Epistle the Books of Hermas the Acts of the Martyrs besides several other things which were read in particular Churches And among these the Apocryphal Books came also to be read as containing some valuable Books of Instruction besides several Fragments of the Iewish History which were perhaps too easily believed to be true These therefore being usually read they came to be reckoned among Canonical Scriptures For this is the reason assigned in the Third Council of Carthage for calling them Canonical because they had received them from their Fathers as Books that were to be read in Churches And the word Canonical was by some in those Ages used in a large sense in opposition to spurious so that it signified no more than that they were genuine So much depends upon this Article that it seemed necessary to dwell fully upon it and to state it clearly It remains only to observe the Diversity between the Articles now Established and those set forth by K. Edward In the latter there was not a Catalogue given of the Books of Scripture nor was there any distinction stated between the Canonical and the Apocryphal Books In those there is likewise a Paragraph or rather a Parenthesis added after the words proved thereby in these words Although sometimes it may be admitted by God's faithful People as Pious and conducing unto Order and Decency Which are now left out because the Authority of the Church as to matters of Order and Decency which was only intended to be asserted by this Period is more fully explained and stated in the 35 th Article ARTICLE VII Of the Old Testament The Old Testament is not contrary to the New For both in the Old and New Testament Everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by Christ who is the only Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the Old Fathers did look only for Transitory Promises Although the Law given from God by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian Men nor the Civil-Precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any Commonwealth yet notwithstanding no Christian Man whatsoever is free from the Obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral THIS Article is made up of the Sixth and the Nineteenth of King Edward's Articles laid together Only the Nineteenth of King Edward's has these words after Moral Wherefore they are not to be heard which teach that the Holy Scriptures were given to none but to the
Arguments for the Negative yet that was not necessary For as a Negative always proves it self so that holds more especially here where that which is denied is accompanied with so many and so strange Absurdities as do follow from this Doctrine The last Topick in this Matter is the Sense that the ancient Church had of it For as we certainly have both the Scriptures and the Evidence of our Senses and Reason of our side so that will be much fortified if it appears that no such Doctrine was received in the First and best Ages And that it came in not all at once but by degrees I shall first urge this Matter by some general Presumptions And then I shall go to plain Proofs But though the Presumptions shall be put only as Presumptions yet if they appear to be violent so that a Man cannot hold giving his Assent to the Conclusion that follows from them then though they are put in the Form of presumptive Arguments yet that will not hinder them from being considered as concluding ones By the stating this Doctrine it has appeared how many Difficulties there are involved in it These are Difficulties that are obvious and soon seen They are not found out by deep enquiry and much speculation They are soon felt and are very hardly avoided And ever since the Time that this Doctrine has been received by the Roman Church these have been much insisted on Explanations have been offered to them all and the whole Principles of natural Philosophy have been cast into a new Mould that they might ply to this Doctrine At least those who have studied their Philosophy in that System have had such Notions put in them while their Minds were yet tender and capable of any Impressions that they have been thereby prepared to this Doctrine before they came to it by a Train of Philosophical Terms and Distinctions so that they were not much alarmed at it when it came to be set before them They are accustomed to think that Ubication or the being in a Place is but an Accident to a Substance So that the same Bodies being in more Places is only its having a few more of those Accidents produced in it by God They are accustomed to think that Accidents are Beings different from Matter like a sort of cloathing to it which do indeed require the having of a Substance for their Subject But yet since they are believed to have a being of their own God may make them subsist As the Skin of a Man may stand out in its proper Shape and Colour though there were nothing but Air or Vacuity within it They are accustomed to think that as an Accident may be without its proper Substance so a Substance may be without its proper Accidents And they do reckon Extension and Impenetrability that is a Bodies so filling a Space that no other Body can be in the same Space with it among its Accidents So that a Body composed of Organs and of large Dimensions may be not only all crouded within one Wafer but an entire distinct Body may be in every separable Part of this Wafer At least in every piece that carries in it the Appearances of Bread These besides many other lesser Subtilties are the evident Results of this Doctrine And it was a natural Effect of its being received that their Philosophy should be so transformed as to agree to it and to prepare Men for it Now to apply this to the Matter we are now upon We find none of these Subtilties among the Ancients They seem to apprehend none of those Difficulties nor do they take any pains to solve or clear them They had a Philosophical Genius and shewed it in all other things They disputed very nicely concerning the Attributes of God concerning his Essence and the Persons of the Trinity They saw the Difficulties concerning the Incarnation of the Eternal Word and Christ's being both God and Man They treat of Original Sin of the Power of Grace and of the Decrees of God They explained the Resurrection of our Bodies and the different States of the Blessed and the Damned They saw the Difficulties in all these Heads and were very Copious in their Explanations of them And they may be rather thought by some too full than too sparing in the canvassing of Difficulties But all those were more speculative Matters in which the Difficulty was not so soon seen as on this Subject Yet they found these out and pursued them with that Subtilty that shewed they were not at all displeased when occasions were offered them to shew their Skill in answering Difficulties Which to name no more appears very evidently to be St. Augustin's Character Yet neither he nor any of the other Fathers seem to have been Sensible of the Difficulties in this Matter They neither state them nor answer them nor do they use those reserves when they speak of Philosophical Matters that Men must have used who were possessed of this Doctrine For a Man cannot hold it without bringing himself to think and speak otherways upon all natural Things than the rest of Mankind do They are so far from this that on the contrary they deliver themselves in a way that shews they had no such Apprehensions of Things They thought that all Creatures were limited to one Place And from thence they argued against the Heathens who believed that their Deities were in every one of those Statues which they consecrated to them From this Head they proved the Divinity of the Holy Ghost Because he wrought in many different Places at once Which he could not do if he were only a Creature They affirm that Christ can be no more on Earth since he is now in Heaven and that he can be but in one Place They say that which hath no Bounds nor Figure and that can neither be touched nor seen cannot be a Body That Bodies are extended in some Place and cannot exist after the Manner of Spirits They argue against the Eternity of Matter from this that nothing could be produced that had a Being before it was produced And on all Occasions they appeal to the Testimony of our Senses as Infallible They say that to believe otherwise tended to reverse the whole State of Life and Order of Nature and to reproach the Providence of God since it must be said that he has given the Knowledge of all his Works to Liars and Deceivers if our Senses may be false That we must doubt of our Faith if the Testimony of hearing seeing and feeling could deceive us And in their Contests with the Marcionites and others concerning the Truth of Christ's Body they appeal always to the Testimony of the Senses as Infallible And even treating of the Sacrament they say without Limitation or Exception that it was Bread as their Eyes witnessed and true Wine that Christ did Consecrate to be the Memorial of his Body and Blood and they tell us in this very Particular that we ought not to
Magistratibus REgia Majesâ—as in hoc Angliae regno ac caeteris ejus dominiis summam habet potestatem ad quam omnium statuum hujus regni sive illi Ecclesiastici sint sive civiles in omnibus causis suprema gubernatio pertinet nulli externae jurisdictioni est subjecta nec esse debet Cum Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorundam calumniatorum offendi non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut Sacramentorum administrationem quod etiam Injunctiones ab Elizabetha Regina nostra nuper editae apertissime testantur Sed eam tantum praerogativam quam in sacris Scripturis a Deo ipso omnibus piis Principibus videmus semper fuisse attributam hoc est ut omnes status atque ordines fidei suae a Deo commissos sive illi Ecclesiastici sint sive civiles in officio contineant conâ—umaces ac delinquentes gladio civili coerceant Romanus pontifex nullam habet jurisdictionem in hoc regno Angliae Leges Regni possunt Christianos propter capitalia gravia crimina morte punire Christianis licet ex mandato Magisâ—ratus arma portare justa bella administrare De illicita bonorum communicatione FAcultates bona Christianorum non sunt communia quoad jus possessionem ut quidam Anabaptisâ—ae falso jactant debet tamen quisque de his quae possidet pro facultatum ratione pauperibus eleemosynas benigne distribuere De jure jurando QUemadmodum juramentum vanum temerarium a Domino nostro Jesu Christo Apostolo ejus Jacobo Christianis hominibus interdictum esse faâ—emur 〈◊〉 â—hrisâ—ianorum Religionem minime prohibere censemus quin jubente magistratu in causa fidei charitatis jurare liceat modo id fiat juxta Prophetae doctrinam in justitia in judicio veritate Confirmatio Articulorum HIC liber antedictorum Articulorum jam denuo approbatus est per assensum consensum Serenissimae Reginae Elizabethae Dominae nostrae Dei gratia Angliae â—raâ—ciae Hiberniae Reginae defensoris fidel c. retinendus per totum Regnum Angliae exequendus Qui Articuli lecti sunt denuo confirmati subscriptione D. Archiepiscopi Episcoporum superioris domus totius Cleri inferioris domus in Convocatione Anno Domini 1571. THE TABLE of the Contents INâ—roduction Page 1 Hâ—resies gave the Rise to larger Articles Ibid. A Form of Doctrine settled by the Apostles 2 Bâ—shops sent râ—und them a Declaration of their Faith Ibid. These were afterwards enlarged 3 This dâ—ne at the Council of Nice Ibid. Mâ—ny wild Sects at the beginning of the Reformation 4 And many complying-Papists put them on framing this Collection Ibid. The Articles set out at first by the King's Authority 5 A Question whether they are only Articles of Peace or of Dâ—ctrine 6 They bind the Consciences of the Clergy Ibid. The Laity only bound to Peace by them 7 The Subscription to them imports an Assent to them and not only an acquiescing in them 8 But the Articles may have different Senses and if the Words will bear them there is no Prevâ—rication in subscribing them so Ibid. This illustrated in the Third Article 9 The various Readings of the Articles collated with the MSS. Ibid. An Account of those various Readings 16 ARTICLE I. 17 THat there is a God proved by the Consent of Mankind Ibid. Oâ—j 1. Some Nations do not believe a Deity This is answered 18 Obj. 2. It is not the same Belief among them alâ— This is answered Ibid. The Visible World proves a Deity 19 Time nor Number cannot be Eternal nor Infinite Ibid. Moral Arguments to prove that the World had a Beginning 20 Such a Regular Frame could not be fortuitâ—us Ibid. Objection from the Production of Insects answered 21 Argument from Miracles well attested 22 Argument from the Idea of God examined Ibid. God is Eternal and necâ—ssarily exists 23 The Vnity of the Deity Ibid. God is without Body 24 Outward Manifâ—stations only to declare his Presence and Authority 25 No successive Acts in God 26 Question concerning God's immanent Acts Ibid. God has no Pâ—ssions 27 Phrases in Scripture of these explained Ibid. Some Thoughts concerning the Power and Wisdom of God 28 True Ideas of the Goodness of God Ibid. Of Creation and Annihilation 30 Of the Providence of God 31 Objections against it answered 32 Whether God does immediately produce all things 33 Thought and Liberty not proper to Matter 34 Whether Beasts think or are only Machines Ibid. How Bodies and Spirits are united 35 The Doctrine of the Trinity 36 Whether