TWO TREATISES. The First, Concerning Reproaching & Censure: The Second, An ANSWER to Mr SERjEANT's Sure-footing. To which are annexed THREE SERMONS Preached upon several Occasions, and very useful for these Times. By the late Learned and Reverend WILLIAM FALKNER, D. D. LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard, and sold by William Oliver, in Norwich. MDCLXXXIV. TO THE Most Reverend FATHER in GOD, WILLIAM By DIVINE PROVIDENCE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, HIS GRACE, Primate of all ENGLAND and Metropolitan; and one of the Lords of His majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, May it please Your GRACE, I Humbly present to your Grace's Patronage, some Remains of an excellent Person, for whom Your Grace was pleased to express a great value while he lived, and whom You are still pleased, upon all occasions, to mention with great kindness. Had he lived to have published any of these Discourses himself, he would have chosen no other Patron; and had he lived a little longer, he would have found, that he had needed no other. For since some may wonder, that so great a Man should go off the Stage with no greater Character, than one of the Town-Preachers at Lyn Regis; it is fit the World should know, that Your Grace, who is the peculiar Patron of modest and neglected Worth, designed better things for him. That great honour I have for Dr. Falkner's Memory, to whose wise instructions I own that little Knowledge I have attained to, would easily have persuaded me to have given the World a more particular account of his Life, which was adorned with as many eminent Virtues, as I believe this last Age can show in any one man. But though distance of place could not interrupt our Correspondence nor our Friendship, yet it has for many years deprived me of the familiarities and intimacies of his conversation, which give the truest Character of any man; and I dare not undertake a work, wherein I can neither serve my Friend, nor satisfy the World. As for these posthumous Treatises, he designed only the first of them for the Press, which concerns Reproaching and Censures; which he observed, was grown so common a fault, that it is generally thought to be none: and therefore in the first Part, he shows the great Evil and Sinfulness of it, and how irreconcilable it is with a true Christian Spirit. But then he considered, that as men, who are most guilty of this vice, have no sense of it themselves; so they are very apt to charge those with it, who are not guilty. Whoever has had the courage and honesty to reprove the Schisms and Factions, that are among us, and to censure the errors and miscarriages of the several Sects and Parties of Christians, have been branded with the ignominious name of Railers, and Revilers, and Accusers of the Brethren; and therefore in his Second Part, he shows, that such just and sober Censures as these, which are designed to convince men of their errors and mistakes, are so far from being a fault, that they are a necessary duty. And because some men are transported with such an intemperate zeal, that they do not impartially consider, what is truly blame-worthy in those, who differ from them, but censure and condemn, at all adventures, whatever is said or done by men of such a Party or Character; He proposed to himself, particularly to consider the several Sects and Professions of Christians, and what it is, which deserves reproof and Censure in them: which he has done with great Candour and Judgement, but did not live to perfect it. For we have no reason to doubt, but the Presbyterians should have had their share too, as well as the other Sects amongst us, but either that Part was not done, or it was lost, for no Remains could be found of it. As for his Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure-Footing, that was written many years since, and designed by him for the Press; but by that time he had finished it, he found that work done to his hand by a very excellent Pen, which put an end to that Controversy, and therefore he laid it by without any intention to make it public. But since his Death, some of his Friends have had other thoughts of it, and indeed, it is so useful a Discourse, that though there is no need of a new Answer to Sergeant, since the Publication of Dr. Tillotson's Rule of Faith, yet I believe it will not be unacceptable to Learned men. He penned very few Sermons in long hand, which, I suppose, is the reason, why there are no more published. These that are, besides the usefulness of the several Subjects, may serve as a specimen of his plain and pious way of instructing the people. My Lord, I should be very ungrateful, should I neglect this opportunity to make my public acknowledgements to Your Grace for those extraordinary favours I have so lately received from You; on which the ease and comfort of my life does so much depend, that I am for ever bound to implore the Divine Majesty to bless Your Grace with all happiness and prosperity in this life, and with the rewards of an exemplary Piety and Virtue in the next, which is the hearty Prayer of, My LORD, Your Grace's most dutiful Servant, William Sherlock. A TABLE OF THE AUTHOR's CONTENTS. OF REPROACHING & CENSURE. The First Part, Concerning the irregular Excesses, and great Sinfulness, of uncharitable Evil-speaking: especially of Superiors. CHAP. I. SOME preparatory considerations, concerning the evil of Reproaching. Page 1 CHAP. II. The excessive disorders, and unreasonable extravagancy of speaking evil, when men give way to their passions and uncharitable temper, manifested especially from the Censures our Saviour underwent. Sect. 1. The best deserving persons, are oft under obloquy and undeserved Censure. p. 12 Sect. 2. Who are apt to be prevailed with to be guilty of the sinful reproaching others, and how far this sin becomes spreading and contagious. p 24 Sect. 3. The monstrous and unreasonable strangeness of those censures, which have been unjustly charged on the most innocent and excellent men, and particularly on our blessed Lord and Saviour himself. p. 32 CHAP. III. The manifold sinfulness, and severe punishment of reproaching and speaking evil, especially against Superiors. p. 56 CHAP. IV. Contumelious evil-speaking in general; and all irreverent and disrespectful behaviour, towards Rulers and Governors, is contrary to the life of Christ; in those things, wherein we are particularly commanded to imitate his Example: and S. Paul's carriage, Acts 23.3, 4, 5. considered. p. 76 The Second Part, Concerning the usefulness of a sober Censure of such Parties or persons, who practise evil, or propagate falsehood; with an enquiry into some different parties, who make profession of Christianity. CHAP. I. TO speak against evil persons and practices duly and discreetly, and to the just discrediting and disparaging bad Principles and Doctrines, is reasonable and good; with an account of what Rules are here to be observed. p. 121 CHAP. II. The Principles and Practices, maintained in the Church of Rome, are such as deserve severe Censure and a note of infamy. Sect. 1. The Romish Church and its Doctrines, and the putting them in practice, is chargeable with great disturbances, mischievous to the peace and order of the World. p. 141 Sect. 2. The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome, and the Constitutions therein established, are great hindrances to holiness of life, and true devotion in Religion, and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery. p. 159 Sect. 3. Those Doctrines and Practices are publicly declared and asserted in the Church of Rome, and are by the Authority thereof established, which are highly derogatory to the just honour and dignity of our Saviour. p. 186 Sect. 4. Of the public allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists, as either debase the Majesty of God, or give divine honour to something else besides God. p. 214 Sect. 5. Integrity too much neglected, and Religion so ordered and modelled, by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome, as to represent a contrivance of deceit, Interest and Policy. p. 241 CHAP. III. Of our Dissenters, where some of the different sorts of them are first particularly considered, and then follows a more general consideration of them jointly. Sect. 1. Of Quakers. p. 262 Sect. 2. Of the Fifth Monarchy men, and the Millenary Opinion. p. 275 Sect. 3. Of Anabaptists. p. 279 Sect. 4. Of Independents. p. 292 An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Discourse Entitled, Sure-Footing in Christianity. THE first Discourse examined, showing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith. p. 321 Answer to Disc. 2. showing, that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith, do agree to Scripture. p. 330 An Answer to his third Discourse, showing, that the three next Properties of the Rule of Faith, are agreeable to Scripture. p. 349 An Answer to the fourth Discourse, showing, that the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith, do agree to Scripture. p. 367 An Answer to the fifth Discourse, enquiring into Tradition, and showing, that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith, agree to it. p. 383 An Answer to his sixth Discourse, showing, that he hath given neither Demonstration, nor probable Reason, to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori. p. 404 An Answer to his seventh Discourse, concerning Heresy. p. 416 An Answer to his eighth Discourse, showing, that uninterruptedness of Tradition, is not proved à posteriori. p. 433 An Answer to his ninth Discourse, showing, that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church, hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority. p. 451 Answer to his Corollaries. p. 460 An Inquiry after, and Examination of, the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse. p. 468 Sect. 1. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures. p. 469 Sect. 2. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith. p. 473 Sect. 3. Of the Council of Sardica, and what it owned as the Rule of Faith. p. 476 Sect. 4. What was owned as the Rule of Faith, by the second Council of Nice. p. 478 Sect. 5. What were the grounds of the Catholic Faith asserted against Arianism, in and at the time of the first Nicene Council? p. 484 Sect. 6. What was received as the Rule of Faith, at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople? p. 486 Sect. 7. What was owned as the Rule of Faith, at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus? p. 487 Sect. 8. What was owned as the Rule of Faith, at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon? p. 489 Sect. 9 Of the Rule of Faith, acknowledged by the Fathers, and first of Celestine. p. 491 Sect. 10. What was the Rule of Faith, owned by Irenaeus? p. 492 Sect. 11. What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith? p. 497 Sect. 12. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian? p. 501 Sect. 13. What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith? p. 506 Sect. 14. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius? p. 507 Sect. 15. What was owned as the Rule of Faith, by S. Basil? p. 510 Sect. 16. What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith? p. 512 Sect. 17. What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith? p. 515 Sect. 18. Answering the remainder of his Discourse. p. 516 Sermons Preached upon several Occasions. A Sermon Preached at Lyn S. Margaret 's, at the Bishop's Visitation, Octob. 15. 1677. on 2 Cor. 5.18.— And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation. p. 523 A Sermon Preached at Norwich, March 2. 1678. on Joel 2.12. Therefore also now saith the Lord, Turn ye even to me with all your heart. p. 555 A Sermon Preached on S. Matth. 5.20. For I say unto you, That except your Righteousness shall exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. p. 577 OF REPROACHING AND CENSURE. The First Part: Concerning the irregular Excesses, and great Sinfulness, of uncharitable evil-speaking; especially of Superiors. CHAP. I. Some preparatory considerations, concerning the evil of Reproaching. 1. REligion hath that general influence upon the life of the pious man, that it commands and governs his thoughts and affections, his words and actions. But where the true rules of piety are neglected, very many indulge themselves, in great disorder and miscarriages, in every one of these particulars. Among other things, a strange licentious liberty is taken, by no small number of men, in speaking injuriously, and casting reproaches and unreasonable censures upon others, contrary to the rules of our Christian profession; yea, even upon men of the best principles, and the best lives, and not sparing our Rulers and Governors, in Church and State. 2. And this evil temper hath so far insinuated itself, Evil speaking a vice dangerously prevailing at this time, and is become so spreading, and so open and manifest; that I account it one of the prevailing vices of our days. And when men are ashamed to own many other sinful practices, or to show any approbation of them; as of drunkenness, swearing, uncleanness, oppression and such like; uncharitable speeches of others, are entertained with a secret delight and pleasure, and oft with open expressions of satisfaction. And this shows the great defilement of this sin, which not only prevails on the passions and affections, by corrupting and disordering them; but it also debaucheth, and perverteth the very inward principles of Conscience itself. I wish that with respect to very many persons, we had not now just cause, to take up the complaint of (a) Naz. Or. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it ought to be reproved, and checked, Gr. Nazianzen, concerning the time he lived in, That that man was best esteemed of, not he who being governed by the fear of God, durst not speak an idle word, but he who speaketh the most contumeliously against others, either openly or by sly intimations. 3. And therefore I shall now design to speak somewhat, which may manifest the great evil of this uncharitable behaviour, especially towards our Superiors, and may be sufficient to warn men against it. Such an undertaking as this, is very agreeable to that particular Apostolical direction, and precept of S. Paul; who charged Titus in the work of his Ministry, Tit. 3.1, 2. to put men in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers, to obey Magistrates, to be ready to every good work. To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing all meekness to all men. Whatsoever esteem some persons will have, of such instructions and truths as these are; the Apostle with respect hereto commands Titus, v. 8. these things I will that thou affirm constantly; and further declares in the end of that verse, these things are good and profitable unto men. And it must needs be a fit season, and very requisite, to declare against any sin, when it is grown to that height, that men will openly avow it, and become bold and confident in the practice of it, without shame or regret. And that what I shall speak of this Subject may be the more carefully regarded, Some preparatory considerations proposed. I shall in my entrance upon it take some notice (which I shall afterward, further pursue) of the great hurt and danger of this sin, and its being inconsistent with piety, and true holiness and Religion. The tongue, S. James saith, is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison, Jam. 3.8. and therefore it is no little mischief which proceeds from the ill government thereof. 4. Uncharitable reproaches are, First, 1. Reproaching is contrary to the highest and best examples, set before us in the Scripture, Unsuitable to the best and highest examples, which the Scripture proposeth for our imitation; and contrary and hateful to the wisest and most excellent persons. But it is most reasonable for us to follow such examples, since such persons who are of clearest knowledge, and free from all passionate and sinful inclinations, can most perfectly discern good, and are fitly qualified to make the best choice. But this disorder is so far opposite to true goodness, that though rash men may not duly observe the evil thereof, yet as an evident conviction of the great sinfulness contained therein, especially in reproaching Governors, S. Judas tells us that Michael the Archangel when contending with the Devil, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, Judas 9 And yet inconsiderate and passionate men dare venture on this sin without fear, though a person of so great wisdom and knowledge as the Archangel, durst not do it, and though the Apostle and the Holy Ghost himself, propose his example, as a manifest condemnation of such transgressors. And those pious Christians who have been best acquainted with the Spirit of Christianity, have accounted (as every man ought to do) this instance to be of great force. Hence (b) Hieron. in Tit. c. 3. S. Hierome from this instance of the Archangel, urgeth the necessity of a careful practice of that Christian duty, to speak evil of no man. And when S. Peter had observed, what a daring presumption some evil men were arrived unto, that they were not afraid to speak evil of Dignities, he in like manner adds, 2 Pet. 2.10, 11. whereas Angels which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusations against them before the Lord: and we should do the will of God on Earth, as it is done by them in Heaven. Agreeably to these we have the great example of our Lord and Saviour, which is proposed for our imitation, 1 Pet. 2.23. Who when he was reviled, he reviled not again. And besides these things, we may discern how much the holy God disliketh, and is displeased with this evil practice, by his laws and precepts condemning it, and by the threaten he hath denounced, and the punishments he will inflict upon those who are guilty of this sin; but of these I shall discourse more hereafter. 5. But this evil practice is very agreeable to the temper and disposition of the evil spirit: and thereupon (c) Basil. Ep. 75. Chrys. Hom. de Diabol. Tentat. Andr. Caesar. in Apoc. c. 34. and is a great compliance with the Evil one. ancient Writers have accounted the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a calumniator, to have been very properly given to him. For pride, uncharitableness, promoting mischief, and departing from truth, all which things are manifestly joined together in this sin, do make up very much of the nature of the evil one. These things therefore are both pleasing to him, and a considerable resemblance of him. And indeed the Devil hath done a great part of his work in the world, by this very practice; and it becomes every Christian, to detest the following his example, and the carrying on his work. The first transgression of mankind, was occasioned, by his misreporting, and misrepresenting the intentions of God's Government, and his laws. And one of the most effectual means, whereby Satan hath hindered the greater progress of the Christian Religion, especially in the Primitive times, when Religion itself continued uncorrupt; was by defaming both our holy Religion, and them who hearty embraced it, and by prevailing upon a great part of the world to believe much evil concerning it, and entertain great prejudices against it. To this end such calumnies were invented, and spread abroad, as that the assembling of Christians together to partake of the holy Eucharist, were meetings to perpetrate villainies, in murdering and eating of an Infant, and practising uncleanness, as many of the Writers of the first Ages have declared, who have refuted such notorious slanders. And the Christians themselves were aspersed as men of inflexible obstinacy, and a perverse will: and this even (d) Plin. Ep. l. 10. Ep. 97. Pliny chargeth them with, who vindicates them from the forementioned crimes. They were also reputed Atheists, as (e) Just. Apol. 2. Justin Martyr declares, because they owned not the Gentile Idolatry, And many other things of like nature might be added. Whereas if Christianity had been generally represented, and apprehended in its genuine excellencies, its amiable purity and truth, and its Divine Authority; it would have commanded a more general submission among men. But by the wiles of Satan, and the malice of his instruments, such calumnies were spread abroad, that it was in its first manifestation every where spoken against, Act. 28.22. 6. Secondly, 2. It is inconsistent with true Holiness, The practice of this sin is inconsistent with true piety and integrity of heart. For as the fruit shows the nature of the tree; so an ill-governed tongue is a plain evidence of a corrupt heart, and speaks passion and uncharitableness to prevail there, where meekness and love should take place. This our Lord testifies, Mat. 12.34, 35. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things. And this is that which the usual observation of the world hath testified; as (f) Hierocl. in Pyth. Carm. p. 140. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hierocles declared, men speak either good, or evil, suitably to the contrary inclinations of their minds. There is indeed some difference here, between the evil and the good heart. The man of a malicious spirit, may sometimes speak fair, and smoothly even unto flattery, and a wicked man may speak good words, and act the hypocrite; and the reason of this is, because an evil heart may incline the man to dissemble and speak falsely; but such words though they carry a fair appearance, are evil words, because full of fraud, unfaithfulness and dissimulation. But where the heart is good and upright, there true integrity prevails; and though an evil man may in many outward things, speak and do as the good man doth, out of hypocrisy, and still continue wicked; no good man can speak and do evil things, according to the practice of the sinful and vicious person; and whosoever doth so, must be really wicked; because goodness and uprightness, both hate all counterfeiting and dissembling, and all other compliances with sin and evil. 7. and speaks a prevalency of sin. But there is so much evil and wickedness contained under this sin of defaming others, that a great part of the testimony which the Apostle gave, of the Jews being estranged from true goodness and piety, and being under sin, is included herein. He declares from the writings of the Old Testament, Rom. 3.13, 14, 15. Their throat is an open Sepulchre, with their tongues they have used deceit, the poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood, etc. Now the sense of most part of these words, is plainly contained in this sin I am declaring against. And when the Apostle mentions their mouth being full of cursing, it may be worthy our observation, that contumelious speaking against and reproaching others, doth in some degree, really include in it, the true and proper nature of cursing; it being a plain declaration of the persons wishing and desiring evil, to him of whom he speaks. And what S. Paul adds, that their feet are swift to shed blood, even this is frequently the natural effect of the same sin. For when men by evil speaking, especially of their Superiors, have wrought themselves and others, into a greater dislike of them, and hatred towards them, how oft this hath fomented fierce passions, and wrought dispositions to cruelty, and put men upon insurrections and forwardness of shedding blood; the Histories of all times, and the remembrance of this last Age in our own Nation, will give undeniable evidence. Now such a temper, (which gives an apparent indication, that they who practised such things, were turned aside from God, and the ways of piety,) cannot be thought reconcileable with the holiness, and purity of the Christian Religion. 8. Thirdly, This practice is mighty dangerous, 3. It exposeth the offender to condemnation. with respect to men's great and eternal interests. Many are too neglectful in calling themselves to an account for their words, but God hath assured us, that at the great day he will take an account of them, and will not then allow that liberty, that men now give themselves in evil speaking, but even this sin may be sufficient to bring upon them eternal condemnation. Our Lord hath declared, Matt. 12.36, 37. That of every idle word, men shall give an account in the day of Judgement. For by their words, they shall be justified; and by their words, they shall be condemned. And these words of our Saviour, are so solemn and weighty, as laying down a rule of proceeding, in the future judgement and condemnation; that they ought not to be slighted and disregarded, but to be seriously pondered, and considered. Many of the ancient Writers, interpret this Text concerning such words as were not useful and profitable to edification. Thus S. Basil, S. Hierom, Greg. Magnus, and others. And (g) Iren. ad●● Haeres. l. 4. c. 31. Irenaeus mentions them as such a Doctrine of our Saviour, whereby he advanceth and exalteth the Christian Religion, and the rules and precepts thereof. And it is thence inferred, that if such words which are not of use to good, shall be under the heavy condemnation of the great Day, much more those which are contumelious, and include evil. 9 But this strict interpretation, Mat. 12.36. Concerning every idle word, explained. would deny Christians the liberty of ordinary conversation, and that freedom of familiar speaking, concerning common affairs, which is necessary thereunto, and it cannot well be thought that our Saviour, whose yoke is easy, would lay such a severe restraint upon his Disciples, under pain of eternal damnation. And therefore the notion entertained by Grotius, and Dr. Hammond, that by every idle word, is understood every false and evil word, (including what is unseemly, and unbecoming Sobriety) is the much more probable sense of our Saviour's speech; and the account they give of it, is very reasonable and considerable. And this is a sense that wants not the authority of some of the Ancients. Thus Theophylact expounds these words, and so doth also S. chrysostom, both upon S. Matthew, and (h) Chrys. Serm. 62. in Paralyt. elsewhere. And (i) Eus. praep. Eu. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius declares, that upon account of these words of our Saviour, the Christians would not admit either any lie, or any reproach, nor any filthy, nor any unseemly word. 10. This sense is also agreeable to the manner of the Scripture expression, in divers other places, where it speaks of things, and words hurtful and evil, under such phrases, as most directly signify their being not useful. Thus S. Paul calls such words, as turn men from piety, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, empty or vain words, Ephes. 5.6. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, empty or vain babbling, 1 Tim. 6.20. 2 Tim. 2.16. and the expressions of an empty word, and an idle word, are not much unlike; but under that phrase the Apostle evidently intends, wicked and sinful words. So when the Idols of the Gentiles are oft called vanities, as Act. 14.15. and the adhering to them, a becoming vain in their imaginations, Rom. 1.21. it is not only intended that these things are void of goodness, but that they are things abominable. So the Apostle intends, that it will be of pernicious consequence to men, when those who watch for their souls, give up their account with grief, when he only expresseth it to be unprofitable, Heb. 13.17. And the Holy Scripture calls the works of darkness unfruitful, when it designs them to be accounted hurtful, Ephes. 5.11. 11. And this interpretation of these words of our Lord, accords very well with the truth delivered in other Scriptures, that revilers and liars, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, and that his Religion is vain, who bridleth not his tongue. It is very suitable also to the occasion, on which our Saviour spoke these words, which was the Pharisees defaming his Miracles, and him in working them; as if he did them by Beelzebub. And therefore this speech hath a particular respect to words of calumny; The sad doom of Reproachers hence observed. and speaks the heavy doom of such persons, as please themselves with speaking evil of others, when Christ himself shall come to judge. Let every Christian therefore stand in awe of this threatening of our Lord, and carefully observe that precept of S. James, Jam. 2.12. So speak ye, and so do, as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty. Both our words and actions will be hereafter judged, according to that Gospel, which passeth a Sentence against reproaching expressions. And the Gospel is such a law of liberty, that besides other advantages, they who will seriously mind their duty, may under it, and by the grace thereof, be set free from the power and rule of their passions and lusts: and therefore the serving these under the grace of the Gospel, is utterly inexcusable. 12. Fourthly, 4. A pious government of the tongue, is an excellent Christian perfection. The good and pious government of the tongue, is a very considerable perfection in the practice of Religion. For this manifests such a person, to have gotten the victory over the passions, and disorderly motions of his mind, which are apt in others to discover themselves by rash words; the tongue being a quick and glib mover, and oft forward to express any prevailing irregular discomposure of the Spirit. Hence Jam. 3.2. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. But these words of that Apostle must be so understood, as to speak particularly the perfection of him, who thus behaves himself, upon the true principles of Christianity. For it must be acknowledged, that passionate and reproachful words, may be suppressed in some, by the advantage of their natural temper, of mildness and courteousness, which doth not much incline them to this sin, whilst they live in the practice of others. In others they may be restrained by the rules of policy and subtlety, and a strong resolution in the managing of some design; and much may be done in others by mere rational and Philosophical considerations. There are many instances among the ancient Philosophers, and their followers, of such persons as gained a considerable mastery of their passions, and a great command of their words and actions. Among others, Socrates was a rare instance hereof, if he came any thing nigh that admirable character, that (k) Xenoph. Memor. l. 1. p. 710. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Xenophon gives him, That no man ever saw Socrates do any action, or heard him speak any word, that was contrary to Religious piety, or unholy. This was mighty considerable, though we understand it, only with respect to the rules of morality, admitted under the Pagan Philosophy. And it is unbecoming Christians, to come short of such examples, when their Religion doth so wonderfully go beyond all the principles, of Ethnic Philosophy. 13. Where this is wanting, the Christian spirit hath not had its due effect. Christianity tends to bring men into a lively sense of the only true God; to a clear knowledge of that excellent revelation, delivered by our Saviour; it guides unto that universal purity, which excludes all the Idolatry, and other vices, which the most refined Paganism did admit; it showeth obedience to its precepts, to be of the highest concernment imaginable; from the plainest manifestation of the great account, and judgement to come, and the future state either of endless glorious perfection, or of intolerable torment. And it also most expressly manifests the great necessity of well governing the tongue, both as to the practice of Religion, and the obtaining everlasting happiness; and it affords the aids and grace of the Holy Spirit, to assist and enable us, to the performance of all those duties, it enjoins upon us. Now this Religion cannot be received in any considerable degree, by them who entertain the practice of evil speaking and reproaching; which is contrary and opposite to it, to the author of it, and to the obtaining the good it proposeth to its followers. But where the true fear of God, and a conscientious regard to all the rules of the Christian life, have prevailed, for the well-ordering of the tongue; it may be expected that they will have a like power and efficacy, for the government of the whole man. And where this member is disordered, it becomes an incendiary, and as a pestilential Contagion, spreads abroad venom and evil: and in S. James' expression, it sets on fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire of hell; who also saith it is a world of iniquity, and defileth the whole body, Jam. 3.6. And the Great miscarriages of the tongue, which in that Chapter are complained of, with divers earnest and emphatical expressions, appear plainly to be the censuring and speaking evil of others, and the promoting and exciting strife and contention. CHAP. II. The excessive disorders, and unreasonable extravagancy of speaking evil, when men give way to their passions and uncharitable temper, manifested especially from the Censures our Saviour underwent. SECT. I. The best deserving persons, are oft under obloquy and undeserved Censure. Sect. I THese things being premised, I shall now come to discourse 1. Of the great disorder of an ill-governed tongue, in censuring and reproaching. 2. Of the sinfulness of this practice, and the great guilt thereof. 2. First, The tongue is such an unruly evil, as S. James calls it, Jam. 3.8. that when men indulge themselves in uncharitableness, and censoriousness, it puts them upon the contriving, Censoriousness is unruly, and wonderfully extravagant, or pursuing the most unaccountable, and unreasonable calumnies and slanders. Good Hezekiah shall fall under the lavish revile of a Rabshakeh; and his reformation excellently and piously performed, will be condemned as impious. And Christianity itself was made a matter of reproach by Saul, whilst he was a blasphemer, a persecuter, and injurious, and by many others who professed themselves enemies unto it: and the Christians in general were spoken of as evil doers, 1 Pet. 2.12. But we cannot better discern how ungovernable and extravagant the censorious and uncharitable tongue is, than by considering the instances of our blessed Saviour, and other excellent men. Even the Holy Jesus when he conversed upon Earth, escaped not the sharp and bitter reproaches of reviling tongues, though he deserved no censure, nor gave any just occasion for any. The persons considered who bear reproach. And therefore what he and other good men met with, will abundantly manifest the strange unruliness of a defaming temper, which is contained under no bounds, and limits of truth, justice or charity. 3. This may especially appear by our enquiring into three things: 1. What the great excellencies were, notwithstanding which he and the best of men have suffered reproach? 2. Who those persons were by whom they were reviled and evil spoken of? 3. What some part of the accusation and charge was, which they drew up against him; and other pious men? 4. Qu. 1. What were the great excellencies of our Lord, Christ himself, and the most worthy persons not secure from it. and other good men, notwithstanding which they underwent reproach? And these were so exceeding eminent in him, and manifested by such full and undeniable evidence; that it may be just matter of wonder, that they should not be generally admired, and that all who conversed with him, should not mightily reverence him. Hence (a) Orig. cont. Cells. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Origen was of opinion, that even on this account our Lord might forbear to answer any thing before Pilate, to the false Witnesses who appeared against him, because his pure and innocent life was a sufficient confutation of their false testimony. It must indeed be acknowledged, that no other person upon Earth, ever was so excellent as he was. But hereupon the considering how he was treated among men, is so much the more convictive evidence, that it may be the lot of the most worthy men, to be traduced and defamed in the World. And if this was the Master's portion; it is the less to be wondered, if any of his Servants meet with the same; and as himself had said, if they call the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call them of his household? Mat. 10.25. For, 5. First, He was the most holy person. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, 1. Persons signally pious and good, are oft evil spoken of. and yet he was reviled, 1 Pet. 2.22, 23. Innocency and purity in the highest measure, (yea even in him above all measure) are no sufficient security, for the avoiding censures. But if the best and most holy men, will not seek to comply with the humours of them, who are eagerly bend to serve their errors, even this their firm and steadfast uprightness and integrity, shall turn to their reproach. And there is so much hurry and fury in disordered passions, that it is as reasonable to expect, that a storm and tempest should avoid every fruitful tree, as that uncharitable and undeserved censures, should not be fixed upon any good men, Satan will find some matter of reflection to cast upon Job, though God himself gives him this character, that he was a perfect and upright man, one that feared God, and eschewed evil. Even while the Scribes and Pharisees were in great vogue, with the people, and highly admired by them; the blessed Jesus, whose holy life and doctrine might recommend him, to every man's conscience, was despised and rejected. And the true Prophets who were sent before our Lord, were hated, reproached, and their name cast out as evil, Luk. 6.22, 23. whilst the false Prophets, who complied with the disordered inclinations of the people, were so acceptable to them, that all men spoke well of them, v. 26. The best and most faithful and sincere men, deserve a general applause; but they so rarely meet with any thing like it, that our Saviour declared, woe be to you when all men speak well of you, Luk. 6.26. 6. And since the progress of Christianity, the most excellent persons have in the several ages of the Church, oft undergone the most undeserved calumnies, from other professed Christians. Thus (b) Athan. Ap. ad Constant. & alib. Athanasius was falsely charged by his adversaries, with disloyalty, with sacrilegious irreverence, to the most holy Mysteries of Christianity, with uncleanness, cruel acts of violence, and other such like heinous crimes; from all which, he cleared himself to the shame and confusion of his accusers. S. Basil in several of his (c) Basil. Ep. 33, 75, 79, 86, etc. Epistles, takes notice of the various and injurious aspersions, which were cast upon him, even of so high a nature, that he was reported to be a blasphemer and a madman. And the like might be observed concerning Gr. Nazianzen, S. Austin, and divers other persons of incomparable worth, and singular eminency in the Christian Church. And it is a thing too frequent and obvious, that when the Professors of Christianity, are divided into different parties and interests, they who are the worst spirited men, are forward to act, as enemies do in war; if they know any man of the greatest worth, who is of the opposite side, if he be within their reach, they will especially endeavour to wound and strike at him. But such things show how far they are gone aside from true Christianity, while they pretend to be zealous for it. 7. But the truly pious man, though so far as concerns his detractors, and those who are misguided by them, he is grieved, and affected with tender pity and compassion, to see how Satan beguiles and ensnares them, to their own hurt; yet so far as concerns himself, he can bear the undeserved censures of his integrity with inward comfort and peace, and an indisturbed mind. Yea he can, as S. Paul did, take pleasure in reproaches, 2 Cor. 12.10. upon the great encouragement given by our Saviour himself, Mat. 5.11, 12. Blessed are ye when men shall revile, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven. Thus (d) Aug. count. Jul. l. 1. c. 1. S. Austin gins his Book against Julian the Pelagian, in telling him, that he should not speak the truth, if he should say he did contemn and not regard the slanders and reviling words, which Julian had uttered against him; for they were matter of joy to him, so far as concerned himself; but they administered occasions of sorrow so far as concerned Julian, who wrote them, and those who were seduced and deceived by him. But they who allow themselves to desame the best men, will be far from finding comfort at last in these practices; since he that justifies the wicked, and he that condemns the just; even they both are an abomination to the Lord, Prov. 17.15. 8. Secondly, 2. Men who are most serviceable to the world, and do most good in it, are oft misrepresented. The Holy Jesus was one, whose business and care it was, wholly to do good, and yet met with much contumelious reproach. He came to make all eternally happy, who would be guided by him; and took the most effectual course, for the complete accomplishing the true advancement of man, and managed the designs of goodness to the best and highest purposes. He came to recover man from a sad and dangerous estate; and his promoting the great welfare of men was manifest, from the holiness of his doctrine, which wonderfully purified the minds of men; and from the outward acts of his power being employed for good, in casting out Devils, healing all that were diseased, and such like excellent works. And he was as (e) Cl. Alex. Strom. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clemens Alexandrinus speaks (with some allusion to the name Jesus, as if it had been from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to heal) one that heals and cures both the bodies, and the souls of men. Yet he who went up and down doing good, was evil spoken of. Such were the unkind returns, which his greatest kindness and care met with! And this is frequently the fate of the most useful and serviceable men in their generations. 9 Evil and mischievous men deserve to be accounted infamous by all, and to be severely punished also. But they are under gross mistakes, who set themselves against their most faithful friends, as if they were their chiefest enemies; and yet this is very common among men When the Apostles of our Lord, used their utmost endeavours and diligence, to acquaint men with the truth of Religion, to turn them from Satan to God, and to make them happy; and to that end had undergone many dangers, necessities, difficulties and sufferings; they were still so far defamed and reproached, as to be accounted as the filth of the world, and the off scouring of all things. And when David's ruling Israel, was managed with that faithfulness and prudence, that the Holy Ghost testified, that he fed them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands, Psal. 78.72. Yet by the smooth tongue, and subtle insinuations of Absolom, his government was wholly misrepresented, as if he had taken no care of justice and righteousness, 2 Sam. 15.3, 4. And the people hereby became so deluded, that Absolom stole the hearts of the men of Israel, v. 6. 10. And besides many other instances, And so hath the infinitely good God been spoken against. which might easily be given in the History of the World; it is remarkable that when God himself had framed man after his own Image, given him the Dominion of other Creatures, and planted him in a Paradise and place of delight and pleasure; there wanted not an accusation against him, and his government, as if he intended to keep man in an unreasonable subjection, and to debar him of that perfection of state which he might otherwise have obtained, Gen. 3.5. And when he had given that admirable instance of his care, and favour towards Israel, in bringing them out of Egypt, with a mighty hand, and guiding and feeding them miraculously in the Wilderness, by his wonderful power; yet how oft did they speak against God in the desert, even whilst he was following them with his goodness: Wherefore there is much of truth, in what was observed by (f) de beneficiis l. 1. c. 1, etc. Seneca, that among all the great vices, which prevail in the world, there is none more frequent, than to want a grateful sense of the receiving of good. And though as he observes, the fierce wild beasts, as the Lion and the Elephant express a kind apprehension of the benefits and good, which they receive from those who take care of them, yet even among men there are those, qui pessime loquuntur de optime meritis, who defame that which deserves the highest commendation. 11. From these instances I have given, it may appear, what an unaccountable thing it is, to be led by, or even to give heed unto, This unreasonable sin is pernicious to the practisers. the aspersions and defaming expressions of unruly tongues, which ofttimes speak licentiously against the Heavens, and against the most deserving men upon Earth. But the evil and danger of these practices, is as considerable, as the disorder, folly and unreasonableness, of them. In every one of the instances I mentioned, it went very ill with the evil-speaker. They who spoke against God in the wilderness, were smitten with various dreadful judgements, and they perished in the Desert. Our first Parents who were beguiled, to hearken to suggestions, against the Laws and Precepts of their Maker in Paradise, were dispossessed of their Eden, and brought great calamities on themselves, and upon all their posterity to this day. Absolom and they who were persuaded by him into an undeserved ill opinion of David, and were drawn in to oppose his government, were destroyed; and a very great slaughter followed of the men of Israel. And all those who despised our Saviour and his Apostles, and their Doctrine, deprived themselves thereby, of the admirable benefits of that great salvation. 12. Thirdly, 3. The defaming tongue gives not due reverence to those who have divine authority, Our Lord was one, who came invested with the highest authority, which was fully attested; and yet he was disrespected and dishonoured. He was sent from God, and what he spoke and acted was in his name. The authority of God deserves, and commands reverence from men, and it is a presumptuous boldness, to treat such persons without due honourable respect, whose office and business is appointed and ordained of God, and where themselves bring sufficient evidence of this Divine Authority. He who honoureth a Prince, will express a reverend demeanour to all those, who act in managing any high office, in his name, and by his special commission. And where there is a true honour and fear of God, it will engage an hearty respect, for all those who are established by him. But such is the wild extravagancy of a disorderly tongue, led by the heat and violence of passion, that it so far casts off the sense of God and his fear, as to dare rashly to vent itself, against those persons, towards whom God himself hath particularly enjoined, and required an honourable esteem, and awful reverence. 13. The blessed Jesus was the only Son of God, and his mission from God was sufficiently evidenced, by the Prophecies, which were accomplished in him; by the testimony of S. John Baptist, of the Angels, and of the voice from Heaven; by the heavenliness and Divine Character of his Doctrine, and by all the mighty miracles, which he wrought. From hence even Josephus (whose words have been observed, by divers very ancient Christian Writers) spoke of him with that honour and esteem, that he calls him (g) Joseph. Ant. Jud. l. 18. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a wise man, if it be fit to call him a man. Yet he who came in his Father's name, was rejected and reviled; and they resolvedly despised him, and censured his person, and the miracles which they beheld, and the power by which he wrought them; while they might plainly enough discern, that he was sent from God, and that his Miracles were Divine. And this strange refractory perverseness in their deportment against him and his works, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit in them hath been (h) Amb. de poenit. l. 2. c. 4. Athanas. in illud, Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis, etc. justly esteemed, to be the main thing contained in the sin against the Holy Ghost. And that behaviour must needs contain in it a very high guilt, which excludeth so much obstinacy against God. And his Apostles were not only defamed by the false Apostles, but Diotrophes also prateth against them with malicious words, 3 Joh. 10. 14. Now both Ministers in the Church, and Governors in the Kingdom, are also established by God's Authority, and an honourable deportment towards them is strictly enjoined by the Sanctions of his Law. neither to Secular, nor Ecclesiastical Governors. When our Saviour sent forth not only the Apostles, but even the Seventy Disciples, he declared unto them, Luk. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. And the authority of secular Governors is so great, that the powers that be, are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. And so far as the laws of God prevail on the minds and tongues of men, they will check and silence rash and defaming expressions against them. S. Paul mentions this, as one of those precepts of the law, which lay a strict obligation upon Christians, under the Gospel, Act. 23.5. Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. Yea, the commands of God will not allow so much, as an uncharitable thought, Eccl. 10.20. Curse not the King, no not in thy thought. 15. Tertullian gave a true account, of the rules of Christianity, and of the temper and spirit, of the ancient primitive Christians of his age, who endured heavy sufferings; when he declares, that (i) Apol. c. 36. & add Scap. c. 2. our Religion allows not us, to desire, act, speak, or think evil toward any, much less towards Governors, This contrary to the primitive Christian simplicity, whom we must honour and reverence, as appointed by God. But it is a just matter of lamentation, that the divine authority of Governors, is little regarded among many men, who profess Christianity; which is a great testimony, that true Religion and a sense of God is not duly entertained. That in our age, a very great part of men are forward, rashly to censure and speak dishonourably, both against secular rulers, and the Bishops and Ministers of the Church, is a thing so plain and obvious, that observing men cannot but take notice of it, and pious and good men are hearty grieved at it. And this misbehaviour towards the pious Bishops of the Church, was also many ages since observed, and complained of; and the ill effects thereof were in some measure provided against, by the Canon of a (k) Concil. Constant. c. 6. General Council, when discords and divisions prevailed in the Church. And such calumnies, as Balsamon there observeth, Satan doth much endeavour to foment and cherish. 16. Thus Corah and his company, were forward with presumptuous confidence, but agreeable to the presumption of Core. to speak against Moses their chief Ruler, and Aaron the Priest, slandering and opposing them; and this pleased the Congregation of Israel, who were too ready to comply with them. But this was so provoking to God, and so pernicious to the Israelites, that there were many exceeding severe punishments, inflicted by God upon the Israelites for these offences. For, Numb. 16. the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed up Corah and his company; the fire from the Lord, consumed those men, who intruded themselves into the office of the Priest, to offer Incense; and a dreadful plague broke out upon the Congregation, and destroyed suddenly fourteen thousand and seven hundred; but was stayed by Aaron's making atonement. And these things are so far written for our examples, that wherever the like sins are committed, under the time of Christianity, they are as evil and destructive, as they were under the law of Moses; since the Gospel gives particular precepts, for the honouring Superiors, and threats upon the neglect of them; and S. Judas declares, concerning such disobedient persons, who swerved from the true Spirit of Christianity, and despise dominion, that they perished in the gainsaying of Core, Judas 11. 17. Fourthly, 4. Men of the sweetest and meekest behaviour, are roughly dealt with by virulent tongues. Our Saviour was a person of admirable meekness, but neither did this preserve him from detraction and calumny. He had no proud and haughty carriage, he injured no man, by word or deed, nor gave them any just provocation. It is frequent in the world, that words and actions of strife and contention, do kindle more strife, though they ought not so to do. If a storm be begun, one wave will raise another; but in a perfect calm, to see the Sea grow boisterous of itself, is somewhat unusual. And whereas a fiery fierceness of temper, is apt to kindle heats and disturbances, it was observed in the writings of the Jewish Authors, that the result or end of meekness (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is welfare, peace and quiet; and so it frequently is, both to man's self, and to them with whom he converseth: but it was much otherwise in the practice of the Jewish Nation, towards him who was the great pattern of meekness, gentleness and patience. 18. Indeed it is sinful for any Christians, Licentious expressions not justified when occasioned by provocations; to give way to their passions, and unbecoming expressions, though they meet with provocations. These provocations are temptations laid before them, but their Religion teacheth them, to beware of and reject temptations, and not to yield to them, and suffer themselves to be overcome, and prevailed upon by them. Even when the Israelites provoked Moses, so that he spoke unadvisedly with his lips it went ill with him, Psal. 106.32, 33. And when S. Paul was smitten, contrary to the law, Act. 23. he in that case, acknowledgeth the obligation of this duty, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. And the Doctrine of Christianity obligeth its Professors, to love their enemies, to bless them which curse them, and to pray for them who despitefully use them, and persecute them. The precepts of some of the (m) Plat. in Crit. Maxim. Tyr. Diss. 2. Ethnic Philosophers went so far, as to condemn the returning injuries to them, from whom we receive wrong: and some rare instances there are among Pagans, of some who declared they would, and others who actually did, treat them with much kindness, who had greatly injured them. But the doctrine of our Saviour, appeareth to have gone higher, than the rules which their wisest men prescribed, in enjoining as a necessary duty the exercise of love, kindness, doing good unto, and praying for our enemies. 19 But that Religion which will not allow of passion, and reviling, where there may be some considerable occasion given; will much more detest it, in such cases, where there is truly no such occasion. but are more unreasonable when without any occasion given. For this most clearly shows such men, to be much more hurried and commanded, by a swelling rage and tumult of disorderly affections; than by the Christian temper, the precepts of our Lord, and the Spirit of God, who is a Spirit of meekness and peace. But though meekness, which is calm and inoffensive, be far from deserving any censure or ill will; yet where men give the reins to their tongues, even the eminent practices thereof, though never so undeservedly, will be ill treated and defamed. Our Saviour was of that mild behaviour, that he was not for calling for fire from Heaven, to consume such as would not receive him; nor was he pleased with those his chief Apostles, who were inclined to such fierceness. And when the Jews who would not be persuaded by him, brought misery upon themselves, he was so far from being pleased with the thoughts of their calamity, that notwithstanding all their opposition against him, when he foretold and denounced their destruction, he did this with tender bowels of pity and compassion, and with inward grief and sorrow for them. He then wept over the city, and said, Oh that thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day, the things that belong unto thy peace. Indeed he as a faithful teacher reproved their sins, but he herein acted the part of a friend, as a good governor also doth, in putting a stop to evil by his Authority. Even Rulers prudent executing wrath on them that do evil, and a smart rebuke of offenders, is very agreeable to true meekness, and a well-governed measure of anger is here, as (n) Naz. Carm. Iamb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianzen calls it, a commendable passion, and none ought to please others in evil, and to their hurt. Our Lord so observed the regular measures of meekness and gentleness, that he would not allow his father's name to be dishonoured, his house and worship to be profaned, and his laws to be violated; but this was that the Jews would not bear. And Moses also the meekest man upon Earth, was divers times complained of, and the Israelites murmured against him. And it is easy to give other instances, without looking far into History, of them whose innocent behaviour and kind temper, hath not kept them off, from being exposed to censure: and they who could say with Samuel, whose ox, or ass have I taken? have been so dealt with and aspersed, as if they had been the greatest contrivers of ruin in the world. 20. Now if all this be duly considered, it will show the strange exorbitancy of the passionate expressions, and censorious tongues of men, and what great advantage Satan gains thereby, and into what unreasonable practices, many men are blindfoldly carried away by this method. For they oft reproach the best and most upright among men; and those who do the most faithful service to God, and are most useful to the good of mankind; and them who are endued with the highest authority; and adorned and furnished with the greatest innocency. Sect. II. All which is manifest, in the great example of the blessed Jesus, and of many others the most deserving persons. 21. The Moralists Counsel is here of great and necessary use, to every good man, that he who will resolve to be honest and upright (o) Senec. Ep. 77. Ad honesta vadenti, contemnendus est ipse contemptus. must despise contempt and reproach. And there is the greater reason for this under Christianity, because we therein have a clear prospect of eternal happiness, which we must pursue; and are to be followers of our Lord, who in a greater case than that of reproach, for the joy that was set before him despised the shame. A good man must be a resolved man. No other man ever was so pure and excellent as he was, who both by his life and practice, and by his Doctrine and instruction was, as (p) Naz Orat. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianzene styles him, he who gave the complete perfection to the spiritual law, and rule of life. But every Christian must so far follow him, and take up his Cross, as to be willing and resolved to bear such difficulties as these, or whatsoever else he may meet with, in the practice of his Christian duty: And if any other men be never so unreasonable in their clamorous censures against him, he must go on steadily in his pious exercises. SECT. II. Who are apt to be prevailed with to be guilty of the sinful reproaching others, and how far this sin becomes spreading and contagious. 1. The sin of rash evil-speaking, takes great place among the generality of men; THe proneness of persons to defame and speak evil of others is such, that it greatly prevails among multitudes of men; and though it be a very unworthy and unchristian thing, it takes up very much of the discourse, and converse of a great part of mankind. Many there are, who being conscious to themselves, that they deserve censure, are the more ready to blame, and find fault with others, that themselves may not be thought worse than other men. Some who have little of real worth, to commend themselves, are the more apt to speak evil of others, that they may gain to themselves so much respect, as to be preferred before those whom they defame: but they usually fail in this design, since hereby those whose reputation they reflect upon, are oft provoked to discredit them; and also they are the more condemned, and the worse thought of by wise and good men, for this temper of uncharitableness: it being observed by (a) de Offic. lib. 1. Tully that this manner of discourse, gives the most manifest indication of viciousness and corruption of manners, in him who utters it, whether it be done in a way of seeming gravity and severity, or by open scurrilousness, or by jocular and pleasant facetiousness. And some are so proud and selfconceited, (though they have little reason for it) that they are not pleased to hear any man well spoken of but themselves, and think every commendation misplaced, that is not bestowed upon themselves, and this puts them into a great forwardness of disparaging others; and this mixed with uncharitableness is the parent of envy, from whence (as also from all hatred and malice, from whatsoever occasion they arise) proceedeth evil-speaking. And some serve secular interests, by discrediting others to advance themselves. 2. And others observing how frequent this behaviour is among men, comply with it as a thing in fashion; and for society sake, join in passing the same censures that others do, merely to gratify the humours, and avoid the censures of some hot and eager men. And some again have such undeserved hard thoughts of others, through suspicious misapprehensions, and false constructions of their words or actions, that they think it just to disparage them. And others, merely from observing the prevalency of censorious reproaches, and outcries against some sorts of men; are hereupon apt to conclude, that there is some considerable reason for all this, and that they ought to do the like, though they know no evil concerning these persons, nor can lay any thing to their charge. And these several sorts of men, make up so great a number, that it was the complaint of an ancient and pious Bishop, of considerable note, (b) Paulin ad Celant. inter Epist. Hieronymi 14. that there were very few men who had forsaken this vice: and concerning those from whom better might be expected, he adds that even they who had gone far off from other vices, fall into this as into the last snare of the Devil. 3. But since this hath respect to the actions and practices of men, we may best discover how largely this evil is propagated, by observing particular instances of fact; and none can be given more considerable, than that which concerneth our blessed Saviour. Wherefore I shall now inquire, Who they were by whom he, and other worthy men were reviled? 4. Yet, 1. It is odious to the best of men. Now First, He was not reviled but reverenced by the best and most holy men, who observed and obeyed the true rules of Religion. These rendered unto him that honour and glory which was due to the Son of God, the Messiah and Mediator of the New Testament, and the Saviour of the World. And indeed all rash evil speaking and reproaching, especially against those who deserve to be highly esteemed and honoured, is much opposite to the reason and conscience of man, and more especially to the true Christian temper, and both that charity, and that honesty and integrity, which it so much requires. It is also greatly contrary to the motions of the Holy Spirit of God, who disposeth good men to the performance of these Christian duties. Hence the Apostle, having commanded that men grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, Eph. 4.30, 31. adds, Let all bitterness and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away from among you, with all malice. Slandering and reproaching are of the evil one, and it is part of the character of those worst sort of men, described by S. Judas, that they are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts, and their mouth speaketh great swelling words. But meekness, patience, humility and charity, are such great and necessary duties, that those who are sincerely good, apply themselves to the practice of them. And uncharitable speaking, hath such a contradiction to these and such like duties, that it is very distasteful, and odious to the spirits of such pious men, who have duly considered the evil of it. S. Austin professed such an earnest and constant dislike hereof, that as (c) Pos d. de Vit. Aug c. 22. Posidonius relates, he had, contra pestilentiam humanae consuetudinis, against the plague or pest of the custom of men in their converse, these two Verses inscribed upon his table, Quisquis amat dictis absentum rodere vitam, Hanc mensam indignam noverit esse sibi. That is, Whosoever pleaseth himself, to use biting words, against the lives of absent persons, let him know, that this table is no fit place for his society. And the same Writer tells us, that he would not with patience, hear any man speak contrary to this rule of free and familiar conversation. The best men are not only perfect strangers from, but enemies to this vicious practice; and every Christian man ought watchfully to take heed of it: and if at any time he be surprised and overtaken thereby, he so far departs from the rules of his Religion, and makes himself work for a future repentance. 6. But Secondly, 2. It is frequently entertained by the public vogue of the multitude. The common vogue may frequently pass severe censures, upon the best of men. Even the Holy Jesus was reviled and evil spoken of, by the generality of the Jewish Nation. It is true, that manifest and open vice, is a thing so shameful, and so contrary to the common sentiments of reason and conscience, that it is in all places a blemish to any man's reputation, and a just matter of general censure. And virtue and goodness considered in the notion of it, and in the practice also, when rightly understood, go under a general commendation and applause. But yet such are ofttimes the common mistakes of the multitude, concerning persons, that the best men fall under a suspicion amongst them, of harbouring some secret evil design; and men of the greatest integrity and simplicity, are charged with being the contrivers of danger and mischief, by the public voice and clamour of the people. And it is no hard thing for subtle ill-designing men, or for those who are themselves jealous, to promote these misapprehensions amongst others. Even the useful undertake, which wise and good men prudently manage, with the greatest integrity, are ofttimes strangely misunderstood, and the intent of them strangely misrepresented, to the common esteem of men. This was so much observed by Socrates, that he declared, as Xenophon tells us, (d) Xenoph. 2. Memor. that it is no easy thing, to undertake any work (to wit of a public and useful concern) without undergoing blame; because it is no easy thing to be every where free from real fault; or to meet with equal judges where they are so. 7. it is the more mischievous by reason of its spreading infection. And there are very many instances, wherein the greater part of the people have been guilty, in this particular of judging, speaking and acting against their duty, and in divers of them God's displeasure was remarkably manifest. Thus did the Jews with united votes and clamour, engage against our Lord. Nor was this only the carriage of the meanest sort of men, who might be thought more rash and inconsiderate, but even their Elders and chief rulers, and the whole Jewish Sanhedrin, was of this temper and spirit. And though this gave encouragement unto others, it was not the better for them but the worse, that this sin prevailed so universally; for hence proceeded the ruin and misery of the Jewish Nation to this day, and the forfeiture also of their relation (e) Cypr. Ep. 69. to God, to Christ, and to his Church. And when after the death of Corah, even all the Congregation of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, Numb. 16.41. this occasioned a dreadful Plague. And before this the general discontent against the Conduct of Moses, which appeared in all the Children of Israel, who resolved to choose themselves a new Governor, and to return back to Egypt, Numb. 14.4. at the time when they who searched the land of Canaan, brought an evil report upon it, did provoke God to resolve, that they should all die in the Wilderness. 8. But in such cases as these, every good man ought to have that generous and courageous spirit, as not to be daunted or moved, even with public censure. And he must esteem his approving himself to God, and having the testimony of his own conscience to his integrity, to be of more value, than the flattering applauses, of the greatest numbers of men. It was excellently spoken by (f) Chrys. Hom. in Ps. 44. S. chrysostom, there is nothing shameful but sin; and if all the world shall reproach thee, and thou not reproach thyself, there is no shame in all this. But it is never safe to join with a multitude, either in the doing or speaking evil. And the state of every offender, when the sin grows common, is upon this account the more dangerous, because he is hereby the more like to be encouraged in his sin, and the more unlike to repent of it: and sometimes he may be by this means so emboldened in evil, as to think it strange that others run not to the same excess, speaking evil of them. And thus his case is like that of a man, who is carried away with a fierce and violent stream, which leaves but little hopes of his escaping drowning. Wherefore it is as reasonable, that men be careful to avoid spreading vices, as that they should be cautious and fearful of infectious diseases. 9 Thirdly, This disorder is prone to prevail, 3 It is a sin earnestly pursued, by many who appear strict and zealous about Religion. not only among men of careless and negligent tempers; but also among them who are strict, scrupulous and conscientious in matters of Religion. Thus was our Master treated with infamous reproaches, by them who were zealous for the honour of God Such were the Pharisees, and the devouter sort of the Jewish Nation: such was S. Paul himself before his conversion, being exceeding zealous for the law, and yet a blasphemer, and injurious. And such were those unbelieving Jews, to whom S. Paul bears record, that they had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge, Rom. 10.2. These were members of the Jewish Church, were strict in many things, both of practice and opinion, and were very earnest to make Proselytes. And besides the other Sects of the Jews, who all joined together against our Lord, the holy Scriptures represent none more vehement, in their oppositions, and reproaches, than the Pharisees, who as S. Paul declares, were of the exactest and straitest Sect of the Jewish Religion, Acts 26.5. And though Josephus sometimes prefer the Essens before them, yet he also tells us, that (g) Joseph. de Bel. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. the Pharisees were reputed to be more Religious than other men, and more strict in their interpretation of the laws. But there was so much pride and passion, mixed with their zeal, that they were vehement against those, who did not comply with them, in laying a great stress upon such things, wherein Religion was not concerned, yea and upon those things all o, which really tended to the undermining of true piety; and they were eager against them who would inform them better; and hence they set themselves in opposition against Christ and his Apostles. 10. Misguided zeal inflameth passions, and sharpeneth tongues. There is nothing that more sharpens the tongues of men against others, than the mistaken principles of a misguided conscience, which was that, by which the Jews acted against the Saviour of the World, both reviling, and crucifying him. Hence also before the great Apostle was a convert, he thought he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus, Act. 26.9. And hence the Apostles and other Christians, were upbraided, and ill entreated in that high degree, that they that killed them thought they did God service, Joh. 16.2. And hence divers Heretics, and those who were engaged in Errors and Schisms and divisions, vented many contumelious and reproachful censures, against the true Church, and its members. So did the Gnostics, Montanists, Novatians, Donatists and others anciently, and all dividing Sects of later times. 11. For instance, the Donatists raised such high accusations, against the true Christian Church, as (h) Aug. Ep. 50. & Ep. 162. & passim. to reject it from being a true Church, and not to own any but themselves to be the Church of Christ, and thereupon not only rebaptised all others who came to them, but by savage cruelty and violence, forced divers to be rebaptised. Sect. III. And other reproachers but not in the like degree were embraced by the other Sects. For all men who have pretended to Christianity (till some late unreasonable notions in our present age, which discard all obligation to visible and external Unity, and public communion in the offices of the Church) have been sensible, that they could never justify their own departure from the Church, unless they could lay some such thing to her charge, as made their secession necessary. Among these some were more fierce and furious, who yielded their conscience to the service of their affections and passions, as too many of late have done both in the Church of Rome, and of other parties in our late unhappy times. And when S. Austin with lamentations spoke of the incursions of the Barbarous Nations into France, Italy, Spain and Egypt, he thought the inhuman cruelties (some of which he particularly mentions) of the (i) Aug. Ep. 122. Sic vastant Ecclesias, ut Barbarorum fortasse facta mitlora sunt. Donatists, and especially the Circumcelliones, towards them who held communion with the Church, were rather more savage, than what was committed by those barbarous people. And indeed, no rage is fiercer, than that which is inflamed by an irregular and disordered zeal. And others who continue in a milder temper, though they abstain from outrages; yet by their misapprehensions, are engaged in unreasonable censures of the Church, and public order, and of the Rulers who appoint and establish it. 12. But zeal when not governed by piety, prudence, truth and goodness, and not allayed with meekness, is like a fire violently breaking out in any part of a building, which threatens the wasting and ruin of the whole. And it is never safe to promote or entertain unjust reproaches raised even by zealous men, when these very things, though they may be popularly taking to engage a party, yet are they a great blemish to their profession; uncharitableness and rash censoriousness, being a manifest evidence, of the want of a true Religious temper, wheresoever it prevails. To this purpose, S. James speaking of that man, who is wise by the wisdom which descends from above, or who is truly pious and Religious, directs this wise and good man, Jam. 3.13. to show out of a good conversation, his works with meekness of wisdom. And he than assures us, that where there is bitter zeal or envying and strife, this wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual and devilish, v. 14, 15. But the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, and then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, or persuaded, viz. to what is good, just or reasonable. SECT. III. The monstrous and unreasonable strangeness of those censures, which have been unjustly charged on the most innocent and excellent men, and particularly on our blessed Lord and Saviour himself. 1. The most infamous calumny, sometimes raised against well deserving men. IN sensible things with which we converse in the world, few men, if any, have the confidence to lay down assertions, directly contrary to what may be made manifest and plain, (as to affirm the Sun to send forth darkness, and not light; or the straight line to be crooked; or the pleasant and delightful Fountain to be bitter) and if they should, they would find no men of common understanding so weak as thereby to be imposed upon. But it oft happeneth far otherwise, in the character which many give of the best men, who are ofttimes not only so far misunderstood, that their excellencies are clouded, and pass undiscerned to general view; but their pious lives fall under severe censures, and are represented as ugly and deformed. Thus it happened with many virtuous Moralists, yea, with Christ himself, and many of his Disciples. And our holy Religion itself, as well as its author, was on this wise pierced, spit on, and reviled. 2. This was that, which (a) Xenoph. l. 1. Memorab. primo. Xenophon could not observe concerning Socrates, without admiration. He says, he much wondered, that Socrates, who never spoke, or did any thing irreligious, who had an high reverence for the Gods, and owned them to know all that was spoken or done, or secretly consulted among men; and so behaved himself, that if another man shall speak and act as he did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he would both be, and be accounted, a most devout and Religious person; that he should be so far misunderstood, that the Athenians should be persuaded, that he had no sober or worthy thoughts of the Deity. And (b) ibidem. he accounted it to be a strange and wonderful thing, that when this excellent man, was even above all other men strictly temperate and continent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and one who had reduced many others from their lusts and viciousness, he should yet be misreported, as if he were guilty of the most impure and filthy lusts. And this instance seemed so strange to Xenophon, that he gins that Book with declaring, that he had oft wondered, how the Athenians could be persuaded, into this misapprehension. And so might any man do in the like case, when he only considers what other men ought to do, and will do when they act suitably to their reason; but the wonder ceaseth, when we observe the strange disorders of licentious passions, ill designs, and an uncharitable temper; and how apt they are to impose upon an easy credulity. 3. That the greatest censures, and heaviest reproaches, This carrieth on the design of Satan. should befall the best deserving men, is indeed very unsuitable to them, but it exceeding well agrees with the designs of the evil one, who promotes these practices. It was asserted by the ancient Author of the Metaphrasis upon Ecclesiastes, (whether it be Gr. Nazianzen, or rather Gregorius Thaumaturgus, to whom (c) Hier. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Theodoro. S. Hierome, and other ancient Writers, ascribe that Metaphrasis) that calumny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, attempts to corrupt and pervert, the generous firmness and constancy of good men. And this very well agrees with the sense of the Septuagint, in that place, Eccl. 7.8. to which those words of this Metaphrase had respect. But if calumny cannot effect this end, the evil one aims at some thing else, which by this means he more easily obtains, to hinder the success of worthy men, in the service of God, and Religion, and doing good in the World, and to keep off others, from piety and virtue. 4. The innocent-primitive Christianity was highly traduced, as if it had been the most horrid-impiety. For these ends and purposes, the holy Christian Religion itself, and the Assembly of its followers, were charged by the Gentiles, with the most horrid, unnatural, and unreasonable villainy, and impiety. This gave occasion to the writing sundry excellent Apologetical discourses, on the behalf of Christianity; as those of Justine Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Arnobius, Origen against Celsus, and many others. Divers of these horrid calumnies are collected by (d) In Octau. à p. 23. ad 30. Ed. Ox. Minutius Felix, and of them he saith, passim omnes loquuntur, that they were the general vogue of the Pagan World. And the wicked and false accusations, then drawn up against the Christians, are comprised and summed up, in these comprehensive words of (e) Tertul. Apol. c. 2. Tertullian, Christianum hominem omnium scelerum reum, Deorum, Imperatorum, legum, morum, naturae totius inimicum existimans; that they accounted the Christian to be a person guilty of all villainy, and to be an enemy to the Deity, to the Emperor, to the law, to morality, and to the whole course of nature. And what worse can be said of the most wretched, debauched and flagitious person! and what an unruly thing is passionate reproaching, when thereby the whole body of the best Society in the world, was so monstrously misrepresented! 5. And the same measure was meted, to the head and Lord of that body also. And therefore I shall here particularly take notice of several considerable things in the behaviour of the Jews towards our Saviour, where the strangeness of their accusations, may well amaze and astonish an unprejudiced person. 6. How many actions of reproach and contumely did they use towards him; when they spitted in his face, and smote him with the palms of their hands? which defamatory acts to a Jew had (f) Tr. Bava. Kam. c. 8. §. 6. & Commentar. L'Empereur. ibid. great penalties; and these were done in their open Consistory, with many other expressions of contempt. Their procuring the scourging him, was a public declaring that he was so great an offender, that he deserved to be put to open shame: which is manifest from the nature of that punishment, from the expressions of the Scripture concerning it, and even from the (g) Tr. Maecoth. c. 3. Christ himself was treated with many actions of reproach, Talmud, which makes it a note of infamy, inflicted upon them, who were guilty of shameful transgressions. The like especially appears in their desiring him to be Crucified, which was a kind of death attended with that infamy, as well as acute pain, that the worst of men, and most abject persons in the Roman Empire were Sentenced to this death. But none of their Free men might be condemned to so vile a death, which was by (h) Lact. de Ver. Sap. c. 18. Lactantius from Cicero noted to be, the punishment for vassals, and not Free men. And the Jews in after-ages, have used this as an expression of ignominy, concerning our blessed Saviour, when they call him by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or he who was hanged or crucified. 7. And it is probable, that their putting him to death, at the time of their great and solemn feast, was not only done to expose him to the greater shame, at so great a solemnity, and public concourse, but that this also might have some respect to their treating him as a false Prophet. For their Talmud declares, that a false Prophet was not to be put to death in any other City but in Jerusalem; and there he must die (i) Tr. Sanhedr. c. 10. at the time of their solemn Feasts, that all Israel may hear and fear. 8. And after all these things suffered by our Lord among the Jews, it might be easy to show, that the Gentiles besides their persecutions and verbal slanders against Christianity, used various real expressions, of great disrespect and dishonour, towards the Author of our holy Religion, and our Religion which was established by him. Thus in the time of the Emperor Adrian, the Temple of Adonis, the Image of Jupiter, and the Statue of Venus, were erected in the places of our Lord's birth, his passion, and resurrection, as (k) An. Eccl. An. 137. n. 5, 6, 7. & An. 326. n. 28. Baronius hath observed from S. Hierome, and Paulinus. But these and such other things, are much less to be wondered at, among the Ethnics and Pagans; and therefore I shall wave any further prosecution of them, and return to the consideration of the Jews behaviour, toward the holy Jesus. 9 and with various insulting words of fury. Besides such actions of the Jews, as I above mentioned, there were some verbal expressions, whereby they reviled him, which spoke their mere fury. Such was their opprobrious insulting over him, in his bitter sufferings. In yielding themselves to the rage of their passions, they came to that high degree of expressing their enmity against him, and contempt of him, that they were not satisfied with his suffering a cruel death; but beyond all that bloody hands could act against him, they endeavour that their keen tongues might pierce him to the heart. Hence they reviled this great Prophet, requiring him when they smote him, to prophesy who it was that smote him. They derided the King of Kings, when they arrayed him in a scarlet robe, putting a crown of thorns on his head, and a reed in his right hand, bowing the knee in mockery, and saying, Hail King of the Jews. And they despised, the Saviour of the World, and the great high Priest, when in derision towards him upon the Cross, they cried out, Save thyself and us. Here we may stand amazed to observe, how when great uncharitableness hath possessed the heart, and is let lose in the reproaches of the tongue, it becomes cruel and fierce, and contrary to God and goodness, and is apt to be carried on to acts, even of savageness and inhumanity. But because these things may seem to be done, in a time when they were in a paroxysm of fury, when they vented an unusual inordinate heat of rage, I shall consider what accusations, their reproachful tongues laid to the charge of our Saviour, for the most part, when they were in somewhat a cooler temper, and concerning which they offered some things as a popular proof or at least a specious pretence, plausibly to insinuate into the vulgar, that there was somewhat of truth in what they said. 10. First, He was accused, Our Lord and the best men have been accused, 1. Of want of piety and Religion. of not having any true piety towards God. He came into the world to do the will of his Father, and was a perfect example of all holy obedience. He sought not his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him, and God himself owned him to be his well beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased. And yet so maliciously unreasonable was their censoriousness, that the Jews charged him with being so much an enemy to God, as to debase his honour, undermine his authority, and speak unworthily of his Majesty. To this purpose, that they might render him particularly hateful to the Jewish Nation, they decipher him as an enemy to the divine law. The Jews had deservedly an high honour for Moses, and the law which was delivered by him, and had a mighty zeal to preserve the reputation of them. They honoured Moses as the most excellent person, who was in an eminent manner (l) Phil. de Vit. Mosis. l. 3. a King, a Lawgiver, a Priest and a Prophet, and most excellently discharged all those Offices. And they had so great a reverence and veneration for their law, that Philo the Jew (as his words are produced by (m) Eus. praep. Eu. l. 8. c. 6. Eusebius, out of a Book of his which he Entitled, his Hypotheticks) declares that the Jews would rather choose to die a thousand times, than to admit of any thing contrary to the law; and the same (n) Phil. de legate. ad Caium p. 1022. Author speaks to the same purpose elsewhere. But the holy Jesus who gave the highest honour to the law, by fulfilling it; and to Moses by accomplishing his Prophecies, was accused as an opposer of Moses and the law; and to this purpose was at several times charged with breaking the Sabbath; and the Pharisees declared, that he was not of God because he kept not the Sabbath day, Joh. 9.16. And he who had that great regard to the Worship of God, and honour for his Temple, that the zeal of God's house did eat him up, was reported to be so averse from the worship of God and Religion, that he was for destroying the place of God's Worship and Service, even before he had put an end to the legal Sacrifices by his perfect oblation. 11. And he was oft times accused, of that impious crime of Blasphemy, even by those very men, who were themselves guilty of Blasphemy, against God, and the Holy Ghost. This is esteemed an execrable offence among all men, who have any veneration for the Divine Majesty of God. And among the Jews, it was accounted so abominable, that the blasphemer must die, and be stoned by all the people; and the (o) Tr. Sanh. c. 7. §. 5. judge who gave Sentence against him was to rend his ; and the same was to be done also by the witness, who heard the words of blasphemy, as a testimony of indignation. And this the High Priest did, at the words of the blessed Jesus, Mat. 26.65. he rend his , saying he hath spoken blasphemy. Yea, even among the Gentiles, a blasphemer of the Deity was thought worthy of death, and at Ephesus according to the observation of (p) An. Eccles. an. 254. n. 24, 25. Baronius out of Philostratus, was to be stoned. But the imputing such a thing as this to the holy Jesus; whose Life and Doctrine was wholly ordered, to promote his Father's honour, is as if a Prince's best and most faithful Subjects, should be so misrepresented, as to be accounted the most disloyal villainous and treacherous rebels, and the people thereupon should be stirred up, to set themselves against them, who are their strength and upholders. 12. Noncompliance with rigid mistaken notions, doth sometimes occasion the charge of impiety. And though the purity of his life, did infinitely outdo any of theirs, and was without any stain of Sin, yet he must not be owned as a good man, because he was not in all things so strict, as some of their errors directed them to be. While they were more severe and rigid, he shown himself more mild and gentle, even towards Publicans and Sinners, and hence was reviled as their friend. He had not that reverence for the vow of Corban which the Pharisees had, but declared against the evil of it, as making void the Commandment of God, which required a due honour to Father and Mother. Nor had he that opinion of the rest of the Sabbath day, as to think it not lawful for himself to heal, or for his Disciples to pluck ears of corn; and he was therefore censured and condemned of the Jews. And thus it fares in part with others also who are his followers, and so it frequently hath done in the best times of Christianity. Many men have had such a zeal for their own errors, that if others live the most holy and angelical lives, in conscientious obedience to the moral laws of God, and in a pious reverence to all the Christian institutions, and precepts of our Saviour, they will not acknowledge these to be good men, or such as have any true care of Religion or piety, if they do not join with them in their mistaken notions, and their practices founded upon those mistakes. 13. On this account the Catholic Church, On this account the Catholic Church was defamed, as impure and carnal. and the true members thereof, have ofttimes fallen under unjust censures. When the abetters of the Novatian Schism, declared against second Marriages, and the admitting those to repentance in the Church, who were lapsed after Baptism, they so far judged the Catholic Church impure, for practising contrary to their errors, that avoiding its communion, they gave themselves the name of the Cathari, or the persons who were pure. And that themselves were the authors of this name, whereby they were afterwards known, and that they called themselves thereby, in a way of distinction from the Catholic Christians; hath not only been declared by Dionysius, Alexandrinus, and Theophilus Alexandrinus, and other private Authors; but it is also affirmed by the (q) Conc. Nic. c. 8. Conc. Const. c. 7. two first general Councils. And after Tertullian declined to Montanism; though that Sect impiously owned Montanus to be the Paraclete, and this Author of them was guilty of very great impurities of conversation; he defamed the Catholic Church, and its members, as being (r) Tert. de Monogam & adv. Psychicos. carnal, because it allowed of second Marriages, and did not prolong its Fasts, and stationary abstinence to such late hours of the day, as the Disciples of Montanus did. And the Donatists in the vehemency of their Schism, upon the like pretence of greater strictness and rigidness, towards them who had offended, ran to that height of censure, against those pious Bishops and Christians, who kept communion with the Church, as to call them (s) Baron. An. 348. n. 38. Pagans. And the like might be noted concerning others. 14. Zeal when well guided, very useful; but partial or misplaced, hurtful. Zeal and the greatest strictness of life and conversation, when it is well ordered and directed, is of excellent use; but a pretending hereto is really hurtful, when it acts by a mistaken rule. It was the miscarriage of the Pharisees, that they were earnest and strict about their Corban, but lose and negligent concerning the fifth Commandment; and shown a great respect to the Sabbath, but gave not due allowance to works of mercy and charity. Let every man be as conscientious and strict as he can be, in entertaining all needful truth, in practising all the great duties of Religion, and avoiding all evil. But let not zeal be spent about such lesser things, as are in truth of no concernment in Religion; nor let any make such measures the standard, to judge of the piety, either of themselves or others, for than they must miscarry. This is to act like a man who hath some mistaken fancies of the best road, and will allow none to be skilful travellers, but them who wander with him out of the right way. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. 14.17. It is not concerned so much about such lesser things, of which many men are fond; as about practising all righteousness, minding the ways of peace and unity, and being greatly delighted in the exercises and rewards of the Christian hope and obedience. 15. But that I may prevent the misapprehending what I mentioned, concerning some of the Jewish errors, above mentioned, I shall here add by way of caution, that though they were too nice, and vainly strict concerning their Sabbath; it is a fault amongst us much to be lamented, and needful to be amended, that very many in our age are too lose, in neglecting a due reverence for the time of Worship, and the Worship of God itself, as I shall hereafter further note. And they who neglect the worship of God, whatever party they are of, cannot approve themselves the faithful Servants of God. 16. Secondly, Our Holy Saviour was accused, 2. The worthiest persons have been oft charged with promoting the Devil's work, and depraving Religion. of complying with the Devil, and carrying on his work, and corrupting Religion. The Devil is so bad, that whatsoever proceeds from him, and whosoever join themselves to him to serve him, are deservedly hateful. Now our Saviour was manifested to destroy the works of the Devil, and he actually overthrew his Kingdom. He cast out Devils, and dispossessed them of that outward dominion, they had over the bodies of many men; and he so vanquished the evil Spirit, and that Idolatry, sin, and wickedness, which he set forward in the world, that he gained the victory over the Devil, with respect to that inward dominion, whereby he had governed the hearts and lives of the children of disobedience. He also silenced his oracles, whereby he had obtained a great veneration among the Gentiles. And so admirably did our Lord prevail, against all the power of Satan, that even Porphyry, an Apostate from Christianity, and Patron of Gentilism confesseth, that from the time that Jesus was honoured in the world, the Gentile Gods (who were no other than evil Spirits) lost their power. As (t) Euseb. Pr. Evang. l. 5. c. 1. Eusebius relates, these are his very words, even in that Book which he wrote against Christianity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after Jesus was worshipped, none had any sense of the manifest help of the (Pagan) gods. 17. And yet notwithstanding all this, so unreasonably spiteful were the reviling tongues of his adversaries, that against all the evidence in the world, he was charged with acting from the Devil, and promoting his interest. And when he cast-out Devils, they would not allow this to be otherwise done, than by Beelzebub the Prince of the Devils. The Holy Jesus defamed as acting by Beelzebub, Nor was this wicked and blasphemous slander, only some rash, sudden unadvised words, of some inconsiderable persons; but the Pharisees, saith S. Matthew, Mat. 9.34. and the Scribes, saith S. Mark, Mar. 3.22. passed this censure upon him; and what was thus spoken at one time, was repeated and declared again at another, Mat. 12.24. And we may discern by this instance, how easily the greatest calumnies may be propagated, by a zealous and eager party, from one age to another, and from one place to another. For the Jews in after ages, still embraced for truth this impudent falsehood, which is taken into their (u) v. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 12.24. Talmud, which contains a collection of the main body of their Traditions and Opinions. And this wicked and contumelious aspersion of our Lord, though contrary to the highest evidence, was also endeavoured to be spread abroad among the Pagan Gentiles, insomuch that (w) Orig. cont. Cells. l. 1. Eus. Dem. Eu. l. 3. c. 6. divers Christian Writers thought fit to refel the same; and to show the manifest contradiction, which this carried to the piety of our Saviour's Religion, to the nature of his precepts, to the works which he did, and to the Spirit and practice of his followers, all which include a manifest opposition to the evil one. 18. At other times they charged him with being a Samaritan and having a Devil, and being a Samaritan: Joh. 8.48. The name of Samaritan was fixed on him, to promote a popular hatred. The Samaritans rejected the true worship of God at Jerusalem, and depraved and corrupted Religion, and oft manifested a great hatred towards the Jews. They frequented Mount (x) Joseph. Ant. l. 13. c. 6. Gerazim as the place of their Worship, in opposition to Jerusalem: and their despising the true Worship of God at Jerusalem, is observed in the (y) Hor. Heb. in Joh. 4.20. Talmud, and sufficiently in the holy Scripture itself. And for the countenancing their depraved worship, the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, as it is now extant, hath corrupted the law, and hath put in the word Gerazim, in the place of Ebal, where God commanded an Altar to be made, and Sacrifice to be offered, Deut. 27.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Now the name of a Samaritan being odious to the Jews, they call our Saviour a Samaritan, not as if they thought he was so by his birth, for they admitted him to the Jewish worship as a Jew, and knew his nearest relations to be Jews: but they would hereby declare, that he had equally corrupted Religion, and deserved to be as much hated, as the Samaritans were. And to this purpose was he thus aspersed, though his custom was, to attend the Jewish Synagogues, Luk. 4.16. and he carefully served God according to the precepts of his Law. But as if this foul calumny was not sufficient, they further added, that he had a Devil, or that he in whom alone the Godhead dwelled bodily, was possessed by the evil one. And this wicked slander was intended, to raise the highest prejudice of the people against him, and to keep them far enough from being directed by him. And therefore they said, Joh. 10.20. he hath a Devil, and is mad, why hear ye him? 19 And it may be observed, And in like manner our Reformation, Bishops, and Ministry have been aspersed with Popery, how the carriage of many men among us towards his Ministers, the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England, doth too nearly resemble this behaviour, which I have mentioned of the Jews, towards our Lord himself. Certainly one of the great works, the Devil contrives to uphold in this last Age of the World, is the gross corruption of Popery. Our Clergy and Bishops, were very instrumental in the Reformation, and casting out of Popery: those of our Church Preach and Writ against Popery, so as to make the clearest discovery of the falseness of their doctrine, and the sin of their practices. These have confuted and baffled them the most effectually, and with most convictive evidence. These have plainly laid open in the face of the world, the folly, evil and mischief, of many considerable things, asserted, and maintained by the Church of Rome, and have thereby raised the indignation of the Romanists themselves, who look upon these men to be their most formidable adversaries: and they are indeed the great bulwark against Popery. And yet because these men are not so weak and rash, as to run beyond the bounds of truth, and sobriety, into other unreasonable errors, they must needs be clamoured on, as friends to Popery. And other men who talk indeed against Popery with great noise, and are real and earnest in what they say, and some few of them have done useful service herein; by many who are indeed eager against it: but most of them speak with much weakness, and many mistakes; whereby they give great advantage to their adversaries; these must be accounted the chief and main enemies to Popery, when for the generality of them, the Romanists themselves have no great fear of the Writings and Arguments of such opposers. And from these our excellent Reformation meets with virulent censures. 20. I doubt not, as many Jews were against the Devil. but among the Jews in our Saviour's time, there were many besides him, and his Disciples, who talked much against the Devil, and did indeed hate him, though in many things through their misguided zeal, they greatly served his interest. And that the Jews had some among them, who sometimes cast out Devils, is not to be doubted, from what we read in the Scripture of the Jewish Exorcists, and of our Saviour's appeal to the Pharisees, Mat. 12.27. By whom do your children cast them out? (z) Antiq. l. 8. c. 2. & de bell. l. 7. c. 25. Josephus takes some notice of their Exorcisms; but what he writes is of such a nature, concerning the driving away Devils by some Herbs and charms, that they who pretended to act against the evil one by these methods, did seem rather to comply with him. But that some of the Jews, both before and after the coming of our Lord, did cast out evil Spirits, by the power and in the name of the God of Abraham, and the God of Israel, is asserted and acknowledged, by (a) Justin. adv Tryph. Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 2. c. 5. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and other ancient Christian Writers. But their undertaking was far from being sufficient, to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Satan, nor were they always successful and effectual in lesser cases. When the Sons of Sceva a Jew, and chief of the Priests, undertook to cast out a Devil, the evil Spirit prevailed against them, and they were not able to stand before him. But it was he whom the Jews aspersed, as complying with the Devil, who did abundantly more against, him than they all were able to do; and he spoiled principalities and powers. 21. And besides all this, though the singular and sinless purity of his life was admirable, the censorious lips of his opposers, will even upon this be spitting out Adder's poison, Our Lord was accused of encouraging looseness of life: as if his Religion and life, had not advanced, but debauched the practice of virtue and morality. It is indeed observed by (b) Cont. Cell. l. 3. p. 132. Origen, that even those who falsely accused him of many things, never charged him with any uncleanness of life; and that though Celsus, and some others, would in general speak against the life of Christ, (c) Ibid. l. 7. p. 369. they gave not instance of any particular things, which they could blame in him. But the Jews were so audacious, that though they could not convince him of any sin; yet by reason of his free, but innocent converse, they condemn him, Mat. 11.19. as a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, and as one who gave encouragement to viciousness and sin, being a friend of publicans and sinners. 22. Now the managing such opprobrious calumnies as these, is not only an unreasonable thing; but is wicked and sinful, and is mighty mischievous and of very ill consequence to the world, and much serves the ends of the evil one, by alienating the affections of men, from them who are their best and surest guides in Religion. I could not but pity the delusions of such a man, Such false aspersions of pernicious consequence to mankind. who should be persuaded, that they who would give him the most wholesome diet, intent to poison him; and therefore he refuseth that, and feedeth on such things as are less wholesome, and oft on trash, and what is noxious and hurtful. And he is strangely imposed upon, who is made to believe that those who are his wisest and faithfullest friends, and really give him the best advice and counsel, in his affairs and concerns in the world, are persons who design to cheat him, and to make their own advantages of him; and therefore he casts them off, and betakes himself to the direction and guidance of others to his real prejudice. But yet the damage that men may by such means sustain, as to their bodily health, or the interest of their estate, is not of so much weight and moment, as those things are which concern them with respect to their souls and consciences. 23. Thirdly, Our Saviour himself (as other innocent persons also) was charged with acting against the common good, 3. The most serviceable men have oft been esteemed enemies to public welfare. and the general interest of the Nation; as if he had had so little respect to the welfare of the Jews, as to intent nothing but ill towards them. And therefore many of the people in his life time, Joh. 7.12. and the chief Priests and Pharisees after his death, Mat. 27.63. accounted him a deceiver. And they spoke of him, as if they could have no due care of themselves, and their own public welfare, if they did not set themselves against him. And therefore as a public enemy, he must die that the whole Nation perish not. Hence Joh. 11.48. If we let this man alone, the Romans shall come, and will take away both our place and Nation. And these words were the determination of the whole Council of the chief Priests and Pharisees which were gathered together, v. 47. 24. And there might be some appearance of pretence, for their fear of this danger, from those known notions which commonly prevailed among the carnal Jews, concerning the time of their Messiah. For they generally expected, and promised themselves at his coming, the enjoyment of great delights, and pleasures in their own land, with a fullness of outward prosperity; and that he should be a mighty temporal Prince, and all their enemies even the greatest, should be overcome by him; and should submit themselves to them, and serve them. And of these apprehensions and expectations of theirs, which are intimated in the Scripture, a sufficient account hath been given out of the Jewish Writers by (d) Schickard. de Jur. Reg. Heb. c. 6. Th. 20. & Carpzov. ibid. p. 454, &c Eu●t. Syn. Jud. c. 36. Lex. Rab in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. learned men. And it is not improbable that hereupon the High Priests and Pharisees might suspect, that the Romans, hearing there was now one in Judea, whom many of them owned to be (what he really was) the true Messiah, and whom divers of the people were forward to make their King, and who himself declared the Kingdom of God to be now nigh at hand; that the Romans, I say, might hereupon fear a defection, and rebellion of the Jewish Nation against their Government, and therefore might forcibly come upon them and destroy them, unless they by opposing and cestroying him, gave public testimony of their fidelity to the Roman power. But all this was their fond mistake; for his Kingdom was not of this World; he did nothing to injure their safety, or to oppose the Roman power, nor did they truly consult their own good, when they set themselves against him. 25. That which is really the common good, and the true interest and welfare of a People or Kingdom, is a thing of very great concernment, and so very desirable, that where this public temporal good can be had without a greater loss, he who advanceth it is a person who deserves to be honoured and renowned; but he is a common enemy to mankind, who acts against it. To promote a common ruin and destruction, is a thing so inhuman, that the (e) Cicer. Philip. 3. Roman Orator judged him, who could be pleased and satisfied therewith, to have degenerated from his nature, and to be bereft of humanity, and that he did not deserve to be reckoned among mankind. Quem discordiae, Really to promote the common good, is a great part of goodness, and doing good; (saith he) quem caedes civium, quem bellum civile delectat, eum ex numero hominum ejiciendum, ex finibus. humanae naturae exterminandum puto. But yet this was much more contrary to the design of our Saviour, who came not to destroy men's lives but to save them; and to the principles, practice and nature of Christianity, which obligeth all not only to be harmless and innocent, yea, and to be meek and peaceable; but also to undertake actions of kindness, and charity, and doing good to all. And it may as soon be expected, that an innocent Sheep should act the part of a wild Beast, in savageness and fury, and that the Dove should become a Bird of prey, as that he who is truly a good man, should be (however he may be represented) a contriver of public hurt, evil and mischief. Whosoever acts any thing, which is against the public interest and welfare, if he understand the tendency of his own actions, must be a person of no goodness; but if he understand it not, he must be a person of great imprudence, being deceived and imposed on, in a business of so weighty a nature, which a common understanding would easily discern. 26. Yet where there is only a bare pretence and noise, about the common good, without the real thing, this is oft a popular artifice to raise a clamour and odium, against such persons, towards whom the contrivers of this pretence have disrespect. but an outward pretence of common good, will suit ill designs. And thus it hath happened in very many cases. This was the method and artifice, that Corah made use of against Moses, who charged him with having already done much hurt and mischief to Israel, and being far from doing them that good he pretended; and that he intended to tyrannize and lord it over them, thereby to exalt himself; and that this was so evident a thing, their eyes must be put out if they did not see it, Numb. 16.13, 14. Now nothing could be more unreasonable, than to imagine such things as these, to be true concerning Moses, who had brought them out of bondage, under whose conduct they had passed through the red Sea, had received the law spoken by a voice from Heaven on Mount Sinai, and written by God himself on the two tables of Stone, and were constantly fed with Manna from Heaven in the Wilderness. And yet this strange accusation being a popular thing, and seeming to espouse the interest of the whole Congregation, greatly prevailed amongst them against Moses. 27. The like calumny was in the first ages of Christianity, The primitive Christians were accounted public enemies. charged upon all Christians in general, that they were the cause of all the public troubles that befell the World. And though this was so exceeding manifestly contrary to their Religion, yet because this charge was apt to provoke the rage of the people against them, it was oft insisted upon, and much urged by the enemies of Christianity, for many Ages. When the Goths under Alaricus, had sacked and wasted Rome, the Pagans charged the Christian Religion, to be the occasion of that calamity: whereupon S. Austin being inflamed with a zeal for God, wrote his Books de Civitate Dei, as a defence and vindication of Christianity, from that calumny, as (f) Aug. Retrac. l. 2. de Civ. Dei. l. 1. c. 1. himself testifieth. And to confute the like general slander, upon all occasions prevailing among the Gentiles, Orosius wrote his Books of History, by the persuasion of S. Austin, designing therein especially (g) Oros. Histor. Praef. ad Aug. to give an account of the various calamities which had befallen the World, in those ages and parts thereof, where Christianity had not prevailed, and been received. And Tertullian acquaints us, that in his time, if any thing whatsoever happened in the World, contrary to its general welfare, flourishing and prosperity, the general cry among the Pagans presently was, (h) Tert. Apol. c. 4. Christianos ad leonem, that the Christians should be devoured, by being exposed to the Lion, that thereby the cause of common miseries might be removed by their destruction. And (i) Cont. Cells. l. 3. p. 120. Origen speaks much to the same purpose. 28. And such have frequently been the unaccountable censures, and outcries, against the most excellent and deserving persons, as if they were the enemies to the general welfare of the people, among whom they lived. But nothing could be more unjust and unreasonable, than to imagine any such thing as this, in the case of our blessed Saviour. If instructing men in the truth, and the right ways of Religion, and the will of God; if promoting well-doing, and the practice of piety; if the taking care of the things that please God, and make him their friend; and if the exercises of humility, meekness, peace and love, be the way to ruin and destroy a Nation, then might our Saviour and his Religion, be the occasion of the ruin of Kingdoms; and so may also his Ministers and the Clergy that follow his steps. But in truth it was the Jews opposing him and his Doctrine, which was the cause of their ruin. Our Lord with tears and compassion foretold their misery, because they knew not the time of their visitation, Luk. 19.43, 44. And after they had rejected the counsel of God, and bid defiance to his Anointed, and gratified their malice, in Crucifying the Lord of life; that God who according to his especial promise, had whilst they served him, kept their enemies from desiring their land at the time when all their Males went up to serve him, Exod. 34.24. which might seem to leave all the other parts of Judea destitute of any defence; he now suffered the Romans to invade them, and shut them up (*) Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 5. at the time of the Pass-over (at which time they Crucified our Lord) and to destroy them. But had they harkened to our Saviour, they had thereby every way taken care of their common good: he would not only have saved their souls from destruction, but also have preserved their City, and would have gathered Jerusalem, as an hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but they would not: and therefore their house was left desolate, Mat. 23.37, 38. And in other cases, it is easy to apprehend, how much they act against the true public interest, The promoters of this censure, are really enemies to the common good. who are the fomenters of such reproaches, against them who are faithful in the land, as if they were the chief opposers of its good. It is obvious to every eye, that if an enemy can prevail so far by his subtlety as to persuade a people, that those men who truly are the best and wisest Commanders, are persons who resolve to destroy their Army, and comply with their enemies; and hereupon they are laid aside, upon presumption that it is not safe to trust them; he hath done much of his work, and gone a great way towards the obtaining a conquest over them, by first prevailing upon their indiscretion, and unjust jealousy and suspicion. 29. Fourthly, 4. The best men are also accused of ill designs against Governors. They accused our Saviour, that he was no friend to Caesar, but one who stood up against him. And therefore they told Pilate, Joh. 19.12. If thou let this man go thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a King, speaketh against Caesar. Now to oppose Government, is a great Crime; and the nature of the Ruler's authority, and the commands of God, require honour, reverence, and obedience to be yielded thereto. Princes and Magistrates are sometimes in Scripture called Gods: and that precept of the Law, Exod, 22.28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods; is in the Margin of our Translation referred to rulers and Judges, and so it is expressed in (k) Verse. Syr. Arab. Pers. ch. paraphr. Nothing is more unreasonable, than this charge was, against our Saviour. many other Translations: nor can it well be understood, as some would have it, of the Gentile Deities, which ought to be detested! 30. But though this charge was openly pleaded, at his arraignment, it was as notoriously false, as any of the other things . It was not possible that he who was King of Kings, and by whom King's reign, should be an enemy to that Authority, which he himself upheld; or that he who came into the World, to advance the honour and dignity of his Father, should set himself against those Powers, which were his Ordinance, and Established by him. It could not be supposed, that a person of that singular integrity, which every where appeared in him, who had sharply reproved the Pharisees, for asserting such Doctrines as made void the fifth Commandment, should himself be guilty, of giving an example of the same fault, and in an higher degree. Nor could there be any reasonable pretence, that he who was so great a friend to all mankind, whose life practised, and whose openly declared Doctrine enjoined, an universal love even to enemies; that he should be an enemy to Caesar, who was the Minister of God for the good of men, and under whose Government peace, and property and order, was in some considerable measure established in the World. Upon such considerations as these, the ancient (l) Tertul. Apol. c. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. ad Scap. c. 4. Apologists for Christians, under Pagan Emperors, declared it impossible, for him who was a Christian, to be an enemy to the Emperor, when he might not be an enemy to any man upon Earth, and was particularly obliged, to reverence him whom God had constituted. And the same consideration will show, that they who are enemies to their Princes and Superiors, and are opposers of Government, cannot be truly Christians. 31. But it is here observable, that this accusation was only a crafty fetch, intended wholly to serve a present turn, that by pleading this, they might possess Pilate, with a prejudice against him, and make it appear necessary that he should condemn him, or else not show himself faithful to Caesar, in that Office which was committed to him. And that upon this accusation, On this accusation our Lord was condemned, as an enemy to Caesar. and for this cause, Pilate Sentenced him to be Crucified, is evinced from the Title written upon his Cross, Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews, which both S. Matthew, and S. Mark call his accusation, Mat. 27.37. Mar. 16.26. And that for this thing, he was condemned to die, was noted by S. Hierome, (m) Higher in Mat. 27. who yet declares, that he could not sufficiently admire, that when they had suborned false Witnesses, nullam aliam causam invenirent interfectionis ejus, quam quod rex erat Judaeorum, they could find no other cause to put him to death, than his being the King of the Jews. And for a further confirmation that this was the ground on which he was Crucified, it is observed and sufficiently cleared by (n) Annot. on Mar. 15. b. Dr. Hammond, that it was the usual custom of the Romans, on this manner, to give a public signification of the crime, for which any man was punished. And it may be noted from S. John, that till it was urged, that Pilate could not be Caesar's friend if he let Jesus go; and that whosoever makes himself a King speaks against Caesar, Pilate was desirous to have released him, Joh. 19.12. But when he heard this saying, he sat down in the Judgment-Seat, and delivered him to be Crucified, v. 13,— 16. 32. But yet this accusation was not charged upon him by the Jews, out of any true kindness they had for Caesar, but only out of malice and enmity against the blessed Jesus. The name of Caesar, as was noted by Tertullian, (o) Tert. Apol. c. 28. was more sacred and inviolable amongst the Romans, than any of their Gods, and therefore to charge him with opposing Caesar, was the most likely way for them to obtain their end; and therefore when they brought him before Pilate, this was the accusation which they then urged against him, Luk. 23.1, 2. But though at this time they pretended themselves well affected to Caesar, This was managed by those ● who were no friends to Caesar. and concerned for the securing his Authority; yet in truth neither the Pharisees, nor the other Jews, had any real kindness for him, and were desirous if they knew how, to shake off his authority. And at this very time, they could show themselves friends to Barrabas who had made insurrection against the peace of the Government, and had committed murder in the Insurrection. And they knew well enough that Jesus had enjoined men their duty to Caesar. 33. The Governors and Clergy of our Church, have in some things met with a kind of proceed, somewhat like this. There are persons, who are not very eminent for loyalty themselves, The like accusation against other innocent persons. who know our Clergy to be faithful Subjects, and friends to the King, and to teach others the same; and yet they will endeavour to charge them, with undermining the King's Authority, and encroaching upon the Rights and Royalties of the Crown. But let such persons consider, what sincerity they use in such things as this, and whether besides the uncharitableness, which appears in these actings towards others; they do not offer violence to themselves, and act against the inward sense of their own consciences. Thus were the primitive Christians defamed as if they opposed the Majesty of the Emperor, (p) Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. Circà Majestatem Caesaris infamamur; though the Christians of that age had never been guilty of any acts of rebellion, and neither thought nor spoke unworthily of their Rulers. And S. Paul was called a pestilent fellow, and a mover of Sedition, Act. 24.5. 