revealed in the Old Testament or not 37 The Doctrine stated Ibid. Argument from the Form of Baptism 38 Other Arguments for it 39 This was received in the First Ages of Christianity 40 Some Attempt to the stating true Ideas of God 41 ARTICLE II. 43 CHrist how the Son of God Ibid. Argument from the Beginning of St. John's Gospel 44 Reflections on the state of the World at that time 45 Arguments from the Epistle to the Philippians Ibid. Other Arguments complicated 46 Argument from Adoration due to him 47 The Silence of the Jews proves this was not then thought to be Idolatry by them 49 Argument from the Epistle to the Hebrews 50 God and Man in Christ made one Person 51 An Account of Nestorius's Doctrine 52 The Truth of Christ's Resurrection Ibid. Christ was to us an Expiatory Sacrifice 53 An Account of Expiatory Sacrifiâ—eâ— 54 The Agonies of Christ explained 55 ARTICLE III. 56 RUffin first published this in the Creed Ibid. Several Senses put on this Article 57 A Local Descent into Hell Ibid. What may be the true sense of the Article 58 ARTICLE IV. 59 THE Proof of Christ's Resurrection Ibid. The Jews in that Time did not disprove it 60 Several Proofs of the Incredibility of a Forgery in this matter 61 The Nature and Proof of a Miracle 62 What must be ascribed to good or evil Spirits 63 The Apostles could not be imposed on Ibid. Nor could they have imposed on the World 64 Of Christ's Ascension 65 Curiosity in these matters taxed Ibid. The Authority with which Christ is now vested 66 ARTICLE V. 68 THE senses of the word Holy Ghost Ibid. It stands oft for a Person 69 Curiosities to be avoided about Procession Ibid. The Holy Ghost is truly God 70 ARTICLE VI. 71 THE Controversy about Oral Tradition 72 That was soon corrupted Ibid. Guarded against by Revelation 73 Tradition corrupted among the Jews 74 The Scripture appealed to by Christ and the Apostles 75 What is well proved from Scripture 76 Objections from the darkness of Scripture answered 77 No sure guard against Error nor against Sin 78 The Proof of the Canon of the Scripture 79 Particularly of the New Testament 80 These Books were early received 81 The Canon of the Old Testament proved 82 Concerning the Pentateuch 83 Objections against the Old
this we use the Scripture Terms but must confess we cannot frame a distinct Apprehension of that which is so far above us This begetting was from all Eternity If it had been in time the Son and H. Ghost must have been Creatures but if they are truly God they must be Eternal and not produced by having a Being given them but educed of a Substance that was Eternal and from which they did Eternally spring All these are the Natural Consequences of the main Article that is now to be proved and when it is once proved clearly from Scripture these do follow by a natural and necessary deduction The first and great proof of this is taken from the words with which St. Iohn begins his Gospel John 1.1 2 3. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God the same was in the beginning with God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made Here it is to be observed That these words are set down here before St. Iohn comes to speak of Christ's being made in our Nature This passage belongs to another Precedent Being that he had The beginning also here is set to import That it was before Creation or Time Now a Duration before Time is Eternal So this beginning can be no other than that Duration which was before all things that were made It is also plainly said over and over again That all things were made by this Word A Power to Create must be Infinite for it is certain That a Power which can give Being is without Bounds And although the Word make may seem capable of a larger Sense yet as in other places of the New Testament the stricter Word Create is used and applied to Christ as the Maker of all things in Heaven and Earth Visible and Invisible so the Word Make is used through the whole Old Testament for Create so that God's making the Heaven and the Earth is the Character frequently given of him to distinguish him from Idols and false Gods And of this Word it is likewise said That he was with God and was God These words seem very plain and the place where they are put by St. Iohn in the Front of his Gospel as it were an Inscription upon it or an Introduction to it makes it very evident That he who of all the Writers of the New Testament has the greatest Plainness and Simplicity of Stile would not have put words here such as were not to be understood in a plain and literal Signification without any Key to lead us to any other sense of them This had been to lay a Stone of Stumbling in the very Threshold particularly to the Iews who were apt to cavil at Christianity and were particularly jealous of every thing that savoured of Idolatry or of the Plurality of Gods And upon this occasion I desire one thing to be observed with relation to all those Subtile Expositions which those who oppose this Doctrine put upon many of those places by which we prove it That they represent the Apostles as magnifying Christ in words that at first sound seem to Import his being the True God and yet they hold that in all these they had another Sense and a Reserve of some other Interpretation of which their words were capable But can this be thought fair dealing Does it look like honest Men to write thus not to say Men Inspired in what they Preached and Writ and not rather like Impostors to use so many Sublime and Lofty Expressions concerning Christ as God if all these must be taken down to so low a Sense as to signify only that he was miraculously Formed and Endued with an Extraordinary Power of Miracles and an Authority to deliver a New Religion to the World And that he was in consideration of his Exemplary Death which he underwent so patiently raised up from the Grave and had Divine Honours conferred upon him In such an Hypothesis as this the World going in so naturally to the excessive Magnifying and even the Deifying of Wonderful Men it had been necessary to have prevented any such mistakes and to have guarded against the belief of them rather than to have used a continued strain or Expressions that seem to carry Men violently into them and that can hardly nay very hardly be softened by all the Skill of Criticks to bear any other Sense It is to be considered further That when St. Iohn writ his Gospel there were Three sorts of Men particularly to be considered The Iews who could bear nothing that savoured of Idolatry so no Stumbling-block was to be laid in their way to give them deeper Prejudices against Christianity Next to these were the Gentiles who having Worshipped a variety of Gods were not to be indulged in any thing that might seem to favour their Polytheism In Fact we find particular caution used in the New Testament against the Worshipping Angels or Saints How can it therefore be imagined That words would have been used that in the plain Signification that did arise out of the first hearing of them imported that a Man was God if this had not been strictly true The Apostles ought and must have used a particular care to have avoided all such Expressions if they had not been literally true The Third sort of Men in St. Iohn's Time were those of whom Intimation is frequently given through all the Epistles who were then endeavouring to corrupt the Purity of the Christian Doctrine and to accommodate it so both to the Iew and to the Gentile as to avoid the Cross and Persecution upon the account of it Church-History and the Earliest Writers after St. Iohn assure us That Ebion and Cerinthus denied the Divinity of Christ and asserted that he was a mere Man Controversy naturally carries men to speak exactly and among Human Writers those who let things fall more carelesly from their Pens when they apprehend no danger or difficulty are more correct both in their Thoughts and in their Expressions when things are disputed therefore if we should have no other regard to St. Iohn but as an ordinary cautious and careful man we must believe that he weighed all his words in that Point which was then the Matter in Question and to clear which we have good Ground to believe both from the Testimony of Ancient Writers and from the Method that he pursues quite through it all that he Writ his Gospel And that therefore every part of it but this Beginning of it more signally was Writ and is to be understood in the Sense which the Words naturally Import That the Word which took Flesh and assumed the Human Nature had a Being before the worlds were made and that this Word was God and made the World Another eminent Proof of this is in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians in which when he is exhorting Christians to Humility Phil. 2.6.7 8 9 10 11. he gives
My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me It is not easy for us to apprehend in what that Agony consisted For we understand only the Agonies of Pain or of Conscience which last arise out of the Horror of Guilt or the Apprehension of the Wrath of God It is indeed certain That he who had no Sin could have no such horror in him and yet it is as certain That he could not be put into such an Agony only through the Apprehension and Fear of that violent Death which he was to suffer next day Therefore we ought to conclude That there was an inward Suffering in his Mind as well as an outward visible one in his Body We cannot distinctly apprehend what that was since he was sure both of his own spotless Innocence and of his Father's unchangeable love to him We can only imagine a vast sense of the heinousness of Sin and a deep Indignation at the Dishonour done to God by it a melting Apprehension of the Corruption and Miseries of Mankind by reason of Sin together with a never-before-felt withdrawing of those Consolations that had always filled his Soul But what might be further in his Agony and in his last Dereliction we cannot distinctly apprehend only this we perceive That our Minds are capable of great pain as well as our Bodies are Deep horror with an inconsolable sharpness of Thought is a very intolerable thing Notwithstanding the Bodily or Substantial Indwelling of the fulness of the Godhead in him yet he was capable of feeling vast pain in his Body So that he might become a compleat Sacrifice and that we might have from his Sufferings a very full and amazing apprehension of the Guilt of Sin all those Emanations of joy with which the Indwelling of the Eternal Word had ever till then filled his Soul might then when he needed them most be quite withdrawn and he be left merely to the firmness of his Faith to his patient Resignation to the Will of his heavenly Fâ—ther and to his willing readiness of drinking up that Cup which his Father had put in his hand to drink There remains but one thing to be remembred here though it will come to be more specially Explained when other Articles are to be opened which is That this Reconciliation which is made by the Death of Christ between God and Man is not absolute and without conditions He has Established the Covenant and has performed all that was Incumbent on him as both the Priest and the Sacrifice to do and to suffer and he offers this to the World that it may be closed with by them on the terms on which it is proposed and if they do not accept of it upon these conditions and perform what is enjoined them they can have no share in it ARTICLE III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell As Christ died for us and was buried so also is it to be believed that he went down into Hell THIS was much fuller when the Articles were at first prepared and published in King Edward's Reign For these words were added to it That the body of Christ lay in the Grave untill his Resurrection but his Spirit which he gave up was with the Spirits which were detained in Prison or in Hell and preached to them as the place in St. Peter testifieth Thus a determined sense was put upon this Article which is now left more at large and is conceived in words of a more general Signification In order to the explaining this it is to be premised That the Article in the Creed of Christ's descent into Hell is mentioned by no Writer before Ruffin who in the beginning of the Fifth Century does indeed speak of it But he tells us That it was neither in the Symbol of the Roman nor of the Oriental Churches and that he found it in the Symbol of his own Church at Aquileia But as there was no other Article in that Symbol that related to Christ's Burial so the words which he gives us descendit ad Inferna he descended to the lower parts do very naturally signify Burial according to these words of St. Paul Eph. 4.9 He ascended what is it but that he also descended first to the lower parts of the Earth and Ruffin himself understood these words in that sense None of the Fathers in the first Ages neither Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens nor Origen in the short Abstracts that they give us of the Christian Faith mention any thing like this And in all that great variety of Creeds that was proposed by the many Councils that met in the Fourth Century this is not in any one of them except in that which was agreed to at Arimini and was pretended though falsly to have been made at Sirmium In that it is set down in a Greek word that does exactly answer Ruffin's Inferna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it stood there instead of Buried When it was put in the Creed that carries Athanasius's Name tho' made in the Sixth or Seventh Century the word was changed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hell But yet it seems to have been understood to signify Christ's Burial there being no other word put for it in that Creed Afterwards it was put into the Symbol of the Western Church That was done at first in the words in which Ruffin had expressed it as appears by some Ancient Copies of Creeds which were published the Great Primate Usher We are next to consider what the Importance of these words in themselves is for it is plain that the use of them in the Creed is not very Ancient nor Universal We have a most unquestionable Authority for this that our Saviour's Soul was in Hell In the Acts oâ— the Apostles St. Peter in the first Sermon that was preached after the wonderful Effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost applies these words of David concerning God's not leaving his Soul in Hell nor suffering his Holy one to see corruption to the Resurrection of Christ. Now since in the composition of a Man there is a Body and a Spirit and since it is plain that the raising of Christ on the Third day was before that his Body in the course of Nature was corrupted The other Branch seems to relate to his Soul though it is not to be denied but that in the Old Testament Soul in some places stands for a dead Body But if that were the sense of the word there will be no opposition in the two Parts of this period The one will be only a redundant repetition of the other Therefore it is much more natural to think that this other Branch concerning Christ's Soul's being left in Hell must relate to that which we commonly understand by Soul if then his Soul was not to be left in Hell then from thence it plainly follows that once it was in Hell and by consequence that Christ's Soul descended into Hell Some very Modern Writers have thought that this is to be understood
to pursue We are never to mix these two together or to imagine that the Condition upon which Justification is offered to us is the Consideration that moves God as if our Holiness Faith or Obedience were the moving Cause of our Justification oâ— that God justifies us because he sees that we are truly just For though it is not to be denied but that in some places of the New Testament Iustification may stand in that Sense because the word in its Signification will bear it yet in these Two Epistles in which it is largely treated of nothing is plainer than that the design is to shew us what it is that brings us to the Favour of God and to a state of Pardon and Acceptation So that Iustification in those places stands in opposition to Accusation and Condemnation The next Term to be explained is Faith which in the New Testament stâ—nds generally for the Complex of Christianity in opposition to the Law which stands as generally for the Complex of the whole Mosaical Dispensation So that the Faith of Christ is equivalent to this the Gospel of Christ because Christianity is a Foederal Religion founded on God's part on Promises that he has made to us and on the Rules he has set us and on our part on our believing that Revelation our trusting to those Promises and our setting our selves to follow those Rules The believing this Revelation and that great Article of it of Christ's being the Son of God and the true Messias that came to reveal his Father's Will and to offer himself up to be the Sacrifice of this New Covenant is often represented as the great and only Condition of the Covenant on our part but still this Faith must receive the whole Gospel the Precepts as well as the Promises of it and receive Christ as a Prophet to Teach and a King to Rule as well as a Priest to Save us By Faith only is not to be meant Faith as it is separated from the other Evangelical Graces and Virtues but Faith as it is opposite to the Rites of the Mosaical Law for that was the great Question that gave occasion to St. Paul's writing so fully upon this Head since many Judaizing Christians as they acknowledged Christ to be the true Messias so they thought that the Law of Moses was still to retain its force In opposition to whom St. Paul says That we are justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.16 Rom. 2.12 It is plain that he means the Mosaical Dispensation for he had divided all Mankind into those who were in the Law and those who were without the Law That is into Iews and Gentiles Nor had St. Paul any occasion to treat of any other Matter in those Epistles or to enter into nice Abstractions which became not one that was to Instruct the World in order to their Salvation Those Metaphysical Notions are not easily apprehended by plain Men not accustomed to such Subtilties and are of very little value when they are more critically distinguished Yet when it seems some of those Expressions were wrested to an ill sense and use St. Iames treats of the same matter but with this great difference that though he says expresly That a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only yet he does not say by the Works of the Law Jam. 2.24 so that he does not at all contradict St. Paul the Works that he mentions not being the Circumcision or Ritual Observances of Abraham but his offering up his Son Isaac which St. Paul had reckoned a part of the Faith of Abraham This shews that he did not intend to contradict the Doctrine delivered by St. Paul but only to give a true Notion of the Faith that justifies that it is not a bare believing such as Devils are capable of but such a believing as exerted it self in Good Works So that the Faith mentioned by St. Paul is the Complex of all Christianity whereas that mentioned by St. Iames is a bare believing without a life suitable to it And as it is certainly true that we are taken into the Favour of God upon our receiving the whole Gospel without observing the Mosaical Precepts so it is as certainly true that a bare professing or giving credit to the Truth of the Gospel without our living suitably to it does not give us a right to the Favour of God And thus it appears that these two Pieces of the New Testament when rightly understood do in no wise contradict but agree well with one another In the last place we must consider the signification of Good Works By them are not to be meant some voluntary and assumed pieces of Severity which are no where enjoyned in the Gospel that arise out of Superstition and that feed of Pride and Hypocrisy These are so far from deserving the name of Good Works that they have been in all Ages the Methods of Imposture and of Impostors and the Arts by which they have gained Credit and Authority By Good Works therefore are meant Acts of true Holiness and of sincere Obedience to the Laws of the Gospel The Terms being thus explained I shall next distinguish between the Questions arising out of this Matter that are only about Words and those that are more Material and Important If any Man fancy that the Remission of Sins is to be considered as a thing previous to Iustification and distinct from it and acknowledge that to be freely given in Christ Jesus and that in consequence of this there is such a Grace infused that thereupon the Person becomes truly just and is considered as such by God This which must be confessed to be the Doctrine of a great many in the Church of Rome and which seems to be that established at Trent is indeed very visibly different from the Stile and Design of those Places of the New Testament in which this matter is most fully opened But yet after all it is but a question about words for if that which they call Remission of Sins be the same with that which we call Iustification and if that which they call Iustification be the same with that which we call Sanctification then here is only a strife of words Yet even in this we have the Scriptures clearly of our side so that we hold the form of sound words from which they have departed The Scripture speaks of Sanctification as a thing different from and subsequent to Iustification 1 Cor. 6.11 Now ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified And since Justification and the being in the Love and Favour of God are in the New Testament one and the same thing the Remission of Sins must be an Act of God's Favour For we cannot imagine a middle state of being neither accepted of him nor yet under his Wrath as if the Remission of Sins were merely an extinction of the guilt of Sin without any special Favour If therefore this
other Church has them equally with her or beyond her If all these must be discussed before we can settle this Question Which is the true Infallible Church A Man must stay long e're he can come to a point in it Therefore there can be no other way taken here but to examine first What makes a particular Church And then since the Catholick Church is an united Body of all particular Churches when the true Notion of a particular Church is fixed it will be easy from that to form a Notion of the Catholick Church It would seem reasonable by the Method of all Creeds in particular of that called the Apostles Creed that we ought first to settle our Faith as to the great Points of the Christian Religion and from thence go to settle the Notion of a true Church And that we ought not to begin with the Notion of a Church and from thence go to the Doctrine The Doctrine of Christianity must be first stated and from this we are to take our measures of all Churches and that chiefly with respect to that Doctrine which every Christian is bound to believe Here a distinction is to be made between those Capital and Fundamental Articles without which a Man cannot be esteemed a true Christian nor a Church a true Church And other Truths which being delivered in Scripture all Men are indeed obliged to believe them yet they are not of that nature that the Ignorance of them or an Error in them can exclude from Salvation To make this sensible It is a Proposition of another sort That Christ died for Sinners than this That he died at the Third or at the Sixth Hour And yet if the Second Proposition is expresly revealed in Scripture we are bound to believe it Since God has said it though it is not of the same nature with the other Here a Controversie does naturally arise that wise People are unwilling to meddle with What Articles are Fundamental and what are not The defining of Fundamental Articles seems on the one hand to deny Salvation to such as do not receive them all which Men are not willing to do And on the other hand it may seem a leaving Men at liberty as to all other particulars that are not reckoned up among the Fundamentals But after all the Covenant of Grace the Terms of Salvation and the Grounds on which we expect it seem to be things of another nature than all other truths which though revealed are not of themselves the Means or Conditions of Salvation Wheresoever true Baptism is there it seems the Essentials of this Covenant are preserved For if we look on Baptism as a Foederal admission into Christianity there can be no Baptism where the Essence of Christianity is not preserved As far then as we believe that any Society has preserved that so far we are bound to receive her Baptism and no further For unless we consider Baptism as a sort of a Charm that such words joined with a washing with Water make one a Christian which seems to be expresly contrary to what St. Peter says of it 1 Pet. â— 21 That it is not the washing away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God that saves us We must conclude That Baptism is a Foederal thing in which after that the Sponsions are made the Seal of Regeneration is added From hence it will follow That all who have a true Baptism that makes Men Believers and Christians must also have the true Faith as to the Essentials of Christianity The Fundamentals of Christirnity seems to be all that is necessary to make Baptism True and Valid And upon this a distinction is to be made that will discover and destroy a Sophism that is often used on this occasion A True Church is in one sense a Society that preserves the Essentials and Fundamentals of Christianity In another sense it stands for a Society all whose Doctrines are true that has corrupted no part of this Religion nor mixed any Errors with it A true Man is one who has a Soul and a Body that are the Essential Constituents of a Man Whereas in another sense a Man of Sincerity and Candor is called a true Man Truth in the one Sense imports the Essential Constitution and in the other it imports only a Quality that is accidental to it So when we acknowledge that any Society is a true Church we ought to be supposed to mean no other than that the Covenant of Grace in its Essential Constituent parts is preserved entire in that Body and not that it is true in all its Doctrines and Decisions The Second thing to be considered in a Church is their Association together in the use of the Sacraments For these are given by Christ to the Society as the Rites and Badges of that Body That which makes particular Men Believers is their receiving the Fundamentals of Christianity so that which constitutes the Body of the Church is the Profession of that Faith and the use of those Sacraments which are the Rites and Distinctions of those who profess it In this likewise a distinction is to be made between what is Essential to a Sacrament and what is the exact observance of it according to the Institution Additions to the Sacraments do not annul them though they corrupt them with that adulterate mixture Therefore where the Sponsions are made and washing with Water is used with the words of Christ there we own that there is a true Baptism Though there may be a large Addition of other Rites which we reject as Superstitious though we do not pretend that they null the Baptism But if any part of the Institution is cut off there we do not own the Sacrament to be true Because it being an Institution of Christ's it can no more be esteemed a true Sacrament than as it retains all that which by the Institution appears to be the main and essential parts of the Action Upon this account it is That since Christ appointed Bread and Wine fo his other Sacrament and that he not only blessed both but distributed both with words appropriated to each kind we do not esteem that to be a true Sacrament in which either the one or the other of these kinds is w ithdrawn But in the next place there may be many things necessary in the way of Precept and Order both with relation to the Sacraments and to the other publick Acts of Worship in which tho' Additions or Defects are Erroneous and Faulty yet they do not annul the Sacraments We think none ought to Baptize but Men dedicated to the Service of God and Ordained according to that Constitution that was settled in the Church by the Apostles and yet Baptism by Laicks or by Women such as is most commonly practiced in the Roman Church is not esteemed null by us nor is it repeated Because we make a difference between what is Essential to a Sacrament and what is