34. And now I have thus far discoursed, of the exorbitant extravagancies of a reproaching tongue, I here declare, that it is not my design in this Chapter, Hence we are watchfully to take heed of joining in reproaching others; to charge even such men, who are too much overtaken with some degree of this sin, as if they were arrived to that height and excess, which I have here described. But the things I aim at are, First, To warn all men, against giving the reins to uncharitable censure and reproach; since this evil practice is that, which Satan hath made great use of in all the Ages of the World, as the first and chief means, to oppose all the ways of true piety and goodness. And hereby he hath done great mischief in the World: the oppositions which both Christ, and Christianity, and all good men met with in the world, have proceeded very much from this cause; and the violence and persecutions which the primitive Christians underwent, was the consequent hereupon. And we may hence discern also, into what strange exorbitancies men may be led, though they come not up to the highest extravagancy, if they yield their tongues to be governed by their own passions, or by the unjust clamours of other men, against them who should govern, and the being influenced by such passionate censures. guide, lead and direct them; since our Saviour who was the most excellent guide that ever the World had, and the most innocent person, was so highly defamed, and so injuriously aspersed with unreasonable calumny. 35. Secondly, I intent hereby to manifest, how much courage, steadfastness and constancy, is necessary for the sincerely pious man. It may be the portion of any such person whomsoever, Unreasonable censures are to be courageously undergone, in his speaking and doing well, to be misrepresented, and exposed to calumny and slander. Our great Master hath foretold, that his servants must in this particular expect the same measure, which himself received. But let no good man be dismayed, if he be thus treated in the World, but let him be steadfastly resolved to pursue his duty, and to be unmovably upright and conscientious, whatsoever respect or disrespect, he may meet with among men. Whoever is made more remiss in well-doing, or whose spirit is roiled and discomposed by undeserved censures, doth hereby fall into temptation, and the snare of the evil one: but he that resolvedly holds fast his integrity, and runs with patience his Christian race, amidst all these oppositions, this is the man who rightly dischargeth the duty of a Christian, and taketh up his Cross and followeth his Lord. 36. And it is infinitely better for any man, being the pious man's advantage. to fear the censure of the greatest part of the World, in well-doing, than to neglect what may please God, and do good to men; since hereby he gains the blessing of Christ. Our Saviour declared, Luk. 6.22. Blessed are ye, when men shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day and leap for joy; for behold your reward is great in Heaven. Wherefore though a clear and good reputation and general esteem, is useful and desirable to a good man, because it gives him many advantages of doing good in his generation, yet if in the faithful and prudent management of his duty, he meeteth with hard measures, from the uncharitable expressions of other men; it may justly so far as concerns himself, rather affect him with joy than disturbance. Yea, with respect to these words of Christ, which I have now mentioned, the Author under (q) Epist. ad Oceanum. S. Hierom's name, thinks it a thing desirable, to be reproached and evil spoken of, Quis non maledici desideret, (saith he) ut mereatur Christi nomine laudari, & coelesti copiosaque mercede munerari? This also was a mighty satisfaction to S. Austin, who declared that whilst he opposed the Donatists, (r) Aug. count. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 7. he underwent sharp and opprobrious reproaches, from the enemies of the glory of Christ, but then reflecting upon the blessing, in this case pronounced by our Lord, he adds, Quisquis volens detrahit famae meae, nolens addit mercedi meae; he that willingly lessens my reputation, doth unwillingly add to my reward. But he who is turned aside from the paths of goodness, by the slander of men, is guilty of greater rashness and imprudence, than that traveller, who takes a journey of great concernment to his life and estate, and yet will stop his course, or go out of his way, if he discerns the wind to blow upon him. CHAP. III. The manifold sinfulness, and severe punishment of reproaching and speaking evil, especially against Superiors. 1. HAving showed the unreasonable proceed of a reviling tongue, and how unruly an evil it is, I shall now add some further general considerations, concerning the greatness of the sin of reproaching others, especially our Superiors. And in this Chapter I shall show two things, First, How many great sins are contained in it: and Secondly, What a dreadful punishment is denounced against the practisers of it. Wherefore, 2. First, This is a complicated and multiplied sin, and so comprehensive an evil, that very many great transgressions are contained and linked together in it. S. Basil seems to think, that a reproaching Spirit (a) Bas. in Esai. c. 2. might be the beginning of all sin in the world; which may well be accounted true, if we consider it with respect to God, and include under it that disposition of mind from whence it flows. Uncharitable evil-speaking includes very many great sins. For the closing with that temptation, whereby the Serpent reproached the infinitely good God, was that which brought sin and ruin on mankind. And it may well be thought, that the original transgression of the fallen Angels, was their having ill thoughts of the highest good, and thereupon being forward to departed from God, and to draw others from him into the same defection. And this is the very root of reproaching, or that disposition of spirit from whence it ariseth. 3. And this aught to be the more detested, because the exercise of this sin, includes in it many heinous offences. Now though one single sin, which any person willingly and wilfully pursues, is sufficient to manifest him void of the fear of God, and estranged from the Christian life; yet where the evil heart can readily choose, and the conscience suffer, many notorious sins to prevail, without being either so watchful, as to observe them; or so faithful, as to raise all the powers and faculties of the soul, to oppose them; here is a mind and conscience, so much the more grossly defiled and vitiated. His condition is like that of the man into whom the unclean Spirit entering, taketh with him seven other Spirits, who enter in, and dwell there. And as that body is in a bad condition, in which divers dangerous diseases are reigning; so that soul cannot be in any safe condition, where many great sins do rule and govern it. And it is considerable in this case, that a defaming temper, and the neglect of forsaking it by repentance, always include a voluntary choice, and therefore hath in it, as all other sins of choice have, a want of reverence to God and his laws. And besides this, 4. First, It contains under it an opposition to, 1. It is inconsistent with Christian love, and neglect of the great command of love. It was our Saviour's Doctrine, that among all the precepts given by God in the Old Testament, that of loving God with all the heart, was the first, and the other of loving our Neighbour, the second which is like unto it. And the wisest men among the Jews, have owned and acknowledged the same truth. (b) Phil. de Charitate; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo speaking of the love of men, esteemeth it so nearly allied unto Religion towards God, that he calls it its Sister and Twin. And it can be no small sin to live in the breach of so great a Commandment. This duty is so particularly pressed, and inculcated by Christ, on all his Disciples, and so great Motives are superadded to the force this Commandment had before, that it appears under the Gospel as a new Commandment, which every Christian must obey, following the example of our Lord. But to reproach others is to act contrary to love; for this intends hurt, and to lessen the esteem of others, and cast some blemish upon them, and the defamer pleaseth himself, for the present, in so doing. But charity thinks no evil, 1 Cor. 13.5. and he who truly loves any man, and is his real friend, cannot hear him unjustly evil spoken of, with any delight and satisfaction, but is troubled at it, and is so averse from joining in the same himself, that so far as he fairly and honestly can, he will vindicate his reputation; and plead his cause. Yea, charity will act with that seriousness, on the behalf of a friend, that as (c) Max. Tyr. Diss. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. especially, when it respects the Ministers of God, in Church or State. Maximus Tyrius observes, it will even work through places not passable, and easily overcome things that are dreadful. 5. But when censures and calumnies are raised, against the Ministers and Governors of the Church, there are two other ways, whereby they greatly offend against the duty of love; the one with respect to the love of God, in promoting his honour; and the other with regard to the love of men, unto whom these reproaches are published. For these things tending to lessen their reputation, are so far as they take place, like to hinder the success of their labours, and of their Ministerial Office. And the offender who commits this sin considerately and advisedly, so as to discern the large consequents of it, must be one who for the gratifying his passion, is willing to become instrumental, that the work of God and the happiness of man, both which are committed to the care of the Ministry, should not prosper, and have their desired effect. And this great good is really hindered by this sinful practice, whether men will consider it or no. And there is much of the like evil in defaming or speaking reflectively against our Secular Governors, since they also are the Ministers of God to man for good. 6. Secondly, The reproaching Superiors is a breach of the fifth Commandment. For therein honour and reverend respect is commanded to all Superiors; 2. It is a great breach of the fifth Commandment, to speak evil of Rulers, and this is necessary for the upholding their just Authority. But to reproach, is not to honour, but to dishonour and vilify them. And though our natural Parents be the nearest to us, on whom we have a more particular dependence, and from whom we have a more especial care: yet Governors and Rulers are chief to be honoured, because they are set by God in an higher station, and have a larger portion of his Authority committed to them, and as God's Ministers, are appointed for a more comprehensive benefit, and extensive good to mankind, and are common Parents, to govern and take care of those, who are under them in civil Societies. Hence (d) Phil. de Decalog. p. 76. Philo not amiss observed, that the fifth Commandment being placed, as between the duties to God and man, had great respect to both; and that he who breaks this Commandment, will be condemned at both these two tribunals, that of God and that of man: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of irreligion towards God in the Divine Tribunal, and of enmity towards men in the humane. And though this may be truly said of almost all other transgressions, yet it appears more eminenly, in the breach of this Commandment. And it adds to the force of this precept, that the Doctrine of Christianity doth mightily enforce it, and strictly require us to honour the King, and all who are over us either in the Church or State. 7. And it is worthy of our serious consideration, which is a special Commandment with promise. that the Apostle for the enforcing obedience to this fifth precept of the Decalogue, gives it this Character, Ephes. 6.2. that it is the first Commandment with promise; or it is a great and chief command, unto which God annexed a special and signal promise. And thus much I think the Apostle to intent by these words. When our Saviour declared, which was the first Commandment of the law, Mar. 12.28, 29, 30. the phrase first, doth not there refer to order, but to excellency; as is manifest from v. 31, and v. 33. and therefore the question which in S. Mark is expressed, which is the first Commandment? is in S. Matthew, which is the great Commandment? Now the fifth Commandment is therefore manifested to be a great, and very considerable Commandment, because to that alone, of all the precepts of the Decalogue, God was pleased to affix a peculiar and excellent promise. For that declaration of God's kindness, in the end of the second Commandment, that he shows mercy unto thousands of them that love him, and keep his Commandments, is truly observed by (e) In Annot. in Eph. 6.2. Erasmus and Grotius, not to have a peculiar respect to that precept alone, but to have a general regard to them all; as the words in that precept do evidently manifest. But to this fifth Commandment this excellent promise is adjoined, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayst live long on the Earth, which shows that our own interest is highly concerned in this case. 8. Wherefore the observing the duties of this precept, is the way which God himself hath directed men, for the obtaining his blessings, This is a forfeiture of the right to God's blessings in the world. and the continuance of them in this world, and this the Apostle declares and urgeth, with respect to the time of Christianity. And the neglect of the duties of this command, so far as concerns the terms of God's promise, is a forfeiture of that right and title we might have to all the advantages of this life, and the blessing of God for our comfort and well-being here upon Earth. And these earthly blessings when the law was given, were so proposed in this fifth Commandment of the Decalogue, as to have some typical respect also to the blessings of the life to come. Now though God of his bounty and patience, doth many times bestow long life, and therewith many other enjoyments of this world, upon them who have no right to them, by the terms of his Covenant and promise; yet they want that assurance of these things, and especially that favourable kindness and particular care of God to go along with them, which the pious man enjoys, and which is far more valuable and excellent, than the possession of any outward good is. Wherefore the careful and conscientious practice of reverence and honour towards Superior relations, however some men may account of it, is no light thing, it being that upon which our title to the blessings of God so much depends. 9 Thirdly, All reproachful Calumnies especially against Superiors, are a violation of the sixth Commandment, 3. This is a breach of the sixth Commandment. Thou shalt not kill. For the performing the duty which relates to this precept, according to the extent which the Doctrine of our Saviour gives it, requires an innocent, calm and meek temper and behaviour, towards all men, so as not to admit any causeless anger, nor any passionate and contumelious expressions, Mat. 5.21, 22. But to all this, this sin is directly opposite. And besides this, we may further discover, how much this command is transgressed by rash censures and calumnies, if we either consider the effects they produce, or the cause from whence they proceed. 10. The effects of reproach, Calumny is cruel. are frequently of different kinds. If we reflect upon the more immediate result thereof; the Sword of the tongue oft wounds deep, and keen words pierce even to the inward part of man, and his very heart. The sense of which made (f) Naz. Ep. 191. Nazianzen persuade them who reproach others, to lay down their arms; their slings and spears, even their tongues, by which they do mischief to one another and are applauded, and these are more ready at hand than other weapons. And there is indeed so much of cruelty, and real hurt in calumny and reproach, that our Saviour accounts this a way of persecution, and observes, that thereby the Prophets were persecuted for righteousness sake, Mat. 5.10, 11, 12. 11. But when evil speaking is directed against Governors, Contumelious expressions against Governors, oft beget tumults and bloodshed. it too often becomes the parent of violence, cruelty and inhumanity, by giving birth to tumults and Seditions. They who reflect upon the last Age, may discern, how by this method we became engaged, in such a bloody Civil War, as cut off and destroyed many thousands of men. Thus as S. James observes, Chap. 3.6. The tongue defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature. It puts men's heads and hearts upon contriving and acting fierce and furious enterprises; it makes their hands forward, and their feet swift to shed blood; and if not timely prevented, it kindleth those heats, which bring all things into a flame. And I hearty wish it were an hard and difficult task, to find out instances to verify the complaints of Lipsius concerning calumny. He declares (g) Lipsius' in Orat. de Calumnia. Doletis haerere in Reip. visceribus discordiarum tela? calumnia injecit: ardere tot annos facem bellorum civilium? calumnia accendit, etc. that it divides intimate friends, and sets them at distance: Are any grieved to see feuds and discords and weapons of death, stick fast in the bowels of the Commonwealth? it is calumny darted them thither, and fixed them there. Do any reflect with sadness, upon the flames of Civil Wars, continuing to burn for so many years? it is calumny that kindled them. And, as he goes on, this is that which sets Princes and people at distance from each other, and engageth one man against another. And indeed almost all the tumults, Seditions, and Rebellions which have been so destructive and pernicious to the World, have had their original from hence. 12. How he that hates his Brother, is a murderer. And if we reflect on the cause from whence evil speaking and reproaching doth arise; this is a want of love, as I above noted, and a prevalency of ill will and hatred. But S. John assures us, 1 Joh. 3.15. he that hateth his Brother is a murderer. And in truth, though there may be several reasons which may restrain him from any such acts of violence, as to commit murder, yet he harbours much of the same inward temper with an open murderer. For he that hates his Brother, so far as concerns his Brother himself, and unless he thinks he may make use of him to serve some other ends, wisheth him out of the way; and would choose, and be pleased to have him out of the world. And this is that very same wicked temper of mind which spirits a murderer. Wherefore this sin which so defiles the heart, and stains the World with blood, is a sin of a scarlet dye. 13. Fourthly, This sin offends against those precepts, which forbidden bearing false witness, slandering and speaking evil; all which enjoin the right government of the tongue, in what it speaks of others. (h) Phil. de Decal. p. 768. Philo observes, that under the ninth Commandment is included 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 4. It ordinarily transgresseth the bounds of truth. not to calumniate or defame; which is to be extended not only to matters of public justice, but even to rules of private conversation. But a reproachful tongue both offends against charity, and is generally further guilty, of not making conscience, to keep to the strict rules of truth. And as Tertullian speaks, in refelling the slanders, spread abroad among the Pagans, against the Christians, report and fame thus raised and divulged; is (i) Tertul. Apol. c. 7. plurimùm mendax, quae nè tunc quidem quando aliquid veri affert, sine mendacii vitio est, detrahens, adjiciens, demutans de veritate: for the most part false, and is not even then, when it contains somewhat of truth, free from the fault of lying, taking something from, or adding to, or making some alteration concerning the truth. And this sin of lying deserves to be accounted the more hateful and evil, and to be abhorred as abominable, because it is part of the character of the wicked one, that he is a liar from the beginning, and a deceiver: whereas it is one of the excellent titles of our Saviour, that he is the faithful witness; and also he is the Amen, and the truth. And this sin hath much of the Diabolical nature and practice in it; the evil one doing much mischief by false suggestions. 14. Fifthly, 5. It offendeth against justice. Reproaching others is a great violation of Justice. He that speaketh evil of dignities, is ranked among the unjust by S. Peter, 2 Pet. 2.9, 10. And calumny in general is very injurious both to the person reproached, and to those also to whom such reproaches are uttered. To wrong a man in his reputation and good name, is an injury in several respects much worse, than the wronging him in his goods and possessions, and hath been so esteemed amongst men. Partly on this account, it was, the (k) Sa●●. c. ●● n. 1. general determination of the Jewish Rabbins, that though actions of trespass, or violence against the estates of men, might be heard and punished by their lesser consistory of three; yet matters of slander and defamation came not under their cognisance, but were to be determined by a greater Consistory of twenty three; being things of an higher nature, which required a more weighty consideration, and sometimes a capital punishment. 15. For a man's reputation hath a more immediate respect to his person, and the true worth of the man, than his possessions have; and to have his good name impaired deprives him of a great part of that satisfaction and comfort, which he might enjoy, from society and converse in the world. This injury to the person reproached, cannot easily be repaired; And he who is injured in his Estate, may have his loss repaired, and his damage recompensed, by having as much restored to him again, from the person who wronged him. But the slanderer, and reproacher, is not capable of making the like reparation, nor hath he sufficiently wiped off the aspersion he cast upon another, though he should recall it, and acknowledge his fault. For the words of defamation which he uttered, may be so spread abroad, as to come to the ears of many, who may never hear of his having retracted them: and many others through their own uncharitableness, may give credit to the former, rather than the latter. A reproach is herein like the running in of the Sea water, where the bank is broken, it is apt to overflow every way, and is not easily carried off again; and when it is so, it usually leaves a brinish saltness behind it. It (l) Bern. leviter volat, sed graviter vulnerat. flies about quickly, and yet it wounds sharply: and though the sound of words at the greater distance, grows less and less; the noise of fame and reproach the farther it goes, the more it frequently increaseth, and becomes the louder, according to the words of the Poet, (m) Virgil. Fama malum, quo non aliud velocius ullum, Mobilitate viget, viresque acquirit eundo. And this tends to make the life of the person who bears the reproach, the more troublesome and uneasy in the world. 16. Indeed the Christian temper, and the grace of God, doth wonderfully support, and uphold the pious man, and enableth him to bear up above these difficulties, and worketh in him a more than manly courage, whereby he is able with S. Paul, to take pleasure in reproaches. But this doth no more lessen the sin of the reviler, than a Christian's knowing, how to rejoice in other persecutions for Christ's sake, doth lessen the sin of those persecutors, whose actions have a direct tendency to work his trouble and calamity. He who endeavoureth another man's mischief, by poisoning him, is not the less criminal in foro Dei, if the other be sufficiently antidoted against it. 17. And this practice is injurious to them, and it greatly wrongs the souls of those who hear it with delight. to whom the reproach is uttered, especially if it be pleasing to them. For than it many times envenomes their spirits, inflames their passions, brings them into the snare of the Devil, and tends to engage them in all those sins, which the person who is guilty of reproaching, is chargeable with. And hereby they become deprived of that delightful sweetness, and pleasantness of mind, and of the blessing of God, which accompanieth the meek and charitable man. And this is the doing them a far greater injury, than if their bodies should be infected with noisome Diseases: both because the evil of sin, is of far worse consequence, than sickness; and seizeth on and defileth the nobler part of man: and also because in such distempers of the body, he who undergoes them, is ordinarily sensible of the evil, and danger of them, and complains of them, and seeks for help and cure; while the mind tainted with this sinful temper, is not for the most part so much as inclined to have it removed, but is too much pleased, with the increase thereof. (n) Bernard. sup. Cant. Serm. 24. S. Bernard observed, what a lamentable massacre may by this means be perpetrated, upon the souls of men, even in a moment; Vnus qui loquitur, uno in momento, multitudinis audientium dum aures inficit, animas interficit: One man thus speaking, whilst he infects the ears of a multitude of auditors, doth forthwith destroy the souls, by extinguishing charity. 18. Sixthly, This sin of reproaching, 6. It opposeth peace. greatly opposeth the practice, and duty of peace, which is so frequently and earnestly enjoined, as one of the chief duties of our Religion. It hath been a frequent complaint, that the precepts for peace are not duly observed; and it were happy if peace were as much entertained, as it is commended. In the early days of Christianity, it was noted, that peace was such (o) Naz. Orat. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a good, as was applauded by all men, but preserved by few. This all Christians are to pursue as much as lieth in them. This is expressed by S. Paul, to be one of the chief things required, that we may so serve Christ as to be acceptable to God, and approved of men, Rom. 14.18. and from hence he makes this Inference, Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, v. 19 Among the several expressions the Apostle useth, to declare the fruits of the Spirit, the greater number of them tend to this purpose, Gal. 5.22, 23. Love, peace, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness. But the unpeaceable and passionate temper takes up a great part of the works of the flesh, mentioned Gal. 5.20, 21. whereby we may discern, how much the true Spirit of Christianity is concerned, in performing the duties of peace. But the reproaching and defaming others, is a practising strife and contention, and a quarrelling with others though they be at a distance. I above observed, how the public peace of Kingdoms hath been undermined hereby. And it is a thing so obvious, that the same method doth disturb the quiet of private conversation; and also so disorders men's minds, as to deprive them of that inward calmness of temper, which becomes a Christian, that I need not undertake the proof thereof. And reproaches and censures have in many ages and places, so sadly and scandalously disturbed the peace of the Church of God, and fomented discords therein, that the greatest Schisms and divisions have continually in a great measure, had their birth, growth and continuance from this very cause. This, besides the experience of latter ages, may appear from the instances of the Novatians, Donatists, and some others, mentioned in the former Chapter. 19 And now let any serious person consider, whether there be not a very great pollution, and filth, in that practice and behaviour, which contains under it so many several great sins. And if that man's body be in danger enough to be poisoned, where a Viper or a Serpent singly fastens upon him; in what sadder condition is he, on whom various venomous creatures fix, if there be not a speedy and effectual care for his cure. 20. Another general Consideration, This sin of Calumny is severely punished to manifest the great evil of defaming and reproaching others, especially Superiors, is from the dreadful and severe punishment, which is threatened against, and will be inflicted upon them, who practise this sin, and indulge themselves in it. The common sense of mankind, even in time of Paganism, hath had such apprehensions of the hurt and mischief hereof, that great punishments have been denounced against, by the laws of civil Societies, and inflicted upon such offenders, in many civil Societies; this carrying so great an opposition to the laws of nature, and the public quiet and good of the World. Lipsius (p) Lipsius' in Orat. de Calumnia. tells us, that the Athenians imposed a pecuniary penalty, upon such offenders, and that the ancient Romans set a mark upon the forehead of him, who was guilty of this crime, with the letter K. If this was so, I do not doubt, but this letter K, was to signify Kalumnia or Kalumniator. Calumnia being one of the three words, which are noted by (q) Scalig. Animadv. in Euseb. Chronol. p. 114. Scaliger, to have been only written with K. and not with C. in the most ancient use of the Latin tongue. And this was a public declaration, that the Reproacher or Calumniator, deserved to be openly marked out, and branded, for an infamous person. 21. But since a great part of mankind, have had as great an esteem for their good name, as for their lives, in the ancient famous Laws of the (r) Duodec. Tabul. Fragment, Tit. 25, n. 3. twelve tables, it is declared, that though very few crimes were by those laws punished with death, yet the reproaching and defaming others, was thereby made a capital offence. And in the ancient laws of the Empire, this is related to have been sometimes punished with stripes, and sometimes by making the person Intestabilis, or one who by the law, was not permitted to make any Testament, to dispose of his goods at his death. But by the Constitution of (s) Cod. l. 9 Tit. 36. leg. unic. Valentinian and Valens, both he who is the author of a Calumny, and he also who casually findeth a libel, and divulgeth it, seem guilty of death: to wit, where the calumny is some great matter of defamation. And I above noted, that this offence was sometimes capital, amongst the (t) n. 14. Jews. To this I shall add the consideration of S. chrysostom, concerning the dangers of reproaching Superiors, with respect to what God established, and effected under the Mosaical Dispensation. He considers (u) Hom. 2. in illud, Salutate Priscillam & Aquilam. that if he who reviled his Father or Mother must die the death, Exod. 21.17. Leu. 20.9. how severe a punishment must he deserve, who doth this to his Spiritual Father? And when he had mentioned the dismal misery, which befell Corah and his Company, for speaking against Moses and Aaron, he than considers the case of Miriam. Miriam (with Aaron) had reproached Moses, because of the Aethiopian Woman, by God's judgement in this world, which he had Married, Num. 12.1. with other expressions of contempt. And for this cause God's wrath was kindled against her, and by the hand of God she was smitten with leprosy, and must be put out of the Camp of Israel, and bear her shame. And as S. chrysostom observes, this punishment for this offence could not be avoided; though Moses prayed, and fell down before God on her behalf, yea, though she was Moses his own Sister, and the person (as he goes on) who preserved the life of Moses, calling his Mother to nurse him, and led the women in their praises, Exod. 15. as Moses did the men. 22. But the inflicting the eternal judgement of God, and his severe wrath in another world, is far more dreadful, than any temporal penalty. and in the world to come. And since the most High God is infinitely righteous, in all his laws, threaten and judgements; whatsoever he sets himself against, and wheresoever he executes his fierce anger, it gives manifest evidence, that that which provokes him so to do, must be greatly evil, as well as dangerous. And it is necessary to abhor and avoid those things, which expose to the divine vengeance, which is utterly intolerable. Now that the punishment of those, who yield themselves to this sin of evil speaking, will be very sad, may appear by two Considerations. 23. First, By taking a review of it, The several sins contained in it, are all destructive. and observing the danger of every one of the several sins above mentioned, which are contained under this of reproaching; and therefore what the sad consequence must be of all these meeting together. Doth it oppose the great and necessary duty of love? He that loveth not his Brother, abideth in death, 1 Joh. 3.14. Doth it include a breach of the fifth Commandment, and an opposition against our Governors, when it hath respect to them? they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, Rom. 13.2. Is the violation of the sixth Commandment included in it? When S. John had said, He that hateth his Brother is a murderer; he immediately adds, and ye know, that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him, 1 Joh. 3.15. Doth the reproacher speaking against charity, usually exceed the bounds of truth? all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, Rev. 21.8. And among the eight sorts of lies reckoned up, and of all them condemned by (w) de Mendac. ad Cons. c. 14, & 21. S. Austin, this which is altogether pernicious or hurtful to another, is the highest, except that one of lying concerning the Faith and Doctrine of Religion. Is this sin a practice of unrighteousness? the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6.9. Is it a yielding to passion, and an opposing peace and meekness? they that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, Gal. 5.21. 24. Now if the sum of all these particulars be cast up, and put together, it will amount to thus much, even the treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath. And it will be hence manifest, that they who indulge themselves in this sin, do put several bars to shut out themselves from the Kingdom of Heaven. When our Saviour had said to the young man, Mat. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments; and was again asked, which Commandments he must keep; among six which our Lord expressed, as necessary for him to observe, that he might have eternal life, these are four, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, and Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself. And I have above shown, that in this sin of evil speaking, especially when it is directed against Superiors, there is a transgressing all these four precepts. 25. Secondly, By considering the severe punishment particularly denounced against, or inflicted upon the practisers of this sin. I have above noted divers instances of Gods heavy Judgements, expressed in the Scripture: as the sad calamity which came upon our first Parents, and all their Posterity, for their harkening to, and entertaining the reproach and evil suggestion of the Serpent; the dismal punishment of Corah and his complices, for their speaking against Moses and Aaron; and other such like. And the Author under (x) ad fratres in eremo, Serm. 26. S. Austin's name observes, that this sin hath much of spiritual leprosy in it (it is dangerous to the soul, and greatly defiles it; it is apt to infect others, and renders the person unfit for common Society) and God was pleased to punish it in Miriam, with leprosy in her body. 26. The Reproacher by public Censure shut out of the ancient Church. When the strict rules of Christian discipline were exercised, he who defamed, reproached or reviled others, was to be cast out of the Church by a public censure; which is an evidence, that the Christian Church accounted this sin, to forfeit the privileges of Christianity, and that the persons who commit it, and live in the practice of it, deserve not to be esteemed members of the Body of Christ. And that amongst other great sinners, the reviler, railer, or reproacher, is worthy to be separated from the Christian Society, is declared by the Apostle himself, 1 Cor 5.11. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Apostle there useth, is of that extent, as to include all who utter contentious, contumelious and defaming words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being oft used by the (y) Septuag. in Exod. 17.2, 7. Num. 20.3, 13. Septuagint, to answer the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which relates to strife and contention, and takes in all contentious reproaching words. According to the disciplinary rules, received in this Kingdom many hundred years since; offenders of this nature, especially if they defamed, or spoke contumeliously (z) in 2. lib. Penitent. Egbert. n. 21, &c 29. in Spelmar. Conc. Vol. 1. against their Superiors, were to come under the rules of penance. In like manner in the Eastern Church, in ancient times, (a) in Regul. brev. Resp. 26. S. Basil adjudgeth both him who slandereth his Neighbour, and him also who should comply with him, or give ear unto him, to deserve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be separated and cut off, from Ecclesiastical communion. And it was more anciently decreed in the Western Church, that those who should spread abroad reproaches, or libels against others, should be under an Anathema, according to the Sentence of the Council of (b) Conc. Elib. c. 52. Eliberis. All which shows, how odious this sin hath been reputed, and how much abhorred and condemned in the Christian Church. 27. And in the holy Scriptures, when the Psalmist declares the qualifications, necessary for him who shall dwell in God's Holy Hill, and threatened with exclusion out of God's Kingdom, or who shall be owned a true member of his Church here, and have an entrance into his glory hereafter, this is part of his description, Psal. 15.1, 3. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doth evil to his Neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his Neighbour. To this S. James his words are agreeable, Chap. 1.26. If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, that man's Religion is vain. S. Paul also assures us, that revilers shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6.10. and our Lord himself saith, concerning him who speaketh contumeliously to his Brother, that he shall be in danger of Hell fire, Mat. 5.22. 28. Now he who considers what God is, and what are the excellencies of his Kingdom, and with eternal destruction. cannot account it any light Sentence, to be eternal excluded from his glory and presence, as the fallen Angels are. If this be not enough, the desperate misery of all wicked doers, who shall be refused entrance thereinto, will make the stoutest heart to tremble; and will change the most brisk and jolly temper into doleful weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. When they shall be under the astonishing sense of the divine wrath; the infinite pains, expressed by the fire which shall not be quenched; the perplexing torment of a terribly awakened conscience, and the worm that never dies, this will be an unspeakably dismal state. To which may be added, the amazing presence and Society of the Devil and his Angels, and other damned persons, expressing their sad out-cries and terrors, and the overwhelming sense of an hopeless and unpitied condition, and all this to abide in those black and frightful regions of darkness to all eternity. 29. and with an heavy degree of future misery and vengeance. And yet in the midst of this unspeakable and endless destruction and torment, the Scripture which declareth the rule, according to which God will denounce his Sentence, tells us, that those who reproach, and speak evil of Superiors, are of the number of those sinners, who must expect the highest degree of judgement, and severity at the great day. 2 Pet. 2.9, 10. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement, to be punished. But chief them, that walk after the flesh, in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, presumptuous are they, self willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Where we see despising dominion or Government, and speaking evil of dignities, is part of the description of those, whom God will chief punish. And to such persons will belong those other expressions, of being presumptuous and selfwilled: for such they must be, who will be so insolent, as to despise what God hath set over them, and forgetting their own station to reproach them, who are in Authority. And though the former clause of this Verse, concerning them who walk after the flesh in the (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. lust of uncleanness, or defilement, may very well be understood concerning them who practise adultery, fornication and lasciviousness; yet even this clause also, may not improperly be applied to this sin, against which I am particularly discoursing. For it is evident, from Rom. 13.13, 14. Gal. 5.16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 1 Pet. 2.11, 12, 13. and other places of Scripture, that the passions of men, and the expressions and unruliness of them (which are contained in reproaching) are included under the phrase of the lusts of the flesh; and that this sin I am treating of, is defiling, is manifest from the former part of this Chapter. Now the direful vengeance of God, doth infinitely go beyond the severest executions, which can be contrived by men. And all men ought to have a serious sense of this, and all holy and godly men have so. When (d) Martyr. Polycarpi. Polycarp was threatened by the Proconsul, first to be torn in pieces by cruel wild Beasts; and when this moved him not, he was told he should be burnt with fire, unless he would departed from the Christian Religion: it was reasonably and wisely, as well as piously replied by him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Thou threatenest that fire which burns for an hour, and then goes out, but thou considerest not the fire of the future Judgement, and the eternal punishment which is reserved for the wicked. This is that we all ought to fear as most dreadful, and to avoid all the paths that tend to it, and not to have such light thoughts thereof, as rashly to gratify any disorder of mind or unruliness of temper, which will bring us to this destruction. 30. Wherefore the care which all men ought to have, of preventing their own misery, Carelessness in these concerns, is a daring presumption. aught to have this influence upon them, that they resolvedly reject and abhor this sin. Even human penalties have had a considerable force upon the minds of men, to restrain them from evil practices. When good Josiah heard the law of Moses read and the judgements denounced against such offences, as that Kingdom was then guilty of; his tender heart became affected therewith, and he humbled himself, was greatly solicitous for Judah, and therefore he enquired of the Lord, and forthwith undertook the establishing a great reformation. And shall not men in our days be afraid of the most terrible threats, which the Divine Majesty denounceth, and the Almighty power of God inflicteth upon them who are perverse and disobedient? We live in an Age wherein sin and doing evil is in too many instances become bold and daring; and many who make a fair pretence to Religion, stand not in awe of those heavy menaces of Divine vengeance, whereby Almighty God hath declared his wrath, against those sins, in which they indulge themselves, and which they still resolve to espouse and prosecute, with a presumptuous confidence, as far as they are pleasing to themselves, or serve the interest of a party. Amongst other Arguments and Motives, to avoid all manner of evil, the dreadful state of being under God's displeasure, is a mighty awakening one, and the thoughts of this hath had a powerful operation on the minds of men. (e) Cont. Cells. l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Origen tells us, that in his days, that he and others by the urging this great truth, concerning the punishment of evil-doers, had converted and turned many from their sins. And God grant it may have the same effect in our Age. 31. It is far from speaking either the wisdom, or the goodness of any sort of men, that in so weighty a case as this is, it is difficult to bring them to any serious consideration and reflection upon themselves. But they are never the more safe in any evil, for their rash confidence and carelessness, which is no other than an aggravation of their sin, and an higher provocation of God. I have had so frequent experience, how hard it is, by any sorts of Arguments, to prevail with many persons, who seem to have some sense of piety, to make conscience of performing several particular plain duties of Religion, (as the attendance on the holy Communion, and the Governing their passions) that I could not observe it without admiration and some kind of amazement. And I fear that all that man can say, and all that God hath said, which is terrible enough, will not be effectual to bring many persons guilty of this sin of speaking evil of others, into a serious sense of it, and an hearty repentance. However such persons esteem of themselves, this behaviour shows a great prevalency of obstinacy and hardness: and the time will come, when they who refuse instruction, will wish they had attended to it. And as I hearty beg of God that all who offend herein, may take warning, and amend, while they have opportunity; so for them who will not, I shall be hearty grieved, and account it both with respect to themselves, and the hurtful influence they may have upon others, a matter of sad lamentation. 32. They who will practise this sin, may for a time please their own passions, and may gratify the unruly tempers of disordered minds, with whom they converse. And by uncharitable reflections or insinuations against Superiors, they will occasion delight, rejoicing and satisfaction to them, who are enemies to goodness, truth and peace, and a wellestablished Order in Church or State; and they may hereby give these men encouragement, and hopes of success, in their ill designs. But in all this, they act against the interest of Religion, and their duty to God; and therefore they do so much the more expose themselves to his wrath and indignation, except they repent. And when they shall either repent, or bear the effects of God's anger, none will then be more displeased with the folly of these their practices, than themselves. CHAP. IU. Contumelious evil-speaking in general; and all irreverent and disrespectful behaviour, towards Rulers and Governors, is contrary to the life of Christ; in those things, wherein we are particularly commanded to imitate his Example: and S. Paul's carriage, Acts 23.3, 4, 5. considered. 1. HAving discoursed of the mischievous unreasonableness and extravagancy, and of the great sinfulness and heavy punishment, which attendeth an unruly tongue, and uncharitable speaking: I shall now consider the gentleness, meekness and innocency; yea the charity and due reverend respect, The precepts and example of Christ ought to guide our practice. which Christianity teacheth us to show, in our words, to others; as this is especially proposed unto us, in the example of Christ, and what is therein tendered to our imitation. The precepts of the Gospel to be kind and gentle, courteous and charitable, and to speak evil of no man, are so obvious, that I presume every Christian to be acquainted with them. And these things, together with a respectful demeanour to all Superiors, as they were conspicuous in the life and practice of our Lord himself, will now fall under my consideration. But concerning his example, some may possibly think with themselves, that he was an extraordinary instance of suffering evil, and came into the World to bear the punishment of our sins, and yielded up himself as the Lamb of God, to be a Sacrifice; but all Christians are not to bear like sufferings with him. But such aught to consider, that all his followers are to take up his Cross, and to perform such duties, and exercise such graces, as are enjoined by his Laws, and in which we have himself also for our pattern, and are required to follow him. Now to manifest, how far the practice of our Saviour was intended, to guide and direct us to reject all reviling, and to show reverend respect to Superiors, I shall lay down these following Considerations. 2. Cons. 1. 1. His meekness, and not reviling, particularly proposed to be our pattern. What our Saviour did in practising meekness, and in not reproaching any, or speaking evil, is proposed to us, as a pattern for us to imitate. This is clearly asserted by S. Peter, telling us, 1 Pet. 2.21, 22, 23. that Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled, he reviled not again. So that in these things, it is not only an historical truth, when we are told what Christ himself did; but this is also a rule, to acquaint us what we ought to do. (a) Contr. Apion l. 2. Josephus accounted it a great advantage, which the Jews had, for guiding them to goodness and virtue, that when the Lacedæmonians and Cretians instructed others in their duty by examples only; and the Athenians, and many others, did this only by precepts, the Jews made use of both these methods jointly. But in the Christian Dispensation, we have both more excellent precepts, and an higher enforcement of them; and also a more exact pattern and example, than ever the Jews had. The life of Christ recommends those practices, in which we are to follow him, to be the most honourable, and the wisest undertake; in that herein our lives are made conformable to the most glorious person, that ever appeared in our nature; and we herein do what he who is infinitely wise chose to do. And his life also shows, that as he in our nature was a perfect pattern of meekness; so he can and will by his grace enable us, (if we resolve piously and diligently to follow him, and serve him) to perform these duties also, though we attain not to the same perfection. It is in all cases very useful, (b) Ign. Epist. ad Ephes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that he who instructeth another in what is good, should himself do the same: for this hath a considerable influence upon the practice of others; but no example of any other teacher, can be so highly profitable, as that of Christ is, the perfection of which maketh it a complete rule and guide. And his example, especially in the acts of his humility and lowliness, we in duty ought always to follow, and safely may. 3. Some things are observed by (c) Nazian. Orat. 40. Nazianzen in the practice of our Saviour, which are not to be proposed for our imitation; to wit, such as he did, according as occasions and circumstances offered themselves, as his celebrating the holy Communion in an upper chamber, His temper of mind is in all things to be our examp e. and after supper, and in the night, and even that very night in which he was betrayed; and such also as spoke the Dignity and Divinity of his person. And what he did in the discharge of his Mediatory Office, though all Christians are highly concerned therein, being interested in the benefits thereof, yet the performance of these actions, were so peculiar to himself, that none other are to do the like. Of this nature was his giving up himself to death, for the working our redemption, and to be a Propitiation for the sins of the World. But yet it is observable, that in this singular act of his Mediatory Office, (and the like may be said of others) that excellent temper of mind, in which he performed this work, is that wherein we stand obliged to follow him; and this will recommend to us patience and meekness. 4. Thus with respect to God, whilst he gave up himself to be a Sacrifice for sin, this was a rare instance of obedience, to the will of his Father, even in the most difficult performance; and of submission to the pleasure of his Father, in drinking that Cup which he gave him to drink without any murmuring or repining. And in these things it is our duty to follow him, and that the same mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus, Phil. 2. 5.-8. And with respect to man, this his Priestly action of making atonement, was performed out of the greatest love to us: and it contained the highest expressions, and evidences of this love, in that he was willing to do so much, and to bear so much for men, who were sinners and enemies; and also in that he did thereby effectually procure for them the greatest good. And here we are commanded to imitate him, and to walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering and a Sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour, Eph. 5.2. And towards them who were his cruel and inhuman enemies, who both crucified and reviled him; in his great sufferings, when in his own body he did bear our sins, he expressed a temper of eminent meekness, patience and kindness, and herein we are commanded to follow his steps, who when he was reviled, he reviled not again, 1 Pet. 2.21, 23. And besides this instance, in what other things we are not to imitate the particular actions of our Lord, there are yet some general considerations, with respect to the Spirit and temper of mind, in which they were done, that are of great use for our imitation. And on this account it may be affirmed, (d) Aug. de vera Relig. c. 16. Tota itaque vita ejus in terris disciplina morum fuit. that the whole life of Christ, was a most excellent instruction for our duty; which was S. Augustine's inference, after he had considered many things, which our Saviour did, and especially his patience, meekness and self denial. 5. And the precepts of meekness, and patience, and of governing our tongues, are as plainly and fully enjoined in the Gospel, as any other commands whatsoever. If some men will causelessly be our enemies, and will hate, Meekness and patience are great duties of Christianity. curse and persecute us; however men had been taught or allowed before to love their Neighbour, and hate their enemy, the will of our Lord is, that we love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them that despitefully use us, and persecute us, Mat. 5.44. And if we meet with them who work us evil, and rail against us, the rule of Christian practice is, 1 Pet. 3.9. not rendering evil, for evil, or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing. And these and other such like precepts, are so excellent and amiable, that if the meekness, and innocency and charity which Christianity requires, did universally prevail, and obtain in the World, it would make the Society of mankind wonderfully more sweet, delightful and comfortable than it is, and their converse would be free from the poison, and venom of the old Serpent. And surely the laws which are established for our guidance, especially where God is the lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy, aught to be accounted of sufficient authority and influence, to command subjection and obedience. But the example of our Lord, doth here add a mighty persuasive virtue to his precepts, besides what I above mentioned, in that he was far better than any of us, who deserved most from men, and yet was worst treated by them, hath left such an exact pattern of meekness and patience. And then much more ought we to practise these duties, since we deceive ourselves, if we think the evil we undergo, whether of this kind or of any other, is not deservedly ordered to us, with respect to the general disposing of all things, by Divine Providence. Upon which consideration David exercised himself in patience towards Shimei. And it may justly seem incongruous, that if a mean Peasant, who is an offender, shall have the same treatment from men, with an excellent and gracious Prince, or shall be in the same storm abroad, in his voyage or journey; that he should be in a fury, as thinking himself too good to be thus dealt with, while his good Prince goes through all this, with a quiet and calm demeanour. 6. To imitate Christ in these duties is the way to happiness. But there is yet a farther very weighty consideration, upon which all Christians stand bound to follow this example of our Saviour; and that is, that the imitating him in this very thing, is directed and enjoined, as the course we are to take, for the obtaining happiness, Mat. 11.29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest unto your souls. So that the following him in humility and meekness, is the walking in the path of rest; for this (as all acts of goodness and duty) bringeth here serenity and peace, to the mind of him who practiseth it, and is one of the great duties to be performed in order to perfect peace and rest hereafter. And those his Servants who thus serve and follow him, shall be with him where he is. Thus S. Austin (e) De Temp. Serm. 61. & Enarrat. in Ps. 90. , having considered those words of S. Matthew, Chap. 11.29. and of S. Peter, 1 Pet. 2.22, 23. observes, that that example of our Lord, which it is necessary for us to imitate, is not that which is too high and great for us, in our capacities, to perform, as to restore the dead to life, or to walk upon the Sea; but it is to be meek and humble in spirit, and that we should love not only our friends, but even our enemies with all our hearts. 7. And as this duty is particularly recommended to us, There is no true piety in them who do not walk as he walked. as one especial and main thing, in which we are to imitate our Lord, and shall be highly rewarded by so doing; so it will be useful to take notice in general, that it is a very vain thing for any to talk of Christ and Christianity, and of their hope and interest in him, if they do not follow his example, and live according to his life. And of this we are assured by S. John, 1 Joh. 2.6. He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. And these words are the more necessary to be minded and seriously regarded, because S. John in the former part of that Chapter, doth particularly undertake to declare and reckon up, in large and comprehensive expressions, divers of those things which are of absolute necessity for every man to observe, who would be owned as truly Religious, and in a comfortable relation to God. To this purpose he saith, v. 4. He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his Commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. And v. 5. But whoso keepeth his word; in him verily is the love of God perfected, hereby know we that we are in him. And after he had inserted some emphatical expressions, to manifest the weight and excellency of these things, which he was now discoursing, he proceeds to assert v. 9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his Brother, is in darkness, even until now: and v. 15. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. And amongst these he expresseth what I now mentioned, v. 6. concerning walking as he walked. Which Verse also is intended to express, what is so necessary to true Christianity, and communion with Christ, that they cannot consist without it. How far then do they go astray, who are so negligent of Christian meekness and gentleness; as if fierceness and passion, were rather to be accounted the practices of our Religion. 8. 2. Our Lord's example peculiarly requireth reverence to Superiors. Cons. 2. Our Saviour's example is particularly set before us, to silence and suppress all evil speaking against Superiors, and reproaching them who are in Authority; and to engage us to behave ourselves towards them, with reverence and due respect. And for the manifesting this, I shall show three things. 9 First, That this is the scope and intention of S. Peter, in proposing to us the example of Christ. 1 Pet. 2.21, 23. for the proof of which, I need only make a brief reflection on the foregoing Verses. To this purpose, it is urged by S. Peter. That Apostle had spoken of the duty of Subjects, to their King and Governors, v. 13. commanding them, to submit themselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lords sake, whether to the King as Supreme, or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him. And he continueth his discourse with particular respect to them, unto the end of v. 17. concluding it with these precepts, Fear God, and Honour the King. And v. 18. he comes to speak of that duty and respect, which is due to those Superiors, who are in a more inferior domestic relation, and are not furnished with that Dignity and Honour, which belongs to them who govern in an higher rank and capacity. And here he commands Servants to be subject to their Masters with all fear, etc. and then he proceeds to declare, what patience, meekness and reverence, is to be expressed towards such Superiors, by those who are subject to them, though they should meet with hard measure from them, and suffer undeservedly by them. And for the guiding Christians in this case, he bringeth in the example of Christ, and this part of it particularly, that he who did no sin, when he was reviled, he reviled not again, and when he suffered he threatened not, v. 22, 23. 10. Secondly, That our Saviour did behave himself, Our Saviour's practice expressed great respect to Superior Relations, particularly to his Parents: with that respect to superior Relations, both in words and actions, which is fit to teach us to do the like. In his Divine nature, he was Lord of all, even in the depth of his humiliation; and in his humane nature, he was advanced to an high dignity, in Union to the Divine, and as our Mediator. But yet considering him as made under the law, and in the form of a servant, and he therein carefully performed the duties of the fifth Commandment, as well as any other precepts of the law of God, both to his Parents, and to all that were in Authority, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical. When he took on him the nature of man, he became subject to those duties, which belong to that nature, and tend to the public good and order of the World. In his younger years he began his life, with subjection to his Parents, Luk. 2.51. And this thing deserves to be the more especially taken notice of, because as some (f) Ludolph. de Vit. Chr. P. 1. cap 16. Barrad in Concord. Evang. Tom. 1. l. 10. c. 14. have truly observed, this is a main and chief thing, which the Holy Ghost thought fit to record, concerning the actions of that former part of our Saviour's life; from the twelfth, to the thirtieth year of his age. And in one of the last actions of his life, when he was upon the Cross, he expressed that honour to his Mother, as to recommend her to the care of his beloved Disciple, Joh. 19.26, 27. 11. He gave that respect to the Temple-service, To the Office of the Priests, and the Temple-service, and to the Office of the Priests, who ministered therein, that though he came to put an end to this typical worship, by the Sacrifice of himself, yet so long as it continued in force, he himself attended thereon. In his infancy he was there presented to the Lord; he observed the Passeover, and other public solemnities there; and the night before his Passion, he not only kept the Passeover with his Disciples, but declared the great desire he had, to eat that Passeover with them, Luk. 22.15. And when he had cleansed a leper, he enjoined him to show himself to the Priest, and offer for his cleansing as Moses had commanded, Luk. 5.14. And I doubt not but that it was truly observed, by Ludolphus de Vita Christi, that when the Scripture speaks of his going into the Temple, it is not to be understood of the Temple strictly so called, nor yet of the Court of the Priests: (g) Lud. P. 2. cap. 29. n. 2. Ista duo loca non intravit Christus, quia non erat sacerdos (sc. Aaronicus.) He being no Aaronical Priest, and observing the law of God, did not take upon him what peculiarly did belong to them by virtue of their Office. 12. and even to the Constitutions of their Synagogues; and to the Baptist, and the Scribes and Pharisees: And he had that honour for the order and authority of their public Synagogue-worship and solemnities, that it was his custom to attend thereon, Luk. 4.16. He shown also that respect to the Ministry of John the Baptist, though he was both in Office, and Person, far inferior to himself, that he would be Baptised of him; and hereby he gave testimony that he would have all persons, whom God had called to any public ministration, to be reverenced, and received with honourable respect in that service. And though the Scribes and Bharisees reviled and opposed him, such was his signal meekness and integrity, that so far as they sat in Moses seat, or were invested with authority, and kept themselves to the Rules of the Law of Moses, and to the due limits of their Power, our Lord commanded the people to observe and do what they said, Mat. 23.3. But where they departed from this rule, it was necessary to declare the falsehood of their Doctrine, and the corruption of their practices, and this also was faithfully done by our Lord. 13. And when the High-Priests and Elders, (h) Jos. Ant. Jud. l. 14. c. 17. who had some continuance of Secular Authority, under the Roman Power, sent Officers and Soldiers to take him; he was so far from giving the least countenance to any tumult or Sedition, that he gave a sharp reproof to S. Peter's drawing the Sword, and undertook to heal Malchus, whose ear he had cut off. to the Synedrial Authority of the Jews, And when before the judgement seat, he was smitten by an angry Officer that stood by, he returned not a passionate word, but in these mild expressions replied, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou me? Joh. 18.23. And that answer which he gave the High Priest, which occasioned this Officer to be so furious, contained not the least intimation (i) Cyp. Ep. 65. Dominus noster— usque ad passionis diem servavit honorem Pontificibus & Sacerdotibus, etc. of disrespect unto him. But being asked concerning his Disciples and his Doctrine, he appealed to the Jews themselves, to testify what they knew, who were able to give an account of this, since he ever taught openly in the Synagogues, and in the Temple, whither the Jews always resorted. And yet this innocent and reasonable answer, was, it seems, the greatest occasion this fierce Officer could take, to strike him. He commanded also to pay tribute, and to render what was due to Caesar, and to Caesar. but he neither spoke nor did any thing, that testified want of due respect to any person, invested with Authority. Nor did his Doctrine give any liberty to his Disciples, to neglect this reverence and respect; as appears from what was delivered as the Christian rule of practice, by himself, and by S. Peter, and S. Paul. For herein resistance, and evil-speaking of a Ruler, is condemned and forbidden; and honour, submission and obedience to all Governors, and that even for conscience sake, and for the Lords sake, is enjoined upon every soul, under the most heavy penalties even of damnation itself. Wherefore let us herein be followers of him, who himself long practised (k) Stella in Luc. 2. Ludolph. de V. C. Part. 1. c. 15, 16. subjection before he preached it to others; and from him Subjects may learn to obey those that are over them, when they see the Redeemer and Lord of the whole World, subject to Joseph and Mary. 14. Thirdly, We are the more obliged, to follow the example of our Lord, in behaving ourselves meekly, and reverently to our Superiors; because this is that, which the Holy Scriptures particularly recommend, Christian's practising reverence to Superiors, doth greatly recommend Religion. in order to the growth of the Christian Religion, and the advancement of its interest in the World. And if this be so, they who are the true friends to Christianity, and therein to the honour of Christ, and the happiness of men, must manifest this, by their awful and respectful carriage to their Governors, as well as by any other duty of Christianity. And they who transgress herein, are guilty of such a crime, as hath a tendency to hinder the prevalency of our holy Religion, and to put a stop to its progress among men. And indeed where duties of submission are practised, out of principles of Conscience, and a sense of God and Religion; they are there regular, uniform and constant, and they speak this excellency in Religion, that it is that which calms and subdues men's passions, and brings them into a subjection to the rules of their duty. And it also manifests that Christianity, where it is rightly and sincerely entertained, by suppressing the fierce boisterousness, and tumultuousness of unruly minds, doth very much help forward the establishment, and continuance of an excellent and beautiful order, in human Societies, and promoteth quiet and peaceableness among men. And where the true Spirit of Religion doth prevail, it effectually will do all this good; and when vicious and evil men are apt to be proud and selfwilled, and fierce and unruly, it makes those who are guided by it, meek and humble, gentle and obedient; which is so amiable a temper, and so useful and beneficial to the World, that the generality of mankind, unless they offer violence to their reason and conscience, cannot but think well of it. And it would be of mighty advantage to the reforming the World, if all who profess Christianity, were so far Christians indeed, that they would in these things, manifest the life, and power and excellency of their Religion. 15. To this end it is directed in the Holy Scripture Now that the Holy Scriptures do direct, and enjoin this submissive and awful carriage of inferiors, towards all who are in Authority, as a means for the bringing honour to our Religion, and for the propagating it, and making it more effectually prevalent amongst men, is sufficiently evident both from S. Peter and S. Paul. S. Peter, 1 Pet. 2.12. gives the command to Christians, who lived among Pagans, by S. Peter, having your conversation honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speak against you as evil doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. Where he exhorts them so to live, that they might win them who were yet strangers to the Christian Religion, into an affection to it, and esteem of it. And as a particular means to effect this, he adds in the next words, Submit yourselves, therefore, to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supreme, etc. So that this is here laid down, as a first, and principal direction and rule, for the bringing credit, and esteem to Christianity, among the Gentiles. And Estius (l) Estius in 1 Pet. 2.13. thinks, not improbably, that the Apostle the rather gives this precept to them, for this end and purpose; because the Jews from amongst whom most of the Christians to whom he wrote, were Converted, were ordinarily reputed perverse, unruly, and enemies to civil Government, and thereupon both themselves, and there Religion were the more disliked by the Gentiles. 16. Indeed that particle, Therefore, which is of great weight in this Text, is omitted and left out, both in the various impressions of our last English Translation, and in some other (m) The Geneva, and Wicklef ' s. more ancient English Versions; which yet is fully expressed in the Original, by the general, and almost universal consent of all ancient Copies, agreeably to the scope of the Apostles discourse; and therefore it ought to be restored in our Translation. And after S. Peter, v. 13, and 14. had commanded submission, and dutiful respect to the King, and other Governors, he adds this argument, to enforce the practice of this duty, v. 15. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing, you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. In which words it is declared, both that this respectful behaviour to Governors, is of great use, to take of those oppositions which the enemies of Christianity make against it; and also that it is the will of God, that Christians should carefully practise this duty (which is a great branch of well-doing) in order to the obtaining this end. 17. To the same purpose S. Peter proceeds, to require an humble subjection and obedience of Servants, to their Masters, v. 18. declaring v. 19 this is thankworthy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that which obtains, both in the sight of God and man, a favourable acceptance, and good esteem (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oft sigifies as Luk. 1.30. Chap. 2.52. Chap. 6.32, 33, 34. Act. 2.47. and this is the most proper sense of that word in this place) and this brings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 glory and renown, and deserves honour, v. 20. And in this case as I (n) n. 9 above noted, he sets before us the Example of Christ, in a matter of so great usefulness to our Religion. To the same end still this Apostle Chap. 3. v. 1, 2. requires the submission of Wives to their Husbands, as a means to bring over those Husbands to Christian piety, who were not prevailed upon, by the instruction of the word. And here he requires, that they show a reverend behaviour, v. 2. a quiet temper, v. 4. and such a submission as includes the use of words and expressions of honour and respect, and this is mentioned as well-doing, v. 5, 6. And indeed the power and force of Religion doth eminently appear in the pious performing the duties of Subjection: for whilst pride, and passion and inordinate affection, puts men upon striving to be greatest, and makes it an uneasy thing to them to be led and governed by others, in a mean station; conscience to God will make persons faithful, and submissive in the most inferior relations, and willing to serve him with humility, and meekness in the lowest condition, in which God placeth them. And this is in truth both a great and a good; a generous and noble, and even a divine temper of mind. 18. and also by S. Paul. From S. Peter, I now proceed to S. Paul, who discoursing Tit. 2.9, 10. of the duty of Servants to their Masters, though the relation of a Master, doth not require so high a degree of honour and reverence, as that of a Prince and Governor, in great Authority, doth; yet the Apostle commands that Servants be exhorted to please them well in all things, not answering again, not purloining, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the Doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Where he requires from Servants, faithfulness and fidelity, a submissive temper, to please in all things; and a meek Government of themselves as to their words and expressions, not answering again, and consequently not giving any passionate, murmuring, contumelious or other ill words; and these duties are particularly required for the adorning the Doctrine of Christianity. And it is somewhat to the same purpose, that in the following Chapter, the Apostle commands, that men be put in mind to practise subjection to Magistrates, and meekness towards all men, Tit. 3.1, 2. as manifesting thereby, what an excellent effect, the Christian Doctrine and Spirit rightly entertained, hath on the lives of men. For before that took place and was entertained, the Apostle saith, v. 3. We ourselves were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice, etc. But v. 4, 5, 6. after the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, wrought a mighty change in this temper and conversation, in order to the eternal happiness of men. See also 1 Tim. 6.1. 19 Cons. 3. The example of Christ is intended, to press upon all Christians this duty of meekness, and the forbearing to reproach any others whomsoever; and especially a reverend behaviour towards all who are over us, though from them we might sustain real injuries. And evil-speaking to reproach or revile others, though it be upon provocation and receiving wrong is too common among men, but is contrary both to the example, and Doctrine of our Saviour. Christ's example requireth kindness to all, and reverence to superiors, though we sustain injuries. He was every way injuriously treated by word and deed; his enemies who set themselves against him, were evil men, and guilty of those faults, which they falsely and undeservedly charged on him; and yet in his sufferings, he made no return of rash and reviling expressions towards them, nor yet of passionate complaints against them, but was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb so he opened not his mouth. Is. 53.7. Such was the admirable practice of his meekness, and patience, and in these graces we must follow him, even under difficulties. 20. Indeed reason as well as the Christian Religion, will condemn the return of passion, violence or evil-speaking to them from whom we have received the like. For as (o) Bas. Hom. de Ira. S. Basil argues, what excuse can there be for him, who returns the like to him who provokes him? will he plead that another began? It is suitable to reason not to return injury in word or deed to any men, would this defend the person who by compliance, yields to the commission of adultery? there is no Crown of Victory but to him who withstands, and fights against his adversary; and as that Father adds, art thou angry at another's reproaching as being bad, and yet thou imitatest it, as if it were good, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And what man can stand more self-condemned, than he who complains of others who speak or act injuriously against him, and at the same time followeth their example, and doth the same thing to them? For if this be not evil, he hath no occasion to complain, or be offended; if it be evil in another, it will also be so in him, and aught to be avoided. 21. It is an unmanly thing, to imitate the croaking of a Frogg before you, or the snarling of a Dog against you. But though these be weak and silly things, the acting by evil examples of bad men, is far worse, because there is a moral turpitude, or sinful defilement in such actions. The rules of our holy Religion require us, to behave ourselves otherwise, 1 Thes. 5.15. See that none render evil for evil. and commanded in the Scripture. And though a bad man deeply infected with the poison of the Serpent, may have a pestilential breath, and his words may be envenomed; the pious man, who is of a sound temper of mind and heart, must have no evil communication proceed out of his mouth. It becomes him, and is his duty, to follow his Lord, who in this case did not only forbear to speak, or so much as to think or desire any evil, but to his patience and gentleness, he added his tender kindness and compassiate love, in dying for his enemies, Rom. 5.8, 10. and praying for his persecutors, Father forgive them, they know not what they do, Luke 23.34. 22. This example and doctrine of our Lord, outwent the rules of virtue, delivered by the wisest Philosophers. (p) de Virt. & vitiis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristotle describes the virtue of meekness, to be that by which a man can bear with moderation, both calumny and disrespect and contempt, and is not easily moved to anger, but is of a calm and steady temper. And the Stoics went somewhat further, by directing the wise man to esteem nothing to be injurious to him. But our Lord and his Religion, not only undertake the moderating, and suppressing of irregular passion, but the overcoming evil with good; and herein his example and Laws are beyond all other patterns or institutions. 23. Those Pagan examples were considerable, which being mentioned by Plutarch, are related also by (q) Cont. Cells. l. 8. p. 401. Origen, of returning kindness for unkindness, both in words and actions. That Lycurgus not only forbore all revenge, against him who had struck out his eye, The greatest Pagan examples are short of Christianity. but would not give over instructing him, till he had prevailed upon him, to study Philosophy and virtue. And Zeno when he heard that one who was his enemy, had vowed to do him a mischief; answered, and let me perish, if I do not my utmost, to overcome him to be my friend. To which I add that of (r) Sueton. in Tit. n. 9 Titus the Roman Emperor, who when Domitian, whom he had declared his Successor, would not desist from designing evil against him; he still not only continued his former kindness to Domitian, but with entreating and tears besought him, that they might have a mutual friendship towards each other. 24. But such actions as these, were mostly singular instances, practised only towards some particular persons, and remarked as things extraordinary, nor did their precepts oblige others to do the like. But David's tenderness was more extended and general, who behaved himself towards his enemies, with that kindness, as if his friend or Brother had been concerned, Ps. 35.11,— 14, 15. And our Saviour's love and affection, unto them who were his enemies, was universal, and his precepts so fully require the same, and so much beyond any other rules of practice, received in the world, that Tertullian might well say, that the Christian kindness towards enemies, and revilers, is (s) Ad Scap. c. 1. perfecta & propria bonitas nostra, non communis, a rule of complete goodness, peculiar to Christians, and not common to others. And though the Christian temper of meekness and love, be at all times desirable, that mildness which was practised by some of the Pagans, that offenders should be set free from punishment, is not always fit to take place in the world. That Oath of Titus (who would not punish those two of the Patricii, who would have seized themselves of the Empire) was unadvised and indiscreet (t) Sueton. ubi sup. periturum se potius, quam perditurum, that he though an Emperor on whom the public welfare depended, had rather be killed himself, than put any other person to death. But the rules of Christian meekness, observe those right and regular bounds and limits, which run into no hurtful extremes, but promote and secure true goodness, together with the common welfare of mankind. 25. This returning kindness to the most ill-tempered persons was a thing very familiar to the ancient Christians, even under their most heavy trials. But as good men may sometimes misapprehend the due measures, and rules of their duty; so affectionateness and tenderness, may in this case carry them sometimes, into the other extreme; to show too great respect, to those their enemies, who are also adversaries to the truth. It was an excellent sweet temper of Gr. Nazianzen, that (u) Gr. in vit. Gr. Naz. when the Church met with many oppositions, and himself was particularly aimed at, he much endeavoured to allay the heat of the Orthodox Christians, whenever he discerned them to exceed. And when such Emperors reigned, as were friends to the truth, he declared, that this was the revenge he would take of his enemies, to endeavour they might be saved, and own those good things which before they rejected. And yet he had been loaded by them with injuries. The Apolinarians by their calumnies and clamour, had rendered him distasteful to the people, and when he was under the disrespect of the multitude, the Arians stoned him; and this meek man was accused before the Secular Tribunal, to be the author of tumult and sedition. And after all his expressions of kindness, he was so ill requited by these his enemies, that they set a young man to assassinate and murder him: who was so far moved with the converse, and presence of this holy man, that relenting with tears and lamentations, he implored, and easily obtained his pardon. I confess, (w) Naz Orat. ad 150 Episc. he was by some blamed for showing too much kindness to the enemies of the truth; and it is true, that good men, and especially Bishops and Governors, ought not to express an equal favour to them, who oppose truth, peace and goodness, and to those who embrace them. But that kindness which may tend to their good, and the good of others, is such an excellent temper, as ought not to be laid aside for any personal injuries. 26. But the example of Christ, The Example of Christ considered with respect to Rulers, from whom we receive hard measure. particularly recommends reverence, and respect to Superiors, though we should receive hard measure at their hands. From hence S. Peter commands, 1 Pet. 2.18,— 21. the reverend subjection of Servants to their Masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. And if such a behaviour be necessary, towards them who possess a lesser degree of authority, in a family; much more to them in higher capacity: for the neglect of duty to them is an offence of a more public nature, and tends to a more general scandal and prejudice. And hence we may further infer, that neglect of dutiful carriage, is much more inexcusable toward those Governors, who are good and kind, and from whom we receive no wrong or injury. But how we ought to behave ourselves, even to froward Rulers, we are to learn by the example of Christ, which is to this purpose set before us 1 Pet. 2.21. He was without any crime, and though he was condemned, he did no sin, v. 22. He suffered, but without threatening, or returning any evil word, or reviling again, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously, v. 23. And such is the Order that God hath established in the World, that he who is wronged by his equal, or fellow Subject, ought not to avenge himself; but if the case require it, may apply himself to his Ruler, for help and redress. But if he be hardly and severely dealt with, by them who have the Government of the world, he must not then avenge himself, no not so much as by reproach, or evil expressions, but commit himself to God as a righteous judge: and this the example of Christ will direct him to do. 27. Yea, our Saviour's prayer, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do, did manifest his great and tender affectionateness, not only to the common people, but also to their Rulers, who contrived and conspired his death. For even they also knew not what they did, as S. Peter declares, Act. 3.17. And thus the ancient Christians, though ill treated under Pagan or Heretical Governors, did not only forbear evil speaking, and irreverent and indecent carriage, but thought themselves obliged, to maintain an high respect to these Rulers, and to desire their happiness and welfare. This (x) Apol. & add Scap. Tertullian declared, under an Ethnic Emperor, and that Council of (y) in Athanas. de Syn. Arim. & S●l. Ariminum, which established the Faith of Nice, under Constantius the Arian Emperor, in their Epistle which they sent unto him. 28. Performing this duty is acceptable to God, and conscience towards him will require it; And such a continued respect, and practice of duty to Governors, even under harsh usage, is that which conscience to God will oblige every Christian to perform. S. Peter therefore commends that temper, where a man for conscience towards God, endures grief, suffering wrongfully, 1 Pet. 2.19. that is, endures it patiently, and without reviling, as the following Verses will explain it. And the reason for this is, because this duty of respectful submission, is not founded chief upon the good temper of our Superiors, but upon the authority they receive from God, and the precepts which God hath thereupon given to us. So that here the debate lies between conscience and self-will; whether the precepts and rules of Religion are to be followed, which conscience will oblige unto; or the passions of men, which the unruly temper of sinful inclinations are prone to comply with. Now where this Christian duty is carefully observed, we are assured by S. Peter, that this is acceptable to God, 1 Pet. 2.20. And every good man will please himself best, in doing those things which are pleasing to God. And this he may do, and bring honour to himself also, by this Christian temper towards Governors. For the Apostle in that place tells us, What glory is it, if when you be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if when you do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. But if patience in suffering for faults, hath not so much of virtue in it, as to bring any honour and renown to him who practiseth it, how must they needs be, who are faulty, and yet though they be free from suffering, are impatient and murmuring. 29. To all these weighty Considerations, I might add, that this temper is a thing so necessary, that in the neglect of it, we cannot behave ourselves as Christians, or suitably to our Christian calling. And therefore S. Peter v. 21. and this becomes our calling. addeth, For hereunto were ye called: our Christian Religion greatly requires us, herein to follow our Saviour's steps. And when S. Paul did beseech the Ephesians, to walk worthy of the vocation, wherewith they were called, the first things he requires from them to this end are, all lowliness and meekness, and long suffering, Eph. 4.1, 2. 30. Obj. 1. But possibly some men, Obj. 1 This Discourse is against the true interest of man. who are not willing to put these great Christian duties in practice, may be forward to raise prejudices, against such a Discourse as this, and may pretend, that these things are not suitable to the true interests of men, but there is rather some ill design carried on by them. To which I Answer, Ans. 1 It wholly designs to bring men from passion and sin to goodness. First, That this really tends to no other end, but to preserve or recover men from the snares of sin, and to guide them into a true obedience to the will of God, and the doing those things which are to the honour of Christianity, by calming the unruly disorders of men's minds. Where persons are engaged in any unaccountable practice, with passion and fierceness, there is no case wherein sin hath a greater dominion, and government over man, than in this. For whilst any are carried on with rash heats, these blind their minds, and hinder them from a sober consideration, of what they ought to do. And there is no sinful indisposition, wherein men are more averse from good counsel, and more forward to be displeased with, and oppose them who would direct them better. And (z) Arist. Ethic l 1. c. Aristotle observed from Hesiod, that he who will neither consider things rightly of himself, nor be advised by others, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man of whose good there is little hope. Wherefore he who will endeavour the recovering of men from such sins, must be prepared to bear the hard words of such offenders; which was the lot of Christ himself, of his Apostles, and many of the ancient Fathers in the like case. Even as he that would be most instrumental, to extinguish a prevailing fire, may be scorched, and must be touched, with some sense of the heat and flame. 31. 2. It is impious to think the breaking the laws of God to be our interest. Secondly, Consider how much it savoureth of impiety, that the urging the plain duties of meekness, patience, humility, and reverence to Superiors, should be thought things of ill and hurtful consequence; and that passionate fierceness and disobedience, should be esteemed things good and useful for mankind. As if those things which God commands, were for the prejudice of man, of whose welfare he hath so great a care. This would represent the Kingdom of Christ to be divided against itself, and persuade men, that if they will take care of their own true interest, and do what is best for themselves, they must cast off the yoke of Christ, and comply with the temptations of the Devil. But whoever will talk, or judge at this rate, if he do not stop his course, and return from the error of his way, is in a fair progress towards the renouncing his Christianity, and the denying the wisdom and goodness of God in governing the world. But then, he must withal contradict the sentiments, of his own reason and conscience, since no man can think it just and fit, that himself should be thus treated, either with uncharitable censures, and unjust reproaches, and calumnies by others; or with an untractable disrespect, and an irreverent and undutiful behaviour, from his own Children and Servants. It would be folly enough for Subjects to think, that those prudent Laws, which are the contrivance of the wisest men, are their burden and damage, and that it would be far better, for every man to be wholly left to his own will: when as the (a) Cic. pro Cluent. Roman Orator truly observed, Laws are the bond, and the soul and life of civil society, and the foundation of liberty; and we are therefore subject to Laws, that we may enjoy freedom, legum idcirco servi sumus, ut liberi esse possimus. But it would be far more unaccountable to have such disparaging thoughts of the directions and commands, of the infinitely wise God. And it hath been a great part of Satan's business in the world, to persuade men to reject useful truth, and rules of practice, by raising prejudices against them, and those that teach them. This he oft doth by pretending that they are against the interest of men, and that some ill design is laid by them who propose them. In this manner he began with our first Parents in Paradise, and so he proceeded against the Christian Religion, as I have showed. 32. Obj. 2. But it may be further objected, Obj. 2 If Religion be concerned, ought not men to be zealous? If Religion be concerned and in danger, doth it not become every good man to be moved and zealous in this case, and both to speak and act, what may tend to its preservation. To which I shall return four things, by way of Answer, with desire that they may all of them be seriously considered. 33. Ans. 1 Yes, in Christian and prudent actions, not in sinful passions. Ans. 1. It is very requisite, he should in such a case be zealous, and active as a Christian, in the diligent exercises of an holy life, and in frequent and devout prayer, and supplication to Almighty God, to procure his protection and defence against all the enemies of his Church, and their ill designs. And it is proper also for him, to be active as a wise man, in the use of all lawful and prudent means, which agree to his place and station. But he must not be active as an evil doer, in giving himself the liberty, to vent passionate slanders, and uncharitable reproaches against others, or to behave himself undutifully towards his Superiors. If a Ship be in a storm, it is desirable that its passengers should both pray to God, and in their places put to their helping hand for its security; but it very ill becometh them at that time, to fall into quarrels with them who take the best care for its safety. And it must be considered that (b) Just. Mart. Paraen. p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Religion is not so much a name, as a business of life and practice. And therefore they who speak of showing a great respect to Religion, by disobeying its precepts, do really lose Religion, under a pretence of preserving it: for though men may deceive themselves, it is a truth of undoubted certainty, that whosoever seemeth to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, that man's Religion is vain: it is an empty appearance, and not profitable to himself. 34. 2. God's Kingdom needeth not the help of Satan and sin. Ans. 2. Religion can never be so in danger, that God should need any sinful practices of men, to uphold his interest. His Kingdom is not so weak, that it cannot stand, without the assistance of the works of the Devil. Such methods may help forward the ruin of a Church, but will never be found the true way to its settlement and establishing. Christ who founded his Church, did support it, when it was in the midst of persecutions, even in its weak beginnings. And the exercises of piety and all good conscience, accompanied with innocent prudence, are the way to put us under his care, and entitle us to his protection, but he will have no concord with Belial. When the pressures of the Israelites were heavy in Egypt, God delivered them from their Bondage. And when their transgressions had at other times exposed them to great calamities and sufferings, upon their returning to him, he raised up Judges, and gave them redress. And he knows how to defend those who fear him, by various methods, and sometimes in a more strange and extraordinary manner. Thus the wrath of (c) Jos. Ant. Jud. l. 11. c. 8. Alexander, who went against Jerusalem with the Spirit of an enraged enemy, was fully appeased, to the admiration of those who accompanied him, when he met Jaddus the High Priest, in his Priestly Garments, and remembered that before he came out of Macedonia, such a person, in that habit, appeared to him, and encouraged him in his enterprise. And when a Diploma was signed to create trouble to the Bohemian Church, when Maximilian the second was Emperor, 1565, (d) Comen. Historiolae. 109. Comenius acquaints us, that he who carried it, going over the Bridge of Danubius without the Gates of Vienna, the Bridge at that instant broke, and though this person was taken up dead, by some Fishers, the Diploma was never seen after, and thereby that Church enjoyed rest and peace. And for the preservation and security of his Church, in the time of its greatest oppositions, he raised up a Constantine, and in the same age soon removed a Julian. And we have had instances of God's care towards the Reformation of our Church, in defeating many oppositions contrived against it and our Religious Princes, and in restoring it again to its former establishment, after our late troubles; and also in ordering the Reign of Queen Mary to be short, and that she should have no issue, and that after her, there should be a succession of many excellent Princes. 35. Ans. 3. 3. Religion was never more opposed, than when Christ was Crucified. Religion can never be opposed with greater enmity, and malicious designs, than it was when our Saviour suffered: Yet than he reviled not, nor allowed S. Peter's rashness, but left us his example for our imitation. The Church of God upon earth, was never without the enmity of the evil one, and those whom he could engage against it: but at sometimes their opposition is more vehement than at others. When our Lord was crucified, the Devil entered into Judas to effect it, the Jews aimed utterly to root out the Christian name. The power of the Jewish Church and Sanhedrin, was then engaged against it, and gained both Herod and Pilate, into a compliance with them. And there were great oppositions against Religion, even fiery trials, 1 Pet. 4.12. When yet S. Peter requires Christians, to follow the example of our Lord's patience and meekness, and to reverence Superiors. But with us, blessed be God, our Laws establish the true Religion, our Clergy defend it, and press the practice of it, and our Prince (whom God preserve) upholds the profession of it. But the Primitive Christians, who lived under Pagan Rulers, who persecuted the Church; behaved themselves with more honourable respect towards them, than many now do towards those Christian Governors, and Spiritual Guides, who encourage and promote Christianity. 36. 4. True zeal hath respect to all duty. Ans. 4. True zeal for Religion is of excellent use, and very desirable, but it consists in pious and holy living, not in passionate and sinful speaking. And it must be uniform in minding all the parts of duty, which are incumbent on us. But they who are careless and negligent, in great and plain duties, can have no true love, and conscientious regard to Religion, and therefore no zeal for it, but it is something else, which they miscall by that name. True zeal will put men on diligent, constant and devout attendance, on God's public worship, and the holy Sacraments; upon solicitous thoughts and care for the Church's peace and Union; upon all the exercises of piety to God, and of righteousness, charity, meekness and due obedience to man. And particularly, both with respect to the happiness of another world, and a comfortable estate in this, it will oblige men to curb the rashness and sin of their words and expressions, according to that advice of the Psalmist, and the Apostle S. Peter, 1 Pet. 3.10, 11. He that will love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him eschew evil and do good, let him seek peace and ensue it. 37. Wherefore let every person, uncharitable reproaches against all men to be avoided, as he values his own happiness, and as he would approve himself a true Disciple of Christ, beware of this sinful behaviour, of slandering or reproaching others. And not the speaker only, but he that heareth such things with delight, is guilty of the same uncharitableness, and in like manner serves his own sinful passions, and gives encouragement to the practice and spreading of this vice. S. (e) Bern. de modo bene vivendi. Bernard, therefore well adviseth all men, to avoid a detractor as a Serpent, who casteth forth his poison, because besides his own sin, he who willingly gives ear to him, becomes guilty also. To the same purpose S. Austin, S. Hierome, and others who sometimes speak of the contumelious ear; or that men's ears, as well as their tongues, may render them justly chargeable with the sin of reproaching. He that in this case speaks rashly or uncharitably, or that entertains such expressions with pleasure, must ordinarily intent a prejudice to another, and a blemish to his reputation: and this very intention speaks some degree of malice or ill-will, contained in this sin, and sometimes a very high degree thereof. But the main hurt and mischief falls upon the offender himself, being contained in his sin, and consequent upon it. He like the man whose Spirit is so far envenomed, as to take poison in his mouth to spit it at another, is in a direct way to ruin himself, whatsoever prejudice the other may sustain by him. So S. (f) Hier. in Ps. 119. Hierome declared, detrahimus illi, illi non nocemus, sed nostras interficimus animas, we speak unworthily of another, but the main damage doth not fall upon him, but we destroy our own souls. 38. and repent of. Let all those therefore who have been guilty of this transgression, hearty repent thereof, that they may find mercy with God. But it must be considered, that repentance in matters of injury to men, by word or deed, doth not only require a desisting from the further practice of the sin, with due sorrow for the former miscarriage; but also a careful undertaking to make satisfaction for the injury done. It is therefore here requisite, that the offender do readily, freely and ingenuously retract, what hath been spoken amiss, and vindicate him who hath been injuriously aspersed; and also endeavour that his future kindness towards him may be equivalent to his past unkindness. And the man who refuseth this, is as far from integrity, as he who wrongs his Neighbour in his Possession or Estate, is from honesty; if he only forbear the repeating new acts of theft, fraud, or violence; but still detains without restitution, what he injuriously possessed himself of, which of right belongeth to another man. 39 A candid construction needful in private and public cases: And as a preservative against this sin, it is needful that we regulate our passions, and maintain a due government over them; and set a watch over our lips, humbly begging the aid of divine assistance. And we must also take care that we allow a favourable construction, and a candid interpretation, to the words and actions of others, especially of our Superiors. And to this both ingenuity, and Christian charity will direct and oblige us. Wise men have justly condemned those persons, who are guilty of calumny against a Law, in wresting the words thereof, to a sense never intended to the prejudice of Authority. This is done in some degree, when by subtle quirks, the letter of a Law is in a forced interpretation observed, but the true sense, and meaning neglected. This fault hath been taxed, by the (g) Nimis callida & malitiosa juris Interpretatione. Cic. de Offic. l. 1. Arist. Eth. l. 5. c. 10. gravest Authors, as a calumny, and the (h) Cod. l. 1. Tit. 14. kg. 5. Civil Law hath particularly provided against it: and this includes a false suggestion, against the prudence and good design of Authority. But besides this, there is an higher degree of calumny, when a Law (or the words or actions of Rulers) is odiously represented, to intent some ill thing, which is contrary to the mind of the Lawgiver: and this is a reproach against the goodness, care and integrity of the Governor. And the practice of this, which is too frequent, gave occasion to Queen Elizabeth's admonition, to simple people deceived by malicious. 40. And towards all men, Yet it is prudent to have a cautious jealousy of ill men. a favourable interpretation is usually suitable to charity. Yet it must not be denied, that there are so many men of dangerous and pernicious principles and practices; that towards them, cautiousness and suspicion, in policy and prudence, is necessary, for preventing the mischiefs, which may otherwise ensue. The History of all Ages will give us instances, of ill designs against public peace and settlement, carried on by fair words, and plausible pretences: and it is great wisdom to discover, and lay open the ill designs of these men, and not to be beguiled by them. And with respect to the Church, even in the Apostolical times, there were some who with good words, deceived the hearts of the simple, Rom. 16.18. And afterwards many Heretics would use Orthodox words, in an heretical sense; as the Pelagians would speak much of (i) Aug. de Grat. Chr. cont. Pelag. & Celestina. l. 1. c. 1, 2. grace, in a wrested meaning; and in some Councils, the subtle Arians gained advantage, by the overgreat unwariness and charity, of other well-meaning Bishops. But the considering these cases, will not allow any, unwarrantably, to defame others: but will direct them wisely, honestly and cautelously to provide in their places, for the securing themselves, and the public good and welfare of Church and State. And these are things, which principally concern Governors and Rulers, whom God hath placed over others, in the Church or Commonwealth; but it is of universal obligation to all Christians, that true kindness and general love, and due respect to all men, especially to Superiors, should prevail in them. 41. And let those Christians, Charity towards revilers required. who are opprobriously and injuriously aspersed, together with pious steadfastness and resolution, embrace the temper of Christian Charity. And let nothing of ill will take place in their hearts, towards those who revile or slander them, but let them hearty pity their folly, and their sin. A person of common prudence, if he discern a distracted man raving, and complaining highly against those who deserve well from him, will commiserate the man's sad condition, who would never have done so, if he had not been bereft of his judgement and understanding. And the want of a Christian temper of mind, is as sad a thing, and on that account deserves as much pity, as the loss of the capacities of reason and knowledge. Let us therefore pray for them who thus behave themselves towards us. Thus as (k) Basil. Hom. de Ira. S. Basil urgeth, did Moses in this case, make intercession for Miriam; and David humbled his soul with fasting, for those who slandered him; and our Saviour prayed for his enemies. He commands us to do the like for them who despitefully use us; and our Church directs us, to beseech God, to forgive our enemies, persecutors, and slanderers, and to turn their hearts. Wherefore let none render evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. And the right management of this duty, is a considerable action in our Christian warfare. It was the consideration of S. (l) Aug. count. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 11, 12. Austin, when he was reproached by the tongue and writings of Petilian, that we are assaulted by good report, as a trial whether we can withstand the temptations to pride; and by evil report to prove us, whether we love our enemies: and it is our work to overcome the Devil, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand, and on the left. And upon a due behaviour in our conflict, we may expect a reward and crown. 42. 'Tis necessary for them who have reproached their Rulers, to acknowledge their fault and repent. To all this I shall now add, what I desire may be well considered, and therefore I choose to close this first part therewith; and that is, That Christianity will engage them who truly practise it, that if they have offended, in uttering any thing reproachfully, or disrespectfully against their Superiors, they freely acknowledge their fault, and by no means continue in it. This may be sufficiently inferred, from the general necessity of repentance, from all sins and offences, against any part of our duty: and therefore if this be so heinous a sin, as I have manifested, it calls aloud for serious repentance. But besides this, I shall more particularly to this purpose observe, that in this special case thus much is taught us, by the behaviour of S. Paul, in that place which I have before mentioned, and shall now more largely explain, and insist on, Acts 23.2, 3, 4, 5. Where when Ananias the High Priest, The example of S. Paul, with respect to Ananias, proposed: (or a Chief Priest) had commanded him, v. 2. to be smitten on the mouth, Then said Paul unto him, v. 3. God shall smite thee thou Whited Wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the Law, and commandest me to be smitten, contrary to the Law? And v. 4. when they that stood by, said, Revilest thou God's High Priest? Then v. 5. said Paul, I witted not, brethren, that he was the High Priest (or a Chief Priest) for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. 43. These words are acknowledged to have some difficulty in them, and have been very variously interpreted: but according to that sense, which I apprehend to be most natural, the Apostle in those latter words, v. 5. (which are the key to the former) owneth and confesseth, some sudden unadvisedness, in what he had expressed, v. 3. When in the beginning of v. 3. he said, God shall smite thee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I conceive S. Paul by the Spirit of Prophecy, did know, that Ananias would come to an untimely end, and in these words expressed so much. For he would not have made use of this form of speech in the name of God, merely in a passion. And though Ananias lived after this, several years in honour; yet afterwards (m) Joseph. de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. hiding himself for fear of the Bands of Robbers, who were very mischievous in Judea, he with his Brother was taken, and murdered by them. That phrase of a whited wall, with other such like, might in some cases, admit of a favourable interpretation, to denote painted innocency and not real, according to the usage of the Jewish way of expression (n) Par●●2. ch. 1.11. hereafter noted. Yet this and the words following, being spoken in some passion, as appears from the connexion of these clauses, Thou whited wall, for sittest thou to judge, etc. the Apostle being admonished thereof, readily owns that there was something unawares uttered in those sudden expressions. His former sudden words not free from all fault, There are indeed by many, great pains taken, to acquit S. Paul, from being chargeable with any, even the least fault, in what he had here spoken, notwithstanding his own free acknowledgement; as the like is done by many also, to free S. Peter from all blame, Gal. 2. notwithstanding S. Paul's own reproof of him, and his plain declaration, that he was to be blamed, v. 11. And therefore I think it may be worth my pains, in a weighty matter of practice, to endeavour the clearing this place from difficulty: and I hope there will appear so much usefulness therein, as may excuse the largeness of my discourse, concerning the explication of these words. 44. Some with (o) Chrys. in Act. 23. S. chrysostom think, that what the Apostle said to Ananias, contained no expressions of any undue disrespect, but that he used a just freedom, in speaking thus to a Ruler; and that when he unjustly received hard measure from him; notwithstanding S. Chrysostom endeavours to excuse them, it was requisite he should so speak to him with this openness and sharpness. But this is opposite to the genuine sense of v. 4. & 5. And therefore to reconcile those words to this sense, they think that the Apostle spoke these words, I witted not that he was the High Priest, for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people, in such a way of compliance with his auditory, that his hearers might think him to have blamed the use of such expressions towards Rulers, when in truth he did not do so, nor intended any such thing. And by this method, that there might not appear any, even the least fault, in the Apostles practice, they admit a want of sincerity, in what he declared as a duty and doctrine, that thereby he intended to guide men into a mistake and deceit, (and that includes a very great fault in practice also.) And this is much the same thing with that which S. Austin justly blames, (p) Aug. Ep. 15. in S. Hierom's defence of the fact of S. Peter ; and the admitting this, would cast a mighty aspersion on the Apostolical Doctrine. And that S. Paul himself did not think sharp words needful to be returned to a Ruler, in such a case of injury; is manifest enough, in that when Festus told him, he was besides himself, and was mad, Acts 26.24, 25. he presently treated him with honourable respect, I am not mad, most noble Festus; nor did the Holy Jesus give such a return, though but to an inferior Officer of the Court, who struck him with the palm of his hand, John 18.22, 23. 45. Many others are of opinion, that when S. Paul said, and several methods used by others. he witted not that he was the High Priest, he thereby justified his former words, by denying him to be an High Priest, to whom if he had been so indeed, he ought not to have thus spoken. To this sense (q) Aug. Ep. 5. ad Marcel. & l. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Monte. S. Austin inclines, upon thoughts, that S. Paul would now own none other, under the title of High Priest, but only our blessed Saviour. And yet it is plain, that S. Paul did give this very title of High Priest, to him who was so called amongst the Jews, Acts 22.5. and when all the Christians in Judea were still zealous for the Law, even the Apostle also still expressed so much honour, to the Priestly Service at the Temple, that he there purified himself, and designed to offer his Offering, Acts 21.26. Others think, that he denied Ananias to have any just authority, (r) Erasm. in Act. 23.3. because he tyrannically commanded him to be smitten; as if Christians were not to reverence them that are over them, not only the good and gentle, but also the froward, 1 Pet. 2.18. and our Religion teacheth, that if we do well and suffer for it, and take it patiently, this is acceptable with God, v. 20. And (s) Annot. in Act. 23.5. Grotius supposeth the Apostle might reject the authority of Ananias, because (saith he) he came into his Office by purchasing it with money. But I can see no particular proof of his accusation; and Josephus speaks oft of him, as a person of great reputation and honour; and however such a crime in an inferior Officer, will not make invalid the authority of a superior by which he acts, until the superior shall think fit to recall it: even as David's sentence concerning the possessions of Mephibosheth, was not void of itself, though procured by Ziba's lie, until David had otherwise determined. And it is abundantly sufficient against all these pretences in this Paragraph, to observe, that the Holy Scriptures, and the Spirit of God in them, do frequently own Ananias, to be at that time an High (or Chief) Priest, Acts 23.2. ch. 24.1. ch. 25.2. and it is a bad way of solving a difficulty, by presuming that to be false, which the Holy Scriptures declare to be true. Nor would it be any thing considerable in this case, if it be granted that Ananias was not properly the High Priest, as will appear from what I shall now add. 46. Whether Ananias was High Priest or not? He was manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an High, or Chief Priest, but very probably he was not eminently the High Priest, who entered into the Holy of Holies. In the Old Testament sometimes, and often in the New, there are more persons than one, who are called Chief Priests, and so there were in this very Council, before which S. Paul now appeared, Acts 22.30. And Josephus speaking of Ananias, saith, that (t) Joseph. de Bel. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jonathan and Ananias the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Chief Priests, were sent to Rome: where he placeth Jonathan before Ananias. And after Jonathan was murdered, by the procurement of (u) Jos. Ant. l. 20. c. 6. Felix, by some Ruffians, who pretended to come to the Temple to worship; and two or three others had succeeded Jonathan, in his High Priesthood, one of which continued in that Office not above three Months; Josephus saith, that (x) Ant. l. 20. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Chief Priest Ananias, did reverence the High Priest, by making frequent Presents to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which makes it very probable, that he was not the High Priest, strictly so called. Yet it appears by many expressions in Josephus, that he was in some eminent Office in the Temple Service: and therefore probably was the (y) v. Hor. Hebr. in Luc. 3. v. 2. Sagan, who was one of the Priests, which had a singular authority, next to the High Priest strictly so called, in what concerned the things relating to the Temple, and was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Chief Priest: And it is evident from the History of the Acts of the Apostles, that this Ananias was a chief Officer of Judicature, and a special manager of affairs relating to the Jewish Consistory, Act. 22.5. chap. 23.2, 3, 5. chap. 24.1. And our learned and worthy (z) Dr. Ham. Annot. on Luke 3. c. Annotator hath observed, that such a Priest, who had the chief governing Authority, might on that account being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Ruler and a Priest, be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Chief Priest. Indeed a greater number than these singular persons, went under the name of Chief Priests: but it is not to be doubted, but Ananias was either the Nasi, or chief Precedent of the Sanhedrin, or at least an eminent person in that Consistory, and on that account now sat as Judge, when S. Paul appeared before him. 47. Now besides that the honourable dignity, which Ananias possessed in the Temple-service, was conferred upon him by (a) Jos. Ant. l. 20. c. 1, 3. He was a chief Officer in the Sanhedrin. the Roman Authority; the whole exercise of the Jewish consistorial power, and the Authority thereof as to judicial proceed, was now in dependence upon the Roman Government; which the Apostle declared both himself and others bound to submit unto: and it had also a considerable foundation in the Laws of nature, and the general rules of civil polity. For the Political Government of the Jewish Nation, and their Consistorial Power which was a branch thereof, was valid and of force, before they were subdued by the Romans, from the common principles of natural justice, righteousness and prudence, according to which all other Governments in other Kingdoms were established, (besides what was superadded hereto by the Law of Moses) and by these prudential principles, very many things relating to their Synedrial Courts, were established. And after the Jews were under the Roman power, they had divers privileges indulged them, by many Rescripts of the Roman Emperors and Governors: some by Julius (b) Joseph. Ant. l. 14. c. 17. Caesar, Dolabella and others, who treated them as friends and confederates, and yielded them a liberty, to enjoy their own Laws and Customs. And the like freedom was granted to them by (c) Ant. Jud. l. 16. c. 10. Augustus: and these Privileges were now lately confirmed and amplified by Claudius. In the Rescript of Claudius, he recites some contents of a former Imperial grant, whereby the Alexandrian Jews had a right given them, to enjoy the privileges and freedoms of the City of Alexandria; and also that they had allowed them an Ethnarch or chief Governor among themselves, (who yet must be in subjection to the principal Roman Officers) with a permission, that upon the death of such a person, a-another might succeed. And after this, (d) Joseph. Ant. l. 19 c. 4. Claudius grants to all the Jews, every where throughout the Empire, the like liberties, with those of Alexandria, and that they may observe their own customs, and keep to their own Laws. And therefore especially the Jews in Judea, must enjoy the same power, of having Jewish Governors established among them, when this was done in several places of their dispersion. 48. The Jewish Magistracy upheld by the Romans. And how much the Imperial Law designed to uphold the power of the Jewish Magistracy among themselves, may appear from the Constitution of (e) Cod. Theodos. de Jud. & coelie. Arcadius and Honorius, which declares, that privileges have been granted to the Patriarches of the Jews, (who were much of the same nature with the Ethnarches) and to the Officers appointed by them, in times passed by former Princes and Emperors, and it also takes care, that these privileges, shall still retain their force and power; and of the continuance of this power, (f) Petit. Var. Lect. l. 2. c. 10. S. Petitus discourses at large. And even in the Justinian Code, is owned and asserted the Authority of the (g) Cod. Just. l. 1. Tit. 9 leg. 17. Jewish Primates, as they are there called, who are there said to preside and govern, in the Synedria, or Sanhedrin, in both the Palestines, and in other places. Wherefore the Jewish Synedrial authority, being allowed to be exercised under the Romans, might proceed upon the same foundation of secular and temporal power, with the Governments of other Principalities and Kingdoms. For this allowance doth so far continue their former freedom and authority, and permit the exercise thereof. And the public declaring of such an allowance (which was here done) is in some sort an act of establishment, because it forbids an opposition against, or restraint of such an authority, and consequently excludes the owning and approving thereof, and the giving force and virtue thereto: but this is much more plainly done, in the granting and continuing privileges for the exercise of such Authority. 49. And in that Jewish Governors did preside, even over the Alexandrian Jews above mentioned, it is manifest that the privileges of the Roman freedoms did not exempt the Jews, from subjection to such Governors; only such freemen were by the (h) Digest. l. 48. Tit. 6. leg. 7, 8. Roman Laws allowed an appeal to the Emperor, from any subordinate Governors whomsoever. For Alexandria was a City chief privileged, which from the beginning of the Imperial dignity in Rome, all the Emperors had greatly honoured, as (i) Phil. in Flacc. p. 968. Philo who was himself an Alexandrian Jew declares. And there was great reason for this honour, because that City was of mighty advantage to Rome, paying more every month, than all Judea did in a whole year, to the Roman Power, besides other vast provisions thence received, as (k) Jos. de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Agrippa declared in his Oration to the Jews. And from the time of Julius Caesar, the Alexandrian (l) Jos. Ant. l. 14. c. 17. Jews enjoyed the freedoms of that City. Now from hence it appears, that the Jewish Consistories under the Romans, retained a sufficient right of Judicial authority; and therefore Ananias in this chief Council was to be considered, as an Officer in a Court of Judicature, acting by a just and competent power and authority. 50. The sense of these words [I witted not that he was the High Priest] enquired into. Having spoken thus much concerning the words of the Apostle to Ananias, and also concerning Ananias himself, and the state of the Jewish Consistories at that time, I shall now more particularly consider the sense of that expression, v. 4. I witted not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or I knew not, brethren, that he was the High Priest. Some think that the Apostle did not know the person of the High Priest, and professed so much, as an excuse for himself, in his having uttered such words, which he would not have done, if he had known him to be the High Priest, since the Law commands, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. But they seem not to consider, that whether the word High Priest, be taken in a more strict or more large sense, that Law hath no singular and peculiar respect to the High Priest alone: and S. Paul did know Ananias to be a Ruler, and to sit as Judge, and expressed so much v. 3. declaring that he sat to judge him according to the Law. And therefore some other sense of these words, must be enquired after. And that which seemeth to me most agreeable to the whole Context, and free from all just exceptions, is this, that as the word to know, oft signifieth to approve, regard, affect, or own; so it ofttimes signifies to consider duly, and to attend to, and think on, and may be so best taken in this place. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew, (from whence probably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had their original) is sometimes rendered in our English Translation to consider, as Deut. 8.5. Jud. 18.14. 2 King. 5.7. and this sense is most agreeable to many other places, as Gen. 12.11. Ex. 2.25. Deut. 4.39. chap. 9.6. Judg. 15.11. Ruth 3.4. 2 Sam. 24.13. 2 Chr. 12.8. chap. 13.5. with many others. And among the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & observa istud, is an usual expression when they require a special attention or observation, or a particular notice and consideration to be taken of any thing, as is noted by (m) Buxt. Lex. Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 935. Buxtorf. And in that sense is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most properly to be understood, in many places of the New Testament, to denote, to consider. It appears so used by S. Luke, Luk. 2.49. chap. 9.55. chap. 19.22. and also Joh. 6.61. chap. 11.49. chap. 19.10. Ephes. 6.8, 9 Col. 3.24. chap. 4.1. And if we thus expound these words of the Apostle, the sense of these words will be this, that he owneth somewhat in his former expression to have been words of sudden surprise, and some degree of inadvertency; and that being moved with the injury offered to him, they fell from him over hastily, and he did not on the sudden duly think of, attend to, and consider the Office and Dignity of the person to whom he spoke, otherwise he would not have used the least expression, which might intimate any degree of unbecoming reflection, or disrespect, towards a person in Authority, since he acknowledgeth this to be his duty, not to speak evil of the Ruler of the people: while the (n) Joseph. de Bel. Jud. l 4. c. 19 gr. Jewish Zealots spoke and acted insolently against them without any remorse. 51. And that there was somewhat in some measure , in the foregoing expressions of S. Paul, is plainly acknowledged and declared by (o) Adu. Pelag. l. 3. c. 1. S. Hierome, and by (p) In Willet on Exod. 22. qu. 52. Procopius, as I find him cited agreeably to my sense, and by (q) Paraph. on Act. 23.5. Dr. Hammond, and other worthy men. And they who would by no means admit any thing to have been said, or done am●ss, by any of the Apostles, might consider, that even they were to pray, for the forgiveness of their trespasses; and that such things as S. Peter's rebuking, and denying his Master, and drawing his sword; the Apostles arguing who should be the greatest, and their forsaking their Lord, when he was laid hold on; the desire of the Sons of Zebedee, for the chief advancement in Christ's Kingdom, and their forwardness to call for fire from Heaven; S. Peter and Barnabas their withdrawing at Antioch; the sharp contention betwixt Paul and Barnabas; and some other things, ought not to be justified and defended. And (r) Orig. cont. Cells. l. 2. p. 69, 70. some of the ancient Christian Writers urged it, as an evidence of the integrity of the Penmen of the Holy Scriptures, and that they wholly designed to keep to truth, and not to pursue any interest, in that they did not endeavour to conceal, and silence the failings of the Apostles, and of their chiefest friends, which had never been known to the world in after ages, but from their writings. Even S. Mark, who was S. Peter's follower, did not omit to express his denying our Lord; and S. Luke, who was S. Paul's companion, recorded this expression of his, and his acknowledgement thereupon. And a sudden hasty expression, which was upon a great provocation, and was soon recalled, was no fault of any high degree, especially considering the right the Apostle had, being a Roman, to claim satisfaction, even from a Governor, who should offer him an injury, in proceeding against Law, as was done Acts 16.37, 38, 39 and in part, Acts 22.25, 26, 29. 52. Nor is this interpretation, which admits some degree of blame, in the expression of the Apostle, inconsistent, as I conceive, with the promises of our Saviour to his Apostles, The great assistances of the Apostles considered. when they should be brought into the Synagogues, and before Governors and Kings, for his name's sake; that the Holy Ghost should teach them in the same hour, what they ought to say, Luke 12.12. and that he will give them a mouth and wisdom, which all their adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist, Luk. 21.15. For 1. It may be considered, that due dispositions are requisite, for obtaining the benefit of any of God's promises, and his special guidance, and therefore a sudden compliance with some hastiness of temper, might for the present, hinder the fullest obtaining the benefit of that promise. As S. Peter after he had asked our Lord, whether he should smite with the Sword, overhastily undertaking the action, before he had received his answer, deprived himself at that present, of the advantage of that good advice and guidance, for his present action, which he might otherwise have had. 2. The thing mainly intended in these promises, is, that the Spirit of God should so guide and assist the Apostles, (and others, as S. Stephen) in their bearing witness to Christianity, before Rulers and Governors, that they should not be ashamed to own the truth, and that they should be enabled to make it manifest, with such evidence, as should baffle and confound their adversaries, who could not deny or disprove the truth, of what they alleged in their testimony. And S. Paul did thus confound them, who opposed his Doctrine in Jerusalem, Act. 22. 1-22. chap. 23.1, 6-9, 11.3. Whereas the only thing in any wise amiss, in what the Apostle said, was, that there fell from him a sudden expression too much reflective upon a Governor; it may be here noted, First, That these his words appear all of them to be truth, and the fault in them was, they were uttered with some passionateness of temper, and without sufficient reverence in the manner of expression. Secondly, By his recalling such words as these, and owning his surprise therein; the tenderness of his conscience, and the strictness of his doctrine, concerning the honouring of Rulers, and against the least word of undue disrespect towards them, is in a more eminent manner set down, for the instruction and guidance of all Ages, than if there had been no appearance at all, of any thing in his former expression. Thirdly, This is the more remarkable, because this his reflection upon, and retracting what he had thus spoken, as also the Doctrine he urgeth thereupon, was no doubt under the guidance of that Spirit, which our Saviour had promised in this case, and so makes his Example in this particular, to be a necessary pattern for every Christian, that if he should offend in the like manner, he ought to retract and own his fault, in the least miscarriage of his expression. 53. From this Practice and Doctrine of the Apostle, I shall further observe, First, that though these words were but once spoken, S. Paul's reflective words though but once spoken, and upon a sudden provocation, and then also in a sudden surprise, and upon a great provocation of injurious dealing; though the Apostle had never gone so far as frequently to blaze abroad, by open contumelious expressions, or secret whisper, what might ill affect the people against their Governor; Yet in this case he acknowledged the fault, and would by no means persist in it, or do so any more. And if one single reflective expression was not allowable in him, who was commanded to be smitten against law, and had no intention of defaming Authority, the same (and much more the frequently repeated uttering designed reproaches) is far more in them, who receive no such injury, but are rather favoured, beyond what the Law establisheth. Nor did the Apostle allow of such expressions, towards Ananias being a Ruler, though he was on this account a bad man, as being a zealous opposer of the true Christian Doctrine. And he would in no wise justify, but retract such reflective words though true, as those which in some passion unwarily fell from him. 54. Secondly, Ananias was far from being a Supreme Governor. Caesar had now the chief Authority in Judea, and Felix was a Deputy Governor under him: and both the Precedent of Judea, and the High Priest, were under the power of the (s) Joseph. Ant. l. 20. c. 5. & de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and to a subordinate Ruler, Governor of Syria. And Ananias was so far inferior to Felix in his Authority, that he with the other Synedrial Elders, appeared upon summons, before the tribunal of Felix, as an Higher Court, to desire judgement against Saint Paul, Acts 24.1. And this, and other things also he did, at the command of Lysias, the Chief Captain, Act. 22.30. chap. 23.30. chap. 24.8. which shows his Authority also, to be superior to that of Ananias. And both Felix and Lysias, disposed of the Apostle Paul, otherwise than was desired by Ananias, and the Elders. And the Jewish Consistory, in which Ananias sat, was now in a declining state, all power of capital punishments having for about thirty years been taken from them, by the Roman Authority. Now expressions aspersing a Superior, or supreme Governor, are the greater fault, because they affront an higher Authority, to which a more eminent degree of honour and reverence is due: yet S. Paul would not defend, but condemn such a behaviour, towards one who was in such an inferior, subordinate and declining Authority as that of Ananias and the Sanhedrin then was. 55. Thirdly, The Apostle declared thus much, are presently and openly recalled in the face of a Civil Court. presently after he had spoken the former words, and as soon as he had considered them, and was enquired of, concerning them, he made not demur or delay; but forthwith he forwardly and readily, owned the indecency and unlawfulness of such expressions. And this he also did very plainly and openly, before the whole Assembly of the Jews, that no person might either defend his practice, or follow his example, where he had spoken amiss. This also he did in a Civil Consistory or Court, though he was an Apostle, and being there charged with a fault, in his behaviour towards a Ruler, he doth not so decline the thing, as if it was fit for him to give his answer in a Civil Consistory; But he there owns his duty and his fault also, and treated Civil Governors at another rate, than either the Conclave or the Kirk would do. For though a Priest was sometimes, not always, Precedent of the Jewish Sanhedrin, that was chief a Civil Court, (t) Seld de Syned. l. 3. c. 1, 2, etc. inflicted Civil punishments: and took cognisance of criminal causes, and appeals from other inferior Judicatures: and in the progress of this case for which S. Paul was brought before them, after he had been heard by Felix and Festus he appealed unto Caesar. 56. Now I think that what I have said, is not inconsiderable, for my Exposition of these words, which represents them to be a signal example, of acknowledging the fault, of any indecent expression towards a Superior. And I thought the influence which this aught to have upon the lives of men, to be of so great use, that it may be a sufficient excuse for my long discourse upon these words. Yet I must acknowledge, that the greater number of Writers which I have seen, who discourse of these words, and some very worthy and learned men, do excuse the Apostle's words to Ananias from all blame, according to some of the methods above mentioned; especially by supposing that he did not know Ananias to be an High Priest, or Ruler, or that he did not own his Authority. But since the Apostle was designedly brought to appear before the Jewish Council, Act. 22.30. and when he began to speak, did earnestly behold the Council, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or persons of the Sanhedrin, Act. 23.1. and the Judges of the Sanhedrin had their Bench fixed (u) Seld. de Syned. l 2 c. 6. n. 1. , on which every one of them sat in their order, in the form of a semicircle; and the Apostle having been long before acquainted, with the order and business of that Court, Act. 22.5. and now mentioning Ananias, to be one that sat to judge him, there seems no colour left for this opinion. And from what I have said above, n. 45- 49. I account it manifest, that the authority of Ananias could not be disowned by the Apostle. However I shall here observe, that they who shall not be satisfied with my interpretation of these words, M●●●● h●●e duty urged, must be granted upon other Expositions. cannot well frame any other tolerable sense of them, than such, according to which they must condemn and blame all indecency of expression (and much more, insolency of deportment) towards Superiors; and also show the Apostles forwardness, to wipe off all appearance of suspicion, of his allowing any such thing in himself or others. And that he did with great readiness, and openness, declare that the admitting any such thing (though in his circumstances above observed, n. 53.54, 55. and in the managing so good a cause as that of Christianity was and is) is contrary to the Laws of God and Religion. And that those who shall wittingly thus misbehave themselves, must be inexcusable: and that they who are suspected to have erred in this kind (and therefore much more they who have really done so) ought thus to behave and clear themselves, by a free declaration, of their honourable respect, to them who are in Authority, as S. Paul here practised himself, and taught others. 57 But this duty, of being ready freely to confess their fault, in what they have openly said or done amiss, with a care to repent thereof, and to do so no more; is, I fear, by some rejected out of this gross mistake, that it is a shameful thing to acknowledge a fault. Whereas in truth it is a very shameful thing to continue in sin: but there is no more shame in an offenders repenting, and acknowledging he hath done amiss, than there is in becoming wise and good, and doing his duty, and pleasing God. And God grant that all who have neglected their duty, in this or any other branch, thereof, may so consider their ways as to amend and reform them. The Second Part, Concerning the usefulness of a sober Censure of such Parties or persons, who practise evil, or propagate falsehood; with an enquiry into some different parties, who make profession of Christianity. CHAP. I. To speak against evil persons and practices duly and discreetly, and to the just discrediting and disparaging bad Principles and Doctrines, is reasonable and good; with an account of what Rules are here to be observed. 1. HAving declared in the former Part, how unreasonable and evil, uncharitable and passionate reproaches are, especially against Superiors: Ishall now show that Christianity doth not only allow, but require a rational and just dislike, and sober censure of those, who entertain or countenance evil practices, Christianity allows what is manifestly evil, to be condemned and blamed. to debauch or corrupt the lives of men, and who spread, promote or receive, false, and unsound principles, whereby deluded and misguided minds forsake and departed from the truth. The meekness and innocency of Christianity doth not engage its followers to such a temper, that they may not look on any men, or party of men to be offenders, or to deserve blame: if this were so, virtue and vice, and the practisers of them both, must have an equal esteem and respect; and judging righteously, and executing judgement amongst Christians, must be banished out of the Earth. If Religion should be supposed to make it an universal duty, to preserve and maintain the good reputation of all even bad men; then must Christian charity, in a great measure suppress the use of our reason and conscience, and the reproacher himself must not lie under any blame or disesteem; and men who pervert the truth, and corrupt the minds of others, must still be had in honour. But this would be, to abuse and pervert the charity and meekness of Christianity, and to make the pretence thereof hurtful and destructive to the good of mankind. Yea, this would set up the duties of Religion to become a cloak for wickedness; and a method to keep Christians from the watchful observing, and discerning the evil, and careful rejecting the snares of those who cunningly contrive deceit, or of them who through indiscretion and mistake, are misguided themselves, and would misled others, and are as eager as the Scribes and Pharisees were to proselyte men into their errors. But the true Christian temper is far from obliging any to such unwary compliances with corruptions and sin. 2. I hearty wish, The Christian Rule, and the Practice guided by it, are excellent. that the behaviour of all, who call themselves by the name of Christians, were such, that nothing could truly be spoken of them, but what is excellent and honourable. And thus it would be, if the doctrine and rules of the Christian Religion, were diligently observed and practised by all who profess it. For such is its efficacy in renewing the minds of men, where it is hearty and sincerely embraced, that on this account, the Christian institution was anciently much admired, even by many who would not receive it, but opposed and rejected it. And as (a) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. gr. Eusebius testifieth, the mighty influence it had on the purity of men's lives, was the great cause of its being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, amongst all much spoken of and famed. Insomuch that as the (b) ibid. same Author tells us, the Gnostick brood of Simon Magus, would make pretensions to the Christian name. And from the same consideration of its visible effects, in purifying the lives of them who were guided thereby, it was mightily honoured, and extolled by those who did entertain it: Thus (c) Strom. l. 7. in init. Clemens Alexandrinus observed, how it greatly perfected him that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the truly wise and good man, and that it was also of great power to correct and change, even those who were perverse, and whose hearts were hardened. And his Scholar Origen noted (d) Cont. Cells. l. 1. prope fin. & passim. what a mighty alteration, did manifestly appear among men, by the power of the Christian Doctrine, which furnished them who embraced it, not feignedly but sincerely, with meekness, goodness, and such an excellent and well composed temper, as far exceeded what the practice or Philosophy of the Gentiles could pretend unto. And the like might be observed from Justin Martyr, Lactantius, and many others. 3. But the great miscarriages of too many professed Christians, both in Doctrine and Practice, are things plainly obvious and manifest. And in this case, it is nothing of uncharitable and passionate reproaching, which is contrary to the example of Christ; but an exercise of sobriety and charity, and a following his example, to war against those hurtful evils, which spread themselves in the world; and to speak of those principles which are mischievous, with dislike and detestation. For though our Lord had a great kindness for the Jewish Nation; yet their ill temper, and their forsaking the true guidance of the Law, made him rebuke them with sharpness, and declare against them as an evil and crooked generation. To discover the evil of ill designing men and false Doctrines, is useful and good. And if the manifest and prevailing errors of men, which are dangerous to others, might not be prudently exposed, and solidly declared against; many excellent and famous writings of the most eminent Fathers, against the Gentiles, the Jews, and divers Heresies and Schisms, which have hitherto been honoured and accounted useful in the Church of God, must now be thought fit for nothing more, than to be censured by an Index expurgatorius, or to be ranked among prohibited Books. Indeed persons who are concerned in the guilt, are sometimes apt to be so far provoked, at the just reproof and censure of their opinions or practices, as to cry out upon it, as if it were reviling or railing, or to speak as the Lawyer did to our Saviour, Luk. 11.45. thus saying, Thou reproachest us also. But our Lord did not think fit to desist, from a free and needful declaration against evil; how unacceptable soever it was to the offending persons, as appears sufficiently from the Answer he returned to those words, v. 46. And for others to do the like, is both a faithful discharge of conscience towards God, and the performing a work, which is very useful, and charitable unto men. Thus he that gives a plain and true discourse, in a time of mortality, of the nature and danger, and of the right and sure methods of prevention and cure, for the diseases that then reign, performs a work, which if it be made good use of, may preserve some, and recover others from those distempers which may otherwise be fatal to them. But as no diseases are so bad, as those which defile and infect the minds and souls of men; so here as (e) Basil. Regul. fus. disp. Resp. 46. S. Basil truly affirmed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that makes a covering for sin, and that which is evil, makes preparation for the death of the diseased person. 4. It is evident, that in the Holy Scriptures, the Prophets in the Old Testament, and the Apostles and other Officers in the Ministry of the New, were to reprove and declare against prevailing evils. In this case Isaiah was commanded to cry aloud, and lift up his voice like a trumpet, and show the people their transgressions, Isai. 58.1. and Titus was required to rebuke the Cretians sharply. Sinful practices and corrupt Principles are such real blemishes to those that cherish them, that they cannot be laid open, without reflecting some degree of disparagement upon them; even as light itself brings a discredit to things uncomely, and represents the loathsomeness of what is noisome and deformed. But there are some rules necessary to be observed, Rules to be observed in speaking against those who deserve censure. which ought to guide and govern our discourse, concerning what is amiss among men in the world. And it may be noted, that in most cases, there is greater caution to be used, in speaking of the principles or actions of particular men, as charging them therewith, than of the openly avowed evil practices, or opinions of any party or sort of men, in a general consideration of them. Because the former doth more especially refer to the persons, towards whom we are bound to exercise charity; but the latter doth most directly respect things, and there is no charity due to falsehood, transgression and sin; and personal actions may be more easily misapprehended and misrepresented, than what is publicly owned by any party. But in both these cases, the difference between sinful reproaching, and rash and uncharitable evil speaking on the one hand; and an useful and sober reproof and censure, and declaring against evil on the other hand, lieth in three things; viz. in the respect they bear, 1. To certain truth. 2. To sobriety. 3. To charity. 5. First, The first Rule is certain truth. A just Censure is ever founded on certain and evident truth; but the reproacher oft declares that evil for truth, which is either in itself false, or to him doubtful and only suspected. But whoso lays that to the charge of others, of which he hath no certain evidence, becomes a false witness. And false reporting, or asserting that against another as true, which is not certainly known to be so, is in matters of ordinary conversation among men, a crime much of the same nature, with the same miscarriage of a witness, in a Court of Judicature, concerning matters of justice and right. For in both of these is contained, what (f) Phil. de Decal. p. 763, 764. Philo more particularly expresseth of the latter; that truth which ought to be sacred, and is as the light of the Sun, which gives a right and clear prospect of things, is hereby violated; and things are disguised in the dark; whereby others are misguided into a wrong judgement, and are thence involved in a miscarriage; and wrong and injury is done to the person concerned. And whereas it is requisite for him who attempts any thing, both to have sufficient knowledge thereof, and to be a person of integrity, whose testimony deserves credit; he who will venture to declare things as true, upon jealous suspicions, doth miscarry in both these, and is therefore wanting in the latter, because he faileth in the former. And such a person doth offend both against charity and truth. 6. It was part of the description of those evil men, 2 Pet. 2.12. that they spoke evil of the things they understood not. The venting uncertain jealousies and suspicions are ofttimes of mischievous consequence. For they frequently spread like wildfire, Suspicions on plausible pretences not sufficient. and are entertained as things certain, upon slender appearances of proof; and in public affairs, they sometimes become dangerous, if not fatal, to Church and State. Nor is it sufficient to excuse such persons from sin, if they proceed upon some seeming plausible probabilities, which are mistaken and misapprehended by them. Those Jews might seem to have some colour, for what they laid to our Saviour's charge, who declared him to have said, I am able to destroy the Temple of God, and to build it in three days, Mat. 26.61. Yet these persons misunderstanding or misapplying, what he said concerning the Temple of his Body, are called false witnesses, v. 60. And therefore it becometh rash men, who let lose their tongues many times, upon no greater evidence or probability, than these false witnesses had, to consider seriously what guilt they contract upon themselves. But the upright man is no false accuser, but hath a conscientious respect both to truth and charity, so that he transgresseth against neither. Our Lord blamed the Jews in many things, but charged them with nothing but what was certainly true. He called them hypocrites, but he fully knew their temper, and understood what was in man. Indeed the censure of hypocrisy is not fit for other men to make use of in ordinary cases; except it be where persons certainly manifest a vicious looseness of life, and yet will sometimes seem very earnest and forward about purity and Religion; or where themselves shall more privately declare their disesteem of what they publicly appear exceeding zealous for. And partly by this Rule, (g) Eus. Eccl. Hist. l. 2 c. 1. Simon Magus was charged with hypocritical dissembling a respect to Christianity. 7. Secondly, The second Rule is sobriety and a well composed temper of mind. A just censure of the practices or Principles of others, must be soberly managed: when ofttimes the opprobrious tongue is rash and heady, and puts men upon running out of their places and stations, and out of themselves also. Hence some are forward to be inquisitive into the lives and behaviour of others, and to pry into them with a narrow and curious search, to see what they can discover to speak ill of; while in the mean time, they do not duly reflect upon themselves, and examine and consider their own ways. These act against that sobriety, which Religion requires, and fall under that sharp censure of our Lord, against them who behold the mote in their brother's eye, but not the beam in their own, Mat, 7.2, 3, 4, 5. And there are some who censure others by sinister judging, and odiously representing the intentions and designs of their words and actions, beyond what is evident. These without due reverence to God, or charity to their Neighbour; so far usurp the place of God, as to pass sentence on the inward thoughts, and dispositions of the minds of men, but they proceed herein, neither according to the rules of goodness, nor of righteousness. And they also offend against this Rule, who in speaking or writing against others, let lose their expressions, to gratify their passions, and fierce heats, beyond what is sober and comely. I acknowledge that sharp reproofs, are in some cases very seasonable and proper; and some practices and Doctrines are so greatly evil, that it well becomes them who are lovers of goodness, An angry temper to be avoided. to express a pious indignation and abhorrence towards them; nor is it always to expose some wild extravagant fancies, to the just contempt of others. But in an undue manner to vent expressions of wrath or reproach; or of scornfulness or scurrility; and to treat others with an angry and waspish temper, and instead of calmness to raise a storm of rage and fury; these things are evil in themselves, being contrary to the meekness and gentleness of Christianity, and savouring of the fruits of the flesh, and the root of bitterness; and they are also very unsuitable to all sorts of men. Such a temper is in several respects the worse, in them who defend evil, error, and falsehood; because they have no just reason, to express their displeasure, against the things they reject, or against the persons with respect to the ill influence of their assertions; and what aspersions they cast upon the defenders of the truth, have some reflection on the truth itself; and this their behaviour speaks their greater averseness from it, and oft makes them more steadfastly perverse in their error. And this method is also very unbecoming the defenders, of such excellent things as truth and goodness; because they neither need nor approve such unworthy Artifices, in the managing their cause; and the use of such things brings a disparagement, and disadvantage to the best cause; and it is most suitable to truth and goodness to appear like themselves, every way blameless and unexceptionable. 8. They also act against sobriety, and irreverence to Superiors. and a due government of themselves, who take upon them frowardly and irreverently to censure their Superiors, and to defame them; and thereby to lessen and vilify their reputation and Authority. Such persons act against the duty of their places as inferiors, in which state they ought out of reverence to God and his Ordinance, and out of respect to men also, to honour them who are over them. Yea though there may be some real fault, they may not make it their business to expose them. This was the miscarriage of Ham, in his behaviour towards his Father Noah. And it is noted both by (h) Ambr. de No & Arca, c. 30. S. Ambrose, and by (i) Chrys. Hom. in Gen. 9 S. chrysostom, that Ham in doing this undutiful action, is particularly expressed to be the Father of Canaan; not only as S. Ambrose speaks, ut vitio authoris deformaretur haereditas, that this might be a blemish, and disparagement to his posterity, who descended from him; but because on this occasion of Ham's irreverent disrespect to his Father; Canaan his Son, and his Posterity, were under a curse, and doomed to a state of subjection, Gen. 9.25. And therefore if any men should neither have any fear of God, nor regard to themselves; if they have any respect to the good of their posterity, they are thereupon concerned to honour those, who are in superior relations to them. 9 The ancient Councils (k) Conc. Constant. c. 6. of the Christian Church, very justly expressed great displeasure against those, who out of an ill temper, would even, undeservedly, lay things to the charge of the Bishops and Clergy, that they might lessen their reputation and esteem, and hinder the Church's peace and settlement, and promote disturbances therein. And such disorderly practices, though they have too much prevailed in the World, do greatly offend against very many precepts of Religion; both towards God, towards ourselves, and towards others. But while the Christian Church, for peace and order sake, and for the sake of piety too, required a just honour to be preserved to its Officers; it still maintained such a care of true goodness, that where any of the Clergy were really faulty, it not only (l) ibid. allowed regular accusations to be orderly prosecuted against any of its Officers, but also appointed (m) Can. Ap. 74. Antioch. 14, 15. its Censures to be inflicted upon them, after sufficient evidence of their offences. 10. Now our blessed Lord, Thus our Saviour practised. in his sharp censures of wicked men, acted nothing but what was every way suitable for him to do. When he came into the world, Religion was strangely defaced amongst the Jews, and they who should have taken the care of it, set up very many false doctrines, and ill rules of practice. But our Saviour was sent, as a great Prophet and Teacher from God, to reform what was amiss, and to bring the world to embrace what was true and good. And therefore it was necessary for him, in the discharge of his Office, freely to declare against the evil practices of all men whomsoever, and to discover the dangerous and hurtful errors of them, who really were blind guides; and to show the insufficiency of such rules o practice, as made Religion a mere outward formal thing, and gratified the hypocrisy of evil men: and in a like case it is well becoming any good man to do the like. And be cause the unbelieving Jews, with their Scribes and Pharisees, opposed the truth which he convincingly declared and maliciously set themselves against him, and against the evidence of the mighty Miracles wrought by him; it was necessary that he should use such expressions, as should declare the great evil of their wicked, obstinate and perverse temper; and the mischief they would bring upon them who followed them. And this he did, sometimes, in metaphorical and representative expressions, as of Wolves, Serpents, Vipers, which was a way of speaking oft used by the Prophets, and amongst the Jews very frequently in their Writings. And that such words were not accounted by them as phrases of reviling, so much as of expressive significancy, may appear from the language of the Scripture, in many places, and particularly from the blessings of Jacob, Gen. 49. Where the phrases of Wolf, Serpent, Ass, and Lion's whelp, are manifestly so used. 11. To this purpose, our Lord might well send a message to Herod, under the name of that Fox, as an expression of just reproof (according to the customary way of speaking among the Jews) to him, a subtle and cunning man, who had the guilt of blood to answer for. Besides other actions of cruelty, he had beheaded John the Baptist, which act, as it was greatly condemned by the Jews, towards so good a man, as (n) Ant. Jud. l. 18. c. 7. Josephus relateth; so himself was sometimes stricken with terrible and astonishing thoughts thereof, Luk. 9.7. And that same Herod who (o) ibid. had Herodias his Brother's Wife, and (p) ibid. slew the Baptist, continued Tetrarch of Galilee, several years after our Saviour's death, even till the first year of Caligula, as is declared by (q) ibid. l. 18. c. 8, 9 Josephus, and then was banished. To him our Lord directed this message, who also by reason of his compliance in the death of our Saviour, might in a Prophetic manner be styled a bloody man. 12. Thirdly, A just declaring against the faults of others, The third Rule is Charity, of which there is neglect, must be tempered with charity. If this arise from malice, or be managed for the doing an unkindness, or the venting hatred or ill will, or in way of Revenge, or retaliation, it than serveth the lusts of men, and is mischievous, and therefore can be no good and lawful action: but the speaking truth from such a disposition, or to such ends, is an evil action. In such a case, what (r) Chrysost. Hom. 2. de Prophet. obscuritate. S. chrysostom resolved must be admitted for truth, that he who speaks evil of his Neighbour, is in the way of ruin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether what he speaks be false, or whether it be true. There was truth, as it might be understood, in what Shimei said, when cursing David, he called him a bloody man, 2 Sam. 16.7, 8. but the expression was evil, because of the malice, which accompanied it. Now uncharitableness appears in the speaking evil of others, in any of these four Cases. 13. First, 1. when what is amiss, is spoken of with delight: Where the speaker mentions the miscarriage of others, with a inward delight, or pleasure in the relating it. But of this act of uncharitableness, in being pleased with that which is hurtful to men, pleasing to Satan, and offensive to God, I spoke something in the (s) Chap. 3. former Part, and therefore shall only mention it here. 14. Secondly, 2. when praying for offenders is neglected: When he who is ready to speak against another who doth amiss, is neglectful of praying unto God for him. When Samuel declared to Israel, that their wickedness was great, yet he said, God forbidden, that I should sin against the Lord, in ceasing to pray for you, 1 Sam. 12.17.23. And Moses prayed for Israel to turn away God's wrath. And it is to be a rule of Christian practice, 1 Jo. 5.16. If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. 15. Thirdly, 3. when there is an uncharitable interpretation: When the worst constructions are put upon the words or actions of others. This I mentioned in the former Part, and therefore shall say little to it here. Where this temper prevails, the most innocent persons may thereby be charged with guilt. Even our Lord himself, from a sinister interpretation of his free converse, was proclaimed a glutton, and a drunkard. And though there was truth in the information of Doeg, which he gave to Saul concerning Ahimelech, or at least in a great part thereof, That he enquired of the Lord for David, and gave him victuals, and gave him the sword of Goliath, 1 Sam. 22.10. Yet this being expressed in compliance with the suspicions of Saul, and (though David pretended to be employed by Saul) as an intimation that the Priests had conspired with David against him, on which account Doeg was ready to slay them: in this sense it was both mischievous and false, Psal. 52. 16. Fourthly, 4. when any ill intention. When any thing is spoken against others, with a pure intention to prejudice, or procure hurt to the persons of whom they speak. A bad design merely to do hurt, as to blast another's credit, and expose him to scorn or hatred, and to render him contemptible, do very ill become him who pretends to goodness. The end hath here a considerable influence upon the action. He that censureth the miscarriages of others, in a prudent reproof to the person himself for his amendment; acts the part of a faithful friend, while flattery in this case, is a kind of hatred, Leu. 19.17. Or if this be done to another person, as a warning to him, who is in danger to be ensnared by, or suffer mischief from him; this is also an act of kindness, to prevent the doing or suffering evil: and of this nature is the exposing the mistakes of men, to put a stop to the progress of their errors. And these are the two cases mentioned by (d) Basil Regul. Brev. Resp. 25. S. Basil, in which he alloweth of the speaking evil of others, when it is done for reclaiming the offender, or preserving others. And it is also lawful and good, to declare against the evil and wicked actions of men, out of just indignation, and in order to the due punishment of them; as the Levite did concerning the lewdness of the Gibeathites towards his Concubine. For this tends to the restoring good order unto, and the discountenancing Vice in humane society, and is also for the preservation of others. Such proceed are as the useful opening a wound, either in order to its present healing, or to prevent a spreading Gangrene, or further mischief: whereas the speaking against any, merely to make them censured and reproached, is like the opening a wound, only to expose it to the Air and venomous Infects, which is a way to make it the worse, but to do no good. 17. Our Saviour's sharp reproofs give no countenance, Our Saviour's just reproofs give no encouragement to disorderly expressions. nor allowance to any other censures, than those which observe all the rules of Christian Charity. For they were every way mixed with love and kindness, and wholly contrary to all these appearances of uncharitableness. He was, 1. so far from being pleased with any evil actions, which might expose his enemies to the censures of men, or the Judgements of God; that it was his great endeavour to persuade them to goodness, and when they would not hearken, he was grieved for the hardness of their hearts, Mar. 3.5. and he wept over Jerusalem. 2. He prayed for them, even with respect to that their sin against him, in putting him to death; wherein the greatness of their cruelty and malice, could scarce be equalled by any thing else, but the greatness of his sufferings thereby. And though they were perverse, he was still desirous to bless them in turning every one of them from their iniquities, Act. 3.26. 3. He was so far from taking things in the worst sense, that he was not pleased with his Disciples, who forbade them who cast out Devils in his name, because they followed not them; and thereby he expressed a kind approbation of them, towards whom his Disciples were harsh and severe. 4. He did not intent any prejudice to the worst of men, but their greatest good. He came not to condemn the world, but that it might be saved. And amidst his kind reproofs and rebukes, how oft would he have gathered Jerusalem, and how much did he desire, that they might have known the things, which belonged unto their peace? And such prudently managed (e) Cl. Alex. Paedag. l. 1. c. 8. reproof, and even the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or discreet upbraiding with the shamefulness of a miscarriage, is medicinal to heal the distempers and disorders of the soul, and tends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to its everlasting health. 18. But whosoever offend against the forementioned Rules, In Reproaches and uncharitable Censures, 1. He that spreads them is guilty, as well as the first Author, their speaking against others, thereby becomes chargeable with sin; nor can it be palliated by such vain methods, as men sometimes make use of; as, First, Though he be not the first author of a calumny. For he that rashly spreads abroad a slander, which he receives from another, is as well guilty, and sometimes to as high a degree, as the first author of it; since his act may in many cases, be as much injurious to the person slandered; and his uncharitable intentions may be as bad, and sometimes worse, and he is as much obliged to know the truth of what he uttereth. In a public flame, kindled and fomented by wicked designs, he that brings fire from one house to burn another, is as really mischievous, as he that set the first house on fire. The Psalmist requires of the pious man, or of him who would obtain the favour of God, that he take not up a reproach against his Neighbour, Psal. 15.3. And it was one of the wicked practices of Sanballat, to abuse and discourage Nehemiah, by publishing, upon the credit and report of one of his Companions, that Nehemiah purposed to rebel; nor did it excuse him that he alleged his Author, that Gashmu said it, Neh. 6.6. 19 Secondly, 2. and hei who only sleely insinuates them, Though he doth not positively aver the fault, or crime of which he discourseth; but only insinuate it by reflective intimations, or represent it as a thing probable, or what some believe. For if it be considered, how prone men are to entertain bad thoughts of others, especially if upon account of parties or opinions, they have any prejudice against them, it may be thence discerned, that this way, amongst such biased and credulous men, is sufficient to propagate and spread such things, as are hurtful and uncharitable. But the prudent and good man is one, whose angry countenance (as the wise man speaketh) driveth away a backbiting tongue, Prov. 25.23. Thirdly, 3. and he who carries fair appearances of friendliness. though his words be not fierce and furious, but gentle and smooth, and such as express a kindness and respect to the person of whom he speaks: and possibly when he intimates any ill of another, it is with expressions of his being sorry for it, and that he wisheth it were otherwise. For if the things in this manner related, do offend against the Rules above mentioned, such soft and oily words, make the slander to be swallowed down more glibly, and there is the less suspicion, either of ill intention, or of falsehood in him who speaks with so much appearance of kindness. But this may on these accounts, become the more dangerous way of doing mischief: even as Poison may be most readily received, in a pleasant vehicle, and from the hand of a supposed Friend, and may then as effectually do its work, as if it had been taken in any other way. 20. But where the Rules which I above laid down, There is in too many, just reason of Censure and blame, are carefully regarded, they who espouse evil actions, or who patronise corrupt Doctrines or Practices, may be lawfully and usefully declared against, and blamed, by good men, with prudence and sobriety. And their undertake may be justly discredited, and their reputation may in a due and right manner be lessened, for the preventing the growth of that evil they are carrying on; and if it may be, for the reducing themselves, and working them to repentance. But I am very sensible, that it is a truth of sad consideration, that it is more difficult and more unusual for men, though they seem zealous for God and Religion, when they have entertained such false notions and opinions, as are very pernicious to the Church of God, to be reclaimed from them, or from doing mischief by them, than it is for lewd and debauched persons to be convinced, and become converts. Hence the Doctrine of our Saviour found less success, among the Scribes and Pharisees, than amongst the Publicans and Sinners, or in the Gentile World. But a good undertaking is not to be laid aside, because of the difficulty of effecting it, but it becomes us to do our best to promote it, whatsoever the issue shall be. Nor will such endeavours, though frustrated by men, lose their acceptance with God, and their reward from him, if they be faithfully and piously managed; as the Prophet Esay declared even with respect to our blessed Saviour himself, Isai. 49.4, 5. though Israel was not gathered. 21. That vicious actions and a wicked life, from vicious actions and practices. bring shame and disgrace to the practisers, or in Solomon's phrase, that sin is a reproach to any people, Prov. 14.34. is very obvious to common Principles of Reason and Conscience; since the generality of mankind are sensible, that (f) Arist. de Virtut. & vitiis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, good and virtuous things are to be commended, but filthy and vicious things to be dispraised. And though goodness is too oft in practice reproached, and disparaged in the world, there is a vast difference, between the censure, an upright and truly pious man undergoes in well doing, and the ill report and infamy which is consequent upon evil doing. For the truly good man knows, that what censure he lies under, for his piety and integrity, is sometimes from men's speaking against their own consciences, or at best from their mistakes, and misapprehensions; and his conscience speaks peace to him, and he knows that God both approves his sincerity, and howsoever he is misunderstood by men, will reward him. But if the evil man be spoken against, his conscience doth or may testify, that this is no more than he justly deserves; and that he must expect (without timely repentance) more hurt from his sin, than from the infamy that followeth it; and that if his evil ways make him justly disapproved and condemned of men, it will make him more odious in the sight of God, and the Holy Angels, and will expose him to a more severe sentence and condemnation, from the righteous Judge of the World. 22. And that the patrons of error, and from corrupt Principles and Doctrines. whose evil Principles tend to corrupt Religion, and debauch the world, should be declared against, and the danger and detestableness of their undertake be manifested, is a thing as useful and needful, as it would be to detect and discover him, who is contriving felony, murder or any public mischief. On this account did our Saviour censure and condemn the Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees, and spoke to the disparagement of their reputation; and commanded, Matt. 7.15. to beware of false Prophets, who come in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves. And the true Apostles made a plain discovery of the false Apostles, and corrupt workers, though this laid them open to reproach. And S. Paul withstood even S. Peter, and spoke against him openly, in that wherein he was to be blamed, Gal. 2.14. when his own behaviour, and what he encouraged others unto, was of ill consequence, and contrary to the true spirit of the Gospel, though himself was so excellent a man, that he was far from advisedly managing any ill design. Indeed all dangerous errors are not of equal degree of guilt, but some are more heinous than others: but the meekness of Christianity obligeth no pious man, to a compliance with any of them, though the worst are more earnestly to be rejected. 23. S. John who so vehemently and abundantly, Primitive zeal in this case noted. pressed the duty of Christian love in his Epistle; and so fully declared the same, to be the necessary Doctrine of Christ, in his Gospel, and who in his extreme age, when he was not able to make any long discourses, is (g) Hieron. Comment in Gal. l. 3. related, to have come into the Christian Assemblies, and oft to have spoken these words, Little children, love one another; yet as (h) adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus tells us, he declared himself with that earnestness against Cerinthus, a Master of Heresy, that when he came to the Bath where S. John was, he leaped out of it, and declared his fear of the place falling upon them, when that enemy of the truth was there. And from the like Spirit of Primitive zealous earnestness, (i) Iren. ibid. when Martion meeting with Polycarp, an Apostolical man, a Disciple of S. John, and one who was, ab Apostolis constitutus Episcopus, Ordained a Bishop by the Apostles, and Martion desired him to take knowledge of him, Polycarp answers him, cognosco te primogenitum Satanae, I know and own thee to be the firstborn of Satan. And all the first and purest Churches expressed vehement dislike, against all Heretics, and dividers of the Church. And (k) Cyp. Ep. 76. S. Cyprian when he spoke of Novatianus, with respect to the Novatian Schism, saith, that inter adversarios & antichristos computetur, he was to be reckoned among the adversaries to Christianity, and the Antichrists. And this is sufficient to show (which may be more largely and amply proved, beyond all contradiction) that earnest oppositions, against them who forsake the Catholic truth, or who divide the Church, was not, as some very falsely pretend, first brought into the Christian Church, by the unadvised and indiscreet rashness, of some Canons and Councils, after the first Centuries, who are said herein to have swerved from the true Spirit of Catholic Charity. 24. And it is a thing too plain to be denied, Hartful errors are too much prevailing. that in this age, divers persons and parties entertain those errors and corruptions in matters of Religion, which deserve to be sharply censured and spoken against. 'Tis generally known, that the several parties, and different professions, do condemn one another; and it may well become them to consider, whether they have sufficient ground, for the Censures they pass on others, and whether they proceed therein in a due Christian temper of Spirit, and also whether there be not any just foundation, for the blame themselves meet with from others. Wherefore I shall make some impartial enquiry into some of the several parties of men, who divide the profession of Christian Religion. And since they who strictly adhere to the Church of Rome, lie under an infamous character from others, I shall first inquire, An account of the things discoursed of in the following Chapters. whether they may not be justly accused, of such things as deserve great condemnation and censure. And since the dissenting parties are spoken ill of by others, I shall 2. Inquire, whether they be not guilty of that, which is sufficient cause of blame. And if any of these several parties be no further spoken against, than they deserve blame, and this be also ordered according to the Christian Rules, I delivered above, this is not a sinful reproaching, but a judging righteously and according to truth. 25. And I here seriously profess, that there is no duty I esteem myself more obliged to practise, than to have an universal kindness to all men. And therefore I shall be so far, from willingly charging any sort of men, with what they are not guilty of, that while I writ some account of things , among several parties of men, it is with a mixture of hearty sorrow, that so much evil should prevail in the world, and that so many persons (divers of whom intent well) should be led away thereby. And I humbly beseech Almighty God, of his mercy and goodness, to bless and give good success to all those labours, which are undertaken to guide men, into the right ways of truth and peace. 26. I know that many men account him to be wanting in kindness, The nature of true kindness, and love to men under mistakes and error. and love to others, who undertakes to lay open their mistakes and miscarriages, how sincere and beneficial soever his intentions be, yea though this be managed with the greatest tenderness and prudence: (even as indiscreet Children have hard and unkind apprehensions of him, who openeth their sores, though it be for their cure) and such a person with many men, shall rather be ranked amongst revilers and reproachers, than amongst the number of Friends. And they account that to be kindness and love, when any one is ready to speak in favour of them and their actions, and will take care to hid their faults and errors, whensoever he discerns them. And this kind of behaviour is indeed in a due measure an Office of charity in the case of private failings, where the offender is sufficiently sensible of his miscarriage, and affected with it. But it is much otherwise, where things that deserve blame are publicly declared and professed, and are justified and vindicated; or indeed where they are kept more private, but without any penitent resentment of them. Yet these cases fall under different Rules and considerations. If this were true kindness (as it cannot be) towards men who themselves do amiss, and by their examples and persuasions, would engage others to do the like, to flatter and compliment them, and to encourage them, that they do well to continue in those practices, which are their errors and miscarriages; then must our grand adversary the Devil, be looked on as our kind friend, who is very forward to soothe men in their faults, and to persuade and entice them, into a resolved continuance in them; and to shut their ears, and open their mouths, against those who would advise them better. But this is true Christian kindness, love and goodness, to follow the example of our Lord, and to set ourselves to do good, and to preserve or reduce others from evil, though in so doing, we expose ourselves to the censure and displeasure of bad men, or of them who are misguided. CHAP. II. The Principles and Practices, maintained in the Church of Rome, are such as deserve severe Censure and a note of infamy. SECT. I. The Romish Church and its Doctrines, and the putting them in practice, is chargeable with great disturbances, mischievous to the peace and order of the World. Sect. I 1. IN this Chapter I shall inquire, The bad Principles and practices owned in the Church of Rome. whether the Church of Rome and the Members thereof, who practise upon the Principles they are there taught, be not chargeable with things really very evil, and infamous, and which deserve to be greatly condemned. In this discourse I shall not intent to take notice of all the considerable errors in doctrine and practice, which are owned and espoused in that Church. But I shall instance in so many, as may be sufficient to satisfy any unprejudiced and impartial Reader, of the great corruption of that Church, and how hurtful and dangerous it is to be guided by it. I acknowledge there hath been so much said already, and so largely and plainly proved, by divers Protestant Writers, and by many of our own Church, and particularly by many learned and worthy Discourses of Dr. Stillingfleet, in this Controversy of late years, that I do not pretend (nor need I) to add much that is material and considerable, to what they have written, nor indeed to say so much as they have done, upon those Arguments of which I shall discourse. But yet I think, such Remarks as I shall make, may be of so much use to some persons, as to give them a satisfactory account, how necessary it is to avoid the Romish gross Errors. 2. Several Heads of these proposed. And what I shall here consider I shall reduce unto five-Heads. First, to give some instances of the principles and allowed practices of sedition, and disturbance, against the peace and good order of the Church, and of the world; and the violation of the rights both of secular Rulers, and of other Churches and Bishops. Secondly, Of such things as are plain obstacles, and hindrances to an holy life. Thirdly, Of those practices and opinions, which derogate from the dignity, and authority of our Saviour. Fourthly, of some things which debase the Majesty of God, and deprive him of that glory and worship, which is due unto him. Fifthly, Of such things as represent Religion, and the Doctrines thereof, as a thing contrived or ordered, to serve the interests of worldly designs or human Policy. And in treating of the several instances I shall give, I desire my Reader to observe, that since I use these Heads in part for Method and Order sake, that which is to be considered in them, is not only, how aptly they are digested, under these several heads (though I think that is sufficiently clear) but especially, whether they do not manifestly contain, what is false, evil and opposite to Christianity. And therefore it may be further noted, that several things which I shall treat of, are upon other accounts also evil and , besides the respect they bear to those particular Heads under which I do digest them. 3. Observe. 1. Popish Principles opposite to peace and due order. First, I shall inquire into the principles, and allowed practices of sedition and disturbance, against peace and good order of the Church and the world. Here I shall not need to prove, that true Religion and the Christian temper, greatly promotes peaceableness, and establisheth justice and righteousness in the earth. And that the doing wrong and injury, the prosecuting unjust claims, and invading the rights and properties of others; as also the embroiling any part of the World in discord and confusion, in wars and tumults, and in Sedition and Rebellion, is exceeding contrary to our holy Religion. For the true principles of Morality, and the light of nature, will direct men who are not influenced by interest and passion, to condemn and detest such things as these. Wherefore taking this for granted, I shall in the first place reflect on the injurious demeanour of them at Rome towards secular Princes, in claiming to the Romish Bishop, an universal Sovereignty over Kings and Princes, with a Power to depose them, and dispose of their Kingdoms. That the Pope makes, (and hath oft acted upon) this claim of Sovereign Supremacy, I have showed (a) Christ. Loyalty. B. 1. ch. 6. Sec. 2. in another Treatise. And that the power of deposing Kings, is owned as a Doctrine of the Romish Church, I have given also (b) B. 2. ch. 1. Sec. 1. n. 4, etc. sufficient evidence; and the same hath been done at large by others. The Romish claim is like that of the Tempter, who, concerning the Kingdoms of the World, and the glory of them, said, Luk. 4.5, 6. All this is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it; and it hath also a parallel title, which bears itself up, upon confident usurpation, vain boasting, and false pretences: Yet they who are through Papists must acknowledge this. 4. Some Writers indeed of that Communion, deny the Pope any power over Princes in things temporal: but besides the Censure they generally undergo, from their own party, they are put to hard shifts, when they undertake to reconcile their Assertions, with the publicly received Constitutions of that Church. For instance sake, I shall take notice of the Council of (c) Council Lateran. c. de haeset. Laterane (concerning which they have as fair and plausible a plea, as for any other thing) which declares, that the Pope may give the Country of a temporal Lord to Catholics, if he neglect to purge his Country of Heretics. Here it is first pretended, Of the Councils at the Lateran. that this was not declared by that General Council, but only by Pope Innocent III. after it was broken up, and that there were no Constitutions or Canons, made in that Council. And yet in the Decretalias of Gregory the Ninth, who was Pope about twelve years after that Council, this very Constitution is inserted into the (d) Decret. l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. Excommunicamus. Canon Law as being established by Innocentius in a General Council. And from the Authority of that Council, Transubstantiation hath been ever since acknowledged, to be a declared Doctrine of the Roman Church. And what goes under the name of this Council, is acknowledged to have the Authority of a General Council, both by the Council of Constance and by that of Trent, as hath been observed by the (e) Of Popery p. 48-51. Bishop of Lincoln. 5. But it is further said by them, that the Canon of Lateran, concerneth (f) Shel. l dons Reasons for Allegiance, p. 41. not Sovereign Princes, but only some feudatory Lords, in Italy, and some parts of the Empire. And whereas this sense seems plainly contradicted, by the last clause of that Constitution, eadem servata lege circa eos qui non habent dominos principales, that the same Law should be observed concerning them who have no Chief Lords over them; they note, that there is an (g) Constit. Frederic●, n. 7 Imperial Law, established by Frederick the Second, much to the same purpose with this Canon, to make void the rights of such Lords, as purge not their Lands from Heretics, and that therein this clause is annexed, that this same Law shall be observed against them who haveno Chief Lords. But say they, it cannot be supposed, that the Emperor would enact a Law, which might make void his own Imperial Dignity, and forfeit his Empire. Now in this Constitution of Frederick, there is no express mention, of any right of disposing Dominions, devolving itself upon the Bishop of Rome; but it may be considered, how much this Emperor's interest, and that of the Church and See of Rome, were at this time linked together. For his possession of the Empire, much depended on the Pope's authority; for (h) Mar. Polon in Oth. p. 394, 395. Ursperg. p. 326, 327. Ave. t●●. Ann. Boio. 〈◊〉, p. 519. Innocent the Third, having excommunicated and deposed Otho the Emperor, some of the Princes fix their thoughts upon Frederick, to advance him to the Empire; and the Pope closeth with this design, and encourageth both him and them. And therefore this clause, concerning the advancing the interest of the Church, and the forfeiture of Sovereign Dominion (of what force or validity soever it be) both tended to assert frederick's own right, and jointly to gratify the Romish See. And this Law was confirmed by him, in compliance with the Pope (i) Constit. Fred. in Praef. on that very day, in which he received his Imperial Diadem, from Honorius the Third, who succeeded Innocentius. And this Law was highly applauded by Honorius, and ratified (k) ibid. in fin. by him with a severe Curse, against them who should act any thing against it, and was again confirmed by Boniface the Eighth, and seems to be framed by the Pope's order, from this clause in the Preface, Cum nihil velit Ecclesia quod nobis eâdem non placeat voluntate. 6. And yet if this were true, that the Doctrine of their Church gives the Pope power of disposing, only, Emperors and Kings must be submissive to the Pope. of such Principalities which belong to inferior and dependent Lords; this would afford but little security to the greatest Princes, if the Romish Bishop be still allowed to judge in this case. For the most imperious Popes have oft very plainly declared the Secular authority of the highest Princes, to be derived from them, and to depend upon them. And the collection of Sacred Ceremonies, contains such things concerning Emperors and Kings, as when occasion serves, may be made use of to infer subjection and dependence. Thus we are told (l) Sacr. Cerem. l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 1. that the elected Emperor must implore the favour of the Apostolical See, and offer himself, ad quaecunque fidelitatis juramenta Romanae Ecclesiae praestanda, to take any Oaths of Fealty to the Church of Rome: and must humbly desire Unction, Consecration, and the Imperial Diadem. And the Pope after examination of the Election, and considering the fitness of the Person, doth grant him his grace and favour, and doth eum nominare, denunciare, assumere & declarare Regem Romanorum, Nominate, authoritatively pronounce, receive and declare him to be King of the Romans, and to be fit and sufficient to receive the Imperial Dignity. And in this manner it is there said, that divers Emperors have addressed themselves to the Pope, some of which are there particularly named. And if any King shall come to Rome, (m) l. 1. Sect. ●3. c. 2. f. 132. after the first day of his being there, he is to carry the Pope's train, and to pour out water for his hands, and to carry up the first Dish to his Table, and serve the first Cup in other Collations: which things, with others mentioned in the same Book, carry in them fair appearances of doing homage. And some of the Romish Bishops, which have somewhat more than others, complemented Secular Authority, in some of their notions, have yet in their practice acted as much against them, as any others. So did Innocent the Third, who acknowledged, (n) Decretal. l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13 Pervenegabil●m. Rex superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscit, that a King is to own no Superior in temporals; and therefore speaking of his own Authority, besides what he had within the Patrimony of the Church, he saith, In other Regions, upon the inspection into some certain causes, temporalem jurisdictionem casualiter exercemus, we casually exercise temporal jurisdiction. And yet this is he, who declared that Canon above mentioned, in the Council of Lateran; and practised the power of deposing, in Germany, and in other places, even in England against King John. 7. Papal claims have been mischievous: Concerning this claim of Papal Sovereignty, and the deposing power, I shall observe three things. First, That it hath been very mischievous to the Christian World, and hath been the cause of many Wars and intestine broils, especially in Germany and Italy: and hence hath proceeded very much bloodshed, and very many rebellions. When (o) Mar. Pol. in Hen. p. 358. Gregory the Seventh, and then (p) Ursperg. ad an. 1102. Vrbane the Second, and Paschalis the Second, had undertaken to excommunicate Henry the Fourth the Emperor, and to depose him, and declare against his Subjects paying him any allegiance, first Rodolphus of Saxony was set up against him, who perished in his undertaking: after which Henry the Fifth his own Son, engages in that (q) U●sp. p. 257, 261. Parricidale bellum, as Vrspergensis calls it, to fight against his own Father and Sovereign. And in the time of divers succeeding Emperors, there were frequent deposings, and thereupon Civil Wars, and almost continual broils; hence arose the long remaining high animosities, and fierce contests, in Italy, and some adjacent parts of the Empire, between the faction of the Guelphs, who adhered to the Pope; and the Gibelines, who closed with the Emperor. In this period of time, for many ages, sometimes the Emperor, and sometimes the Pope, were taken Prisoners, or forced to escape by flight, and reduced to great extremities; and the Countries in the mean time were miserably harrassed, which were the Seat of these Wars. And in these, foreign Princes were frequently engaged, some on the one side, and some on the other, even so far, as sometimes to take in, both the English and French. The particulars of these things, or the effects of the like proceed in some other Kingdoms, would be too large to be here inserted. And besides these things, divers secret Conspiracies, of Subjects, against the lives of their Princes, have been the effect of these Romish Principles, in contradiction to that honour and reverence, which Christianity requireth to be given to them. Nor have such evil attempts been made, only, upon the lives of Protestant Princes, but of such also, who have adhered to the Romish profession, both before and since the Reformation. 8. But I shall here take notice, that even those persons who were set up, in prosecuting this deposing power, the promoters of them have smarted by them. where it did take effect (as very often even before the Reformation it was of no force) besides other troubles, they were engaged in, they oft fell themselves, under the like Sentence of the Bishop of Rome, and sometimes into great calamities thereby. Here I might instance, in those two I lately mentioned. The Emperor Henry the Fifth, who risen up against his Father (against whom the Bishop of Rome had declared his Sentence of deposition did prevail against him, and took him Prisoner; but behaved himself very unworthily towards him, and kept him in Prison till he died, and Reigned after him. But he himself fell under the sentence of Paschalis the Second, and was involved in War thereby, but he overcame the Pope, and took him prisoner: But he died Childless, having no Issue to succeed him in the Empire, which was then Hereditary; (r) M. Pol. p. 367, 368. and this was by many in that age, accounted Gods just judgement upon him, who had acted so unchristianly and undutifully against his Father. And after his death the Empire came to the Saxon line. 9 But I shall particularly take notice of Frederick the Second, who was substituted Emperor, in the place of Otho, who was deposed. He made many Laws in favour of the Church, and increased its wealth and revenue, and was, (s) Avent. l. 7. p. 525, 535. Nic. de Cusa. as Historians relate concerning him, an excellent, most wise and flourishing Prince. Yet he was both excommunicated and (t) M. Pol. in Honor. & in Fred. deposed, by Honorius who had Crowned him. And this Sentence was again renewed by Gregory the Ninth, who succeeded Honorius, in three several Bulls of deposition: (u) Avent. P. 537, 538. In the first of these, in the courtship of Rome, he declared the Emperor to be a Beast, and in the last of them to be an Heretic: but whatever great words were used, (*) Chron. Ursperg. p. 337. Vrspergensis, who was an Abbot at that very time, declared that it was, pro frivolis causis & falsis, upon trifling and untrue grounds and occasions. And against this Frederick did Innocent the Fourth erect the Banner of the Cross as against the Turk, and denounce the Sentence of deposition in the Council of Lions, to the astonishing terror of them who heard it. Amidst these Circumstances, his own Son Henry, whom he had designed his Successor, and had declared him so, rose up in rebellion against his Father, and being condemned of parricide, by (x) Avent. p. 533. the Sentence of seventy Princes, was imprisoned, and not long after died in Sicily. And when Frederick had encountered with various difficulties, after his flight into (y) M. Pol. p. 399. in Fred. Apulia, he there died in distress and misery. And this was the kind requital he met with, for his affection to the Pope, and interesting himself in his quarrel, against the preceding Emperor. 10. Secondly, I observe that the pretended pleas for this Papal power, are very vain. Many of these, and the most considerable I have examined (z) Christ. Loyalty, B. 1. ch. 6. & B. 2. ch. 1. Sect. 1. Observe. 2. The vain pleas for Papal power. otherwhere. But here I shall take notice of some things, urged by Innocent the Third, in a decretal Epistle, which hath been confirmed by Gregory the Ninth, and other Romish Bishops since. And it is strange to see, how extravagantly impertinent these proofs are. For an evidence of the Pope's chief decisive power, in the highest matters of right, he referreth to Deut. 17.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement,— thou shalt get thee to the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites, and unto the Judge,— And thou shalt do according to the Sentence, which they of that place shall show thee. And then he tells us, (a) 3. Decretal. l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13. quia Deuteronomium lex secunda interpretetur, that because the word Deuteronomy, signifieth a Second Law, it is thence proved, that what is there determined, must be observed in the time of the New Testament; and the Apostolical See, is the place which God chùseth. Now the proof is much alike, that Rome is the place which God chooseth under the New Testament; What is urged by Innocentius the Third, hath no infallible evidence. as he chose Jerusalem under a great part of the Old Testament; and that all that is in the Book of Deuteronomy, continues established under the Gospel. And it may be wondered, that such a thing should be affirmed, if it were not to impose on others; when the Book of Deuteronomy contains many things, concerning the Aaronical Sacrifices, and other Jewish Feasts: and in that, is that particular permission of divorce, which our Saviour will not allow of under the Gospel. Deut. 24.1. Mat. 19.8, 9 and a repetition of many Mosaical Laws, whence it was called by the Greek Translators Deuteronomy. 11. In the same Epistle, as a proof of this plenary and supreme power seated in the Pope, he produceth what S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 6.3. and tells us that Paul, that he might expound the plenitude of power, writing to the Corinthians, saith, Nescitis quoniam Angelos judicabitis, quanto magis secularia? Know ye not that ye shall judge Angels, how much more the things of this life, or things secular? But what the Apostle wrote in that Epistle to the Corinthians, bid directly concern the Church of Corinth. And therefore if he had discoursed of a plenitude of power, (or the highest universal Authority over all the parts of the World, or the Church) as he did not, it would appear from this place, to be as much, if not more fixed in S. Paul, and the Church of Corinth, as any where else; and it must needs be hard to prove, that S. Paul in these words, declared a plenitude of power in the Bishop of Rome, both over Corinth and all the World, when he said, Know ye not that we shall judge, etc. 12. What light the two great Luminaries give to the Pope's power. But that proof which passeth all the rest, which is urged in the same decretal Epistle, is, from Gods making two great Luminaries, the greater to rule the day, and the lesser to rule the night; from whence it is there inferred, that the power of the Bishop of Rome, is as much above all Secular power, as the Sun is above the Moon. And it may be also hence collected, that the Imperial power is derived from the Papal, as was declared hence by (b) v. Addit. ad P●de Marc. de Couc. S. & s●●p. l. 2. c. 3. Boniface the Eighth. Now from hence it may appear, that a pretended testimony from the first Chapter of Genesis, may be as effectual (though it be nothing to the purpose) as if it had been taken out of the Book of Deuteronomy. And this is such a wonderful Argument, that so far as the strength of it will reach, it will not only prove the highest power of the Bishop of Rome, to be ordained of God, before the coming of Christ, and even before any promise made concerning the Messiah, and before the fall of man, but that this was established before Adam was created, and was one of the principal things done in the framing and making of the World. And therefore if this authority be rightly applied, it is indeed an early testimony of the greatest antiquity of this power in the Church of Rome, and deriveth its original much higher, than most men have been ware of, and it confutes the great mistake of those Novelists, who pretend it to be founded in any eminency of authority, conveyed unto S. Peter, when it was so clearly ingraved upon the brightness of the Sun beams (but not to be seen by men's eyes) in the first springing forth of their light. 13. Such things as these are so trifling and frivolous, that they deserve not any serious consideration or answer. And it can scarce be imagined, that they who laid down these testimonies, as a foundation to support the Papal power, could have any other design, than to delude, and impose upon the great ignorance of the World. And if it be a wicked and abominable thing, for any private man to forge an evidence for an Estate, or to counterfeit the King's broad Seal, to serve his interest; it is far worse to design to deal falsely in that which hath respect to the authority of the sacred Majesty of God, and to the greatest rights of men, and the public interest and peace of the World. And I think no men ever spoke more wildly about these things, than the Popes themselves have done, the extravagancy of their pleas, bearing an equal proportion to that of their claims. 14. Thirdly, I observe, Observe. 3. The high Papal power was unknown to the ancient Roman Bishops; that the pretence of this high Papal power, which for some hundred years hath been of ill consequence to Christian Kingdoms, hath this manifest mark of an encroachment, usurpation and innovation, in that the more ancient Bishops of Rome, never knew any thing thereof, but did profess, and own their subjection to Emperors, and their Authority. The testimonies of divers of them have been to this purpose produced by Protestant Writers: And it may be sufficient here to note, that I have (c) Christ. loyalty, B. 1. ch. 5. Sect. 3. To Leo the Great, in another place shown, that Leo the Great submissively owned his subjection to the Imperial Authority, and that with respect to the external administration of matters Ecclesiastical. And it is manifest, from the Writings of Gregory the Great, that he both submissively behaved himself towards Mauritius the Emperor, as a subject towards his Sovereign Lord, and that he thought he ought so to do. When Mauritius declared his desire, that there might be a good accord between S. Gregory, and John Patriarch of Constantinople, (d) Gr. Ep. l. 4. Ep. 76. Gregory writes to Mauritius giving him the title of Dominus noster à Deo constitutus, his Lord whom God had constituted, and owns himself to be his Servant, (and such language is very frequent in his Epistles) and lets the Emperor know, that in that matter, in which the cause of God was also concerned, he would do what on his part could be done, To Gregory the Great, Dominorum jussionibus obedientiam praebens, yielding obedience to the commands of his Lord; and in this case he saith, Serenissimis jussionibus obedientiam praebeo. Which words show sufficiently, that he claimed not any Sovereignty over the Emperor, but acknowledged his owing subjection to him. And when Mauritius had made a Law, that no person in any public Secular Office, should be received into Ecclesiastical Orders, and that no Soldiers might be admitted into Monasteries, Gregory writes a Letter to the Emperor concerning this Law, expressing his good liking and approbation of the former part, but with much (e) Gr. Ep. l. a. Ep. 100 earnestness declaring his dislike of the latter part, as being contrary to God and Religion. And in the close of that Epistle, he acquaints the Emperor, that in subjection to his commands, he had caused that Law to be transmitted to several parts of the Empire, but yet had plainly written to him how much it was against God. And then adds, utrobique ergo quod debui exolvi, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo quod sensi minime tacui; On both hands therefore I have performed what I ought, I have yielded obedience to the Emperor, and I have not forborn to speak what was my judgement on the behalf of God. And in this Epistle also (and in others frequently) he owns Mauritius to be his Lord, and himself to be his Servant. And the usual subterfuge of Romish Writers, that what the Popes have spoken in such a respect to Emperors, was from humility, and gracious condescension only, can have no place here. For he went as far as any Subject in his capacity might do, in what he was persuaded was unlawful; and further than he might do, who was no Subject. In humility he might dispense with his own right, but not with what concerns God and Religion. 15. These things do so plainly show, that those ancient Bishops acknowledged the Emperor to be their Superior, even in constituting Laws, and doing other acts, which had respect to the state of Religion, that I think it unnecessary to add other instances, which might be given for many Centuries. The known expression of Otho Frisingensis declares Gregory the Seventh, to be the first of the Roman Bishops who usurped the deposing power. But Conradus (f) Ursp. p. 336. Vrspergensis differing herein from Otho, whom he mentions, seems to fix the first Original of these Papal proceed upon Gregory the Third, who above seven hundred years after Christ, in the contest concerning Images (where it might have been expected that he who was so earnest for the adoration of Images, should have highly honoured the Emperor, who bore the impress of Divine authority) did (g) ibid. p. 286. forbid Italy to pay any tribute to Leo Isaurus the Emperor, and deprived him of his rights there. But it is manifest that all the Roman Bishops who succeeded him, were not of the like spirit and temper. Above an hundred years after him, Leo the Fourth (h) Gratian. Dist. 10. de capitulis. and to Leo the Fourth. assures Lotharius the Emperor, that he would as much as he was able, irrefragably keep and observe his imperial precepts, and that they were liars who should suggest the contrary concerning him; and (i) c. 2. qu. 7. Nos si incompetenter. he likewise submits his actions, to be examined by the Emperor, or such as he should commissionate, and to be corrected or amended, if he had done amiss, and not kept to the right rule of the Law. 16. But the main hurt of this pretended Papal power, so much contended for at Rome, is not only the disturbing peace, Such Principles of Rebellion lead men to damnation. fomenting Wars, and unjust invading the right of Princes: but besides the ambition therein contained; by stirring up Subjects in rebellion against their Sovereigns, it puts them according to S. Paul's Doctrine into a state of damnation, Rom. 13.2. And such rebellious practices are the more promoted, by those frantic principles, of many of the Church of Rome, which have spread themselves also amongst other Sects, which give liberty to Subjects (without respect to the Pope's Sentence) to take away the lives of Princes. It is too clear to be denied, that such Positions are maintained by divers of the Jesuits, and it must be granted also, that there is truth in what some of the Jesuits have observed, that the like was asserted by other Writers in the Church of Rome, before the first institution of that Order. 17. The Pope's usurped claim over other Churches and Bishops There is also great disorder and evil, unduly occasioned in the Church, by the claim the Roman See pretends to, over all other Bishops and Churches. To this authority she hath no just title; but the exercise of this power did obtain and prevail in many Churches, by various methods and degrees of encroachment. And by this means both rights and also purity and due order are jointly violated. Hence this Church obtrudes on others, her pernicious Doctrines and practices, under a pretence of authority. And by the same means, it hinders the necessary reformation of great and spreading corruptions, and thunders out Censures against such Churches as reform themselves according to Primitive and Apostolical rules. 18. Now such an Authority over all other Bishops and Churches, could never be founded in any actual possession, or in any human or Ecclesiastical constitution, of what nature soever. For an encroaching authority is void, by the ancient Canons, especially that of Ephesus, and being an unjust possession, aught to return to him, who hath the true right. And where there hath been any consent given to an unjust claim, by misunderstanding, or upon any other account; or where any other act whatsoever hath been done by Princes, falsty pretended to be of Divine Authority: or by Bishops in any part of the Church, to yield or convey any Superior Authority to the Roman Bishop, they cannot by any act of their own exclude themselves and their Successors from the obligation, to perform their duty, in duly guiding, governing and reforming their people. And therefore so far as the authority, which Princes and Bishops have received from God and Christ, doth oblige them to the performance of this work, no pretended power of the Bishop of Rome, nor any act done by any others, or even by themselves, can set them free from it. But this universal Superiority is claimed by the Pope, as not derived from any human Constitution, but from the authority of Christ. To which purpose the Catechism according to the Decree of the Council of Trent declares, That the Catholic Church (k) Catech. ad Paroch. c. de Ordinis Sacramento. Summum in eo dignitatis gradum, & jurisdictionis amplitudinem; non quidem ullis Synodicis aut aliis humanis constitutionibus, sed divinitus datam agnoscit: quamobrem omnium fidelium, & episcoporum, caeterorumque antistitum, quocunque illi munere, & potestate praediti sint, pater, ac moderator, universali Ecclesiae, ut Petri Successor, Christique Domini verus & legitimus vicarius praesidet; doth acknowledge in him (the Pope) the highest degree of dignity and amplitude of Jurisdiction, not given him by any Synodical, or other human Constitutions, but by Divine Authority: wherefore he the Father and Governor of all the Faithful, and of the Bishops, and the rest who are in chief Authority, whatsoever Office or Power they are endued with; doth preside over the the Universal Church, as the Successor of Peter, and the true and lawful Vicar of Christ the Lord. 19 But notwithstanding this great noise, it was unknown to the ancient Church; no such Divine institution hath been or can be produced; and pasce oves, and tu es Petrus have been oft scanned, and no such thing can be found in them. And it is considerable, that the ancient Bishops of Rome owned not, nor claimed any such Authority, nor was any such given to them, by the Primitive Church. To this purpose it may be observed from (l) Epiph. Her. 42. Epiphanius, that when Martion being excommunicated by his own Father a pious Bishop, for his debauchery, went to Rome, and desired there to be received into Communion, he was told there, by those Elders yet alive who were the Disciples of the Apostles, that they could not receive him without the permission of his Reverend Father: there being one Faith, and one Concord, they could not act contrary to their Fellow Ministers. And this was agreeable to the Rules and Canons of the ancient Church, whereby it was ordained. (m) Can. Ap. 12. that if any excommunicate person should be received in another City, whither he should come, not having commendatory Letters, he who received him, should be himself also under excommunication. And the novel Romish Notion, of all other Bishops so depending on the Roman, as to derive their power and authority from him, is so contrary to the sense of the ancient Church, that (n) Hieron. Ep. ad Evagrium. S. Hierome declares ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, five Romae, five Eugubii— ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est & sacerdotii— omnes Apostolorum successores sunt; wheresoever there was a Bishop; whether at Rome or at Gubio— he is of the same worth, and the same Priesthood,— they are all Successors of the Apostles. 20. and prejudicial to other Churches, and to Religion itself. However the Romish Church upon this encroachment and false pretence, claims a power to receive appeals from any other Churches. And this oft proves a great obstacle to the Government, and discipline of those Churches; and an heavy and burdensome molestation to particular persons, by chargeable tedious and dilatory prosecutions: and is a method also of exhausting the treasures of other Churches and Kingdoms, to gratify ambitious avarice. But even the (o) c. 6. qu. 3. scitote. Canon Law declares the great reasonableness, that every Province, where there is ten or eleven Cities, and a King, should have a Metropolitan and other Bishops, and that all causes should be judged and determined by them among themselves; and that no Province ought to be so much debased and degraded, as to be deprived of such a Judicature. Indeed the Canon Law doth here for the sake of the Roman See, exempt such cases from this judgement, where those who are to be judged enter an appeal, which is much different from the appeal the ancient Church allowed (p) Conc. Constant. c. 6. to a more General Council after the insufficient hearing of a Provincial one. But in truth this right of ordering and judging what is fit in every Province, is not only the right of that particular Church, or Country or Kingdom; but where they proceed according to truth and goodness, it is the right of God, and the Christian Religion, which is above all contrary authority of any other, and ought not to be violated thereby. And appeals from hence (pp) Cod. ean. Eccl. Afr. c. 28. The Romanists Schismatical. even to Rome were anciently prohibited in Africa. 21. And the Schismatical uncharitableness of them at Rome, towards other Churches, deserves here to be mentioned. This widens divisions and discords, and perpetuates them by declaring an irreconcilable opposition to peace and truth. They excommunicate them as Heretics, who discerning their right, and their duty, will not submit themselves to their usurpations, and embrace their errors, and to them they hereupon deny the hopes of Salvation. Thus they deal with them, who steadfastly hold to the Catholic faith, and to all the holy rules of the Christian life and practice, delivered by the Apostles, and received by the Primitive Church; and who also embrace that Catholic charity and Unity, that they own Communion with all the true and regular members of the Christian Church; and would with as much joy, communicate with the Roman Church herself, if she would make her Worship and Communion, and the terms of it free from sin, as the Father in the Gospel embraced his returning Son. But this is the crime of such Churches, that while they hold fast the Apostolical Faith and Order, they reject the novel additional doctrines, introduced by the Church of Rome, and they submit not to her usurped authority, in not doing what in duty to God they ought to do, in embracing the right ways of truth. 22. Their unjust excommunications hurt not others, But the excommunicating such persons and Churches, doth no hurt to them, who undeservedly lie under this unjust censure, but the effect of the censure may fall on them who thus excommunicate. For they who reject the Communion of them, who are true and orderly Members of the Church Catholic, do divide themselves from that Communion. To this sense is that received rule, (q) c. 24. qu. 3. c. si habes; &c. certum. illicita excommunicatio non laedit eum qui notatur, sed eum à quo notatur: and this was declared by (r) in Balsamon. p. 1096. Nicon, to be agreeable to the Canons. And the excellency and power of the true Catholic Doctrine, and the purity thereof, is so much to be preferred, before the authority of any persons whomsoever who oppose it, that that which the ancient Canons (s) Conc. Sardic. c. 17. established was very fit and just, that if any Bishops (and consequently any other persons) were ejected from their own Churches, or suffered any censures unjustly, for their adhering to the Catholic Faith and profession, they ought still to be received in other Churches and Cities, with kindness and love. And whereas there were Canons of the Church, which allowed not Bishops to reside in other Churches and Dioceses; these Fathers at Sardica dispense with that Rule, in such a case as this, and thereby declare their fence to be, That the observation of Canonical establishments, must give place, where the higher duties of respect to the Christian Faith and Charity were concerned. 23. but only themselves. When the Scribes and Pharisees condemned the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for Heresy, and cast them, who received it, out of the Church; the Christians were nevertheless the true members of the Church, but they who rejected them were not so. And when the Donatists would allow none but their own party to belong to the Church, they thereby cast themselves out of the Catholic Communion, as Schismatics. And when they at Rome so far follow their steps, as to confine the Christian Communion to themselves; or to a particular Church, especially such an one, as so greatly swerves from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion; Sect. II. this is in effect to deny that Article of our Creed, concerning the Holy Catholic Church. And since Charity and Unity are of so great concernment in Christianity, on that account also they are none of the best members of the Church, who are so far from them, as all of the Romish Communion are obliged to be; and are thereby guilty of heinous sin, and of that which is greatly scandalous to Christianity. SECT. II. The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome, and the Constitutions therein established, are great hindrances to holiness of life, and true devotion in Religion, and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery. 1. I Shall now come to consider, that there are such doctrines asserted by the Church of Rome, and such practices established therein, as are plain obstacles and hindrances to a holy life. Holiness and purity are suitable to the nature of God, and agreeable to the end of Christ's coming into the World, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works, Obstacles in the Roman Church to an holy life, Tit. 2.14. This is a compliance with his Gospel, which is a doctrine according to Godliness, and his Church which he founded, is an holy Catholic Church. And therefore nothing can be of God and Christ, which is not agreeable to true goodness and piety, but that must be contrary to God and Christianity, which is opposite to holiness and a godly life. But that the Church of Rome doth declare such Doctrines, as undermine piety and holiness, and establishes such constitutions and practices, as are highly prejudicial thereunto, I shall manifest by some particular instances. And here I shall consider, 2. 1. In their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution: First, Their Doctrine of Absolution. This is such that it soothes men in their sins, and thereby takes away the weighty Motive and Argument to holiness of life, which is from the necessity thereof, to avoid the wrath of God, and endless perdition, and to obtain the favour of God and everlasting salvation. For this Church and the Writers thereof, do generally teach that attrition though without contrition, is a sufficient disposition or qualification for the receiving Priestly absolution, and that persons so qualified, and thereupon absolved, are in a safe state, as to the avoiding eternal damnation, and the future entrance into everlasting happiness. Now contrition includes a grief for, and hatred of sin, as it is an offence of God, with a purpose and resolution not to go on in the practice of evil, and this is conjoined with a chief love to God. But attrition is a grief for sin, in such a manner that it is not produced from, nor containeth in it the chief love of God and goodness. And when divers ways are either asserted, or disputed of by many Casuists, concerning the difference between Attrition and Contrition, Mart. Becanus speaks with much plainness, and I think with truth, when he tells us (a) Part. 3. Tr. 2. c. 35. Qu. 1. that contrition includes aversion from sin, and conversion to God, which is in loving him above all; and that this principle of the love of God (which includes consequently hatred of sin, and turning from it) is that thing in which contrition essentially differs from attrition, and that all other differences or ways of distinguishing them are either to be rejected as false, or may be spared as being of little or no use. 3. Now some Writers of the Romish Communion, especially in former Ages, have been of opinion, that contrition is necessary to justification. But this assertion is declared by (b) Tom. 4. Disp. 3. Qu. 8. Punct. 3. Gr. de Valentia, to be sententia his presertim temporibus vix tolerabilis, such an one as especially in these times is scarce fit to be tolerated And he calls the other the common opinion. This (c) Bell. de poenit. l. 2. c. 18. Bellarmine takes for granted and Becanus declares (d) ubi sup. Qu. 6. omnes fatentur contritionem non esse necessariam in Sacramento Poenitentiae, that all acknowledge that Contrition is not necessary in the Sacrament of Penance. And these Writers, and many others, affirm the Council of Trent to have declared thus much. And that Council plainly enough determines, that Contrition (e) Sess. 13 de poenitentia cap. 4. is a grief of mind for sin already committed, with a purpose to do so no more; and that this which encludes a hatred of the past evil life, and the beginning of a new life, when it hath Charity joined with it, doth reconcile man to God before the actual receiving the Sacrament of Penance, if there be a desire to partake thereof. But than it adds, concerning another sort of sorrow, from the foulness of the sin or the fear of punishment, ex peccati turpitudine, vel ex supplicii metu, and of this that Council determines, that it cannot bring a sinner to justification, without the Sacrament of Penance, but it doth dispose him to obtain the favour of God in the Sacrament of Penance. A bad life encouraged hereby. Now the result of all this according to the plainest sense their own Authors give, is, that if a wicked man ready to go out of the world, shall be troubled when he apprehends the foulness of his sins, lest he should go to Hell, which is attrition, and shall then send to the Priest and receive Absolution; this man though his bear't be not turned from sin to God, and to a love of him, and of goodness, will according to this lose Doctrine, go out of the world in the favour of God and in a justified state. And thus much is pretended to be effected, by virtue of the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution. 4. Now it is to be acknowledged, that the true Ministerial Absolution is very profitable (being in an eminent manner contained in dispensing the holy Sacraments) and is of much greater weight than many men account it to be, to them that believe and truly repent, or to them who sincerely perform the conditions of the Gospel Covenant: but no pretence of Absolution must be admitted, to make void these conditions. And it may be granted, that in the Roman Church, in some Societies, there are rules of severity directed to them who are disposed to seriousness: but this their Doctrine of Absolution takes off all necessity of observing any such rules, (or any vows whereby they obliged themselves to any duties or exercises of perfection) so far as concerns the fear of God, as to the interest of an eternal state. And this Doctrine opens a gap, to all licentiousness of life, contrary to the rules of Christianity, and all good conscience; by the security it pretends to give of eternal happiness to wicked and debauched men, who amend not their lives, nor forsake their sins. If this be truth, then are all the promises and threaten of the Gospel made void; as they are Motives to the necessary duties of holiness and piety. 5. Holiness of Christianity undermined hereby. By such arts as this, all the great precepts of Religion are made of none effect, in order to salvation. For if against this impure Doctrine, all those Texts of Scripture be urged, which require the wicked man to repent, and turn from all his iniquities that he may live, and other such like; we are told by (f) Gr. de Valent. ubi sup. Gr. de Valentia, that this is the general rule, extra sacramentum neminem posse justificari sine contritione, that excepting the use of the Sacrament; none can be justified without contrition. But then he tells us, casus quo Sacramentum poenitentiae usurpaetur, plane ab illa lege universali exceptus est, that case in which the Sacrament of Penance is used, is clearly excepted from that universal Law. And this exception, he says, is made in Christ's instituting the power of the Keys, and of remitting and retaining sins. As if the power of the keys, and the ministerial Authority, (which rightly understood is great and excellent, though it be grossly perverted and abused by the Romanists, and slighted and undervalved by others) was an underhand contrivance, to frustrate and defeat all the great precepts of God, and the Laws of Christianity. And these precepts are so far made void thereby, that (g) Melch. Can. Relect. 4. de Poenit. Canus confidently affirms, that he who with attrition receives the Sacrament of Penance, is not only in a safe state, but doth as much as the precepts of God require from him. Whereas (saith he) Baptism and the Sacrament of Absolution, confer grace to him that is attrite, and these two Sacraments were directly instituted for the remission of all sins; qui suscipit alterum ex his sive contritus sive attritus, vere implet praeceptum de poenitentia, quoniam Deus nihil amplius exigit in compensationem delicti commissi, quam vel contritionem sine sacramento, vel attritionem cum sacramento; He who receives either of these, either with Contrition or with Attrition, doth really fulfil the precept of Repentance; because God doth require nothing further, in compensation for the fault committed, than either Contrition without the Sacrament, or Attrition with the Sacrament. And thus the illustrious and substantial precepts of purity, and newness of life, are by these men made to dwindle into the shades of darkness. 6 And as this Doctrine of Attrition is improved by them, it tends to eat out all true devotion: This renders pious devotion unnecessary. since we are told by the Romish Casuists, and Controversial Writers, that this disposition is sufficient for performing the highest acts of Religion, even the receiving the holy Eucharist. Indeed they ordinarily grant, that the precept of Contrition being an affirmative precept, doth oblige at some special times; though they are very sparing in fixing these times: but many particularly mention the case of being in danger of death, and some add the receiving or dispensing a Sacrament, which ought to be handled reverently, and some may assign some other special cases. But others can tell us, how that which is thus granted in words, shall contain nothing of reality under it. For if the Question be proposed, whether when the precept of Contrition doth bind, Attrition with the Sacrament of Penance be not still in that case sufficient; (h) Becanus declares, (k) M. Bec. ubi sup. Qu. 7. that though some be of the other opinion, they are most in the right who affirm this: because the precept of Contrition is obligatory, only on them who have mortal sin, and therefore if a man may be freed from mortal sin by Attrition, non amplius obligatur praecepto contritionis, he is no further bound by the precept of Contrition. Such strange methods are made use of to evacuate the Divine precepts. And they tell us that Attrition with Absolution makes up Contrition. 7. Hereby sinners are deluded by false hopes. By these artifices repentance is misrepresented, as if it could be sufficiently performed without amendment of life; and the way to Heaven is so described, as to be so far from requiring a patiented continuance in well doing, that there is no necessity of well doing at all. This is to encourage men in such a wicked and evil life, against which Christ the righteous judge, will pronounce an heavy Sentence. And thus they deal with the souls of men, as a flattering Mountebank may do with the Body, if he should pretend, that he can cure the most dangerous diseases, without carrying off the matter and cause of the distemper, and without his Patient's taking so much care, as to observe the rules of temperance and sobriety: but that man who is wise will not give heed to such deceitful boastings, nor venture his life upon confidence of the truth of them, when there are other rules and directions to be observed for his cure, from whence he may rationally and upon sure grounds expect a good effect. These Pontifician devices carry in them a perfect estrangement from the true Christian rules; and since Christianity consists in life and practice, more than in words and profession; that man who practiseth on this Doctrine, may be a Papist, and do all that the Church of Rome requireth; but he cannot be a true Christian, to do all that the Gospel of our Saviour makes necessary to salvation. 8. I confess a bad man according to the Romish Doctrine will fail of salvation; if he miss the opportunity, or neglect the care of Absolution. But wicked men who hazard their fouls and eternal happiness, that they may gratify their lusts, where they have no encouragements of hope proposed to them, will much more do so where they have such great encouragements. And according to this Doctrine, this hazard doth not seem exceeding great, when they may frequently confess and be absolved, and especially after they have committed any mortal sin, and thereby set all things again even and straight, between God and themselves, so far as concerns their being in a justified state. And what may be pretended to remain as an obligation upon them to bear temporal pains and satisfactions, this also may be (i) v. Sect. 9 n. 14, etc. otherwise provided for. 9 And we may further consider, how little goes to the making up of Contrition according to the Romish Casuists, Of Contrition. or such a repentance as availeth to justification, without the Sacrament of Penance. Of this I shall give an account from Father (k) Theol. Mor. l. 5. Tract. 6. c. 4. n. 1. Layman. He declares that the substance of Contrition consists in detesting sin above all evil: but (l) ib. n. 2. any continuance of time is not necessary to that contrition, by which a sinner is justified, but one simple act of grief is sufficient: and it is most probable, that without calling his sins to remembrance he may be perfectly converted, and justified by contrition, temporis momento, in a moment of time. And he farther saith (m) ib. n. 3. that any express purpose, of keeping Gods Commands, or abstaining from sin is not necessary, further than it is virtually included in an act of detestation of sin, in which he hath no thought of his future course of life. But this notion of Contrition I shall not pursue; nor yet those others in their Casuistical Writers, whereby they very rarely allow such affirmative precepts, as that great one of loving God, to oblige us to exercise any act of love to him: which is much consequent upon their usual assertions concerning Attrition. For my intention is to wave many things declared by considerable Doctors, and mainly to insist on those, which have the public allowance and establishment of the Church. 10. Secondly, Another obstacle to a pious life, 2. Of their prohibiting the common use of the Scriptures. which I shall consider is, the debarring the people of the best guide and help to piety, which is the use of the Holy Scriptures. The Divine Scriptures are by the Fathers oft called the Letters, and Messages which God sends to men, to invite them to him, and guide them in their way: and then surely they to whom, and for whom they are sent, aught to know and read them, both out of Reverence to God, and out of respect to themselves. (n) de Tempore Serm. 112. S. Austin observes this double benefit in reading the holy Scriptures, that they teach us knowledge, and right understanding, and that they carry men off from the vanities of the world, unto the love of God; and observes how greatly efficacious they are, to the promoting piety in very great numbers, and that they were designed for our Salvation. 11. The Scriptures greatly promote piety. These Scriptures were written by the inspiration of God, and contain the sure rule for Faith and Life, and were so accounted of in the ancient Church. Herein is comprised the Will and Counsel of God, declared by the Holy Ghost himself. And the precepts and holy rules there proposed, the promises declared, the threaten denounced, the judgements executed on the disobedient, and the blessings bestowed on the obedient, are great incitements to piety; and are of the greater force and weight, as they are contained in the Scriptures, because the Divine Authority goes along with every one of them. And the end for which they were written, is for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope, Rom. 15.4. And the punishments there recorded, which were inflicted on evil doers, were for ensamples, and written for our admonition, 1 Cor. 10.11. These holy Books, the Primitive Christians were not denied the use of, and they so highly esteemed this privilege, that rather than they would deliver up these Books to their persecutors, the best Christians chose to undergo the utmost torments and sufferings; and of such (o) Baron. Annal. Ecc. An. 302. n. 22. Baronius observes, that there was numerus prope infinitus eorum qui ne codices sacros traderent, lubentissimo animo mortem oppetiverunt; almost an infinite number of those, who with the greatest readiness of mind, chose death rather than to deliver up the Holy Books. And they who did deliver them, were accounted grievous offenders, and called Traditores (the name given to Judas who betrayed our Lord) and of these, as (p) Advers. Parm. l. 1. Optatus saith, there were many of all ranks both Laics and Clergy. 12. The use of the Scriptures is of such excellent advantage, to promote piety and the happiness of men, that the Psalmist under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, declares the blessed and good man, to delight himself in the law of the Lord, and to meditate therein day and night, Psal. 1.2. And this makes him so to increase, and be fruitful in good works, that v. 3. he is resembled to a tree planted by the rivers of water, which brings forth his fruit in due season. And the excellent use of this Divine Law is described, Psal. 19. 7-11. in converting the soul, making wise the simple, and other great benefits. Yea they are of such manifold and complete use for the good of man, that the Apostle declares them able to make one wise unto Salvation, and to be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to every good work, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. And they have that mighty efficacy, to prevail on the hearts and consciences of men, that our Lord acquaints us, that they who would not hear Moses and the Prophets, would not be persuaded though one arose from the dead, Luke 16.31. 13. But the Romish Church prohibits the use of the Scripture to the generality of their Communion; as is manifest from the Index of prohibited Books, (q) Conc. Trident. Sess. ult. prope sin. which was ordered by the Council of Trent, and was completed about the end of that Council; but the confirmation thereof, was referred to the Pope, by the Decree of that Council; and it was approved by the Authority of Pius the Fourth. In this (r) Indic. Reg. 4. How far vulgar Translations are prohibited in the Roman Church. Index it is declared, That since it is manifest by experience, that if the Holy Bible in the Vulgar Tongue, be permitted generally without distinction, there would thence from the rashness of men, more hurt arise than advantage; in this matter it must be left to the judgement of the Bishop or Inquisitor, that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor, he may grant to them the reading of the Bible, in the Vulgar Tongue, translated by Catholic Authors, whom they shall understand may receive by such reading not hurt, but increase of faith and piety; which faculty they should have in writing. But whosoever without such a faculty shall presume to read or to have them, may not obtain the absolution of their sins, unless they first deliver their Bibles to the Ordinary. And then follows the penalty of the Bookseller, who shall sell, or otherwise procure such Bibles, to them who have not a faculty. And from this Index, the substantial part of this rule is expressed in (s) Panstrat. Cath. Tom. 1. l. 10. c. 1. Chamier, and somewhat more at large in the Book of (t) Jacobus Ledesima the Jesuit, (e) Ledes. c. 15. De scriptures divinis quavis lingua non legendis, and is mentioned in some English Writers. It is therefore condemned, as a very heinous and mortal crime, without all these cautions, to have or read a Bible in the Vulgar tongue, though it be in a version of their own. And if it be considered how liable to censure and dislike, the use of such Bible's are, in the Romish Communion, as their own Writers declare; it may thence be concluded, that many zealous Papists will be backward to desire any such thing, which others must not expect to obtain. And upon further consideration, of what difficulties may be expected, in the gaining this faculty, and the procuring the consent of those by whose authority and with whose advice it must be obtained; any reasonable man will discern, that such faculties are not like to be very common. 14. This prohibition is many ways evil. But such a prohibition is upon many accounts evil. First, It being a duty and pious practice for men to acquaint themselves with the Holy Scriptures, Psal. 1.2. Psal. 78.5, 6. Jo. 5.39. Act. 17.11. it is an opposition to God and goodness to deny them the liberty, to do that, which pleaseth him, and is their duty. Secondly, Since God gave this as one great gift to his Church, that they should have the Sacred Oracles of the Holy Scriptures, which they might all acquaint themselves with, (as our Lord said, they have Moses and the Prophets, Luk. 16.29.) and it is one of the advantages Christ hath bestowed on his Church, that they may have the knowledge of the Doctrine of the Gospel, as it was dictated by the infallible inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as will appear from n. 17. it is high injustice and sacrilegious fraud, to deprive the Members of the Christian Church, of that excellent good, which the will of Christ bequeathed to them, and is their right. Thirdly, The reading the Holy Scriptures being of such excellent usefulness to men, (as was observed n. 10, 11, 12.) this prohibition is a thing very uncharitable to men. Fourthly, The ground on which they proceed, that the use of the Scriptures, if generally permitted, is more to the prejudice, than advantage and benefit of men, when the Holy Spirit himself declares them to be greatly profitable, as was observed n. 12. this is to charge the wisdom of God with folly, as if in his great acts of favour and kindness, he had not wisely consulted the good of man; but had by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost made such Books public, which if the Church of Rome did not take care, that they might not come into the hands of the greatest part of men, would do a great deal of hurt to the World. And now I need not make remarks to show how little there is of piety in such things as these. 15. The Churches of God of old, steered another course, The Scriptures were generally allowed to be read by the Jews and ancient Christians, from this of the Romanists. That amongst the Jews at the time of our Saviour's coming, and his Apostles preaching, the people were not debarred the use of the Holy Scriptures, though they were clearly opposite to the Traditions and corrupt Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees, may appear from our Saviour's putting them upon searching the Scriptures, Jo. 5.39. from S. Peter's commending their taking heed to the sure word of prophecy, 2 Pet. 1.19. as also from the Bereans searching the Scriptures daily, Act. 17.11. and Timothy's having known them from a child, 2 Tim. 3.16. 16. That the ancient Christians had the Scriptures translated into the several languages of the Countries, in which there were any Christian Churches founded, is manifest from the testimonies of S. Hierome, S. chrysostom and Theodoret, which have been produced (u) In their Epistle prefixed to the Bible. by the Authors of our last English translation. In which they particularly mention the Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Armenians, Scythians, Aethiopians, Romans, Goths, and some others. And (w) Ep. ad Phil. p. 23. ed. Usser. Polycarp declares to the Church of the Philippians, to whom he writes, that he trusts they were exercised in the holy Scriptures. And (x) de Lazaro. chrysostom exhorts his Auditors, that they would diligently read the holy Scriptures at home in their houses: and the like is frequently done by S. Austin, and divers other the most eminent ancient Writers. Nor was the Scripture then forbidden to be read even by children: but Eusebius (y) Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. tells us how usefully, and to what good purpose, for the guiding and establishing of ●any Christians in the time of Persecution, Origen had been exercised in the holy Scriptures in his very childhood. 