there must be a living speaking Judge always ready to guide the Church and to decide Controversies they say this cannot be in the diffusive Body of Christians for these cannot meet to judge Nor can it â—e in a General Council the meeting of which depends upon so many accidents and on the consent of so many Princes that the Infallibility will lie dormant for some Ages if the General Council is the Seat of it Therefore they conclude That since it is certainly in the Church and can be no where else but in the Pope therefore it is lodged in the See of Rome Whereas we on the other hand think this is a strong Argument against the Infallibility in general That it does not appear in whom it is vested And we think that every side does so effectually Confute the other that we believe them all as to that and think they argue much stronger when they prove where it cannot be than when they pretend to prove where it must be This in the Point now in hand concerning the Pope seems as evident 〈◊〉 thing can possibly be It not appearing That after the words of Christ 〈…〉 the other Apostles thought the Point was thereby decided Who 〈…〉 should be the greatest For that Debâ—â—e was still on foot and was 〈◊〉 among them in the very Night in which our Saviour was betrayâ—d Nor does it appear That after the Effusion of the Holy Ghost which certainly Inspired them with the full understanding of Christ's words that thâ—y thought there was any thing peculiarly given to S. Peter beyond the â—â—st He was questioned upon his Baptizing Cornelius He was not singly appealed to in the great Question of Subjecting the Gentiles to the Yoke of the Mosaical Law he delivered his Opinion as one of the Apostles After which St. Iames summed up the Matter and setled the Decision of it He was charged by St. Paul as guilty of dissimulation in that matter for which St. Paul withstood him to his Face And he justifies that in an Epistle confessed to be writ by Divine Inspiration St. Paul does also in the same Epistle plainly assert the equality of his own Authority with his And that he received no Authority from him and owed him no Dependance Nor was he ever Appealed to in any of the Points that appear to have been Disputed in the times that the Epistles were written So that we see no Characters of any special Infallibility that was in him besides that which was the effect of the Inspiration that was in the other Apostles as well as in him Nor is there a Tittle in the Scripture not so much as by a remote Intimation that he was to derive that Authority whatsoever it was to any Successor or to lodge it in any particular City or See The Silence of the Scripture in this Point seems to be a full proof that no such thing was intended by God Otherwise we have all reason to believe that it would have been clearly expressed St. Peter himself ought to have declared this And since both Alexandria and Antioch as well as Rome pretend to derive from him and that the Succession to those Sees began in him this makes a decision in this Point so much the more necessary When St. Peter writ his 2d Epistle in which he mentions a Revelation that he had from Christ of his approaching dissolution though that was a very proper occasion for declaring such an important Matter 2 Pet. 1 1â— he says nothing that relates to it but gives only a new Attestation of the truth of Christ's Divine Mission and of what he himself had been a witness to in the Mount when he saw the excellent glory and heard the voice out of it He leaves a Provision in Writing for the following Ages but says nothing of any Succession or See So that here the greatest of all Privileges is pretâ—nded to be lodged in a Succession of Bishops without any one Passage in Scripture importing it Another set of difficulties arise concerning the Persons who have a right to chuse these Popes in whom this Right is Vested and what number is necessary for a Canonical Election How far Simony voids it and who is the competent Judge of that or who shall judge in the Case of two different Elections which has often happened We must also have a certain Rule to know when the Popes judge as private Persons and when they judge Infallibly With whom they must consult and what Solemnities are necessary to make them speak ex Cathedra or Infallibly For if this Infallibility comes as a Privilege from a Grant made by Christ we ought to expect that all those necessary Circumstances to direct us in order to the receiving and submitting to it should be fixed by the same Authority that made the Grant Here then are very great difficulties Let us now see what is offered to make out this great and important Claim The chief Proof is brought from these Words of our Saviour when upon St. Peter's confessing That he was the Christ the Son of the living God Mat. 16. 16 17 18 19. He said to him Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven This begins with an Allusion to his Name and Discourses built upon such Allusions are not to be understood strictly or Grammatically By the Rock upon which Christ promises to build his Church many of the Fathers have understood the Person of Christ others have understood the Confession of him or Faith in him which indeed is but a different way of expressing the same thing And it is certain that strictly speaking the Church can only be said to be founded upon Christ and upon his Doctrine But in a Secondary sense it may be said to be founded upon the Apostles and upon St. Peter as the first in order which is not to be Disputed Now though this is a Sense which was not put on these Words for many Ages yet when it should be allowed to be their true sense it will not prove any thing to have been granted to St. Peter but what was common to the other Apostles who are all called the Foundations upon which the Church is built That which follows of the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the Church may be either understood of Death Eph. 2.20 Rev. 21.2 14. which is often called the gate to the grave Which is the sense of the Word that is rendred Hell And then the meaning of these Words will be That the Church which Christ was to raise should never be extinguished nor die or come to a period as the Iewish Religion then did Or according to the Custom of the Iews of holding their
orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant corporis animae sanitatem per eundem reisque dona veniam It is expresly said in the Pontifical Cruci debetur Latria and the Prayers used in the Consecration of a Cross it is prayed That the Blessing of that Cross on which Christ hung may be in it that it may be a healthful Remedy to Mankind a Strengthner of Faith an Increaser of Good Works the Redemption of Souls and a Comfort Protection and Defence against the Cruelty of our Enemies These with all the other Acts of Adoration used among them seem to favour those who are for a Latria to be given to all those Images to the Originals of which it is due and in like the Proportion for Dulia and Hyperdulia to other Images It is needless to prosecute this Matter further It seemed necessary to say so much to justify our Church which has in her Homilies laid this Charge of Idolatry very severely on the Church of Rome and this is so high an Imputation that those who think it false as they cannot without a good Conscience Subscribe or require others to Subscribe the Article concerning the Homilies so they ought to retract their own Subscriptions and to make Solemn Reparations in Justice and Honour for laying so heavy an Imputation unjustly upon that whole Communion There is nothing that can be brought from Scripture that has a shew of an Argument for supporting Image-Worship unless it be that of the Cherubims that were in the holiest of all and that as is supposed were worshipped at least by the High Priest when he went thither once a Year if not by the whole People But first there is a great difference to be made between a Form of Worship immediately prescribed by God and another Form that not only has no warrant for it but seems to be very expresly forbidden It is plain the Cherubims were not seen by the People and so they could be no visible Object of Worship to them Heb. 9.3 7. They were scarce seen by the High Priest himself for the Holiest of all was quite dark no light coming into it but what came through the Veil from the Holy Place and even that had very little Light Nor is there a word concerning the High Priests Worshipping either the Ark or the Cherubim It is true there is a place in the Psalms that seems to favour this as it is rendred by the Vulgar worship his footstool Psal. 99.5 9. for it is holy but both the Hebrew and the Septuagint have it as it is in our Translation worship at his footstool for he is holy and all the Greek Fathers cite these Words so Many of the Latin Fathers do also cite them according to the Greek and the last Words of the Psalm in which the same words are repeated make the Sense of it evident For there it is thus varied Exalt ye the Lord our God and worship at his holy hill for the Lord our God is holy These words coming so soon after the former are a Paraphrase to them and determine their Sense No doubt the High Priest worshipped God who dwelt between the Cherubims in that Cloud of Glory in which he shewed himself visibly present in his Temple but there is no sort of reason to think that in so Majestick a Presence Adoration could be offered to any thing else or that after the High Priest had adored the Divine Essence so manifested he would have fallen to Worship the Ark and the Cherubims This agrees ill with the Figure that is so much used in this Matter of a King and his Chair of State for in the Presence of the King all Respects terminate in his Person whatsoever may be done in his Absence And thus this being not so much as a Precedent much less an Argument for the use of Images and there being nothing else brought from Scripture that with any sort of wresting can be urged for it and the Sense and Practice of the whole Church being so express against it the Progress of it having been so long and so much disputed the tendency of it to Superstition and Abuse being by their own Confession so visible the Scandal that it gives to Iews and Mahometans being so apparent and it carrying in its outward appearances such a Conformity to say at present no more to Heathenish Idolatry we think we have all possible advantages in this Argument We adhere to that Purity of Worship which is in both Testaments so much insisted on we avoid all Scandal and make no Approaches to Heathenism and follow the Pattern set us by the Primitive Church And as our simplicity of Worship needs not be defended since it proves it self so no proofs are brought for the other side but only a pretended usefulness in outward Figures to raise the Mind by the Senses to just Apprehensions of Spiritual Objects which allowing it true will only conclude for the Historical Use of Images but not for the directing our Worship towards them But the effect is quite contrary to the pretence for instead of raising the Mind by the Senses the Mind is rather sunk by them into gross Ideas The Bias of Human Nature lies to Sense and to form gross Imaginations of Incorporeal Objects and therefore instead of gratifying these we ought to wean our Minds from them and to raise them above them all we can Even Men of Speculation and Abstraction feel Nature in this grows too hard for them but the Vulgar is apt to fall so headlong into these Conceits that it looks like the laying of Snares for them to furnish them with such methods and helps for their having gross Thoughts of Spiritual Objects The fondness that the People have for Images their readiness to believe the most incredible Stories concerning them the expence they are at to Enrich and Adorn them their Prostrations before them their Confidence in them their humble and tender Embracing and Kissing of them their pompous and heathenish Processions to do them Honour the Fraternities erected for particular Images not to mention the more universal and established Practices of directing their Prayers to them of setting Lights before them and of Incensing them these I say are things too well known to such as have seen the way of that Religion that they should need to be much enlarged on and yet they are not only allowed of but encouraged Those among them who have too much good sense that they should sink into those foolish apprehensions themselves yet must not only bear with them but often comply with them to avoid the giving of Scandal as they call it not considering the much greater Scandal that they give when they encourage others by their practice to go on in these Follies The enlarging into all the corruptions occasioned by this way of Worship would carry me far but it seems not necessary the thing is so plain in it self The next Head