17. and were so designed of God. But we need go no further in this case than to the Holy Scriptures themselves. S. Paul directs his Epistle to the Church of Rome, Rom. 1.7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be Saints; and his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1.2. To the Church at Corinth, called to be Saints, with all that in every place call on the name of Christ; and his second Epistle to the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia, 2 Cor. 1.1. Now it is plain from hence, that he intended they might all know and read the matter of his Epistles; and that these (and consequently other) parts of the Canon of the holy Scripture, were not under a prohibition, that they might not be read by the major part of Christians. And when the hearers of S. Peter at Rome, as (z) Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 14. Eusebius relates, were not satisfied with hearing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Doctrine of the Divine declaration without writing, they prevailed with S. Mark, to write for them the sum of the Christian Doctrine, and leave it with them, and this their desire was very well approved by S. Peter. But let him who can conceive such strange things, suppose that to gratify their desire, of being rightly guided in the Christian Doctrine, and for their future instruction, when these teachers should remove to another place, the Gospel of S. Mark was left with them, but under such a prohibition, that none might read it, or know the particular contents thereof, unless he should obtain a particular faculty in writing from S. Peter, or S. Mark, to that purpose. And when S. Peter wrote his Epistles, that the Christians even after his decease, might have those things always in remembrance, 2 Pet. 1.12, 13, 15. and chap. 3.1, 2. it is something hard to imagine, how they should be able to make such use of these Epistles, as to keep in memory the Christian truth and precepts, if they were not permitted to read them, or to know the contents thereof. And when Saint John's Gospel was written, Joh. 20.31. that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing they may have life through his name; surely no man can think, that what was written for this purpose, might not be read for the same purpose, by those who were concerned to believe and obtain life. 18. Some of the Church of Rome have pretended, Pretended reverence reflected on. that they show reverence to the holy Scriptures, and treat them as Sacred things with veneration, when they take care, they may not come into the hands of every common person. But a due reverence to any Divine institution, is not to forbid it to the generality of Christians, but to take care that there be a diligent and pious use thereof. Thus a right veneration to the solemn worship of God, and the holy Sacraments, is not performed in prohibiting Christians to attend thereupon, and partake thereof, but in their devout communicating in these duties of Religion. 19 But the chief thing objected is, that by the use of the Scriptures, many are led into errors and vain opinions: and the danger of heresy by the Scriptures being translated, is insisted on by (a) de Diu. Script. quavis lingua non legendis. Ledesima, and other Writers of the Papists; and they take care to provide against this miscarriage. To this I answer. 1. The plea of avoiding error, is ill made in this case, by them who keep all of their communion who read not the Scriptures, blindfold under so many and great errors. The Objection from the abuse of the Scriptures by some men to promote Heresies, considered. 2. The Scriptures are indeed very proper to lead men into that truth, which they unjustly call heresy, in that as an excellent rule, they discover to diligent, pious and unpiejudiced enquirers, what is strait and what is crooked. And Ledesima the Jesuit acknowledgeth, that when the Protestants took counsel for the translating the Scriptures, and the dispersing them abroad, this was a most apt and fit means to promote their interest; (b) ibid. c. 1. de sacrorum librorum version, consilio ad eam rem appositissimo, omnibus promulganda, inter ipsos haereticos agitari est coeptum. Now it is some honour to the Protestant cause, that the Scriptures do so much favour them, that the having them made known to all men, is so apt a means to promote their interest. And when for this cause the Romanists design to keep them secret, the politickness of this contrivance may be some advantage to their cause, as to Us interest amongst men, but it is withal a great disparagement to it with respect to its truth and goodness. 20. Thirdly, If some men do miscarry by their vanity, in wresting the Scriptures to serve their errors, this is no just reason to prohibit the general use of a thing so excellent. If some men eat to surfeit themselves, or use their understandings to abett error, and to cheat others by overreaching them; or shall yield their eyes to behold vanity, their ears to be pleased with lewd discourse, or their wills to choose evil; must the greater part of men be forbidden to eat, to consider, or to choose any thing at all, and must their eyes be blindfolded, and their ears stopped, lest they should abuse them to evil? And the like might be urged concerning the use of men's hands, tongues, and almost of all natural and acquired perfections, and also of the profession of Christianity and the means of grace. And since the right knowledge of God and Religion, are things of so great excellency and high benefit; there is the less reason why the best means to obtain them should be rejected, because they may possibly be abused. 21. Fourthly, The Scriptures read with piety and humility, are excellently fitted to improve those who read them, in wisdom and goodness. And the goodness and purity which they recommend, and the eternal interests they propose, and the authority of God they bring along with them, have a great influence, through the grace of God there tendered, to work these humble and pious dispositions. And therefore though some men may err and miscarry, and be bad by abusing them; it is far more probable that they should do amiss, who either want, or neglect the diligent and frequent use, of such an excellent help. (c) Praef. in Epist. ad Rom. S. chrysostom observes that a vast multitude of evils proceed from the ignorance of the Scriptures, and amongst others, he mentions the pest of Heresy and a bad life. And S. Austin, while he was speaking of the excellency of the holy Scriptures, and the great benefit of the use of them, saith (d) de Tempore Serm. 112. saepius caecus offendit quam videns; the blind man, or he who wants the advantage of seeing by the light, more frequently stumbles than he who can see. 22. Fifthly, The wisdom of God hath thought fit, to place man in such a condition in this world, even under the Covenant of grace, that he is not out of all capacity of offending, in any case or circumstances. They had a great privilege who heard the words of the Gospel, from the mouth of the holy Jesus himself, or his Apostles; but this great blessing might be ill used by bad men, who were far from being benefitted thereby, if they were perverse and obstinate. And they who enjoyed these great advantages, if they were not careful and diligent to make a good improvement of them, were the more highly guilty, and under the more heavy condemnation. And so all ministerial helps; and even various and frequent influences and aids of divine grace, may be abused by ill disposed men, and so may be also the Holy Scriptures, by man who is a creature endued with liberty and choice. And it hath pleased God thus to order the state of man in the world, that the performance of his duty, by the Divine assistance, may be an act of his care and choice. Hereby his obedience becomes a virtue, and himself capable of reward or punishment in the performing or neglecting it. But there are no means or motives which men do enjoy, which more usefully conduce, to the promoting goodness, holiness and piety, than the holy Scriptures do. And there is no more reason to reject the use of them from any persons, because they may by some be wrested and used amiss, than there is to condemn the use of any other excellent means of piety, for the like reason; and to disapprove of the circumstances under which God hath placed man under the Gospel. 23. Amongst the Papists, Vulgar Translations have been very sparing. But besides what respects the rule above mentioned, in the Index of Books prohibited, the Church of Rome hath used another way of debarring the people from the use of the Holy Scriptures; in being very sparing, of having any allowed translation into vulgar languages, composed by men of their own Communion. They take care that even (e) Breviar. Rom. passim. such lessons as are read out of any part of Scripture, in their public Service, may not be read in the Common or Vulgar tongue of the Country. This Bellarmine acknowledgeth and asserteth to be prohibited, (f) Bell. de Verb. Dei. l. 2. c. 15. Prohibetur ne in publico & communi usu Ecclesiae, Scripturae legantur vel canantur vulgaribus linguis. And in this he referreth to the (g) Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 8. Council of Trent, which declares that it is not fit, ut (Missa) vulgari passim lingua celebraretur. And the word Missa here, (as very frequently) is not confined solely, to that which is peculiar to the Eucharist, but it takes in the whole public Service. To this purpose (h) De Eucharist. l. 5. c. 1. Bellarmine observes, Missa accipitur pro tota celebratione divini officii, in quo Eucharistia consecrabatur, ut comprehendit simul Missam Catechumenorum, & haec est communissima acceptio. And hence such portions of Scripture as are parts of the public service, are included in that rule and Constitution, which relates to the whole. And the (i) de Verbo Del, c. 15. Cardinal declares, that what is done by the Protestants, is a real and practical asserting their heretical opinion against the Church, whilst they ordinarily translate the Scriptures into the Germane, French and English tongues, and publicly read and sing them in the same tongues. In England before the Reformation, I know of no allowed translation into English, made by any whom they own to be of their Communion. That of Wiclef though out of the Vulgar Latin, must not be owned as such. Since the Reformation, the Romanists have translated the Testament into English: but though these Books may be procured by some few persons, they are not easily had by very many. And it is probable that in some Popish Countries they may have no translation of the Scriptures into their Vulgar tongue to this time, which carrieth any public approbation or allowance with it. 24. A third impediment of piety in the Romish Church, 3. Of their public Service and Prayers, in a tongue not understood by the people. which I shall instance in, is their having the public Prayers, and the administration of the Offices of the Church, in a language not understood by the people, which is a great hindrance to their devotion. That this practice is generally used, and is established and appointed in the Church of Rome, is sufficiently known, and is manifest from the foregoing Section. But that the Primitive Church did generally own the fitness and usefulness, of having the public service and Prayers of the Church, in a language understood by the common people, is evident enough, from what was then practised and established. Public Offices in the Primitive Church were performed in a tongue commonly understood. In a great part of the Eastern Church, where the Greek language was then the common speech of the Country, as is well known, and doth appear from the popular Homilies of the Greek Fathers, which they spoke in that language: they had their public prayers and service of the Church in the Greek tongue, and not in the Latin; and some of the ancient Liturgies, then used in that tongue, are still extant. And in that part of the Western Church in which the Latin was then the Vulgar or commonly known language, as in Italy and many other parts, the public prayers and service were performed in that tongue, and not in the Greek, or any other not commonly known in that Country. And this is proved from those parts of the ancient Latin Offices which are still preserved. 25. But in such other Countries, where neither of these languages were commonly known, there are sufficient instances of the use of other languages which were known. In those Eastern parts where the Syriack language obtained, they had their public Offices in that language. And a Collection of sixteen Syriack Offices, are declared by (k) Gabr. Sionit. de Ritib. Maronit. in init. Gabriel Sionita to be in a Manuscript in his possession, many of which were used together in the same Church; and others probably in other Churches and in other Ages. And after the first Centuries, when the Arabic and the Coptick or Egyptian language prevailed much in Egypt, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria, they had also the Coptick Liturgies as (l) In Epist. ad Nihusium praef. Rituali Cophticarum. Athanasius Kircherus testifies. And that part which might seem least needful to be in the Vulgar tongue, which concerns the Ordination of their Ecclesiastical Officers, who might be presumed to understand other tongues, was translated by Kircher into Latin, out of a very ancient Manuscript, in which all the Ritual was in the Coptick tongue, except the exhortations which were in the Arabic. This translation was by Kircher sent to Nihusius 1647, and by him published five or six years after. And several other Liturgical forms, both in Syriack and other languages used in those Eastern Churches, are mentioned by Ecchellensis, in the account he gives of several Authors and Books, written in those languages, in the end of his Eutychius vindicatus. And I doubt not but further proof may be given of this matter, That the people might understand the Service. care was taken by the Imperial Law. by them who have the opportunity of seeing and consulting such Writers. 26. To this general and practical testimony of the Church, in former ages, I shall add three particular testimonies, but all of them of a public nature, all which acknowledged the usefulness, of the people understanding the public Offices of the Church; and in the two former there was care taken thereof. The first is out of the Imperial Law: in (o) Justin. Novel. 137. c. 6. which it is enacted, that the Bishops and Priests should express the Prayers at the holy Communion and at Baptism, with a voice that might be heard by the faithful people; for the raising the souls of the hearers into a greater devotion, and affectionate giving glory to God. And then that Law citeth the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understands not what thou sayest? Which imperial Law takes care, that the Prayers of the Church may be understood by the people for their profit, providing that the words thereof should be audibly pronounced, and supposing these Prayers to be expressed (as they then were) in a language commonly understood. A second testimony is from the Roman Pontifical, in which was continued down to the Council of Trent, by the Roman Pontifical. a direction at the Ordination of Lectors, as is noted in (p) Hist. Con c. Trid. l. 6. p. 470. the History of that Council, ut studeant distinct & articulate legere, ut à populo intelligantur. From whence it is easily collected, that when that Pontifical was composed, the service of the Roman Church was then in that language, which was understood by the people; and the sense of the Roman Church then was that it was requisite it should be understood: and by its authority it took care that it might be so expressed as to be understood. But when after some time, the Latin tongue by degrees grew out of vulgar use, especially under the various Mutations in the Empire, there was then want of care to order the expressions of the public service to be such, as would suit the capacities of the people. 27. The third testimony is, from the Council of Trent: which declares, (q) Sess. 22. cap. 8. Etsi Missa contineat magnam populi eruditionem, Patribus tamen visum non expedire, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur. Quamobrem retento Ecclesiae Romanae ritu, ne oves Christi esuriant, mandant Pastoribus, ut, inter Missarum celebrationem, aliquid ex iis quae in Missa leguntur exponant, What the Council of Trent acknowledge. praesertim festis diebus. Though the public Service or Mass contains much instruction for the people, it doth not seem fit to the Fathers that it should be usually celebrated in the Vulgar tongue. Wherefore retaining the rites of the Church of Rome, they command the Pastors, that, in the time of its celebration, they expound somewhat of those things which are read in the Mass, especially upon Festival days. Now here is an acknowledgement, that it is for the benefit of the people to understand the Service for their instruction, and yet a course is taken, that a main part thereof should not be understood, that they may still keep up the Romish usage, which hath for many ages thus practised. Only they shall be suffered to understand so much of what is contained therein, as may keep them from famishing. 28. But these words seem to carry along with them, some intimation of guilty consciences in this decision. As if a Physician should declare, that he knows such a Medicine to be mighty useful, to recover his Patient to his health, but however he doth not intent he shall have it, but he may apply to him such a part of the ingredients, as will keep him alive (and yet possibly he may be mistaken herein). Or this is something like, as if a Judge when he had considered a Case of right, concerning a temporal estate, should declare that there is a very fair and ample Patrimony, that belongs to Sempronius, and he ought to have the profit thereof: but nevertheless it seems fit to him, that Sempronius should not enjoy this Estate, that so no alterations may be made in present possessions. However he adjudgeth them who keep him out of his Patrimony, and debar him of his right, at some times, and especially upon festival days, to give Sempronius some such relief, as themselves shall think fit, for the satisfying his hunger, lest he should be famished for want of all supply of food. Now if such a Physician's practice be honest dealing, and the determination of such a Judge be doing justice in secular interests; then hath this Council done right to the members of the Church, and determined this case according to the rules of Christian integrity. For as it is the duty of the Pastors to feed the sheep of Christ, so it is the right of the sheep or people, to receive this food, and therefore to deny them much of that, which is acknowledged proper for them, is to defraud them of that, which justly belongs unto them. 29. But that the public Prayers of the Church, Public Service in a known language greatly useful. should be in a language commonly understood by the people, is both reasonable and suitable to the public Service, and greatly useful and profitable to promote piety and edification. For the public Worship of God rightly performed, is a great part of practical Religion. And devoutness therein, is both an eminent exercise of piety, and hath a great influence upon the minds of men to fix in them pious dispositions for the right ordering the whole course of life. This devoutness is a vigorous, lively and holy exercise of the mind and affections, and the whole man towards God, and in his service: and whilst fit and proper words would tend much to excite the people hereunto, this advantage is lost in the use of an unknown tongue, which is to no more purpose to him that understands it not, than if nothing at all was spoken. And what is here said by the defenders of the Romish practice, doth generally confute itself. Sometimes it is said, (r) Coster. Enchir. c. 17. p. 496, 497. Nonest necessum à vulgo intelligi, etc. that it is not needful the people should understand the Prayers and Hymns of the Church, because they are not intended to instruct the people by understanding the words, but suavi melodia, majestateque actionis, by the sweet melody and majesty of the action, The plea, that Prayers are not to instruct the people, considered, to dispose them to Religious reverence towards God. But if words in the worship of God be not needful to be understood, what need is there of any words at all, when grave actions and melodious sounds are sufficient? But if it be said, that words being understood by the Priests and learned men, are useful to quicken their devotion, and to fix and unite their minds, in joining together in the same supplications and praises in public Service; it is easy to observe, that this might have the same effect upon the devoutly disposed people, if the Prayers and other parts of the Service, were in a language which they understood. And therefore it must either be granted, that it is unnecessary that any should understand the particular expressions of the Service, and then it is to no purpose to use any language at all; or else that it is desirable that all should understand it. 30. Sometimes we are told that it is requisite the public Service should be in Latin, (s) Coster. Enchir. ubi sup. because otherwise Priests; who come out of other Countries, could not celebrate the Offices, neque promiscue laudes Dei decantare, nor jointly with others sing the praises of God. But surely such Priests though they should not understand the language, may as well join in the praises of God, as the people at home can do in the language they understand not. And this charitable consideration towards foreign Priests, might be extended so far, and the care concerning foreign Priests. as to prove (if it had any weight in it) that the service of the Romish Church, aught to be in Arabic, that if any Priests should come from those Eastern parts, where that language is understood, and the Latin is not; they might bear a part in the service. But if this would be ridiculous, when by this method the generality even of the Priests at home would not understand it, let it be considered what tolerable account can be given, why they should hinder the generality of the people from understanding it; especially when the Apostle himself hath so plainly determined, that when prayers or praises are in an unknown tongue, The Apostolical precept observed. the unlearned Auditor cannot so well join therein, and his edification is thereby prejudiced, 1 Cor. 14.16, 17. And what the Apostle speaks in that Chapter, doth plainly disallow the use of an unknown tongue in the public worship of God, though they who spoke, spoke by the extraordinary gift of tongues; which thing was apt to excite the Christian Auditory, to a particular admiration of the Divine gifts, and so might well be esteemed an extraordinary general help to devotion, and adoration. And the particular exceptions, against this plain and full Apostolical testimony, are so inconsiderable, and have been so oft refuted, that I think them not worthy to be named. 31. But (e) Ledesim. de Scrip. qu. Ling. non legendis. c. 13. Coster. Ench. c. 17. several Writers of the Romish Church tell us, that it is not necessary, the people should understand the expressions of the public prayers and praises (and consequently not say Amen to them) because these services are not directed to them, but to God: and they may partake of the benefit of these services, though they do not understand them, Bellarm de Verb. Dei, l. 2. c. 16. as an ignorant Country man may have received advantage from a Latin Speech spoken on his behalf to a Prince, Of the pretence that prayers are directed to God, and not to the people. by whom it is well understood; or as absent persons may be advantaged by the prayers, which others put up for them, though themselves do not hear them. But that this is an insufficient defence may appear, 1. Because though the Lessons are directed to the people, yet these also are read in a tongue they understand not. 2. Because the thing here to be considered, is not whether one may not be benefited by another's prayers and Religious addresses to God; which is supposed to be true, when we pray for one another: but we are here to take notice, whether the people ought notto bear a part, and to join in those great exercises of Religious piety, of prayers, thanksgiving and glorifying God, in the right performance of his public worship and service. For the whole exercise of Divine worship, is not only to seek for blessings from God, but also to praise him and glorify him, which the people cannot particularly join in, and go along with, unless they understand what is expressed in the service. And therefore if they ought to join therein; by being debarred from understanding it, they are hindered from these acts of piety, which they ought to perform, and God is deprived of a great part of that glory that is due to him; and consequently Religion and piety are much prejudiced thereby. 32. Now it may be reasonably presumed, The people are concerned toworship God. that if the people have such beings and souls, as are endued with capacities of worshipping and glorifying God, they ought to be employed to this purpose: but if they have none such (which would be to suppose them not to be Christians or men, and to be uncapable of doing acts of duty and Religion, and of receiving rewards) then will they not be concerned to attend Gods public worship. And these pleas used by these Writers, are as plausible, to excuse their absence from the public Assemblies, as their not understanding the public Service. But that the people are to join in the duties of Religious worship, is not only supposed by S. Paul, in that discourse upon this subject, 1 Cor. 14. but may be proved from the Psalms, and many other Scriptures, calling upon all people, to praise, and laud and glorify God, and from S. John's Visions of the Gospel-Church, where sometimes the 144000, sometimes so great a multitude as no man could number, are represented joining together in the worship of God. 33. But a thing so manifest as this is, stands in need of no further proof, siince there are such frequent precepts for prayer, thanksgiving, and giving glory to God, directed to all Christians. And the Christian Church from the beginning acknowledged the people to be much concerned, in the performing the public worship of God. (u) Just. Apol. 2. Justin Martyr declares, how in the prayers before the Eucharist, all the Christians together risen up, and presented those prayers, and in those at the Eucharist they joined their consent by answering, Amen. Tertullian declaring the Christian practice, saith, (w) Tert. Apol. c. 39 we go together to the Assembly and Congregation, ut ad Deum quasi manu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes, that we may earnestly call on God by prayers as with a joint strength; and this force (saith he) is acceptable to God. And before both these Ignatius urging and commending the public service, said, (x) Ign. Ep. ad Eph. if the prayer of one or two hath so great a force, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how much greater is that of the Bishop and the whole Church? And in the Primitive times sometimes an Amen, and sometimes other responsals, were directed to the people, in the ancient Liturgies. The result of all this is, that whereas the people's actual joining in the several parts of God's worship is a great part of their duty, and the pious and devout performance of it, both tends to the honour of God, and to their edification; the present Church of Rome by establishing their service in a tongue not understood by the people, both unjustly and impiously hinders the due worship of God, and that piety of men which is conjoined with it; and derived from it. 34. I might give a fourth instance, Immoral Doctrines hinted at. of the hindrances to an holy life, in the Church of Rome, from those lose rules of practice delivered by divers of their Doctors and Casuists, and the allowance their rules give, to those gross enormities and heinous vices, which the Philosophers and virtuous Pagans would abhor, being opposite to the laws of nature, and that honesty which prevailed amongst the better part of the Gentiles. Of such things as these a large account hath been given, in the Mystery of Jesuitism, and several other Books: as their giving allowance to perjury, Murder, and other such heinous sins, upon slight occasions, as to preserve one's reputation, and the like. And what endeavours have been used by the doctrine of probability, and other methods, to uphold those positions which debauch Morality, hath been manifested from the Books of Father Bauny, Caramovel, Estrix, and divers others. It is acknowledged that vigorous endeavours were used by some of their Bishops, to suppress these wretched Principles of immorality, but there was as earnest and vigorous diligence used to uphold the same by many Casuists and Divines, especially in Flanders, and France. I do not therefore charge these Principles upon the Church of Rome in general, but upon many Doctors therein. Some of these abominable and immoral positions were condemned by Pope Alexander the Seventh, and many were Sentenced by Pope Innocent the Eleventh, and the Inquisition at Rome: of the latter of which I shall take some particular notice. 35. Amongst sixty five Propositions, condemned in the Vatican (y) Decree of Innoc. 11. March. 2. 1679. by the Pope and the Cardinals, the general Inquisitors, these were some, (z) Prop. 5. That we dare not condemn him of mortal sin, who should but once in his whole life, put forth an act of the love of God, (a) Prop. 10, 11. We are not bound to love our Neighbour with an internal and formal act; We may satisfy the precept of loving our Neighbour by only external acts. (b) Prop. 15. It is lawful for a Son to rejoice at his having murdered his Father when he was drunk, because of the great riches thence accrueing to him by Inheritance. (c) Prop. 17. It is sufficient to have an act of faith once in the life time; (d) Prop. 24. To call God to witness to a light lie, is not so great irreverence, that for it he either will or can damn a man. Now such horrid Positions as these, and many others in the same Decree, deserve the severest Censure, and it may amaze any one, that such things should be asserted, by those who take upon them to instruct others, in the Principles and Practices of Christianity. And what wretched lives may they lead, whose practices are directed by such Guides? 36. Now though these Positions are condemned to be at least scandalous and pernicious in practice, and therefore all persons are in that Decree strictly forbidden to practise upon them, and all who shall maintain them are declared to be under the Sentence of Excommunication: Yet this very Sentence is too kind and favourable to the Authors of these Positions upon a threefold account. First, In that such impious and irreligious Doctrines were not condemned as false, wicked, blasphemous or heretical, but only as at least scandalous and pernicious in practice, which is but a very mild Censure of these Doctrines themselves; and speaks no more against them, than is declared against some other positions contained in the same Decree, which are not so abominable. For instance, (e) Prop. 19 That the will cannot effect; that the assent of faith should be more firm in itself, than the weight of the reasons which move to that assent do deserve: and (f) Prop. 42. That it is not usury to require something besides the Principal, as being due out of benevolence and gratitude, but only when it is demanded as due out of justice. For whatsoever may be said against these Positions, it is a gentle and easy Censure of the other, to put them in the same rank with these, and under no heavier condemnation. Secondly, In that the authors of these unchristian Doctrines, and those who till the time of this Decree, have taught them and maintained them, are not by this, nor so far as I can learn, by any other Decree brought under any public censure which may embolden and encourage others, to vent other wicked Principles against common morality in time to come, though but with a little variation from the same. Thirdly, In that the Books in which these wicked Principles are contained, and owned, are not by this Decree, and I think by no other, prohibited to be read; no not so far as the holy Scriptures themselves are under a prohibition. SECT. III. Those Doctrines and Practices are publicly declared and asserted in the Church of Rome, and are by the Authority thereof established, which are highly derogatory to the just honour and dignity of our Saviour. Sect. III 1. Dishonour done to Christ THose practices and opinions which vilify the dignity, and authority of Christ are infamous, and bring a deserved dishonour upon the authors of them, and on them who embrace them. And as he is worthy of all glory, so his Church and the members thereof, are deservedly zealous of his honour. But herein the Romanists miscarry, which I shall manifest in some particulars. 2. by Invocating Saints, First, In their prayers and supplications to Saints and Angels: their practice herein, being not consistent with the honour due to our Lord, as our Advocate and Intercessor. This invocation of Saints, is declared by (a) Sess. ult. the Council of Trent to be good and profitable. And in the Oath enjoined by Pius the Fourth, (b) in Bull. Pli 4. to be taken of all the Clergy, a profession is required, that the Saints are to be worshipped and invocated: and in the public Offices of the Romish Church, both in their prayers, and more especially and fully in their hymns, supplications for all manner of Heavenly blessings, are put up unto them. (c) Cassand. Consult. de Cult. Sanct. Cassander indeed tells us, that these things are not done for any such intent, as if praying to them, should be thought simply necessary to salvation. And in the same discourse he declares, that they did not adjoin the Saints, as if God either could not or would not hearken, and show mercy, unless they be intercessors for it. But it is well known, that his mild and moderate expressions, are displeasing to the greater part of that Church. And however, though the error in Doctrine is the greater, when that is declared necessary which is not so; the error in practice is not the less, if in doing that which is on other accounts , it be declared not necessary to be done. 3. Now the blessed Jesus is constituted of God, and confidence in their intercession and merits. our Advocate and Intercessor, that we may in his name, and through him, draw nigh to God: And it is part of his Kingly authority, and headship over his Church, to dispense those blessings for which we seek unto God in his name; and he is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and remission of sins, Act. 5.31. But in many Books of Devotion, used and approved by the Church of Rome, their addresses are much more frequent to Saints, and sometimes to Angels, and especially and most frequently to the Blessed Virgin, than to our Lord and Saviour himself; and to these they apply themselves, that by them they may find acceptance with God, and that by their merits they may obtain help, grace and blessing. And even the title of intercessor and advocate also, is ofttimes given to them, both in the more ancient Offices, and in the present Roman Breviary, together with expressions of trust and confidence in their merits, frequently joined with them. On S. Andrew's day they (d) in Missal. sec. us. Sarum & in Brev. pray with respect to him: Sit apud te pro nobis perpetuus intercessor; that he may be with thee for us a perpetual Intercessor. And the blessed Virgin is styled (e) Br. Rom. ad complete. a Vesp. Trin. our Advocate. And they some times with respect to a Saint use such expressions as these in their addresses to God, Ejus intercedentibus meritis, ab omnibus nos absolve peccatis, (f) ibid. Com. Confess. Pont. Absolve us from all our sins, through the intercession of his merits. And with respect to Pope Nicholas, both in the present Roman Breviary, and in the Office secundum usum Sarum which was most in use in this Kingdom before the Reformation, is a prayer for the sixth of December, that by his merits and prayers we may be freed from the fire of Hell. And of this nature numerous instances may be given. And such like expressions concerning the Saints, and applications to them, encroached so far upon our Saviour's Intercession, and being our Advocate, that with respect hereto, Cassander says of divers of the Romish Communion; (g) Cassand. Consult. de mer. & interces. Sanctorum. They pretend that they only desire their prayers. But 1. It is unknown to us, that they know our desires. advocationis Christi officio obscurato, Sanctos atque imprimis Virginem Mariam in illius locum substituerunt, that the Office of Christ's Advocateship being obscured by them, they substituted the Saints and principally the Virgin Mary in his place. 4. But the most considerable men who writ in defence of this practice declare, that they only invocate the Saints to obtain the assistance of their prayers, but First, If this was true, and no more was either intended by the Church of Rome, or practised by its members, yet there is no assurance that particular Saints departed know our particular wants and supplications and desires; and much more may they be unacquainted with that inward devoutness, and pious temper of soul, which doth qualify men for the obtaining the favour of God, and his heavenly blessings. And a wise man would not think it reasonable, to place any considerable dependence in a special case, upon the care and assistance of such a friend, who is at a distance from him, and of whom he hath no sufficient ground of confidence, that he knows any thing either of his need or of his special desire from him. The ways assigned by the Romanists, to declare how the Saints departed are acquainted with things here below, especially so far as to discern the special motions of the minds of all particular persons, are but expressions of great words without evidence: and the speculum Trinitatis may as well serve to show that the Angels in glory, were from the beginning of their confirmation in happiness acquainted with all things future, by seeing the face of our heavenly Father, (when yet our Lord declares, they knew not the time of the day of Judgement) as that the Saints in glory, have such a clear understanding of things and persons in this world. Now if they understand not our requests and desires, supplications directed to them, are not only imprudent, but an abuse of Religious Worship, by employing a considerable portion of it, and of our devotion therein, about that which at lest signifies nothing, but is wholly useless, and to no purpose. And to perform acts of Religion upon the uncertain supposition of this being true, (of which we can have no certain knowledge, and there is much to be said against it) is to show ourselves too forward to run the hazard, of being guilty of this miscarriage. 5. And whereas God and his Gospel doth instruct men, Our Religion gives no direction for such prayers. in the parts and duties of Religion, but hath given neither direction nor encouragement, to the invocation of Angels or Saints departed, or to perform any Religious Worship to them; it is no duty incumbent on men, to make such addresses to them; and in this case concerning the object of Religious worship, it is not their due to receive, what is not our duty to perform. And we may reasonably fear, lest God should account our giving such honour to those glorified creatures in Heaven, as to acknowledge them to know the desires of the hearts of men, and addressing ourselves to them thereupon, to be a misplacing that honour, which is only due to himself, and our blessed Saviour; and this might bring us under his displeasure. And when I consider, how frequently the Apostle desires the prayers of the Christian Churches on earth, and directs them to pray for one another, and to send to the Elders of the Church, to obtain their prayers: I cannot but think, that he would have been as forward to have directed Christians, to seek for the prayers of Saints departed (of which he speaks nothing) if he had accounted that to be lawful and useful; and from hence it may seem highly probable if not certain, that the Souls departed, do not understand, and are not particularly affected, with the requests and desires of men here below. Besides this, though I conceive holy Angels may be frequently present in the Assemblies of the Christian Church, I cannot think it allowable, though I had special assurance of their presence at any particular time; to direct the acts of public worship in that case sometimes to God and Christ and sometimes to them, in the same gesture of adoration, and especially in the use of such words of address to the Angels, (however they be understood) as may fitly be applied to Christ: For this would give too much of that homage to the Servant, which is due unto the Lord. 6. 〈◊〉 greatly honour the Saints departed. But we who do not direct our prayers and Religious supplications to Saints departed, have a high honour for them, endeavouring to follow their good examples, praising God for them, and hoping to be hereafter with them in the mansions of glory. And since their goodness and love is not diminished, but increased by their departure, and they are still members of the same body, I esteem them to have affectionate desires of the good of men upon Earth, and especially of pious men, who are fellow-members with them. And I account it one great privilege that I enjoy, from the Communion of Saints, that by reason of membership with the same body, I have an interest in the Religious supplications of all the truly Catholic part, of the diffusive Church Militant upon Earth, and in the holy Services of the triumphant part thereof in Heaven. I can also willingly admit what (h) Cyp. de Mortalitate, Magnus illic nos charorum numerus expectat, parentum, fratrum, filiorum— copiosa turba— adhuc de nostra salute sollicita. S. Cyprian sometimes expresseth, that departed friends have a particular desire of the good of their surviving relations; and what in another place he recommends (i) Epist. 57 ad Cornel. The Papists do directly pray for blessings to the Saints. , that departing Christians continue their affectionate sense of, and prayers for, the distressed part of the Church on Earth. But upon the foregoing considerations, this will not warrant Religious addresses to be directed to these Saints. 7. Secondly, The petitions used in the Romish Church, in their supplications to the Saints, do plainly express more than their desiring them to pray for them. I shall not insist on the high extravagances, in divers Books of Devotions, and in the Offices formerly used in some particular Churches, as that in the Missale sec. usum Sarum to the Virgin Mary (k) In Nativit. B. Matiae. , Potes enim cuncta, ut mundi Regina, & jura Cum nato omnia decernis in soecla, Thou canst do all things as the Queen of the World, and thou with thy Son determinest all rights for ever; which, with many expressions of as high a nature, place a further confidence in the Saints, and expectation from them, than merely to be helped by their prayers. But I shall instance in two or three expressions, in the present Roman Breviary. They apply themselves to S. Peter, (l) Br. Rom. Jun. 29. in Hymn. Peccati vincula Resolve tibi potestate tradita, Qua cunctis coelum verbo claudis, aperis; Lose the bonds of our sins, by that power which is delivered to thee, whereby by thy word, thou shutest and openest heavent to all men. And to all the Apostles, they direct their prayers on this manner (m) Br. Rom. in Commun. Apost. & in Festo S. Andr. Qui coelum verbo clauditis, Serasque ejus solvitis, nos à peccatis omnibus Solvite jussu quaesumus, Quorum praecepto subditur Salus & languor omnium, Sanate aegros moribus, nos reddentes virtutibus; Ye who by your word do shut up Heaven, and lose the bars thereof, we beseech you by your command lose us from all our sins, ye to whose command the health, and the weakness of all is subject, heal those who are sick in their life and practice, restoring us to virtue. I am apprehensive, that many may think these instances the less , because the expressions of them have a manifest respect to the commission and authority, which Christ gave to his Apostles, in the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of remitting and retaining sin: and the other Apostles are here owned to have the power of the keys as well as S. Peter. But that our Saviour's Commission to them, referred wholly to the Government of his Church upon Earth, is sufficiently manifest from those words both to S. Peter, and to all the Apostles, whatsoever thou, or ye shall bind on earth— and whatsoever ye shall lose on Earth. And though the Apostles are eminently exalted in the glory of the other world; yet to acknowledge them in Heaven, to acquit or condemn all men, and to receive them into Heaven, or exclude them from it, by their command, and by that power, which is committed to them, must include an owning them to be the full and complete Judges of the quick and the dead. 8. And since the Romish Church asserts all their Bishops, to derive and enjoy the same authority which was committed to S. Peter; and if this be not only an authority upon earth, but in the future state; then all their deceased Popes (and much to the same purpose may be urged concerning all Priests) must still enjoy the same heavenly power, which they ascribe to S. Peter, though there is great reason to fear, that divers of themselves never entered into Heaven. To these, other numerous instances might be added, of their prayers to the Blessed Virgin, and to other Saints for grace, pardon, protection, and to be received by them at the hour of death: and such instances have been largely and fully produced, by some of the worthy Writers of our own Church, and Chamier, and other Protestant Authors, and particularly by Chemnitius in his Examen Conc. Trid. 9 But when Cardinal Bellarmine discoursed of these supplications to the Saints, he particularly instanced in some, as that to the Virgin Mary, Tu nos ab host besiege, & hora mortis suscipe; do thou defend us from the enemy, and receive us at the hour of death; but will have them all to be understood, as desiring only the benefit of their prayers. But because the words they use, do not seem to favour this sense of his, he tells us (n) Bellarm. de Sanct. Beatitud. l. 1. c. 9 Notandum est nos non agere de verbis, sed de sensu verborum; It must be noted that we dispute not about the words themselves, but about the sense and meaning of them. Now I acknowledge it fit, that words should be taken in their true sense, being interpreted also with as much candour as the case will admit. Yet I shall observe, 1. That it cannot well be imagined, that when they expressly declare their hopes, of obtaining their petitions to the Saints, by their command, and by their power which is committed to them, which is owned sufficient for the performing these requests, as in the instances I mentioned, no more should be intended, than to desire the assistance of their prayers; and this gives just reason to suspect, that more is also meant in other expressions and prayers, according to the most plain import of the words. 2. That though some of the Doctors of the Roman Church, would put this construction upon the words of their prayers; yet it is manifest the people understand them, in the most obvious sense, so as to repose their main confidence upon the Saints themselves and their merits. This may appear from the words I above cited, n. 3. from Cassander, who also tells us that (o) Cass. Consu t. de Mer. & Interc. Sanct. homines non mali; men who were none of the worse sort, did choose to themselves certain Saints for their Patrons, and in eorum meritis atque intercessione, plus quam in Christi merito fiduciam posuerunt; they placed confidence in their merits and intercession, more than in the merits of Christ. 10. The invocation of Saints and Angels will appear the more unaccountable, No such practice in the Old Testament, by considering what is contained in the holy Scriptures, and the ancient practice of the Church of God. In the Old Testament there is no worshipping of Angels directed, though the Law was given by their ministration, and that state was more particularly subject to them, than the state of the Gospel is, as the Apostle declares, Heb. 2.5. In the Book of Psalms, which were the Praises and Hymns used in the public Worship of the Jews, there is no address made to any departed Saint, or even to any Angel; though the Jewish Church had no advocate with the Father in our nature, which is a peculiar privilege of the Christian Church, since the Ascension of our Saviour. That place in the Old Testament, which may seem to look most favourably towards the invocation of an Angel. Gen. 48.16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the Lads, is by many ancient Christian Writers not understood of a created Angel. But however it is to be observed that these words were part of the benediction of Jacob to the Sons of Joseph. Now a benediction frequently doth not exclude a prayer to the thing or person spoken of, but a desire of the good expressed, with an implicit application to God, that he would grant it. Thus in the next words, Gen. 48.16. Let my name be named on them, and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac; which contain no prayer to the names of his Fathers, or to his own. So Isaac blessed Jacob, Gen. 27.29. using these expressions, Let People serve thee and Nations bow down unto thee. And this Clause of Jacob's Benediction is well paraphrased by one of the (p) Targ. Jonath. in Gen. 48.16. Chaldee Paraphrasts, Let it be well pleasing before him (God) that the Angel, etc. But the Holy Angels themselves declared against the giving to them any acts of Worship, and refused to receive any such, both under the Old Testament, Judg. 13.16, 17, 18. and the New, Rev. 19.10. ch. 22.9. Yea the Apostle cautions against the worshipping of Angels, Col. 2.18. and the ancient Church prohibited it by her (q) Conc. Laodic. c. 35. nor in the New, Canons. 11. And in the Gospel God himself whose right it is to direct and appoint in whose name we should approach unto him, hath directed us to come to him, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hath encouraged us thereto, by promising that what we so ask he will give, Joh. 16.23, and that our Lord himself will do what we so ask, Joh. 14.13, 14. And that Christ is able to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him, and he ever lives to make intercession for them Heb. 7.25. And what further encouragement need be given or desired? But not a word is spoken, to direct us to any deceased Saint, or to any Angel, to make any of them our Intercessor. And this is the great encouragement proposed to us in approaching to God, that having a great Highpriest who is passed into the Heavens, Jesus the Son of God, and who can be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities, we may come boldly to the Throne of Grace, Hebr. 4.14, 15, 16, and that if any Man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous 1 Joh. 2.1. And in the Precepts our Saviour gives, to guide our Prayer and Worship, he directs us to refer them only to God, Matt. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; and Luke 11.2. when ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven. 12. And though S. Stephen suffered Martyrdom in a short time after our Saviour's Ascension; and S. James (whose Martyrdom (r) Annal. Eccl. an. 44. n. 2. Baronius places in the forty fourth year of Christ) and the Blessed Virgin also in all probability, died before the writing of any part of the New Testament: nor in the Primitive Church. Yet in all the New Testament where there are such frequent expressions of praying to and calling upon God, with Supplications to our Blessed Saviour, there is not the least intimation of any adoration, or invocation, to these eminent Saints or any others who were departed. And yet S. Paul assures us, that some of the Brethren who were Witnesses of our Saviour's Resurrection were fallen asleep before the time of his writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 15.6. And it hath been at large observed, and proved by sufficient evidence, that no genuine Writer of the first Centuries hath any thing in him to express or favour invocation of Saints. This is showed by (s) in Letter of Invocation of Saints. the Bishop of Lincoln, for the first three hundred years, and (t) Voss. Thes. Theol. Disp. 10. Vossius speaks of three hundred and seventy. After which time, some expressions were used, which made way for this practice; but yet no such thing was brought into any public Liturgy, for some hundred years after. 13. It may be here added, that if we consider the Saints they invocate, Of the Canonization of Saints. besides what Objections may be made against particular Persons, it may be noted, that the general Worship given to Saints, hath respect to all those who are Canonised by the Roman Bishop: And there is no sufficient reason to believe that all such are truly Saints. The form of Canonization declares the Person canonised (u) Sacr. Cerem. ut Sanctum à Christi fidelibus venerandum, that he is to be worshipped of Christians as a Saint. That none may receive public adoration but they who are canonised by the Pope, is owned by (w) De Sanct. Beat. c. 19 Bellarmine; who also declares, that (x) ib. c. 9 it is to be believed, that the Pope doth not err in Canonising. But he who believes the truth of this, must frame an higher notion of the Papal Infallibility than that Cardinal hath given us. For he tells us (y) de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. it is a thing agreed betwixt Catholics and Heretics, that the Pope as Pope and joined with all his Council, may err in matters of Fact, and such as depend on the information and testimony of men. He tells us indeed in the same place, that in propounding matters of Faith, or enjoining rules of Duty and Practice, he cannot err. But since no matter of Fact is more liable to mistake, than to discern whether a person be eminently and sincerely holy or no; especially as they proceed in the Church of Rome, where the Testimonies concerning their working Miracles are of great moment in this case; it may therefore according to the Cardinals own position, be thought at least doubtful, whether the Pope may not mistake in judging a Man to be truly a Saint, and then it may seem hard to believe, that all must needs be Saints whom he declares to be such by Canonization. 14. Of denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Laity, A Second Instance I shall here consider, is, That they at Rome debarr the people of the Cup in the Holy Communion, which was manifestly one part of that Holy Sacrament, as it was instituted, and commanded to be received, by our Saviour. And therefore this contains an Opposition to what was established by Christ. In the Church of Rome, both the Laity and the Clergy (except in ordinary Communions, only the person consecrating or, as they speak the conficient Priest) receive only the one element in the Eucharist, and not the other of the Cup. And though the Council of (b) Sess. 22. in fin. Trent wholly waved the determining this Question, concerning the Cup, Whether it might be granted to any of the Laity? And referred this wholly to the prudence of the Pope, who hath still continued the former use in one kind; yet that Council freely declared their sense, concerning the Doctrines and Rules of Duty, referring to the Sacrament. Here it declares, that (c) Sess. 21. c. 1. the Laity and the Clergy, who do not consecrate, are obliged by no Divine Precept to take the Eucharist in both kinds, and that it cannot be doubted salva fide, but that the Communion in one kind, is sufficient to Salvation; and that whole Christ and the true Sacrament is taken under either kind alone, and therefore they who so receive, are deprived of no grace necessary to Salvation. And they so declare these things, with others concerning the Sacrament, that if any person shall speak contrary thereto, even to say that the Catholic Church was not moved by just (or sufficient) reasons, in ordering the Laity and Clergy who do not consecrate, to communicate only under the Species of bread, he shall be under an Anathema; and they also forbidden all Christians for the future— ne de iis aliter credere audeant; that they do not dare to believe otherwise of these things. But that which is here to be enquired and examined is, Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought not according to the institution of Christ and by his authority, to be administered in both kinds? 15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament, against Christ's Institution: in both kinds of Bread and Wine, is so plain from the words of its Institution, that this is acknowledged in the (d) Ubi sup. c. 1. Council of Trent. And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup, seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church. (e) Sacris, etc. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ. Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum, Dedit & tristibus sanguinis poculum, Dicens, Accipite quod trado vasoulum, Omnes ex eo bibite. Sic Sacrificium istud instituit. He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail, to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood, saying, Take this Cup which I deliver, drink ye all of it. Thus did he institute that Sacrifice. These expressions have a particular respect to that Command concerning the Cup, Matt. 26, 27. Drink ye all of it. And it may be further observed, that those words in the Institution, Do this in remembrance of me, are a Precept, which hath special respect to the receiving both the kinds, both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words, Do this, to establish the whole Institution, that as (f) Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expresseth their sense, ut hoc faciamus quod fecit & Dominus,— & ab eo quod Christus & docuit, & fecit, non recedatur; that we should do what our Lord did, and should not departed from what Christ taught and did: Yet these words have a more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament. For Do this, etc. in S. Luke, and S. Paul, comes in the place of take, eat, etc. in S. Matt. and S. Mark: and in these words of S. Paul, Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me; the words, as oft as ye drink it, do plainly import thus much, that the Command do this, in that place, doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup. 16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome, acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians, that from hence (g) de Consecrat. di. 2. c. 7. Cum omne. Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses, which had in some places been entertained: Insomuch that he declares against delivering the Bread dipped in the Cup; upon this reason, because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels, concerning the Master of truth, who when he commended to his Apostles, his Body and his Blood, Seorsum panis, seorsum & calicis commendatio memoratur; his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct. And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity, is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians, where he useth this as an Argument, to all particular Christians, against communicating in any Idolatrous Worship, 1 Cor. 10.21. ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils: And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned. And the Council of Trent (h) Sess. 21. c. 2. owns, that from the beginning of Christianity, the Sacrament was given in both kinds. But they following much the steps of the Council of Constance, account neither the Institution of Christ, nor the practice of the ancient Church, to be in this case any necessary guide, but they declare, the custom then received, to be changed upon just reasons. 17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ, might be eluded, and a Mist cast before the Sun, divers Romanists, and particularly (i) de Euchar. l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communicants. Bellarmine, declare, that Christ's command, drink ye all of it, was given to the Apostles only, and not to all Communicants. To which I answer 1. That the Apostles, at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament, were not consecrating, but communicating; and therefore the Command given to them, as receiving the Sacrament, is a rule for Communicants, Which binds all Communicants. and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest: And indeed the ancient Church made no such distinction in this case, between Priest and People, but acknowledged, as (k) Chrys. Hom. 18. in 2 Epist. ad Corinth. S. chrysostom expresseth it, that the same Body is appointed for all, and the same Cup: And agreeable hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England, which declare (l) Art. 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, aught to be ministered to all Christian men alike. 2. That this device would serve as effectually (if it were considerable) to take away the Bread, with the Cup, from the people, that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them. 3. The Command of Christ, with the reason annexed, Matt. 26.27, 28. Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins; doth give sufficient light to discern, to whom this Precept is designed; to wit, to all them, who desire to partake in the Communion of the blood of the New Testament, for the Remission of sins, and that is to all Communicants in that Sacrament. 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. plainly applies Christ's Command, concerning the Cup, to all who come to the Holy Communion; in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution, concerning the Cup, he immediately says to the Corinthians, For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lord's Death till he come. And he reinforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup, indefinitely to all who are to Communicate, v. 28. Let a Man (not only the Priest) examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup. 18. But here, the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Church's authority and power in the Sacrament (m) Ubi sup. c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum, salva illorum substantia, statuere, vel mutare; to appoint and change things, in dispensing the Sacraments, still preserving their substance. And they seem to intimate, that the Communion in both kinds, No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People. is not of the substance of the Sacrament, because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind. But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacrament, we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept, and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament, according to his Institution: The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature; and therefore to change this, is not within the Church's authority. 2. They may as well say, that whole Christ is in one kind, and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup, as that therefore there needs no distribution: And so the Cup may be wholly rejected, with as much Piety, as the Laity are now deprived of it. 3. What is contained in the Sacrament, is contained in it according to the Will of Christ, and his Institution; and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ, and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16. And (n) Ration. l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert, that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host; because the Bread signifies the Body, and not the Blood. So he with somewhat more to this purpose. And this is the more considerable, because in the Holy Eucharist, the death of Christ is represented, and in the Cup, his Blood, as shed. And Gelasius, who was once Bishop of Rome, when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup, declared what then it seems was Catholic Doctrine at Rome, that they must either receive the whole Sacrament, or be rejected from the whole, because (o) de Consec. Dist. c. 2. comperimus. divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire; the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacrilege. Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome, than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations, either of Gratian, of Binius, or Baronius. And we have also much greater authority than his: For besides what I have above mentioned, this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord, and delivered to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11. 23-25. and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians, that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them, v. 2. 19 And what is asserted in the Council of Trent, that the Church had just reason, to order the Communion in one kind; and what others say, that it is more profitable to Christians, and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance; must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's, who did not know or consider, with so much prudence as they do, what is fit to be appointed, and established in his Ordinance. And since the Holy Ghost declared, both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to show forth Christ's death till he come, 1 Cor. 11.26. they must therefore be both used to this purpose, until his second coming, and then no power was left to any Church, to alter and change this institution. And whilst some pretend reverence to God, and this Sacrament, in taking away the Cup from the people, it would be considered, that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience. But if pretences of honouring God, in acts of disobedience, could render actions commendable, saul's Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt, and the Doctrine of the Pharisees, for the observing their vow of Corban, must have been esteemed a Religious assertion. 20. A third Instance I shall consider; Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice, of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass; which is derogatory to Christ's own Priestly oblation, whereby he once offered himself a complete Sacrifice of expiation. But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares, that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium, a truly propitiatory Sacrifice, and that it is offered both for the sins, punishments and other necessities of the living Christians, and also for the dead in Christ, who are not fully purged. And it pronounced an Anathema against him, who shall say, in missa non offerri Deo verum & proprium sacrificium; that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice, or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead. And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross. And the (q) Catech. ad paroch. jux dec. Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith, that this Sacrifice of the Mass, doth not only contain an efficacious meriting, but a satisfying also; and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfy. So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfy. And the Council of (r) Anath. 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions. 21. Now it is acknowledged, that that perfect Sacrifice, which Christ himself once offered, is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion, and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant: and on this account this Sacrament especially, is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense; The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice. as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover, as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover, when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites. And it may be called a Sacrifice, as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service, and worship to God, as renders them who do it aright, pleasing and acceptable to God. And therein we present ourselves to God, with our homage and oblations; and our praises, and supplications, that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christ's passion. And such great actions of Religion, are in a more large sense, though not in a strict sense, frequently called Sacrifices, both in the holy Scriptures, as in Psal. 51.17. Rom. 12.1. Phil. 4.18. Heb. 13.15, 16. 1 Pet. 2.5. and frequently in the Fathers, as may be showed from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others. But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent, that it pronounceth (s) ubi sup. an Anathema against him, who shall say, it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and not a propitiatory Sacrifice. 22. Now that there is not, nor can be in the Sacrament, a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood, to make expiation for the sins of men, may appear from four Considerations. Cons. 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice, Cons. 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ, was so complete, that it neither needs, nor admits of any reiterating, or that this or any other propitiatory, or expiatory Sacrifices, should be again offered. This is observed by the Apostle, to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered, above the legal Sacrifices; that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them, the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices, Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work; and the Apostle therefore expressly saith, he should not offer himself often, Heb. 9.25, 26, 27, 28. chap. 10. 10-14. (t) de Missa, l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine was so apprehensive, of the force and reasonableness of this consideration, with respect to the Mass, and the frequent repetition thereof, that he thought it necessary to assert, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not of infinite value; for saith he, si missae valor infinitus esset, frustra multae missae; if the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass was infinite, it would be in vain that there should be many Masses. But he might also have discerned, that upon the same reason, he would be obliged to acknowledge, in derogation from the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, and in opposition to the testimony of the Scriptures, that that offering of the Sacrifice of Christ, which he himself made in our nature, was but of a finite value, and not complete, so as thereby to perfect for ever them who are sanctified; because if this had been effected by that one offering, it would be in vain to have repeated offerings of that Sacrifice. 23. But others of their Writers, entertain different notions and opinions from this, and conclude (u) Barrad. Concord. Evangel. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. that the merits of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be infinite, because they are the same merits, with those of the Sacrifice upon the Cross. And this must needs be so, according to the Council of Trent, which declares (w) Sess. 22. c. 2. it to be the very same Sacrifice, which is now offered by the Priest, and which was then offered upon the Cross, and differeth only in the manner of offering, and then its merit and virtue must be the same. Now this conception of the value of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, in asserting it to be so completely propitiatory, doth not only derogate from the Sacrifice of Christ, which himself offered upon the Cross, but in truth it makes it so void, as to take away any necessity thereof. For since our Lord instituted, and makes them void. and consecrated the Eucharist before his death; if he had therein offered himself a complete expiatory Sacrifice, than the work of redemption and expiation, must have been fully performed, before that great work of his passion upon the Cross; and consequently his death upon the Cross, as a Sacrifice must be in vain. This was (x) Hist. Conc. Trident. p. 443 & 451. again and again urged in the Council of Trent, by some whose apprehensions were not agreeable to what that Council determined. Nor can it be otherwise solidly answered, than by acknowledging, that our Lord when he instituted and celebrated the Eucharist, did not in that action, properly offer himself a propitiatory Sacrifice. And whereas in the Institution of the Eucharist, our Saviour spoke of his blood which is shed, not only divers particular Writers of the Romanists own the expression of the present tense, to denote what was future, but soon to be accomplished; but even the Vulgar Latin, both in S. Matthew and S. Luke, expresseth it effundetur, shall be shed, to which agreeth the expressing the same in the Canon of the Mass. The like may be observed concerning the phrase of his Body being given, or broken, which the Vulgar Latin also in the words of the institution, 1 Cor. 11.24. renders tradetur, shall be given. Nor is it either pious or reasonable to think, that the Eucharist celebrated by an ordinary Priest, must be more properly and fully an expiatory and propitiatory Sacrifice, than that which was celebrated by Christ himself, in the first institution of it; when his act then was made the Rule to guide theirs, by his giving this commandment, Do this in remembrance of me. 24. Cons. 2. Cons. 2. The body of Christ is not now capable of being Sacrificed. A proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, is not now capable of being offered, in the Eucharist. Indeed that Sacrament beareth a particular respect to the death of Christ, to his Body as broken, and his Blood as shed; and therein his death is showed forth, 1 Cor. 11.26. But after his resurrection, he dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him, Rom. 6.9. And therefore his Body as having been once really dead, and his Blood as once shed, may be commemorated, and represented in the Eucharist. But there is now not exhibiting his Body and Blood in that Sacrament really dead (which cannot be) and so properly offered a Sacrifice to God. And the defenders of the Romish Sacrifice, seem here to be put to a great loss. 25. In (y) de Missa. l. 1. c. 2. Bellarmin's definition of a Sacrifice, the last clause thereof declares that the thing sacrificed, ritu mystico consecratur & transmutatur; is by a mystical right consecrated and changed. And explaining the former of these, he saith, it must ex prophana fieri sacra; of a profane thing be made sacred, and that Sacrificare is Sacrum facere. But though the elements of the Eucharist, before the consecration may be called profane things, or not sacred, and so may be consecrated by the Priest; the glorious body of Christ is capable of no such thing. And explaining the latter clause, he saith it must be changed, so, ut destruatur, that it may be destroyed, or that desinat esse quod ante erat, that it may cease to be what it was before: and this is as far from agreeing with the uncorruptible body of Christ as the other; and therefore the Cardinal, in making and explicating this definition, seems to have laid aside, or else to have forgotten the interest he was to maintain. 26. And (z) Conc. Evang. To ●. l. 3. c. 6. Barradius acutely tells us, that immolatio, oblatio, and consumptio; staying, offering and consuming, are the things essential to a Sacrifice; and he undertakes so great an adventure, as to show, how all of them, even the first, and the last, may be affirmed concerning the body of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass. He saith, that as a lamb is slain, when the blood is separated from the body by a knife: Christ is here slain, when vi consecration is sanguis Christi à Corpore Christi separatur; by force of the Consecration, the blood of Christ is separated from the body of Christ. Now it is a thing very hard to be conceived, how such a real division, and actual shedding of blood, should be suffered by the incorruptible and glorious body of Christ; and it is yet more difficult to conceive, how this can be reconciled with the Council of Trent, which declares that after the Consecration (a) Sess. 21. c. 3. in the Sacrament of the Eucharist sub singulis speciebus totum atque integrum Christum sumi, all and whole Christ is by the Communicants received under each of the species, (which could not be done unless whole Christ was there) and they anathematise him who shall say the contrary, which I suppose this Author was not ware of. 27. With like nicety and trifling, he further says (b) Barrad. ibid. the Body and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar, under the species of Bread and Wine, because those species are consumed. Now it is strange enough, to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed, which is capable of no corruption: and it is yet more strange, that it should be consumed by consuming the species, when it is not the subject of those species. Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul, and to think it sufficiently proved, by the death of the body. 28. To avoid this difficulty, some steer another course, (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9 de Sacrificio Missae. Costerus a third Jesuit, in a manner deserts the cause. He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice, as may agree to other acts of Divine worship. But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice, he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ. He saith indeed that Christ is here offered, but then he saith, Christ upon the Cross was truly slain, by the real shedding his blood; but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio, sub speciebus panis & vini, only a representation of his death, under the species of Bread and Wine. Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signify rem praesentem facere, to make the thing present, as some learned men have observed, the sense of Costerus must be, what we generally understand by representing; because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ, which cannot be by making it so; and sometimes he declares, the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ, but not so excellently as the Eucharist. And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice, (d) ibid. p. 324, & 334. he declares this difference, between that Sacrifice on the Cross, and this of the Mass, that the former was offered to satisfy God, and pay the price for the sins of the world, and all other needful gifts; but the latter is for the applying those things, which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross. And to this purpose again, Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium, ut quod perfecit Christus in cruse, id nobis singulis applicetur: illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus, hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio. Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur, quibus rogatur Deus, ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi. This indeed, if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular, would be a fairer account of it, than either itself or others give. But in truth, this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed, that it seems to import, that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church, and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise; and in this Controversy in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine, than the Romish. We own such a representation of Christ's death in this Sacrament, as consists with his real presence, in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner. We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross, and the Memorial of it, in this Sacrament, that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, and the benefits procured by his passion, are exhibited in this Sacrament, and are therein by the faithful received. And we account the elements of Bread and Wine, to be offered to God in this Sacrament, as an oblation according to the ancient Church; since the setting apart and consecrating the elements, is a separating them to God, and to his service; but we do not look upon them, to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice, in the Eucharist. But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it. 29. Cons. 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood. Cons. 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christ's high Priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice: and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself. The Sacrifice of our Saviour, as (e) Athan. cout. Arian. Orat. 3. Athanasius saith, hath completed all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being once made; and he adds, Aaron had those who succeeded him— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but our Lord having an high Priesthood, which is not successive, nor passeth from one to another, is a faithful High Priest. And this was the Apostles Doctrine, Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith, (f) de Mistress l. 1. c. 24. no Catholics affirm, other Priests to succeed to Christ, but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood, or rather his Ministers. But here it must be considered, 1. That if they be Priests of such an order, as can offer Christ himself, or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation, they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice. And one great rite thereof is, that as the legal High Priest, in making an atonement, was to enter into the holy of holies, with the blood thereof, so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement, which is the Body and Blood of Christ, must enter into Heaven itself, and there appear in the presence of God for us, presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place, Heb. 9.11, 12, 24. but this none but Christ himself can do. 2. He who is a Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, must be a Priest for ever, since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession, as that of the Aaronical did, Heb. 7.3, 8, 17, 23, 24, 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office, cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood. 3. Since an High Priest is chief appointed, to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins, Heb. 5.1. chap. 8.3. and thereby to make reconciliation, and execute other acts of his Office, in pursuance of his Sacrifice; the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation, for which he is appointed, is a main part of his Office, and therefore not to be performed by him, who hath not the same Office. Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood, which Christ himself hath, none can make the same reconciliation, by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice. 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch. de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism, that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass, there is also one and the same Priest Christ, the Lord, and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt, they take upon them the person of Christ, and they say not this is Christ's body, but this is my body. Now if these words should intent more, than that the Minister acts by Christ's authority (who hath given to none, authority to be High Priests, or Priests, of that order which himself is) and that it is the person of Christ who offers, and not of the Minister, than indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice. But than it must be proved, which can never be, that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass; and than it must also be granted, that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice, than he can pretend to be the person of Christ. 31. Wherefore (h) de Mistress l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense, to this purpose: The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ, by the Church, and by the Minister, but in a different manner; Christ offers it by a Priest, a man, as his proper Minister; the Church offer, as the people offer by their Priest; so Christ offers by an inferior, the Church by a superior; the Minister offers as a true, but ministerial Priest. Now this pretends an authority from Christ, but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest. And to this purpose the Council of Trent, (i) Sess. 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles, and their successors in the Priesthood, that they should offer this Sacrifice; and also bestow one of their rash anathemas on him who shall say, that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests, or did not ordain, that they should offer his Body and Blood, when he said, Do this in remembrance of me. But as there is no expression in these words of Christ, or any other, to show that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests, as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice; so it appears, that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person, but only Christ himself, to offer his own Body and Blood, as a proper and complete propitiatory Sacrifice; since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood, to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice, nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof. 32. Cons. 4. The great effects of Christ's Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice. Cons. 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christ's Sacrifice, are wholly procured by that one offering of himself, when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour, and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof. And therefore there neither can, nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself, and made satisfaction for sin, did thereby obtain the grace, and gave a complete and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant, that through his name, all who believe, and obey, may through his mediation receive remission of sins, and all other blessings of the Covenant. Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant, and exhibits the blessings thereof. But the Eucharist cannot now, since the death of Christ, give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant, that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity, as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice; nor are any new terms of grace, superadded to that. But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed, in the administration of the Eucharist. And Christ's own offering, obtained to himself that high exaltation, whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins, and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate, and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament, and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice, which he hath offered. Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice, have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself, that it is impossible they should have any dependence upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist; especially when this Sacrament must have its virtue from that new Covenant established, and from the exaltation of Christ. And since by that Sacrifice, Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World, there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice, to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons, which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament, and in other Ministerial administrations, dispensing in God's name and by his authority, the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons. 33. I might here also observe, that (k) Barrad. Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare, that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is, excludes merit; but here are presented to God, the infinite merits of his death on the Cross. Now if this be true, (and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable) it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist. But I shall further observe, that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ, in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death, and submitting himself according to his Father's will, to suffer even the death of the Cross, were of high value, for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice, which himself offered, available in the sight of God, to procure his blessing to man. But now since our Lord sits at God's right hand, there is no such further humiliation (nor need there be, since what he once did, was of such unspeakable merit and worth) to give any new merits of like nature, to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices. But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient virtue. And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be, nor declared that there is, any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist, he who can think against plain evidence, that in the first celebration of the Eucharist, Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice; and consequently that he died really, the night before he was crucified, and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak, and conversed with him alive; hath a mind and belief, of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome. But besides what I have here said, if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth, of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25. next Section, the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed. 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome. To these Instances I may further add, that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines, as necessary points of Faith, doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour. For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation. Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine, insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine, is under the Apostolical Anathema, Gal. 1.8, 9 which (m) Cont. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far, as to apply that Anathema to him, whosoever he be, who shall teach any thing concerning Christ or his Church, or any matter of faith, or rule of Christian life, which is not contained in the Scriptures. But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine, to assert or give any countenance to the Pope's infallibility, or his Universal Supremacy; to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, to the Doctrine of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome, of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter. And these new matters of faith, have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion, that with these mixtures, it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles. 35. The Council of Trent declares their (n) Sess. 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scripture, receiving the holy Scripture, and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu & reverentia; with the like pious affection and reverence. Indeed it calls these Traditions, such as were from the mouth of Christ, or were dictated by the Holy Ghost, and received in the Catholic Church. But since after their declaring thus much, and expressing the Canon of the Scripture, with the additional Books received in the Romish Church, they tell us that this was done, that all men might know, what foundation they would proceed on, in their confirming Doctrines and reforming manners; it is manifest, that all Doctrines of Faith or practice, delivered in that Council, which are not contained in the Scriptures, are reputed to be such Traditions, as are of equal authority with the Scriptures. And in the (o) Form. Juram. an. 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth, many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed, and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared, of all things defined in the Council of Trent, and it is added that this is the true Catholic faith, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, out of which no man can be saved. And this all who have cure of souls, and preferments in the Church, must own by their solemn Oath and Vow. And yet how little that Council in its Decisions, kept to the true Rules of Catholic Tradition, is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time declared, concerning the Canon of the Scripture: for their taking into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal, hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cousins, to be contrary to the Universal Tradition of the Church. 36. And if no man may with honesty, and above it. add any thing to a man's Deed or Covenant, as if it were contained therein, how great a crime is it to deal thus with God's Covenant? But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions (containing many new points of Faith) with the Scriptures, and what is the true Christian Doctrine, but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures, though they be in many things contrary thereunto. For they make Tradition such a Rule for the Scripture, that it must signify no more than Tradition will allow. Sect. IU. And to this purpose their (p) In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear, to admit the Scriptures according to that sense, which the holy Mother the Church hath held, and doth hold; who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture. And hereby they mean the Church of Rome, there called the Mother of all Churches. SECT. iv Of the public allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists, as either debase the Majesty of God, or give divine honour to something else besides God. THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil, which debase the Majesty of God, or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship, which is due to him alone; and they who practice or uphold such things, aught to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree. Honour, which, in a suitable measure, belongs to every Superior, as to a Father or a Prince, in the highest measure of it, is proper to God; and that reverence which is due to him, is necessary to be reserved solely for him, both from the rules of Justice and Piety, and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God. 2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Papists But, First, It is an abasing the Majesty of God, to represent the glorious, infinite, and invisible God, who is a pure Spirit, by a material Image. This is frequently and publicly practised in the Church of Rome, and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers. (a) De Eccl. Triumph. c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove, Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei, that Images of God are not prohibited; and he citys Cajetan, Catharinus, and others, as defending the same; and one chief argument, which he useth to prove this, is Ex usu Ecclesiae, from the usage of the Church. And he there declares, jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines, that now such Images are almost every where received; and that it is not credible, that the Church would universally tolerate any unlawful thing: Where he also declares, that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice, and in the Council of Trent. But the making an Image of the true God, stands condemned in the holy Scriptures, even in the Second Commandment, against the Divine Law. Thou shalt not make to thyself any Graven Image— thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them. And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God, or an inferior Deity, but such also as were intended to represent the true God, is manifest from Deut. 4.15, 16. Take good heed to yourselves (for you saw no manner of similitude, in the day the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire) lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a Graven Image, the similitude of any figure, or the likeness of Male or Female. And this Command is the more to be considered, because of that emphatical caution, which is used by way of Preface thereto. 3. It was one of the heinous sins, which generally prevailed in the Pagan World, that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God, into an Image made like to corruptible Man, and to Birds, etc. Rom. 1.23. This is agreeable to the Pagan practice. And though I charge not the Roman Church, with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry; yet this disparaging the Divine Being, by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof, and giving Worship to them under that relation, was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles, and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles, did not think these very Images to be the proper Being's of their Gods. For besides their acknowledgement of the Wisdom, Purity, Goodness, and Power of the Deity, which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and other Christian Writers do express, there was also retained amongst them, such Notions concerning the Deity, as to acknowledge God to be incorporeal. It is observed by (b) Cont. Cells. l. 1. p. 13. Origen, that Numenius, a Pythagorean Philosopher, had enumerated those Gentile Nations, who asserted God to be an Incorporeal Being. And that great expression of Euripides is very plain, wherein he calls God, one who sees all things, but himself is invisible (c) Cl. Alex. Adm. ad Gent. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And agreeable to this, is the expression of Orpheus, that no Mortal sees God, but he sees all. 4. No such thing in the Primitive Church. The Primitive Christians not only had no Images of God, as appears from various expressions of Origen, Minutius Felix, and other Writers of those Ages; but they also greatly condemned any such thing. The ancient Council of (d) Conc. Elib. c. 36. Elvira took care, ne quod colitur & adoratur, in parietibus depingatur, that that Being which is worshipped and adored should not be painted upon walls; which words must needs forbid and condemn the making Images of God. And Eusebius speaking of representing the Divine Being by dead matter, saith (e) Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; what can offer more violence to reason? And when he spoke of the soul of man being the Image of God, as being rational, immaterial, immortal, and not subject to hurt and force, and that no Figure or Image could be made of this, he adds, (f) ibid. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; who can be so mad as to think, that the most high God may be represented by an Image made like to a man? 5. Some Romanists are not willing to own this general practice. But in the Church of Rome, the Blessed Trinity is frequently pictured, and represented by an Image. And though this be a common and public practice, yet some of the Romanists are so unwilling, either to defend, or to acknowledge it; that they deny their having any Images of the Trinity. To this purpose (g) Enchir. c. 11. Nulla igi●ur ratione dicendum est Christ anos vel colere vel asservare Sanctae Trinitatis vel Patris vel Spiritus Sancti imagines. Costerus having showed from the Scripture, that nothing can resemble God, adds, It must therefore upon no account be said, that Christians do either worship or keep the Images of the holy Trinity, or of the Father, or of the Holy Ghost. And, saith he, when the Father is painted, as the ancient of days, this is not the image of the Father, but a representation of the vision of Daniel, or of S. John; and the Dove that is painted, is not the image of the Holy Ghost; but of that Dove, in which at Jordan the Holy Ghost descended. And to the same purpose speaks an English Catechism, said to be Printed at Douai. But though these Writers are not willing to defend, but would rather conceal, what is allowed by their Church in this matter; the frequent use of the Pictures of the three persons of the Trinity all together, and where there is no deciphering of these visions, will not admit that account they give thereof. 6. Whereof (h) De Eccles. Triumph. c. 8. Bellarmine, who as I above shown, freely acknowledgeth the practice, of making Images of God, doth as plainly assert it to be allowable, Licet pingere imaginem Dei Patris, etc. It is lawful to paint the Image of God the Father in the form of an Old Man; and of the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove. And the Council of (i) Sess. 25. Images of God approved by the Council of Trent. Trent, which in its last Session coucheth several things under few words, expresseth its allowance of the picturing God, when it order the people to be taught, that the Divinity is not to that purpose represented in a figure, as if it could be seen by bodily eyes, or could be expressed by colours and figures. 7. But such representations are wholly unlike to the infinite and immense Divine Nature, They are unsuitable to the Divine Nature, in which are the perfections of wisdom, power, goodness, truth and purity, and other such like. And where these spiritual excellencies are in a considerable degree, there is indeed a true partaking of the Divine Image, and a likeness to God. But the resembling him by a corporeal Image is the making a false, and a low and mean representation of God, which abateth that high reverence, which is due to his Majesty. And what finite material thing can be thought like to him, who is so infinitely above all things, of whom the Prophet Esay saith, Isaiah 40.18. To whom will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto him? And if a man would think himself injured, if he be represented in the shape or form of another Being, far inferior to his nature; how great an offence may it well be to the Glorious God, to be pictured against his express command, in the shape of an old man? 8. The (k) Catech. ad Paroch. de Decal. pr. Praecepto. Roman Catechism observes two ways, whereby the Majesty of God is greatly offended by Images; the one, if Idols and Images be worshipped as God, and the other, if any shall endeavour to make the form, or shape of the Divinity, as if it could be seen by bodily eyes; and proves by the Scripture, that such a figure of God neither can be made, nor may be lawfully attempted. And it further acknowledgeth, that God to the intent he might wholly take away Idolatry, imaginem divinitatis ex quavis materia fieri prohibuit; did forbid the Image of the Deity to be made of any matter whatsoever; and that the wise Lawgiver did enjoin, ne divinitatis imaginem fingerent, that they might not frame an Image of the Deity, and give the honour of God to a Creature. But after all this it requires, that no man should think there is any offence against Religion, when any person of the most Holy Trinity, is expressed by certain signs or figures, under which they appeared in the Old Testament or in the New: and it is there said, that this is done to declare their properties or actions; as according to the vision of Daniel, the representation of the ancient of days, with the Books open, shows the eternity and wisdom of God. 9 and unfit to represent the Attributes of God. But the Divine Attributes and perfections are so infinite and spiritual, that they are as uncapable of being represented by an Image as his nature is. And the shape of an old man doth directly express nothing of Wisdom or Eternity: and such conceptions as may be suggested, by the sight of such a Picture, are very imperfect and below the Divine excellency; since such a Being as is so represented, is infirm and decaying, and become unfit for action, and can see but a little way before him, and also is of such a nature, as is stained and infected with sin. And if such pretended defective resemblances, of the properties of God, could be a sufficient defence, for the making Images of the Deity, the Pagans might then be justified in many of their Images, who spoke more on their behalf than all this comes to. For besides what perfections the figures of their Images might darkly express, it was pleaded by (l) in Eus. pr. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. Porphyry on their behalf, that as to the matter of their Images, they framed them of Crystal, Marble, Gold, and such like pure Metals, because the Divine Being is not capable of being stained, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gold doth not admit of any defilement or corruption. And that which represents the purity, excellency and incorruption of the Divine Nature (if it were done worthy of God) hath respect to none of the least Divine perfections. 10. And concerning the Argument, The forms under which God appeared in vision, or otherwise, in the Old Testament or the New, were not resemblances of his Being, but testimonies of his more special presence at that time and place. made use of from the visions in the Scriptures, or the appearances, under which God manifested his presence to men, as the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a Dove, Luk. 3.22. and the ancient of days, is intended to signify God, Dan. 7.9. it is to be considered, that these appearances (the one in vision, and the other in plain view) with others, were not representations of the Divine nature, as if that was like to these things, or might be pictured by them; but they were extraordinary testimonies, visibly evidencing a more eminent, and signal presence of God, at that time, and place. And of this nature was also the bush burning and not consumed, the pillar of cloud and fire, that led the Israelites; the darkness, blackness and tempest on Mount Sinai; the Cloud on the Mercy-seat; and that which sometimes filled the Tabernacle and the Temple, as at the first Consecration of each of them. Such also was the appearance of fiery cloven tongues, which sat on the Apostles, at the descent of the Holy Ghost, and the fire which oft came down from Heaven, upon the Sacrifices, in testimony of God's acceptance. All these were manifestations of a more special presence of God, but none of them were intended to express any such likeness of the Deity, that it should be lawful to picture it in that figure. And those words I above mentioned, Deut. 4.15. Ye saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lordspake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire, do sufficiently show, that though there was an extraordinary, and particular presence of God, manifested in the fire, upon Mount Sinai; the appearance of that fire, out of which the Lord spoke, was far from being intended to be any similitude of God, or to give us a liberty to make any similitude of him whatsoever. And if any Image of God should be pretended to be of like nature with those appearances now mentioned, so as to contain a peculiar testimony of the signal presence of God in them; this would render them the more manifestly Idolatrous. 11. But besides this, (m) de Eccl. Triumph. l. 2. c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine urgeth, for the lawfulness of resembling God in the figure of a man, that Angels are painted though they be incorporeal; and that the Scripture speaks of his hands, face, feet, and attributeth to him all the parts of a man, when it speaks of his standing, sitting and walking. Of the Picturing of Angels, To which I Answer, 1. The picturing of an Angel, if it be only done to suggest to our minds, some general notice of an Angel, or to put us upon framing a conception of that Being, is a thing which may be allowed. But if a glorious Angel should be purposely presented to us, as an object for our great honour, under such a representation as is usual in the picturing an Angel, he would be much misrepresented thereby, to the disadvantage of the excellencies of his nature. But yet there would not that great injury be done to the Angel thereby, that is done to the Majesty of God, in debasing him, against the duty of a Creature, and also against his express Law and Command. 2. and the expressions of the face, and eyes of God. That the Scripture speaking of the face of God, and his hands and eyes, since these phrases are to be understood in a sigurative sense, doth give us no more allowance, to take them in a proper literal sense, and thereupon to picture God, with such a corporeal face, and hands, against his particular Command, and in derogation from his Majesty; than it gives countenance to our affirming that God hath a body, and such corporeal parts, which are contrary to his Spiritual nature. And it might be added, that the picturing God, in such a bodily shape, may have an ill influence, upon the gross conceptions of some men, concerning the Deity. And men are not so wholly out of danger of these misconceptions, when it was once so openly and hotly asserted (n) Socr. Ecc. Hist. l. 6. c. 7. Soz. l. 8. c. 11, 12. by the Egyptian Monks, that God had a body, and an humane shape, and that Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria complied with this opinion, though that was probably done out of design: and even Epiphanius is reported by (o) Socr. ibid. c. 9 Soz. ibid. c. 14. Socrates, and Sozomen, to be more hearty a favourer of that Opinion. And this was also propagated by Audaeus, of whom Theodoret gives some account, Hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 9 12. But (p) ubi supra. Bellarmin 's distinction considered. Bellarmine further endeavours to evade, all that can be said against the Images of God, by distinguishing between 1. An Image to express a perfect similitude of form, and this he grants is not to be admitted, concerning God. 2. To represent an History. And 3. without respect to History, in resembling the nature of a thing, not by proper similitude, but analogically, and by metaphorical significations, and he saith, thus they paint Angels as young men, & hoc modo pingimus Deum patrem, cum eum extra historiam pingimus, humana forma; on this manner we paint God the Father, when out of History, we paint him in the shape of a man. But this distinction will not be to any great purpose, because, 1. Even the Pagans did not think their Images to have a likeness of shape unto their Gods. 2. It seems to be no great commendation of any Image, that it is unlike the thing it represents, and doth not truly express it. 3. That all the Images of the Roman Church are also of this nature, even the Images of Saints departed. For the Roman Church worships only the Souls and Spirits of Saints deceased, as enjoying this beatifical vision, not their bodies, which till the Resurrection are dead in their graves. And therefore the Images of these Saints do not express a likeness of shape to their souls, but refer to them, by expressing the resemblance of the bodies, in which they once dwelled, and to which they were, and shall be again united, though now separated from them. And therefore this notion allows the Images of God, in like manner as the Church of Rome sets up Images of Angels and Saints deceased; not making any considerable difference betwixt these, so far as concerns the representing every one of them by their Image; and consequently must allow the worshipping every one of these Images, with a proportionable honour in relation to the Being's represented by them. 4. If this notion were of any weight, the Jewish Church might then have been warranted, in setting up Images of God (and worshipping them also with respect to God) provided they were not like him, nor esteemed so to be. And yet God plainly forbade their making any Image of him, in the likeness of male or female, or any other thing; though he had sufficiently taught them, and they well knew, that the Deity was not in shape like to any of these. And God declares his dislike, against any such Images; because they could frame nothing which they could liken to him: which being a reason of perpetual and abiding truth, doth concern the Christian state as well as the Jewish; and the laying down this reason, doth sufficiently declare, against all such Images as are not like to him. 13. Secondly, Of the Romanists worshipping the Eucharist with Divine Worship. I shall show that the Romanists give proper Divine worship to that which is not God. And here I shall particularly instance in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to which they profess to give that Latria, or high worship, which is due to the true God alone. This is the plain Doctrine of the Council of Trent, (q) Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 5. fideles omnes Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic Sacramento defer, that all good Christians do give to this Sacrament that properly Divine worship which is due to the true God. And in the beginning of that Session, they strictly forbidden all Christians thenceforward to believe otherwise, and their sixth Anathema is against him, who shall say that Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored with that which is the proper Divine worship. In like manner it is expressed in the Roman Catechism, published by the authority of Pius the Fifth (r) Catech. ad par. de Euch. Sacr. in init. , huic Sacramento divinos honores tribuendos esse, that Divine honour is to be given to this Sacrament. And the words of Adoration in the Missal, and the acts of adoration unto this Sacrament, are accordingly to be understood, to give Divine honour thereunto. And Azorius is for giving this Divine worship even to the (s) Instit. Mor. part. 2. l. 5. c. 16. species, or appearances of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament. But the Council of Trent seem not to extend it so far, and the Roman Catechism declares, that when they affirm this Sacrament is to be worshipped, they understand this of the Body and Blood of Christ therein. 14. We greatly reverence the holy Sacrament, as an excellent institution of our Saviour, but reserve the Divine honour to God alone: for there is nothing which is not truly God (be it otherwise never so sacred) to which such worship may be given. S. Paul was an eminent Apostle, but, with detestation, disclaimed the receiving it, Act. 14.13, 14, 15. The brazen Serpent under the Law was of God's institution, for the healing those Israelites, who looked upon it, but yet it was a great sin to worship it with Divine honour. If the homage peculiarly due to a Prince, be given to any other in his Dominions, though it be to one he hath highly advanced, he will account this a disparaging his dignity, and practising Treason and Rebellion: and God who is a jealous God, will not give his worship to another. But this practice of the Roman Church depends upon their Doctrine of Transubstantiation: This is grourded upon transubstantiation. for if that substance which is in the Sacrament, be no longer Bread and Wine, but be changed into the substance of the very Body and Blood of Christ, in union with his Divinity, then and only then, may Divine honour be given unto it. And if it be in truth the very same glorified Christ, who is at God's right hand, and nothing else, then is that worship which is due to Christ the Son of God, which is proper Divine Worship, as much to be performed to this Sacrament, as to him in Heaven, since both is substantially one and the same thing, wholly and entirely. The (t) Sess. 13. c. 1, 4, 5. & Anath. 1. & 2. Council of Trent declares, that by the consecration of the Bread and Wine, there is a conversion of their whole substance, into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ: And they say, the Body and Blood of Christ with his soul and Divinity, and therefore whole Christ, are contained in the Eucharist, but the substance of the Bread and Wine remains not, but only the species or appearance thereof, and that this the Church calls Transubstantiation. On this Doctrine it found'st the Divine worship of the Sacrament, and it anathematizeth him, whosoever shall speak against this Transubstantiation, and forbids all Christians, that they shall not dare to believe or teach otherwise concerning the Eucharist, than as this Council hath determined. Now if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation be true, the giving Divine worship to this Sacrament is but just: but if this be false, as the (u) Article 28. Church of England declares, then is the giving Divine honour thereto certainly and greatly sinful and evil. 15. It is acknowledged that this holy Sacrament, administered according to Christ's institution, doth truly and really exhibit and communicate Christ's Body and Blood, with the benefits of his Sacrifice, in an Heavenly, Mystical and Sacramental way: but the manner of this gracious presence, it is needless curiously to inquire. And though the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances; yet are they greatly changed, by their consecration, from common Bread and Wine, to contain under them, such Spiritual and Divine Mysteries; which is the effect of Divine power and grace. Nor is it possible that these elements should tender to us Christ, and the benefits of his Passion, if this work had not been ordered by the power and authority of God, in his Institutions, who hath the disposal of this grace. But that the elements of Bread and Wine, remain in their substance, and that they are not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, is generally asserted by all Protestants, whilst the contrary is universally affirmed by the Romanists, and is made one great branch of the true Catholic Faith, and the new Roman Creed, according to the famous Bull of Pius the Fourth, which is so solemnly sworn unto. Indeed there are such expressions frequently used in the Church of Rome as these, (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup. c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence, is present in other places in substance, by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words; and the Roman Catechism saith, (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med. this change must not be curiously enquired into, for it cannot be perceived by us; and Baronius declares, that (y) Baron. An. Eccl. an. 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur, it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner. But it is manifest from their plain decisions, that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation, or to the way of explicating, how he can be substantially present, in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at God's right hand: for the manner of his presence itself, they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation, as above explained. 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine, No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture: have not their substance changed, into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear, First, Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament (from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned) or any where else in the holy Scripture, which affords any proof for Transubstantlation. It is observed by (z) Hist. Transubst. c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cousins, that Scotus, Durandus, Biel, Occam, Cameraoensis, Bishop Eisher against Duther, and Cardinal Cajetan; did all acknowledge, that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture, and their words are by him produced; and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof. Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists; This is my Body, do not determine the manner of his presence, or that he is Transubstantially there, and so carnally, that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism, his bones and nerves, and whole Christ is there substantially contained. But this may well be so understood, that he spiritually and sacramentally, under visible elements, exhibits the Sacrifice of himself, so as to apply it to true Christians, and interest them in it, and the blessings and benefits thereof. Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture, import any substantial change of the things themselves. When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites, 1 Cor. 10.4. that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ: it cannot be supposed, that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ, who was not yet Incarnate. When S. John declareth, Joh. 1.14. The word was made flesh, it cannot be thence affirmed, without Heresy and Blasphemy, that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature. And when our Lord had spoken, Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and added upon his Disciples being offended at those say, v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit, and they are life: he hereby (and also by what he speaks of believing, both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse, and towards the middle of it, v. 35.47, 48, 64.) sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken. And a like interpretation of those words, Take, eat, this is my Body, is somewhat directed by the same expressions; and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament: nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul, Luk. 22.20. 1 Cor. 11.25. This Cup is the new Testament, be otherwise understood, than Sacramentally, and somewhat figuratively, and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist. 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church. Secondly, The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church. This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham, which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph; and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies, Tertullian arguing against Martion, who denied the reality of Christ's Body (as other ancient Heretics asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body) saith, (b) Tertul. count. Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread, and distributing it to his Disciples, made it his Body, saying this is my Body; that is, the figure of my Body: but there had been no figure, unless the Body had been in truth. Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christ's Body, shows him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially, but representatively in the Sacrament. And his manner of arguing, shows him not to have understood, or owned the Romish Transubstantiation. For it might be said to one who should thus argue, and hold the Romish Principles, by one of the Disciples of Martion, that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body, which after consecration is not real, viz. Bread and Wine; and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature. In the Dialogues of Theodoret, it was urged in the defence of the Heresy of Eutyches, that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, after the invocation of the Priest, are made other things and changed; so the Body of Christ after its assumption, is changed into the divine substance and nature. But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretic (c) Theod. Dial. 2. , that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made; for the symbols or mystical signs, do not after their Sanctification departed from their own nature, but remain in their former substance, form and shape. And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith, this (d) De Cons. Dist. 2. c. Hoc est. heavenly bread, after its manner, is called the Body of Christ, when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body; and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh, and the Passion, Death and Crucifixion of Christ, non rei veritate sed significante mysterio; not being so in the truth (or substance) of the thing, but in the Mystery which signifieth it. To these particular testimonies, I shall add two things. The one is, that it is attested by (e) Hesych. Hesychius, to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church, that after the Communion was ended, the remaining elements were burnt in the fire. But if Transubstantiation had been then believed; that what remained in these elements, was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ, which continued to be such, so long as the species of the elements remained; it must needs have been an horrid and profane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there; and no such thing could certainly have entered into their hearts. 18. The other thing I shall add is, that when in the beginning of Christianity, the Pagans falsely aspersed the Christians, with being so inhumanly savage, that in their private Religious Assemblies, they murdered an Infant, and sucked and drunk his blood: it was among other things answered by (f) Tert. Apol. c. 9 Tertullian, (g) In Octau. p. 100 Ed. Oxon. Minucius Felix, and (h) Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. others, that the Gentiles might be ashamed to charge any such thing on Christians, who were so far from taking any human blood, that they carefully avoided all blood, even of Beasts. But this defence could not well have been made on this manner, if they had accounted themselves, to have taken the Blood of Christ substantially in the Eucharist, and not only such a mystical representation thereof, as is not void of efficacy and reality. And though I think it manifest; that blood may lawfully be eaten, and that the Apostolical prohibition thereof, was but a provisional Decree for those times, from the general declaration in the New Testament, that nothing is unclean in itself; from the liberty which Christians were allowed to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles, or was set before them when they were invited to eat with unbelievers, ask no question for conscience sake; and also because blood was for this reason forbidden to be eaten under the Law, because it was given upon the altar, to make an atonement for their souls, Leu. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Yet it may not be amiss observed, that according to the computation of time fixed by Rhenanus, as it is from him mentioned by (i) Pamel in Apolog. Tertul. n. 138. Pamelius, it is now about five hundred years, since eating blood was generally allowed in the Western Church: and about that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had prevailed, which was publicly established under the time of Innocentius the Third, above four hundred and fifty years since. And that general prohibition of blood, so long continued, though upon mistake or more than necessary cautiousness, might well be accounted not consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or not fairly reconcileable thereunto. 19 Thirdly, Transubstantiation doth plainly contradict the evidence of sense. Transubstantiation is contrary to the testimony of sense, Now the testimony of our senses is so considerable, that this is that which assured and manifested, the certainty of the mighty Miracles, wrought by Christ and his Apostles; yea of the birth of Christ, of his converse with men in the world, and of his being crucified, risen again, and ascended into Heaven. Upon the evidence of sense, Thomas was convincingly persuaded of Christ's resurrection; and the other Apostles had such an esteem for this testimony, that they could not but Preach the things which they had seen and heard, Act. 4.20. And the certainty of what they taught concerning Christ and Christianity, they founded upon the evidence of their senses, in that it was what they had seen with their eyes, and what they had heard, and their hands had handled of the word of life, 2 Pet. 1.16, 17, 18. 1 Joh. 1.1. And therefore the denying the evidence of sense, would undermine Christianity, and withal take away all possibility of certainty, concerning the plain matters of fact in the world. And there could be no assurance given, that Christ taught any Doctrine, nor could what he did teach, be otherwise conveyed to us, than by our eyes and ears, unless men pretend to Enthusiasm. And as that pretence is vain, so if it were not, no other men could be taught by such enthusiastics, but by the exercise and use of their senses, and upon supposition of the certainty thereof. 20. But our eyes, our taste, our feeling, and the inward sense of nourishment received from the consecrated elements, do all of them testify, that the Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances after their consecration. But here the Church of Rome thinks it her interest to (k) Catech. a●● arochos. p. 218. Curandum est ut fidelium mentes, quam maxime fieri potest, à sensuum judicio abstrahantur. take care, that the minds of Christians, should as much as is possible, be drawn off from the judgement of their senses. And yet they who do lay aside the judgement of their senses, must not believe, that they do truly either read or see any such instruction, as this, directed to them. And if the evidence of sense in the Sacrament be denied; there will then be no certainty to the Communicants, whether there be any Priest present to consecrate, and consequently whether there be any words of consecration spoken, or whether there be any elements to receive consecration. And the senses of the Communicants, do give a more joint testimony, to the elements remaining in their proper substances, than to these other instances. 21. and is also opposite to reason. Fourthly, Transubstantiation is opposite to the principles of reason and understanding, and includes manifold gross absurdities and contradictions. 1. That the whole substance of the Body of Christ should be in many thousand, yea many millions of places at the same time, is sufficiently inconsistent with the nature of a body. And as there are consecrated Hosts in many thousand places at once, the Catechism framed according to the Decree of the Council of Trent, agreeably to that Council declares, that (l) Ibid. p. 223, 225. Inquavis urriusque speciei par●icula totum Christum contineri. under every least part either of the Bread or Wine, whole Christ is contained (even with his bones, sinews and whatsoever belongs to the true state of his body, as I above observed from the same Catechism). 2. And in purfuance of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Romish Doctors do assert if a Mouse, or any other brutish Animal or Insect, do eat any part of the consecrated Host, they do eat what is truly and substantially the Body of Christ. This is acknowledged by (m) Part. 3 q. 80. a. 3. Aquinas; and though the (n) Sent. l. 4. dist. 13. A. Master of the Sentences would not admit this for truth, but declared himself of the contrary opinion: yet his Authority is here rejected; and by the Censure of (o) Lib. 4. Art. 9 the Divines of Paris, this is reckoned among one of his errors. But it is a thing dishonourable to the glorious Body of Christ, to be eaten of Brutes, and to pass into the draught, and to be substantially present there where even the Romanists, who assert that presence, do not require Divine Worship to be given to it. 3. And it is contradictory to assert, that the substance of Bread and Wine being gone, the accidents thereof do remain, without any subject or matter, being, as the Roman Catechism saith, (p) Catech. p. 219. & 230. Edi. Lovan. 1567. accidentia quae nulli substantiae inhaerent, and species sine aliqua re subjecta. Thus for instance, the extension that was in the Bread, is supposed to remain, when the substance of the Bread is gone; and that extension which can be measured and felt, is in its own nature an extension of matter, and of that which hath parts added to one another; and yet here is extension, and consequently several parts distant from one another, but still there is nothing extended, nor any matter, nor any thing that hath parts. And the like may be said of other accidents. 4. If it could be imagined, that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration (though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy, but preserve the thing he blesseth) the accidents, or appearances thereof only remaining; and that the substance of Christ's Body and Blood should be there substituted, without any corporeal accidents, even this could not be Transubstantiation, according to the Romish description thereof. For if a corporeal substance should cease to be, its accidents or modifications remaining, this must be by annihilation; and if there be a new substance, this must be by a new production, not a changing the former substance into a latter; since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed, but by the difference of their modifications or accidents: but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance itself, which is the being of a thing, the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed. 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared, in the Sacramental elements, out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced, this also includes manifest contradiction. For then the Body and Blood of Christ, must be supposed to be produced, out of a different matter, at a different time, and in a different manner from that Body, which was born of the Blessed Virgin, and in which he assumed our nature; and yet this Body which is so many ways differing, from that substantial Body, which is ascended into Heaven, must be acknowledged to be substantially the same. When I consider such things as these, with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught, I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial, that it is a believing against Reason. But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial, or of true Religion; and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ, who never declared any such Doctrine; but must resolve itself into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church, which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist. Transubst. c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cousins, make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine. 23. What account may be given, that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines. And I have sometimes set myself to consider, hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men, as are in the Church of Rome, should receive such monstrous Doctrines, as this and some others are; and I have given myself some satisfaction, by observing; 1. That education, and Principles once imbibed and professed; have a mighty force upon many men's minds, insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding, as appears in the followers of many Sects, and in the Pagan Philosophers, who set themselves against Christianity: and these things especially when linked with interest, have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding, that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences, against their assertions; as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees, in our Saviour's time, who generally stood up for their Traditions, against his Doctrine and Miracles also. And they of the Church of Rome are politicly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines. 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church, through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages, the politic governing part think it not expedient now, to acknowledge those things for errors, lest they thereby lose that reverence, they claim to their Church, when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible. And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith, and such other things added as are requisite to support them. 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons, acquiesce in the determination of the Church, and its pretence to infallibility; and by this they filence all objections, and suffer not any doubtful enquiry, since whatsoever the Doctrine be, no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible. And these also are the less inquisitive, from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine; and from their being prohibited the use of such Books, which might help to inform them better. 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth, by the severity of that Church, against them who question its received Doctrines, both in the tortures of the Inquisition, and in the loud thunderings of its Anathemas. 5. The specious and pompous names of the Church's Tradition, Antiquity, Universality and uninterrupted succession, have a great influence upon them, who have not discovered the great falsehood of these pretences. And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search: and others who have made search, are willing to take things, according to the sense and interpretation, the favourers of that Church impose upon them, and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned. 6. The just judgement of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light, that through strong delusions they should believe a lie. 24. Fifthly, This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures. The Scripture declareth, the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art. of Relig. Art. 28. this Body is given, taken, and eaten, in the Sacrament; but than it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner; Transubstantiation is against the Scripture, and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures, as I noted, n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation, to be the manner of Christ's presence, that it plainly declares, the elements to remain after the consecration, and at the distribution of them: S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break, 1 Cor. 10, 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist, thrice in three verses together, he expresseth it by eating that Bread, and drinking that Cup, 1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining, when the Sacrament was administered to the Communicants. But (s) Coster. Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread, but of Christ who is called the bread of life. But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. where he understood thereby, that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine: and continuing his discourse upon the same subject, concerning the Eucharist, and in the three verses immediately following, using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup, cannot from the order of his discourse, be otherwise properly understood, than to have respect to the same things; though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery. 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread, and drinking this Cup, to show forth the Lords death till he come: He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christ's death, by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more; and by those words till he come, he shows the proper substantial presence of Christ's Body, not to be in that Bread. But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says, the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread, because it had the appearance of bread, and a power to nourish the body. Now (to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished, by that which is no substance) it may be considered, 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true, it cannot be conceived, that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist, and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it; should so often call it what it was not, and not what it was. 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known. And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread, the Apostle would not have complied with those errors, which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to, if these had been truly errors, but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth. 25. Sixthly, and is not favoured, by some Traditions of the Romish Church. I shall add (though I lay no further stress on this, than as it may speak something add homines) that if we may give credit, to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church, there are ancient usages in that Church, which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation. It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church, that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday. (u) Diu. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth, an ancient Ritualist, undertaking to give an account of this, saith there are four reasons hereof, his first is, because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us, and when the truth cometh, the figure ought to cease and give place unto it. And his other three reasons have all respect to this first. And (w) Rational. l. 6. c. 77. n. 34, Durandus in his Rationale, undertaking to give an account of the same custom, makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof, and useth these very words also, that the truth coming, the figure ought to cease. The intent of which is to declare, that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christ's Passion: and therefore on Good Friday, when the Church had their thoughts of Christ, and eye to him, as upon that day really suffering, they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist. But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation. 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God, though the belief of the true God be retained? Having now discharged Transubstantiation, as being neither founded in the Scripture, nor consonant thereto, as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church, and as contradictory to sense, and the principles of reason; I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God, in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God; and the great guilt thereby derived upon man. Now it is confessed generally, that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature, is Idolatry and an heinous transgression. But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons, who profess the only true God to be God, and that there is none other but he, and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone, (for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists, in this Controversy, waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints, the relative Divine Worship to Images, and somewhat higher yet, to the Cross) but actually through mistake and delusion, do confer this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God, in confidence and presumption that it is, what it is not; and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due, when in truth it is not so. Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general, the instances I shall first mention of some bad men, are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry, and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose, as if I intended to write or think, any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament, which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration. 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions. Assert. 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object, may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry, Assert. 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God. though the profession of one only God, and of him who is the true God be still retained, with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped. This with respect to outward acts of worship, was the case of divers lapsed Christians, who being prevailed upon, by the terrors of persecution, did sometimes either offer Sacrifice, or incense to Pagan Deities, or otherwise communicated in their Worship, or did swear by them, or the Genius of Caesar, or did make profession of such things being God, which they were sufficiently convinced were not God. And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship, may arise from an evil compliance with others, or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of men's own minds. And concerning inward worship, it is easy to apprehend, that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections, as the highest practical esteem, love, reverence and fear, may be misplaced upon that, which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God, whilst they either do not consider these things, to be acts of worship; or else are more governed by their affections, than their judgements. But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding, such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God, and that Divine honour is due unto it, and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it, these cannot be performed to any Being, but to that only which is thought, judged and believed to be God. But notwithstanding this, even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced, whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement, and profession of one only God, who is the true God. 28. Simon Magus, as (x) de Praescrip. c. 46. Tertullian declares, did own himself to be the most high God; and as Irenaeus relates, (y) Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 20. that it was he, who appeared as the Son amongst the Jews, and descended as the Father in Samaria, and came as the Holy Spirit in other Nations: and they who were his followers both in Samaria, Rome, and other Nations did worship him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the chief God, as (z) Justin. Apol. 1. Justin Martyr affirms, and (a) Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. gr. Eusebius from him. Now if it should be supposed, that the Gnostics should own the true God, and that there is no other God besides him, and should therefore design to give Divine honour to him alone; but should be persuaded, that he was incarnate in Simon Magus, and thereupon should worship him with Divine honour, this could not excuse them herein from being Idolaters. And whereas Montanus, and the propagators of his Heresy, did declare him to be the Paraclete, as is oft expressed in Tertullian; and is affirmed also by divers Catholic Writers, as (b) Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. Eusebius, (c) Basil ad Amphil. c. 1. Basil, and others, or as (d) de Consec. dist. 4. c. Hi vero. Gregory expresseth it, that he was the Holy Ghost: if any of his followers, professing Divine Worship to be due only to the True God, and the three persons of the glorious Trinity, should upon a presumptive delusion, believe that the Holy Ghost was embodied in Montanus, and thereupon yield to him that Divine Worship, which is due to the Holy Ghost, this could not excuse them from Idolatry. 29. Assert. 2. All Idolatry is not equally heinous. Assert. 2. In Idolatry, which is in its nature a great and grievous sin, all the acts and kinds thereof, in misplacing proper Divine Worship, are not equally heinous and abominable. There is a great difference from the temper of the persons, whence acts proceeding from sudden surprise, from weakness of understanding, or from great fear, are not of so high a guilt, as those which proceed from carelessness of duty, neglect of instruction or contempt of God, or wilful enmity against the true Religion. There is also difference in the acts of worship, which I mentioned n. 27. as also from the plyableness of temper to be drawn from them, and the resolved obstinacy of persisting in them. And there is a difference also, with respect to the object, to which Divine Worship is given: whence the worshipping of Baal, or the Gods of other Nations, in opposition to the God of Israel, was more heinous than the Idolatry of Jeroboams Calves, because it included a professed departing from the true God: and the worshipping of Simon Magus, was the more abominable, as including a following him, and consequently rejecting the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion. But the Idolatry of the Calves was not of so high a nature, nor did it utterly exclude the ten Tribes from all relation to the Church of God: though even this would exclude those persons, who designedly espoused it, or who perversely or negligently joined in it, from the blessing of God. 30. Assert. 3. All misplacing Divine honour upon an undue object (which is Idolatry) is a very great sin. Assert. 3. All sorts thereof are greatly evil. To suppose that ignorance and mistake, should be any sufficient plea or excuse; is to reflect upon the goodness and wisdom of God, as if even under the Christian revelation, he had not sufficiently directed men, in so important a duty, as to know the object of Divine adoration, or whom we are to worship. And how little any misunderstanding, upon the grounds laid down by the Romanists, is like in this case to be available for their excuse, I shall manifest by proposing another case, which may well be esteemed parallel hereunto. As our Saviour said concerning the Eucharistical Bread, This is my Body; so there is a greater plenty of expressions in the Scriptures, which are as plausible to confer Divine honour upon pious Christians. They are said to be partakers of the Divine Nature, to be born of God, The Remish Adoration of the Host paralleled. to be renewed after the Image of God, and that God dwelleth in them; and that Christ is form in them, and is in them, and that they are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, and with respect to them he said to Saul, why persecutest thou me? and he will say to others, I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat, etc. and the Spirit of God dwells in them. Now if from such expressions as these, any sort of men should give Divine Worship to every Saint (in pursuance of that fond notion of some Fanatic heads, that they are Godded with God, and Christed with Christ) and consequently to those in Heaven, as well as to those on Earth, and thereby multiply the objects of Divine Adoration, really beyond all the Polytheism of the Gentiles, I doubt not, but they of the Church of Rome would account this abominable Idolatry. Nor would they think it sufficient here to be pretended, that these worshippers own only one true God, and give Divine Worship to the Saints, only because they believe them to receive a new Divine Nature in becoming Saints, and to put on Christ, and to be changed into the nature and substance of that one God; and though this may seem as contrary to sense and reason as Transubstantiation doth, they therefore believe it, because God hath said it, (if their manifestly mistaken sense of Scripture be allowed) and they can confidently rely on his word. And if we compare these two together, the grace of the Sacrament is very excellent, but it is that which is to be communicated to the communion of Saints, and conferred upon them. But the nature of the pious Christian, is so much advanced above that of the Sacramental elements, that that must be confessed to be true, which was affirmed by Bishop Bilson, (e) Differ. of Christ. Subject. & Unchr. Rebel. Part. 4. p. 713. that Christian men are members of Christ, the Bread is not; Christ abideth in them and they in him, in the Bread he doth not; he will raise them at the last day, the Bread he will not; they shall reign with him for ever, the Bread shall not. But these and such like words we mention not, as having any low thoughts of the Holy Sacrament; but as owning the truth of the Sacramental elements, remaining in their created substances, and even these we duly reverence as set apart to an holy use and purpose; but we most highly value the great blessings of the Gospel, and the spiritual presence of Christ, which though it be tendered in the Sacramental elements, yet being the invisible grace of the Sacrament, is to be distinguished from the visible sign thereof. To this we have our eye chief in the Sacrament, according to that ancient admonition (f) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. sursum corda, lift up your hearts unto the Lord. And we glorify the grace of God, who bestows upon them who truly repent and believe, such unspeakable benefits in the use of those means or signs, which are otherwise mean, than as they are sanctified to an holy and excellent use, by the Institution of God, and the right celebration of his Ordinance. SECT. V Integrity too much neglected, and Religion so ordered and modelled, by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome, as to represent a contrivance of deceit, Interest and Policy. 1. IN this last Section, Of the Politic interests driven on in the Roman Church. I shall consider some such things in the Church of Rome, which represent Religion as it is by them professed to be a crafty contrivance of human policy; or a cunning method, to serve the particular interests of some men in the world. True Religion which hath respect to the chief good and happiness of men, doth indeed bring the greatest satisfaction to men in this world; but this is not done by gratifying their inordinate affections, but by commanding and subduing them. But this being from God, and having to do with him, is a thing of the greatest simplicity and sincerity in the world; and therefore proposeth nothing, but what is true and good, and suitable to God and his Honour. And when things manifestly false or evil, which are fitted to advance the outward interest of the proposers, are obtruded under the disguise of Religion, and required as things sacred, to be received with the greatest veneration; this gives too much appearance, that under the name of Religion, politic designs, and fraudulent ends and purposes of men, are managed. And where such things are done, Sect. V. it may tempt many of those who discover and understand them, to cast off the serious sense of Religion itself. Now very many things in the Romish Church, appear designed to impose on, and delude the people; and by false pretences, to advance the honour of the Pope especially, and of their Clergy also, and to gratify the avarice of the Romish Court, and enervate piety. 2. Their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution, Divers of their errors carry on some interests. seems contrived, to make lose men, who have little regard to God, to have a mighty veneration for their Priest, who, notwithstanding their wicked life, both can and will (if they be taught right) secure them in the other world, upon such terms as Christ and his Gospel will not admit. Their Service in a tongue not understood by the people, is fitted to uphold the reputation of the Clergy, among the Ignorant Vulgar, as doth also the prohibiting the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, as is observed by (a) de Scr. q. l. non legendis c. 21. Ledesima. Their Doctrine of Transubstantiation, propitiatory Sacrifice, and the conficient Priest alone receiving the Eucharist in one kind, tend much to extol the dignity and greatness of their Clergy: but the falseness of all these I have above discovered. Their exempting their Clergy, that as (b) M. Bec. Part. 2. Tr. 3. c. 6. Q. 11. Becanus saith, they are not subject to Secular Princes, nor can be punished by them, nor are bound to observe their Laws out of obedience, doth jointly tend to the advancement both of the Pope, and the Clergy, but is contrary to the true rules of Christianity, as I have in another Discourse showed. And though amongst us the true honour of the Ministry, which our Lord conferred upon it, be by many too much neglected and disregarded, we make not use of false methods for its support. Besides these, their feigned revelations and visions, concerning matters of truth and Doctrine; their many counterfeited Relics, as objects of veneration; and their falsely pretended Miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrine, are manifestly designed delusions, to impose upon others, that they may be admired by them. 3. But because this Chapter hath been already very large, I shall wave many things which might have been insisted on, and shall only consider a few things, which have a chief respect unto the Pope himself. That the claim of the Papal Supremacy is in all the branches thereof groundless, I have somewhat declared in the first Section of this Chapter, and more fully in another Discourse there referred unto. And that this is adapted to exalt the Papal dignity, grandeur and Sovereignty, and to bring in vast revenues for its support, needs not be suggested to any considering men. And the Pope's pretence to be S. Peter's Successor, seems not to be ordered with plain and honest sincerity, in his first entrance thereupon. For at the time of his Coronation, among other Rites one of the last is, that (c) Sacr. Cerem. l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 3. fol. 40. the Pope must take his handful of money from his Chamberlain (in which he must be sure to have neither silver nor gold) and scattering it among the people, must use those words of S. Peter, Silver and Gold have I none, Some things in the form of the Papal Coronation observed. but what I have, that give I you. Now it seems not very fair and upright dealing, that the Pope by being advanced to his See, should pretend himself to be a Successor of S. Peter's poverty; especially when in order to his expressing thus much, there is care taken beforehand, that he must cautiously avoid, the having all silver or gold in his hand. If S. Peter himself had been known to have done thus, when he used those words, this would have been looked upon in him, as a cheat and imposture; which is one of the first things declared by his pretended Successor, in such a case where he might uprightly and infallibly have spoken truth. And a like abuse of holy Scripture is in that other Rite at his Coronation, which goes immediately before this; when the Pope is sat down, or almost lies along, upon a Marble Seat at the Lateran Church at Rome, which Seat is called Stercoraria, and one of the Cardinals lifts him up (d) ibid. using those words in Psal. 113.7, 8. Suscitat de pulvere egenum, & de stercore erigit pauperem, ut sedeat cum principibus, & solium gloriae teneat. Where what the Psalmist calleth a dunghill, the Roman Church who would be accounted the faithful Interpreter of Scripture, interpreteth concerning a stately Marble Seat. But waving such things as these, I shall inquire into two other things of greater moment and concern; the one of Infallibility, the second of delivering Souls from Purgatory by Indulgences, and applying to them a fit proportion of the Church's Treasury. 4. Concerning Infallibility. Infallibility calculated for design. This is a strange claim, in such a Church, where there are so many palpable errors, contrary to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, and the ancient Church. But this pretence mightily serves their interest: for if this be once believed and received, all their other errors must thereupon be received with great veneration, as being founded upon the highest evidence; since no evidence can be above infallible certainty; and there can be no evidence against it, but what appears to be such is a mistaken fallacy; and therefore no doubts ought to be admitted: for there cannot be any need of reforming the Doctrine of such a Church. By this method also, so far as men believe this, they are kept in a peaceable subjection, but in a way of fraud, and neglect of truth. We account all honest and prudent ways, to promote peace with truth, to be . But if steadfastness in errors, such as those of the Scribes and Pharisees, or of any Heretics or Schismatics, be more desirable than to understand or embrace the truth, then may the devices of the Roman Church be applauded, which have any tendency to promote peace. And yet indeed all their other projects would signify little, if it were not for the great strictness and severity of their Government. This pretence to Infallibility, is in the consequence of it blasphemous, because as it pretends to be derived from God, it makes him to approve, and patronise all their gross errors, and Heretical Doctrines. And if any other persons should have the confidence, to require all they say to be received upon their authority, as unquestionable and infallibly true; though it appear never so unlikely to the hearers, or be known by them to be false; such a temper would not be thought tolerable for converse, but it is only admired in those of Rome, where there is as little reason to admit it as any where else, and no proof at all thereof, but very much to be said to confute it. For, 5. First, It is hard to believe, The asserters of Infallibility are not agreed who is the keeper thereof. that that Church should have been possessed of Infallibility for above 1600 years, which doth not yet agree where to fix this Infallibility. It is great pity that if they have Infallibility, they should not know where it is: And it is strange, it should be accompanied with so much uncertainty, that those of the Romish Communion should still disagree and be to seek who the person or persons is or are, that are Infallible, and whether any be such or not. Many of the Romish Church claim Infallibility, to belong to the Pope. This way goes Bellarmine, and many others; who assert the judgement of Councils, Whether the Pope, whether General or Provincial, to receive their firmness from the Pope's Confirmation, and then (e) de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 1, 2, 3. asserts, that he cannot err in what he delivers to the Church as a matter of Faith. And yet (f) de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 30. he grants that the Pope himself may be a Heretic, and may be known to be such, and by falling into Heresy, may fall from being Head or Member of the Church, and may be judged and punished by the Church: And this is to give up his Infallibility, since he who may fall into Heresy, and declare it, may err in what he declares. And (g) Theol. Mor. l. 2. Tr. 1. c. 7. n. 1, 2. Layman who asserts that the Pope in his own Person may fall into notorious Heresy, and yet that in what he proposeth to the whole Church, he is by Divine Providence infallible, still acknowledgeth, that this latter assertion is not so certain, that the contrary should be an error in Faith: Yea he admits it possible, and to be owned by grave Authors (such as Gerson, Turrecremata, Sylvester, Corduba, and Gr. de Valentia) that the Pope may propose things against the Faith. And this is to profess his Infallibility to be uncertain, and indeed to be none at all. And some of the Popes have been so unwary, as in their Public Rescripts, to let fall such expressions, which betrayed themselves, to have no confidence of their own Infallibility. Pope Martin the fifth determined a case proposed, concerning the (h) Extrav. Com. l. 3. Tit. 5. c. 1. sale of a yearly Revenue to be no Usury, because one of the Cardinals had given him an account, that such parts were allowed to be lawful by the Doctors: Now it is not like, that if that Pope thought his own judgement to be Infallible, that he would profess himself to proceed in his Declaration, upon the judgement of others. And Pope Innocent the third, considering those words of S. Peter, Submit yourselves therefore, to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake, whether to the King as Supreme, etc. would have it observed, that the King is not expressly called Supreme, (i) Decretal. l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. Solite. sed interpositum, for sitan non sine causa, tanquam, but this word [as] is interposed perhaps not without cause: but for sitan, and perhaps, are not a stile becoming the pretence to Infallibility, since the one acknowledgeth and the other disclaims the doubtfulness of the thing declared: But so much modesty was very needful in this Epistle, when both this Observation itself, and many other things in that Epistle were far enough from being infallibly true; as the founding the Pope's authority upon Jer. 1.10. and on God's creating two great Luminaries and such like things, of which above. 6. But others of the Romish Church, or a General Council, own the infallible judgement in matters of Faith, to be only fixed in a general Council. That Adrian the sixth was of this Opinion, is owned by (k) de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 2. Bellarmine, to whom (l) L●ym. ubi sup. Layman adds Gerson, and others of the French Church. Now there is much more to be said for this, than for the former Notion. And though a General Council cannot claim absolute infallibility of judgement in all cases, because it is possible, the erring Party may happen in some cases, to be the greater number; as appeared in some of the Arian Councils, which so far as concerned the greatness of them, bad fair for the Title of General ones. Yet if a General Council be regularly convened, and proceed orderly, with a pious intention to declare truth, and without design of serving interests and Parties, there is so much evidence concerning Matters of Faith, that it may be justly concluded, that such a Council will not err in them, but that its Determinations in this case, are infallibly true. But the admitting the Infallible Decision of such a General Council in points of Faith, is so far from the interest of the Church of Rome, that the eager promoters of the Popish interest, will by no means close with this. For a General Council having respect to the whole Catholic Church, and not being confined to the particular Roman limits: The Church of Rome can upon this principle, plead no more for any Infallibility resident in it, than the Church of Constantinople or the Church of England may do. To this purpose the General of the Jesuits, Lainezius (m) Hist. Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 497. at the Council of Trent, declared against the Infallible judgement of Councils, and thought he had proved that sufficiently, by observing that all the particular Bishops there assembled were fallible; and that therefore the firmness of its Constitutions and Anathemas, must depend on the Pope's Confirmation. And yet it might be thought that the Providence of God, may as well order the decisions of General Councils to be infallibly true in points of Faith for the guidance of his Church; as that it should infallibly guide the Bishop of Rome, whenever he teacheth Doctrines of Faith, who in other cases, and in his own person, is acknowledged by his chief Advocates to be fallible, even concerning Matters of Faith. 7. But there are others, or Oral Tradition. who call themselves Members of that Church, but are in no great favour and esteem at Rome, who lay no stress upon the unerring judgements of either Pope, or Council, more than of other men; but place a kind of Infallibility upon the certainty of Oral Tradition, and thence conclude, that whatsoever is delivered down in a Church by way of Tradition, must be infallibly true; because no Age could make any change therein: This is Mr. White's way, and particularly asserted in (n) J. S. h. sure footing, the Discourses of Mr. Serjeant. But what is said in defence of this way, is pure Sophistry. And if such persons, furnished with these Notions or Fancies, had lived in the beginning of Christianity, they might have been Advocates either for Paganism, or the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, on whose behalf the indefectiveness of Tradition, might have been urged, as well as for the Church of Rome, and almost in a persect Parallel. 8. Secondly, Infallibility is not owned by the chief of the Romanists, who neither own the Pope's judgement nor the Councils, in deciding controversies. There is good reason to think, that the chief men of the Church of Rome, give little credit themselves to the pretence of Infallibility. For in such great Controversies, wherein considerable numbers of that Church are engaged on both sides; these have some of them for many Ages continued without any satisfactory decision, from their Infallibility; even in such cases, where such a decision would contribute much to truth, would end quarrels, and be greatly useful for the guiding all men's Consciences. And therefore the determining such things, would be an excellent work of charity, but the leaving them undetermined, or at least the allowing the liberty of rejecting any pretended or real determination, may be politic, lest they should disoblige the contrary party. I shall instance in that Question, which is at some times of concernment, to all men's Consciences of their Communion, whether the authority of the Pope, or a General Council, be the greater? Which hath never yet been decided, by the consent of a Pope, and a General Council. Indeed in some smaller Councils (o) 70 Decret. l. 3. Tit. 7. c. 1. Leo the tenth did at the Lateran assert the Authority of the Pope above a Council: And Pius the second, in a Provincial Council at Mantua, declared (p) Ibid. l. 2. Tit. 9 c. 1. appeals from a Pope, to a future Council to be void and Schismatical: which was also confirmed (q) Ibid. c. 2. by Julius the second. But this way of decision, is so little satisfactory among themselves, that the Cardinal of Lorraine did in the Council of Trent openly declare, (r) Hist. Conc. Trid. l. 8. p. 580. that the Council was above the Pope, and that this was the general sense of the French Church. And divers other Bishops spoke their judgements there, to the same purpose. 9 And the General Councils of Basil and Constance asserted the authority of the Council above the Pope; and yet this is no satisfactory decision, to them of the contrary opinion. So that here we have the pretence to Infallibility, whether in the Pope, or in a General Council, slighted by themselves as they think fit. And this is a thing of such concern, that if the highest authority be in the Council, this must fix the Infallibility there also (if there be any such thing) because infallible determination must be by a Divine guidance, and so must include God's Authority in that Determination, to which none can be Superior. If this be seated in the Council, it would take down the Pope's Plumes: If in the Pope, the World might be spared the trouble of General Councils, as a needless thing, and then all those Christian Churches, Emperors and Bishops (which will take in divers Bishops of Rome) were very imprudent, who either laboured much for them, or took any great satisfaction in them. Wherefore it must needs be a business of design, and not of integrity, to make a loud noise about Infallibility, to prevail thereby upon the Consciences of other men, when they have so low an esteem of it themselves. 10. Thirdly, No Infallibility of the Roman Church, Romish Infallibility unknown to Primitive Christianity. was ever known or owned in the Primitive Church; and therefore was never delivered by Christ or his Apostles; but the pretence thereof is an Innovation of later date. And whereas the Pope unjustly pretends to a singular right of Succession, to the Authority and Prerogatives of S. Peter; it is observable, that S. Peter himself, though an eminent and prime Apostle, even in a Council, had no peculiar gift of Infallibility or judgement of decision above other Apostles. For in the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15. when after much disputation, S. Peter had declared his sense, v. 7, 11. and after him S. James expressed his judgement, v. 13, 21. the final determination of that Council, did much more follow the words of S. James, than of S. Peter, v. 19, 20. with 28, 29. Wherefore the claim of (s) Hist. Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 552. Pius the fourth, in his Epistle to the Emperor, must have an higher Plea, than that of Succession to S. Peter, that if the Bishop of Rome be present in a Council, he doth not only alone propose, but he also alone decrees, and the Council adds nothing but Approbation. 11. Nor can it be imagined, that if the Primitive Church had owned any Infallibility in the Pope, or Romish Church, that so Pious and good a Bishop as Cyprian would so earnestly have opposed the declaration of Stephen, Bishop of Rome, concerning the Baptism of Heretics. But he not only declares Stephen to (t) Cyp. Ep. 74. be in an error, but declares him to have written proudly, impertinently, ignorantly and imprudently; which sufficiently shows him to have known nothing of his Infallibility. And (u) Inter Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75. Firmilianus a renowned Bishop of Cappadocia, declares his sense against the Epistle and Judgement of Stephen also, approving S. Cyprian's answer to it, and using severe expressions against the behaviour and determination of Stephen, as bold, insolent, and evil, improbè gesta. And (w) Sent. Episcop. Conc. Carth. in Cypr. a Carthaginian Council of eighty seven Bishops, did unanimously declare their judgement, for the baptising Heretics who returned to the Church; which was contrary to what the Bishop of Rome had determined. And that this Council did sit, after Cyprian had received the Epistle, and Judgement of Stephen. Bishop of Rome, is observed by (x) Argum. Ep. Cyp. 73. Pamelius. Now though all these Bishops were in an error, in accounting the Baptism of all Heretics to be null, and that they ought generally to be Baptised, when they returned to the Church; yet it cannot be supposed, that they were so obstinately resolved in their error, as to reject the infallible evidence of truth: When many of these very Bishops, who lived to understand their error did, as (y) Dial adv. Lucifer. S. Hierome testifies, disclaim and reject it; and that Cyprian himself did so (as did also those parts of the Eastern Church who adhered to Firmilian) is judged not improbable by S. (z) Aug. Ep. 48. Austin, though it was not certain. But hence it appears, that since Stephen's determination was slighted, and opposed by such eminent Bishops, both of the Carthaginian and Eastern Church, who sincerely designed to embrace the truth, no such thing was then owned as the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop. And if Stephen did so generally declare, against the Baptising any who returned from any Heresy whatsoever, as he seems to do in the words of his Epistle, cited by (a) Ep. 74. S. Cyprian, si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos, etc. he erred on the one hand, as they did on the other; and the determination of the general (b) Conc. Nic. c. 19 Council of Nice and of (c) Conc. Const. c. 7. Constantinople takes the middle way, requiring some sort of Heretics, who kept the substantial form of Baptism, to be received upon their former Baptism; and that others should be baptised, when they returned to the Church. 12. And the Practical judgement of the ancient Church, is concerning this case sufficiently manifest in that when Heresies arose, and their errors and impieties appeared necessary to be condemned, and the Catholic Doctrine was necessary to be declared and confirmed by the greatest and fullest judgement which could be made in the Church; this was not done by application to the particular Church of Rome only, but by the summoning General Councils; which, with all the troublesome Journeys and expenses attending them, had been a very needless and vain thing, if the Romish Infallibility had then been owned. And in the four first General Councils, the Bishop of Rome was personally present in none of them, nor was his particular Sanction thought necessary to confirm them: but they were all held in the Eastern parts of the Church, and all of them desired, and obtained the Imperial Confirmation with respect to their external force and effect. And the (d) v Crackenthorp's Vigilius Dormitans. None infallible who oppose the Doctrine of Christ, and contradict themselves. fifth General Council was managed, perfectly contrary to the mind and sense of Vigilius then Bishop of Rome. 13. Fourthly, Since so many Doctrines and Practices are asserted in the Church of Rome, which are plainly contrary to the Doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles (of which several instances are given in this Chapter) that Church ought not, nor cannot be owned infallible, by those who own the Holy Scriptures and Christ and his Apostles to be so. Besides this, I might add that the Romish Bishops themselves have oft some of them at one time contradicted, what others of them at other times have affirmed. The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth, was revoked by (e) Clement. in l 3. Tit. 17. c. 1. Clemens the Fifth, as scandalous and dangerous. And I above observed that regal Supremacy in temporals, is owned by Innocentius the Third, but is disowned in the stile of many Bulls of Deposition by other Popes. But there needs no other testimony against any pretended Infallibility, than its being contradicted in what it delivers, by that evidence which is certainly infallible. And there can scarce be a greater imposture and delusion, than such a false pretence as this; which is designed both as a prop to uphold the whole bulk and fabric of Popery, and a contrivance, to raise a very high veneration thereof. 14. Secondly, Of Indulgences, and the pretence of freeing souls from Purgatory thereby. I shall consider the pretended power, of securing offenders from Purgatory, or releasing their souls out of it, partly by the Priest's Masses, and chief by the Pope's Indulgences, and being interested thereby in that treasure of the Church, which he hath power to dispense. For the Romanists tell us, that as there is in sin a fault, and in mortal sins an obligation to eternal punishment, which is discharged in the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution; so there is an obligation to temporal punishment even in venial sins, and if this be not sufficiently undergone in this life, by way of satisfaction, it must be made up by the sufferings of Purgatory. And thus a model is contrived and drawn up, to show how sinners may escape these evils of sin, without amendment. Now sin indeed is of that pernicious and hurtful nature in every respect, that by reason of it, God sometimes punisheth persons and Families, even after true repentance, and receiving the person into his particular favour; and such were the judgements on David's House, after his Murder and Adultery. And I esteem the practices of sin and vice, to be so hurtful, that though they be sincerely repent of, if that repentance and the fruits of it be not very exemplary, they will make abatements in the high degrees of the future reward. And strict penitential exercises ought to be undertaken by all Penitents for greater offences, according to the quality of their transgressions. This in the ordinary discipline of the ancient Church, was performed before the Church gave Absolution, which oft included the severe exercises of divers years; and this was the Exomologesis oft mentioned in Tertullian and Cyprian. And if in danger of death, such penitents were reconciled, who had not completed their penitential exercises, (f) Conc. Nic. c. 13.4. Conc. Carth. c. 76. the Canons required that if they recovered, these must afterwards be performed. And these things were testimonies of their abhorrence of the sin, their high value for the favour of God, and the privileges and Communion of the Church, and that they had exercised themselves to undergo difficulties and severities, rather than to forfeit them. 15. But concerning the Romish Purgatory; though God never revealed any such thing, nor did the ancient Church believe it, I shall not here engage in that dispute; but shall only observe, that this fiction of temperal punishment of sin in Purgatory is somewhat unequal, since the body which is so great a partaker in, and promoter of the sin, is wholly freed from all these punishments, and rests quietly in its grave, whilst the soul is left alone to undergo all those pains. And if the pretence of freeing offenders from great sufferings in Purgatory be a fictitious thing; it serves the ill designs of undermining holiness and true Christianity, and tends to raise a great admiration of the Pope's power in them that believe it, and to engage those to the Romish. Church, who can please and satisfy themselves with the thoughts of such Indulgences. 16. Now for the right understanding this, I shall take notice of so much as is needful to be considered, out of their own approved Authors. Layman saith, (g) Theol. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 7. c. 1. n. 1. this indulgence is a remitting temporal punishment, which is due to God, out of the Sacrament, by the application of the satisfaction of Christ and the Saints: and is (h) ibid. n. 4. a free forgiving the punishment to be undergone in Purgatory, for sins committed; or a commutation thereof into some light thing, by the mercy of God. And (i) ibid. c. 3. n. 1. that a plenary Indulgence doth dismiss all the pains, for sins which are to be punished in Purgatory. And M. Becanus saith, (k) Sum. Th. Part. 3. Tr. 2. c. 28. q. 2. Defunctis indulgentiae conceduntur, etc. Indulgences are granted to those who have depaerted this life, in that the Pope applies to them so much of the Church's treasury, as is sufficient to compensate the punishment, they should undergo in Purgatory. And this Treasury consists of the Sufferings of Christ which are infinite, and the sufferings of the Blessed Virgin, Apostles and Saints, which was more than was needful for their own sins. And Bellarmine having laid this as a foundation, on which Indulgences depend, (l) de Indulg. l. 1. c. 2. that there is a treasure in the Church; and (m) ibid. c. 3. that the Church can apply this treasure, further declares, that such Indulgences do set men free, (n) ibid. c. 7. à reatu poenae, non solum coram Ecclesia, sed coram Deo; from the guilt of punishment, not only before the Church, but also before God: and that the plenary and most full Indulgences do extend (o) ibid. c. 9 ad remissionem totius poenitentiae quae à Deo exigipossit, to the remitting all that penance which can be required by God. Nor do these Indulgences avail only according to their Doctrine to remit Penances, which are enjoined in Confession or other wise, but (p) Laym. ubi supr. c. 3. n. 2. ad omnes poenas etiam non injunctas se extendunt, they reach to all Penances or punishments, even to such as are not enjoined: and that an Indulgence (q) ibid. n. 1. Bell. ubi sup. c. 9 for one year, or for seven years, is a remitting so much punishment, as would be taken off by the Penitential exercises of one year, or of seven years. 17. Now First, I shall observe, how this by rendering a holy life unnecessary, tends to oppose the great design of the Gospel, and to render it ineffectual. These under mine true piety of life. For the precepts of the Gospel are the indispensable Laws of Christ's Kingdom, which he will have observed, or else will say to such workers of iniquity as will not obey his Gospel, depart from me, I never knew you. And the judgement to come, the punishments of another world, and the manifold promises of the Gospel, are all laid down as powerful Motives in the Religion of our Saviour, that men may be holy here, that so they may be happy hereafter. But how is all this enervated and made void, if Attrition with Absolution will (r) v. Sest. 3. n. 1. etc. free sinners from the stain and fault of their sin, and from eternal punishment: and when no further danger or evil can remain but some temporal pains, these may be discharged (either by the exercises of some enjoined penances, or without them) by the kindness and favour of an Indulgence? and all this may be done without any real exercises of mortification or an holy life. Indeed the Romish Writers require, that the person who receives the benefit of an Indulgence, should be in a state of grace: but then they also assert that Absolution with the Sacrament of Penance, is sufficiect for this. And some of the forms of Indulgences express this condition, si cordis & oris egerint poenitentiam; if they shall practise repentance in heart and word: but then their Doctors acknowledge this done by Attrition in the Sacrament of Penance, and Confession. 18. There is indeed some act of Obedience required to be performed by the person, who will interest himself in the benefit of these discharges from punishment, but they usually are of little or no concern at all, with respect to true inward and serious piety. Sometimes indeed the saying over some particular prayer is enjoined; but even the bare visiting some place is also sufficient to obtain plenary Indulgence; of which nature I shall mention two instances. The one is that mentioned by (s) Boil. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 12. Bellarmine, that whosoever shall stand before the doors of S. Peter's Church at Rome, when the Pope pronounceth his solemn blessing at Easter, doth receive a plenary Indulgence: but this as the Cardinal there tells us, is no light thing, being useful to profess the Faith, concerning the Head of the Church, & ad honorem sedis Apostolicae, qui est finis illius Indulgentiae; and to promote the honour of the Apostolical See, which is the end of that Indulgence. Which last words are somewhat unwarily plain. The other Instance I shall mention is, the visiting the Church of the Lady at Laureto, to which after some Indulgences had been granted, by Benedict XII. Martin V and Nicholas V and some other Popes, (t) Horat. Tursellin. Lauretan. Hist. l. 5 c. 20. Clemens VIII. so far enlarged these Indulgences, that he bountifully granted the pardon of all their sins, to all persons who at any time of the year shall orderly go to visit the Cell of the Virgin at Laureto. Now if any man can truly think, that such acts as these, can so reconcile God to man, as to take off all his displeasure to offenders, he must be a man so far of no Religion, as to have no serious sense of the nature of God: and this is that state to which such methods tend to bring men. 19 Secondly, Indulgences are a contrivance of gain, It may be observed, that this contrivance includes in it a design of Covetousness, and loving the wages of Unrighteousness, and cannot be excused from being Simoniacal: and the feigned imparting to others an interest, in the pretended treasury of satisfactions in the Church, is really made use of as a colour, whereby they increase their own treasuries of wealth. Indeed (u) 70 Decret. l. 3. Tit. 14. c. 1. the selling Indulgences, or any Spiritual thing, is declared against, but the enriching themselves by them is not; and how far the methods they use can be called selling, I shall not be curious to dispute. Their Author's grant, that a Priest is bound (w) M. Bec. Sum. Th. P. 3. Tr. 2. c. 25. p. a. qu. 10, & 12. ratione stipendii, upon account of his stipend, specially to offer and apply the Sacrifice to him that gave the stipend, applying to him also illam portionem satisfactionis, that portion of satisfaction, which that Priest hath a power to distribute. And in their Indulgences, there hath been oft expressed the Condition of raising moneys, if that were to be employed in the regaining the Holy Land, or the subduing Heretics, or enemies of the Roman Church. To which purpose in the Bull of Innocentius the Third, to promote an expedition into the Holy Land, to those who should give moneys according to their ability, (x) Urspergens. Chr. p. 329. he grants full pardon of all their sins, and to them who would also go in person, over and above, in retributione justorum, aeternae salutis pollicemur augmentum, he promiseth an increase of eternal happiness, in the reward of the just. And these are very great and liberal proposals, especially being assured upon such terms, as may be performed by men destitute of true and serious piety. But that which is most to be considered, is what is ordinarily practised, and generally known to be intended, and designed, in the grants of these Indulgences, especially when they are annexed to certain places as to the Lateran, and Laureto, and many others. For those persons are not accounted to come regularly, and in such a manner as is proper for such as expect to receive such great benefits, unless they bring along with them such oblations as are suitable to their state. Of this nature Horatius Tursellinus throughout his five Books of the History of the Cell. and Church of Laureto, takes notice of divers instances, of Princes, Cardinals, Noble men, and Women, Cities, and divers persons of great fame, who when they came in peregrination thither, some of them offered golden Crosses and Crowns, rich Rings and Shrines bedecked with costly Jewel, and other things of great worth and value, of which by reason of the high worth and value of them, he gives at least two hundred particular instances: when others also offered according to their ability, coming thither in a daily concourse. The like kind of devotions are upon the same account paid at Rome upon the like occasion, especially every twenty fifth year, being the year of Jubilee: and in other places also, though not in so high a degree. 20. Besides the gainfulness of this contrivance, and a method to raise an high admiraetion of the Papal power. which was unknown to the Primitive Ages, it is hugely adapted to advance the high esteem of the Papal power in all them who promise themselves any advantage thereby. For if our Saviour was justly and greatly admired for healing diseases, and casting Devils out of the Bodies they possessed, and the Angel's opening the Prison doors, and bringing forth S. Peter was deservedly esteemed a work of wonder; how admirable must the power of the Pope be accounted, who by a word speaking, can secure thousands from, or bring them out of the pains and Prison of Purgatory; and hath its effect upon the souls of men, and at such an unknown a distance. Indeed some of their Authors speak doubtfully of the Pope's power in Purgatory, telling us that (y) Laym. Theol. Mar. l. 5. Tr. 7. c. 7. n. 1, 3. he can give Indulgences to them certainly, to wit, by offering to God satisfactions for them, per modum suffragii, with prayers that he will deliver their fouls: but that this hath no certain and infallible effect, and God is not bound to do what he requires, since this case is not within the Papal Jurisdiction; for, quicquid solveris fuper terram, whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, gives limits to the Jurisdiction of the Pope. But others speak confidently of the effect, and (z) de Ind. l. 1. c. 14. Bellarmine's doubt whether Indulgences are profitable to the dead, ex justitia & condigno, out of justice and desert, or whether it be ex benignitate Dei solum & ex congruo, out of Divine benignity only, and from congruity. Both these ways, neither of which the Cardinal dare reject, do render the Pope's Authority admirable: and if the latter way could be proved true, so far as it imports what the Pope doth herein, to be highly favoured of God (which it cannot be so long as the Gospel Covenant is in force) I should account this more available, than the pretence of desert and proper worth. But notwithstanding these differences in their notions; they who doubt of the certain effect of Indulgences to deceased persons, to deliver them out of Purgatory, acknowledge their efficacy, whilst applied to living persons to keep them from it, and account the other at least very likely. 21. It is also a Politic Contrivance, Indulgences out of policy reserved to the Pope alone, to reserve the pretence of this Authority to the Pope alone to set free souls out of Purgatory. For if there were any such thing as Purgatory, and any such Treasury in the Church of Satisfactions, and any power left to the Church to dispense these at pleasure to them who want a share in them (in all which the Roman Church runs into strange exorbitancies) there can be no reason to appropriate this power to the Pope, unless we will call a device of Policy to exalt the dignity of the Roman See, a Reason. Their Writers grant, that other Bishops may give to the living some Indulgences, but this (a) Laym. ubls sup. c. 4. n. 2. to the souls departed, and with respect to Purgatory, they make peculiar to the Pope. And both their private Authors, and the Bulls of Indulgence themselves, found this Authority in the power of binding and losing, and of remitting and retaining sins, (which indeed contains an excellent and great authority, which deserves to be better understood, but is grossly abused in the Roman Church) and therefore in this special case, every Priest hath as much a right to claim this authority, as the Pope himself; since he can do altogether as much in this case. The order of Priesthood is acknowledged to be the highest order in the Ecclesiastical Offices, by the great Patrons of the Papal power, and is so declared in (b) de Ord. Sacram. p. 323. the Roman Catechism; they grant the Priest to have a power to offer propitiatory Sacrifices, for the quick and the dead, and own him to have such a power of absolution, as thereby to put persons with Attrition into a state of grace, and to deliver them from eternal destruction, and give them a title to eternal life. But that the power of delivering souls out of Purgatory, by the Benefit of Indulgences, may still be reserved to the Pope, they of the Church of Rome declare, that the grant of Indulgences is (c) Bell. de Ind. l. 1. c. 11. Laym. ubi sup. c. 1. n. 4. not from the power of order but of Jurisdiction, and thereupon they place it in the Pope alone. But as to this case of delivering souls out of Purgatory, they forget themselves when they again assert (d) Bell ib. c. 14. q. 2. Laym. ib. c. 7. n. 3. that the Pope doth not do this by a power of Jurisdiction, but by proposing or exhibiting to God satisfactions, and by suffrages and prayers, entreating God's acceptance of them. But thus much can be also done, according to their Doctrine, by every Priest, who offereth the Sacrifice of the Mass, (e) Conc. Trident. for the Quick and the Dead, for Sins, Punishment and Satisfactions. The Pope indeed in his Indulgencies, is pretended to present to God the Satisfactions of the Saints, together with those of Christ; but besides that the Satisfactions of Christ must be of themselves sufficient, the act of the Papal Indulgence being done out of the Sacrament, doth not include a proper propitiatory Sacrifice, and is therefore inferior to the act of the Priest in the Mass: And it is the propitiatory Sacrifice, which must give the value to the Satisfactions of the Saints. So that this great claim of peculiar authority in this case unto the Roman Bishop, is without any solid foundation upon their own Doctrinal Principles, and is wholly founded upon Policy, to create the higher apprehensions of the Papal excellency: Only something is said, to make it passable and plausible. 22. The last thing I shall here consider, and to Rome in the year of Jubilee. is, the policy of making void all Indulgencies though plenary, and all faculties of Indulgence granted to any other place, or persons, or upon any conditions whatsoever, save only what is granted at Rome on the year of Jubilee, which is now every twenty fifth year; save that it was a peculiar favour of Greg. 13. (f) Tursellin. Hist. Lauret. l. 4. c. 22. to the Lady at Laureto, that Indulgentiis toto terrarum orbe, ut fieri solet, suspensis in Vrbis gratiam, unam excepit Aedem Lauretanam; When Indulgences were suspended according to custom, throughout the whole World, for the benefit of the City of Rome, that singular place was alone excepted. Had the good of men been the principal design of these Indulgencies, it would have been a Work of much greater mercy, and care of the welfare of men, that plenary Indulgencies might constantly have been granted in all countries', to them who should perform the conditions required. But as the benefit of Indulgencies, is wholly appropriated to Rome every twenty fifth year; so the Papal Bull requires the performance of three days fasting, and also Prayers and giving Alms. And some of their Casuists assert, (g) Laym. Th. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 7. c. 8. n. 10. that all this must be done in one week, or others at farthest affirm it must be done within fifteen days whilst the Jubilee continues, as a Condition necessary to partake of the benefit of the Indulgence. And consequently their alms, being confined to those days, must by all persons then attending at Rome be given there, to the great enriching the Wealth and Revenues of that Church: or though some may be there devoted to the service of the Church in other places; it is to be expected, that that Church in a more particular consideration be then regarded, and interested therein. 23. The result of this whole Chapter is, that if disorderly disturbing the peace of the Church and the World, and the unjust invading others rights; if undermining and disregarding true piety; if undervaluing the dignity of Christ, and the Majesty of God; and setting up and serving politic interests and designs instead of Religion and true goodness, be things loathsome and contrary to Christianity; there must then be sufficient cause for great dislike of, and averseness from the Church of Rome, which promotes all these things by its Doctrines and allowed and enjoined practices. CHAP. III. Of our Dissenters, where some of the different sorts of them are first particularly considered, and then follows a more general consideration of them jointly. SECT. I. Of Quakers. Sect. I 1. OUr Dissenters do not only lie under the Censure of private persons, but even of our public Laws and Constitutions; and therefore I shall faithfully and calmly without prejudice inquire, Whether there be not in them just and great cause of blame. Now these are not all of one Body so much as the Romanists are, (though they also have their different parties) but are more divided in their several ways of Communion and profession; and are only united so far, as to espouse the same general interest against our established Government. And therefore that I may be the more clear and impartial, I shall first take some view of the several most famed Parties of them separately and distinctly; and then consider them jointly. 2. And it is a matter of sad reflection, that when the ancient Christian zeal contended so much for that Unity which our Religion earnestly injoineth, the Spirit of Division hath so far prevailed amongst them who withdraw from our Church; that besides their unwarrantable separation from it, great numbers of them have run into other select and distinct parties, and many of them very monstrous. S. Austin observed that when the Donatists forsook the Catholic Church, (a) Cont. Epist. Parmen. l. 3. c. 4. & lib. de Haeres. n. 69. they fell into divers parties among themselves, inter ipsos multa facta sunt schismata, alii atque alii separant, and of these the Maximinianists were the most inonsiderable. And amongst us we had formerly wretched improvements of Antinomianism into the lewdness of the Ranters; of seditious Principles, into the fierceness of the Fifth Monarchy men; and of separation into Quakerism, which is farthest removed from the Communion of the Christian Church, and from many weighty points of the Christian Doctrine. The giddy progress of separation was complained of in this Kingdom by one who (if I mistake not) is now not only a practiser, but a Patron thereof, who not amiss resembled it (b) J. H. to the several peelings of an Onion, where first one is taken off by itself, and parted, and then another, till at last there is nothing left but what is apt to draw tears from the eyes of the Beholder. And the ill effect of our divisions is so manifest, that Dr. Owen acknowledgeth that (c) Of Evangelical Love, p. 2. it will be granted, that the Glory of God, the Honour of Christ, the progress of the Gospel, with the Edification and peace of the Church, are deeply concerned in them, and highly prejudiced by them. And since the several parties condemn and disapprove each other, it is manifest from thence that all of them (at most one only excepted) must be justly for proceeding upon false Principles, and unsound Assertions. And if any separating party can justify itself, it must be able to plead truly, and manifest, that the Church from which it departs, is so corrupt in Doctrine or Worship, that it cannot Communicate therewith without sin; and that its differing from it is founded upon its casting off such things as are really sinful and evil, still retaining and embracing all such things as are true and good, even all the rules of Faith and Life, and due Order, which the Christian Religion doth direct and include. 3. Beginning with the Quakers, I might take notice of their want of ordinary civil and courteous behaviour, and outward expressions of reverence to Governors; when Christianity injoins kindness, humility, courteousness, and the due expressions of them to all men, and honourable respect to be given to Superiors. I might also mention their condemning the use of an Oath, even in judicial proceed, which if rightly undertaken, is an act of Religion in a solemn acknowledging the Omniscience and righteousness of God; and is the most effectual way for the discovery of truth, the maintaining justice, preserving rights, and ending strife. But waving very many errors received amongst them, I shall insist on four things, which their Teachers have both in their Writings and Discourses, vigorously asserted; which are of such a nature, that those who embrace these Principles, and practise according to them, may well be esteemed to be as far from true Christianity, as any persons who pretend to the name of Christians. Yet in so wild and Enthusiastic a Sect, I do not undertake to give assurance that they in all things do all of them hold the same opinions, but do hope some of them may be drawn off from some of these evil Doctrines and Positions. Here I shall observe, 4. First, Their denial of, and casting reproachful expressions upon the Holy and Glorious Trinity. The acknowledging the Trinity is a great part of the Christian Faith, our Creed directing us to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Ghost. And (d) Conc. Nicen. & Constantinopol. the two first General Councils of the Christian Church, were in a good part employed in vindicating and asserting this Doctrine against the Arian and Macedonian Heresy. And this Christian Faith is not only contained in, and plainly deduced from the Holy Scriptures; but is summarily expressed in that form of Christian Baptism which our Saviour established, when he commanded his Apostles to Baptise in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And this Baptismal form which the Holy Scriptures express, is so considerable a testimony to the Doctrine of the Trinity, that many of those Heretics who denied the Trinity, thought themselves concerned not to own this generally established form of Christian Baptism, but boldly undertook to innovate and change that form our Lord had ordained, and his Church from him (e) Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Tert. de Bapt. c. 6. & 13. had universally received. Upon this account (f) Sozom. Hist. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eunomius altered the Baptismal form, not Baptising in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, but into the death of Christ. And amongst the Arians, who owned not the Son to be coeternal and of the same substance with the Father, the form of Baptism was perverted; and (g) Theod. Lect. Collect. l. 2. Theodorus Lector relates concerning an Arian Bishop, who Baptised into the Name of the Father by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. And before these, when Paulus Samosatenus denied the Divinity of Christ, his followers the Paulianists were enjoined by the Council of (h) Conc. Nlc. c. 19 Nice to be rebaptized, since the Baptismal form by them used (i) v. Justel. in Cod. Ecel. c. univ. 19 was not into the Holy Trinity, which he did not acknowledge. And that one God in Trinity in whom the members of the Catholic Christian Church believed, and into whose Name they were Baptised, he is the object of the Christian Worship and Service; and with one heart doth that Church give glory to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: but they who disown the Trinity, cannot be expected to perform this Worship and Service thereto. 5. But besides what might be cited out of some of the Quakers Books against the Trinity, I shall take the liberty to give a little account of what myself hath formerly been concerned in. Almost three and twenty years since, some of the chief Quakers being busy in these parts, two of their Principal Teachers sent to me Nine Questions, or Positions rather, challenging me to dispute with them; the first of which was against the three Persons of the Deity, and the other took in all those things I here discourse of against the Quakers, with more also. I than accepted this challenge, and we went through all these nine in three days discourse. In the first day they plainly declared themselves against the three Persons of the Trinity; much as they had done about the same time in their Conference with (k) The Quaker disarmed. Mr. Smith at Cambridge. At that time in the Year 1659., I had the opportunity of charging George Whitehead, in the presence of George Fox, and as great a number of other Witnesses as the specious room in which we were could contain, with as horrid and blasphemous words against the Trinity as I ever read or heard of, which were contained in a Book written by him, and three other Quakers against one Mr. Tounsend, which was Entitled Ishmael and his Mother cast out. I even tremble to write the words, which the licentiousness of those times gave way to, (l) Ishmael, etc. p. 10. The three Persons which thou wouldst divide out of one like a Conjurer, are denied, and thou shut up with them in perpetual darkness, for the Lake and the Pit. But he neither did nor could deny that this wicked assertion was written and published by him and his Companions: and the same thing was urged against him out of the same Book at the Conference at Cambridge. 6. Sometime after this, as if they had a mind to show themselves particularly zealous in the opposition of the Holy Trinity, I received a paper (m) Directed to them, that affirm that there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead, and that the Father is the first, and the Word the second, and the Spirit the third: and that the second was begotten as to his Godhead. of Five Queries, containing very many branches under them, wholly leveled against the Doctrine of the Trinity, and subscribed by George Whitehead, and George Fox. And after I had returned an Answer to these, I received another large paper containing a long Harangue against the Holy Trinity, with George Whitehead's name alone subscribed. In this paper which I have by me, it is declared, That to call three distinct persons in the Trinity, are Popish terms, and names the Papists do call the Godhead by. And concerning the eternal generation of the Son of God, it is there said, Thou art one with the Papists in thy Doctrine in this thing, who in one of their Creeds do affirm, That Christ is God begotten before all Worlds, when he was begotten as to his Sonship and Manhood, and in time brought forth and manifest amongst the Sons of men. Thus the most excellent truths may be misrepresented under odious names, and by erroneous persons be called Popish. 7. Secondly, Their disparaging the Holy Scriptures, which are the Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion. The Scriptures contain the Prophetical and Apostolical Doctrine; and this Doctrine is so certain and full, that if an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel, S. Paul denounceth him to be accursed. But their denying the Scriptures to be the word of God, (though they admit them to contain truth) and their setting up the Light within them as their great Rule (both which are done frequently in their Writings and Conferences) is that which tends to undermine the Authority of the Divine Writings, and to substitute another rule which is very defective, various and uncertain, and of dangerous consequence. For if we consider men as they truly are, the Light within them is the light of Reason and natural Conscience, with those improvements of knowledge and understanding which the Christian Revelation hath made in the mind and sentiments of men. Now though this be very considerable and needful to be attended to; yet to make this and not the Holy Scripture the main Rule and Guide in matters of Christian Faith and life, is to prefer the light of Nature with the advantages it hath from Christian converse and Oral Tradition (or the delivery of truth from one to another, according to the thoughts, opinions and judgements of men, though mixed with many errors and much uncertainty) before the infallible and unerring direction of the Holy Spirit in the Divine Scriptures. And while the Scribes and Pharisees disparaged the Scriptures in preferring the Traditions of their Elders; and the Romish Church doth much to the same purpose, this Position of this Novel Sect is rather more unaccountable, than either of those other practices. For though they established mistaken, false and erroneous Rules, yet the things dictated thereby were approved by the joint consideration of many select men, whom they esteemed men of greatest understanding; while this way directs every man, how corrupt and erroneous soever his mind may be, to set up his own thoughts and apprehensions, to be a sufficient Rule and Guide. And this must suppose every man's own conceptions to be infallible, though they be never so contrary to one another, or to the Divine Revelation. 8. But if we consider the followers of this Sect according to the pretences of many of them, the Light within them, must have chief respect to some Enthusiastic motions and impulses. Such things were pretended to by the * Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 10. Messalians and other Heretics of old: But besides what may be said against such pretences in general, the manifest falsehood of them is in these particular cases apparent from the plain errors they assert contrary to the sure Doctrine of Christianity. And to set up any Enthusiastic rule of Religion includeth a disparaging the Revelation of Christ and his Apostles, which is the right instruction in the true Christian Religion; and this is ordinarily also blasphemous against God, in falsely making him the author of such errors by vainly pretending inspiration, which are evidently contrary to what he hath truly revealed by Christ and his Gospel. 9 Thirdly, Their disowning Christ's special Institutions; to wit, the establishing the Communion of his true Catholic Church, and his Ministry, and the Holy Sacraments. Their disregard to the Communion of the Christian Church, and their frequent reproaches against it, and the Ministers thereof, are very notorious. But I shall here chief insist on what concerns the Sacraments, which Holy institutions they generally disuse; and against the use of these their Teachers have both spoken and written. Now this is a thing so evil and of such dangerous consequence, that besides the disobedience to what our Lord hath constituted and commanded by his plain precepts, they hereby reject those things which the Gospel appoints to be eminent means of Communion and Union with the Church and Body of Christ. Such things are both the Sacraments, both that of Baptism and that of the Lords Supper. 1 Cor. 12.13. chap. 10.16, 17. And this Union and Communion according to the ordinary method of the Gospel Dispensation is necessary to Membership with the Catholic Church. And the disowning and rejecting these things, is the refusing the means of grace which God hath appointed, for the conveying the blessings of his Covenant, and particularly the remission of sins, to such persons, who by performing the other conditions of the Covenant, are duly qualified for the receiving the same in the use of these administrations, Act. 22.16. Mat. 26.28. Our Lord appointed Baptism to be a part of the condition of obtaining salvation, Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is Baptised shall be saved. And the ancient Christians had such an high esteem thereof, that Tertullian gins his Book de Baptismo on this manner, Foelix Sacramentum aquae, quia ablutis delictis pristinae caecitatis, in vitam aeternam liberamur; Happy Sacrament of Baptism, because the faults of our former blindness being washed away, we are set free unto eternal life. And our Lord hath declared, that except we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have no life in us, Joh. 6.53. and hath appointed the Holy Communion to be an eminent and peculiar way of eating his Body, and drinking his Blood. And what then can be said for them who grossly neglect, and especially for them who declare against, and totally reject these Sacred Institutions? And if under the Old Testament God was so highly displeased with him who neglected Circumcision, as to denounce him to be cut off from his people, Gen. 17.14. and declared that they who attended not on the Passeover, should bear their sin, Num. 9.13. he cannot be pleased with the violating those Institutions which are of an higher nature, being established by the Son of God himself under the Gospel. 10. Fourthly, The Doctrine of perfection as held by them who declare themselves throughly free from sin. For this undermines all penitential exercises, which take in the great part of the true Christian life; and makes void confession of sin, and sorrow for it, together with prayer and application to the Sacrifice of Christ for remission; and a diligent care of amendment. We acknowledge and assert that every pious Christian doth overcome the power of sin, so that he doth not serve it, but lives in the practice of good Conscience towards God and man. This is such a life that the Holy Scriptures speak much of the excellency and real holiness and purity thereof, and its freedom from sin. And the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, give large and high commendations thereof. Polycarp saith (n) Ep. ad Philip. p. 16. that he who hath charity is free from all sin: which hath some affinity with those words of the Apostle, Rom. 13.8. he that loveth another, hath fulfilled the Law. And Origen speaks of the Christian man as being pure from sin, (o) Cont. Cells. l. 3. p. 148, 149. and having left off to sin; which is of like nature with not continuing any longer therein, Rom. 6.2. as having departed from a vicious, wicked and impure life. And the Christian life is a perfect life, as it greatly outdoth the practice of evil men, and is in itself excellent, and contains a resemblance of God, Mat. 5. 44-48. and as it is guided by the fear of God, and directed to the eschewing evil, and doing what is just and good, Job 1.1. Psal. 37.37. 11. And every true Christian doth and must perform all the necessary conditions in the Gospel-Covenant for acceptance with God, and obtaining Salvation; or otherwise he can never be saved. And the practice of Faith and true holiness; the subduing lusts and evil affections; and being renewed after God, is included in these conditions. But the terms and conditions of the Gospel-Covenant are not the same thing, but must be differently considered from the rules of duty which the Gospel injoins. For a constant practice of every duty towards God and man, and a careful performance of every moral precept without any transgression thereof is enjoined more highly under the Gospel, than ever it was before. But the conditions of the Gospel-Covenant, are upon more mild and gentle terms of grace, than were contained under the foregoing Dispensations: for they admit and approve true uprightness and sincerity of obedience, though there may some failings and imperfections attend it; and they allow of repentance, and promise mercy and pardon to those offenders who are truly penitent. So that the rules of duty considered in their large extent, do so far show what we are obliged to perform, that whensoever we fail in the least part thereof, we thereupon need the benefit of the pardoning mercy of God, and the atonement and expiation of our Saviour; to which when we discern our failing in the exercise of self-reflexion, we are to apply ourselves according to the directions of the Gospel, with a pious and penitent behaviour. But the great and necessary conditions of the Gospel and the Covenant of grace, contain those things which are of such indispensable necessity to be performed and observed by us, that the mercy of God will never accept of those who neglect them, nor will it pardon the omission thereof. Such conditions under the Gospel Revelation, are the embracing the Christian Faith, the diligent exercise of a holy life, and under the sense of our failings, an humble address to God through Christ for his mercy, pardon and supplies of further grace, with penitential exercises. 12. And in the best of men who exercise themselves diligently in piety and the discharge of a good conscience, there may be many things wherein they fail and come short of the exact performance of what they ought to do. And therefore our Saviour taught his Disciples ordinarily to pray, forgive us our Trespasses; and appointed that petition to be part of that prayer which he directed and commanded them to use. Upon which words of the Lords Prayer, (p) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. S. Cyprian observes, how every one is hereby taught and instructed that he offends every day, when he is commanded daily to pray for the pardon of his sins. And he observes also how constant a need every person hath of seeking for and obtaining pardon for his failings, in that upon this account our Lord urgeth the necessity of our constant care of forgiving others, because otherwise our heavenly Father will not forgive us; and therefore he gives this as a rule to be always practised whensoever we pray, Mark 11.25. When ye stand praying, forgive if ye have aught against any, that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive you your trespasses. And from the consideration of the Lords Prayer, (q) Aug. Ep. 89. S. Austin well observes, that if the Christian state here were so far perfect as to be free from all offences, our Saviour would never have taught such a Prayer to his Church, to be constantly used by his Disciples when they pray, and even by the Apostles themselves. And in the Institution of the Lords Supper, our Saviour tendered the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be received by Christians in the continued administration of that Ordinance, for the remission of sins. All which doth manifest that Christian life and Gospel-obedience, which is accepted upon the conditions of the Covenant of grace, is not an absolute sinless obedience, though it doth include a real purity of heart, and integrity of conversation. And the pious Christian is sometimes called perfect, with respect to that excellency to which he hath attained, Phil. 3.15, 16. and yet at the said time in a different sense is not acknowledged to be perfect, Phil. 3.12. by reason of the defects which are still remaining. Hence the Holy Scriptures oft speak to this purpose, that in many things we offend all, and that there is no man that lives and sins not, and that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 13. And we further assert and acknowledge, that in the Christian state there is also a perfection by way of comparison, in them who have arrived to greater degrees, and a more eminent height and growth in Christian graces and virtues, than others: and this excellent state is very desirable, and aught to be diligently endeavoured by every pious man. But no such persons either will or can truly say, that henceforth they have no need of any interest in the mercy of God for the forgiving their failings, or in the benefits of Christ's Merits and Sacrifice, for obtaining thereby pardon and remission. But (r) Ep. ad Eph. p. 18. & Philad. p. 41. Ed. Vos. Ignatius, when ready to lay down his life by Martyrdom, acknowledged his imperfection. And (s) Paed. l. 1. c. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus describes the Christian, that his failings must be as little as is possible, and he must strive against all disorders of affections, and disown all customs of sin: and it is an excellent thing to be free from all fault, but this is the state of God. The imperfections of such men as Asa and Job, and others who are called perfect, are noted in the Scripture. And that same Epistle in which S. John speaks so much of him that is born of God that he sins not, as having rejected a vicious and evil life, and being set free from the service thereof, he also declares against him who saith he hath no sin, 1 Joh. 1.8. directs confession of sin, v. 9 and speaking concerning those who are in a true Christian state, saith, that Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins, 1 Joh. 2.2. And who, who examines himself, can pretend himself free from every disorder in any passion or affection, from all failure in word or thought; and that he can be charged with no neglect of any duty at any time, either towards God or man, in any relation whatsoever, nor with any defect in the manner of the performance thereof? And the pretence to perfection and sinless practice is the more fond and unreasonable in this Sect, because of the gross and heinous errors of judgement, and consequently of practice which they are guilty of, together with many words of falsehood, censoriousness or uncharitableness. 14. Now the great hurt and danger of this opinion, concerning perfection is, First, That it makes void such duties as confession, repentance, & application to the benefits of Christ's expiatory Sacrifice, which things are not only enjoined upon Christians by the frequent commands of the Gospel; but are also proposed as the conditions for obtaining the pardoning mercy and favour of God: and the exercise of repentance, and bringing forth fruits meet for repentance, contains very much of the practical part of the duties of the Christian Religion. Secondly, It greatly misrepresents the Covenant of Grace, as if together with the rules of an holy life, and the assistances enabling thereto, it did not, for the encouraging our best and sincere endeavours, make allowances for the imperfections of the upright man's obedience, and propose pardon to them who are truly penitent. If the Gospel did not admit these gracious terms and conditions, the state of the best sort of men would be miserable. But S. John joins these two together, 1 Joh. 2.1. the strictness of the Gospel rule, that will not allow of any sin, My little children these things writ I unto you, that ye sin not: and the gracious conditions of pardon through the merits of Christ; if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation, etc. 15. Wherefore we acknowledge the Christian life to have in its degree an Evangelical perfection; whereby in the upright Service of God it is free from the dominion of sin, and is diligent in the progress of grace and piety, and obtains pardon for its offences. But with respect to its practice, as (t) Aug. ad Bonif. l. 3. c. 7. S. Austin observed, ad ejus perfectionem pertinet ipsius imperfectionis & in veritate cognitio, & in humilitate confessio: It is a branch of his perfection truly to know, and humbly to acknowledge his imperfection. For as he speaks in another place, (u) Retrac. l. 1. c. 19 Who can be completely perfect, but he who observes all the Commandments; amongst which this is one, enjoined upon all Christians, that we must pray, forgive us our trespasses, quam orationem usque ad finem seculi tota dicit Ecclesia, This is the prayer which the whole Church maketh to the end of this world. SECT. II. Of the Fifth Monarchy men, and the Millenary Opinion. Sect. TWO 1. THough I shall wave divers Sects which appeared in our late times of Confusion, as Seekers, Ranters, and various Enthusiasts; I shall take some notice of the Fifth-Monarchy men, who, since his Majesty's return to his Kingdom, made an attempt to put in practice their evil and wretched Principles. The notion of our Saviour's personal Reign a thousand years upon Earth, hath deceived many persons in the Christian Church, through their misunderstanding some expressions in the Apocalypse (to which purpose also they applied many other Scriptures): though the ancient opinions of many worthy persons in the Christian Church who were led away by this error, did still retain the meek and peaceable temper of Christianity. (a) In Esai. l. 9 in fin. l. 15. in init & passim. S. Hierome in many places speaks of this opinion as a Jewish error, and perstringeth the embracers thereof as Judaizers. And indeed this notion had some considerable affinity with the Jewish expectation concerning the Messiah, that he should appear as a Temporal Prince, to Reign gloriously and powerfully upon Earth: and those Christians who were led away with this mistake, looked for the restoring and rebuilding the City of Jerusalem, when this Kingdom should appear, with other things too much savouring of Judaisme. 2. And that this earthly and worldly Reign of Christ was very agreeable to the dreams and fancies of the Jews, may be yet somewhat further manifested by observing that even (b) Gem. in Sanhed. c. 11. n. 11. the Jewish Talmud speaks of the time of a thousand years; when God shall renew the World, and he alone shall be exalted and Reign, and the righteous shall enjoy outward and temporal delights in the world. And some of the Rabbins do more particularly express their sense concerning this state, insomuch that in the Commentaries of R. Abraham on Dan. 12.2. as his words are related by (c) in Exc. Gem. Sanh. ib. Cocceius, it is said that as he understands that Prophecy, the just who died in exile out of the Land of Israel, at the coming of the Messiah, should be raised again, and have all manner of delightful Food, Fishes, Fowls and great ; and then should die a second time, and be raised again at the Resurrection of the dead, and then should be in the other world, where they should neither eat nor drink, but enjoy the brightness of the glory of God. But so far as these things relate to earthly and sensual pleasures, they might well enough suit the temper and disposition of the Jews, and were agreeable to those carnal delights which (d) Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cerinthus talked of in the Kingdom of Christ on Earth for a thousand years; but such things savour not of the true Spirit of Christianity, but are plainly opposite thereto. 3. But it must be acknowledged that there have been divers worthy persons in the ancient Church, and some of late, who have embraced the Millenary opinions, but have still retained such Principles and Opinions as are suitable to the peaceableness and Spiritual purity of Christianity. Such besides Papias, were Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Apollinarius, Tertullian, Lactantius and others of old, and Mr. Mede in this last age. These looked for the coming of our Saviour with his Martyrs and other Saints raised from the dead, to Reign on Earth before the end of the World. Their chief ground was from Rev. 20.4. But their interpretation of those words concerning the Souls of them that were beheaded, etc. living and reigning with Christ a thousand years (besides much that may be otherwise said against it) cannot agree with v. 7, 8, 9 Where after the thousand years are ended, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the Nations, and Gog and Magog shall compass the camp of the Saints, and the beloved City. But such things cannot agree to the time of a thousand years after our Saviour's second coming, nor is there indeed any mention made in the foregoing Verses of Christ's coming to Reign here upon Earth. And therefore the Millenary Opinion was deservedly rejected and disclaimed by (e) Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. ult. Eusebius, as being against the true sense of the Prophetical Scriptures. 4. But according to the Prophetic stile, the living again of those who were dead, (yea so long dead that their bones were dry) is an expression of a Church or State delivered out of affliction and calamity, and advanced to a more prosperous and flourishing condition, as is manifest from Ezek. 37.2, 3, and v. 11, 12, 13, 14. and Isai. 26.19. and the continuing under a depressed state is expressed by being so dead as not to rise, v. 14. And when the Church or the Saints of the most high are represented to possess the Dominion and Government of the World, or that the Empire of the World should become Christian, and the Rule and Government thereof be administered by them who professed Christianity, this is signified by the Dominion of one like the Son of man, and giving him a Kingdom, Dan. 7.13, 14. and the Saints of the most high possessing the Kingdom, v. 18, & 22. and by being caught up to God and to his Throne, Rev. 12.5. which are expressions of like import with that of reigning with Christ. 5. But though this mistake of the Chiliasts had so far spread itself, that it was entertained by many worthy men in the first ages of the Church, I cannot think it to have had so universal a reception in that time, as some very learned men are inclined to believe. S. Hierome mentions Papias (f) de Script. Eccl. in Pap. to be accounted to have given the first rise to this opinion, and (g) Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius speaks to the same purpose, who also observes him to have been a man of good note and esteem, but of a mean judgement; and that while he was inquisitive concerning whatsoever he could learn to have been spoken by the Apostles, and some Apostolical men, he being too credulous, delivered some things as Doctrines and Parables spoken by our Saviour, which were fabulous. In (h) Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. Justin Martyr, there are plain expressions that himself and many other Christians embraced this Opinion of the Chiliasts, but still it appears that he granted other Christians not to own this assertion. And when (i) Euseb. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing against the Book of Nepos an Egyptian Bishop, which he had composed to maintain the opinion of the Chiliasts, doth declare, that this Opinion spread from Arsenoites had occasioned Schisms and defections in some whole Churches in those parts; this is a plain evidence that the Churches of Egypt, and those under Alexandria had remained free from receiving the error of the Chiliasts till the time of Nepos, which was in the beginning of the third Century, and divers of them also were soon reduced from it again by the labours and diligence of Dionysius, as is expressed in the same place. 6. But though this Opinion in its general consideration be an error manifest enough, occasioned by the misunderstanding of the Prophetical expressions, which suitably to the visions and representations they had of things, is more Figurative and Emblematical than other parts of the Scriptures: yet that which I chief aim at, is a far worse superstructure, which is built upon this foundation. For there have been a furious and fierce sort of men who embracing this error, have therewith espoused such pernicious Principles and Practices, that the bare naming them, is enough to show them grossly inconsistent with Christianity, whilst under a pretence of making way for Christ's Kingdom, they do in disorderly and unchristian methods, set up themselves in opposition to other Governors. These are of a seditious temper, but are far from being governed by those Laws and Precepts of Christ's Kingdom, which enjoin the necessity of peace, and meekness, and being subject. These men when they think fit, are for taking the Sword, as was done by Venner and his Company, to fight against the Government and Authority, which they were bound to submit unto; which besides the open Rebellion in resisting the higher Powers with a presumptuous and daring confidence, Sect. III. shows such a cruel and bloody Spirit as is extremely contrary to the innocency, gentleness and meekness of the Christian Religion. These also were of that ambitious and haughty temper, that whilst they made use of the name of Christ, they attempted thereby to claim to themselves against all right, the possession of Authority and rule, opposing herein the order of the World, the Ordinance of God, and the Gospel rules of humility and obedience. And this behaviour in all these particulars mentioned, is so contrary to the plain Principles of humanity as well as of Christianity, that it may be a convictive instance to let all men see into what strange and abominable miscarriages, the prevalency of the wretched vanity of a wild Enthusiastic Spirit may misguide those men who are deluded thereby. SECT. III. Of Anabaptists. 1. IN discoursing of those who are ordinarily among us called Anabaptists, I shall take no notice of many evil Opinions and cruel Practices, which those who go under that name have been guilty of, especially in foregin Countries, but shall confine myself wholly to the consideration of Anabaptism, not in the strict notion of the word, but as it is commonly understood amongst us. And in this sense it especially includes Antipaedobaptism, as denying Infant-Baptism, and disowning the persons Baptised in their Infancy, from being truly Baptised, and thereby Members of the Church; and asserting thereupon, that it is necessary they should be rebaptized. But the evil of this their opposition against the Baptism of Infants, consisteth especially in three things. 2. First, In that the foundation of this Opinion is untrue, and gives a false representation of the grace of God in the New Covenant. For God by his grace, doth receive Infants born in the Church, to be under his Covenant, and to partake of the benefits and blessings thereof: and therefore they ought to be admitted to that Ordinance, which is a Seal of that Covenant, and contains a particular tender and application of the benefits thereof unto those who are duly qualified to receive them. And since this Covenant owneth Infants to be Members of the Church of God, they ought not to be debarred from the solemn admission thereunto. When God made his Covenant with Abraham, he extended it to him and to his Seed: and whereas God then appointed Circumcision to be a token of this Covenant, Gen. 17.11. and a Seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11. he still commanded that all the Males in their infancy should be Circumcised, Gen. 17.12. which is a manifest evidence that they were interested in this Covenant made with Abraham. And this precept of Circumcision concerning the Infant Males, continued in force until the coming of our Saviour, and thereby Infants born in the Jewish Church, were owned and received to be members of that Church. Now our Saviour's coming was not to confine the Church to narrower limits, but to extend and enlarge it. 3. And it may not be amiss to observe, that the Jews themselves did generally acknowledge that the privilege of having such Children admitted into their Church in their infancy, whose Parents were members thereof, was not peculiar to that Nation alone, but did also belong to those who from among the Gentiles became Proselytes to the Jewish Religion. When they admitted the chief sort of Proselytes which were called the Proselytes of righteousness, this was usually done (a) Seld. de Syned. l. 3. c. 3. p. 34, 37-40. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.6. by Circumcision together with a kind of Baptism, or washing them (with respect to their uncleanness in their Gentilism) and Sacrifice, as Mr. Selden, and Dr. Lightfoot and others have observed: who also have manifested from the Jewish writers, that they did usually admit Children, even Infants with their Parents. And if the Mother was admitted into the number of this sort of Proselytes when she was with Child, that Child afterwards born, was supposed not to need any other washing, but if it was a Male, was received only by Circumcision. And it also appears by the testimonies produced by the latter of these Writers (b) Hor. Heb. ibid. that they ordinarily admitted the Infants of Gentiles to be Proselytes, if they were taken into the care and education of Israelites: and this was agreeable to what God had established concerning him who was born in Abraham's House, or bought with money of any stranger not of his Seed. 4. And that the New Testament doth particularly admit Infants into the Church of God, and giveth them a right to partake of the benefits of his Covenant, as well as the Old Testament did, might be justly presumed, because there is not any thing said or done by our Saviour which doth exclude them, nor is there any thing declared by God, whereby he expresseth his altering the terms of his Covenant, so as in this particular to confine it into a less and straighter compass under the Gospel. But besides this, there are plain expressions in the New Testament, that Infants are received as Members of the Church of God, and interested in the promises of his Covenant under the Christian Dispensation. Our Saviour saith of them, that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mar. 10.14. and S. Peter persuades the Jews, Act. 2.38, 39 Repent and be baptised— for the promise is to you and to your Children; and the same thing may be inferred from other Texts of Scripture. And these expressions especially considering what God had established and enjoined in the time of the Old Testament, do sufficiently declare this sense of the Gospel-Covenant, that Children and Infants are included therein. 5. And whereas the Judaizers did earnestly contend with the Apostles, about the necessity of Circumcision, and other Jewish Rites to be continued in the Church, we read of no contest about the admission of their Children into the Church. Had the Apostles and the Christian institution herein differed from the Rules received under the Old Testament, in not admitting Children into the Church of God; these men would not doubt as eagerly have contended with the Apostles about this thing as about the other; since this was a branch of God's ancient Covenant, and such a branch as they could not but think to be of high concernment to themselves and their Posterity. But the Christian Doctrine plainly acknowledgeth that Children were reputed holy, if but one of their Parents were Christians or Believers, 1 Cor. 7.14. and therefore such Children which otherwise had been unclean, were accounted to belong to the Church, by virtue of that relation they had to such Believing Parents. And when the Apostles are said to have Baptised persons and all theirs, or all their Household, upon the consideration now mentioned, it is not to be doubted but Children and Infants were included in these expressions, Act. 16.15. and v. 33. 1 Cor. 1.16. and also in that other precept of Baptising all Nations, and making them Disciples, Mat. 28.19. And this will receive further confirmation from the ordinary and usual practice of the ancient Christian Church in Baptising Infants, which I shall by and by mention. 6. Indeed under the Gospel it was necessary that adult persons, both Jews and Gentiles, should first be taught the Christian Doctrine, and own their belief thereof, and undertake the practice of repentance and obedience, before they could be Baptised into the Christian Church. But this gives no support to them who oppose the Baptism of Infants; since even under the Old Testament, such persons who being adult, were received as Proselytes to the Jewish Church, were first to be acquainted with the Law of God, (d) and then to profess their owning and believing in the God of Israel, (c) Selden. ubi sup. before they were admitted into that Church by Circumcision, and other solemn Rites. And this reasonable and necessary observation, with respect to those who attained to years of discretion, was well consistent with their Circumcising Infants: and the Divine Law enjoined, that when strangers were desirous to embrace the Jewish Religion, and were admitted thereto, all their Males (and therefore even those which were Infants) must be Circumcised, Exod. 12.48. 7. And those words of S. Paul, from which the favourers of Anabaptism have endeavoured to prove, that under the New Testament none (and therefore no Infants) are interested in the Gospel-Covenant and Membership of the Christian Church, by being born of Christian Parents, are greatly mistaken. S. Paul saith, Rom. 9.6. They are not all Israel, which are of Israel. v. 7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children: but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called. For, 1. These words have no peculiar respect to the time and state of the New Testament; but they give an account how the promise to the Seed of Abraham was to be understood, from the very time in which it was made to Abraham. And the Apostle here shows, that this Promise and Covenant was particularly fixed upon Isaac and his Family, v. 7. and then upon Jacob, v. 13. and yet then Infants were constantly Circumcised. 2. The true sense of these words is, that the Promise and Covenant of God, to and with Abraham and his Seed, did not bind him to continue all the posterity of Ishmael or other Sons of Abraham; nor yet the Posterity of Esau, to be his peculiar Church and people, though these were Circumcised, and lineally descended from Abraham, but had departed from the Religion, Piety, Faith, and Obedience of their Father Abraham. And from hence the Apostle proves that the same promise can be no security to the Jews or the Posterity of Jacob in their unbelief and disobedience: but God can otherwise accomplish his promise made to the Seed of Abraham, by accomplishing it to them who walk in the steps of the Faith of Abraham. 3. As this true sense is wholly alien from proving Infants not to be members of the Christian Church; so the sense imposed upon them by the Anabaptists, is neither agreeable to the words themselves, and the scope of that place, nor to such other expressions of the New Testament, as I have above mentioned. 8. Secondly, This Opinion and Practice of Anabaptism, is very uncharitable to Infants born in the Christian Church, upon a double account. For, First, The consequence of this Position will be to take away that great hope of Salvation which the true Principles of Christianity do afford, concerning Christian Infants dying in their infancy. I acknowledge that this consequence concerning all Infants is not owned by those who hold this erroneous opinion in denying Infant-Baptism, who run into other errors to avoid this. But yet this is deducible from their Assertion; and therefore I charge this uncharitableness to be a proper consequent of this opinion. For since Christians are Baptised into the Body or Church of Christ, 1 Cor. 12.12. and are thereby entered as members thereof: if Infants be denied to have any right to Baptism, or to be capable of being Baptised, they cannot then be owned to be members of the visible Church of Christ, and parts of his Body. And they who are supposed to be excluded from the visible Church by God's special institution, and to be thereby made uncapable of being received as members thereof, cannot well be presumed to be admitted into membership with the invisible Church; if we consider what God himself hath declared concerning the power of the Keys, and of Binding and Losing upon Earth. And those great privileges of the New Covenant, of which eternal Salvation is the chief, belong to that Church, which is the Body of Christ, and to the lively members thereof: For Christ is the Saviour of this body, Eph. 5.23. And this Body which is his Church, is that which he will present to himself, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor any such thing, v. 27. And whereas Baptism is the laver of regeneration, Tit. 3.5. if Infants are not capable of being partakers of that washing of water whereby the Church is cleansed and sanctified, Eph. 5.26. and of the laver of regeneration, and of regeneration itself also, they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, Joh. 3.3, 5. 