Whatsoever his Apostles settled was by Authority and Commission from him therefore it is not to be denied but that if they had appointed any Sacramental Action that must be reckoned to be of the same Authority and is to be esteemed Christ's Institution as much as if he himself when on Earth had appointed it Matter is of the Essence of a Sacrament for Words without some material thing to which they belong may be of the Nature of Prayers or Vows but they cannot be Sacraments Receiving a Sacrament is on our part our Faith plighted to God in the use of some material Substance or other for in this consists the difference between Sacraments and other Acts of Worship The latter are only Acts of the Mind declared by Words or Gesture whereas Sacraments are the Application of a material Sign joyned with Acts of the Mind Words and Gestures With the Matter there must be a Form that is such Words joyned with it as do appropriate the Matter to such an use and separate it from all other uses at least in the Act of the Sacrament For in any piece of Matter alone there cannot be a proper suitableness to such an end as seems to be designed by Sacraments and therefore a Form must determine and apply it and it is highly suitable to the nature of Things to believe that our Saviour who has Instituted the Sacrament has also either Instituted the Form of it or given us such hints as to lead us very near it The end of Sacraments is double the one is by a Solemn Federal Action both to unite us to Christ and also to derive a secret Blessing from him to us And the other is to joyn and unite us by this publick Profession and the joynt partaking of it with his Body which is the Church This is in general an Account of a Sacrament This it is true is none of those Words that are made use of in Scripture so that it has no determined Signification given to it in the Word of God yet it was very early applied by Pliny to those Vows by which the Christians tied themselves to their Religion Lib. 10. Ep. 97. taken from the Oaths by which the Soldiery among the Romans were sworn to their Colours or Officers and from that time this Term has been used in a Sense consecrated to the Federal Rites of Religion Yet if any will dispute about Words we know how much St. Paul condemns all those curious and vain Questions which have in them the Subtilties and Oppositions of Science falsly so called If any will call every Rite used in Holy Things a Sacrament 1 Tim. 6.20 we enter into no such Contentions The Rites therefore that we understand when we speak of Sacraments are the constant Federal Rites of Christians which are accompanied by a Divine Grace and Benediction being instituted by Christ to unite us to him and to his Church and of such we own that there are Two Baptism and the Supper of our Lord. In Baptism there is Matter Water there is a Form the Person Dipped or Washed with words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Matth. 28.19 There is an Institution Go preach and baptize there is a Federal Sponsion 1 Pet. 3.21 Matth. 26.26 27. The answer of a good Conscience there is a Blessing conveyed with it Baptism save us there is one baptism as there is one body and one spirit we are all baptized into one body So that here all the constituent and necessary Parts of a Sacrament are found in Baptism In the Lord's Supper there is Bread and Wine for the Matter The giving it to be Eat and Drunk with the Words that our Saviour used in the first Supper are the Form Do this in remembrance of me is the Institution Ye shew forth the Lord's death till he come again 1 Cor. 11.23 to 27. is the Declaration of the Federal Act of our part It is also the Communion of the body and of the blood of Christ that is the conveyance of the Blessings of our Partnership in the Effects of the Death of Christ. 1 Cor. 10.16 17. And we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread this shews the Union of the Church in this Sacrament Here then we have in these two Sacraments both Matter Form Institution Federal Acts Blessings conveyed and the Union of the Body in them All the Characters which belong to a Sacrament agree fully to them In the next place we must by these Characters examine the other pretended Sacraments It is no wonder if the word Sacrament being of a large extent there should be some Passages in Ancient Writers that call other Actions so besides Baptism and the Lord's Supper for in a larger Sense every Holy Rite may be so called But it is no small prejudice against the number of Seven Sacraments that Peter Lombard a Writer in the Twelfth Century is the first that reckons Seven of them From that Mystical Expression of the Seven Spirits of God there came a conceit of the sevenfold Operation of the Spirit Lib. 3. Dist. 2. and it looked like a good Illustration of that to assert Seven Sacraments This Pope Eugenius put in his Instruction to the Armenians which is published with the Council of Florence and all was finally settled at Trent Now there might have been so many fine Allusions made on the number Seven and some of the Ancients were so much set on such Allusions that since we hear nothing of that kind from any of them we may well conclude that this is more than an ordinary Negative Argument against their having believed that there were Seven Sacraments To go on in order with them The first that we reject which is reckoned by them the second is Confirmation But to explain this we must consider in what respect our Church receives Confirmation and upon what reasons it is that she does not acknowledge it to be a Sacrament We find that after Philip the Deacon and Evangelist had converted and baptized some in Samaria Peter and Iohn were sent thither by the Apostles Acts 8.12 14 15 16 17. who laid their hands on such as were baptized and prayed that they might receive the Holy Ghost upon which it is said that they received the Holy Ghost Now though ordinary Functions when performed by the Apostles such as their laying on of Hands in those whom they Ordained or Confirmed had extraordinary Effects accompanying them but when the extraordinary Effects ceased the end for which these were at first given being accomplished the Gospel having been fully attested to the World yet the Functions were still continued of Confirmation as well as Ordination And as the laying on of Hands Heb. 6.2 that is reckoned among the Principles of the Christian Doctrine after Repentance and Faith and subsequent to Baptism seems very
these are of no Value being only Inventions to deceive Men and to expose Religion to Mockery But even severe and afflicting Fasting if done only as a Punishment which when it is over the Penance is believed to be compleated gives such a low Idea of God and Religion that from thence Men are led to think very slightly of Sin when they know at what price they can carry it off Such a continuance in Fasting in order to Prayer as humbles and depresses Nature and raises the Mind is a great mean to reform the World but Fasting as a prescribed Task to expiate our Sins is a scorn put upon Religion Prayer when it arises from a serious Heart that is earnest in it and when it becomes habitual is certainly a most effectual mean to reform the World and to fetch down Divine Assistances But to appoint so many vocal Prayers to be gone through as a Task and then to tell the World that the running through these with few or no inward Acts accompanying them is Contrition or Attrition this is liker a Design to root out all the Impressions of Religion and all sense of that Repentance which the Gospel requires than to promote it This may be a Task fit to accustom Children to but it is contrary to the true Genius of Religion to teach Men instead of that reasonable Service that we ought to offer up to God to give him only the Labour of the Lips which is the Sacrifice of Fools Prayers gone through as a Task can be of no value and can find no acceptation in the sight of God And as St. Paul said that if he gave all his goods to the poor and had not Charity he was nothing 1 Cor. 13 1 2. So the greatest profusion of Alms-giving when done in a mercenary Way to buy off and to purchase a Pardon is the turning of God's House from being a house of prayer to be a den of thieves Upon all these Reasons we except to the whole Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome as to the Satisfaction made by doing Penance And in the last place we except to the Form of Absolution in these Words I Absolve thee We of this Church who use it only to such as are thought to be near Death cannot be meant to understand any thing by it but the full Peace and Pardon of the Church For if we meant a Pardon with relation to God we ought to use it upon many other occasions The Pardon that we give in the Name of God is only declaratory of his Pardon or supplicatory in a Prayer to him for Pardon In this we have the whole Practice of the Church till the Twelfth Century universally of our side All the Fathers all the ancient Liturgies all that have writ upon the Offices and the first Schoolmen are so express in this Matter that the thing in Fact cannot be denied Morinus has published so many of their old Rituals that he has put an end to all doubting about it In the Twelfth Century some few began to use the Words I Absolve thee Yet to soften this Expression that seemed New and Bold some tempered it with these Words in so far as it is granted to my frailty and others with those Words as far as the accusation comes from thee and as the pardon is in me Yet this Form was but little practised So that William Bishop of Paris speaks of the Form of Absolution as given only in a Prayer and not as given in these Words I Absolve thee He lived in the beginning of the Fourteenth Century so that this Practice though begun in other Places before that Time yet was not known long after in so publick a City as Paris But some Schoolmen begun to defend it as implying only a declaration of the Pardon pronounced by the Priest And this having an air of more Authority and being once justified by Learned Men did so universally prevail that in little more than sixty Years time it became the universal Practice of the whole Latin Church So sure a thing is Tradition and so impossible to be changed as they pretend when within the compass of one Age the new Form I Absolve thee was not so much as generally known and before the end of it the old Form of doing it in a Prayer with Imposition of Hands was quite worn out The Idea that arises naturally out of these words is that the Priest pardons Sins and since that is subject to such abuses and has let in so much corruption upon that Church we think we have reason not only to deny that Penance is a Sacrament but likewise to affirm that they have corrupted this great and important Doctrine of Repentance in all the Parts and Branches of it Nor is the matter mended with that Prayer that follows the Absolution The Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ Rituale Romanum de sacr poeniten the Merits of the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints and all the good that thou hast done and the evil that thou hast suffered be to thee for the remission of Sins the increase of Grace and the reward of eternal Life The third Sacrament rejected by this Article is Orders which is reckoned the sixth by the Church of Rome We affirm that Christ appointed a Succession of Pastors in different Ranks to be continued in his Church for the Work of the Gospel and the Care of Souls and that as the Apostles setled the Churches they appointed different Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons And we believe that all who are dedicated to serve in these Ministries after they are examined and judged worthy of them ought to be separated to them by the Imposition of Hands and by Prayer These were the only Rites that we find practised by the Apostles For many Ages the Church of God used no other therefore we acknowledge that Bishops Priests and Deacons ought to be blest and dedicated to the HolyMinistry by Imposition of Hands and Prayer And that then they are received according to the Order and Practice setled by the Apostles to serve in their respective Degrees Men thus separated have thereby Authority to perfect the Saints or Christians that is to perform the Sacred Functions among them to minister to them and to build them up in their most Holy Faith And we think no other Persons without such a Separation and Consecration can lawfully touch the Holy Things In all which we separate the Qualifications of the Functions from the inward Qualities of the Person the one not at all depending on the other The one relating only to the Order and the good Government of the Society and the other relating indeed to the Salvation of him that Officiates but not at all to the Validity of his Office or Service But in all this we see nothing like a Sacrament Here is neither Matter Form nor Institution here is only Prayer The laying on of Hands is only a gesture in Prayer