9 But this opinion is further uncharitable to Infants, in denying to them such means of grace as the Gospel of our Saviour doth afford them, and the Christian Church hath from the beginning always acknowledged to belong to them. All the Ordinances and special Institutions of Christ tend to the great advantage and good of them who do aright partake of them, and are useful to their spiritual and eternal welfare and benefit; and so particularly is Christian Baptism. Of this I have particularly discoursed in (d) Libert. Eccles. B. 1. c. 5. Sect. 3.4.5. another place. And as the Scriptures sufficiently express the great benefit of Baptism, with respect to regeneration and remission of sins; so whosoever hath a due reverence for our Lord and Saviour, can by no means entertain such low thoughts of his Institutions, as to think them of no considerable usefulness to them who duly receive them. But this piece of uncharitableness to Infants, is much worse, and more hurtful and prejudicial to them than the former. For the opinion from whence the former consequent was deduced, being untrue, the consequence itself is also false, and so hath no real influence or effect upon the state of Infants, nor are damaged thereby, whereas they are truly prejudiced by being denied the means of grace. 10. On this account the Chiristian Church in the first ages thereof, and in a continued succession from thence to this time, hath admitted Infants to be Baptised, and thought itself bound so to do. S. Austin, (e) de peccar. Mer. & remis. l. 1. c. 26. declares this practice to have authoritatem universae Ecclesiae, proculdubio per Dominum & Apostolos traditam: the Authority of the Universal Church, without doubt delivered by the Lord and the Apostles: and the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism, is called by S. Austin, (f) Ep. 28. firmissima Ecclesiae fides, a Doctrine of Faith, most firmly and constantly believed in the Church. And much to the same purpose is frequently expressed by S. Austin. To this purpose the determination of (g) Ep. 59 ad Fidum. S. Cyprian, and an African Council with him, is very manifest. When Fidus had written to Cyprian his opinion, that Infants ought not to be Baptised within the second or third day of their Birth, or until the eighth day, which was the time appointed for Circumcision; though this opinion allowed and asserted Infant-Baptism, S. Cyprian largely declares, that not any one of this Council did agree to this opinion; but every one of them judged, Nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei & gratiam denegandam, That the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no Child of man, i. e. upon account of their age. And he there shows, that Infants from the time of their Birth, are not to be prohibited Baptism. And of how great consequence they in those early times judged Infant-Baptism, is apparent from this expression relating thereto, (h) ibid. quantum in nobis est, si fieri potest, nulla anima perdenda est; as far as is in our power, if it be possible, no soul is to be lost. The plain testimonies of Origen, both upon Leviticus, and the Epistle to the Romans, and of divers other Fathers and Councils might be added, to manifest the universal reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholic Church. But this having been clearly and sufficiently evidenced by the Historical Theses of (i) Thes. Theolog. p. 429, etc. Vossius, upon this Subject of Paedobaptism, I shall refer him thither, who would have more large and ample proof hereof. 11. But that learned man truly observes, that there is something which may seem singular in some expressions of Tertullian and Nazianzen, who though they deny not Infant-Baptism, yet intimate the usefulness of deferring the Baptism of Infants, and incline to persuade the same. Now though any singular apprehension of one or two men is not to be laid in the balance against the general sense of the Church; I shall however observe something further concerning the sense of both these ancient Writers. Gr. Nazianzen doth indeed in his Oration (k) Orat. 40. p. 458. concerning Baptism, advise, that if Infants be in no danger of death, their Baptism may be deferred till they be three years old, or somewhat less or more, that themselves may hear something of that Mystery, and give answer. But though he might proceed upon a notion peculiar to himself, it is manifest, that he was no favourer of Anabaptism, because in that very place, he both declares the lawfulness of Baptising Infants as they were Circumcised the eighth day, and the profitableness of Baptism to them that die in their infancy, and also presseth the practice thereof when the Infant is in any danger. But besides all this, it seems to me not improbable, that these words of Nazianzen have respect to some special case, and probably to that which was then very ordinary and usual in the Christian Church concerning such Infants, whose Parents were yet unbaptised, either continuing Catechumen according to the discipline of the Church, or else after their embracing Christianity, did long by their own choice and neglect, defer their Baptism. Of this latter sort he discourseth much in this Oration, (l) p. 647. 650, 658, 660. and ofttimes, and even in this very place, reprehends the fault of many adult persons who neglected Baptism, and urgeth them to be Baptised, and then proposeth this Question, and gives this Answer concerning Infants. 12. And there are three things which incline me to think that these words must have respect to some such special case as this I have mentioned, besides that this is very suitable to the Scope and Coherence of his Discourse in this place itself. 1. Because he doth in (m) p. 448. another place of this Oration persuade to the Baptising Children, even those who are Infants, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and that they should be sanctified while they are Babes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and this he recommends to be done before any evil be embraced, as being greatly useful for the future life of the Child. 2. In the same Oration, he declares his judgement, that even Infants dying without Baptism, (n) p. 453. should not be admitted to future glory, though they would be free from future punishment. And therefore it cannot be supposed, that he would advise that to be ordinarily done, which might run a needless hazard of the loss of future glory to Infants, in that case where they were certainly qualified for the receiving Baptism, and being benefitted by it, as the Infants of Believing and Baptised Parents were. But in such a case as that abovementioned, where there might be doubtfulness concerning such Infants being in a capacity to receive Baptism, he might account that advice he gave, to be proper and useful. 3. Because the Christian Church did generally admit those who were in the very entrance of their infancy, unto Baptism, and it cannot well be imagined that so peaceable a man as Gregory Nazianzen was, would advise against the general practice of the Christian Church in ordinary cases; while yet he professedly allowed the lawfulness and usefulness of that practice. 13. Tertullian adviseth the deferring (o) Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18. the Baptism of Infants till themselves be instructed. But this place also may I suppose have a good account given of it, by considering the state and discipline of the Primitive Church. And therefore, 1. Pamelius thinketh, (p) In Tertul. de Bapt. n. 126. that this might probably be spoken concerning such Infants, whose Parents were Infidels; but I had rather understand this also concerning those whose Parents were professed Christians, but not yet Baptised. 2. Tertullian, (q) c. 12, 13. both in this very Book and elsewhere * & de Anima c. 39, 40. , asserts that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and the privileges of Christianity, and to that purpose he applies to Baptism, as other ancient Writers generally did, those words of Christ, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And therefore he plainly asserts, Nemini sine Baptismo competere salutem. And this shows, that the advice of deferring Baptism, in persons fitly disposed to receive it, and further than the just rules of trial fixed in the ancient Church did require, was unreasonable and dangerous. And this may incline us to think that he intended not to plead for any other procrastinating Baptism, (so far as his words can be fairly reconciled to this sense). And he seems plainly enough to speak his judgement, that the Infants of (r) de Anima ubi sup. Christian Parents were fitly qualified for Baptism. 3. He adviseth also grown persons to defer their Baptism, and particularly Virgins (s) de Bapt. c. 18. and Widows, till they either Mary, or were of tried and confirmed constancy. But all this seems to require the careful observance of that which the Primitive rules of order established; that all those who were born Gentiles, and were by Baptism to be solemnly entered into the Christian profession, must first give evidence by due and sufficient trial, both to themselves and to the Church also, that they were steadfastly resolved to be constant and serious practisers of the holy rules of the Christian life. And till they had done this, he persuades them not to put themselves over forwardly upon Baptism, lest they should deceive themselves and the Church too by failing in their practice; for as he saith here, (t) ibid. omnis petitio & decipere potest & decipi 14. If any person will contend that Tertullian intended to persuade to a more general delay of Baptism, than what this fair account of his words doth admit; he must acknowledge also, that he adviseth this forbearance as well in the case of the adult, as of Infants. But though the very long deferring of Baptism was practised by several persons, it was generally disliked, by all the wisest and best men in the Christian Church. Hence the particular Fathers set themselves vigorously to reprove and dissuade this practice, which was undertaken by several persons upon different accounts, insomuch that many chose to defer their Baptism until they had apprehensions of approaching death, and then were Baptised in their Beds. But the ancient Church gave that public testimony of its dislike of this practice, in that such Clinics if they recovered, were adjudged unworthy to be admitted into any Office in the Ministry not only by the (u) Conc. Neoc. c. 12. Council of Neocaesarea, but by earlier rules of more ancient observation which were urged by (x) Eus. Hist. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cornelius against Novatus. And if Tertullia's words should be construed (as I think they need not be) to persuade what the Church so generally disallowed, this would only speak him to err, but would be far from giving any allowance to this practice. And thus having now considered the custom of the ancient Church, for the Baptising Infants, we have from thence in compliance with the Scripture, a further confirmation thereof, and a sufficient evidence that the Primitive Church were not, nor durst be so uncharitable to Infants as to debar them of Baptism. 15. Thirdly, Anabaptism so far as it throughly prevails, must utterly rend the peace and unity of the Church, and renounce the Communion thereof, and therefore is deeply Schismatical and unpeaceable. For they who assert those not to be owned right members of the Church who were Baptised in their infancy, unless they be Baptised again, do and must maintain that those Churches can be no true Churches of Christ, whose members were Baptised only in their infancy, and thereupon pass that heavy and unjust Censure upon the generality of all Christian Churches since the time of the first founding them, that they are no true Churches. Hence they are put upon rejecting the Communion of the true Catholic Christian Church, and the setting up for new Churches, in an high opposition to Charity and Unity, and in an open and avowed practice of Universal Schism. To this purpose, Bullinger, Calvin, Zanchy, Beza, and other Protestant Writers have complained greatly of Anabaptists, as laying a foundation of all disorder and confusion. Indeed they described those Anabaptists they wrote of, not only to hold this erroneous Opinion concerning Baptism itself, but to be Enthusiasts, and undervalue the Holy Scriptures; to engage in such Libertinism, as to disallow the just authority of Magistrates, and the settled Government of the Church; to embrace the Principles of Antinomianism, with practices suitable thereto, with other hurtful errors: hence the Anabaptists were by (y) Explic. Catech. Par. 2. Qu. 74. Vrsin called a Sect, quae sine dubio à Diabolo est excitata, & monstrum est execrabile, ex variis haeresibus & blasphemiis conflatum: which (saith he) without doubt was raised by the Devil, and is an execrable Monster made up of various Heresies and Blasphemies. But this Principle of theirs concerning Baptism is such, that thereby they cut themselves off from the Church or Body of Christ, and its Communion, and involve themselves in a very heavy sin, and dangerous condition. 16. And whatsoever may have any usefulness towards piety and goodness, which any of these men may seem to aim at in a way of error, and with a various mixture of other things hurtful and evil; is provided for by us (if good rules be carefully practised) in a better manner, and in a way of truth. That every man ought to make Religion his own act, and make a free and voluntary profession thereof, and yield his hearty consent to engage himself therein, and in the practice thereof, we assert to be very necessary in persons who are of age and capacity of understanding. And though Infants cannot do this in their infant state; yet their future obligation is then declared on their behalf, and when they come to a sufficient age, they are certainly bound to believe and to do what in their Baptism was promised and declared in their names. And this is afterwards solemnly promised by themselves, when in their younger years they are confirmed, and they likewise in a sacred manner engage themselves hereto, when at a fuller age they receive the holy Communion: and it would be of great advantage to the Church of God, and the holy exercises of piety, if these two offices were more generally, seriously and devoutly attended upon. Men also oblige themselves to the faith and duties of Religion, by their whole profession of Christianity, and all those acts whereby they own and declare themselves Christians; and particularly in joining in all duties of Christian Worship, Sect. IU. and professing the Creed or Christian Faith: and the performance of what is thus undertaken, runs through the whole practice of the Christian life. The result of what I have said concerning Anabaptism is, that the miscarriages therein contained, are of a very great and weighty nature; it being no small evil and sin, to offend greatly against the truth, and withal to confine and derogate from the grace of the Gospel-Covenant, and the due extent of the Christian Church, besides the comfort and encouragement of Christian Parents; and to be so injurious to Infants, as to deny them those means of grace which they have a right to partake of, and which are useful to their Spiritual and eternal welfare, in neglecting also what God establisheth, and keeping off Infants from that solemn engagement to God which he requireth; and to undermine the very foundations of Peace and Unity in the Church. SECT. iv Of Independents. 1. IN discoursing of Independency, and the Practices and Principles thereof, I shall not search after all things that might be spoken to, since in several things the Independents or Congregational Men differ from one another, and alter their own Sentiments, and it was the profession of those five chief Persons who espoused this Cause in the time of our Civil Wars and Confusions, (a) Apologet. Narration. not to make their present judgements and practices, a binding Law to themselves for the future. And therefore I shall consider only some things which are mainly essential to the Congregational way, and are the chief distinguishing Characters of that Party, and the things they mainly urge and contend for. And I shall show that these things are so far from being desirable or warrantable, that they are chargeable with much evil. And here I shall treat of three things. First, Of single Congregagations and the power thereof, not being subject to any Superior Government in the Church. Secondly, Of their gathering Churches out of Christian Churches by separation, and modelling these by a particular Covenant with a private Congregation. Thirdly, Their placing the Governing Power and Authority of the Church in the People, or major Vote of the Members of their Church. 2. First, Their asserting single Congregations not to be subject in matters of Ecclesiastical Order and Government, to any higher Authority among men, than what is exercised by themselves. This is that Principle which denominates this party Independents. Indeed some of themselves did at sometimes express their dislike of this Name; and the Authors of the Apologetical Narration above mentioned, called it the proud and insolent Title of Independency. But as this Name is ordinarily owned by the Congregational men, as in the end of their Preface to their Declaration of their Faith at the Savoy, and very frequently elsewhere; so the Answer to the Thirty two Questions from New England, giveth this account of it: (b) Answer to 14. Qu. We do confess the Church is not so Independent, but that it ought to depend on Christ: but for dependency on men or other Churches, or other subordination unto them in regard of Church-Government, or power, we know not of any such appointed by Christ in his Word. And this they speak concerning a particular Congregation. And whilst we assert that such Congregations ought to be under the inspection of Bishops or Superior Governors in the Church, and under the Authority of publicly established Rules and Canons of the Church, and under the Government also of Princes and Secular Sanctions: they of this way own no such higher Governing Power and Authority, above that of a single Congregation. 3. Concerning the Civil Magistrate, they declare him bound (c) Decl. of Faith. c. 24. n. 3. to promote and protect the profession of the Gospel, and to take care that men of corrupt minds do not divulge Blasphemies, and errors inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them. But in other cases, such as differences about the ways of the worship of God, they say, there is no warrant for the Magistrate under the Gospel to abridge Christians of their liberty. And when the Declaration of Faith in the Congregational Churches was the same with that of the Presbyterian Assembly, except in such things as they thought fit to alter: there were several things in the Chapters concerning liberty of Conscience, and the Civil Magistrate; there were divers expressions relating to the power of Secular Rulers in matters of Religion, which they expunged. Among others this was one, (d) Assemb. Confess c. 23. n. 4. It is his (the Magistrates) duty to take order that Unity and Peace be preserved in the Church— and all corruptions or abuses in Worship and Discipline prevented or reform, and all the Ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. And these things give intimations of disliking any Uform establishment of a settled Order in the Church, confirmed and fixed by the Sanctions of the Secular Authority as a standing Rule, to which the Members of the Church should conform themselves. And one of their chief Writers hath declared himself against this with more than ordinary fierceness, much exceeding the bounds of Christian sobriety (which I think is but a mild expression for such violent words) as if this were a grand part of Antichristianism. He says, (e) Dr. O. Of Evang. Love. c. 3. p. 43. those who by ways of force, would drive Christians into any other Union or agreement, than their own light and duty will lead them into, do what in them lies to oppose the whole design of the Lord Christ towards them, and his rule over them. Now to call the enacting any Uniform rules of Order, and the establishing them under any Penalties, the opposing the whole design of Christ, and not only so, but the doing it as much as in them lies, as if this were equal to the persecutions of the Christian Name by the most furious of the Pagan Emperors; is an expression which will easily appear to speak great passion, but little or no consideration. 4. And not long after we are told among other things, that for Christians (f) Ibid. p. 44, 45. by external force to coerce or punish those who differ from them upon account of various apprehensions relating to the Worship of God, or of any Schisms and divisions ensuing thereon, is as foreign to the Gospel, as to believe in Mahomet, and not in Jesus Christ. And now whither are we come? and what do we hear or read? that the care of Governors, and the use of their Authority to maintain the peace and Union of the Church, and the due order of Divine Worship and Service, should be made to be parallel to the renouncing Christianity, and embracing Enthusiasm? Surely this is such a speaking evil of Dignities, and even for their pious care and zeal, as Michael the Archangel durst not have undertaken. But as all pious Princes under the Old Testament, took care of the due order and establishment of Religion by their Authority: and when the people did amiss as to worship in high-places, or were guilty of other miscarriages in Religion, this is in the Scripture charged as a fault upon the Prince: and they were commended when they kept up a right method of Religion, and particularly when they pulled down the high places. I suppose it may be said by some, that these high places were prohibited by the Divine Law: but they ought also to consider (besides what might be otherwise said) that Schisms and Divisions are also plainly prohibited by the commands of God: and the worshipping in high places was a sort of Schism. And under the New Testament, the power and duty of Rulers, is declared to be for the punishing evil-doers, and the praise of them that do well. If therefore the disobeying the Divine precepts in a case where piety and charity thereby becomes neglected, the interest of Religion weakened, its friends grieved, its enemies encouraged, peace undermined, and the glory of God hindered, all which are contained in unwarrantable Schisms and Divisions: I say if this be evildoing, the Secular Ruler is not only warranted by the Christian Doctrine, but is obliged in duty to God, duly to endeavour by his power to put a check thereto. And this is that which the most pious Princes have been sensible of, and careful to perform, as appears by many Imperial Constitutions and practices, and the Laws of other Kingdoms. 5. But it is more particularly asserted by those of the Congregational way, that a particular Congregation hath by the Institution of Christ such a power within itself, that there is no other Ecclesiastical Authority, whether of any more extensive part of the Church, or of any Synods, or of any other Superior Ecclesiastical Governor, which hath any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over such a Congregation, or the members thereof. To this purpose they in New England declared, (g) Answ. to Q. 3. We do not know any visible Church of the New Testament properly so called, but only a particular Congregation. And they who met in the Assembly at the Savoy declared, (h) Of the Instit. of Churches, n. 6. besides these particular Churches, there is not instituted by Christ any Church more extensive or Catholic, entrusted with power for the administration of his Ordinances, or the executing any Authority in his name. And herein this more general Assembly seem not to allow so much, as some of them had before granted, that against an offending Church persisting in its miscarriages, (i) Apolog. Narrat. the Churches offended may and aught to pronounce the heavy Sentence of renouncing all Christian Communion with them until they repent. And concerning Synods, (and consequently the Canons of Councils) we are told that (k) Of the Inst. of Ch. n. 26. in Cases of difficulty and difference, they allow Synods to consider and give advice; but they are not entrusted with any Church-power properly so called; or with any Jurisdiction over the Churches themselves, to exercise any Censures, either over any Churches or persons, or to impose their determinations on the Churches or Officers. And they of New England particularly denying any such Authority to Synods or Councils, declare that (o) Answ. to Qu. 18. Church Censures of Excommunication, or the like, belong to the particular Church of which an Offender is member, out of the Communion whereof a man cannot be cast, but only by his own Church. Now from all this it is manifest, that this is a great Principle of Independency, that every particular Congregation, and all the members thereof, are exempt from all Superior Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, nor is there any higher Church-Authority appointed by Christ, to which they ought to be subject, besides that of this particular Congregation. 6. But First, This is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures declare, and all the ancient Churches of God, agreeably thereto, have practised concerning the right order and Government of the Church. What is more evident in the Scriptures than that the several Churches of Christians were under the Authority and Government of the Apostles themselves; which is sufficient to manifest, that it was no Institution nor intendment of Christ, that particular Churches should not be subject to any Superior Ecclesiastical Authority. Nor was such Governing Authority peculiar to the Apostles themselves, but was by them thought requisite to be committed to the care of others. Hence for instance, Titus was in Crete, appointed by Saint Paul, to ordain Elders in every City, and to set in order the things which were wanting, Tit. 1.5. and other expressions of his Governing or Episcopal power, are contained in divers expressions of that Epistle. But it must be a strange strength of imagination that can enable any man to conceive, that when Crete was a Country almost three hundred miles in length, and so greatly peopled, that it was very anciently called Hecatompolis, as having a hundred great places or Cities within its Territories, and Titus was to ordain Elders in every City; yet all these should make up but one particular Congregation, unto which the power of Titus should be confined. 7. And concerning the Authority of Councils, it is manifest, that upon occasion of some Judaizing Teachers disturbing the Christian Church at Antioch, the Council at Jerusalem, Act. 15. met together and gave their authoritative decision concerning Circumcision and other Jewish Rites, not to be imposed on the Gentile Christians, any further than they particularly enjoined. This may well be called a General Council, since it not only pronounced a decisive determination concerning the Universal Church, expressing what the Gentiles were not to admit, or were obliged to practise, and on what terms the Jews were bound to admit, and not scruple Communion with the Gentiles; but also had in it such persons, who being Apostles, had an undoubted universal Authority over the whole Church. And whereas the decision of the Apostles themselves alone, and their Authority had been of itself abundantly sufficient to lay an obligation upon the Christian Church in that particular case, the Apostles notwithstanding this, took in with them the Elders of the Church to debate, and consider of this matter, Act. 15.6. which is a sufficient evidence that the Apostles did allow such Elders or Church-Officers, as they established in the Church, to have a power in Councils, to order and determine what related to the affairs of the Church by Synodical Authority: for otherwise the Apostles would never have joined them with themselves to this purpose. 8. And S. Paul was so forward and zealous to require a general obedience to the decision of this Council, that in his Ministry he delivered to the Cities where he preached, the decrees for to keep, which were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem, Act. 16.4. And here that expression of his, delivering these Decrees as not only ordained of the Apostles, but of the Apostles and Elders also, deserves to be considered, as thereby laying a more clear and manifest foundation for the Authority of future Synods and Councils of the Officers and Bishops of the Christian Church. And it may be further observed, that case in which S. Paul rebuked S. Peter, Gal. 2. was his not acting according to the rules of this Council, and a complying further with the Jewish Rites, and the favourers of the Circumcision, than was here determined; and not being ready to own that liberty of the Gentile Church which was contained in this Synodical decision. 9 And consonant hereunto, the ancient Christian Churches did all along greatly reverence the authoritative decision of Catholic Councils and Synods, the Canons of which are so well known to all men of ordinary reading, that he must be a man greatly ignorant of Ecclesiastical affairs, who knows nothing of them. And in several General and Provincial Councils, and in those Canons particularly taken into that ancient Code, called the Canons of the Apostles, or into the Codes of the Universal Church, of the Western Church, or the African Church; many things were established by them for the peace, unity and order of the Church, and especially for the promoting purity therein; and the degrees of the punishment by suspension, deposition, excommunication, and the continuance thereof upon the offenders, are there plainly determined to be a Rule for the several Churches to act by. And in these ancient Councils, when there was great occasion for such heavy sentences, the most eminent Officers, or the Bishops of those most renowned places in the Christian Church, were deposed, or excommunicated by their Synodical Authority, and not by their own particular Church. Thus was Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch, deposed by the Council at Antioch, Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople, by the General Council of Ephesus, and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, by the General Council of Chalcedon; to which multitudes of other instances may be given. And in particular Churches the great and eminent authority fixed in Bishops, though the Canons allowed but one Bishop in the greatest City with its precincts, is sufficient to show that the particular Congregations in that City had no such Independency of power and Government. So that this branch of Independency opposeth the Apostolical order, and the constant practice and sense of all primitive Christian Churches from the Apostles. 10. Secondly, This notion of Independency, lays a foundation for perpetual confusion and division in the Church, and subverts the precepts for Christian Unity. For according to this Principle, so far as concerns power and authority, any company of men may set up for themselves apart, and multiply Sects and distinct Communions: and none having any Superior Government over them, these parties and divisions may be perpetuated and subdivided to the scandal and Reproach of Christianity, and no way left for any authority in the Christian Church to check and redress them. So that this notion is perfectly fitted to serve the interest of Schism and discord, and to heighten and increase, but is as fully opposite to the Unity and honour of the Christian Religion. For if we should admit for the present the scanty and imperfect notion of Schism, which Dr. O. (p) Review of Sch. against Mr. Cawdr. c. 8, 9 hath framed, that it is needless divisions of judgement and discord in a particular Congregation, when departing from it is no Schism, if the guilty party should so far unchristianly foment such discords, as to deserve the censure of that Church; and shall withal proceed so far, as openly to separate and departed from it; they have by this means according to this notion, after a strange and admirable manner, set themselves free, and clear both from sin and censure. For when they have thus openly separated from their former Communion, they themselves become a distinct particular Congregation, and thereby are under no Superior Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, nor can they be authoritatively censured by any: and by this open separation, they according to this principle, are become a particular distinct Church, and the Schism is healed; and by being parted into two distinct Societies, there remains no longer any such division as there was before in one Congregation, which is Schism; but by going further asunder, and separating from one another, they are in a wonderful manner brought to Unity in two opposite Congregations. And thus by the late rare inventions of men, which have been unknown to all former times, the rending things asunder, and breaking them in pieces, are the new found methods to make them one. But such a way of Unity, if it can please some singular fancies, will appear monstrous to the generality of mankind. 11. That these notions and practices are great promoters of discord and division, is not a bare speculation, but hath been manifested by sufficient experience. In Amsterdam the separate Communion of the Societies of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ainsworth under Brownism; and in Rotterdam, the like of those of Mr. Bridge, and Mr. Simpson, proceeded upon this principle. And this very principle of Independency, helped many forward in this Kingdom in our late times of discord, to set up new parties of Anabaptists, Seekers, and other Sects, many of which were the off-sets of fermented Independency, and its adulterine offspring. And the sad and lamentable relation of the Bermudas Islands, called the Summer Islands, is also very considerable, where after this Congregational way was there undertaken, the rejected part are said to have neglected all care of Religion, and the gathered or separated part, to have run on in dividing, till they in a manner lost their Christian Religion in Quakerism. And thus many have made a further improvement, than the asserters themselves allowed, of the allowed liberty for them who (q) Instit. oh Chur. n. 28. are in Church-fellowship, (as they call their way) to departed from the Communion of the Church where they have walked, to join themselves with some other Church, where they may enjoy the Ordinances in the purity of the same. 12. Wherefore this notion of Independency would misrepresent the Christian Society, and the Institution of Christ, as if whilst Unity was earnestly enjoined therein, the state of this Society should be left without that Order and Government, which is necessary to preserve it. For under this model the Church would be as far from an orderly and regular state; as an Army would be when every several Troop or Company were left wholly to themselves, and their own pleasure, allowing some respect to be had to the conduct of their own Captain and inferior Officers, but not owning any Authority of any General, or higher Commander than what is in their own Troop. Or it might be somewhat resembled by the state of such an imaginary Kingdom, where every Village in the Country, and every Parish in a City, should have such a chief power within themselves; that there should be no appeal for justice to any higher Court, nor any other power to punish them, but what is executed by themselves. If such things as these were put in practice, they would not only hinder the serviceableness and usefulness of such an Army or Kingdom, (if it could be allowed to call them so) but here would be also wanting the beauty and comeliness of Unity and Order, and a door opened to frequent discords and dissensions. 13. Secondly, I shall consider their gathering Churches (as they call them) out of those who were Christian members of the Church of Christ, and entering them into their Societies, by a particular Covenant made to and with a private Congregation, and pretending this Covenant to be the main ground, and true way of the establishment and Union of a Church. The value they set upon this Covenant, may appear from the declaration of the Churches in New England, who say, (r) Apol. for Ch. Cou. p. 5. First, That this is that whereby a company of Christians do become a Church: it is the Constitutive form of a Church. Secondly, This is that, by taking hold whereof a particular person becomes a member of a Church. And though they frequently speak so fairly to such Christian Churches as do not admit this special Covenant with a single Congregation only, as to declare their owning them to be true Churches; yet all this cannot well be reconciled with this principle. And therefore those of this way in England, at their public meeting, speak more openly and more consistently with their own notion, when they declared (s) Of Instit. of Churches, n. 23. every Society assembling for the celebration of the Ordinances according to the appointment of Christ, within any civil Precincts and Bounds, is not thereby constituted a Church— and therefore a Believer living with others in such a precinct, may join himself with any Church for his edification. But since this in truth is a separating members from that which really is a true part of the Christian Church, the Presbyterians truly declared that (t) Pref. to Jus div. Regim. Eccles. gathering Churches out of Churches, hath no footsteps in Scripture, is contrary to Apostolical practice, is the scattering of Churches, the Daughter of Schism, the Mother of Confusion, but the Step mother to Edification. But I must acknowledge, that the present practices of this party also, looks as if they had now laid aside this opinion. 14. But this Congregational method doth suppose, that Baptised Christians are not obliged by any Church-relation they are already in, to Communicate with any particular Church, or part of the Christian Church: when the natural consequence of the Unity of the Christian Church, will be to lay an obligation upon all its members, to Communicate with that regular part thereof, within whose Precincts they reside. And this new notion gives a larger discharge to multitudes of Christians from the duties of Communion, than the rules of Religion will allow, until they shall enter into such a particular Covenant, which is not only unnecessary, but unwarrantable also, as will hereafter appear. And there seemed too much reason for that complaint of the Presbyterians, by the Provincial Assembly (as they styled themselves) that the removing the Parochial Bounds, would open a gap to thousands of people, to live like Sheep without a Shepherd, and instead of joining with purer Churches, to join with no Churches, and in a little time (as we conceive, say they, adding in the Margin, as our experience abundantly shows) it would bring in all manner of profaneness and Atheism. And whilst they unwarrantably declare, the fixed state of our Church to be such, that Christians are not obliged to hold Communion therewith, and thereupon both themselves departed from it, and teach others to do the like; it deserves to be more seriously considered by them, than hitherto it hath been, how this dividing, principle and practice can be justified before Christ himself. For if Christ will say to them who neglect to express kindness and respect to the rest of his members, In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me, Matt. 25.45. May not they fear lest they hear the same, who rashly and unjustly cast contempt, reproach and disrespect, upon that Church which he owneth as his; and disown, and reject its Communion? 15. But this which they call gathering of Churches, by taking to themselves those who either were, or aught to have been under other Guides and Governors of the Church, in a different, but more justifiable way and order, is indeed a making divisions in a settled Church, and separations from it. And this practice of division and separation, is so greatly displeasing to the Holy Spirit of God, that there are many earnest and vehement expressions in the Holy Scriptures against it. To which purpose the Apostle beseecheth the Romans, to mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine they had received, and avoid them, Rom. 16.17. even them who by good words and fair speeches, deceived the hearts of the simple. Against such separations the ancient and Primitive Christians were very zealous (as I have noted in (u) Libert. Eccles. B. 1. C. 1. Sect. 3. another place) and so are also the generality of the Protestant Writers. 16. Such a way of separation, which in the phrase and language of the ancient Christians, was expressed by a Presbyter, contemning his own Bishop, and having a separate Congregation, and erecting another Altar (or different Communion, as to Sacramental administrations) was severely censured in those early times of Christianity. In that most ancient (x) Can. Ap. 31. collection of Canons, such a Presbyter, and as many of the Clergy as joined with him, were sentenced to be deposed, and the Laity to be Excommunicated after admonition. The Code of Canons of the Universal Church, further determine concerning a Presbyter or Deacon, who shall thus separate, (y) Cod. Can. Eccl. Uniu. c. 85. that his deposition shall be without any way of return to his former honour and dignity in the Church; and that if he persist in disturbing the Church, he should be reduced by the Secular Power, as being seditious. And the African Code in this case declare, (z) Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 10, 11. that such a Presbyter should be ejected from his place, and that he should be anathematised; and the inflicting this double punishment, which was not usual in the Church for a single crime, shows of how heinous a nature this offence was then accounted, when the Primitive rules of discipline were received. 17. Amongst such Protestant Writers as are most in esteem with our Dissenters, Calvin asserts it to be certain (a) Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.9. that this stone is continually moved by the Devil, that he might break the Unity of the Church: and he purposely opposeth, and smartly condemneth (b) Inst. l. 4. c. 1. & in Ps. 26.5. all separation from a true Church, where the Holy Sacraments are duly administered, and the true rule of Religion is embraced. The (c) Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 40. n. 37, 41, 42. Leyden Professors, account the erecting separate Assemblies, in the breach of Communion, by them who hold the foundation of the Faith, and agree with the Church therein, upon occasion of external indifferent Rites, or particular miscarriages in manners, to be properly Schismatical, and that this is one of the works of the flesh, and renders a Society impure, and that it is not lawful to hold Communion with such a Schismatical Church; to which purpose they urge many Texts of Scripture. And Zanchy treating largely hereof, doth (d) Zanch. Miscel. de Eccles. c. 7. particularly undertake to maintain, that though there be some diversity of Doctrine, but in things not fundamental; though different ways of Rites and Ceremonies; though there be vices in Ministers, or corruptions in people; or want of due care in rejecting offenders from the Communion; he that shall separate from a true Church upon these pretences, shall not, saith he, escape the wrath of God, and ira Dei manet super illum, the wrath of God abides upon that person. 18. How far such separations from our Church, are made use of by the Romanists to serve their interest, might be showed of many of their Authors. But I shall content myself here to observe what was noted by one of our own (e) Camd. Annal. Eliz. an. 1583. learned Historians Mr. Camden, concerning the time of Queen Elizabeth. That when in her Reign, some of the Ministry in dislike of the Liturgy, Order and Government of the Church, templa adire recusarent, & plane schisma facerent, did refuse to come to our public Worship, and manifestly made a Schism, this was done Pontificiis plaudentibus, multosque insuas partes pertrahentibus, quasi nulla esset in Ecclesia Anglicana Vnitas; the Papists rejoicing at it, and drawing away many to their party, as if there were no Unity in the Church of England. 19 I shall now examine their particular Covenant whereby they engage themselves to walk together as constant members of that particular Society, or Congregation to which they join themselves. Now this Covenant in a way of separation, is no other but a bond of division, and was to that purpose invented by the Brownists. And that it was their practice, is (f) Apol. for Ch. Cou. p. 41, 42, 43, 44. acknowledged by the Churches in New England. Against which, such things as these may be justly alleged: 1. That this contradicts another of their avowed Positions, That nothing not instituted of Christ, aught to be received or submitted to as terms of Communion with a Church; and some of them more largely declare, that (g) Answer to 32. Qu. qu. ●8. particular Churches have no power to make Laws for themselves or their members, but to observe the Laws of Christ: and if any Church presume further, they go beyond their Commission— and it would be sin to be subject to such Laws. But such a particular contract with a single Congregation, especially a separating one, was never any part of Christ's Institution. But because this other opinion of theirs is also erroneous, it is of greater concernment to observe, that this way of Covenanting, is opposite to the Institution of Christ, in that by division and separation, it breaks the Unity of the Christian Church, which Christ hath established to be one Church, and one Body. But the dividing the Church into several Independent Societies, which is contrary to what the Institution of Christ appointeth, is so much designed by this Covenant, that some of themselves tell us, (h) ibid. Answ. to Qu. 8. without this kind of Covenanting, we know not how it would be avoided, but all Churches would be confounded into one. Now this is as much as to say, that Christ and his Apostles, who appointed not this kind of Covenanting, established the Christian Church in that way of Unity, that it was one Church, but these have ordered this method for the dividing it. 20. Secondly, This casts a disparagement on Christ's Institution of Baptism, as if this Ordinance of his was not sufficient and effectual for the purposes to which he appointed it, whereof one was the receiving Members into his Church, and the Communion thereof. The Scriptures declare Christians to be Baptised into one Body, 1 Cor. 12.12. and that they who are Baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. and therefore by this Sacramental Ordinance, members are received into fellowship with Christ, and communion with his Church. But these expressions in the Assembly-confession of (i) Conf. c. 27. n. 1. Sacraments being Instituted— to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the World. And of Baptism being ordained by Christ, for the solemn admission of the party Baptised into the visible Church, are rejected, and left out in the declaration of Faith, by them of the Congregational way. And we are told by the New England Independents, that (k) Answ. to 32. Qu. to qu. 4. they do not believe that Baptism doth make men members of the Church; and they there say strangely enough, that Christ Baptised, but made no new Church. Wherefore when Christ appointed Baptism, to receive members of his Church, this Covenant which he never appointed, is by them set up thus far in the place and room of it. 21. Thirdly, By making this Covenant, the only right ground of Church-fellowship, they cast a high reflection on the Apostolical and Primitive Churches, who neither practised nor delivered any such thing: as if the Apostolical Model must give place to theirs, and those first Churches must not be esteemed regularly established. But this Covenant managed in the dividing way, is somewhat like the practice of Novatus, who hath been ever reputed guilty of great Schism; who engaged his followers by the most solemn Vow, that they should never forsake him, nor return to Cornelius their true Bishop: only his Covenant had not a peculiar respect to a particular Congregation. But this bond of their own promise and vow, was intended to keep them in that separation, which the more solemn Vow of Baptism, and undertaking Christianity, engaged them to reject. And it is a great mistake to imagine, that the former aught to take place against the latter; or that men may bind themselves to act against the will of God, and that thenceforth they ought not to observe it. 22. Fourthly, The confinement of Church-membership to a single Congregation, entered under such a particular Covenant, is contrary to several plain duties of Christianity. For according to this notion, the peculiar offices of Brotherly Love, as being members one of another, and that Christian care that follows thereupon, it limited to a narrow compass (together with the exercise of the Pastoral care also) which ought to be enlarged to all those professed Christians, with whom we do converse. And it is of dangerous and pernicious consequence, that the duties of love, and being helpful to one another, and provoking to love and good works, upon account of our membership with the Church visible, (though these things be in practice too much neglected) should be straitened by false and hurtful notions and opinions. It was none of the least miscarriages of the Jews, that when God gave them that great Commandment, to love their Neighbour as themselves; they should satisfy themselves in the performing this duty with a much more restrained sense of the word Neighbour, than the Divine Law intended. And it must not be conceived, that false imaginations concerning the bounds of the Church, and fellowship therein, will be esteemed in the sight of God, a sufficient discharge from the duties he requires men to perform to others: nor will this be a better excuse under Christianity, than the like mistake was under Judaisme. 23. Thirdly, I shall consider their placing the chief Ecclesiastical power and authority in the Body of the people, or the members of the Church. To this purpose by some of them we are told, that (m) Answ. to 32. Qu. to Q. 14. in Peter and the rest, the Keys are committed to all Believers, who shall join together in the same confession, according to the Ordinance of Christ; and they give the people the power of (n) Answ. to Qu. 15. censuring offenders, even Ministers themselves if they be such. And on this account, at least in part, I suppose the Congregational Churches in their Declaration of Faith, omitted the whole Chapter of (o) Ch. 30. Church censures contained in the Assembly's Confession, in which they had declared the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be committed to the Church Officers. Now besides that the way of Government and Censure by the major Vote of the people, hath been the occasion of much confusion in some of their Congregations; that which I shall particularly insist on, is the great sin of intruding upon any part of the Ministerial Authority, or neglecting due regard or reverence thereto. How plain is it in the Scripture, that the Apostles governed and ordered the state of the Christian Church, and that Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the Churches did, and were to do the like. It was to the Apostles as chief Officers of the Christian Church, that Christ declared, Joh. 20.23. whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained; and Matt. 18.18. whatsoever yet shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever ye shall lose in Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. And by these, and such like words, the power of inflicting Censures; and receiving to, and conferring of the privileges of the Church; as well as of dispensing all those Ordinances whereby the grace of God, and remission of sins are particularly tendered, are appropriated to the Officers of the Church as part of their Office. 24. In this plain sense were these Christian Laws generally understood by the Primitive Church, which practised accordingly, which they who read the ancient Canons must necessarily confess. And the same is manifest from the particular Writers of the first Ages. For instance, even (p) Cyp. Ep. 27. S. Cyprian from what our Lord spoke to S. Peter of the power of the Keys, and of binding and losing, infers the Episcopal honour, and that every act of the Church, must be governed by those Prefects or Superiors. And from those words, and what our Saviour spoke to his Apostles, Jo. 20. about remitting sins, he concludes, that only the Governors in the Church (q) Ep. 73. , can give remission of sins. And when Rogatianus a Bishop complained to Cyprian, concerning a Deacon who behaved himself contumeliously towards him, S. Cyprian commends his humility in addressing himself to him, (r) Ep. 65. when he had himself power by virtue of his Episcopacy, and the authority of his Chair, to avenge himself of him, and might be certain that what he should have done by his sacerdotal power, would be acceptable to all his Colleagues. In which words he plainly asserts the authority of inflicting an Ecclesiastical Censure even upon a Deacon to be wholly in the Bishop's power by virtue of his Office. And it is indeed no mean authority, which is committed by the Institution of our Lord, to the Officers of the Christian Church, who are appointed to be as Shepherds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to feed and to rule his flock, Joh. 21.16. Act. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. 25. Indeed they of the Congregational way do assert some special authority to the Pastors and Teachers of their Congregations; and to them they particularly reserve the administration of the Sacraments. They declare (s) Of Instit. of Churches, n. 16. that where there are no teaching Officers, none may administer the Seals, nor can the Church authorise any so to do. But then they also place the power of making these Officers, and committing authority to them, in the people, and attribute very little to the power of Ordination. Indeed concerning a Pastor, Teacher or Elder, they tell us, that (t) Ibid. n. 11. it is appointed by Christ, (but not such appointment can be produced) he be chosen by the common suffrage of the Church itself, and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the Eldership of that Church, if there be any before constituted therein. But if there be no Eldership in that Congregation (as there can be none in the first erecting any particular Congregational Church, and in the after appointing a Pastor, it must be at least of those who are in inferior Office) (u) Answ. to Qu. 13. they think it neither lawful nor convenient, to call in the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches, by way of authority, when the Church is to ordain Officers. But this Position proceeds upon their dividing notion, in not owning the true Unity of the Catholic visible Church, and thereupon they assert, that as to (x) Answ. of Eld in New Engl. to 9 Posit. Pos. the 8. acts of authority and power in dispensing Gods Ordinance, a Minister cannot so perform any Ministerial act to any other Church but his own. But how little they esteem that irregular way of imposing hands, which themselves speak of as Christ's Institution, may appear from their declaring that a Pastor, Teacher, or Elder chosen by the Church, (y) Inst. of Ch. n. 12. though not set apart by imposition of hands, are rightly constituted Ministers of Jesus Christ. To the like purpose, the Elders of New England speak; who also give power (z) Answ. to Qu. 21. to those who are no Officers of the Church, to ordain Officers; and also judge, that a Minister Ordained in one Church, if he afterwards becomes a Minister in another Church, must receive a new Ordination. But surely those who let lose their fancies at such a strange rate, used no great consideration of what they wrote. 26. And it greatly concerns the people, since they undertake to act in the name of Christ, in dispensing any part of the power of the Keys, as in inflicting Spiritual censures; and to exercise his authority in constituting Officers in his Church, by giving Office-power to them; that they be well assured, that they have sufficient authority from him to warrant their proceed: especially since such things as these are represented in the Holy Scripture, and have been ever esteemed in the Ancient Church, as well as the Modern, to be peculiar acts of the Ministerial power in the Chief Officers of the Church. And they whom they call Pastors, or Teachers, but have no better authority than this to warrant them to be so, had also need to beware, how they undertake to dispense the Christian Mysteries, as Officers appointed in Christ's name. For if they to whom God hath given no such Commission, presume to set apart Officers in his name, and to impart to them his authority, this is like the act of Micah in consecrating Priests, Judg. 17.5, 12. or like Jeroboams Sacrilegious intrusion, in making those to be Priests, who were not so according to the rules of God's appointment, 1 Kings 12.31. chap. 13.33. which thing with its concomitants, was so highly offensive to God, that the very next words tell us, vers. 34. this thing became a sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth. Nor can it be thought a lesser affront to the Majesty of God, to set up chief Officers in his name, without his Commission; than it would be against the Majesty of a King, to erect Judicatures in his Kingdom, or to confer the great Offices of the Realm, and places of eminent Dignity and Trust, without any Authority from him, or from his Laws. 27. And to exercise any proper Ministerial power in the name of God or Christ, without sufficient authority, is no small offence. The severe punishment of Saul's Sacrificing, by the loss of his Kingdom, 1 Sam. 13.13, 14. and of Vzziah's offering Incense, by his being smitten with Leprosy, which rendered him uncapable not only of Governing the Kingdom, but of having society with the Congregation of the Lord, 2 Chron. 26, 19, 21. testify how much God was provoked thereby. The dreadful Judgement upon Corah and his Company, for offering Incense, and pleading the right of all the Congregation of Israel against Moses and Aaron, as if they had taken too much upon them, was very remarkable. And much more is it sinful and dangerous to entrench upon the Office of the Gospel Ministry: because the Institution of Christ, the authority conveyed by him, and the grace conferred from him, are things more high and sacred, than what was delivered by Moses. 28. But the making and Ordaining Ministers in the Church, was both in the Scripture, and in all succession of antiquity, performed by those who had the chief authority of Office in or over the Christian Church; as particularly by Christ himself, his Apostles, and the succeeding Bishops. Christ himself sent his Apostles as his Father sent him; and he, not his other Disciples, gave them their Commission. S. Paul and Barnabas where they came, ordained Elders in every Church, Act. 14.23. and so must Titus do in every City of Crete, Tit. 1.5. And when S. Paul sent his directions to Timothy, concerning the due qualifications of those who were to be Bishops and Deacons in the Church, 1 Tim. 3. and wrote this for this end, that Timothy might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God, v. 14, 15. this plainly shows, that he had the main care of appointing and admitting Officers in the Church of Ephesus. 29. In the Ecclesiastical History of the next ages, there is nothing more plain than that the Bishops of the Christian Church (who as (a) de Praescrip. c. 32. Tertullian, (b) adv. Haer. l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus, and (c) Eus. Hist. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. others affirm, were made and appointed by the Apostles themselves) did Ordain the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. That the ancient Church did generally acknowledge, that a Bishop was regularly to be Ordained by three Bishops, (who must be of other Churches) may partly appear from the industrious care of (d) ibid. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Novatus, (though very ill managed against peace, honesty, and other rules of common morality, as Cornelius relates it) to send about to find three obscure Bishops, who might Ordain him in opposition to Cornelius. But this is more fully evident from the great contests concerning the validity of Cecilians Ordination, against which the Donatists earnestly objected, as the main pretence for their Schism, that Felix one of the Ordainers of Cecilian was not a regular Bishop, and therefore his Ordination was insufficient, which case was canvased in Africa, Italy, France, and other places. So that that first Canon of the old Code, (e) Can. Ap. 1. that a Bishop was to be Ordained by two or three Bishops, was so far manifestly agreeable to the ancient practice and sense of the Church, that they usually insisted upon having the greater number of three in this Ordination. And so it was particularly expressed in the Canons of the first General Council, (f) Conc. Nic. c. 4. which also requires the consent of the other Bishops of the Province, and particularly the (g) ib. c. 6. Metropolitan, which was included in the more ancient practice. And this may be sufficient to satisfy any man, that Ordination, and regular Ordination of the chief Officer in the Church, was, in the first Ages of Christianity, accounted greatly necessary; and that the Bishops of other Churches (there being but one Catholic Bishop of one Church) three at least must meet together to confer this Ordination. Much more might be added, if it were needful in so plain a case. 30. And whereas so great a stress is laid upon the election of the people, as if this were the great essential thing, which constituted any one in the Office of the Ministry; it is also manifest, that the choice of any person for the Ministry which was by way of recommendation of him to those who were to Ordain him, was sometimes done by the people, and sometimes by others. But there was no rule in the Scripture which requireth any necessity of the people's election, nor was there ever any constant practice hereof, either in the time of the Holy Scriptures themselves, or in the next ages of the Primitive Church. When Christ chose his Apostles, he called to him his Disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom he named Apostles, Luk 6.13. but he did not appoint his other Disciples to choose them. James who was made the first Bishop of Jerusalem, is related to have been chosen by the Apostles, (h) Eus. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. particularly by Peter, James and John. Many times the Holy Spirit guided the Ordainers to fix upon the particular person to be ordained. Thus Timothy was chosen by Prophecy, 1 Tim. 4 14. And the Spirit directed the other Prophets and Teachers, that they should separate Saul and Barnabas for the work to which he had called them, Act. 13.2. And (i) Cl. Rom. Ep. ad. Cor. p. 54, 55. Clemens Romanus declares, that the Apostles appointed Bishops and Deacons, proving them by the Spirit. And that the Spirit of God should then guide the Ordainers to choose persons for the Ministry, rather than the other Believers and Disciples, may be of use to acquaint men, that our Saviour never made the people's choice either necessary, or the main thing essential to the Ministry. In some places the Presbyters of the Church, were the persons who elected their Bishop: and this (k) Hieron. ad Evag. S. Hierome saith, was the practice at Alexandria, from the time of Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclas and Dionysius. And since Mark died, whilst many of the Apostles were alive, and several years before the Martyrdom of S. Peter and S. Paul; this also gives a fair evidence that popular elections, were no Institution of Christ or his Apostles. 31. Sometimes even under the early ages of Christianity, Bishops were chosen by Councils of other Bishops. And so was (l) Eus. Hist. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Domnus chose Bishop of Antioch, by the Council which deposed Paulus for Heresy. And there are frequent instances of like nature. And after the Empire was Christian, this election was sometimes made by the Emperor himself; and thus was Nectarius chosen by Theodosius at Constantinople, even whilst a General Council was there sitting, and had been deliberating about the choice of a Bishop of Jerusalem. Now the considering how variously such elections or recommendations were made, is sufficient to manifest, that the Apostolical and first Primitive Churches accounted no one particular way of election, to be the main thing essential to the Ministry. And the popular way hath the least of all to plead on this account, that the various inconveniences of admitting that, were found so great, that this was forbidden to be practised by one of the ancient Canons which was received in the general Code. And the result of all this is, That the insisting on this, and those other things above mentioned, which are the support of Independency, are plain errors and mistakes, and deviations from the true Christian Rule and Practice; and are much the worse, because they are imposed upon men in the name of God, as if they were his special Institutions; and thereby tend to create the greater disturbance to the best and most regular Constitutions of the Christian Church, as if they had departed from the Divine Institutions; and their form and establishment is such, that it is not fit to be Communicated with, but may most safely be forsaken. FINIS. AN ANSWER TO Mr. SERJEANT's DISCOURSE ENTITLED, Sure Footing IN CHRISTIANITY. By WILLIAM FALKNER. D. D. LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXIV. The first Discourse examined, showing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith. THis Author J. S. intending, as his Title page tells us, Rational Discourses on the Rule of Faith; which I design to examine, spends his first Discourse in seeking and laying down properties of that Rule. This was indeed requisite to be inquired into; and had it been faithfully managed, as it is not, I had then passed by this Discourse without any Animadversion. But since it is neither accurate nor impartial, some defects, and miscarriages in it, are necessary to be observed. In this Discourse he examines the sense of these words, RULE, which (he saith) signifies a thing able to regulate or guide him who useth it, §. 2. and FAITH, which is a believing God in revealed Truths, §. 8. which imports some knowledge of supernatural things. He considers that Faith or the knowledge of God, the vulgar may both have, since they may be saved, §. 8, 9, 10. and they may have doubts concerning it, §. 11. and since this Faith is a rational assent, §. 12. which they who are out of the Church should embrace, §. 13. and eminent Wits may be satisfied in, §. 14. and the most skilled Adversaries cannot show its Rule possibly false, §. 15. and this Rule must assure us what Christ said, §. 16. From this he gathers seven Properties of the Rule of Faith, §. 17. 1. It must be plain and self-evident, as to its existence unto all. 2. Evidenceable as to its Ruling Power to Inquirers, even the rude Vulgar. 3. Apt to settle and justify undoubting persons. 4. To satisfy fully the Sceptical Dissenters, and rational Doubters. 5. To convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries. 6. Built upon unmoveable grounds; that is, absolutely certain in itself. 7. And absolutely ascertainable unto us. Having given some account of his Discourse, I come now to examine, whether he hath laid a sufficient foundation to raise from thence the properties of the Rule of Faith; and than whether the properties mentioned, be rightly raised, and do agree to the Rule of Faith? The ground he lays from the words Rule and Faith, is not sufficiently sure and stable: for since these words, Rule of Faith, even as he treats of them, do admit of some ambiguity in their sense; it had been necessary to have first declared, what was here intended to be signified by them. For besides that the phrase of regula fidei, or the Rule of Faith, is by Irenaeus and Tertullian, and other Ancients, sometimes made use of for a kind of Creed, or comprisal of the chief Articles of Christian Faith: I say besides this, the word Rule, being here a Metaphor, the true meaning of it in this place, must be searched into. Nor doth he sufficiently describe his Rule by saying, it is able to regulate or guide him who useth it: for still by a Rule may be understood, either that which is able to guide him who useth it, that by it something to be inquired after, may be discovered knowably; or else a Rule is that from which all things about which such a Rule may be made use of, may receive the most exact, perfect, and complete way of trial and discovery. Now that is not the Rule of Faith by which a man may be guided to believe some Divine revealed truths, or most truths, which yet may either misguide in some others, or not most exactly guide to the knowledge of them: but it is that by which all Divine revealed truths are sufficiently discovered, by which there may be had the best determination of all Questions about such truths which are necessary to be decided; and which is the most sure and firm ground of believing every Divine revealed truth. The want of considering and observing this, hath cast this Author upon a threefold miscarriage. First, He hath omitted the most principal and necessary property of the Rule of Faith; which is, that it is the way to know, try and determine all matters of Faith, or revealed Truth; and that it is sufficient to do all this, so far as it is requisite it should be done. For if this property be omitted, all those laid down by this Discourser, will not have light enough to discover which is the Rule of Faith certainly and infallibly. For instance, this sentence, God Created the Heavens and the Earth, or any other such like, so delivered to us, that it appears certainly to come from God, though it cannot be called a Rule of Christian Faith, because it contains not so much Divine truth as is necessary either for every man's Salvation, or for the determining Controversies in Religion, so far as it is requisite they should be decided; and this is received as much amongst the unbelieving Jews, as amongst Christians: yet all the properties mentioned by this Discourser, may be applied unto it, as much as to the Rule of Faith. 1. It may be to all self-evident as to its existence, That there is such a truth delivered. 2. It may be knowable, to have a ruling power even to the Vulgar. 3. It may settle them, who undoubtingly receive it. 4. It may satisfy either Dissenters, or Doubters. 5. It may convince Adversaries. 6. It may be certain in itself, and, 7. Ascertainable to us. A Second miscarriage hence arising, is, That in this Treatise he useth the phrase of the Rule of Faith in a very uncertain, fallacious and ambiguous sense; sometimes to signify one thing, and sometimes another. For under Faith, as he treats of it, he sometimes includes all Divine revealed truth, so far as to a general ending of Controversies about them. So Praef. §. 7. he saith, Controversy, or the skill to know what is Faith— if a Science must be grounded on some self-evident Principle; and soon after he tells us, he hath endeavoured to show the first Principle Catholics proceed on self-evident; and this he calls the first principle in controversy. Where it is plain he includes under Faith, all Divine revealed truths, concerning which there are any Controversies raised. But in Disc. 1. §. 8. where he lays as a ground, that the Vulgar are to be saved, that is, are to have Faith or the knowledge of God, he cannot mean, that they must be surely and rationally determined (as he grants Faith must be such an assent) in all points of Faith, about which there is any Controversy: for it is plainly evident, that even amongst the Papists the Learned men have not been determined in all points, de Fide, by the help of their Tradition. So by the Rule of Faith, he sometimes means an only way to come to Faith, as Disc. 2. §. 9, 10. he saith, Faith is not possible to be had without the Rule of Faith; other times he understands by it only a sufficient way to come to Faith, as Disc. 1. §. 8, 9 he calls it, the means to arrive at Faith, or come to Faith. Sometimes he calls it, the ordinary way to Faith; so Corol. 1. and yet thence concludes, none can pretend to have Faith, who hold not to the true Rule; and yet as having his heart misgiving him in this confidence, he saith, Disc. 1. §. 11. The Rule of Faith is the best, if not the only means to come to the knowledge of Faith. Now to treat of the Rule of Faith in such a manner, as not to keep to one sense, but some time by his Rule, to mean an only way, sometimes a sufficient way, sometimes an ordinary way, other times the best, if not the only way; and by Faith, of which it is the Rule, sometimes to understand such Faith as is in all the believing Vulgar, and at other times under Faith, to take in all Controversy about matters revealed of God: this is a strange jumbling of different things together, and as it discovers much want of accurateness and rational proceeding in the Author, so it occasions incoherency and confusion in this his Discourse. A Third miscarriage hence arising is, That he buildeth part of his discourses upon a supposition which is certainly false, to wit, that all that Faith which is in the Vulgar, or in any others, is immediately produced by the application of the Rule of Faith, so Disc. 1. §. 8, 9 whence §. 14. he calls the Rule of Faith, the immediate producer and cause of the assent of Faith; both with reference to the ruder sort, and to the Learned. Now though the Rule of Faith be the surest way to beget Faith, or to try any point of Faith, yet is not all Faith in all persons immediately produced by it, but many times by other means. Thus the Discourses of Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, and their Writings, have doubtless persuaded and prevailed with many to receive the Christian Faith by them, and believe many things declared in it: yet neither their words, nor writings, were any Rule of Faith, since both in some things appear erroneous. The Goths were brought in to Christianity by the preaching of the Arians, and by that means believed many Christian truths: and of later years, many Pagans have believed the Christian Doctrine, some by the preaching of Protestants, and others by the Papists; yet cannot all these ways of delivery be called the Rule of Faith, nor indeed any of them. Yea it is sensibly evident, that many Christian truths are received and believed both among Protestants and Papists by the Vulgar, either from the teaching of a Parent, or from a private Doctor or Teacher, which may be subject to some error, and so are not the Rule of Faith, since they may misguide: and yet in many things of revealed truth, this is the common case of the Vulgar, before they come to understand the Rule of Faith, or that which they own as such; even before the Protestant comes to understand the Scripture, and what is in it contained; and before the Papist understands the Tradition of the Church, and how he may know what is as such delivered; since all that is taught or written by some particular persons cannot be as such received. I come now to examine the particular properties of the Rule of Faith above recited. The first property is, That it must be self evident as to its existence to all. His ground for this is, that the rudest Vulgar who are capable of Faith, are uncapable of any skill by speculation, §. 3, 4, 9, 10. But First, This proves not that it must be self-evident; by which he means, as appears in the following Discourse, that that which is the Rule of Faith, appeareth evidently to be such, barely by considering this Rule in itself, without any other helps and advantages: since without this way of self-evidence, it may be sufficiently evidenceable to all capacities, in such a manner as the Vulgar are capable of knowing it. The Statutes of England, are a Rule for the decision of Cases in the Law, concerning the matters contained in them; but that they are so, cannot appear satisfactorily in all these Laws, by the bare reading of them: but their being sufficiently and generally attested, and acknowledged to be enacted by the Legislative Power, and unrepealed, evidenceth them to be such. The Vulgar know that the last Will and Testament of a man, is as a Rule, to show who hath title to the Goods of the deceased; and they are capable of knowing which is the last Will and Testament of a person, otherwise than from the bare reading of it; to wit, by the full witness and evident testimony of credible persons concerning it. The ordinary Jews were capable of knowing the ten Commandments, and the Books of Moses to be given them from God, to guide them, otherwise than by the reading of them; to wit, by delivery of them as such, by the constant testimony of all the Jews, in that and the succeeding Ages. Whence it may appear to be self-evident, that the Vulgar are capable of receiving other proof than self-evidence, though not by deep speculation, yet by testimonial evidence. Nor 2. Will it hence follow from his proof, that the Rule of Faith should be evident to all as to its existence. By all he cannot here include them, who have no knowledge of Gospel Revelation: But I suppose he intends all who have faith, or are in the way to attain it. But in this latitude, it is no property of the Rule of Faith, to be actually evident to all these; since there may be some Faith which is not immediately grounded upon the Rule, as was before showed. Howbeit since the Rule of Faith is intended to confirm and determine matters of faith, so that they may be received with a full and firm assent, and is thence of great use to all, to settle and establish them in the faith; I assert, that the Rule of Faith is evidenceable unto all, or may be made evident unto all who have capacities of reason, both that it is, and that it is a Rule, if they be willing to receive that evidence which is sufficient. The second property, That it is evidenceable as to its ruling power, to Enquirers, even the rude Vulgar, I allow; supposing them willing to be satisfied with good evidence. The third property I admit, That it is apt to settle and justify undoubting persons, that is, that they who rely on it without doubting, may be satisfied, that they act rationally. The fourth property is, That it is able to satisfy the most Sceptical Dissenters, and rational Doubters. Had he appeared only to mean by Sceptical, the most curiously inquisitive, I would readily have granted this property: but it is suspicious, that he includes such Sceptics, as design to reject evidence; because when he applies this Rule, Disc. 3. §. 3. he speaks of his Sceptic, as one who would find somewhat to reply rationally, or at least would maintain his suspense, with a, Might it not be otherwise? If he indeed includes persons who set themselves to reject evidence; I answer, the Rule of Faith needeth not be able to satisfy them, nor can it; since they are not capable of satisfaction: and such were many of the Heathen Philosophers, of the Heretics among Christians, and probably of the Scribes and Pharisees. All he said for the proof of this property was, That those who are out of the Church, are intended by Christ to be brought in to embrace the faith, and persons of highest reason and enquiry in the Church may be satisfied concerning the faith, §. 13, 14. This is true of them who will embrace light and evidence where they find it, but not of them who reject it; and Protestants will affirm, that the Rule of Faith (taking in the testimonial evidence which is given concerning that Rule) is able to satisfy all Dissenters or Doubters, who are ready and willing to receive rational satisfaction. The fifth property is, That it must be able to convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries. This he supposeth proved from §. 15. Because such Adversaries the Church will have, and the highest advantage they can have against the Church, is, to show her Rule uncertain. But this only proves, that enough may be said for the Rule of Faith, to vindicate it against all such Adversaries, which is indeed true; yea, and more than this, that enough may be said to convince them, if they will attend to it, and be not obstinate; and however to satisfy all unprejudiced men, that these obstinate Adversaries are in error, and may be confuted. But more than this, is no way necessary to provide for the conviction of the obstinate. If Porphyry, Celsus, or Julian were not convinced; shall any conclude, that God was wanting in the Rule of Faith to his Church? But indeed the satisfaction of such Heathen Adversaries must be procured, not only from the Rule of Faith, which will show what was delivered by Jesus, and the Apostles, and Prophets, but also from other arguments and testimonial evidence, not only to prove, that this Rule was delivered by Jesus, but also to show the things so delivered, to be of God, and therefore true. The sixth and seventh properties, That it is certain in itself, and ascertainable to us, I do admit. And indeed these two properties (if by ascertainable to us, we understand, that we may be sufficiently certain concerning the Rule, and what is contained in it) include all the former, so far as they are truly applicable to the Rule of Faith. For to be certain and ascertainable to us, includes so much of his two first properties, as belong to this Rule of Faith; that is, it is evidenceable to all, both as to its being and its ruling power; seeing to be evidenceable, and to be ascertainable, is one and the same thing. Yea, if it be certain, and it's certainly thus ascertainable or evidenceable to us, his third, fourth and fifth Properties will be the consequent effects hereof, so far as they of right appertain to this Rule of Faith; that is, where there appears certainty ascertainable, it will have these effects; it will justify them who most steadfastly and undoubtingly rely on it, and will satisfy inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters, and will be able to convince the most acute Adversaries: Whence it appears, that his seven Properties are needlessly and without sufficient distinction multiplied, and all the rest are well reducible to the two last: to which, if we add what I before observed concerning this Rule, that it must be the best Guide in all matters of faith, we have then three Properties, which alone are sufficient to direct us to the Rule of Faith; to wit, its certainty, its evidenceableness; and its fullness, exactness and compleatness as to all points of faith. But since his Discourse I now examine, is ordered according to his seven Properties, saving that he himself Disc. 2. confounds, or at least conjoins the two former, it is necessary for me to follow him in his own way, and to examine the Rule of Faith, by what we have found to belong to it in all these Properties. Answer to Disc. 2. showing, that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith, do agree to Scripture. OUR next work is to examine by these marks, what the Rule of Faith is. He tells us, §. 1. That the owned pretenders to it, are only two, Scripture and Tradition; but withal insinuates, That Protestants do indeed make private Spirit, private Reason, and the Testimonies of Fathers the Rule of Faith; because these are they which do ascertain them of Scripture sense. Now, we Protestants do own Scripture as our Rule of Faith, which was surely delivered to us, by succession from the Apostles; and do assert, that what ever Properties do belong to the Rule of Faith, are truly and fully applicable to the Scripture: but unwritten Tradition we reject from being this Rule, knowing that there is no certain and infallible delivery of Christian Doctrine thereby. Nor do we any way make either private Reason or a private Spirit (whether he mean an Enthusiastic Spirit, which Protestants disclaim, or the same thing with private Reason) or Testimonies of Fathers our Rule of Faith. For if Protestants should try any Doctrine by any of these immediately, without referring them to Scripture, they would, as to that Doctrine, make them their Rule: but this no Protestant will do in matters of mere belief, or supernatural Revelation. But if they make use of their reason to apprehend the words, phrases and sense of the Scripture, that thereby they may more fitly judge, what the Scripture will determine as to any matter of faith, this is no more to make this a Rule, than an Artist who measures any Materials by an exact known Rule, can be said to make his eye his Rule, because he judges by his eye, how his Rule is applied to the thing measured: but in case he shall make use only of his eye, without any other Rule, then only can his eye be called his Rule. Indeed the followers of Tradition and all rational men, may as well be charged with making private reason their Rule, as the followers of Scripture: since by reason they are ascertained of Traditions sense: for they make use of reason to judge what the words signify which are delivered to them, and what ground they have to receive them; else could not their assent of Faith be, as this Author acknowledgeth it must be, rational, Disc. 1. §. 14. unless he can imagine, a man to give a rational assent, which is not directed by reason. Nor can we be said to make the Testimonies of Fathers our Rule, though in plain truths we value them, owning the same truth which we embrace, as delivered by the Rule. In some more difficult Scriptures, we make use of them to satisfy our reason, by their reason and evidence: and this is to use them in the same manner we use our reason. In other places difficult, we make use of their authority, as a probable motive to persuade us to incline to a sense by them delivered, if it be not contradicted by greater authority or reason. But in this case, where there is no other evidence, we do not urge such an interpretation, or such a sense of such a Scripture, necessary to be received as a Point of Faith, but allow it in such a measure probable and to be assented to, as the Authorities shall require. §. 2. He notes, that when we make Scripture our Rule, we must understand not Scripture sensed, but to be sensed; that is, their characters in a Book with their aptness to signify. I answer, We assert the written words of Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, as the words therein contained do manifest their own sense, being in themselves in all things fit and necessary to be known, sufficiently intelligible by men whom God hath endued with reason and understanding. That is, the words of Scripture which are written by inspiration from God, do in the same manner declare God's meaning in what he reveals, which is the Doctrine of Faith; as words written and spoken by men, declare their sense and meaning to one another; and thus we own them to be the Rule of Faith. §. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. He frames six Objections against the Scriptures being sufficiently evidenceable to the Vulgar, which excludes his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith. First, They cannot be certain by self-evidence, that this is God's Word; which cannot be discovered, but by deep speculation; nor can this be concluded, till all seeming contradictions are solved, §. 3. Secondly, Nor can they know how many Books are divinely inspired, either by self-evidence, or by any skill they are possessed of, §. 4. Thirdly, Nor is it evidenceable to their capacities, that the originals are any where preserved entire; nor can they be assured of the skills of others by which they know it, §. 5. Fourthly, Nor can they know that the Scriptures are rightly translated; for they are not capable to judge of the honesty and skill of the Translators, §. 6. Fifthly, If it be most truly translated, yet innumerable Copies, before Printing, and since Printers and Correctors of the Press are to be relied on, by which means they can have no evidence of the right letter of Scripture, §. 7. Lastly, Still they are far to seek, unless they were certain of the true sense of Scripture, which the numerous Commentators and infinite Disputes, about concerning Points and Christ's Divinity, show not to be the task of the vulgar, §. 8. Ad §. 3. To the first Objection I answer, That it is sufficiently evidenceable even to the Vulgar, that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Now though the self-evidence of this or what may be gathered by inspection into the Book of Scripture, is very considerable, as to the truths contained in Scripture; by observing that it contains powerful and heavenly Doctrines, suitable to God, and great Prophecies wonderfully fulfilled: yet as to the writing which contains these truths, we have another more plain way, and generally evidenceable to all persons, to assure them, that these Books are God's Word: which is, that by the general delivery or tradition of the Church of Christ, or of all who appear to have the chief care of their own souls, these Books have in all Ages since Christ, and almost in all Countries been preserved, as the Writings of the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists; they have constantly and publicly read them as such, and given them to us, as containing that Doctrine which was so wonderfully confirmed by Miracles. In this manner we receive all the Books of Holy Scripture as God's Word; and by this way we have a plain, and withal a very full certainty; or by this means in S. Austin's words De Civ. Dei, lib. 15. c. 23. The authority of the true Scriptures comes to us from the Fathers, by a most certain and known succession. Compare the certainty of it, with any Historical Writings in the World, or with any other matters of fact in any former Age, and the certainty of Scripture is much the greater; because it is more generally delivered, and hath been more constantly read. Compare this again with any Records in the World, and the knowledge of any Charter of any Society: the Records of a Court, the Statutes of a College, or the Charter of a Corporation, are surely known to be such by the Officers of that Court, and the Members of that Corporation, and even by the Vulgar in a succeeding Age, because they are in written Records delivered as such to them; and every one taketh this to be a sufficient certainty: especially if he know, that all foregoing Members of such Societies, or Officers of such Courts, are under the obligation of an Oath, to preserve such Records or Charters entire: and upon this evidence they doubt not to believe, what this Record or Charter doth contain. And much more certain is the delivery of Scripture Records as the Word of God; since there are not only one, but great multitudes of Christian Societies over the whole World, who all agree in this delivery: and all these Societies, by their Profession, and the Christian Sacraments, are under the highest obligations not to falsify in any thing; and especially, in the delivery of such Monuments which are of Divine Inspiration. To all this add the great evidence we have from the Writings of the ancient Fathers, that they did religiously own and honour this Book, as the Word of God. Lastly, Compare the certainty of this truth of the Word of God being contained in Scripture, with the certainty of Doctrine by unwritten Tradition, or rather with its uncertainty; wherein we must consider, that this delivering to us the writing of the Holy Scriptures, is of the same nature with that, whereby Monuments, preserved Records or Charters are delivered from one generation to another; which the common apprehensions of men show, to be a much surer way of delivery, than this Tradition by way of hear says: since in every Corporation, which hath a Charter delivered down safely from their Predecessors, if the Members of it would be sure what are the Privileges that belong to it, they will not think it the safest way to inquire, what are the common Opinions of that Society, and rely on this, which is like the way of Oral Tradition: but they will consult the Charter itself, and so rest satisfied in what is there contained in their sure Records. And the vulgar Christians will conclude the truth of Christian Doctrine, or what God delivered, to be more fully in the Scripture, than in the words of other Christians or Tradition, by the same way, but by much greater evidence, than that, by which men of all Societies, will conclude the truth of what concerns their Privileges, or what Emperors or Kings have granted them, to be more fully contained in their Charters, than in common reports. Nor is this Tradition which we honour, owned by us, a Rule of our Faith, but a rational evidence, or a help and ground of our knowledge of this truth, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, or the Writings divinely inspired: For in matters of Faith, though a man is supported by reason, which will give an account why he owns such a testimony to be from God; yet as to the matter or thing believed, he doth not exercise his reason, to prove the truth of the thing by rational evidence, but submits his reason to rely on the credibility of the Divine Testimony, and upon this Testimony, owns what is attested by it: but when we say, we own the Scriptures to be God's Word, by the forementioned way of Tradition, we act our reason as to the thing received by us; and do own and acknowledge this as truth, from that rational evidence which Tradition affords to our reason; and so do receive it as true in a way of rational knowledge, which by this Traditional evidence we prove truth. The things contained in Scripture we receive by faith, because contained in a divinely inspired Writing; and here we inquire not for rational evidence, to prove them true. Here than we can be no more said to build our faith on the Rule of Tradition, than public Justice can be said to be administered by the Rule of Tradition, when Cases are decided by Acts of Parliament which have been successively delivered from one Age to another. But as he hath hitherto builded on a mistake, to imagine that we have no way to prove Scripture the Word of God, but only by considering the Letter of Scripture in itself: so in the end of §. 3. he supposeth, that we must be able to satisfy all seeming contradictions in Scripture, before we can own it to be God's Word. But cannot every ordinary Christian both humbly and truly acknowledge, that in things delivered by God, there may be many things above his understanding to comprehend, and above his apprehension to reconcile, which yet may be in themselves both true and good? In this doing, we have the same ground to believe Scripture to be God's Word; which S. Austin had in his forsaking Manicheism, who makes this Confession to God, Confess. lib. 6. c. 5. Thou didst persuade me, that they were to be blamed, not who believed thy Books, which almost in all Nations thou hast established on so great authority, but who believed them not. Therefore when we were unable by evident reason to find out truth, and for this cause had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures, I now began to believe, that thou wouldst by no means have given to that Scripture so excellent authority throughout all Lands, unless thou wouldst that thou shouldst be believed by it, and that thou shouldest be sought by it. Now the absurdities which used to offend me, I referred to the height of the Mysteries. Ad §. 4. To the second Objection, concerning the number of the Books of holy Scripture, I shall first inquire, What ground the Vulgar have to own all the Books received by Protestants, and particularly by the Church of England as Canonical, to be the divinely inspired Scriptures, or the Word of God? Now they may safely and with good ground receive all these Books, because they are so owned by the same Tradition or delivery of all Churches, as they received them from the beginning: nor was there ever in the Church any doubt of the Books we receive of the Old Testament, or of any of the Evangelists, or of the most of the Epistles. And though there was some doubt at some time, in some places, concerning some few Books; yet these doubts were never general: nor did they in any place continue, but were checked by known consent in the beginning of Christianity; of which S. Hierom speaks ad Dardanum Ep. 129. We receive them following the authority of ancient Writers. Now that all these Books have been always thus delivered by the Catholic Church as the Word of God, the Vulgar hath sufficient reason to acknowledge, since it hath the same certainty with the way of delivering so many preserved Records, by the agreement of such multitudes of Societies, which is a much more certain way than Oral Tradition of Christ's Doctrine, as was showed n. 6. This delivery of these Books, is commonly asserted by the present Age, and by men of greatest knowledge amongst the Protestants: nor at this time doth the Roman Church reject any of them. Though indeed S. Hierom tells us, That in his time the Latin Custom did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst Canonical Scriptures, in his Commentaries upon Isa. 6. and Isa. 8. and elsewhere. Which Eusebius also takes notice of, Eccl. Hist. lib. 3. c. 3. & lib. 6. c. 21. So that the Roman Church was not then the most faithful preserver of what was delivered in the Church Catholic, which did acknowledge this and the other Scriptures, by which they are sufficiently delivered to us, and by which S. Hierom did receive even this Epistle, as he particularly writes in the Epistle ad Dardanum. Now being secure of these Books, we are sure that we have safe delivery of all necessary truth required to salvation: for as it is observable, that concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, no other Church, nor the present Roman Church, doth pretend to any other Book of Scripture in the New Testament: so S. Luke chap. 1. hath assured us, that in his Gospel are written what things are necessary to be believed as the Christian Faith. So that hitherto it appears, how common Christians may know enough for their salvation: and yet further, they knowing all these Books to be of God, can thence conclude, that whatever is declared in them is true, and what ever is condemned there, is false or evil; and by this means they may attain much knowledge. And though these vulgar Christians may safely be unacquainted with the Controversy concerning the Apocryphal Books, as is evident from what is above said; and men of greater learning and knowledge, for whom the trial of all Controversies is a more proper work, are and may be fully certain concerning it, by their fully perceiving what was the Jewish and Christian Churches Tradition in this point; yet the vulgar may possibly, be sufficiently satisfied, that none of those Books are part of the Scriptures divinely inspired. For since they can understand from men of knowledge and learning, that none of those Books were received in the Jewish Church, to whom the Oracles of God were committed: Nor were they any of them generally received as of divine inspiration, and for proof of Doctrines, by the Catholic Christian Church; they may thence conclude, that it is as safe for them not to own them as such, as it was for the Catholic Christian Church, and the Jewish Church, whom neither Christ nor his Apostles charged with any sin and corruption in this particular. And likewise they may see, that they have as little reason to be guided by the particular Romish Church, in opposition to the Church Catholic concerning these Books, as S. Hierom had concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews; especially since they of Rome have not fixedly kept and declared the same Books at all times for Scripture. Thus we have a certainty of the Canon of Scripture, which Protestants own for their Rule: but this Discourser cannot but know that concerning Traditions, which he makes his Rule; neither the vulgar Papists, nor yet the learned can certainly know in all points, how many and which are truly such, which hath occasioned great disputes, and high contests amongst them of the Romish Church. Ad §. 5. To the third Objection, concerning the preserving of the Originals, I answer, That it is not necessary for the vulgar, either to know or inquire concerning the Originals; it is enough for him to have evidence, that the Scriptures remain entire, though he know not what Language was their Original. But if it be enquired, how every one may know, that these Scriptures are preserved entire, and how they who have any apprehensions of the Original, may know, that it is incorrupt as to the faith it contains, he may thus be satisfied. When he considers, that it is God's Word delivered to the World for their use, that they may know him and believe him, as we before shown; this common Christian may thence conclude, that if he does his best to inquire, God will preserve his Word so free from corruption, that it shall not misguide him to his hurt. And when he further knows, that the Church of God hath always had the highest esteem of these Books of any others in the world, and the greatest care of them, and that there are infinite Copies of them, in several Regions of the World, both in Originals and Translations, which that they all contain in them an agreement in the same matters of truth, he hath good reason to believe, because it is generally asserted by the best and most learned men this vulgar Christian knows; and even the Romanists who design to speak all they can against the certainty of Scripture, have never yet dared to affirm the contrary: for though there be many various readings, yet not such which will misguide in any matter of Faith. These things will make him more secure of the Scriptures being preserved entire, than any man can be of the Statutes of the Land, or of any Histories, or any other Records whatsoever; that is, he hath the greatest evidence of its integrity, that can be of any Writing in the World, which had its original some Ages past, and infinitely a greater evidence than can be given for Oral Tradition being preserved. For if one Record be commonly acknowledged a more certain preservative of truth, and in itself less liable to corruption, than common fame; much more when so numerous Records, or carefully and religiously transcribed Copies all agree. Again, when he considereth that in the Jewish Church the Scriptures were, until the coming of Christ, in very corrupt times, and amongst very corrupt persons, preserved so entire, that Christ sendeth to them to learn Religion; he hath great reason to judge the New Testament preserved entire, since we cannot suppose Providence less careful of the New Testament than of the Old, and there are now abundantly more Copies, both Translations and Originals (and old Translations speak the agreement of the old Originals whence they were translated) and these Scriptures highly valued, and publicly read in a constant manner, in so many places of the World; and all agree in all points of Faith. Nor could they possibly be any where all corrupted to one purpose, in a way so apparent to sense, as words written are, since there never was any General Council, collected out of all parts of the World, to determine any thing concerning the various Scripture readings, or the alteration of any Copies; if any such had been, it is possible there might have been some corruption general, if not by confederacy, yet by mistake, unless the former Copies should yet remain to discover this, as it is certain many very ancient Copies, and probably more ancient than any General Council, yet remain in the World; as for instance, that written by Tecla, in our King's Library, sent from cyril Patriarch of Constantinople. Ad §. 6. To the fourth Objection, concerning the Vulgars' knowledge of the right Translation of Scripture, I grant their knowledge of Scripture is by Translations. S. Austin observed the Doct. Christiana, lib. 2. c. 4. The holy Scriptures being spread abroad far and wide, by the various Tongues of the Interpreters, are made known to the Nations for their salvation. And a man of mean capacity may be satisfied concerning Translations, if he consider that he hath reason to judge, that the Original Languages may be understood by men of learning, partly because himself by use and observing, hath learned his own Mother-Tongue, and therefore hath reason to think, that others by the same means, may learn other Languages; and particularly those wherein the Scriptures were written: partly because he thinks it injurious to the Goodness & Wisdom of God, to imagine, that he should give forth a writing to guide the World, and that it should be in a Language which was not intelligible; and partly because he hears that so many Churches have these Books translated, and that even such as this Discourser, who would cast and suggest all doubts they can concerning Scripture translated into the common Tongues, yet dare they not say, that it is not capable of being translated, so as to deliver the same matters of Faith: yea, the Papists themselves both use, allow of, and many of them endeavour to make new Translations. Having gone thus far, he may further consider, that if it can be truly translated, he hath reason to judge, that such men who have the common fame, even amongst the Learned, for men of skill in Languages, are best able to give the sense of the words contained in those Languages; and he can conclude, that whatever God thought requisite for him to know from this Book, is so written, that such men of Learning are able to give the sense of it: and that whatever in any phrase cannot by such be understood, is something fit to be further enquired into, but not necessary to be now known. Yea further, he can conclude, that he hath reason to conceive, that the Translation with us in use, doth contain in it the true Doctrine of Christ, which is in the Original; because he heareth this oft averred by honest and learned men amongst us, and because the Papists who are professed enemies to this Translation, yet dare not, nor do not assert the contrary; but raise only some more inconsiderable Cavils about phrases. By this I suppose our vulgar Christian satisfied: if this Discourser be not with this answer, let him consider a parallel case. If many English men should purposely go to France to give a description of that Country, and they take a particular view of all places, and write this, and all agree together, and many thousand others who after go to see it, all agree in all material things; yea, and when many others shall go over on purpose to find fault with this description, who yet can find nothing very material to object, but only carp at small things; will this Author say, that all this can signify nothing to inform him satisfactorily who stays at home, unless he could be able to demonstrate to himself, that they indeed were in France, as they all agree, and that they did see what they wrote. Either this is something very considerable, and rational to engage assent; or else against all reason, most English men have confessed, that there is such a place as Rome, and such a person as is called the Pope, when we never saw either it or him. Ad §. 7. To the fifth Objection, concerning printed Copies. Before I answer this, I shall observe, that as it is suspicious in the whole Book, here is manifestly evident, either a piece of gross ignorance in the Writer, or a designed cheat upon his Reader: for since he apparently designs his Book for English men, and all our English Translations now in ordinary use, had their original since our departing from Popery; and our generally received Translation is not above Fifty Three Years older than his Book, yet he would have the vulgar to imagine, that there might be many faults in transcribing these Translations, in innumerable Copies before Printing, when Printing was long before these Translations were first made. But to pass this by, ordinary Protestants may be thus satisfied concerning the Printed Copies of the Scripture, by considering that there is as great care taken about Printing Bibles, as about copying Records, and more than about Printing any other Books: and yet this Author (who would persuade other to doubt so much of the Printers keeping to the truth of the Copy before him, as to the sense of it) I suppose would not have sent his Book to the Press, if he had thought indeed, the sense of it was not like to be expressed in Print: He may further consider, that our English Bibles are daily read, publicly or privately, by learned men, and compared with the Originals, and found to agree with them, except in some particular errors of Print, which as they are not in many expressions, may be discerned by common observation. And the ordinary Christian hath the more cause to be confident, of our ordinary Impressions of the Bible, because even the Papists, who are enemies to them, and do peruse them, yet dare not charge them to vary from the first translated Copies, more than is above expressed. Ad §. 8. To the sixth and last Objection, concerning the sense of Scripture, I answer, The faith of the vulgar (not nor of the learned neither) doth not require a certain knowledge of the sense of all Scripture. The discovery of God, what he is, and of Christ, and what he did and suffered for us, and of the Gospel Promises and Commands, and such like, are so plain, that he who can understand any thing of common speech, may understand so much of them, as is necessary for him to know: yea, they are in Scripture oft delivered in the very words and phrases, which Christ himself and the Apostles and Prophets made use of to their hearers, to instruct them in the faith and holy life: and therefore he who will censure the Scripture as not sufficiently plain to teach the great truths of God, must condemn the Apostles likewise and Christ himself, as not teaching, so as to be understood; and then must impiously tell the World, that either none were by them brought to the faith, or that they who were, did not understand it. Indeed he thinks strangely of man, who imagineth that he must go to an Oracle, to understand such things as these, That Christ came into the World to save sinners, That he died for our sins, and risen again, and shall judge the World: If these and such like plain words, which are abundantly in the holy Scriptures, cannot be understood by common capacities, I dare affirm, that they can never know these truths, by any words and phrases, and so can never be helped by such men as this Discourser, who can show no other ordinary way to teach the matters of mere belief, but by words, unless they will embrace Enthusiasm. Indeed many things in Scripture are hard to be understood: concerning which, this ordinary Christian may satisfy himself, that since God gave him this Book to lead him to God, it is evident from God's end in writing it, that he hath expressed so much as is necessary for him to know, that it is not beyond his capacity to discern it, if he diligently attend to it: and what he is not capable of understanding, he may be ignorant of, without fear of losing salvation by such ignorance; provided he be careful to use such means as God affords him, and be willing to receive further instruction, as he shall be capable of further knowledge. And then this ordinary Christian may by this means be of a sound mind, and of a more knowing head in matters of Faith, than most Papists are, who know as little, or less of the things which are obscure in Scripture, than Protestants do; and by this means he may own Christ's Divinity, as may appear, n. 23. Having now showed, that in all his Arguments hitherto produced, against the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith, there is nothing rational; I shall now briefly show, that the promoting such Cavils as these, or being persuaded by them, would be a way very much to hinder Piety, and even wholly to disown Christianity, which I shall do, in applying most or all his Arguments to some particular Cases. We read that Josiah when the Book of the Law was found, did by that, in a Pious and Religious Zeal, reform the corrupt ways of Worship, which is of the nature of Practical Tradition, 2 Kings 23.2, 3, 4. and from thence received the determination of very considerable Points of Doctrine, which no Oral Tradition had brought down to him: to wit, what great wrath God had denounced against Judah and Jerusalem, for the neglect of keeping that Law, 2 Kings 22.13, 19 This pious work of his, for which he was so highly commended by God himself, 2 Kings 22.19, 20. and Chap. 23.25. That there was no King like him, before or after him, should never have been performed by him, had he harkened to such a Tempter as this Discourser. For 1. Josiah could not more certainly know the Book of the Law, to be the Word of God, than Protestants now do the Book of Scriptures. 2. And Josiah had only the Books of Moses, 2 Chron. 34.13. and could then no more know the whole Canon of Scripture, than we do. 3. And before this Book was found, he knew not that these Scriptures were any where preserved; and after it was found, having only one Copy, and that probably written by they knew not whom, he had not so much evidence of its integrity, as Protestants now have of the whole Scriptures, by the consent of all Copies. 4. And if he was not capable of knowing the sense truly, he should neither have humbled himself, nor have reform Judah. Thus we see it would have destroyed his Piety, to have been guided by these irrational Objections. Consider next the state of Christianity. When Christ came into the World, as he condemns the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, which made void God's Commandments; so in the great Point of Faith concerning the Messiah, who and what manner of person he should be, etc. Christ sends his hearers to the Scriptures to learn, John 5.39. and S. Peter when he spoke of the glory of the Transfiguration, yet saith, 2 Pet. 1.19. We have a more sure word of Prophecy, to which you do well to take heed. Yet the Jews than had no more certainty than we have, that Scriptures are God's Word, how many Books there are, that they were preserved entire, that they were rightly translated, and rightly copied; and that they had the right sense. Now he who thinks not this a Rule sure enough, to reject the then contrary Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees (as that he must be a great Temporal Prince, and such like) must own the Pharisees to be rather in the right, than our Saviour and his Apostles. And yet all these Arguments of our Discourser would here take place, even those which concern Translations; for at that time the Jews (who after the Captivity did not commonly understand the Hebrew) did make use of, some the Syriack or Chaldee Translations, which though of Hebrew Original, as much differs from it as our English from the Saxon; and others, and those very many, of the Greek Version, which is as much different from the Hebrew, as our English is from either of them. His §. 9, 10, 11. contain what he would persuade his Reader, a Protestant would say against his Discourse, which he undertakes to answer. These things concern not us who have already returned our own Answer, otherwise than to let him know, that sober Protestants do not speak so weakly and absurdly, as in some things he there represents them. §. 12. He says, Some will reply, fundamentals are clear in Scripture. True indeed, some do reply to this purpose, and not only Protestants, but the ancient Fathers, upon the like occasion. Thus Origen when Celsus in opposing Christianity, urged the obscurity and uncertain sense of Scriptures, Orig. lib. 7. cont. Cells. answers, That whatever was useful for their hearers to understand, and might confer any thing to the amending of their lives, these things the Prophets spoke without all covertness, according to the will of God. But such things as were mystical, and matters of higher enquiry and speculation, than the vulgar were capable of, these things they declared by allegories and dark say. Austin, de Doct. Christiana, lib. 2. c. 9 saith, Among those things which are plainly set down in Scripture, are found all those things which contain faith and manners. And Athanasius with his Council of Egypt, in their Synodical Epistle to Jovian the Emperor, tell him, That the true and religious faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is plain to all, being both known and read out of the divine Scriptures: and all these say include fundamentals being clear in Scripture. Against such Answers or Replies, he (who should first have considered, whether his Church had ever given a Catalogue of Traditions in Points de fide, or can yet agree to do it, which he knows they cannot; against himself as well as against reason) tells us, That a perfect Catalogue of fundamentals was never yet agreed upon, and without this all goes to wrack; and then he inquires, Whether this be a fundamental, that Christ is God? and Whether this be clearer in Scripture, than that God hath hands, feet, nostrils and passions like ours? Concerning the Catalogue of Fundamentals, though as to matters of mere belief, Protestants have oft asserted, that the Creed contains them all; yet the requiring such a Catalogue, in this case, from Protestants, as it is needless, so to a sober Enquirer will seem ridiculous: and the only true way to disprove this Assertion, is to show something to be fundamental, which is not plain enough in Scripture to be thence believed. To put a like case, If I should assert, That in England may be had all things, which are necessary for the convenient subsistence of man: would it not be a thing ridiculous to say, that till I could distinguish all things necessary for this subsistence, from things unnecessary, and produce a Catalogue of them, this cannot be truly asserted. For, suppose such an enumeration of things necessary attempted, if any thing be omitted, which to another seems necessary, and is in England; or if some thing be inserted, which seems not necessary, and yet is in England, still this assertion of all things necessary for subsistence being here, may stand good, and can no way be disproved, but by showing, that there is somewhat necessary for man's subsistence, which cannot be had in England. This I suppose this Author did discern, and therefore will here venture to instance in a Fundamental not clear in Scripture; but I think he will come off with very bad success. It is concerning the Divinity of Christ, which we own a fundamental: and if this Author shall say it is not so plain in Scripture, as thence to be believed, he must contradict S. John, who tells us, he wrote for this purpose, that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, John 20.31. So that he must either grant, that this is so plain in Scripture, that there is sufficient evidence there for our believing it; or else he must say, that when the Evangelist wrote that we should believe him to be the Son of God, he had no eye to our believing his Divinity, or his being God; and he who will so assert, will deny this to be a fundamental; or else he must say, that the Evangelist, and the Holy Ghost who inspired him, mistake in supposing enough written to declare his Divinity. But he here seems to object, and elsewhere, that some who seem to follow the letter of the Scripture deny this, as the Socinians. What then? This is not for want of evidence in Scripture, but from making or devising ways to avoid this evidence. Will this Author say, that there was no evidence, of there being Angels and Spirits, amongst the Jews, because the Sadducees, who had opportunity of observing all such evidence, believed neither Angel nor Spirit? And will he say, that there was no clear evidence from the Word of Christ and his Miracles, that they were from God, because the Pharisees and other unbelieving Jews, who conversed with him, and saw his Miracles, and heard his Word, yet did not acknowledge them from God. Now if this be so clear from Scripture, as thence to be believed, and that God hath hands, feet, and passions like ours, be not so delivered, as I shall show in answer to his next Discourse, where he urgeth this again; then I may safely and truly conclude, that the Divinity of Christ is much more clear in Scripture, than the other. Indeed that God hath hands, etc. like ours, I know not of the least intimation of any such thing in the letter of Scripture, though it should not be allowed the common and usual Figures of Speech, which are intelligible enough to men of Reason; since when it speaks of God's Hand or Arm, or the like, it plainly shows them not like ours, as God said to Job, Job 40.9. Hast thou an arm like God, and canst thou thunder with a voice like him? These two properties therefore of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture, notwithstanding all this Author hath jointly objected against it. An Answer to his third Discourse, showing, that the three next Properties of the Rule of Faith, are agreeable to Scripture. IN §. 1. and 2. he lays down his third Property of the Rule of Faith; That it must be apt to settle and justify those unlearned persons, who rely undoubtingly upon it; that this may be done, such a person, he saith, must proceed on such Principles as he takes to be true ones. Thus he cannot act in receiving Scripture; because as he can himself have no self-evidence of its being God's Word, so it is senseless for men to believe a multitude, which says, it may possibly err in what it tells them. Or if here skill in History, Language or Fathers, may secure them from error, this he cannot judge of: And principally when he considers, that they who pretend to Scripture, differ, and condemn and persecute each other; his reason will tell him, that since there is but one truth, for want of the light or directive power of that Rule, they all but one party, and may be that also, go miserably astray. To this I answer, The Principles which he relies on, who closeth with Scripture, are such as may abundantly satisfy him; which indeed will follow from what was said to the former Discourse, concerning the rational evidence he hath of the Scripture. What he adds, that it is senseless to receive Scriptures as God's Word, from the delivery of a multitude, who say they may possibly err; is, if not a senseless, yet a very unaccountable Assertion. Will he think that nothing can be credited that is seen by the eye, because in a mist or some dark place, the eye may be possibly mistaken? or can there be nothing truly known by the understanding of a man, because he who is Master of the best reason, may in some things misapprehend? if this Author would thus argue, he must disclaim all pretences to demonstrations and Science, yea, and certainty likewise in all things in the World. We know in common affairs that all men are capable of being mistaken; where they have not sufficient evidence: and yet we do not thence discredit the preservation of Records and Charters, as if that could be no way assured, since we know men are capable here of sufficient evidence to inform them; and Protestants are no more fallible, nor acknowledge themselves no more fallible than all men are; that is, they may be deceived where they have not sufficient light, and evidence to discern by: but where they have this light, and discern and receive it, there they neither are, nor can be deceived; and such evidence as we have showed, they have of the Scriptures; so that the knowledge thus grounded in Protestants, is infallibly certain, not from the infallibility of the persons, as if they were not where liable to error; but from the infallibleness of the clear evidence of truth, which whoever receives, is certainly, as to that thing so evidenced, free from error. Yet we receive God's Word not only from the delivery of Protestants, but of all ancient Churches, who yet were, and owned themselves to be men subject to error. Yea, the Church of Rome, and even the Council of Trent, who pretend to infallibility, do also deliver all the Books we receive; but we have no more reason to believe them for this pretence, than we should have to believe certainly all that man shall say, who hath the confidence to declare his tongue not liable to utter falsehood, when we can certainly know this very speech cannot be truth. There is nothing else in these Paragraphs which hath not been before answered, saving what he objects concerning the differences amongst Protestants, which do not conclude Scripture which is our Rule, either uncertain, or not sufficiently clear. For there are many things which many men over eagerly inquire after, and too rashly determine, which, it may be, God did not think fit to determine in his word, though all things requisite and necessary are clear enough; and there are many things clear enough in the Scripture, to diligent inquirers, whilst some err about them by too hastily closing with some conceptions of their own, not grounded on sufficient evidence, and then too passionately promoting of them: and in neither of these cases the Rule is to be blamed, but the persons; and to one of these heads belong all our differences. This same Argument was urged both by Jews and Heathens, (and particularly by Celsus against Christian Religion) as is related by Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. & Orig. lib. 3. cont. Cells. who pleaded that Christian Religion was not to be heeded and believed, because they who professed it, differed so much from each other, or opposed, contradicted and blamed each other, and many Heresies were spread amongst them. To which they returned answer, That such differences were common in all cases, where men entertained any thing by their judgements, if the things were any way eminent and excellent: such there was amongst Philosophers who were Gentiles, and such amongst the followers of Judaisme; so that he who would close with this Argument, must reject all ways of knowledge and professions of Religion. They observed likewise, that men will not refuse all Physic, because amongst Physicians there are many various opinions; nor will Travellers refuse to go in the King's Highway, because some went out of this Roadway to by-paths, which bring them to Precipices; nor should we for this reject the Scriptures and Christian Religion, but more diligently seek into them, since it is foretold, that there must be Heresies, and that the Tares will be with the Wheat. To this purpose those Fathers answered for Christianity; and the same answer pleads for us. But if this Author do indeed believe, that there cannot be evidence enough in that Rule, where they who profess to follow it, are of different opinions; let him begin at home, and put it into practice; and it will engage those of the Romish Communion to renounce their Rule of Faith; since it is plainly evident, that there have been many different opinions, and high animosities amongst the pretended followers of that Rule; not only formerly amongst the followers of different Schoolmen, and their different Orders of the Clergy; but also more of late amongst the Jesuits, and the Priests of other Orders, more especially the Jansenists; and the same continue to this day. To all this I shall add, that if by reason of the things objected by this Author, the Scripture be not now sufficient to justify him in his belief, who shall receive it as a Rule; then by the same reason were the Beraeans to be condemned, who searched the Scriptures to examine the Apostles Doctrine, for which S. Luke commends them, Act. 17.11. Nor could they justify Timothy's receiving them from a Child; yet S. Paul commends that in him, and says, they were able to make him wise unto Salvation, 1 Tim. 3.15. For as they could have no more self evidence of Scripture than we have; so they received these Scriptures from men whom themselves believed to be fallible; for the Scriptures they received as delivered by the Jewish Church, which if they had not judged fallible, they could not have given heed to the Apostles Doctrine, which condemned much which was delivered by the Jews, and delivered other Doctrines by them not received. Yea, they must conclude the delivery amongst the Jews certainly false, when they believed the Apostolical preaching. And even these Jews who delivered these Scriptures, did differ from each other, and condemn each other; which is evident not only in observing the three great Sects of the Jews, the Pharisees, Essens, and Sadduces; but also in observing the dissensions, betwixt the followers of the two great Jewish Doctors, Hillel and Shammai, who opposed one another to the death, even about the times of the Apostles. So that according to this Author's Principles he lays down, this was a senseless proceeding of Timothy and the Beraeans, and they were no way justifiable. Nor can this Author plead that these persons received the Scriptures from the delivery of the professors of Christianity as such, though they supposed them also fallible in trying their Doctrines, since it is evident they closed with the truth of Christianity, by searching the Scriptures: and indeed even then there were great contentions amongst the professors of Christian Religion, as appears in the Acts of the Apostles, concerning the observation of the Rites of the Mosaical Law. Since therefore we certainly know that they were justifiable who received and relied on Scriptures as we do, and since his Objections to plead against us, appear no way rational, I may well assert this third Property to agree to Scripture. §. 3. He propounds the Fourth Property of the Rule of Faith, to satisfy Sceptical Dissenters, and rational Doubters; which, he saith, nothing but demonstration can do, if they be true to their reason, and otherwise, their Faith itself would be a vice. But if some things here were demonstrable, yet it may be the task of a man's life, and this rational man would smile at his endeavours, who should go about to demonstrate all the difficult things here to be evidenced; That the Scriptures are the Word of God, having no real contradiction in them; that they are contained in just so many Books, and are still preserved entire; that they are rightly Translated, and that this is the sense. I answer; If by Sceptical, be here meant only inquisitive, I have admitted this as belonging to the Rule of Faith; and do assert, that the most inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters, may be satisfied concerning Scriptures, if they be willing to attend to sufficient evidence; and be persons who desiring to have their souls saved, would readily choose that, which shall appear the best way to God. How all these things here mentioned may be known with sufficient certainty, and by plain and natural evidence, and without spending a man's life in searching, we have showed in answer to the former Discourse. But these things are not indeed plain demonstrations, nor are such things as are matters of fact, capable of them, but of rational testimonies and evidences, which are so clear, that there can no rational way of doubting remain, where this evidence is discerned. Doth this Author think that no man can rationally judge himself to be the King's natural Subject, because he can have no demonstration that he was born in England, or other his Dominions? will he not eat or take Physic till he can demonstrate that his Food or Physic are proper for his Stomach? either he counts a very small rational evidence a demonstration; or else daily acts in things concerning his life without it; and yet we have much greater security concerning Scripture, than a man can have in any case concerning the suitableness of his Food. If this rational man be to pass the Seas, can he have no evidence of the safety of an Harbour, by the Mariner's testimony, and a long testified experience, until he can demonstrate there are neither Rocks nor Quicksands there? Obj. But where the soul is concerned, there is need of the highest evidence. Ans. There is in this case need of sufficient evidence to command assent; but if it would be folly not to receive such things as may preserve the life on sufficient evidence, it is yet greater folly not to receive such things upon sufficient evidence as may make the soul happy. S. Austin while a Manichee, as he saith, Confes. 6. ch. 4. would have had such certainty of things not seen, as of seven and three being ten; but at length he considered, how many things he had firmly received upon other testimony; as concerning places, and men whom he had not seen, and of what Parents he was born, and therefore resolved it was reasonable to close with Scripture upon its so general delivery. But let this Author begin at home, and he will soon see demonstrations not necessary for satisfaction. The Council of Trent, Can. 4. De Baptism. anathematizeth them who shall say, Baptism is not necessary to Salvation; and Can. 11. de Sacramentis, requires a necessity of the Ministers intention in the Sacrament. Can this Author direct all the members of his own Church to Demonstrations, to prove themselves Baptised, because it is a matter which concerns their souls? If he thinks the testimonies of Parents and Godfathers sufficient; yet no rational man will call this a demonstration, nor can these prove the intention of the Minister; yea, how can this Author or any other demonstrate that he was the person who was seen at such a time to be Baptised? If he will satisfy himself with the common testimonies of a sufficient number of credible persons, in a matter where they were capable of discerning truth; this indeed will be a rational assent, and more than this cannot be expected; but this is not a demonstration, but an evidence inferior in many circumstances, and those considerable ones, to the evidence we have of Scripture. He further says, he who would know the sense of Scripture, must have great skill in Languages, Grammar, History, Logic, and Metaphysics; that he may fully understand the phrases, scope, and things delivered. I answer, all these indeed are necessary for the full clearing some obscure and difficult Texts of Scripture; and therefore some such places may possibly not be yet fully understood; and if they be, it is only by persons who have all these advantages, or by others from them. But about the plain and necessary things in Scripture, there is need of no more of these helps, than such as are natural to every man's understanding. He who shall assert Grammar, Criticisms, etc. universally necessary to help men rightly to understand plain words; such as in most places are the Gospels and Epistles, and many other parts of Scripture, must assert, That one man cannot understand another, nor a child his Father, until he have learned several Sciences; and so all delivery of words amongst the Vulgar, and therewith the Romish Oral Tradition, must be utterly impossible, to come down in any thing, so much as one step, either right or wrong, so as to be perceptible. But he saith, his Sceptic may find somewhat to reply rationally, or at least, may maintain his ground of suspense, with a, Might it not be otherwise? If he may do so, is this any fault in the Rule of Faith? or any excuse to him to suspend his assent, when he can make no rational exception? Were not the Miracles of Moses sufficiently convictive, so long as some Egyptians said, Might they not be otherwise than from God? and was not all that Christ did and spoke, enough to declare his Doctrine to be from God, and a Rule of Faith, because the Jews not only said, May it not be otherwise, but that it is otherwise? and must the Rule of Faith now be needs made another thing by us, from what it was made in the beginning by Christ himself? shall the Scripture now be required to have that condition of a Rule of Faith, which it is certain did not at the beginning of Christianity belong to the Rule of Faith? If this satisfy not, suppose amongst the Beraeans in S. Paul's time, there should have been, or were some, of this Author's principles, who thought Faith a Vice, if not founded on demonstration, and would smile at any man, who should talk of demonstrating so much of Scripture as was requisite to found their belief in it, and so should refuse to assent to, and believe S. Paul, when others searching the Scriptures, did believe: Will this Author so own these principles of this Discourse, to say that these sceptical unbelievers acted more rationally, than S. Paul's Converts? and that they who believed his Doctrine by searching the Scriptures, did betray their reason, and their Faith was a Vice, when S. Luke owned them of a noble Spirit, and declared them to have searched diligently? §. 4. He comes to the fifth property, that it is convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries. Though obstinate persons are capable of no conviction, yet we acknowledge, that the Rule of Faith is defensible against all opposition; and is such, that the most acute Adversaries may be satisfied concerning it, if sufficient evidence will prevail with them. And this we assert concerning Scripture. He now supposeth a Deist to inquire, How we know the Book of Scripture to be God's Word? and supposeth us to answer, By its excellencies. These excellencies indeed give considerable evidence, especially, as he saith, to eyes enlightened by faith; and do further strengthen and satisfy them; yet we need not, nor do not assert, this alone sufficient to give a rational account to all men, without taking in how these Books were received, and delivered in the Church, as we formerly shown. But he saith, his Deist will show you Texts against known science, and in his judgement, contradictions. Will he show Texts against known science? but what if he cannot? and what if some expressions in Scripture are more suited to vulgar apprehensions than the Sciolists notion, shall any reject so excellent a Writing, because it condescends to speak intelligibly to the lowest capacities? Nor where there is proof given of this being God's Word, can seeming contradictions to his judgement be sufficient not to receive it; since somewhat mysterious and sublime may come from God; and to understand aright all things written by the Penmen of Scripture, it is requisite to be acquainted with the circumstances of History, measures, proverbial expressions, and the like; and then he might reconcile, as learned men have done, many things which now to him seem contrary. But he saith, his Deist will show you many absurdities and Heresies in the letter of Scripture, as that God hath hands, feet, and passions like ours. Here, as his former words are unsavoury, his latter are untrue. Scripture speaks indeed of God's hands and feet, but no where saith, he had such like ours. Such things as are thus spoken of God in Scripture, have a true literal sense, if that may be called literal, which is tropical; and why may not Scripture be allowed to make use of Tropes or Metaphorical expressions, as well as all other Writers, and all Discoursers? where the sense is easily discernible to reason, which is requisite to be used, that we may understand any Writing. Now the considering what knowledge we have of God by reason, and the pondering other places of Scripture, which plainly speak God to be a Spirit; and considering likewise, how these words of hands and feet, etc. are oft used in a figurative sense: this will plainly convince, that they must be understood so, when they are applied to God. When the Romanists by Tradition deliver, that the Pope is the Head of the Church, will they not expect, that man's common reason, and what they otherwise teach of the Church, should teach all to allow a tropical sense of the word Head, and not that they should forthwith imagine, that that Church whereof the Pope is the Head, should have the outward shape of Man, Woman or Beast? Thus Celsus, whose Arguments against Christianity, were much of the nature of this Discoursers, makes this an Objection against Christians, that they speak unworthily of God; as of the work of his hands, the mouth of God, and the voice of God. And Origen, lib. 6. cont. Cells. thought it sufficient to answer, that Christians did understand all these in a spiritual, not a corporeal sense; and that if Celsus had read other places of Scripture, he might thence know, that Christians would not think otherwise of God. It is an unchristian assertion, to charge the letter of the Scripture (which is the very words of the God of Truth) with heresy, where we have sure ground of its interpretation, both from other Scripture, & from Reason. Against the latter he objects, that then we disown the Scripture Rule, and make our Reason and other knowledge our Rule: I answer, when we include Scripture, we cannot disown it; yet withal, we own Reason, as that whereby we judge of the significancy of Words and Phrases, as well in Scripture as elsewhere: he who doth not this, either doth not understand Phrases, or hath a prodigious art of understanding without reason. Yea, we do profess, to make use of that knowledge we have of God by Reason, thereby to understand the better other expressions which concern God in Truths revealed; since we are certain, that God gave the Scriptures, as a further revelation to man, who was supposed to have that Reason and Conscience which God had endued him with. But he further in §. 5. challengeth the consciousness of our own thoughts, whether we do not bring thoughts along with us to interpret Scripture by, and these from Tradition, or what we have heard and received. Here I shall give him a true and faithful account of the Protestants carriage in this thing, which must be by a distinction of Persons and Texts of Scripture. In such Texts as appear plain where the necessary truths are contained, none of us bring any such thoughts to interpret by, but discern the evidence plainly in itself, and from thence we hold such Truths as Points of Faith. In Texts of Scripture which appear more difficult, all Protestants do prepossess themselves with such truths as they have learned by plain Scriptures, or other certain evidence, and therefore know no difficult Text can be so interpreted, as to contradict any such truth. Here the vulgar Christians do suppose many times that to be the true sense of such places, which they have received from those they judge able and faithful; but such a sense of such Scripture, they do not own as a necessary Point of Faith, but admit it as most probable, until themselves be able fully to search; and than if they discern this a true exposition, they will receive it upon their own knowledge; but if they find it a mistake, they will lay down that former apprehension, and will entirely be guided by what they see is the true sense of Scripture. And persons of great abilities to make the best search into the sense of more difficult Texts, do not prepossess themselves with any particular sense of such Scripture, but are every where entirely guided by that which appears the best evidence to recommend any sense, as knowing that it is not our interest or benefit, that this or that opinion or interpretation should be true in things doubtful; but our great concernment is to own that which is, and God hath declared to be, the Truth. §. 6. He inquires how we can demonstrate concerning any place of Scripture, that it is not altered, and that [not] is not inserted or left out? I answer, this as to any matters of Faith is discovered sufficiently by what we shown to prove the Scriptures preserved entire in the foregoing Discourse. Yea, the common principles of Reason and Conscience in man, will evidence to him in many necessary truths, that if [not] was left out or put in, they could never have been from God. That God is Eternal, Powerful, Good, and to be worshipped of his creatures, that he treats man with great mercy, that men must be holy and righteous, that God will judge the World; such things as these appear so evident, that man wherever he hears them, cannot but acknowledge them to be true and from God, and that the contrary cannot be so. But further, the consent of all Copies in several Countries, is in this case an abundant rational evidence; especially considering, that these Writings were dispersed into all countries' presently after they were first written, and so no miscarriage in the Faith could be in those first Copies taken from the Original, (of what this Author moves his doubts) which would not have been easily discovered and reform, either by the surviving Apostles, or by the Original Writing or Autographa of the Apostles and Evangelists; which doubtless being of such high esteem in the Church, were some time preserved. Now since at the first dispersing of these Copies, they did contain the Apostles Doctrine entire, the constant agreement of all Copies sufficiently prove the same continued still; especially considering, that the Copies which all appear to have this agreement, were written in several Ages long since past, and in several countries'. And that to imagine [not] left out or foisted in, in the matters of Faith, in all Books generally and publicly and daily read by Christians, must suppose 1. That they all every where in so many Countries, should conspire to falsify the Faith of Jesus, which they appeared to value above their lives, and by this Tradition would be corrupted; but yet Scripture in all these Books could not, unless 2. They should falsify all the ancient Copies, which yet by the very writing appear to have nothing razed out, or foisted in. And this is a much higher certainty, than Josiah could have of his own Copy; yea, than can be had of any passage in any Historian, ancient Law or Record; and if this we have said, did not generally satisfy the Cavils propounded, all History, old Laws and Records, must be rejected, because there can be no such appearance of so great evidence, that in any sentence [not] was not left out or foisted in. And so all matters of Fame or Tradition must be disbelieved, till he can demonstrate, that they had not their original from the reading some Writings, which have the same liableness to mistake with other Writings, and that [not] hath not been put in or left out in the Oral delivery. And how much his Reader will be beholden to him for such conceits as these, we may gather from his own words, Disc. 9 §. 4. where speaking of humane testimonies, he tells us amongst the most extravagant Opinionasters, none was ever found so frantic, as to doubt them; and should any do so, all sober mankind would esteem them stark mad. But as hath been proved, this Author would here lead his Reader such a way, as himself saith, all sober mankind will esteem him mad, if he follow him. If this be not enough, I shall add, that the Primitive Christians owned such a trial of Scriptures incorruptness, as fully sufficient for them to rely on, and to confound all who opposed it. And even this Argument of this Author, though urged with greater confidence, was that with which several of the Heretics, from the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian to S. Austin, opposed the Christians; amongst which I shall now only mention the Manichees out of S. Austin who declares, that whilst he was a Manichee, Confess. l. 5. c. 2. he was somewhat shaken by hearing a dispute between Helpidins and the Manichees: but the Manichees afterwad privately told him, The N. Testament was corrupted, and there was no uncorrupt exemplar produced; but this did as little satisfy him. And after he became an opposer of the Manichees. Contra Faustum, lib. 11. c. 1. he urgeth against them Scripture testimony; to which Faustus answers, That this Scripture testimony was not right. To which Saint Austin replies, If this answer be esteemed of any weight, what written Authority can ever be opened? what holy Book can ever be searched? cap. 2. he demands proof of Faustus, what Books ever read otherwise, and c. 3. urges, All Books new and old have this testimony, all Churches read it, all tongues consent in it, therefore put off the cloak of deceitfulness. And in Epist. 19 he saith, he read the Scripture which is placed in the most sublime and celestial height of Authority, being certain and secure of its truth: but (saith he) the Manichees contend that many things in the Scripture are false; yet so, that they do not ascribe falsehood to the Apostles who wrote them, but to some which have corrupted the Books: but because they cannot prove this by any ancient Copies, he saith they are overcome, and confounded by the most manifest truth. But our Discourser saith, It is certain there are many various readings, yea, so many in the New Testament alone, observed by my Lord Usher, that he durst not print them, for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt. We acknowledge there are several various readings; but this speaks the greater security of this Rule, because though all these readings are preserved, yet according to any of them, there is a consent in all the matters of Faith; unless there be some manifest mistake in any Copy, which may easily be discerned to be the Scribes or Printers error: nor amongst all these readings, can any point of Christian Faith be so doubted of, that it is not capable of receiving sufficient evidence from some Texts. And though this Author would pretend, that from these various readings, there is an uncertainty in all things in Scripture, which is contrary to all reason; yet others more knowing and learned Papists, are so ingenuous as to grant what I here contend for. Bellarmine de Verbo Dei lib. 2. c. 2. asserts, that the errors of Transcribers in the Old Testament, are not of so great moment, that the integrity of the Holy Scriptures should be wanting, in those things which belong to Faith and Good Manners: for the most part (saith he) the whole difference of the various readings, is placed in some little words, which either do not at all, or do very little alter the sense. And ch. 7. he declares, that he asserts the same concerning the New Testament, which he there asserted concerning the Old. Indeed before the time of Christ, there were more various readings in the Old Testament, than there now is in the New; as may appear not only from the various Cheri and Ketib, and the Tikkan Sopherim, and such like, which are probably more ancient; but also because the Copies used by the Septuagint and Samaritan, differed in many various readings from the Hebrew Copies used by the Chaldee Paraphrast, which probably were most in use in Christ's time, and after received by the Masoreths; and yet since they all agreed in the same points of Doctrine; Christ and his Apostles both had recourse to them, and so persuaded others: and we think it is safe for us to follow such examples. The Vulgar may here consider our several English Translations, which as to expressions have in most Verses some difference, and in some few places the one may give a sense somewhat different from the other; yet since it is but in very few places where they do not all agree in the sense of the place; and where they do not, yet none of them do assert any truth of Doctrine which the others either do not assert, or do deny; the common Christians may hence see that which may make them rather the more secure than doubtful of these truths, because the latter Translations, though differing in words, yet agree in all Doctrines with the former. And if there be the same variety of readings in several Translations in other Languages, this is no more than is in our English. But as for the Originals, though there be several various readings, yet in comparison of our English Translations, but one for many; and yet fewer places where the same sense of that Text is not expressed by such readings, though in some small difference of words; which difference of words was occasioned partly from several of the Father's citing the Scriptures, as is with all men frequent, not always in the very same words, but words of the same sense; from whence many of these various readings in the New Testament had their Original; or partly that the Scribes, or they who copied the Scriptures, might have some mistake, where yet the sense remained entire for the most part. But he inquires, Why may there not have been some various readings formerly, in those places which now appear in all Copies we have to agree? which various readings may possibly have been blindly determined, and so misguide us in the main points of Faith. I answer, That since there are very many ancient Copies, and Commentators and Citations of Fathers, which fully accord with our present readings; and since there are some ancient Translations, as Syriack, Latin, and others; all which agree in the same, and since there is an accord in these Books scattered and dispersed over the whole World: if there had been any such different readings, they must be every where determined, before these ancient Copies, Commentaries or Citations were written, before the ancient Translations were made, yea, before the Copies of the Scriptures were dispersed into the several Regions of the World: and this is to imagine that there must have been some general alteration determined, in the great matters of Faith, whilst the hand writing of the Apostles was preserved, yea, even in the Apostles days, which is impossible unless the Apostles to whom Christ committed his truth, and their Converts who were numerous, and prized this Doctrine above all the World, should all against the clear evidence of their own knowledge, and the Original Writings of the Apostles then amongst them, conspire to corrupt this Doctrine, and to falsify the Records which contain it; which to assert, is not only highly unreasonable, but exceedingly impious and blasphemous, nor would it leave Oral Tradition safe. How much all this speaks to common sense, I shall express in a case which is very parallel. Suppose a Jury in any case of concernment, should observe an hundred Witnesses produced, examined asunder, and every one of their attestations written, and one by one read to them; as to the great matter to be proved, every one of them agree fully, and not so much as one dissents: will they not judge this a sufficient evidence of any thing spoken, though in some of these attestations, there be some small difference in a word, though not at all to add or leave out any considerable sense? yea, Will they not think, the testimony the more firm as to the things attested, because they all agree firmly in them, though they never met together to conspire so to correct one another, that there might not be a syllable different in their words. The Scripture certainty of points of Faith, is much greater than this, since the Copies, every one of which gives its attestation, are abundantly more numerous; and withal the main points of Faith are not only expressed in some one Text of Scripture, but in very many places, where there is a concurrence in all these Copies; which speaks these truths more certainly free from all possibility of error. Yet besides all this certainty, we have much in the end of Scriptures writing, and therein God's care of it to assure us that it is not corrupt: of this we spoke somewhat in the former Discourse. What he speaks of Bishop Usher, observing so many various readings in the New Testament, which he durst not Print for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt. This relation manifests itself to be such a story, as I think neither this Author, nor any man of reason, either Protestant or Papist, can believe, upon serious consideration, if he withal judge Bishop Usher to have been a very knowing man. No understanding Protestant can believe this, because he knows that Protestants freely inquire after various readings, and never the more doubt of Scriptures; because there appears so full a consent in all material things. Nor can I imagine that either this Author or any understanding Papist can believe this story; for since it appears to be much their design, to bring the New Testament and Old likewise so far into question, that it might not be capable of being a Rule: if they thought in truth that Archbishop Usher observed so much of various readings, as would effectually do this, it cannot be doubted they would soon collect and publish such various readings, or procure some other to do it; unless they do imagine that that was observed by Bishop Usher, which cannot be observed by any other man. Now as their not performing this, persuades us Protestant's, that the Papists themselves do not believe this story, so it discovers to us that we have no reason at all to believe it ourselves. Thus having discovered the Doubts moved by this Discourser not to be acute and convictive; we conclude that this Property notwithstanding these Doubts, doth belong to Scripture, that it is defensible against the most acute Adversaries, and there is sufficient evidence concerning it, to prevail with them. An Answer to the fourth Discourse, showing, that the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith, do agree to Scripture. §. 1. THese two last Properties are Certainty in itself, and ascertainableness to us. That the latter cannot agree to Scripture, is the subject (he saith) of his foregoing Discourse, and depends upon the former, its being certain in itself. What he urged in his foregoing Discourse, I have in mine answered, and shall now examine what he writes against the certainty of Scripture. §. 2. To show Scripture not certain in itself, he tells us, the material Characters in Books may be burnt, torn, blotted out, or worn out, and this he calls a deep consideration; because it would be a disorderly proceeding to lay such a weak means, for so main an end as the salvation of mankind. These are indeed but vain and empty words, which he calleth his deep consideration. For doth this Author imagine that there is no certainty in any other Records which are preserved, because they consist of matter capable of perishing? and where did he learn, that nothing which is not of the most unalterable nature in the World, must be made the means of man's salvation. Let this deep Considerer think whether after the Promise to Abraham of the Messiah to come out of Isaac's Seed, this Seed could not be a means for the Salvation of mankind; because Isaac might possibly have been killed before he had any Seed, and all his Children were mortal men; and was there not a much greater possibility then of Isaac's death, before he had any Seed, or of all his Seed after, than there now is of all the Copies of Scripture being destroyed? And may not the same be urged concerning the Seed of David and Solomon? Yea, so perniciously dangerous are the assertions of this Author, that they would tempt men to reject the ever-blessed Jesus, as well as the Scriptures. But dare he say that the life and Ministry of our Lord Jesus could not be a means for the salvation of mankind, because he was in our nature liable to death, and to him who only considers this nature, it might seem possible he might have died, before he had declared all Gospel-Doctrine? But this empty and vain consideration of this Author, hath its foundation, either in imagining the World without a God to order it, or at least in supposing that the means of man's salvation must have their effect from the strength of nature, and not from God, who can use the weak things of the World to confound the Mighty. But the Scriptures are not so liable to be destroyed as any thing else in nature, as this Author falsely asserts. Was there but one Copy to be found, as it was in Josiah's time? if this was in the hands of a professed enemy to Religion, there might be fear of the Scriptures being lost, if we had no eye to Divine Providence. But since there are so many millions of Copies, and the number yearly increased, and these in the hands of many thousands, who would hazard their lives to preserve them; there will appear more reason to fear, that all the generation of mankind now growing up, should perish and die before they come to their full stature, and so mankind cease, for want of propagation, than to imagine that all the Copies of Scripture should be destroyed: For as it is certain that in every generation many thousands die in their infancy, or childhood; so there can be no demonstration, nor rational proof that all shall not, unless it be by considering the Providence of God: and as a Copy of Scripture is in itself much more durable than the life of a man, as appears by many Copies written several ages since; and these Copies are more capable of lying undiscovered from the eye of an enemy than a man is, who must be where he may have food to preserve him; so there is as much reason to eye or hand of Providence in preserving Scripture, as in preserving mankind. For these Scriptures never could be destroyed, when there were not such innumerable Copies, as now there are. When the Jews only had these. Oracles of God, many learned men are of opinion, that Manasseh, and some that Amon designed the destroying all Scripture Copies, yet there was one left which was found in the Temple, and brought to Josiah. Antiochus Epiphanes, as Josephus relates, Antiqu. Jud. lib. 12. c. 7. made the same attempt, but could not effect it. And after Christ, the same was endeavoured by Dioclesian, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 7.20. but such designs prevailed not, and yet then there was not probably one Copy of Scripture for some hundreds now. Yea further, if the case should be such, that no Copy of Scripture was to be found, it is not impossible with God (who could have raised Isaac from the dead, if he had been slain) by extraordinary messengers to renew the Scriptures, if they were not otherwise to be had. God hath taken other care by his Providence for their preservation; yet those ancient Fathers (as Tertullian de Habitu Muliebr. c. 3. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. Irenaeus advers. Haeres. lib. 3. c. 25. and S. Hierome, etc.) who were of opinion that the Scriptures then written were lost at the time of the Captivity, did assert them again restored by Ezra. But that Position of the Scriptures then being lost, is exploded by the most learned and judicious Papists, such as Baronius ad An. 180. Bellarmine and others, not only as being an Apocryphal story, contradicted in Neh. 8.1, 2. but by Baronius in the place cited, it is expressly declared, not possible, that since they had at least as many Copies of Scripture as Synagogues, yet none of them should be preserved. Much less can they now be lost, since it is not improbable that there are now as many thousands of Copies, as were then Jewish Synagogues. Hence we may observe that what this Author calls his deep consideration, as it hath no rational foundation, so it hath not the advantage to be one of his own Church Traditions, and shows there may be something delivered for truth which was not so received. And of the same nature are almost all his Arguments against Scriptures being the Rule of Faith. §. 3. He further adds, That the material causes to conserve these Characters, are liable to innumerable contingencies; but man's mind by its immateriality, is in part freed from Physical mutability; and here we may with reason hope for an unalterableness, and an unerrableness, if there be a due proposal, which must necessarily effect the sense. These words are more monstrous than rational; it is as much as in plain English to tell his Reader, that having an immaterial soul, he can never forget any thing that he either saw or heard distinctly; and that when he hath read a Book observingly, all the words and letters may be more exactly known from him, by the impressions upon his mind, than by viewing the Printed or Written Copy itself. And yet all this will not serve his turn, unless it be supposed that these immaterial souls must always continue in the World, or that what was by them received, must thence necessarily in the same manner be continued on others. Who sees not that this is as much against common sense, as if he had said, That because man hath an immaterial soul, he may fly up to the Sun, and Moon, and fixed Stars at his pleasure? Was Man of the nature of Angels, without his gross Body? its beyond the skill of this Author to prove, that nothing could be forgotten or blotted out of his mind that is once known, especially considering that he is a sinner, and even the Writers of his own Church do conceive, that sinning Angels lost much knowledge by their sin. But man is a Creature of another mould, and letters and words, and things are preserved in his memory, by material impressions and every man knows they may be forgiven; yea, this Author in this Book oft forgets and contradicts himself. Do not all mankind appear sufficiently convinced, that words or characters are more surely preserved in paper, or writing than in men's memories, in that what they would have faithfully kept, they commit to writing, and enter it upon Record? Had the Jews been of this Authors opinion, they would not have desired Ezra to have read the Law of Moses out of a Book, Neh. 8.1. but to have spoken it out of the impressions of his own mind: yet he would have been a more safe deliverer of Moses, than the Church of Rome can show for other Scripture. Yea, it is plain and self-evident, that the Church of Rome agree with the rest of mankind, to acknowledge writing upon some material subject, a more sure way of preservation of things than the minds of men; for they writ the Acts of their Councils, and Statutes of their Societies, and yet these things are as much (or more) spoken of amongst them, as the Scriptures are, and so more like to be preserved in their immaterial minds; yea, they writ or print their Creed, Prayers, Lessons, and their whole Liturgy, and have them read in their Churches; when by this Author's Argument, the best way to have these things preserved entire, is to have them uttered from the memories of the Priests and others in the Church; and not to mind the Writing or Printing at all, as not being in itself certain. The Roman Church know that men's minds are slippery, and apt to forget something in their Liturgy, if it were not written; and that others would take the boldness to alter it, and vary from it, if they had no written Rule: and shall writing be the best preservative for all other things, and not for the words of the Scriptures, and the truths therein contained? I remember Salmeron, tho' a Jesuit, hath among the rest of his prolegemena, one which is Proleg. 25. Why the Scriptures were written? and he declares (as every one who designs to speak truth would do) that it was that thence men may most surely know truth, whereas the memories of men are very slippery and uncertain: and S. Austin assigns a like cause of the Original of Letters, de Doctr. Christiana, lib. 2. c. 4. Nor can I imagine for what end the Church of Rome prints Copies of the Bible, if they did not think that by those printed Copies, the Scriptures might be known and preserved. And as if it was not sufficient absurdity without any colour of solid reason to contradict the experience of all civilised Nations; he at once opposeth even the wisdom of God himself also, who commanded the King of Israel to write him a Copy of the Law in a Book, and read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, Deut. 17.19, 20. Yea, he commands Moses to write for a memorial in a Book, Exod. 17.14. Yea, Isaiah is commanded, Isai. 30.8. Writ it before them in a Table, and note it in a Book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever. And though God himself declares this the way of keeping the memorial of things; this Author rejects this way, and closeth with the uncertain way of man's frail memory. §. 4. He tells us, That as there are some simple vulgar actions unmistakeable, yet there are compound actions, as the transcribing of a whole Book, consisting of myriads of words, single letters and stopps, and the several actions over each of these are so short and cursory, that humane diligence cannot attend to every of them. Yet, he grants; that this may be done with care enough, if there be diligent Examiner's. This Objection speaks against the common sense of every one who can write; for it tells him that no man can possibly keep to the sense or words he intends in writing a Letter, or such like, though he hath a Copy before him. For he who can write a page with due care, may by the continuance of the same diligence, writ a sheet; and if he want nothing else, but what concerns his writing, he may with the same care write a Book. What extraordinary art hath this Discourser, that he could write his Book intelligibly, and the Printers print it so? can none do the like? He cannot be ignorant that these things may be done by common diligence; and all men who understand writing acknowledge that Deeds and all Records may be exemplified, and faithfully transcribed, if there be had due care about it. That there hath been such care about Scripture; I shall show in answer to his next Paragraph. And I suppose he is not so selfconceited as to think, that other men may not use as much care in writing Letters or Words, as himself doth or can. But if this little Argument of many little actions not being capable of due attention, was considerable, it would concern this Author to find a way, how the Papists may know the definitions of the Council of Trent, especially such a way as he intimates, p. 211. it is not hard for Protestants to find. For to run to the Printed Books which contain the Acts and Canons of that Council, here presently appears the multitude of little actions both in the Printing and first Copying. If he shall tell us, they receive the Canons of that Council, or any other, not as they are in Books, but by Oral Tradition; I shall then examine whether there be not the same and greater difficulty about such Tradition. For it is certain, that there are as many mistakeable little actions in speaking a word as in writing it; every tittle requiring the pause in the voice, and every letter pronounced, being a distinct framing of the Organs of Speech: and both experience and reason will tell a man, that he may more frequently mistake in speaking a word, than in more leisurely writing it by a Copy; since speech is more quick, and admits not of so long consideration, for every little action as writing doth, and every man knows that where there are many phrases and sentences, there may be somewhat sooner omitted in speaking where he hath no outward help for his memory, than in transcribing, where the memory is perfectly relieved by the Copy before him. So that in the way of Oral Tradition, besides the several little actions of the Organs of Speech, there are other little actions of the Memory, more liable to the error, than the eye is in viewing a Copy. Hence it will appear, that this Authors persuading men in this §. 4. to account Scripture not to be certain in itself, is built upon this foundation, That God hath not endowed man with so much wisdom and discretion, as to guide his speech, or hand so, as to speak or write intelligibly, or according to his meaning or intention. And this is as much as to say, That men cannot converse with one another, and that no truth can be delivered from one to another, no nor falsehood neither; and he who will be persuaded to this, will not be a Protestant, nor a Papist; neither a man of any Religion, nor of any Reason. §. 5. He tells us, If it were certain that there was care taken for the faithful transcribing the Scripture, much might be said thence for its certainty: but as it is capable of many mistakes, so especially in the New Testament, experience testifies there hath been no such diligence, by the divers readings of the several Copies, and thousands of corrections of the Vulgar edition. His Objection to disprove the use of care, especially in the New Testament, must be first answered, and then we shall evidence that there hath been abundant care. What he speaks of the Vulgar Latin, which is the Translation in request in the Romish Church, and made use of by many others; the thousands of corrections he mentions, speaks that Church none of the best preservers of Records, But after all these corrections, was there any point of Faith or Manners, wherein after the corrections, it differed from what it was before the corrections? if it differed in none, than such various readings do not declare the Scriptures even in that Translation, in any thing to misguide, in discovering whatever concerns Faith or holy life, though such various readings should remain. But if the Vulgar edition did differ in any such matter of Faith, or holy life, this would condemn the Roman Churches Tradition, which hath professed to own and receive what ever was in the Vulgar, both before its correction and since; and so must differ from what it was, in that point of Faith or Manners. Touching various readings in the Original Copies, and almost all, if not all Translations, it is evident there is no difference in any point of Doctrine, nor considerable in words and phrases. And though it be impossible to prove concerning every single Copy, that it was faithfully transcribed, by giving an account of the manner how it was done: yet there remains an abundant rational proof, that the Copies of the Scripture, and particularly of the New Testament, have been generally written with much fidelity; because the several Copies which may yet be seen, written in several Countries and in divers Ages, show such an agreement in them all, and in the Ancients citations of them, that they speak one thing, the same truth, and with so very little variation of any word, that to a diligent attender, this speaks much of care, attention and diligence in transcribing. To all this I add, that it is certain that the Ancients were very industriously accurate in their transcribing Books, and made it a great point of conscience to be attentive in it, even in other Books, and no doubt more especially, about the holy Scriptures, and did to their Copies, subscribe their Names, that it might be known by whom they were written. What exact diligence the Ancients used in transcribing Books, may be observed from an instance, related by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. lib. 5. c. 20. concerning a Book of Irenaeus, at the end of which Irenaeus wrote thus: I adjure thee who shalt transcribe this Book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious presence when he cometh to judge the quick and the dead, that thou compare what thou shalt transcribe, and amend it diligently, according to this Copy, whence thou shalt transcribe it, and that thou shalt likewise transcribe this Oath, and put it in thy Copy. And this, he saith, he thought profitable to put in his History, that in this thing they might have example of the care and diligence of those ancient and truly holy men. If such care was to be taken of Irenaeus' Works, surely no less of the holy and Divine Writings. §. 6. He goes about to show, That Scripture cannot be certain as to its sense especially, to the Vulgar, where he repeats, that Arts and Sciences are necessary to understand the Letter; which was before said by him, and is above answered, Disc. 3. §. 7. and need not here be repeated. He further tells us, That an acute Scholar can blunder the conceptions of the Vulgar concerning Scripture, and give them a seeming clearer interpretation of his own. In many points of Controversy and difficult Texts, we acknowledge a Scholar may do so; but it is no way necessary that the Vulgar should be able to determine them, and be firmly settled in the knowledge of them; but in matters of Faith more plainly discovered, it is otherwise. If he thinks they may be persuaded by a Scholar to think any other sense more clear, than that which offers itself, and is obvious in such phrases as these; That Jesus is the Christ; that he was born of the Virgin, and died for us, and such like; he must find men of much lower capacities than Protestants are, and indeed such as cannot understand the meaning of what that Scholar shall speak, (since he cannot speak plainer words) and then I know not how they can be perverted by him: yea, such men are not so much as capable of being instructed at all in the knowledge of Faith, or matters of mere belief, unless this Author can discover some other way of instruction in these things, than by plain words. But doth not this cavil strike at all ways of knowledge, and even at Tradition as much as Scripture? For if the plain words of Scripture may be perverted by a Scholar, are not the words delivered by Tradition capable of being in the same manner perverted? If not, it must either be because the same words written or read, cannot have so plain a sense, as when they are spoken without reference to any Book; or else the Teachers of the Romish Church must be thought wiser than the Spirit of God and the Apostles, in that they can speak the plain truths of God better, and with less lyableness to mistake, than the Apostles wrote, who yet professed to use plainness. But he asks, when we see Protestants and Socinians making use, as they conceive, of the best advantages the letter gives them, yet differ in so main points as of the Trinity, and of Christ's Divinity; what certainty can we promise to weaker heads? I answer, weaker heads may well enough be satisfied with that evidence, which men of greater parts through prejudice do not entertain. In the beginning of Christianity, the wise men of the World who pretended to be guided by the best evidence, did not all agree in so main a point, as which was the true Religion, whether Christianity, Judaisme, or Gentilism: will it thence follow that there was no expecting that men of ordinary capacities should discern evidence enough to persuade them to be Christians, and that there was no rational hopes of their conversion, though many thousands of them believed? Or in the matter now in hand? can he imagine that until all learned men of Protestants and Papists are agreed, in so main a point as which is the Rule of Faith, no ordinary capacities can he satisfied concerning this Rule upon any solid grounds? I am confident himself doth not think so, and Protestants are fully certain of the contrary. In like manner, Protestants in general, even the Vulgar, appear fully satisfied about the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ, from the evidence which Scripture gives to these great truths: yea, so plain are they in Scripture, that he must be acute in devising ways to evade the evidence of these truths, who doth not receive them: nor can we think that the Socinians could either deny these truths, or entertain their own way of interpretation, if it was not that these truths are above the reason of man to comprehend; (as it is rational to imagine much is, which concerns the Infinite Divine Being) and that they do too much magnify reason, in not receiving any thing which reason cannot conceive how it is or may be: and so in truth it is not their making Scripture the Rule of Faith; but rather in these points, the setting up another Rule, and making Scripture the thing ruled, which is the cause of their not owning these truths. Having now answered all his Objections, and vindicated Scripture from all his Cavils; I may conclude that THE SCRIPTURE HATH ALL THE FOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE RULE OF FAITH. After this §. 7. he excuseth himself, as not having spoken this against Scripture upon his own principles, but that all he hath spoken (as he saith, but I have showed the contrary) follows upon the Protestants principles. This speaks him to act a part in the disgrace Scripture, which he is ashamed to own; and therefore he here acknowledges high excellencies in these sacred Oracles. For if he indeed think, there can be no certainty of Scriptures being the Word of God, and of the Canon of Scripture from the Church's delivery; and of the uncorruptness of it as to Faith, from the agreement of ancient Copies, than he must without dissimulation profess, that upon his own Principles all those imperfections are attributed to Scripture: since the Papists, yea the Popes themselves have acknowledged, that they have none other way to be assured of these things by; and reason will evidence they can have none other, which the Protestants cannot have as well as they. But if he thinks there be any certainty in these proofs, he must acknowledge that Protestants who own these proofs, have this certainty. But he saith, all he designs is, That Scripture is most improper for a Rule of Faith, and was never intended for such; as may be evinced, because the Apostles and their Successors, went not with Books in their hands, to deliver Christ's Doctrine, but with words in their mouths; whence Primitive Antiquity learned their Faith before those Books were universally spread among the Vulgar, much less the Catalogue acknowledged. What he speaks of the Apostles not having Books in their hands, either refers to the Books of the Old Testament or of the New. As to the Old Testament, 'tis certain, that both Christ and the Apostles sometimes had them in their hands, and, which is most considerable, had them ordinarily in their mouths, to declare from thence the Doctrine of Christ. Thus Christ beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself, Luke 24.27. And S. Paul, Acts 17.2, 3. reasoned out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging; and Apollo's, Act. 18.28. convinced the Jews, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ; which being in the Synagogue it is not much to be questioned but they had with them the Books of the Scripture, as was the manner of the Jews teaching, as we read 2 Chron. 17.9. they taught in Judah, and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them. And had not Philip the Book of the Prophet which he expounded when he converted the Eunuch? But possibly he meant they had not the Books of the New Testament in their hands. Indeed before they were written, they could not have them, nor could they then be a Rule. However the Apostles and Evangelists testimony was then and now is the Rule to know what was delivered by Christ; but their testimony by Speech was temporary, and could not remain after their death; while this continued it was a Rule of Faith: but they also had another way of testimony, which was by Writing, and this as it continues with us, is to us a Rule of Faith, because their testimony; and so S. John calls his Gospel his testimony, Joh. 21.24. and Saint Peter speaks to the same purpose of his Epistle, 1 Pet. 5.12. What he speaks of the Apostles and their Successors, not having their Writings in their hands after they were written, is a gross falsehood, as will more plainly appear, from what in the end of this Book may be observed from several Authorities of the Ancient Fathers. Yea, S. Paul and Barnabas, with other Apostolical men, went to preach to the Gentiles, with the Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in their hands, Act. 15.22. which was the first New Testament writing; and Eusebius relates, that S. Mark carried his written Gospel, and preached it in Egypt, Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 11. and S. Peter himself made use of S. Paul's Writings, and commended them, 2 Pet. 3.15, 16. and so did all the Ancient Fathers of Apostolical Writings. He is bold to say, That the Revolters from Primitive method, closed with Scripture as the Rule. But in truth, when the World erred by vain Tradition, it was none other than God himself who wrote the ten Commandments, and gave the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, to guide the Israelites. And when Pharisaism, that great Heresy, was maintained by Tradition, they who laid Scripture as the Rule against it, were none other than Christ and his Apostles, who referred to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and gave forth the Scriptures of the New Testament. But he saith, Scripture as it is made the Rule of Faith, is brought to the vilest degree of contempt, and every upstart Heresy fathers itself upon it. But who contemns it? not Protestant's who make it their Rule, and they who do will be highly guilty, as were the despisers of Jesus, who was also contemned and despised of men. But is this a cause of contempt, if all Heresies pretend to it? do they not all pretend to the right worshipping the true God, the true following of Christ and owning Christian Religion as well as to the Scriptures? and are these excellent things the more contemptible, because they pretend to them? yet it is false, that all Heresies have pretended to Scripture. For as some have denied Scripture as it is witnessed by Irenaeus and Tertullian; as some have gone to revelation and secret ways of delivery of Doctrine, as the same Author's show, and the History of Simon Magus, Basilides, Martion, Manes and others evidence: so others have pretended to the public Church-Tradition, continued to their time. Thus did the Heresy of Artemon in Eus. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. c. 27. who declared, That Christ was only man, and their Ancestors (they said) had declared this unto them, to be not only that which the Apostles received from the Lord, but that which they generally taught, and was continued until the times of Victor; and that Zephyrinus (who succeeded Victor at Rome, and in whose time these Heretics lived) corrupted this teaching. It seems this Heresy had numerous followers or Attestors, in that it is there said in Eusebius, it might have had much probability, if it had not been contradicted by the Scriptures, and the Writings of the Ancient Brethren. Yea, these very Heretics did endeavour to alter and corrupt the Scriptures, so far they were from making them a Rule. He further says, The many Sects in England flow from this Principle of Scripture being a Rule of Faith; and it is a wonder this doth not oblige men to renounce that Principle which is the necessary Parent of such disorders. This hath been answered, Disc. 3. n. 3, 4. so far as concerns difference of opinions. But that all the Sects in England do arise from this opinion of the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith, is very far from truth: for First, it is certain that some of these Sects do not profess it to be their Rule; I suppose he knows there are some of his persuasion, that make Tradition their Rule, and he knows there are others who pretend to be guided by the Light within them; and the way of redressing these Sects is by receiving this general truth. Secondly, other Sects or Parties of men there are, who indeed profess to follow these Scriptures as their Rule; but it is not their owning, but their not right using them, which is the occasion of their error: it is their over rashly entertaining their own conceptions, without sufficient and unprejudiced inquiry, as if they were plain in Scripture, and necessary Doctrines, when indeed they are not; and the true way for healing these distempers, is by laying aside such rashness and prejudice, resolving to close with that only as necessary Doctrine, which upon impartial inquiry appears plain in Scriptures, and to use serious diligence in such inquiry, and this is to act according to Protestant Principles, yea, according to the Doctrine of Christ, who did not give such direction to the Sadduces, who strictly professed to own the Law, but denied the Resurrection, that the way to be free from their error, was to reject that Rule; but blamed them as not knowing the Scriptures, and declared that therefore they did err: and if this was truly heeded, all disorderly Sects would be at an end. But on the contrary, should we reject these excellent discoveries of God, because they have been abused by the sin of man, to the promoting many Sects, where should we leave? when Christians embraced the Doctrine of Jesus, and what was delivered by the Apostles: many Sects hence took occasion all to pretend to this Doctrine: must Christianity therefore be also disclaimed? and with much greater reason must not all Controversial Inquiries, and speculations in Theology be abandoned, because they are the Parents of many Sects and Divisions even amongst the Papists? and must not all reasonings and apprehensions be disclaimed, because they are the original of so many disputes and different Sects, both in Philosophy and Divinity. This would be the way to renounce being men, and being Christians. Thus the rejecting the Scriptures would be taking Poison instead of Cure: yea, it would be as if the food used amongst civilised Nations should be prohibited, and their civil rights disclaimed, because many abuse the former by intemperance to surfeits and Diseases; and the latter is the occasion of War, Strife and Contention; and therefore that men should live only on Acorns, and such other Fruits of the Field, and without any Possessions as Wild men, that they may be thereby out of these dangers. Who sees not that temperance and a peaceable spirit would be the best preservatives from these dangers, and would make the state of man and of the World excellent? and though there might then remain some infirmities in the Constitution either of the Body Natural or Politic; yet none so great as would be occasioned by rejecting the course of a civilised life: so if the abovementioned Protestant Principles, were put in practice, there might remain some different apprehensions and opinions; yet none such as would be either dangerous or disturbing: but as the persons might have Faith and Salvation; so both Church and State might enjoy their peace and quiet. An Answer to the fifth Discourse, enquiring into Tradition, and showing, that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith, agree to it. BEfore I come to disprove what is delivered by this Author on the behalf of his way of Tradition; it will be requisite first to state the Question, concerning Oral and Practical Tradition; and to show what we grant concerning it, and what we deny; that so it may after appear, how far we have cleared the truth of the Protestants Assertion. We assert the faithful delivery of Christian truths by word of mouth, to be a very useful way to bring many to the Faith, or to establish them in it; and we doubt not but that very great Multitudes who have not the advantage of using, reading or hearing the Scriptures, may by this means be brought to believe. Such was the case of some barbarous Nations in the Primitive times, and of many Pagans in these later times. But since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of revelation in the Church, the most faithful delivery of these truths is that which is guided by the Scripture, and takes that for its Rule; and such are the sober instructions of knowing and well grounded Protestants, and no other delivery can be faithful, but that which is agreeable to the Scripture, and its ruling Power: and this was the commendation Irenaeus gave to Polycarp, Eus. Hist. Eccl. lib. 5. c. 20. that he delivered all things consonant to Scriptures. Yet though this way of delivery by word of mouth is very useful, yet it was then only a sure Rule of Faith; when these truths were delivered of them who were inspired of God, and thereby were infallible in their delivery: and such was the delivery by the Apostles and Evangelists both in their preaching and in their Writing. Next to the Apostles, but not equally with them we would value the delivery of Apostolical men. But in after-ages, we deny any certainty of infallible delivery of truths, in the way of Oral Tradition, and acknowledge that only a certain delivery which appears such, by its accord and agreement with the Scripture Rule. And as to the sense of Scripture, we doubt not but when God gave the Primitive Church gifts of interpretation, there was a delivery of the sense of Scripture, not only in plain and necessary things which are obvious from the words, but even in many more hard and difficult Texts of Scripture. Yet all obscure Scriptures were not even in those times explained, and their explications generally received: since S. Peter speaks of many things in S Paul's Epistles which were hard to be understood; which if the interpretation of them had been generally delivered, and received in the Churches in God's name, they could not have been. The great and necessary Doctrines were then received, and delivered according to the true intent and meaning of Christ; and that was agreeable to the Scriptures. Hence the delivery of any truth to all Churches in the Apostles times, and its being received by them so far as this could be made evident, was a very useful way to destroy Heresy; yet the Fathers who made use of this way, did also show, that these truths were plain in Scripture. To these Churches, so far as the Doctrine by them received can be manifested, we would willingly appeal for a trial of Controversies, and do readily embrace such truths, as by sure evidence appear to be the Doctrine held by those Churches. Partly as thus delivered, and chief as clear in Scripture, we receive those Articles of Faith contained in the Creed, commonly owned in the Catholic Church: but the Creed we conceive to be delivered in a much more sure and safe way than Oral Tradition, since the words of it, have with common consent been agreed on, fixed and determined; the want of which advantage in the Romish Tradition, doth manifest it to be very alterable, and uncertain in other Doctrines. But that all points of Christian Doctrine, or Apostolical interpretations of hard Scriptures, are infallibly delivered from the Primitive Churches, by the way of Oral and Practical Tradition, we deny. Nor can there be more reason to persuade us, that the present delivery of the Romish Church, doth faithfully preserve such Doctrines and interpretations, than would also persuade, that when Ezra read the Law, and caused the people to understand the sense of it, we might certainly find the Doctrines by him taught, and the interpretations by him given, amongst the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees; as surely as we could have them from Ezra's mouth, or from them who heard him, and were faithful relaters of his teaching. I will only further here observe, that Tradition may be considered, either as a mere speculation and notion; and thus a man may imagine a constant delivery of the self same things, truths and actions, by the successions of several generations, without considering whether there really be any such delivery, or whether it can be rationally expected: and to treat of such a Tradition as this being a Rule of Faith, is but to discourse of airy fancies and imaginations. Or else Tradition may be considered as something real and in being; and thus we may inquire, whether such a Tradition as is to be found in the Church, or in the World, be a sure way to deliver truth infallibly to Posterity. This is that we Protestants deny, and if this Author intent not the proof of this, he will speak nothing to the purpose; and will only show that such Tradition as they of Rome, or any other in the World have not, might be the Rule of Faith: and notwithstanding all this, they will be destitute of it. I shall now examine his Discourses of Tradition, in which every Reader will be able to observe, that he hath made no proof considerable, unless he hath said more for the Tradition of the Romish Church, than can be said to prove Religion not corrupted before the Flood, or after the Flood amongst the Gentiles; or before the Captivity, and at the time of Christ amongst the Jews. §. 1. Coming to inquire whether that Tradition be the Rule of Faith, which he calls Oral and Practical, he thus explains it: We mean a delivery down from hand to hand, (by words and a constant course of frequent visible actions conformable to those words) of the sense and faith of the forefather's. Our business in this Discourse, is to inquire whether this can be a Rule of Faith, which the Discourser affirms, and Protestants deny. §. 2. To understand this way of Tradition, he observes on this manner; Children learn the names of Persons, Rooms and things they converse with; and afterwards to write, read, and use civil carriage. And looking into the thing, they gain the notions of several objects either by their own senses, or by the help of having them pointed at; and this he observes, is the constant course of the World continued every Age, yea, every Year or Month. This is Tradition in Civil matters. Concerning this Tradition it may be observed, that about matters visible to sense, the Objects or Things, and the names of the things must be distinctly considered. The common notions of Objects visible, as of Heaven, Earth, Sun, Moon, Rooms, Man, Trees, etc. are by common apprehensions even of Children received from Senses, not by tradition of a former Generation; and those apprehensions are preserved by the view of the visible objects. But the words, or names, are indeed delivered in such a way of Tradition: but words thus delivered, are not always preserved from alteration and change: yea, even at Rome, notwithstanding this way of delivery, wherein the following Generation have received their Language from their Fathers; yet if they who conversed there in the Apostles times, were now alive, they would discern such alteration of speech, and even in speaking men's names, that they would not be able to understand their present language: and if they can show no greater security for the delivery of their Doctrine, than of their Language; that also may be as much changed, notwithstanding their help of Tradition. And it may be further observed, that those Languages which in this way of Traditional Learning, are grossly corrupted, and even lost; such as Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; yet in Books and Writings, they are faithfully preserved: which shows, Writings more sure keepers, or preservers of words and civil things, than this way of Tradition is. It would be needless to show, that in Writings and civil behaviour, there is as great variation in some few successions of Generations: for this is sufficiently known to all observing men. §. 3, 4. He applies this to Christianity; and saith, So Children get by degrees notions of God, Christ, Saviour, Hell, Virtue and Vice; and are shown how to say Grace and Prayers; afterwards they become acquainted with the Ten Commandments, Creed, Sacraments, forms of Prayer, and other practices of Christianity; the actions and carriages of the elder guiding the younger, to frame their lives to several virtues by the Doctrine delivered in words; as Faith, Hope, Charity, Prayer, &c, To this I answer; That Children do indeed by degrees learn the Notions of God, etc. But this Tradition alone is not that which guides them here; but also the Scriptures and Ancient Writers, are of great use, as they enable the Teachers of the foregoing Generation to guide them more faithfully. Indeed in the way of this Tradition alone, some general signification of words which concern matters of Faith, may probably be delivered: as that God signifies him, whom we are to worship, reverence, serve and obey, and such like. But more particular notions of these matters of Religion, as they may be sometimes preserved aright; so where is no other way of preservation, than this Tradition, they may be very corruptly and dangerously delivered. It is certain that Noah knew the true God, and taught his Children concerning him, and in his days, and since their Posterity increased to great multitudes; and yet having only this way of Tradition, they were so far corrupted in their knowledge of God, that they owned Creatures, yea, the lowest of Creatures for God, and thereby lost the knowledge of the true God: and yet even the Gentiles, who worshipped other things instead of God, pretended that this they received by this way of Tradition; and this was their great Argument, why they should not receive Christianity, because their Ancestors had delivered to them that way of Worship they then used in Heathenism. Clemens Alexand. in his Admonition to the Gentiles, brings them in speaking thus, We must not reject those things which were delivered to us from our Fathers: and almost all the Fathers who writ against Gentilism, industriously show the vanity of this their plea. The saying of Prayers and Grace aright, depends much upon the preservation of the true Notions of God and Christ, and the knowledge of Duties and Promises: and therefore if there be any corruption in the delivery of those things, it is like to be also in the performance of these actions of Prayer and saying Grace; in which case will the carriages and practices of the elder Christians be corrupted. But he says, they learn the Creed, ten Commandments, and forms of Prayer. The Creed is indeed a good preservative of the chief Articles of our Belief. Had it not been for this Form, and some other like it received in the Church (which because written, and in stinted words, is more of kin to the way of Scripture delivery, than to other delivery by Oral Tradition; it is like these points of Faith might have been rejected or lost among them who only hold unto the way of that Tradition. The ten Commandments are likewise a sure preservative of that which God requires in them from man, but these are the words of Scripture. Neither the Creed, nor the ten Commandments, concern the Controversy of Tradition, as it is disowned by Protestants, otherwise than to observe the way whereby the certainty of them is conveyed unto us; and thus we do assert, that we are more certain of the Creed, by its being committed to Writing, and comprised in a fixed form of words, and being every way agreeable to Scripture, than any can be by way of delivery from Father to Son only by word of mouth, in all successions of Generations: and the same certainty we have of the ten Commandments, by their being in the Scripture Records, and being likewise delivered in writing; which is the way which even Papists make use of as well as others. What he adds of Sacraments and forms of Prayer, these are like to guide men aright where the notions of Religion concerning them are preserved entire; but if there be a corruption in Religion, these things, as soon as others, may be depraved, as indeed they are in the Romish Church: where though the Creed and the Commandments do deliver much truth; yet are they somewhat perverted by Traditional Expositions, nor can they secure from the delivery of many other corruptions. In §. 5. He desires us to consider, How the Primitive Faithful were enured to Christianity the Books of Scripture were written or communicated. We know this than was by the preaching of the Apostles among them, who had the inspiration of God to guide them, and were unerrable deliverers; and yet even they in this preaching made very great use of the Books of the Old Testament, to prevail with men to receive the Doctrines of Jesus. But I shall further mind him, that the Christians at Rome in the Primitive state of that Church, before they had any written Scripture of the New Testament, thought it requisite, for the inuring themselves to Christianity, to obtain some Writings Apostolical, concerning whom Eusebius writes thus: At Rome the light of Religion did so shine upon the minds of these hearers of Peter, that they thought it not sufficient to content themselves with once hearing him, nor with the unwritten Doctrine of the Divine preaching: but with all manner of persuasions, they did earnestly desire Mark who followed Peter, that by writing he would leave them a memorial of that Doctrine, which was then delivered to them by words: nor did they desist until he did perform it; and this was the cause of the writing that which is called, The Gospel according to Mark. He likewise relates; That when the Apostle knew what was done by the revelation of the Spirit, he was pleased with the forwardness of the men, and by his Authority confirmed the Writing, that it might be read in the Churches. This same History is related also both by Clemens, and by Papias: and after this, Mark preached in Egypt that same Gospel which he had written. Thus Eusebius Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 10, 11. and to the same purpose, relating the words of Clemens, lib. 6. c. 14. But our Discourser tells us, He dare affirm that Presbyterians and Protestants adhere to their Faith, because their Fathers or Pastors taught them it, and not upon the evidence of Scriptures letter to their own private judgements; because they who are brought up under Mr. Baxter, are apt to follow him; and others Mr. Pierce. To this I answer, That Protestants value the judgements of their Teachers, if they think them to be learned and good men; but yet in the Articles of Christian Faith, and the great truths of God, they do discern other grounds, and surer to rely on, than the opinion of Teachers; and therefore whatever Teacher should contradict such truths, they would not follow him. And if any persons are so unstable, as in such things to be led away by the Authority of any men, they are far from being grounded Protestants. In some matters more difficult, or Controversial, many Protestants are not capable of being better satisfied, than by the judgement of their Pastors, and are to be commended for following them: yet in this case, they own not their judgement as a Rule of their Faith; but the best help to their understanding in a case of difficulty. But if any Protestant by misapprehension do close with such things controversial, as necessary points of Faith, if afterwards he discerns them matters of Controversy, not clear in Scripture, or that the contrary is rather true and grounded on Scripture, he will then submit his former apprehensions, to the greater evidence now received. And by this means through diligent examining, very great multitudes of Protestants, who have given up themselves impartially to follow Scripture truth, have received some opinions different from some particular opinions of their Parent or Teacher. And even all other Protestants, who are not capable of making trial of the grounds of all controverted opinions, yet unanimously will acknowledge, that the trial of any truths by the Scripture, is much more considerable, than by any Teacher's judgement; and therefore if they were capable, they would much rather choose to be steadfastly fixed in any truth by the former, than to be only persuaded to it by the latter. Whence it appears, that Protestants generally own only the Scriptures for their Rule. And were there ever any who desired to be instructed in Philosophy, or any Science, designing therein to follow reason as their Rule, who were not as much guided by their Teachers or Instructers, as Protestants are by theirs? that is, to value their Authority or opinion, until by examination of it by the Rule, they should discern it an error. §. 6. He tells us, That Objections made against a Prophetical afflatus, and against the res traditae, or things delivered instead of Tradition itself, can have no force against his opinion. I shall not dispute the truth of these things, but shall so far satisfy this Author, as to assure him, my following answer shall proceed neither of these ways. §. 7. He tells us, The first Property of the Rule of Faith, doth agree to Tradition: to wit, it is evident to all, as to its existence; because we see and hear daily sounds and actions, about Practical Doctrines conveyed down to us. But is this all that this Author thinks necessary to be proved? Did he not demand much more concerning Scripture, than that the Book might be seen, and the words heard? did he not then require proof that Scriptures are God's word, etc. Surely it is not only requisite, that some thing should be delivered and received; but at least it must be necessary for every Generation to know that all that Faith which the former received and professed, is fully delivered and rightly received by them. For since, as himself saith in this Paragraph, Tradition is the open conveyance of Doctrines, if they be either not delivered or not received, there is no conveyance, and so a failure of the thing itself, which is Tradition. Now we assert, that there can be no certainty of any such exact delivery in any one Generation since the Apostles days, and that for these reasons. First, because many matters, especially in difficult things, may be mistaken for want of right understanding, and then these mistakes will be delivered. That they are mistaken by many, appears by the disagreement of great numbers, and disputes about several Doctrines, whether they be de fide, or not; and about the sense of Papal Decrees and Canons of Councils: whence it is certain they do not all apprehend the truth; or at least, will not confess they do; which will as much overthrow Tradition. Secondly, It's possible, that through the prevalency of corruption and sin in a. Generation of men, they may much lose that knowledge of God which they had, even in matters of Faith, and then cannot deliver it aright. It's certain it was thus in the Generations after Noah, in that great point concerning the true God and his Worship; and there was then as much to be said from the nature of Tradition, as now among Papists; and therefore there can be now no security to the contrary, unless the piety of all Ages could be demonstrated; which the great complaints of the Teachers of several Ages renders impossible. Thirdly, because through the working of man's thoughts in apprehending, and considering, and explaining truths, many things are concluded as consequences and explications of truths, which were not received from the former age: thus in almost all the Books and Discourses of the Papists, and in the Book of this Author, are many particular assertions, considerations and speculations, which were not received from the open Tradition of the foregoing Age; and they are here delivered, and may hence by others be received. Fourthly, there may also be a combination (through great viciousness, or disrelish of truth) against some particular truth, which opposeth either the outward interest, or the corrupt life. Thus God complains of the Jews, Jer. 5.30. The Prophets prophesy falsely, and the Priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so. Fifthly, there may possibly be an omission of the delivery of many things to be delivered and true: and I dare say, it is impossible for this Author, to prove upon his Principles, that all truths are handed down from one Generation to another, either amongst the Learned or the Vulgar: and yet it will concern him to do it concerning every revealed truth, since he rejects, or at least will not own the distinction of truths into fundamental and not fundamental. All these things considered, there can be no certainty that there is any sure Tradition. §. 8. He saith, The second Property belongs to Tradition; to wit, it is evidenceable as to its ruling power, to any inquirer. For, it is certain, if it be followed, it can convey Christ's Doctrine down to the World's end, as will appear if any consider, that if Protestants have Children, who believe and practise as their Fathers brought them up; they will be Protestants too, and so forward from Generation to Generation. I answer, Tradition framed according to a notion which would free it from all the above said imperfections, would be indeed evidenceable as to its ruling power to every capacity: but this is not such a Tradition as can be expected to be found in the World. But if any man consider of such a Tradition as is in the World; in case he be confident of the true delivery of the sense of the foregoing Generation; yet it will not be evidenceable as to its ruling Power, unless he can be satisfied, that the foregoing Generation did certainly hold the truth, in all points. Persons who have little knowledge, may possibly believe this, without supposing it at all doubtful. But they who know how uncertain the way of Tradition is, and what corruption of Doctrine was in the Jewish Church, what Prophecies of Apostasy under the New Testament; and what great defections were reproved in many particular Churches in the Apostles times; as the Churches of Galatia, and the Church of Sardis, and others; will see that they can have no other certainty of the former Generation, where their Forefathers lived, being in the right, (unless they make use of some other trial, besides a knowledge that they professed Christianity) than an overweening esteem of their own Relations, which may be an affectionate, but not a rational ground of persuasion: and by this means the persuading virtue of Tradition may be prevalent, but its ruling Power cannot be evidenced. Indeed where there is no better help than Tradition, it may lead to error in one place, if it lead to truth in another, and so is no where certain; thus it did persuade the Heathen to refuse Christianity, because their Fathers delivered other ways of Gentile Worship: which I suppose is part of that vain conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers, mentioned by Saint Peter, 1 Pet. 1.18. Yea, God himself complains, Jer. 9.13, 14. They have forsaken my Law, which I set before them, and have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim which their Fathers taught them. Protestants acknowledge the practice or belief of Forefathers, to be a considerable Motive to persuade, either to judge or do as they judged, and did; until by enquiring into the Rule, it shall discover any error therein, and then it is to be declined. Yet withal he who understands, that his Forefathers did keep to a fixed Rule in preserved Records, hath thereby the more reason to rely on their judgement, as a strong Motive to persuade him: and this is the case of Protestants. §. 9 He proceeds to show, That the third condition of the Rule of Faith, agrees to Tradition; that is, it is apt to justify unreflecting persons, that they proceed rationally while they rely on it: because it is a madness, not to believe a multitude of knowers, in things they were taught, and practised all their lives. Nor can any deceit be suspected in such multitudes, who all agree in a matter of fact, appear to speak seriously, and practise as they speak, especially since Parents will be apt to teach their Children things good and true. I answer, Where there are many testifiers capable of giving testimonies surely, it would be a madness not to believe a multitude of knowers: but where what evidence they give, supposeth such innumerable contingencies, which though possibly they may all have happened right; yet it is a thousand times more like they have not this testimony, is far from any tolerable satisfaction. But in the present case, none can give testimony, but only concerning the last Age; nor concerning that with absolute certainty. They cannot testify what is necessary here to be known; to wit, that all Ages were free in every Succession from unfaithfulness of memory, that they forgot no truth, that they all had right understanding to err in none, and a liking of it to embrace all truth, and a sufficient care not to add any explications, which might vary from the truth, nor to deliver any thing upon opinion, which they did not certainly know to be truth, and withal that every Age did commit the whole truth to the next Generation. If any one of these fail in any one succession, all security of their knowledge is gone; and a former Generation proceeding upon Tradition, cannot testify all this, and therefore cannot be a multitude of knowers. This way of Tradition must therefore suppose all things right in the Roman Church, but will not prove them so. Can there be any likelihood now, of the certainty of Oral and practical Traditions bringing down truth, since before the Flood, where the Successions of Generations were not many, and many of them lived together, and had an Adam cast out of Paradise, as a visible token of God's vengeance, against them who were negligent in Religion; yet it is certain there was great corruption at that time? And after the Flood they worshipped other gods, though they had the argument of the deluge, to make them more careful, both to deliver and receive the true Religion: after Moses' time, they had the Motive of the terrible presence upon Mount Sinai, and many wonderful judgements; and after Ezra's time, the Argument of the Captivity, to make them careful in Religion: and yet in all these times they miscarried. But (he tells us) no deceit can be suspected here. I answer, if there be so many ways of failing otherwise, what if there be no design of deceiving? but indeed it is not a thing impossible, that there should be a designed forsaking the truth in the Church, which in the way of Oral Tradition, will eventually include deceiving. Is it not possible that men who profess Religion, may so far gratify the Devil, and their own vain imaginations, as to forsake the truth they know, in great matters of Faith, and to practise and live contrary to it, and to promote that which they know is contrary to truth? Else what mean such complaints as these, Jer. 11.9, 10. A conspiracy is found amongst the men of Judah, and among the Inhabitants of Jerusalem. They are turned back to the iniquity of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words, and they went after other Gods to serve them. Is not a conspiring to refuse God's Word, and to serve other Gods, a designed rejecting the truth? Yea, I further demand, what account can possibly be given of the high corruptions among the Jews, all along from Moses to Christ, unless a designed rejecting the truth? especially in such cases as these. That they who had seen God's wonders in Egypt, and had heard the commandments delivered on Mount Sinai, should say to Aaron, Arise, make us Gods, Exod. 32.1. If this was not done wilfully, and against sufficient knowledge, than we must imagine that they who did see the Law given on Mount Sinai, yet knew not the first or second Commandment. Yea, after many severe judgements, to show how necessary the observation of God's Commandments were, yet when they served Peor in the Wilderness, and joined themselves to other Gods frequently in the times of the Judges, and of many of the Kings of Israel; could this be for want of knowledge, when the Law of God was among them, which would teach them otherwise? Yet if this Author shall think it was of great ignorance: this will as much destroy his way of Tradition, since it will then follow that there was not sufficient delivery of truth from hand to hand, to make it knowable. And yet many of these defections were very general in all the people and Priests: and their serving Baalim, which their Fathers taught them, was of long continuance. §. 10. He asserts, by way of Answer to an Objection, That men cannot be as much justified for believing Scripture; because setting aside Traditions help, this only depends on skills, judgements and fancies; and not on certain sense, either for the meaning or letter of Scripture. Touching the letter of Scripture, we set not aside the help of Tradition, but have a very sure way of Traditional Record to rely on: and I have in former Discourses showed, that we have a certain knowledge of Scripture, both as to letter and sense. Yea, the sense of Scripture is more easily discovered in many concerning truths, than the sense of Tradition can be; because though the words be supposed equally intelligible, whether written or spoken; it is more evident that the words found in Scripture, are such as contain the sense of Scripture, than that such and such words do contain the sense of the Church Tradition: Because it is certain that in many concerning points, there are many things delivered by several in the Church, which yet are not by the Papists themselves owned for Church Traditions; so that it will be hard, if not beyond the reach of the Vulgar, to understand what words in many points he may doubt of, do truly express the sense of the Church; unless he can hear it plainly expressed in some approved and received Writings; such as either Scriptures, Canons of Catholic Councils, or Liturgies or the like: the former as this Author too much rejects; so all or almost all his Arguments will as much plead against the other, which the Vulgar are not capable of searching. Yet that we may compare the evidence to the common apprehensions of men given by Scripture, or by Oral and practical Tradition; let us follow him in observing which evidence a Jury would soon close with. The case is by him in this §. very unfaithfully propounded; Whether they would condemn a man upon the testimony of six Witnesses upon sight, or upon the judgement or opinion of a thousand men? for as we have showed, it is not only skill and opinion, that Protestants do ground upon, but delivery of Records: and therefore the case in truth should be thus propounded; Whether if any matter of Fact be inquired of, they would be the more swayed, by the appearance of several persons, who assert, that they have heard many say, that they heard many others say, that they received from others, and they from others by hearsays, at the fortieth or fiftieth hand; or by others, who shall produce plain Records, and those preserved safe in several Courts, which all agree in testifying it was otherwise? Or if the Question be about any Legacy, if the one party brings such hearsays abovementioned, and the other brings a Copy of the Will preserved in the Court, and evidence that in the same manner it was enrolled in several other Courts; is it not plain the latter will appear the better Evidence to the common sense of mankind? But in this §. 10. he further adds, The Vulgar have reason to believe, there was such an one as King James, or Queen Elizabeth, of which they are no otherwise ascertained but by Tradition: but if you pump their common reason, about the Authority of the Statute Book, you shall find them at a loss. Concerning King James, or Queen Elizabeth; they may indeed own them by the common received Tradition, because they know this is actually delivered by those who knew it, and that it is not capable of a mistake, nor could any interest be supposed to devise this, nor can men's conceptions of this vary from what is intended to be delivered: but in none of these things can men have security in the delivery of many truths by Oral Tradition, as was observed in Answer to §. 7. But to put the case more like this, of discovering which is more justifiable, of believing Scripture or Tradition; I demand, whether as to all considerable actions, achievements or constitutions under these Princes, it be more rational to rely on what appears in common fame, concluding that nothing is considerable, which was not there preserved; or to apply ourselves to some good Historians, especially if we could be certain we could find such, as had a certain knowledge of all such things, and had a faithful design to commit the truth and nothing else to Writing, concerning all these things. This security we have concerning the Scriptures; since it is certain the Apostles and Evangelists did fully know all points of Faith, delivered to the World by Jesus Christ, and did declare them in their Writings with like faithfulness. Concerning the Vulgars' knowledge of the Authority of the Statute Book; it is evident that if they hear the Statute Book to be published by such a man, or the Statutes by him collected; they can thence conclude, that as far as they can be assured, that it was his Work, and that he was certainly able to collect these Statutes, and did in this act according to his utmost knowledge; so far they are assured of this Books Authority; as also as far as they are assured of the faithfulness and ability of judgement in them who own it as such. But in all these things we have certainty of Scripture, that it was written by the Apostles and Evangelists, by the general Tradition of it as such by all Churches; that they were able and faithful, and their Books faithfully written, both from our Saviour's approving them to dispense his Gospel, and his Church receiving them as such dispensers, even in these Writings; and God himself bearing them Witness, both with Signs and Wonders, and manifold gifts of the Holy Ghost. So that we are as sure concerning Scripture, as a man could be of the Authority of a Statute Book, if he knew there was a collection of our Common Law, (as was done by Justinian's order in the Civil) made, approved, and confirmed by order of the Supreme Power; and thereby Enacted, that this Collection should be owned as the Statutes of England. Here it would be a madness to doubt. So that this third Property of the Rule of Faith is agreeable to Scripture, but not to Oral Tradition. §. 11. He proceeds to the sixth Property, That it is certain in itself, because this will prove the fourth, fifth and seventh. Now though this be not true, that what is certain in its self can satisfy the piercing Wits, and convince obstinate Adversaries, and be ascertainable unto us, because there may be a certainty in the thing, which is not discerned; and it is not the being, but the evidence of certainty submitted to, that works these effects; else could there be no dissatisfaction in any thing, since all truth is certainly in itself truth: yet if he can prove the certainty of Tradition, I shall over and above yield the rest. This he thus goes about to prove. Since Faith must be certain, and must have a certain Rule, he hath (as he says) shown that Scripture is not certain, therefore Oral Tradition is. This lose Argument deserves no better answer, than that I have showed Scripture is certain in itself, therefore Oral Tradition is not. Yet I must tell him, his Argument is otherwise faulty, than in supposing his having proved Scripture not certain; for there is something besides Scripture, which is a better guide or leader to the Faith, than the Oral Tradition, and that is the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, as preserved in the Ancient Fathers, or approved Writers of their time. For though they were men, and might in some things mistake, and therefore their testimony is much inferior to Scripture; yet since they lived in times near the Apostles, and when the vigour of Christian piety was much continued; the Doctrines then received are more like to be truth, than what is now owned in the Church of Rome, after many successions of Ages, and great degeneracy of life, even in the dregs of time. And we have as much and more reason, to think these men, both capable of knowing Doctrines then delivered as the Faith of Christ, and faithful in relating them, as we can have to judge so concerning any persons now in the Church of Rome. But that there is not an agreement in all considerable points, in what was then delivered and owned by the Fathers, and the present Traditions of the Romish Church, may be collected from one instance I shall hereafter mention, Disc. 8. and so far as concerns this Author from their Rule of Faith, which shall be discussed in the end of this Book. §. 12. He would prove the certainty of Tradition, in that he saith, It hath for its basis, the best nature in the Universe, man's; and that not in speculations, which may mistake by passion; but his eyes and ears, which are necessarily subject to the operations of nature, and this in most; many times every day; which is a much higher certainty, than a sworn Witness hath, of what he saw or heard but once. These upon serious inquiry appear empty vain words. For doth Faith consist only in seeing and hearing? Must there not be a delivering, and receiving, which supposeth conceptions and many other acts of the mind? He who considers this aright, will find the hasis of Tradition to be like Fame's basis; a man clad with all his infirmities, with a memory that may let things slip, especially if they be numerous, as revealed truths are; with an understanding that may mistake, especially in things difficult, as many truths are; with affections that may disrelish or slight them, if corruption prevail, as it may oft do in the members of the Church; with imaginations which may alter or add somewhat, when they think they only explain; and yet still may they not deliver all they know and remember. In this case he who may be certain that he hath heard such and such words delivered, may remain very uncertain, whether they be true or not. And he who is a Witness in any Court, may be much more sure, that what he once saw or heard, (if he perfectly remember it) was so heard or seen by him; than any man can be of the true relation of things he hath oft heard spoken by men, who took them themselves upon others relations, and they on others, and so on. So that the great imperfection of Tradition, is chief as to the delivery of it by former Ages; which this Author doth not so much as touch of here, in his proof of its certainty; and what pretensions he makes use of in after Discourses, shall be answered in their place. But what he saith, That in most, many times every day are these impressions made upon their senses, this may be true concerning some Christian truths: but to assert this concerning all truth, is such an apparent falsity, as no ingenuous man could be guilty of. For it is plain that in many things they of the Romish Church cannot agree, which is truth; and have had in many Cases, Councils and Decrees to determine what things are matters of Faith; and in many other things they are yet undetermined; which could not be, if these things were daily cleared to their senses, unless they be men of much duller sense, than the rest of mankind are. §. 13. He reminds of what he had said before, §. 8. That it is as evident, that while the next Age believes and practices, as the former Age did; they are of the same Faith; as it is that to believe the same, is to believe the same. But this is not at all to the purpose, concerning Oral Tradition: only this Discourser pleaseth himself generally in shifting off, or wholly omitting matters difficult, and sometimes going about to prove what no Adversary would descent in. But there is no certainty in the way of Tradition, as we have above shown, that any Age doth in all things believe as the former Age held. See n. 13, 14. §. 14. He tells his Reader, That Dissenters or Doubters can say nothing against the way of Tradition; not with all the quirks ingenuously misused Logic and abused into Sophistry can furnish them with. Indeed what he hath hitherto pleaded for Tradition, hath been nothing else but disingenuously abused Logic and Sophistry; but what he now asserts, is a bold daring to let his Reader know, that under some contrived expressions, he will strain to vent any falsehood, though never so gross. Will he say that nothing can be said against this Rule, when he cannot but know that Protestants who dissent from it, do say very much against it? yea, they say so much as they know can never be solidly answered. Yea, that we may see how little he designs truth in his Discourse, he who here would persuade his Reader, that nothing can be said against his way of Oral Tradition, yet Disc. 7. §. 1. himself tells him of somewhat that seems mainly to prejudice it; and spends that Discourse in Answer. Though indeed much more than that is by us observed, against Tradition. He concludes §. 15. from his Discourse, that the four last conditions of the Rule of Faith agree to Tradition: but since by Trial his Discourse appears very unsound and faulty; I conclude from the detection of his falsehood, that they are not agreeable to Tradition, and that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith. An Answer to his sixth Discourse, showing, that he hath given neither Demonstration, nor probable Reason, to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori. §. 1, 2. HE propounds, How know we that Tradition was ever held to by any? and tells us, he oweth a clearing of this to his former Discourse. But, he saith, the carriage of Protestants makes this inquiry needless: for if they had not faulted the Rule, but only pretended, men had failed it, they might have deluded the World with some colour, that they had held to the Doctrine of Ancestors, and only deserted us because we deserted Ancestors formerly: but if they fault the Rule, they judge Tradition ever stood our friend, and would overthrow them,— else they had no more efficacious way to ruin us, than to oppose us upon those Principles laid in the former Discourse: since the renouncers of Tradition a little after the Primitive times (when they pretend we fell) might be easily discovered. To answer this, its requisite first to understand the meaning. Now his inquiry of Tradition being held to ever, I conceive, signifies thus much: whether every Age hath designed the careful receiving, holding and delivering all things owned by the former Generation; in the same way as they were thence delivered, and also whether they have effectually performed this? And if this could be proved, Protestants would grant his former Discourse satisfactory, so far as concerns Tradition being the Rule of Faith. The proof of this is highly necessary, when he hath to do with Protestants; because they therefore fault this Rule of Tradition, because they know it such, as cannot be probably expected to be long held to, nor can ever be demonstrated, or rationally proved to have been thus held to at any time, unless by recourse to another Rule of Trial. Wherefore since we know the Rule insufficient which Papists rely on; we delude not, but with truth and evidence assure the World, that we desert them, only because they have deserted the Doctrine of Ancestors formerly. Whether this was by mistake or by perverseness and wilfulness, it is not necessary for us to know or declare, since we do discover the difference of their Doctrine from that of their Ancestors, partly by the writing of Fathers, who show what Doctrine they received; and principally from the testimony of the Scriptures, which assures us what was the Doctrine in the beginning preached by the Apostles. Now when we give evidence, that they have deserted the Primitive Doctrine; it is a very vain proposal to require of us to discover who were the first Renouncers; for though some Protestants have done somewhat to this purpose, and some Renouncers may be manifested; yet since neither Protestants nor Papists, can know all particular designs or actings of men in former Generations; and whatever may be known by History, upon the Principles of this Discourser, must not be believed; especially since this is neither the only way, nor the best way to show Primitive Doctrines disowned; I may well conclude, that the proposal itself, is both needless and unreasonable. Will this Author assert that Gentilism pretended to be held from their Fathers, was a Tradition truly derived from Noah, unless the person or persons can be named to him, who were the first deserters of Noah's Doctrine? or must the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees be owned as the Doctrine of Moses, until the Authors of the first corruptions of those Traditions can be found out? or could not our Saviour and his Apostles, condemn such Traditions, unless they first declared the Authors of them? Doth he think it would be reason or madness, if a temperate man in a sick state, should say to his Physician, I am sure I was in health, and have endeavoured to keep my body in the same good temper I was in; and therefore until I can have evidence given me, what time and by what act my Distemper began, I will not be persuaded but that I am still in health. Or if an house that was once firm and strong, now is cracked, or decayed or burnt down; can this be no otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated, than by examining when the first crack or beginning of decay was occasioned, and by what means, and when it was set on fire, and by whom? And shall he who sees this house ready to moulder down, or in its ashes, think it reasonable to deny or doubt that it is either decayed or burnt, if he cannot be satisfied in the former inquiries? I know Papists have generally more wit than to act upon such reasonings as these, in purchasing such houses; and therefore I have the more reason to suspect, that they do not mean honestly in urging such frivolous things in concernments of Religion. Yet this Discourser further deludes his Reader, in saying we pretend they fell a little after the Primitive times; by which he interprets himself to mean, times, which had a vicinity to the Apostles; as if Protestants did indeed grant, that Popery as it now is, was held and practised ever since a little after the Apostles: whereas this Discourser cannot but know, that Protestants do generally assert, that though some corruptions might creep into the Church, soon after the Apostles days, yet in the chief points of Controversy between Protestants and Papists, we do assert that for the first six hundred Years; the genuine Writings of the Fathers do favour the Protestants assertions, and in many things very long after, and therefore that those Popish assertions are of later original. §. 3, 4, 5. He tells us, That such is God's goodness, that the Rule of Faith hath that in it, which obligeth the generality not to desert it. That Tradition is actually indefectible, he undertakes to demonstrate à priori, from proper Causes, and à posteriori from a nowadays experienced effect. His grounds for the former are these. First, the Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously settled in the hearts of great multitudes, in several parts of the World. Secondly, this Doctrine was by all those, believed to be the way to Heaven, and the deserting it the way to damnation: whence the greatest hopes and fears imaginable, engaged them to adhere to it. Thirdly, hopes and fears strongly applied, are causes of actual will. Lastly, this was feasible, the things were knowable, and within their power. Therefore from Age to Age a great number would continue to hold themselves, and teach their Children, as themselves had been taught; that is, would follow and stick to Tradition. I now come to examine these four grounds. Concerning the first there was indeed Christian Doctrine firmly settled in multitudes, and very great numbers; that is, so much of the Christian Doctrine, as was requisite for them to know, or all the great and most necessary Christian truths: but that all matters of Faith, or all Divine truth declared by Christ and his Apostles, was firmly fettled in all the faithful, can never be proved. Yea, evident it is, that among the most eminent Fathers, who lived not long after the Apostles days, there are acknowledged some errors, and they were not alone in them, but had many partakers and followers: Cyprian erred about rebaptising; Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus, Lactantius, and others, were in the error of the Chiliasts; and many other erroneous opinions were in some of the forementioned Authors, and in Clemens Alexandrinus, and much more in Tertullian and Origen. So that though this ground (if the others all hold) may help us to know the great points of Religion, yet it can be no security to all the truths of God, from the multitude of Believers. The second ground is of the time nature with the former, which concerns only the chief truths of Religion, in the generality of Christians. For the faithful could not while free from error, believe this which is an error, that the want of understanding any truth of God, was the way to damnation: for S. Paul saith expressly, that they must receive the weak in the faith, and God hath received him, and God is able to make him stand, Rom. 14.1, 3, 4. So that though they did know the great truths of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation, and therefore would diligently learn them and teach them; and though they did know that the denial or rejecting of any truth, which they had evidence was of God, was likewise dreadfully dangerous, which would engage them to hold fast all the truth they had received, upon account of the highest hopes and fears fet before them; yet would not the same enforcements lie upon them, to show the necessity, either of their own knowing, or of their Children being instructed in all manner of truths: since there were Mysteries and strong meat for the perfect, and milk for the weak. Yet I also assert, that as there were many persons of eminent knowledge in the mysteries of the Gospel, in the Apostles days, who had great gifts of knowledge and interpretation; by the teaching of these men if it was diligently heeded, all Divine truth might possibly be received by some others in the next Generation, who had capacities of understanding them; but I have no reason to judge that these were multitudes. And the love of God, and his truth, would excite all the faithful (as they had opportunity) both to endeavour to know all truth of God, and also firmly to receive and declare it; but this will not free them from all ignorance, or capacity of erring. The third ground is many ways imperfect, and reacheth not to the proof of the case in hand; for first, it is not enough to prove Tradition indefectible, to know that fears and hopes when strongly applied will have this effect; but we must know that in all Ages they were thus strongly applied to the generality of testifiers, or to the greatest number of the Church visible: but alas! how evident is it that in all Ages, the causes of hope and fear, have not been so applied by very great numbers in the Church, that they should take due care of their souls by a holy life? And since the Devil oft designs the perverting the Doctrine of Christ; as well as corrupting the practice of Christians, and they who reject a good Conscience, are in a ready way to make shipwreck of the Faith, what possible security can be given, that those Motives, hopes and fears, are a firm security to preserve Doctrine? Secondly, though it is not to be doubted, but that many pious men would be affected with such hopes and fears, who had this Doctrine delivered to them; yet considering that such pious men if considered as Forefathers, might have careless and wicked Children; or as Priests and Teachers, might have careless and irreligious Successors; there must needs appear very great danger, that in any family or place, this Tradition will not be in every Age faithfully continued, by the prevalency of such hopes and fears. Nor is this only a Notion, since it is certain that a very great part of the Christian Church, did in the Primitive times entertain the Arian Heresy, and promoted it, and taught it to their Children. And since it is evident, that gross ignorance and sensuality hath reigned in some Ages more late, among the generality both of Clergy and People in the Romish Church: there can be from this ground no rational security given, that any great part of the deliverers were conscientiously careful, to deliver faithfully, according to what they had received, because it appears they did not act, as men prevailed upon by such hopes and fears would do. His last ground likewise is unsound: for in the way of Tradition, all Divine truth cannot be evidenced to be knowable; not only because (as is abovesaid) much may be undelivered by the truly faithful, and much perversely delivered by the corrupt, and much mistaken: but even that also which in the way of Oral Tradition is delivered by the best deliverers, cannot in all things be clearly discovered to be a sufficient Tradition. For first, we cannot know whether the best deliverers now in the World in this Oral way, do deliver sufficiently that which was by the former Generation to them declared: for this must either be in a form of words received from the Apostles, or without such a form: if they deliver the Apostles very words, it cannot be doubted, but then the sense intended by the Apostles is as fully delivered as the Apostles themselves delivered it; since the same words must needs signify the same things. But they who reject the way of Scripture-delivery, as the Rule of Faith, pretend not to any such form of words which should contain all truth. But a delivery without a form of words, is only a delivery of what is conceived, judged, or apprehended to be the sense of the former Generation; and this is a way liable to error, because it relies on the skill of every Generation; or the way of framing thoughts and conceptions of all these truths; and likewise upon a skill of fully expressing such conceptions in words after they are rightly framed in the mind; and both these parts of art must be secured in the most exact manner, to every succession of deliverers. Now as it is not certain, that in all Ages there hath been a readiness of full expression of what they conceived to be truth; so for certain Controversies and Disputes, they show in many things, that men's apprehensions are not unerrable. Secondly, if it had been certain, that some in the late past Generations, did deliver all truths fully; yet in the way of Oral Tradition, it cannot be known evidently who they are, and which is that true Tradition: for all men acquainted with Church History know, that when there have been differences amongst great Doctors of the Church in their delivery, this hath sometimes occasioned the calling of Councils to determine them, and declare which is the Doctrine to be held in the Church, as about the Religious use of Images, in the eighth Century, and many other cases. Now before the determination of such a Council, it is not evident which are the true deliverers, from the way of Tradition, since both parties contend for their own delivery; and no other Rule of Trial must be admitted according to this Discourser, but delivery or Tradition: and upon the former considerations it appears, that the best deliverers may be the fewest. And this may be as uncertain after a Council, since there is nothing else to ascertain us; but the vote of a major part, which in many Councils, hath certainly been the worse part, and maintained Heresy; and therefore so it may be in others, where there can be no evidence given to the contrary. And by Determinations of Councils, the lesser part and their Adherents, are determined to reject their way of delivery, and receive the other; and by this means the lesser number, which may be in the truth, must disclaim their own sense and judgement, to submit to the judgement of others, which may be in the wrong, and so the true Tradition may be lost. Yet that it may appear more evident, how vain the pretence to demonstration in this Discourse is, I shall apply his way of demonstrating, to some other cases, which it will fit as well as Romish Tradition. It is certain that after Moses, the true Doctrine was dispersed among the Jews, and after Noah, who was a Preacher of righteousness amongst his Sons: they had the greatest hopes and fears to engage them to this truth, and these are the causes of actual will, and the truths are knowable; therefore both Gentile Tradition from Noah, and Jewish from Moses, were indefectible, according to this Discourser's Principles; and so the true Religion may at this time be found, either among Gentiles or Jews. Yea, it was certain, that Gods will was declared to Adam and Eve in Paradise, and to the Angels that fell, before their fall; and they had the greatest hopes and fears, to persuade them to keep to this will of God; knowing that obeying it, was their happiness, and deserting it their ruin: these hopes and fears are the causes of actual will, and the duties themselves both knowable and practicable, and they had no corrupt inclinations to sway them; therefore according to this demonstrator, Adam and Eve, and all the Angels, did continue in their obedience. The same way of demonstration would prove that never any Heresies could either be broached, or by many be received in the Christian Church: But in these cases, who sees not that it will be answered, that either the truths of God declared, were not sufficiently heeded, or else the causes of hope and fear were not sufficiently applied, and at all times acknowledged and observed; and that in such cases there was a corruption either in belief or in practice: but then every eye will see, that this might as well be imagined in the Romish Church, as in any other company of men. So that he hath made it as clear, that the Romish Tradition is indefectible, as that the Gentile and Jewish Traditions were, and are; and as certain as it is, that there is no Devil or fallen Angel, and no fall of man, and consequently no sin in the World, and no Heresy ever in the Christian Church. But here it is needful to do this Author that right, as to observe his unusual modesty, that he entitles this Discourse not a demonstration, but an endeavouring to demonstrate. §. 