of their Parents they are naturally their Guardians and if they are entitled to any thing their Parents have a right to transact about it because of the weakness of the Child and what Contracts soever they make by which the Child does not lose but is a gainer these do certainly bind the Child It is then suitable both to the constitution of Mankind and to the dispensation of the Mosaical Covenant that Parents may dedicate their Children to God and may bring them under the obligations of the Gospel and if they may do that then they certainly procure to them with it or in lieu of it a share in the blessings and promises of the Gospel So that they may offer their Children either themselves or by such others of their Friends to whom for that occasion they transfer that Right which they have to transact for and to bind their Children All this receives a great confirmation from the decision which St. Paul makes upon a case that must have hapâ—â—ned commonly at that time which was when one of the Parties in a Married state Husband or Wife was Converted while the other continued still in the former state of Idolatry or Infidelity Here then a scruple naturally arose Whether a Believer or Christian might still live in a married state with an Infidel Besides the ill usage to which that diversity of Religion might give occasion another difficulty might be made Whether a Person defiled by Idolatry did not communicate that Impurity to the Christian and whether the Children born in such a Marriage were to be reckoned a holy seed according to the Iewish Phrase or an unholy unclean Children that is Heathenish Children who were not to be Dedicated to God nor to be Admitted into Covenant with him For unclean in the Old Testament and Unciâ—cumcised signify sometimes the same thing and so St. Peter said that in the case of Cornelius God had shewed him that he should call no Man common or unclean 1 Cor. 14. in allusion to all which St. Paul determines the case not by an immediate Revelation but by the Inferences that he drew from what had been Revealed to him he does appoint the Christian to live with the Infidel and says that the Christian is so far from being defiled by the Infidel that there is a communication of a Blessing that passes from the Christian to the Infidel the one being the better for the Prayers of the other and sharing in the Blessings bestowed on the other The better part was accepted of God in whom mercy rejoices over judgment there was a communication of a Blessing that the Christian derived to the Infidel which at least went so far that their Children were not unclean that is shut out from being dedicated to God but were holy Now it is to be considered that in the New Testament Christians and Saints or Holy stand all promiscuously The Purity of the Christian Doctrine and the Dedication by which Christians offer up themselves to God makes them Holy In Scripture Holiness stands in a double Sense the one is a true and real Purity by which a Man's Faculties and Actions become Holy the other is a dedicated Holiness when any thing is appropriated to God in which sense it stands most commonly in the Old Testament So Times Places and not only Persons but even Utensils applied to the Service of God are called Holy In the New Testament Christian and Saint are the same thing so the saying that Children are Holy when one of the Parents is a Christian must import this that the Child has also a right to be made Holy or to be made a Christian and by consequence that by the Parents Dedication that Child may be made Holy or a Christian. Upon these Reasons we conclude That though there is no express Precept or Rule given in the New Testament for the Baptism of Infants yet it is most agreeable to the Institution of Christ since he conformed his Institutions to those of the Mosaical Law as far as could consist with his Design and therefore in a thing of this kind in which the just tenderness of the human Nature does dispose Parents to secure to their Children a Title to the Mercies and Blessings of the Gospel there is no reason to think that this being so fully set forth and assured to the Iews in the Old Testament that Christ should not have intended to give Parents the same Comforts and Assurances by his Gospel that they had under the Law of Moses Since nothing is said against it we may conclude from the nature of the two Dispensations and the proportion and gradation that is between them that Children under the New Testament are a holy seed as well as they were under the Old and by consequence that they may be now Baptized as well as they were then Circumcised If this may be done then it is very reasonable to say what is said in the Article concerning it That it ought in any wise to be retained in the Church For the same Humanity that obliges Parents to feed their Children and to take care of them while they are in such a helpless state must dictate that it is much more incumbent on them and is as much more necessary as the Soul is more valuable than the Body for them to do all that in them lies for the Souls of their Children for securing to them a share in the Blessings and Privileges of the Gospel and for Dedicating them early to the Christian Religion The Office for Baptizing Infants is in the same words with that for Persons of Riper Age because Infants being then in the power of their Parents who are of Age are considered as in them and as binding themselves by the Vows that they make in their Name Therefore the Office carries on the supposition of an internal Regeneration and in that helpless state the Infant is offered up and Dedicated to God and provided that when he comes to Age he takes those Vows on himself and lives like a Person so in Covenant with God then he shall find the full effects of Baptism and if he dies in that state of Incapacity he being Dedicated to God is certainly accepted of by him and by being put in the Second Adam all the bad effects of his having descended from the First Adam are quite taken away Matt. 19.13 14. Christ when on Earth encouraged those who brought little Children to him he took them in his arms and laid his hands on them and blessed them and said suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God Whatever these words may signify mystically the literal meaning of them is that little Children may be admitted into the Dispensation of the Messias and by consequence that they may be Baptized ARTICLE XXVIII Of the Lord's Supper The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have
as that it can be no where else at the same time And though we can very easily apprehend that an Insinite Power can both create and annihilate Beings at pleasure yet we cannot apprehend that God does change the Essences of Things and so make them to be contrary to that Nature and sort of Being of which he has made them Another Argument against Transubstantiation is this God has made us capable to know and serve him And in order to that he has put some Sâ—nses in us which are the conveyances of many subtile Motions to our Brains that give us Apprehensions of the Objects which by those Motions are represented to us When those Motions are lively and the Object is in a due distance when we feel that neither our Organs nor our Faculties are under any disorder and when the Impression is clear and strong we are determined by it We cannot help being so When we see the Sun risen and all is bright about us it is not possible for us to think that it is dark Night No authority can impose it on us we are not so far the Masters of our own Thoughts as to force our selves to think it though we would for God has made us of such a Nature that we are determined by such an Evidence and cannot contradict it When an Object is at too great a distance we may mistake a weakness or an ill disposition in our sight may misrepresent it and a false Medium Water a Cloud or a Glass may give it a tincture or cast so that we may see cause to correct our first Apprehensions in some Sensations but when we have duly examined every thing when we have corrected one Sense by another we grow at last to be so sure by the Constitution of that Nature that God has given us that we cannot doubt much less believe in contradiction to the express Evidence of our Senses It is by this Evidence only that God convinces the World of the Authority of those whom he sends to speak in his Name He gives them a Power to work Miracles which is an Appeal to the Senses of Mankind and it is the highest Appeal that can be made for those who stood out against the Conviction of Christ's Miracles had no Cloak for their Sins It is the utmost Conviction that God offers or that Man can pretend to From all which we must infer this That either our Senses in their clearest Apprehensions or rather Representations of Things must be Infallible or we must throw up all Faith and Certainty since it is not possible for us to receive the Evidence that is given us of any thing but by our Senses and since we do naturally acquiesce in that Evidence we must acknowledge that God has so made us that this is his voice in us because it is the voice of those Faculties that he has put in us and is the only way by which we can find out Truth and be led by it And if our Faculties fail us in any one thing so that God should reveal to us any thing that did plainly contradict our Faculties he should thereby give us a right to disbelieve them for ever If they can mistake when they bring any Object to us with the fullest Evidence that they can give we can never depend upon them nor be certain of any thing because they shew it Nay we are not and cannot be bound to believe that nor any other Revelation that God may make to convince us We can only receive a Revelation by hearing or reading by our Ears or our Eyes So if any part of this Revelation destroys the certainty of the Evidence that our Senses our Eyes or our Ears give us it destroys it self for we cannot be bound to believe it upon the Evidence of our Senses if this is a part of it that our Senses are not to be trusted Nor will this matter be healed by saying that certainly we must believe God more than our Senses And therefore if he has revealed any thing to us that is contrary to their Evidence we must as to that paâ—ticular believe God before our Senses But that as to all other things where we have not an express Revelation to the contrary we must still believe our Senses There is a difference to be made between that feeble Evidence that our Senses give us of remote Objects or those loose Inferences that we may make from a slight view of Things and the full Evidence that Sense gives us as when we see and smell to we handle and taste the same Object This is the voice of God to us he has made us so that we are determined by it And as we should not believe a Prophet that wrought ever â—o many Miracles if he should contradict any part of that which God had already revealed so we cannot be bound to believe a Revelation contrary to our Sense because that were to believe God in contradiction to Himself which is impossible to be true For we should believe that Revelation certainly upon an Evidence which it self tells us is not certain and this is a Contradiction We believe our Senses upon this foundation because we reckon there is an Intrinsick certainty in their Evidence we do not believe them as we believe another Man upon a Moral presumption of his Truth and Sincerity but we believe them because such is the nature of the Union of our Souls and Bodies which is the work of God that upon the full Impressions that are made upon the Senses the Soul does necessarily produce or rather feel those Thoughts and Sensations arise with a full Evidence that correspond to the motions of sensible Objects upon the Organs of Sense The Soul has a sagacity to examine these Sensations to correct one Sense by another but when she has used all the means she can and the Evidence is still clear she is perswaded and cannot help being so she naturally takes all this to be true because of the necessary connexion that she feels between such Sensations and her assent to them Now if she should find that she could be mistaken in this even tho' she should know this by a Divine Revelation all the Intrinsick certainty of the Evidence of Sense and that connexion between those Sensations and her assent to them should be hereby dissolved To all this another Objection may be made from the Mysteries of the Christian Religion which contradict our Reasons and yet we are bound to believe them altho' Reason is a faculty much superior to Sense But all this is a mistake we cannot be bound to believe any thing that contradicts our Reasons for the Evidence of Reason as well as that of Sense is the voice of God to us But as great difference is to be made between a feeble Evidence that Sense gives us of an Object that is at a distance from us or that appears to us through a false Medium such as a Concave or a Convex-Glass
and the full Evidence of an Object that is before us and that is clearly apprehended by us So there is a great difference to be made between our Reasonings upon Difficulties that we can neither understand nor resolve and our Reasonings upon clear Principles The one may be false and the other must be true We are sure that a Thing cannot be one and three in the same respect our Reason assures us of this and we do and must believe it but we know that in different respects the same thing may be one and three And since we cannot know all the possibilities of those different respects we must believe upon the Authority of God revealing it that the same thing is both one and three tho' if a Revelation should affirm that the same thing were one and three in the same respect we should not and indeed could not believe it This Argument deserves to be fully opened for we are sure either it is true or we cannot be sure that any thing else whatsoever is true In confirmation of this we ought also to consider the nature and ends of Miracles They put Nature out of its channel and reverse its fixed Laws and Motions and the end of God's giving Men a power to work them is that by them the World may be convinced that such Persons are Commissionated by him to deliver his Pleasure to them in some Particulars And as it could not become the Infinite Wisdom of the Great Creator to change the Order of Nature which is his own Workmanship upon slight Grounds so we cannot suppose that he should work a Chain of Extraordinary Miracles to no purpose It is not to give credit to a Revelation that he is making for the Senses do not perceive it on the contrary they do reject and contradict it and the Revelation instead of getting credit from it is loaded by it as introducing that which destroys all credit and certainty In other Miracles our Senses are appealed to but here they must be appealed from nor is there any Spiritual end served in working this Miracle for it is acknowledged that the effects of this Sacrament are given upon our due coming to it independent upon the Corporal Presence So that the Grace of the Sacrament does not always accompany it since unworthy Receivers tho' according to the Romish Doctrine they receive the true Body of Christ yet they do not receive Grace with it And the Grace that is given in it to the worthy Receivers stays with them after that by the destruction of the Species of the Bread and Wine the Body of Christ is withdrawn So that it is acknowledged that the Spiritual effect of the Sacrament does not depend upon the Corporal Presence Here then it is supposed that God is every day working a great many Miracles in a vast number of different Places and that of so extraordinary a nature that it must be confessed they are far beyond all the other Wonders even of Omnipotence and yet all this is to no end that we can apprehend neither to any sensible and visible end nor to any Internal and Spiritual one This must needs seem an amazing thing that God should work such a Miracle on our behalf and yet should not acquaint us with any end for which he should work it To conclude this whole Argument We have one great advantage in this matter that our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament of a Mystical Presence of Christ in the Symbols and of the effects of it on the worthy and unworthy Receivers is all acknowledged by the Church of Rome but they have added to this the Wonder of the Corporal Presence So that we need bring no Proofs to them at least for that which we teach concerning it since it is all confessed by them But as to that which they have added it is not necessary for us to give Proofs against it it is enough for us if we shew that all the Proofs that they bring for it are weak and unconcluding They must be very demonstrative if it is expected that upon the authority and evidence of them we should be bound to believe a thing which they themselves confess to be contrary both to our Sense and Reasons We cannot by the Laws of Reasoning be bound to give Arguments against it it is enough if we can shew that neither the words of the Institution nor the Discourse in the sixth of St. Iohn do necessarily infer it and if we shew that those Passages can well bear another sense which is agreeable both to the words themselves and to the style of the Scriptures and more particularly to the Phraseology to which the Iews were accustomed upon the occasion on which this was Instituted and if the words can well bear the Sense that we give them then the other advantages that are in it of its being simple and natural of its being suitable to the design of a Sacrament and of its having no hard consequences of any sort depending upon it then I say by all the Rules of expounding Scripture we do justly infer that our Sense of those words ought to be preferred This is according to a Rule that St. Augustin gives to judge what Expressions in Scripture are Figurative and what not Lib. 3. de Doct. Chris. c. 16. If any place seems to command a Crime or horrid Action it is Figurative And for an Instance of this he cites those Words Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man you have no life in you Which seems to command a Crime and an horrid Action and therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay up in our Memory with delight and profit that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us And this was given for a Rule by the great Doctor of the Latin Church so the same Maxim had been delivered almost two Ages before him Hom. 7. in Levit. by the great Doctor of the Greek Church Origen who says that the understanding our Saviour's words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter is a Letter that kills These Passages I cite by an Anticipation before I enter upon the enquiry into the Sense of the ancient Church concerning this Matter because they belong to the words of the Institution at least to the Discourse in St. Iohn Now if the Sense that we give to these Words is made good we need be at no more pains to prove that they are capable of no other Sense Since this must prove that to be the only true Sense of them So that for all the Arguments that have been brought by us against this Doctrine arising out of the Fruitfulness of the Matter we were not bound to use them For our Doctrine being confessed by them it wants no Proof and we cannot be bound to prove a Negative Therefore though the Copiousness of this Matter has afforded us many
the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ he carried himself in his own hands in some sort when he said This is my Body St. Chrysostom says the Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord And in another Place reckoning up the improper Senses of the word Flesh he says the Scriptures use to call the Mysteries that is the Sacrament by the Name of Flesh and sometimes the whole Church is said to be the Body of Christ. So Tertullian says Christ calls the Bread his Body and names the Bread by his Body Tertul. Lib. 4. adv Marci c. 40. The Fathers do not only call the consecrated Elements Bread and Wine They do also affirm that they retain their proper Nature and Substance and are the same thing as to their Nature that they were before And the Occasion upon which the Passages that I go next to mention are used by them does prove this Matter beyond Contradiction Apollinaris did broach that Heresy which was afterwards put in full Form by Eutycheâ— and that had so great a Party to support it that as they had one General Council a pretended one at least to favour them so they were condemned by another Their Error was that the human Nature of Christ was swallowed up by the Divine if not while he was here on Earth yet at least after his Ascension to Heaven This Error was confuted by several Writers who lived very wide one from another And at a distance of above a hundred Years one from another St. Chrysostom at Constantinople Theodoret in Asia Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch and Gelasius Bishop of Rome All those write to Prove that the human Nature did still remain in Christ not changed nor swallowed up but only sanctified by the Divine Nature that was united to it They do all fall into one Argument which very probably those who came after St. Chrysostom took from him Epist. ad Celarium So that though both Theodoret and Gelasius's Words are much fuller yet because the Argument is the same with that which St. Chrysostom had urged against Apollinaris I shall first set down his Words He brings an Illustration from the Doctrine of the Sacrament to shew that the human Nature was not destroyed by its Union with the Divine and has upon that these Words As before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body though the nature of Bread remains in it And yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son So the divine Nature being joined to the Body Both these make one Son and one Person In Photi Bibli Cod. 229. Ephrem of Antioch says The Body of Christ which is received by the faithful does not depart from its sensible Substance So Baptism says he does not lose its own sensible Substance and does not lose that which it was before Dial. 1st and 2d â—ont Eutych Theodoret says Christ does honour the Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the nature but adding grace to nature In another Place pursuing the same Argument he says The mystical Symbols after the sanctification do not depart from their own nature For they continue in their former substance figure and form and are visible and palpable as they were before But they are understood to be that which they are made Pope Gelasius says The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing Lib. de duâ—bus nat Christ for which reason we become by them partakers of the divine Nature and yet the substance of Bread and Wine does not cease to exist And the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in holy Mysteries Upon all these Places being compared with the Design with which they were written which was to prove that Christ's Human Nature did still subsist unchanged and not swallowed up by its Union with the Divinity some Reflections are very obvious â—irst If the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament had been then received in the Church the natural and unavoidable Argument in this Matter which must put an end to it with all that believed such corporal Presence was this Christ has certainly a natural Body still because the Bread and the Wine are turned to it and they cannot be turned to that which is not In their Writings they argued against the possibility of a substantial Change of a Human Nature into the Divine but that could not have been urged by Men who believed a substantial Mutation to be made in the Sacrament For then the Eutychians might have retorted the Argument with great Advantage upon them The Eutychians did make use of some Expressions that were used by some in the Church which seemed to Import that they did argue from the Sacrament as Theodoret represents their Objections But to that he answers as we have seen denying that any such substantial Change was made The Design of those Fathers was to prove that things might be united together and continue so united without the change of their Substances and that this was true in the two Natures in the Person of Christ And to make this more Sensible they bring in the Matter of the Sacrament as a thing known and confessed For in their arguing upon it they do suppose it as a thing out of dispute Now according to the Roman Doctrine this had been a very odd Sort of an Argument to prove that Christ's Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine because the Mysteries or Elements in the Sacrament are changed into the Substance of Christ's Body only they retain the outward appearances of Bread and Wine To this an Eutychian might readily have answered that then the Human Nature might be believed to be destroyed And though Christ had appeared in that likeness he retained only the Accidents of Human Nature but that the Human Nature it self was destroyed as the Bread and the Wine were destroyed in the Eucharist This had been a very absurd way of arguing in the Fathers and had indeed delivered up the Cause to the Eutychians Whereas those Fathers make it an Argument against them to prove that notwithstanding an Uninion of two Beings and such an Union as did communicate a Sanctification from the one to the other yet the two Natures might remain still distinguish'd and that it was so in the Eucharist Therefore it might be so in the Person of Christ. This seems to be so evident an Indication of the Doctrine of the whole Church in the Fourth and Fifth Century when so many of the most eminent Writers of those Ages do urge it so home as an Argument in so great a Point that we can scarce think it possible for any Man to consider it fully without being determined by it
Sacrifice v. 27. first for his own Sins and then for the People for this he did once when he offered up himself He opposes that to the Annual Expiation made by the Iewish High-Priest Christ entred in once to the Holy Place having made Redemption for us by his own Blood And having laid down that general Maxim 9. ch 22. v. 28. that without shedding of Blood there was no Remission he says Christ was offered once to bear the Sins of many He puts a Question to shew that all Sacrifices were now to cease When the Worshippers are once purged then would not Sacrifices cease to be offered 10. ch v. 11. And he ends with this as a full Conclusion to that Part of his Discourse v. 12. Every Priest stands daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same Sacrifices which can never take away Sin But this Man after he had offered up one Sacrifice for Sins for â—ver sat down on the right Hand of God Here are not general Words ambiguous Expressions or remote Hints but a Thread of a full and clear Discourse to shew that in the strict Sense of the Words we have but one Priest and likewise but one Sacrifice under the Gospel Therefore how largely soever those Words of Priest or Sacrifice may have been used yet according to the true Idea of a propitiatory Sacrifice and of a Priest that reconciles Sinners to God they cannot be applyed to any Acts of our Worship or to any Order of Men upon Earth Nor can the Value and Virtue of any instituted Act of Religion be carried by any Inferences or reasonings beyond that which is put in them by the Institution And therefore since the Institution of this Sacrament has nothing in it that gives us this Idea of it we cannot set any such Value upon it and since the reconciling Sinners to God and the pardoning of Sin are free Acts of his Grace it is therefore a high Presumption in any Man to imagin they can do this by an Act of theirs without Powers and Warrants for it from Scripture Nor can this be pretended to without assuming a most Sacrilegious Sort of Power over the Attributes of God Therefore all the Virtue that can be in the Sacrament is that we do therein gratefully commemorate the Sacrifice of Christ's Death and by renewed Acts of Faith present that to God as our Sacrifice in the Memorial of it which he himself has appointed By so doing we renew our Covenant with God and share in the Effects of that Death which he suffered for us All the antient Liturgies have this as a main Part of the Office that being mindful of the Death of Christ or commemorating it they offered up the Gifts This is the Language of Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian and of all the following Writers They do compare this Sacrifice to that of Melchisedec who offered Bread and Wine And though the Text imports only his giving Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Followers yet they applied that generally to the Oblation of Bread and Wine that was made on the Altar But this shews that they did not think of any Sacrifice made by the offering up of Christ. It was the Bread and the Wine only which they thought the Priests of the Christian Religion did offer to God And therefore it is remarkable that when the Fathers answer the Reproach of the Heathens who charged them with Irreligion and Impiety for having no Sacrifices among them they never answer it by saying That they offered up a Sacrifice of inestimable Value to God which must have been the first Answer that could have occurred to a man possessed with the Ideas of the Church of Rome On the contrary Iustin Martyr in his Apology says They had no other Sacrifices but Prayers and Praises Apol. 2. And in his Dialogue with Trypho he confesses That Christians offer to God Oblations according to Malachi's Prophecy when they celebrate the Eucharist Leg. pro Christ. Minut. in Octav. Lib. 8. con Celsum Tert. A. -pol c. 30. Clem. Strom. l. 7. Arnob. lib. 7. in which they commemorate the Lord's Death Both Athenagoras and Minutius Felix justify the Christians for having no other Sacrifices but pure Hearts clean Consciences and a stedfast Faith Origen and Tertullian refute the same Objection in the same manner They set the Prayers of Christians in opposition to all the Sacrifices that were among the Heathens Clemens of Alexandria and Arnobius write in the same strain and they do all make use of one Topick to justify their offering no Sacrifices That God who made all things and to whom all things do belong needs nothing from his Creatures To multiply no more Quotations on this Head Iulian in his time objected the same thing to the Christians which shews that there was then no Idea of a Sacrifice among them otherwise he who knew their Doctrine and Rites had either not denied so positively as he did their having Sacrifices or at least he had shewed how improperly the Eucharist was called one When Cyril of Alexandria towards the middle of the Fifth Century came to answer this Cyr. Al. lib. 10. cont Jul. he insists only upon the inward and spiritual Sacrifices that were offered by Christians which were sutable to a pure and spiritual Essence such as the Divinity was to take pleasure in and therefore he sets that in opposition to the Sacrifices of Beasts Birds and of all other things whatsoever Nor does he so much as mention even in a Hint the Sacrifice of the Eucharist which shews that he did not consider that as a Sacrifice that was propitiatory These things do so plainly set before us the Ideas that the First Ages had of this Sacrament that to one who considers them duly they do not leave so much as a doubt in this matter All that they may say in Homilies or Treatises of Piety concerning the Pure Offering that according to Malachi all Christians offered to God in the Sacrament concerning the Sacrifice and the unbloody Sacrifice of Christians must be understood to relate to the Prayers and Thanksgivings that accompanied it to the Commemoration that was made in it of the Sacrifice offered once upon the Cross and finally to the Oblation of the Bread and Wine which they so often compare both to Abel's Sacrifice and to Melchisedec's offering Bread and Wine It were easy to enlarge further on this Head and from all the Rituals of the Antients to shew that they had none of those Ideas that are now in the Roman Church They had but one Altar in a Church and probably but one in a City They had but one Communion in a day at that Altar So far were they from the many Altars in every Church and the many Masses at every Altar that are now in the Roman Church They did not know what Solitary Masses were without a Communion All the Liturgies and all the Writings of the Antients are as
the Philistines put the People under a Curse if they should eat any Food till Night and this was thought to be so obligatory that the Violation of it was Capital and Ionathan was put in hazard of his Life upon it Thus the High-Priest put our Saviour under the Oath of Cursing Matth. 26.63 64. when he required him to tell Whether he was the Messias or not Upon which our Saviour was according to that Law upon his Oath and though he had continued silent till then as long as it was free to him to speak or not at his pleasure yet then he was bound to speak and so he did speak and owned himself to be what he truly was This was the Form of that Constitution but if by practice it were found that mens pronouncing the words of the Oath themselves when required by a Person in Authority to do it and that such Actions as their lifting up their Hand to Heaven or their laying it on a Bible as importing their Sense of the Terrors contained in that Book were like to make a deeper Impression on them than barely the Judges charging them with the Oath or Curse it seems to be within the compass of Human Authority to change the Rites and Manner of this Oath and to put it in such a Method as might probably work most on the minds of those who were to take it The Institution in general is plain and the making of such Alterations seems to be clearly in the Power of any State or Society of men In the New Testament we find St. Paul prosecuting a Discourse concerning the Oath which God sware to Abraham Heb. 6.13 14 15. who not having a greater to swear by swore by himself and to enforce the Importance of that it is added An oath for confirmation that is Ver. 16. for the affirming or assuring of any thing is the end of all controversy Which plainly shews us what Notion the Author of that Epistle had of an Oath He did not consider it as an Impiety or Prophanation of the Name of God Rev. 10.6 In St. Iohn's Visions an Angel is represented as lifting up his hand and swearing by him that liveth for ever and ever And the Apostles even in their Epistles Rom. 1.9 Gal. 1.20 that are acknowledged to be writ by Divine Inspiration do frequently appeal to God in these words God is witness which contain the whole Essence of an Oath Once St. Paul carries the Expression to a Form of Imprecation 2 Cor. 1.23 when he calls God to a record upon or against his soul. These seem to be Authorities beyond exception justifying the use of an Oath upon a great occasion or before a competent Authority according to that Prophecy quoted in the Article which is thought to relate to the Times of the Messias And thou shalt swear The Lord liveth in truth in judgment and in righteousness and the nations shall bless themselves in him Jer. 4.2 and in him shall they glory These last words seem evidently to relate to the days of the Messiah So here an Oath religiously taken is represented as a part of that Worship which all Nations shall offer up to God under the New Dispensation Against all this the great Objection is That when Christ is correcting the Glosses that the Pharisees put upon the Law whereas they only taught that men should not forswear themselves but perform their oaths unto the Lord our Saviour says Swear not at all neither by the Heaven nor the earth Matth. 5.34 35 36 37. James 5.12 nor by Ierusalem nor by the head but let your communication be yea yea and nay nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil And St. Iames speaking of the enduring Afflictions and of the Patience of Iob adds But above all things my brethren swear not neither by the heaven neither by the earth neither by any other oath but let your yea be yea and your nay nay lest ye fall into condemnation It must be confessed that these words seem to be so express and positive that great regard is to be had to a Scruple that is founded on an Authority that seems to be so full But according to what was formerly observed of the manner of the Judiciary Oaths among the Iews these words cannot belong to them Those Oaths were bound upon the Party by the Authority of the Judg in which he was passive and so could not help his being put under an Oath Whereas our Saviour's words relate only to those Oaths which a man took voluntarily on himself but not to those under which he was bound according to the Law of God If our Saviour had intended to have forbidden all Judiciary Oaths he must have annulled that part of the Authority of Magistrates and Parents and have forbid them to put others under Oaths The word Communication that comes afterwards seems to be a Key to our Saviour's words to shew that they ought only to be applied to their Communication or Commerce to those Discourses that pass among men in which it is but too customary to give Oaths a very large share Or since the words that went before concerning the performing of Vows seem to limit the Discourse to them the meaning of Swear not at all may be this Be not ready as the Iews were to make Vows on all occasions to devote themselves or others Instead of those he requires them to use a greater Simplicity in their Communication And St. Iames's words may be also very fitly applied to this since men in their Afflictions are apt to make very indiscreet Vows without considering whether they either can or probably will pay them as if they would pretend by such profuse Vows to overcome or corrupt God This Sense will well agree both to our Saviour's words and to St. Iames's and it seems most reasonable to believe that this is their true Sense for it agrees with every thing else whereas if we understand theâ— in that strict Sense of condemning all Oaths we cannot tell what to make of those Oaths which occur in several Passages of St. Paul's Epistles and least of all what to say to our Saviour's own answering upon Oath when adjured Therefore all rash and vain swearing all swearing in the Communication or Intercourse of Mankind is certainly condemned as well as all Imprecatory Vows But since we have so great Authorities from the Scriptures in both Testaments for other Oaths and since that agrees so evidently with the Principles of Natural Religion we may conclude with the Article That a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth it It is added in a Cause of Faith and Charity for certainly in trifling matters such Reverence is due to the Holy Name of God that swearing ought to be avoided But when it is necessary it ought to be set about with those regards that are due to the Great God who is appealed to A Gravity of Deportment and an Exactness of weighing the truth of what we say are highly necessary here Certainly our Words ought to be few and our Hearts full of the Apprehensions of the Majesty of that God with whom we have to do before whom we stand and to whom we appeal who knows all things and will bring every work to judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or whether it be evil FINIS