6. He speaketh to this purpose. If any shall object, Original Corruption indisposeth Parents wills; since Christ's Doctrine was intended to be an Antidote for that Original malice; to say it is universally applied, and preserves none good, is to question Christ's wisdom: and many thousands, Martyrs and Confessors, did hereby overcome the declivity of their wills. Again, nature cannot incline all to this sort of sin, to teach their Children what they think will damn them, but most strongly carries them to the contrary. To this I may in the first place observe, that neglects of duty might be, if there had been no Original corruption; as was in Adam in Paradise, and in the Angels, where was no antecedent sinful inclination, but they were only capable of sinning. Yet I assert, there is more danger by Original corruption, and its prevalency both as to the Will and Understanding. Now Christ's Doctrine is indeed a poise or Antidote against this, yet this is first, where this Doctrine is carefully entertained and retained, but not so, that there should be no fear of its being retained in any Church. S. Paul did not nourish needless fears for his Corinthians, who had this Doctrine, lest their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ: nor were they untrue complaints of his Galatians, Chap. 3.1. Who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth? And we Protestant's can discern nothing to show that this Doctrine must needs be otherwise a poise in the Romish Church, than in the Corinthian or Galatian. Secondly, where this Doctrine is retained, it is a poise against Original corruption in a considerable degree, yet not so as to remove all imperfections proceeding from Original sin, which may hinder right delivery of all truth: for though in some excellent persons there be a willingness to deliver truth; yet there may be some mistake even in holy Martyrs and Confessors. The Church of Rome as well as we, own Cyprian as a Saint and Martyr, and yet acknowledge him to have erred, and most Africans then with him in delivering that they who were Baptised by Heretics, aught to be rebaptised; so that in following good men, there may be mistake: but they are more like to err, if they be bad, as many certainly are. But concerning his last clauses, it is no way necessary to suppose, that to invalidate Tradition, Parents must design to teach Children what they think will damn them: we suppose very many may design truth and good, who yet may be in error; yet there may be others who through prevalency of corruption in themselves, may design to corrupt the truth, and may teach their Children so; and all this out of that Principle that prevails with men to wicked lives, which is not a design to damn themselves, but a design to gratify their evil affections. S. Paul, 2. Cor. 2.17, speaks of many who corrupt the word of God; and S. Peter foretells of others, who shall bring in damnable Heresies, and we know the Jews did teach their Children to worship Baalim: most probably this was not out of design to damn them: however we know no demonstrations to prove that Romanists have higher affections to their Children naturally. than Jews had; or that when there is danger of truth being corrupted in the Christian Church, they of the Romish should be exempted from liableness to that danger. §. 7. He thus proceeds; If any object, the fickle nature of the will; (he answers) Good is the object of the will. Now infinite goods and harms sufficiently proposed, are incomparably more powerfal causes to carry the will, than temporal ones: therefore a world of Believers cannot be willing to do that which would lose them and their Posterities infinite goods, and bring them infinite harms. To this I answer; That if this be spoken of the generality of professed Christians, these words would still as much plead against Adam's fall, and the corruptions of Gentiles and Jews, as against defection in the Romish Church; since all these had the greatest goods and harms proposed to them. But I further answer; That a considerable number in former Ages, would endeavour to know and deliver ttuth aright, but they still are liable to mistakes, and others that hear them, to misunderstandings; and also it is possible, that the subtlety of some Deceivers may take place, and be received sooner than their delivery of truth, by which means those truths may many of them be lost or perverted; and even in these last Ages I doubt not but even in the Roman Church, there are many who would desire good, and love truth (and therefore as they have discerned it, many have forsaken the Romish way; but they who most desire to find it, can in the way of Tradition, see no more than is there to be seen: and if others by subtlety corrupt some of that; it is not in the power of these honest meaning persons, to hinder the prevalency of such corruptions, if they be promoted by a more potent party and interest. §. 8. If any think the proposal of Sensible Objects, more considerable than of Spiritual, he indeavoureth to show the excellent proposal of the truths of God, and thereby evidenceth they may be applied. This doth not much concern Protestants. we acknowledge that there is nothing wanting as to the proposal of God's truth, but yet there was in many, neglect of receiving what was sufficiently propounded; whence followed all the abovementioned miscarriages. And even God himself propounded his truths as he thought most meet; that is, he proposed such as were not so necessary for all to know, more mysteriously, whence many might be ignorant of them, or misapprehend: but other necessary truths he propounded with abundant evidence and plainness. But in the present way of Tradition, what this Author observes, to make the proposal evident, is very imperfect; for though they have obvious Metaphors, daily Practices, Language and Actions, Sacraments and Ceremonies: yet these things may themselves partake of corruptions, and then may help to clear what is propounded, that somewhat may be understood; but not withal to secure that this is certainly from God, and therefore is Divine truth: Nor do most of these things reach all truth to be delivered, nor secure from all misapprehension, so far as they are intended to signify truth, in such matters as are more difficult and mysterious. An Answer to his seventh Discourse, concerning Heresy. §. 1. HE observes, That that which seems only and mainly to prejudice his Argument is, that there have been Heretics, or deserters of Tradition: but he saith, it sufficeth that the Causes to preserve Faith entire, are as efficacious as those laid for the Propagation of mankind, the only subject of Faith, and more particulars fail in propagating their kind, than their Faith. In answer to this, I first observe, that though it much destroys the grounds laid by this Author, to observe that there have been Heresies, and those much spread in the Church; yet this is not the only prejudice against his Argument: for if we had never heard of, or could make no proof of any Heresies in the Christian Church; yet from considering the very nature of Oral Tradition, as hath been showed in the former Discourse, and from observing what great defects were in it, both amongst Gentiles and Jews, it is sufficiently manifest, that it is not indefectible, and hath not the certainty requisite to the Rule of Faith; by which means, if Heresies had not been, they might begin. But I further undertake to manifest, that because it is certain, that Heresies have spread in the Church, from this consideration it is evidenceable, that Oral Tradition is so defectible, as that it cannot be a sure Rule of Faith. His paralleling Tradition with the propagation of mankind, is a mere piece of sophistry. For if he indeed assert, that the causes to preserve Faith entire in the way of Tradition, are as sufficient, as those to propagate mankind in the entire nature of man, he must then either acknowledge that there have been oft Societies of persons of different natures both in themselves, and from mankind, who are brought up amongst men, and call themselves men, and propagate in their kind, and cannot by the eye be distinguished from men, and are capable of deceiving great multitudes by persuading them that they are the true men, and that others are not; or else he must deny that ever any such Heretics have been in the Church, who have declared themselves, and have been owned by many others, to be the true Christians, and holder's of the truth. The case of Tradition and Propagation are wonderfully different also, in that he who hath the nature of man in him by Propagation, cannot alter this nature, and make himself of another nature at his own pleasure; whereas it is very possible for such as have embraced the true Christian Doctrine, to forsake it, and fall aside into Heresies, as hath been oft evidenced in the World: and also in that those particular persons in mankind, who do not propagate their kind, are not capable at their pleasure, of propagating any thing different from man: but in the way of Christian Faith, they who do not propagate the true Faith, may, and many of them do propagate error, and that so subtly, that very many are oft deluded by it. Yea, this Discourser himself §. 2. acknowledgeth, that he knows the multitudes of Heretics which have from time to time risen, makes this his Position seem incredible; and therefore I infer, that unless his Reader can be assured that this Position is more true than it seems to be, he must from his own words, conclude it really incredible. §. 2. He comes to consider how an Heresy is bred, where he tells us; The Church is to be considered as a Commonwealth under Discipline, having Officers to take care that all Motives be actually applied; and because it is impossible the perfection of Discipline should extend itself to every particular; some by pride, ambition, lust, and itching desire of followers, may propose new tenets, which by their plausibleness and licentiousness, if Governors be not watchful, may suit with the humour of divers, and draw them into the same faction. Thus a body is made inconsiderable in respect of the whole; The Church stands upon the uninterrupted succession of her Doctrine. They cry the Church hath erred in Faith, and disgrace Tradition. A new Rule is sought for either by private inspiration or waxed natured words. They study wordish Learning and Criticisms, and whilst the Traditionary Christian hath the appellation of Catholic, they must be content with other names, as Lutherans, Zwinglians, Protestants, etc. He who observes the former part of this Paragraph, will find it to be an acknowledging all his former Discourse ineffectual: for if the formerly mentioned Motives may want application, if Discipline be neglected, and false tenets may be taking, if Governors be not vigilant; than all the pretended security of truth being preserved in the way of Oral Tradition, must depend upon the supposed goodness, and care of such persons, as are to administer the Discipline of the Church: and since there have been many bad Councils, it is certain there have been bad and careless Church Governors, and there cannot any security be given, that these Governors might not sometimes cherish the false Doctrines, and oppose the true: and thereby the more effectually destroy the way of Oral Tradition. But though there may be defection from truth; this Discourser here seems to venture, to find a way how the deliverers of Tradition may be known. I will now examine all his Characters above recited. First, They who forsake truth, are not always an inconsiderable number in respect of the other: When the ten Tribes served the Calves in Dan and Bethel, they were a greater number than those who remained to Worship at Jerusalem. In Elijah's time it was in Israel, but a small number in comparison of the whole that did not bow their knees to Baal. In the time when Christ was first manifested in the flesh; the Dissenters, from the Scribes and Pharisees, in their pernicious Doctrines, were not the greater number: and when Arianism most prevailed, the greater part of the Christian Church did acknowledge and own it for truth: so that if the greater number have oft embraced false Doctrine in points of Faith, there can be no evidence from such numbers, which is the true Doctrine. Secondly, Nor can the Professors of the true Doctrine be known, by standing upon an uninterrupted succession of Doctrine publicly attested, (if by this he understands, as he must, the Oral, and not the Scriptural way of attesting; though even in the latter, some may stand upon having what they have not, and so likewise in the former) for by this Rule the Scribes and Phasees, and Talmudists, who stand upon a constant succession of their Doctrine from Moses and Ezra, must be acknowledged to hold truth, where they differ from, and contradict the Apostles and Christians: nor can there be any reason, why standing upon Tradition from Christ, should be a security for truth, when standing upon Tradition from Moses, who was a faithful deliverer, was no security: yea, by this Rule, as hath been before observed, Paganism would be defended for a true Religion, and the Jews worshipping of Baalim, and in the Christian state the Heresy of Artemon, denying the Divinity of Christ: since all these pretended a right to the most public and open way of Oral Tradition. Thirdly, Nor are they to be accounted for Heretics, who make use of Criticisms; for though nothing more than common reason and capacity, is necessary to understand the main Doctrines of Christian Faith; yet if all the users of Critical Learning in matters of Religion or points of Faith, were to be condemned for Heretics; than not only Learned Protestants, but all the most eminent writers among the Papists, must be accounted Heretics; yea, and even all the Fathers, who have left any Books to us of considerable bigness, must be taken into the number. Yea, the blessed Apostle S. Paul made use of Critical observation against the leven of the false Apostles, in the Churches of Galatia, Gal. 3.16. To Abraham and his Seed were the promises made, he saith not unto Seeds, as of many; but as of one; And to thy Seed, that is Christ. Yet I suppose this Discourser will not dare to say, that S. Paul was in the error or Heresy, because he made use of Criticisms; and his opposers in the truth, who pleaded a successively delivered Doctrine amongst the Jews. Fourthly, Nor can the true receivers of Christian Doctrine, be known by being called Catholics: for first, though the name of a Catholic be deservedly honoured by Christians, and the persons who truly answer that name, yet it was not the name, whereby the Apostles did first call them, who held the true Christian Faith, but they were called Christians: yea, some both of the Ancients and of the Learned Moderns, assert, that this name of Catholic, was not at all in use in the Apostles days: however that which then was not the chief name, commonly applied to them who hold the truth, can by no show of reason be proved to be now the Character, to know which hold the true Faith. Secondly, is it necessary they must be called Catholics by all men, or only by themselves, and men of their own way? if it be sufficient, that they of their own way call them Catholics; then even the Arians must be acknowledged to have held the truth, who published their Confession in the presence of Constantius under the name of the Catholic Faith, as is asserted by Athanasius, De Synodis Arim. and Seleucia, and by this Rule Papists indeed will come in: but if this was enough, who sees not that it would be in the power of any party of men; to evidence to the world, that their Heresies are truths; by their declaring themselves by the name of Catholics? But if it be necessary, that they must be generally called Catholics by them who differ from them, than it would likewise follow, that it is in the power of the Adversaries of the truth, to take away from the holder's of truth, that certain Character, whereby they may be known to hold truth, if they refuse to call these holder's of truth by the name of Catholic; and it will likewise follow, that their holding of truth must be judged of by the opinions or words of opposers, and not from their own Doctrines and Positions. And yet by this Rule the Papists must not be owned for holder's of the truth: for Protestants do not generally give them the name of Catholics, nor acknowledge them to be truly such; but to be Schismatics. We indeed oft call them by the name of Roman Catholics or Pseudocatholicks; and when ever any Protestants call them Catholics, they mean those who call themselves so, and would be so owned; in the same manner as our Saviour called the Scribes and Pharisees Builders, saying he was the stone, which the bvilders refused. Thirdly, Nor is it possible, there should be any such latent virtue in the name Catholic, to show who hold the truth, more than was in the Old Testament, in being called the Children of the Prophets, and the Covenant which God made with Abraham, the followers of Moses, and the Keepers of the Law: which were terms applied to the unbelieving Jews, in and after the times of Christ. Fifthly, Nor is it the mark of an Heretic, to be called by some other appellation than that of Catholic; for if to be called so by their opposers, would prove them Heretics; then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary, who would nickname its Professors, the truth itself must be owned for an Heresy; but must the true holder's of Christianity be called Heretics, because the Jews called them nazarenes, Edomites, Epicureans, and the like; The Montanists, as we may learn from Tertullian, called the true Christians Psychicos, or carnal ones; the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice, Homoousiasts, Athanas. Dial. de Trin. and Julian, by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans, Naz. Orat. 3. cont. Julian. But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names, are Heretics; this is as vain a way of Trial as the former: for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholic, and account themselves such; it will conclude for Heretics all who own themselves Papists, Jesuits, Romanists, Dominicans, Jansenists, Molinists, and such like, as much as Protestants. §. 3. He saith, After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters selfsufficiency is thrown by as useless. Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers, and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture; which is the very way Catholics ever took. If any follow their own judgement, and differ from the Reformers, these if they have power will oblige them to act, (which if conscientiously is) to hold as they do; else they will punish and persecute them; which shows that it is not the letter of God's word, but these men's interpretations, which is thought fit to guide to Faith, whence, he saith, follow self-contradictions. But is this the farther description of an Heretic, to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture, when most Heretics never pretended it to be a Rule; some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition, as was showed Disc. 4. n. 15, and shall be further showed in answer to his Authorities. Almost all, if not all Heretics in the first Ages of the Church, rejected Scripture. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes, that Cerinthus a notorious Heretic, was an enemy to the Scriptures of God. Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cells. observes that the Ebionites of both sorts, rejected the Epistles of S. Paul, and Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith, they esteemed none of the Gospels; but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, they received. Yea, it was the Charge which the Catholic Christians laid against the Heretics, condemned by the four first General Councils, that they would not hearken to the Scriptures, nor reverence them, as shall in due place appear. This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees, and chargeth some Donatists, co●●r. Fulgentium Donatist. with burning the Gospels as things to be razed out, and Athanasius Epist. ad Orthodox. testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture, which they found in the Church. But however he hath a design in this 3. §. to show that the followers of Heretics (under which name he chief intends Protestant's) do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient, and close with, and build upon the way of Tradition; whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men, no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only. I shall here show in what he criminates Protestants to be false; but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants, to the things here charged on them, and the self-contradictions pretended, (for though he talks of Heresy in this Discourse, it is easy to observe his only aim is not at Heretics, but at Protestants, that is, at truly Catholic Christians) I shall observe, that what he hath declared in this Paragraph, is a very effectual way to show Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith, nor so much as a probable way to discern truth: for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it, may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense: if this be possible, as indeed it is, and this Discourser here asserts as much: it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church, and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition; were not Heresies or errors, broached by some men's fancies in a former Generation, who required their Children to follow their sense. Yea, besides this, if it be the general way of Heresy, (as this Author here asserts) to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition, it will be beyond the skill of this Author, (unless he shall retract this description of Heresy) to give the least assurance to any reasonable men, that the Roman Church, which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition, is not upon this account of Tradition, to be much suspected of holding Heresies. Yea, it will hence also the more effectually follow, that it is impossible that Heretics should be discerned from the holder's of the true Faith, if there were no other Rule to discover this, but Oral Tradition; since this Discourser asserts, that this very Rule, Heretics generally close with, in the propagation of Heresy, at a distance from its first original. Yea, and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants, if it shall appear, that they go not in the way of Tradition, which this Author hath assured us, is the constant way the followers of all Heretics run into. See both his §. 3. and §. 5. I answer now to this 3. §. that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Selfsufficiency as a Rule. I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant, that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith, we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof, to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture, that they may without actual error be comprised in some form of sound words; such as are Creeds, Confessions of Faith, Articles, Catechisms, or the like: and we do acknowledge and assert these truths, even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church, to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men, from the fullness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture. Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these, as certain truths, from the Pastors or Parents, not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers, but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture: and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves, their Parents or Teacher's knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture. And this is a knowledge as certain, as they are capable of, until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture; yea, it is certain enough to them to command their assent, as certain as other things are, which credible persons attest upon their eyesight. For in what I plainly discern, I as surely know that I read such a Position in a Book, as that I hear or see other things in converse in the world. Now since what is thus delivered by Protestants to their Children, is so delivered, because it appears to be the Scripture-Doctrine; this is an establishing and holding to, not a rejecting and throwing by the Scripture as a Rule. But while we own Scripture as a Rule, there is no more reason why Protestants should tolerate men to contradict what is plainly and evidently deducible from Scripture, under pretence of holding to it as a Rule; than there is that in a case of Rebellion, one who is to endeavour to suppress the rebellion, should be suffered to assault the King, when he plainly appears to be the King, under pretence that he took him to be a Rebel. Yet as to matters not fully clear in Scripture, Protestants do allow differences of Opinion, if managed peaceably; and that it may appear that we are not violent prosecutors of our own apprehensions, only because they are so: the Laws of England condemn nothing for Heresy, but that which was so declared, by one of the four first General Councils. But what he intimates of obliging to act, that is, (if with good conscience) to hold as themselves do; makes me think he designs chief to reflect upon prudential constitutions, such as are amongst us, the Oaths of Obedience and Supremacy, and matters of Liturgy and Conformity. But in none of these things do Protestants desert this Principle of Scripture being the Rule of Faith. For Protestants who hold this assertion, never intended to exclude the use of prudential Rules and Constitutions, for the advantage both of Civil and Ecclesiastical Societies; but such Constitutions they neither own nor press as matters of Faith, nor as Gods Commands in themselves necessary to salvation. In this case, if Protestant Rulers oblige to nothing as prudential, orderly, and decent, but what they are well satisfied that it is lawful according to God's word, and agreeable thereunto, and for other ends expedient, and not needlessly burdensome, (which appears the common case of all Protestant Churches) they no way swerve from Scripture-Rule. Yea, if here any Protestant Rulers should err, and urge as lawful, decent and prudential, what is indeed sinful and evil; in this case they sin, and practically swerve from the true Rule, as men do in all acts of sin and mistakes of judgement; but they do in no wise intentionally disown this Rule of Scripture; since they hold fast this as a firm Principle, that if any thing which they require to be practised as lawful, can be fully manifested to be against Scripture, they will rather reject that Constitution, than oppose the Scripture, and will acknowledge that their Subjects ought to obey the Scripture rather than such commands. But he tells us, That these Dissenters (from Protestant's) do guide themselves, to their best capacity by the Scriptures Letter, which is the Rule their persecutors (Protestants) who punish them (for not obeying) taught them, and made use of themselves when they broke from the (Romish) Church. I answer, 1. It is much to be feared, that many who descent from the Protestant Churches, in these matters prudential, do not act according to their best capacities; but some from passion and self-will, some from the applause of a party; others from pride, and a sinful resolution not to disown what they once unadvisedly and erroneously took up. 2. Yet I doubt not, but very many who descent from the prudential Rules of the Protestant Churches, or particularly of the Church of England, do act according to the best light they have of Scripture truth; yet have they not the same reasons and grounds to justify them, that Protestants have to justify themselves in departing from Popery; for we rejected Popery, not only because we could not discern whether it was lawful or not by the Scripture-Rule; but because in matters plain in Scripture, we did clearly discern it sinful by clear Scripture-evidence, which plain evidence Dissenters from the Church of England cannot have; nor can they pretend it, unless it be rashly under passion, or preconceived prejudice. But for those who act according to the best light they have from Scripture, which will suppose them willing to be better informed, we Protestants no way dislike, but highly approve of their Rule, and of them for designing to follow it, so far as we can discern such persons. And as the Protestant Doctrine asserts, that all things necessary to salvation, are plain in Scripture; so we doubt not but these persons, and all other, who according to their best capacities close with the Faith there delivered, and practise the duties there required, are in the way to salvation, nor can they err in matters fundamental. But still they may err in some other matters, and particularly about the lawfulness of some things prudential; nor did Protestant's ever assert, that they who designed to follow Scripture to the best of their light, could in nothing be subject to error, where they have not a discovery of clear evidence, which in all things all inquirers may possibly not attain. Yet I must further declare, that if this design, of following Scripture according to men's best capacity were more followed, and all passions, prejudices, and unchristian suspicions laid aside amongst all Dissenters, the number of them who descent from the Protestant Churches, upon the best light of Scripture they have, would in a short time be reduced to a very few. 3. Where in any case, such persons as these are punished, it is not for designing to follow Scripture, but for not obeying some prudential lawful commands, in a case where their mistake is the cause of their not obeying; not is it any more a condemning their design to follow Scripture, than in Civil Laws and Constitutions, when any one is impleaded in a Court, because he for want of good Counsel, acts what he by mistake thinks to be according to Law; but is cast as not having acted according to the Law, the Judge should be thought to punish this man unjustly, because he designed obedience to the Law; yea, to punish him for designing this obedience to the Law. Some such inconveniences as these, are like to be in Civil things, while men are liable to mistakes, and something is capable of being mistaken: but these things concern not at all the Rule of Faith, or the rejecting the Scripture from being the Rule of Faith. From what hath been said, it is easy to vindicate the Protestants, from the following self-contradictions, he chargeth upon Heretics. The first of which is to reform upon pretence of Scriptures Letter being the Rule; and afterwards in practice to desert that Rule, in their carriage towards others. This Rule Protestant's desert not, since they propound nothing to be assented to by any as a matter of Faith, but what they judge certainly evident in Scripture; nor require they any thing to be practised as orderly, but what they discern or judge not contrary to Scripture. 2. Nor do we disallow to others the grounds ourselves proceed upon: for we allow to all, and commend in all, their practice upon clear and well grounded Scripture-evidence, but we neither allow ourselves, nor others, to practise upon ungrounded pretences of Scripture being on our side. The Third pretended contradiction is, To pretend first the Scriptures Letter clear of itself, without needing the Church to interpret it, and afterwards to judge the followers of it to their best power to go wrong; that is, to confess it obscure, and to need their new Church's interpretation. But Protestants do assert, that in all necessary Doctrines the evidence of Scripture is so clear, that it needs no interpretation; nor can they be denied, but by preferring interest, passion, or some other conceptions above evidence; and this is to forsake Scripture: but in many other things they who do not discern the evidence of Scripture, may err, though they follow it to their best power; but notwithstanding this, Scripture is sufficiently clear in the evidence it gives of all Divine revealed truth, to them who do discern its evidence; though men be confessed to be men; and many of them not capable of full understanding many truths. His Fourth contradiction charged on Heretics, but designed for Protestants, is, that they persecute others, for taking that way, which they held (at least pretended) meritorious in themselves: in which charge, as the thing intended is palpably false concerning Protestants, so the language he useth agreeth not to them. The Fifth pretended contradiction is, to oblige others to relinquish the sole guidance of Scriptures Letter, and to rule themselves by their Tradition; and at the same time against Catholics, to impugn Tradition as unfit to sense it, and abet only the selfsufficiency of Scriptures Letter. The former clause here charged on Protestants, is no way their practice; for though in matters prudential, they require inferiors to be ruled by the commands of their Superiors; which both Scripture and the Government of all Societies in the World require; yet in matters of Faith, they require that men receive them only from Scripture as the Rule of Faith, or the main ground of belief. Nor are any Protestants in any case commanded to relinquish Scripture as a Rule of Faith, and to rule themselves by Tradition, more than if in a Corporation, a member who cannot read, hath his duty read to him by another out of the Charter, or told him in words, with great care collected out of the Charter, to express its sense; this should be called a commanding this man as a member of this Society to relinquish the sole guidance of the Charter as his Rule, and to be ruled by others Tradition, when he follows the Charter by the best evidence he hath concerning it, and relies not on a delivery of continued hearsays, report, and fame, which is a way suitable to the Romish Oral Tradition. As to the latter part of this pretended Contradiction, which concerns the impugning Tradition as unfit to sense Scripture; if this be understood of the present way of Romish Oral Tradition, this indeed we do so impugn. But if this be understood of the Ancient and Primitive Tradition: Protestants do acknowledge this so far as it can be manifested to be general, to be very fit to sense such Scriptures as are otherwise difficult, and obscure; and so far as we have any intimations of such Traditions, by the Ancient Fathers, we own them useful. The last pretended contradiction is, To impute that carriage as a fault to our (Romish) Church, which themselves practise; and which is most material, our Church punishes none but those who desert our Rule, but they punish for too close following their Rule. All the clauses of this charge, are guilty of deserting the Rule of Truth. For Protestants who fault this Traditionary way, do not practise this Tradition, as hath been above showed: nor do Protestants punish any for following Scripture too close, as hath been evidenced. The middle clause is likewise untrue: for if he mean, that the Romish Church never punisheth any, who pretend to hold to the Tradition they received, according to the best of their knowledge; how came it to pass that Victor excommunicated all the Asian Churches, for not keeping Easter the same day with the Roman Church; though these Asian Churches pleaded a certain Tradition, not only from their famous Bishops, but from Philip the Deacon, and his Daughters, which were Prophetesses, and from S. John the Apostle and Evangelist? Eus. Hist. Eccl. 5. c. 24. Yea, how came Mr. White to be censured at Rome, who thought he defended the Rule of Tradition? yea, how came Monsieur Arnold to be so troubled by the Jesuits in France, even for the using those words which he received from S. Austin, a famous and approved Father? But if he only mean that the Church of Rome punisheth none, but such as swerve some way from the Traditions she delivers, this, if true in itself, is nothing that can truly be called most material; it being neither pertinent to his charge against Protestants; nor considerable in itself, since it only speaks the Church of Rome commendable, in not punishing those, who believe every thing it says, and practise every thing it commands: and was there ever any Society in the World, that in this thing was not as commendable as the Church of Rome? But when he here tells us, their Church punisheth none but those, who desert the Rule she recommends, surely he much forgot himself §. 5. where speaking of Heretics, he saith that the deserters of the natural way of Tradition, have been but few, and the Descendants of these Revolters followed Tradition: for either he must say, that their Church punisheth no Descendants of Revolters, as he calls them; that is, allows all Heresies in any but the first Authors of them; or else must acknowledge that it punisheth them whom himself accounts (and there, as he thinks, proves that they are) not deserters of Tradition. §. 4. He asks, What can follow hence, but that Subjects, whom common sense cannot but make exceeding sensible of such unreasonable carriage, in persecuting them purely for following God's word, which themselves had taught them, they ought in conscience to follow; should strive to wreak their malice against their Persecutors, and to involve whole Nations in War, and Blood: but he after adds, he intends not a justification of those revolting Sects. But it cannot be that common sense, nor any rational evidence, should teach Subjects under Protestant Princes, that they are persecuted purely for following God's Word; since there is no such thing in truth, they can not otherwise think it is so, but by evident mistakes, or by such deluding persuasions, as this Author would deceive them with. And indeed, such pernicious incentives as these of this Discourser, may possibly if they meet with fiery and malicious spirits, inflame them into a Rebellion, and withal show what Principles may be instilled by pretenders to Tradition. But such is the peaceableness of this Principle of making Scripture our Rule, that if any Christians should live under such a Power, as this Author speaks of, should be a self-condemning tyranny over men's consciences; if in this case Subjects make Scripture their Rule, they must live in patience, meekness, peace, humility and subjection to the Higher Powers: and it must be from pride, wrath, passion, malice, and refusing to be subject, (all which are directly contrary to the Scriptures) that all Rebellion against Government must proceed. Whence amongst the Primitive Christians, where the Laws of their Persecutors commanded them the worship of a Deity, and yet punished them for worshipping the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ his Son, with the holy Spirit, which is the only God, and the Christians knew there was none else: and punished them for not worshipping as Gods, them whom they knew were no gods; yet in this case, the Christian Principles which the Scripture delivers, kept them in all loyal subjection to their Governors. If this Principle of making Scripture every where our Rule, both as to Faith and Life be prevalent, as it will guide us aright into the truth, so it will end all quarrels, silence all animosities and contentions, and would reduce the world to such a perfect state of quiet, peace, friendship and love, as never yet flourished upon the face of the Earth. §. 5. He tells us, The use of this Discourse is, to conclude the deserters of the way of Tradition, to be very few; (to which he hath received our answer, §. 3.) and the Cause laid to preserve Traditionary Christians is far more steady, than that laid to preserve mankind. I have answered his comparison of Tradition and Propagation, §. 1. But if he will be so confident as to tell his Reader, that the way of Tradition, is as surely supported as the Propagation of mankind; I would only advise him to be so ingenuous, as to speak plainly out his meaning; and say, that as in mankind, the causes for keeping entire the nature of man are such, that no company in the World ever pretended themselves to be of the nature of man, who really were not; so the way to preserve Tradition is such, that no Society of men ever did pretend to have received and held this truth, when indeed they had it not: and if he would thus do, he might amuse his Reader, but would never deceive him; having before told him that there have been many Heretics in the World, and that even amongst these, the way of continuing Heresy, is the propagating of it by the way of Tradition. An Answer to his eighth Discourse, showing, that uninterruptedness of Tradition, is not proved à posteriori. §. 1. HE declares, That he will try to conclude the indeficiency of Tradition, from such an effect as can only spring from Traditions indeficiency of its Cause. §. 2. he saith, this seems needless against Protestants, who yield the points of Faith we agree in, to have come down by this way of Tradition. He presseth therefore from Protestants, a candid Answer to these Queries. 1. Was not the Trinity, Incarnation, and all other Points in which we agree, held in all Ages since Christ by God's Church? 2. Whether, seeing those points were held ever of Faith, Fathers did not actually teach Children so, or the former Age the latter? if so, they came down by Tradition. 3. By what virtue did Tradition perform this? and whether the same virtue was not as powerful to bring down other things, had any such been. 4. Is there not a necessary connexion between such a constant cause, and its formal effect? so that if its formal effect be those Points received as delivered ever, the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery. But because he fears, the Protestant will fly off here, he will follow his designed method. Sure he rather supposed the Protestant could easily baffle these fancies, than that he would fly from such shadows. To the 1. Qu. I answer, That if we indeed understand by God's Church, that number of Christians, who have entirely and constantly held all the Principles of Christian Religion, they must needs have held these great truths likewise. But many have pretended to be God's Church, who held them not. Nor hath this belief been always preserved in the Churches who once embraced it: since the Eastern Churches, who before received the true Doctrine of Christ, were drawn aside by the Arian infection, and denied those points: which shows Tradition not certainly enough to preserve these points, in any particular Church. To the 2. Qu. I answer, That in the Church of God which ever held these points, Fathers did teach their Children these Doctrines, yet were they not only nor chief continued by the way of Oral Tradition. For the Primitive Christians made Scripture their Rule, as shall be after showed, from their Writings; and Fathers taught Children chief then, by what they read and received by the writings of the Scriptures. And the Children of these Parents had not only their Parents teaching, but they had also the Scriptures read among them, and perused by them, and by this means in the Primitive times were these Doctrines continued. That the Apostolical Doctrine was continued in the Church, chief from the Scriptures, Irenaeus testifies, even of those Primitive times. Adversus Haeres. lib. 4. c. 63. The Doctrine of the Apostles is the true knowledge, which is come even unto us, being kept without fiction by the most full handling of the Scriptures. That Christians than received their instruction in the Church, chief from Scriptures, he likewise showeth, lib. 5. c. 20. where he exhorts to fly from the Opinion of the Heretics, and fly unto the Church, and be brought up in its bosom, and be nourished by the Lord's Scriptures. For (saith he) the Paradise of the Church is planted in this World: therefore the Spirit of God saith, Ye shall eat food of every tree of the Paradise; that is, eat ye of every Scripture of the Lord. For very many more testimonies, and those very clear, I refer to what shall be purposely discoursed in answer to his consent of Authority. Yea, such was the esteem of the use of Scripture, that in the Primitive times, before their Children were taught matters of human literature, they were instructed in the holy Scriptures. Thus was Origen brought up; Eus. Hist. Eccl. lib. 6. c. 3. and Eusebius Emissenus, according to the common custom of their Country in like manner first learned the Scriptures; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 5. To his 3. Qu. Were it certain that these truths had been preserved by the way of Oral Tradition only, in the true Church of God, (as indeed they have not been) yet this is not by any such virtue in the way of Tradition, as would secure the right delivery of all other things. For this is wholly contingent in respect of Tradition, depending upon this supposal, that in such a Society, it hath always been rightly delivered, and rightly received; which is a contingency; and notwithstanding the virtue of Tradition might have been otherwise, as appeared in the Eastern Churches under Arianism: Yea, the reason why these Doctrines are preserved entire among the Romanists, is probably this, that as they have been and are delivered by them from the Scriptures, they are also delivered in certain forms of words; and in those Creeds which were received from those Ancient Churches and Councils, who were not erroneous, but agreed to the Scripture. Now whereas their Tradition directs to receive what hath been delivered, and the things delivered have been some by Councils truly Catholic, and other things by erroneous Councils; it may well be that Tradition may in some things deliver rightly; and yet either omit the delivery of other things, or deliver them amiss. And if there had been nothing more, to have preserved these Doctrines in the Western Church, but what was in the necessary virtue of Tradition, the Romish Church (not here to mention any thing of Arian Popes) might have lost these points as well as the Eastern long since did, where Tradition lost this virtue of preserving them. Now that it may appear how vainly this Discourser would conclude the certainty of Tradition, from the things propounded in these Queries; I shall mention some parallel Cases, to which the substance of what is here questioned, may be applied. As, 1. Concerning Gentilism. To follow this Author, I would ask, was not the Belief of a God, and what things we agree in, constantly preserved by Tradition among them? now by what virtue did Tradition perform this? may we not by the same virtue of Tradition, receive what they delivered concerning the way of God's Worship? and would not this Tradition as well have continued all other things, if any such had been delivered? Thus it would plead for Gentilism. 2. How would this plead for Judaisme. Did not Tradition amongst them continue till Christ's time, the Doctrine of Circumcision, of the Sabbath, of Sacrifices, and of a Messiah? and must they not needs be in the right, in all other matters of delivery, though they were condemned by Christ and his Apostles. 3. See how these Queries would plead against all possibility of forgetfulness. When I have read a Book over, and am certain I rightly remember some clauses in it, may I thence conclude, that by the same virtue of memory, I remember these, I should have remembered all other clauses, if there had been any? and therefore certainly there was no more in the Book than I can remember. Or if I should conclude, that because I am certain, that I remember some passages which happened when I was a Child; therefore by the same virtue that these things were delivered to my memory, I also remember aright all things then done: who would not see that this is a mere vain piece of Sophistry, since some things may be more fully understood than others, and more heedfully observed, the impression upon many occasions more deeply imprinted, and the remembrance of them more frequently repeated? whence some things may be remembered, and others not; and the same causes may be assigned in matters of Religion. To his 4. Qu. I answer, Things may be received as delivered ever, when yet there was no ever-delivery which I will manifest in answer to the following §. where he would prove the contrary. §. 3. He lays down this effect, The present persuasion of Catholics, that their Faith hath descended from Christ and his Apostles uninterruptedly; which must for its Cause, have Traditions Ever-Indeficiency. §. 4. To prove this, he lays his first Principle, That Age which holds Faith so delivered, cannot change, nor know any change of it; because no man, much less a whole Age, can hold contrary to knowledge, nor here change without knowledge. To this I answer, That supposing the abovementioned persuasion, this may rise from other causes, besides Traditions indeficiency: Yea, this his first Principle to prove the contrary is very weak. For, first, it is very easy to conceive, that mistaken Explications of Points of Faith may be held by a present Generation as having been matters of Faith, ever delivered, and yet may be really different from the things delivered, and so include a change. This is the more apt to take place, if such explicated points seem plausibly declared, and are either abetted by men of great fame, or serve an interest: and this is as possible as it is for men to be deceived in their conceptions about things not in express terms delivered: since it is certain that many points now owned as matters of Faith in the Romish Church, were not expressly and in such terms delivered of old: yea, this Author acknowledgeth as much, p. 206, 207. Many such explicated points have in Councils been declared to be de fide, though not only against the minds of many who before asserted the contrary, but of others who in the said Councils opposed it. Secondly, to deliver a Doctrine as from Christ, where they change or know some change of it, is much more probable in the Roman Church, than in others; if any ignorance possess the Leaders, or any interest and private designs take place upon some few of them. For since the Tradition which particular persons have received, must submit to the determination of a Council●, or else must they be anathematised, how easy is it for some point de fide, to be innovated; if the Bishop of Rome, and some few other men of note and fame, through mistaken zeal, or out of design, should endeavour the having such a Point declared as a matter of Faith, when he can send what Bishops he please, or create new ones, and many others may for want of circumspection, comply in order to peace, as some well disposed Bishops did unadvisedly with some of the Arian devices. And in this case, though there may be some withstanders, yet may they not be numerous, and therefore must sit still being overpowerred, and will think they ought in the end to consent, if they have received this Principle, which many Papists embrace. That the determinations of such a Council, are to determine their private judgements, what is the Doctrine of the Church. §. 5. His second Principle is, No Age could innovate any thing, and deliver that thing as received by constant succession. For the end of delivering it as so received, must be to make the following Generation believe it. Now if a whole Age should conspire to tell such a lie, yet it is impossible it should be believed, since they cannot blot out all Monuments which might undeceive; and therefore the following Generation cannot believe, unless they will believe what they know to be otherwise. This Second Principle is unsound, upon the same grounds with the other. For as hath been now showed, there may happen such an innovation, by the mistake or non-attendance of a considerable number, especially in Councils, who sometimes are too readily guided by some few eminent leading men, who may act either out of mistake, or some of them out of design; and by these men, if in an allowed and confirmed Council, both the present and future Generation must be determined. But what he speaks of a future Generation easily discovering the innovation, makes me think he forgets himself. For how should the following Generation of Catholics consistently with this Authors Principles, discover it? By former Monuments? But he in this Book declares, that they must not give heed to any former private men's Writings, against the delivered Doctrine of the Church publicly attested. And if any public Writing, though it be their own approved Canons, seem contrary; they must find such interpretation as will agree with this declared Doctrine, and stick to it, though it be wrested; so that whatsoever can be showed from History or Ancient Doctors, (as this Author declares in his Corollaries) is to such Papists of no account against present Tradition. See Coroll. 14.16, 17. Yea, if you shall produce a great number of opposers, as may in many cases easily be done, he will hold to the greater number in his present Council. If you produce him a former Council against any now received Doctrine, he must not rationally judge of the Tradition, but from the present Tradition, condemn that, if it cannot be otherwise interpreted, as Heretical. If you produce the Eastern or Grecian, or other Churches, as delivering otherwise; if this cannot by other means be evaded, they must not be acknowledged by Romanists for true Deliverers. But if we can produce an approved General Council; have we not now such sufficient Monuments to discover thereby what was the Doctrine of the Church: such Councils our Discourser calls the greatest Authority in the Catholic Church, p. 129. Yet if the Council was approved, and by the Roman Church acknowledged both for Catholic and General, still they have a device to reject what ever dislikes them in such a Council, by saying, that it is ex parte approbatum, and ex parte reprobatum; or, part of it rejected, and part of it received: by this device they reject part of the Second General Council at Constantinople, and the Twenty eighth Canon of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon, which declares, that their Fathers gave Privileges to the See of old Rome, because that was the Imperial City; and therefore upon the same consideration, they gave the same Privileges to the See of Constantinople. And thus they have rejected others of old; as also part of the Council of Constance, and the Council of Basil more lately, concerning the Authority and Power of the General Councils over the Bishop of Rome. Thus doth Binius and other Papists. So that no way remains for a Papist thus principled, to detect this Innovation where he hath contrary evidence: much less in many cases, where the matter now determined, hath not been so distinctly of old treated of: so that the Roman Church may innovate, and yet expect to be believed that the Doctrine was ever delivered. Provided, they take care not so palpably to contradict their own public and former delivery, in such a way as no possible interpretation can make things consist one with the other. If they do take this care, there is room enough left, for many innovations in Doctrine, in points not clearly enough determined formerly, in the public Monuments of that Church; and in those also by misinterpretations. But though Papists consistently with their Principles, can make no discovery of Innovations, but must either make use of strained interpretations of former Writers, or else must condemn those Writers; yet Protestants can, and do make this discovery. And blessed be God that they of the Romish Church, have not so blotted out the Writings of the Ancient Fathers, (though they have showed some good will thereto) nor have they been able so to correct the Letter of the Scripture, according to their own sense, (as this Author thinks convenient Cor. 29.) but that we are able from them to discover the Error and Apostasy of the present Church of Rome: of which in the close of this Discourse, I will give him one instance. §. 6. From these Principles he concludes, That since nothing new could be owned, as not new in any Generation (by the first), nor a foregoing Age make it received as not new by Posterity by the second; therefore since we hold it descended uninterruptedly, it did descend as such. To this I answer; That if the former Principles had been both true, as neither of them are; yet would not this conclusion have followed from them, because it supposeth besides these Principles, many other things to be true, which are either very improbable or certainly false. First, it supposeth that all points held as matters of Faith, have in all Ages since Christ, been delivered in such terms, as ever delivered-points of Faith, whereby they have been known distinctly from disputable opinions: if this had been so, the many Controversies, whether such and such things were de fide, show the maintainers of them on the one side, not capable of understanding plain words. Secondly, it supposeth that nothing can be received as ever delivered, by a following Generation, which was not delivered as ever received in a former Generation, unless they declare something not to be new, which they know is new. For why may not that which is propounded as a probable opinion in one Generation, be thought to be delivered as a truth in the next Generation, and in some following Generations (who cannot give an Historical account, how far in every Age, every Position was received) it may be owned as a point of Faith; by which means also Constitutions of expediency, may be owned as Doctrines necessary. In which case they now only hold as a matter of Faith, what the former Generation held as a truth, and so they hold no new thing differing in the substance from the former, nor design they any thing new in the Mode of holding it. Thirdly, This supposeth that every Generation from the time of the Apostles, have been of the opinion this Author pretends to, to design to hold all, and nothing but what the immediately foregoing Generation held, which is a point can never be proved. For this would be indeed to assert, that never any persons studied to understand any point more clearly than it was comprised in the words they received from their Fathers; or else that when they had so studied, they never declared their conceptions, or opinions in such points; or if they did declare them, yet no number of men would ever entertain them. And this is as much as to say, that the Church never had any Doctors studied in the points of Faith; or at least, that such studies never were honoured in the Church, and the fruits of them received and applauded by it; which if it would not cast a great indignity upon the Church, yet it is apparently contrary to the truth. Fourthly, It supposeth, but proves not, that all points of Faith have come down by the way of Tradition, and none of them failed of being delivered. For if any one of these be false, as doubtless they are, his demonstration falls with them. But that we may further see the virtue of this demonstration; it may be observed, that he who will suffer-himself to be persuaded by these vain reasonings, may with as much reason be a Jew, or a Pagan, as a Papist. The Jewish Doctrine held forth by their Talmud, as also the former Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees, were believed by that people to be delivered ever from Moses, and Ezra; here is an effect like this, of the Papists persuasion; therefore in no Age could it be changed, but was ever delivered, and therefore true; if the Romish Tradition be upon these grounds sufficiently proved indefectible. Amongst the Gentiles, the Opinions of Jupiter, Juno, Mars, etc. being gods, was believed to have been ever delivered to them from some Divine Revelation of its Original, for else they could never have believed them to have been gods. Now since it is certain the Gentiles received this by Tradition from their Fathers, and the first Generations of mankind after Noah, were undoubtedly instructed in the truth concerning God, of which Noah was a Preacher of long continuance amongst them: since according to this Discourser, no Age could deceive them in delivering what it knew false, or in delivering for certain, what it knew was not certain: Yea, since the Tradition of Gentile Polytheism was more general, than the Popish Tradition; that is, it was received and delivered amongst more Nations, and contradicted by fewer persons, than the Romish Doctrines were, and therefore if Tradition be demonstrated to be indefectible by this Argument for the Papists, it must be also for the Gentiles. Yet this belief amongst the Gentiles of Polytheism, necessarily supposed a failing of Tradition in this great point, that there is one only God, So far is it from proving that their Tradition could not fail. I shall now in the close of this Discourse, as I promised n. 8. give an instance of a Point, in which there is an Innovation in the present Oral and Practical Tradition of the Roman Church, which is, in denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Communicants. The present Tradition and practice of the Church of Rome is, that the Laity and the Clergy, who do not consecrate, do receive only in one species, to wit, that of Bread; and this they declare to be lawful, (and the contrary not to be necessary, or commanded of God) and to be ordered upon just causes, to be a true receiving the Sacrament, and to be the way whereby they may receive whole Christ: and they condemn, yea, and Anathematise any who shall speak the contrary, as may be seen, Concil. Constanc. Sesse 13. and Conc. Trid. Sesse. 5. Now both those Councils do acknowledge, that Christ did institute, and the ancient Church administered, this Sacrament under both kinds; and therefore by their own acknowledgement, they keep not in practice to what was delivered. But the Question is, Whether their present practice and Doctrinal delivery opposeth any former delivery of Doctrine. Now that I may lay a good foundatipn, and such as no Romanist will reject, to know what was once the received and delivered Doctrine in the Church of Rome, I shall apply myself not to any private Father, though approved, which possibly he will except against, as not a sufficient testifier of Tradition: but to such a constitution of the Bishop of Rome, as is still acknowledged, to have been an approved Canon, and therefore the Doctrine of the Roman Church, which is this of Gelasius the First: We have found that some having received only a portion of the holy Body, do abstain from the Cup of the consecrated Blood, who (because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be bound up) must without doubt, either receive the whole Sacrament, or be kept back from the whole; because the division of one and the same Mystery, cannot come without great Sacrilege. This is delivered for an approved Canon by all Papists. Ivo placed it in the beginning of his Decretum. Gratian inserted it, De Consecratione Dist. 2. c. comperimus. It is owned by Bellarmine de Eucharistia, lib. 4. c. 26. by Baronius ad Ann. 496. n. 20. and Binnius in Vit. Gelasii. Nor is it denied by any that I know. And whereas the present Tradition asserts that it is not necessary the Laity and Clergy, not Consecrating, should receive in both kinds; this old Tradition says plainly, that they who receive not both kinds, must receive neither, it being one and the same Mystery or Sacrament. And though there are some Causes now declared just and rational, to order that, the Communion shall be only in one kind, and the Council of Constance (ubi supra) condemn those who call this practice Sacrilegious: yet it is possible the same reasons might move some in Gelasius his time, to receive only in that one kind; but what ever the reason was, he declared it could never be approved, and its Principle was Superstition, and in practice there could never be a division in this one and the same Sacrament, without great Sacrilege. Now though these words are very plain, yet there are two ways the Papists make use of, to pervert the sense of them, which I shall discover to be vain and frivolous answers, and so vindicate this testimony. The first answer is, that this Canon refers to the Priests not the Laity. This is the interpretation in the Rubric of Gratian, and is mentioned as probable by Bellarmine. But, 1. These words of the Canon are generally spoken by Gelasius, so as to include the Laity, and with no colour of reason can they be restrained to the Clergy; and speaking of them whom he would have driven back, or kept back from the Sacraments, and of them who are taught; the ordinary receivers are plainly included, if not chief intended: and finding fault with this, that some abstained, reason will evince that all are faulted who did so abstain. 2. The restraining this to the Clergy, is contrary to the History and general practice of those times: it being certain and confessed, that even in the Western Church, not only till that time, but for some hundreds of years after, this Sacrament was administered to all in both kinds. In this case, to conclude, that when some were found to abstain from one kind, they must be supposed to be of the Clergy, would be a vain surmise. 3. This answer accordeth not with the Doctrine of those ancient times, which owned the Laity, to have the same right, to receive in both kinds with the Clergy. Thus chrysostom, who was owned as Saint and Father at Rome. Hom. 18. in 2. Ep. Corinth. There is, saith he, something wherein there is no difference betwixt the Priests and the People, to wit, as to the receiving the dreadful Mysteries, for we have all alike right to partake of them. Not as it was under the Old Testament, the Priest did eat some things, and the people other things; and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things, of which the Priest did partake. But it is not so now. The same Body is appointed for all, and the same Cup. So far S. chrysostom. 4. Though this interpretation restraining it to the Clergy, contrary to Reason, History, and the Doctrine of that time, should be allowed; yet would not this be enough to reconcile it with the present Tradition, which delivers that the Clergy also, if they do not consecrate, must not receive in both kinds. 5. This first answer is acknowledged frivolous, from some of the grounds , and rejected by many of the more learned Papists: and Baronius, ad annum 496. n. 20. calls it frigidam solutionem, a cold or dull solution; but pretends to give a better, which now follows. The other Answer necessary to be examined is, That this Canon refers to the Manichees; and that it was only their receiving in one kind, which Gelasius condemns as Sacrilege, of whom it is thus written in Leo his fourth Sermon for Lent. When they dare to be present at our Mysteries, to conceal their Infidelity, they so order themselves at the Communion of the Sacraments, that sometimes they receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth, that they may the more safely be concealed; but they altogether decline to drink of the Blood of our Redemption, which we therefore certify your holiness, that this sort of men may be known of us by these tokens; and that when their Sacrilegious dissembling is discovered, they being marked and detected, may be driven by the Priestly Authority, from the Saints society. That to these, the words of Gelasius refer, is the answer of Baronius, ad an. 496. n. 21. Binnius in Vit. Gelasii, and this also is approved by Bellarmine. But 1. If Leo did discern this to be the practice of some Manichees fifty years before Gelasius his time, this is no evidence that they were such of whom Gelasius writes; had he intended the Manichees, there can no reason be imagined, why he as well as Leo, should not mention them; but since he expressed this in a more general way, that some were found, there is no reason to restrain this to the Manichees. 2. That expression that he knew not by what superstition they were bound up, cannot fitly be applied to the Manichees. For it was a matter not unknown, but well known, why the Manichees refused the Cup. Saint Austin about an hundred years before Gelasius, sets down the reason of that, Lib. 16. adversus Faust. c. 3. They refused Wine and other things, (he saith) not out of any strictness to subdue the body, but as being unclean, and called them filth, and the gall of the people of darkness. And lib. 20. c. 13. he saith, the Manichees account it Sacrilege to taste Wine; they own their God in the Grape, but not in the Cup; as if the treading or pressing did offend them. So that it was known why the Manichees refused Wine upon all occasions. Yea, the very word of superstition, suits not the Manichees refusal, who were acted by gross Heresy, and amongst other things, they hereby maintained the distinction of things clean and unclean in their own nature, whereas superstition rather intimates a design of reverence and veneration of the Sacrament, but misplaced and not well guided. 3. Nor can those words, either let them receive the whole Sacrament, or be kept back from the whole, be applicable to the Manichees. For if we consider the nature of Manicheism, how great an Heresy it was, that S. Austin in several places observes, That they denied worship to the God of the Old Testament, they blasphemed the Prophets, they denied Christ to be born of the Virgin, they did worship the Sun, and own him to be God, and many other gross things they held, as the good and evil first Cause, the denial of the Resurrection, and the like: that concerning such Heretics, Gelasius, and the Roman Canons should appoint, that they might be admitted to the partaking of the whole Sacrament, no man who knows the discipline of those times can admit. For no crime was owned greater than Heresy, and that the Heresy of Manicheism, was in the days of Gelasius greatly abhorred by the Christians, may appear, in that after the death of Zeno the Emperor, when Ariadne had declared Anastasius the Successor, Euphemius the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to consent, because he was a Manichee, unless he should first under his hand-writing confirm the Faith of Chalcedon, as is related by Theodorus, Lector. Collect. lib. 2. and not long after he shows how the Christians detested this Manichean Emperor, because an Heretic: which was in the very days of this Gelasius. Further, when it is considered, that this Gelasius the first, Causa. 24. Qu. 1. Acacius non est, declares, that whoever falls into any Heresy once condemned, involves himself in that same condemnation. It is not imaginable, that he would allow the Eucharist to be given to a Manichee, whom he must own as a condemned Heretic. Nor could a Manichee be otherwise owned by Gelasius, when in his time they stood condemned, not only by the Civil Laws of Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius and Honorius, but also by a Roman Council in the days of Pope Leo the Great, in which, as appears from Leo Serm. 5. de Jejuniis decim. mens. they determined that the Christians should wholly expel these accursed and contagious men from their friendship. At which time Leo would not receive them who returned from Manicheism, until they had first condemned the Manichees by open profession in the Church, and by their subscriptions, and at length had time enjoined them for their penance; as is observed by Baronius ad Ann. 444. n. 5. And can it then be imagined, that when Gelasius had found such out, he would give them liberty to be received to the Eucharist forthwith? especially if it be observed, that in another Canon of this same Gelasius, Causa 24. Qu. 2. c. nec quisque, He declares, That they might not partake of the purity of the Lords Table with any Heretic, which Table (saith he) our Ancestors did always abundantly keep severed from all Heretical pollution. Yea, further, can it be thought any way probable, that when Leo in the words, declares the Manichees to be in infidelity, to receive the Body of Christ with their unworthy mouth, and sacrilegiously to dissemble in taking that, and therefore to be rejected as contagious and accursed, from all society of Christians, yet Gelasius should judge these infidels, thus sacrilegiously dissembling and unworthy, yea, accursed, and condemned by former Councils, fit for the highest Communion of Christians, and allow them to receive the holy Eucharist. Strangely wide must they needs be, who would expound Gelasius by those words of Leo. 4. If notwithstanding all this, those persons, of which Gelasius writes, had been Manichees, this would indeed have showed the persons in Gelasius his time, who received only in one kind, to be in many things , more than the Papists at this day; as dissimulation, infidelity, and the like; which were the faults by Leo, charged on the Manichees, but not by Gelasius charged on them he writes of: but still in that fault for which Gelasius condemns them he writes against, the Papists at this day are altogether guilty of it, that is, in dividing the Sacrament, or not receiving both Bread and Wine, which he saith cannot be without great Sacrilege. Nor can any here make a third reply, upon any rational ground, that it than was Sacrilegious to have administered only in one kind, because the known practice and Canons of the Roman Church, required administration in both kinds: But since it hath in after times declared this practice mutable, and ordered the Communion to be given only in one kind, it is not now sacrilegious. For this answer will not agree with the intent of these words, and the Doctrine formerly received in the Roman Church. The reason why Gelasius declared it great sacrilege, to take this Sacrament in one kind alone, is intimated sufficiently in this Canon not to refer to the Church's Constitution, but the Sacraments Institution, in that he calls both species or kinds one and the same Mystery: and says this one and the same Mystery cannot be divided, without grand sacrilege; which is to refer us to the nature of the thing itself, and its Institution, as being not mutable. Yea further, the ancient Tradition of the Roman Church held as a Point of Doctrine, that the Elements in the Eucharist ought to be administered, according to what Christ instituted; that is, the Bread and Wine to be given to the Laity distinctly and separately, because Christ gave them so; then cannot this third Reply reconcile the present Doctrine of the Roman Church, with what was formerly delivered. To show this, I could produce many testimonies; but shall only instance in Julius a Roman Bishop in a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt, recorded also in Gratian de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Cum omne. Where he declares, that he had heard of some, who contrary to the Divine Orders and Apostolical Institutions, consecrated Milk instead of Wine, others who deliver to the people the Eucharist dipped. For it is read in the truth of the Gospel, Jesus took Bread, and the Cup, and having blessed it, gave it to his Disciples. But for that they gave the Eucharist dipped to the people, they have received no testimony produced out of the Gospel, in which he commends to us his body and his blood; for the commendation is rehearsed separately of the Bread, and separately of the Cup. In which words he makes Christ's Institution a Rule, by which he condemns other practices different from it; and from this Institution he requires, that both the Bread and the Cup be separately given; and this even with reference to the Laity, or as he speaks to the people to whom it was delivered: and by this Rule he condemned the giving the Bread dipped in Wine, whereas both should be given asunder: so doth Gelasius by the same, condemn the receiving only in one kind, when it should be received in both. All this considered, the former Tradition of the Roman Church, may from this instance, appear to condemn the late Tradition as sacrilegious; and therefore I may conclude, that the same Tradition hath not been always kept to, as may appear by preserved Monuments, out of which instances may be easily multiplied. An Answer to his ninth Discourse, showing, that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church, hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority. §. 1. But (saith he) some may say all this is nature; if the Objector means, reason wrought upon by Motives laid by God's special goodness to bring man to bliss; I wonder what else is supernaturality. But this point is out of my road otherwise, than to show how Christian Tradition is strengthened above the greatest humane testimony whatever, by those Motives which we rightly call assistances of the Holy Ghost. Not to examine his Notion of supernaturality, and the assistances of the Holy Ghost, because they concern not the Discourse in hand; I shall only tell him what Protestants or any other men, who are true to reason, would say to this Discourse; and that is, that what he hath said hitherto, is of so low natural evidence, and so far from reason, that in this way the Christian can have no more evidence of the truth of Christian Religion, than an Heathen may have of the truth of Paganism: nor is there any such certainty in Tradition, concerning the main Body of Christ's Doctrine, as is comparable to many other matters of humane testimony. §. 2, 3. He observes the Mahometans Tradition, for Mahomet's existence, will convey the truth thereof to the World's end if followed; and Protestants acknowledge, it hath had the force hitherto to be followed; And the Tradition in the Church for the main Body of Christ's Doctrine, far exceeds that of the Turks for Mahomet's existence; because supposing the quality of the testifiers equal, much greater multitudes in divers Countries, were testifiers of Christ's Doctrine, being converted by powerful Miracles, than the few witnesses of Mahomet's existence: it is easier for those few Syrians or Arabians, to conspire to a lie, than for these Christians: nor can Christians be so easily mistaken concerning Christian Doctrine. In answer to this, I in the first place grant, That there is an Historical Traditionary certainty amongst the Turks, concerning the existence of Mahomet; and it is very reasonable, that rather more should be allowed to the Tradition of Christians, than of Mahometans. But that it may truly appear how far Tradition may be relied on, for the conveyance of truth, we must distinctly consider the matters delivered. Of which some things there are, which are not probably capable of mistake, nor liable to be perverted, and to receive a mixture of much falsehood: and have this advantage, that the delivery of them from one to another, doth still continue: and no interest persuades the generality of men to deny, or endeavour the concealing of them. Now all these properties agree to the assertion of Mahomet's existence amongst the Turks, to the delivery of the Being of a God among the Gentiles, to Moses being the great Prophet among the Jews, and to Jesus being the Christ, and I may add S Peter, and S. Paul, etc. being his Apostles among the Christians; thus the fame of a good or true Writer may be continued amongst Historians; and in these things and many other such like; I will grant it is not only possible, but probable that Tradition may convey a certainty. But there are other things liable to mistake, whence in many matters of common fame, sufficiently known to the first Relater, by the misapprehension of them who hear the relation, the ordinary report is ofttimes false; or else, 2. They are subject to be perverted, or are concealed, and not delivered; which hath been the case of many great and famous actions in the world, which are now buried in oblivion, or upon misinformation condemned; but would have been honourably esteemed, if they had been truly known. And here the Tradition of the Turks, concerning the precepts of Mahomet, which were liable to mistake, would probably have been lost, if they had not been preserved in a written Alcoran. And the Traditional evidence of this very Alcoran containing his Doctrine, is much inferior to the Tradition of Christians, for the Scriptures containing the Doctrine of Christ: for even from the beginning of the reception of the Turkish Alcoran, their Tradition hath not procured it so full approbation, but that the Persians who profess themselves Mahometans, deliver another Alcoran, different from that of the Turks; which they declare to contain the true precepts of Mahomet: whereas Primitive Christians have as with one mouth all acknowledged, that the Scriptures of the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, contain the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, written by Divine inspiration. Now to apply all this to the Doctrine of Christ. It is certain, 1. that many things delivered by him, are capable of misunderstanding, and not so easily intelligible as Mahomet's existence is; which is evidenced by the many mistakes in all Ages, and disputes amongst true Catholic Christians as well as Papists, about Doctrines of Religion. 2. The Doctrine of Christ is likewise liable to be perverted; thus as in the time of the Old Testament, the precepts of God were much corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees, who made void the Commandments of God by their Traditions; so under the New Testament, have many Heretics grossly perverted this truth, and many extravagant Opinionists, have strangely blended it with their own misconceptions; whence many errors are gone forth into the world. 3. Nor can it be proved that in the way of Oral Tradition, considered without Scripture, all things delivered by Christ, are continued in the Church: for since in the multitude of Christ's words, not written by the Apostles or Evangelists, the Romish Church cannot say, that her Tradition hath preserved any, how can the certainty of this Tradition be reasonably imagined so great, as to secure a preservation of every Doctrine? Now let us again observe, that all these Considerations have the greater advantage against the certainty of Tradition, by considering with them the many successions of Generations; for matters of Faith if but once a little mistaken in one Generation, since they must with these mistakes be delivered to the next Generation, they may then be more mistaken; and so by degrees very considerable mistakes, and great corruptions may come in in points of Faith: and as to omission of delivery of some truth, if it be continued in several Generations, yet if it be not impossible, that any one Generation as to any truth, should neglect the delivery; it will in so many successions, be very probable that some one hath failed. But in the way of Scripture evidence, the words are the same which were then delivered, and the same words are no more capable of mistakes and corruptions in Doctrine, than they were at the first, nor are they less delivered to us now, than they then were. I may now infer from what is abovesaid, that the belief of Mahomet's existence may be continued by Tradition, and yet it may not preserve the whole Body of Christ's Doctrine. §. 4. He observes, That humane authority or testimony is such, that none are so mad as to doubt them; but he that considers, Joh. 3.16. 1 Cor. 3.9. Mat. 6.26. will be convinced, that the ways of Providence to bring about man's salvation, are so much above all others, that others in comparison, scarce deserve the name of a Providence. We own Christianity much more certain than other Histories and things: but that the preserving its certainty depends much more on Scripture than on Tradition, is evident partly from reason; because in a set form of written words, a change cannot be so easily made without plain discovery, as it may be where there is no such set form of words; and partly from considering matters of fact, whereby it may appear that Heretics and opposers of the truth, have more corrupted and spread corruptions of Christian Doctrine by their false delivery, than ever they could corrupt and spread any corruptions of the Scripture-writing. §. 5, 6. We will touch of the advantages superadded to nature. It is natural for every man to speak truth, unless some design hinder; but true Christian hearts are much more fixed to Veracity. §. 7. Original corruption leads men to violate Veracity, by an undue love of Creatures; but Christianity working an overpowering love of Spiritual good, leaves man's disposition to truth free. §. 8. The hopes and fears of Christianity as much exceed others, as eternity doth a moment, and are so held by all: yet other Motives bring down matters of fact truly; as the Reigns of Kings, Wars, Eclipses, etc. but that Christian Motives are more prevalent than all others, appears by considering the Martyrs and Persecutions. In answer to this, I first observe, that what he hath here laid down as a high security to the Church's Tradition, makes nothing at all so much as seemingly, for the securing all, or any of its members from mistakes, and misapprehensions; nor for the preserving the weak from being deluded by others subtlety. All it seems to plead against, is, intentional deceiving, without which there may be much error. But yet even this design of deceiving, may with many in the Church much prevail, notwithstanding all endeavoured to the contrary by this Discourser. Where Christianity takes full possession in the power of it, it will engage such men to truth, and the love of Heavenly good, and the minding of Spiritual hopes and fears: but how many are there who profess Christianity, who oft speak falsehood, and are tempted to sin by undue love of Creatures, and do not guide their lives, according to the hopes and fears Religion sets before them? Therefore these things cannot assure us of preserving men from perverting truth, or neglect of delivering it, much less from ignorance and mistake. And as in other matters of History, many things are delivered amiss in the common fame, but best in the allowed Records, so it is also in Christianity. §. 9 The Ceremonies or Oaths tendered to Officers in a Commonwealth, to engage them to be true to their Trust, have no proportion with the Sacraments of the Church, applied to Christians, that they may not prevaricate from the Faith of Christ. These are indeed exceeding high obligations which lie upon Christians: But besides that it is no ways credible, that all Christians judged themselves hereby obliged, to deliver in the way of Oral Tradition all matters of Faith, directly as they received them by the same Tradition: I say besides this, its certain it obliges men as much to the purity of the Christian life, as to hold fast the verity of the Christian Doctrine: wherefore when it is certain that with many it doth not work its effect in the former, it may be much feared to want its effect in the latter, especially since there have been many Heretics. §. 10. They who do not to others, what they would have done to themselves, this is because they are swayed by some temporal good; but this cannot be in the Church, supposing sanctity in it, because in virtue and glory, we have not the less, when others have the more, but rather we have the more also: so that here Fathers must do the greatest hurt to their Children, without the least good to themselves, if they should deceive them. But alas! Is this Discourser such a stranger to the world, that when he hath proved, as it is easy to do, that it is highly irrational for any man to choose any sin, he would thence conclude for certain, that there are no such sinners in the world? How evident is it, that there hath been so much want of Sanctity, that many either to please their own fancies, or to promote their own interests, have depraved the true Religion, or corrupted the Christian Doctrine? But in these cases, as in all acts of sin, men do not aim at the evil and hurt that follows, but at the seeming good and delight. §. 11. Christian Doctrine hath the advantage of the greatest universality, wisdom and goodness of the recommenders. §. 12. Nature will teach all a care of their off spring, but Christianity more, and chief in matters of endless misery and happiness. §. 13. Consider credit; he who will lie perniciously and to friends, how ill is this esteemed? Chief if this be against the highest Motives, and with the greatest confidence and Oaths. This is of all other cases most disgraceful, in matters which concern Christ's Doctrine, chief if in a Pastor against his particular Oath, to preach Christ's Doctrine truly. Nor can the world of Forefathers all conspire to this villainy. Yet it is certain, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Christian Doctrine, it may be both mistaken and depraved. Nor doth love of offspring take place actually against all setting examples of sin, nor against ignorance and mistakes; nor in Jews and Heretics, did it take place against corrupting worship. Nor have all men been so tender of their credit. Many Heretics have been self-condemned. There were who said of Christ, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. Simon knew and was Baptised into the Christian Doctrine, and yet thoughts of credit did not keep him from perverting it. Yea, men gain credit at least with a party, by their erring explications, if they be plausible, and take with the multitude; and then alone can they become Traditions. However, some there are who value not esteem either with men or with God, who knowing the judgement of God, that they which do such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but take pleasure in them that do them. And if by such weak considerations as these above mentioned (though the truth of the contrary is generally known in the world) this Author would conclude, that Pastors can never deliver amiss; and therefore whatever any Histories say to the contrary, there never were erroneous Bishops in the Eastern or Western Churches, or any places whatever; I doubt he would be put to wonderful puzzles to reconcile the present Doctrines in all Churches. Yet if Protestants may not as men of reason judge that Pastors have erred, because all Histories and the present differences in Religion manifest it: they will still as Christians believe that S. Peter's Spirit was more infallible than this Discoursers, who hath assured us, 2 Pet. 2.1, 2. That there shall be false Teachers, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, and many shall follow their pernicious ways. §. 14. He concludeth with a flourish, That every virtue and Science, would contribute to Traditions certainty, which would require, he saith, a large Volume to show. But that we may judge what this large Volume would be, he gives us a taste wherein is nothing else but empty and frothy words. Arithmetic lends her numbering and multiplying faculty to scan the vast number of testifiers; Geometry her proportion to show the infinite strength of certainty in Tradition, etc. But if such words as these were considerable, this Discourser may receive a return more truly. Arithmetic cannot number and determine the many possible, and probable ways of erring in Tradition; Geometrical proportions cannot discover how manifold and great defects appear, in the receiving the Body of Christ's Doctrine by Tradition, more than in the acknowledgement of Mahomet's existence; nor how great a proportion of men there are in the Church, who have delivered their own opinions and speculations, to one who only testifieth what he received; Logic will discover the Sophistry in the pretended Arguments for Tradition; Nature will evidence the great possibility of man's mistake or neglect in the way of Tradition; Morality will show the great corruption of man, whereby he is liable every where to err and miscarry; Historical prudence will show the failing of Tradition both in Jews and Gentiles, and many Christian Nations, overspread with known and confessed errors, and will thence conclude, that it is possible for any Nation or particular Church by Oral Tradition, to neglect the faithful preserving truth: Political Principles will evidence according to the practice of all Civil Policies, that writing is a more exact way to convey down Laws and Rules of Order, than Tradition is; Metaphysics with its speculations, will evidence the very notion of Oral Tradition of the whole Body of Christ's Doctrine to this Age, to be an airy vanity; Divinity will discover much of the great wisdom and goodness of God in giving us the Scriptures, rather than in leaving us to the uncertain and dangerous way of Tradition; Controversy will evidence the uncertainty of almost every thing in Faith, if it had no other Basis than mere Oral Tradition, without any written support. So that after all the survey of his several Discourses, where nothing is solidly spoken for Tradition, I may well conclude, that this way of Tradition is defectible. ANSWER TO HIS COROLLARIES. AFter these several Discourses, he deduceth forty one Corollaries built upon them; all which must needs fall with the ruin of their foundation. Yet that they may not pass without due Censure, I shall briefly deduce other opposite Corollaries, and for the most part directly contrary to them, from our Discourse. Corol. 1. They may of right pretend to Faith, who hold not to Tradition, since they have a sufficient Rule of Scripture, and Motives enough to believe (Disc. 2.3, 4.) But they have no sure-footing in the Faith, who depend only on this Oral Tradition; since it is both a fallible and actually a false guide (Disc. 5.6, 8.). Cor. 2. They may pretend to be a Church, and a true Church, who own not Oral Tradition: because they may be a number of Faithful, (Cor. 1.) but whoever followeth any way of such Tradition, cannot manifest themselves to be a Church, unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence, Disc. 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith, and so not be faithful. Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church, who are not followers of Tradition; because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith. Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide, and close with Scripture, are not cut off from the Faith thereby; because they embrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith. Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors, who so renounced Tradition, have the same security, that they may have Faith, by relying on the Scripture as a Rule. Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition, may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition, or deliverers of the Faith: because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records, and so deliver it to others, Disc. 2.— So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament. Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith, in any Church guided by Oral Tradition, may hold the true Christian Faith, because such Churches may err in the Faith, as did the Jewish. But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered. Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition, cannot evidence who are truly faithful, and of the Church; because their Tradition is no sure Rule (Disc. 5.6, 8.) And if any should hold the Faith entire after successions of Tradition, this is by chance, and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition. Cor. 9 The disowners' of Tradition who hold to Scripture, can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful; because they have a sure Rule to try this by, which is the Scripture. Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition, can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith: because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith, and the guilt of such revolters. Disc. 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church, who close with the Scripture, and adhere not to Tradition: because they hold Christ's Doctrine, delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings, whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical, for disowning all others, and accounting itself the Universal Church. Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture: because while Oral Tradition is uncertain, Scripture is preserved certain, by the delivery of Records, which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christ's Doctrine. Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition; viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church, against the present Oral Tradition: because since Tradition is defectible, the Doctrine of the Ancient Church, might both differ from the present Church, and is most like to be in the truth. What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church, and including the living voice of the whole Church essential, concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise; for how can the present Tradition, of which we dispute, be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established? and since it is defectible (Disc. 6.8.) how can it include the voice of that Church? Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils, may rationally be alleged, against present Tradition; for if they be Fathers or Councils, now owned as Catholic by the holder's of Tradition, they will show the inconsistency of Tradition with itself. If they have formerly been owned as Catholic, they will show the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition. Cor. 15. Disowners' of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures, Fathers and Councils: for this is no matter of courtesy, nor any argument only ad hominem, but ad rem, since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records, Disc. 2, 3, 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose; see in the next Discourse, in inquiry into Tertullia's opinion of the Rule of Faith. Cor. 16. The Authority of History, or Testimonial Writing, may be alleged against Tradition: because matters of fact past, and the former state of things, may run contrary to present Tradition: And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings, agreement with other Writers, by the testimony of other faithful Writers, or the present Tradition concerning him; or if in Church-History, by his having been formerly received as a Catholic Writer. Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alleged against Romish Oral Tradition: for though the sure Christian Tradition, be the most firm of any; yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches, Disc. 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture, Disc. 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition, and the different delivery in other Churches, may be as sure as in the Roman, they may be alleged against it. Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition; for since this Tradition is weak and fallible, it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid. Cor. 19 Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty: for since Tradition is defectible, instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not; and may in the allowance of the Author, be delivered by Tradition, and so show its inconsistency. Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness; because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within, but to a Rule without, and rational evidence. Cor. 21. Fanatic Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition, but not by it in a rational way, for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary. Now we can evidence the 〈…〉, and its being contrary to Fanatic 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉. Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition, without questioning the constancy of any species in nature, or of mansnature. Because it is not founded upon man's nature; but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance, mistake, corruption, forgetfulness, speculations and working fancies about notions received. For by any of these, which ordinarily attend man, may Traditions certainty be destroyed. Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational ways of arguing against Oral Tradition: by Scripture, Councils, Fathers, History, Reason, Instances, etc. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition, is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact; but Scripture-Tradition, or other sure Traditional Records, is such a Principle: because Scripture and such Records are certain, Disc. 4. and Tradition is not. Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past; because it is fallible and defectible. Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved, that Church which relies on it, cannot thereby be certain, that it holds Christ's Doctrine, because this Tradition may err in this Doctrine. Cor. 27. Traditions certainty being disproved, general or Provincial Councils, or Societies, cannot be infallible by proceeding upon it; because it may both misled and be mistaken. Cor. 28. The Roman See with its head, cannot be infallible by Traditional certainty; because Tradition is fallible. Nor hath the Church of Rome any particular advantages, to render it hereby more infallible than any other. When he here says, That the joint endeavours, Preaching, Miracles and Martyrdom of the two chief Apostles at Rome, were more vigorous causes to imprint Christ's Doctrine, than were found any where else: He sure forgot Jerusalem, where were the joint endeavours, Preaching and Miracles of Christ Jesus himself, and all his Apostles; the Passion of Jesus, and Martyrdom of other chief Apostles, and Prophets; and yet in that Church, were professed by the Bishops, both Arianism, and Pelagianism; and therefore Rome cannot be proved free from false Doctrine, by such Arguments. Nor will its constant visible profession make more for Romish Oral Tradition, than for Jewish or Gentile Tradition. Cor. 29. If this Tradition were established, and put in practice according to this Discoursers mind; the Romish Church could not be secure, that they have any Copy of Scripture truly significative of Christ's sense. Because if, as this Author here talks, They should correct Scriptures Letter, by the sense of men's hearts, it would be wonderfully depraved, because in this sense Tradition may and doth err. But we know Sixtus and Clemens went not this way in correcting the vulgar Latin; And themselves declare, that ancient Copies and Writings were their Rule for correction. And by these means, Protestants have a Copy preserved significative of Christ's sense, by the several deliveries of Scripture Copies, in several Ages and Churches. Cor. 30. Tradition disproved, Scripture can no ways be infallibly interpreted, by this Oral Tradition, because it is fallible and false: But Protestants in all things necessary can infallibly understand the sense of Scripture, since such things are delivered in clear and plain words. Cor. 31. Tradition being disproved, the Church which relies on it, may receive as held ever, what was not so held ever. Cor. 32. Whence also errors opposing Faith may be received by the followers of Tradition as Faith; because they may err in the Faith. Cor. 33. Notwithstanding Tradition, Erroneous opinions may generally, and with public Authority spread themselves in the Church; because this defectible Tradition may deliver errors, by the viciousness of some, and the liableness to error in others. Cor. 34. By the same reason may errors gain sure footing and abide in the Church, in the way of Tradition; because as many Opinators who deliver their conceptions of truth, may both mistake themselves, and be mistaken by others, for testifiers of the sense of the former Generation; and as many corrupters of truth may be mistaken by others for deliverers of truth, as was the case in the prevalency of the Arian and other spreading Heresies: so may the determination of a confirmed Council, where error hath taken place, give it sure footing among them who stand engaged to own that Council which is the case of Papists. Cor. 35. The ignorance or corruption of the Church-governors' and the better part being overpowered, may hinder many corrupt opinions, from being ever declared against the way of Oral Tradition; and cause many true opinions to be so declared against, that without rejecting the way of such Oral Tradition, they can never be received. Because Tradition when once it errs, can never return without denying itself. Cor. 36. By the same reason, Erroneous Opinions may constantly abide in the Traditionary Church. What he here saith, That following evil practices, will necessarily show them opposite to Faith, is his erroneous opinion; because practices though bad, if grounded on opinions held for truth, are judged lawful by such holder's; nor can they be convinced of such practices being evil, till first they be persuaded that such opinions were evil. Such was the case of the Gentiles gross Idolatry, the Pharisaical breaking Gods Commands, as in Corban, etc. and Papists worshipping Images, and Saints, etc. Cor. 37. Erroneous opinions and practices, may fully prevail in the judgements and practices of the most faithful, who follow the way of Oral Tradition. Because since their Rule may fail them, they may do their best to follow this, and yet may their judgements and practices both miscarry. Cor. 38. Erroneous opinions may be charged upon that Church, which follows Oral Tradition, because they may follow from that Churches Rule necessarily; since Tradition is a false guide; and they may be generally owned by that Church, in its public profession, and the determination of its Councils. Cor. 39 Therefore it is no weakness to object against such a Church, such opinions and practices. Cor. 40. Oral Tradition can be no first principle in Controversial Divinity: for since it could be no otherwise a principle, than by declaring what God said, and it may err and fail in that; it is therefore no principle in Divinity. Cor. 41. If as this Author here reasonably concludeth, Christ's promise to his Church, can bear no part in the Rule of Faith; nor be any first Principle to manifest the certainty of the Church's Tradition; then have great and many followers of the Romish Tradition, hitherto erred, in that this promise hath been held and delivered by them for such a Principle. An Inquiry after, and Examination of, the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse. AT last this Discourser proceeds to Authorities and testimonies, both of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers; which is an inquiry of very great use in this matter. For since Protestants own Scripture as an unerrable guide, if it pronounce Tradition to be the Rule of Faith, then will we acknowledge it to be such: and its reasonable to expect from Papists who own the Scripture to contain Divine truth, and with the Council of Trent own no Tradition with greater reverence, than the Scriptures, that if Scriptures declare themselves to be the Rule of Faith, than this may be generally received. Concerning Councils and Fathers, if these could be generally produced from the Apostles times, Protestants will grant, That what is so declared to be the Rule of Faith, is certainly such. But if only some Councils and Fathers, in some after Ages be produced, if such plead for Tradition, Protestants own it not a demonstration; because they know they might be in some error. Yet concerning the known Councils and Fathers of the Ancient Church, we are so confident, that they were not mistaken concerning the Rule of Faith, that we will acknowledge that to be the true Rule of Faith, which was by them declared to be such. But if generally the Doctrine of the Ancients be on our side, then Oral Tradition will further evidently appear to be no Rule of Faith; yea, not only to be fallible, but false and self-inconsistent, if that which is now delivered concerning it, be contradicted by the consent of the Ancient Church. SECT. I. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures. HE first goeth about to prove by Scripture, That the Rule of Faith, is self-evident, from Isai. 35.8. This shall be to you a direct way, so that fools cannot err in it. Which words as cited by this Author, show only the knowledge of God under the Gospel, to be so clear and evident, that they who will seek after him and live to him, though of low capacities, may understand so much as is requisite for their right walking; which Protestants assert also, and own this evidence to be in Scripture. But that Tradition may be proved this Rule of Faith by Scripture, he allegeth Isai. 59.21. This is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, my Spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy seed, and from the mouth of thy seeds seed, from henceforth for ever. But, 1. to have God's Word and Spirit in their mouth, proves their delivery not a Rule of Faith, or unerring: then must the speeches of every private Christian who shall be saved, be a Rule of Faith; because the Scriptures assure us, That every one who shall be saved, hath both the Spirit of Christ and his word in their mouth, see Rom. 8.9. Rom. 10.9, 10. Mat. 10.32. 2. Though all who are born of God shall have his word in their mouth, this will not secure us, that what is by any Society of men declared as truth upon Tradition, is God's Word; no more than what the Psalmist says, Psal. 37.30. The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgement] would assure, that the Doctrines owned by the way of Tradition among the Jews, were always the true Doctrines: since it might well be, that those Jews were not such righteous men, as it may also be that the generality of some visible Church are not God's seed. 3. God's Word may be in the mouth, where the holy Scriptures are the Rule. We read, Josh. 1.8. This Book of the Law shall not departed out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night. Where it is evident, that when Joshua was to keep the Law in his mouth, he had the Book of the Law for his Rule, and had his acquaintance with the Law by meditating in it. God saith Mal. 2.6. (concerning Levi) The Law of truth was in his mouth, and Vers. 7. they shall seek the Law at his mouth; and when they did thus in Ezra's time, he read the Law out of the Book of Moses, and that Book did Hilkiah send to Josiah. While S. Paul professed his Faith with his mouth, he declared, that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets When we read Deut. 31.21, 22. This Song shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their Seed, vers. 22. Moses therefore wrote this Song the same day, and taught it the Children of Israel. Is it not evident, that it was from the writing of Moses, that this Song was in their mouth? and that writing by which they were taught, surely was their Rule to know this Song by. Next to this he urgeth as pithy and home, but not to his purpose, Jer. 31.33. I will give my Law in their bowels, and in their hearts will I write it; and notes, that S. Paul contradistinguisheth the Law of Grace, from Moses 's Law, in that the latter was written in Tables of Stone, and the former in fleshly tables of men's hearts. But, 1. What proof is here of Tradition being the Rule of Faith? Had the Scripture said that under the Gospel, Christians should receive the Law of God no otherwise, than from one another's hearts, it might have seemed to serve his purpose. S. Austin de Spiritu & litera, c. 21. having mentioned the place forecited of Jeremy, and that of S. Paul to which this Discourser refers, inquires what are the Laws of God written by God himself in their hearts, but the very presence of the holy Spirit, who is the finger of God, by whom being present, Charity which is the fullness of the Law, and the end of the Commandment is poured forth in our hearts? Now if God causeth his commands to be inwardly embraced by a Spirit of love and piety, this is far from conveying to them a Spirit of infallibility. 2. Nor doth S. Paul contradistinguish the Law of Moses, and the Gospel in those words, but he contradistinguisheth the way of God's inward writing in the heart, from the way of his outward writing in those tables. For even the Law of Moses was also written in the hearts of them who feared God, as the Laws of Christ were more eminently in the hearts of Christians. Hence such expressions as these, Psal. 119.11. Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psal. 37.31. The Law of his God is in his heart, none of his steps shall slide. Yea, Moses tells the Jews, Deut. 30.11. This Commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far of, v. 14. but the word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayst do it. Yet though God's Law before the coming of Christ was in the hearts of his people, yet was the Book of the Law then their Rule, as now is the Old and New Testament. 3. If that place of S. Paul be considered, 2 Cor. 3.3. it will evidence that what the Holy Ghost going along with his Ministry, had written in the fleshly tables of their hearts, was enough to commend his Apostleship, which is the scope and design of that place; but it no ways signifies that these Corinthians even at this time, were not capable of erring in any Doctrine of the Faith, for he declares to them in this same Epistle, chap. 11.3. that he fears lest as Satan beguiled Eve, so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4. And if we could have been assured (as we cannot) that the delivery of truth in the Church of Corinth, was a Rule of Faith, this would plead much for the Tradition of the Greek Church, rather than of the Roman, which agreeth not with it, and so would destroy Romish Tradition. But as this Discoursers citations of Scripture Authority are very impertinent, I shall in brief observe, whether the Scripture do not evidently declare itself to be the Rule of Faith. To the which purpose, besides many other places, observed in the foregoing part of this answer, let these be considered, S. Luke 1.4, 5. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mayst know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Now that is a Rule of Faith, which is the best way to ascertain us of Faith; and from these words it is evident, that even in the times of the Apostles and Evangelists, the common delivery by word of mouth, which Theophilus had heard of, concerning matter of Christian Religion, was not so certain as the Evangelical writing; and therefore this Gospel was written, that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things. S. John would not have written his Gospel to this end, that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, Joh. 20.31. if he did not think this writing should direct and rule our Faith. S. Paul would not have told his Philippians, Phil. 3.1. To write the same things for you is safe, unless notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth, they stood in need of this advantage of the Apostles writing for their safety and establishment; nor yet would this be safe for them, unless this writing was sufficient to effect this establishment, which could not be, unless it was a Rule of Faith. Yea that the writing of Scripture was the way, by which the spirit of God intended to preserve the Doctrine of Faith in after times, when the Apostles were deceased, S. Peter declares, 2 Pet. 1.12. I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though you know them, v. 15. I will endeavour that you may be able after my decease, to have these things always in remembrance. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle useth, signifies to make a short comprisal of things, for the help of memory. Now if this was the design of S. Peter's Epistle, it will necessarily follow, that the preserving Christian Doctrine in memory, is best secured by the Written Word of God, otherwise possibly they could not have been able to have these things in remembrance. And lest, if this Apostle had said no more of this subject, any might have objected, that he endeavoured they might be able to have these things in remembrance by Tradition, he himself directly shows, that this is the advantage of his writing, and the end of both his Epistles, 2 Pet. 3.1. This second Epistle, beloved, I writ unto you, in both which, I stir up your pure minds, by way of remembrance. So that notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth, he thought writing necessary to keep these things in their remembrance. And Jesus himself said to the Jews, If you believe not Moses writings, how shall you believe my words? John 5.47. SECT. II. What the Synod of Lateran, owned for the Rule of Faith. NExt his search after Scriptures, this Author pretends to give the Judgement of some few Councils, which he asserts to own Oral Tradition for the Rule of their Faith. I might here mind him, that others of his Church have delivered, that Councils owned Scripture as their Rule. Nicol. de Cusa, a Cardinal of the Roman Church, lib. 2. the Concordant. Cath c. 6. says, That the manner of the General Councils, was to have the holy Gospels placed in the middle, where they were assembled. And a little after he adds, Matters of Faith were first treated of.— The Synod decreed according to the testimonies of the Scriptures. But to examine his Testimonies. The first is from the Synod of Lateran, which was no ancient Synod, being above six hundred and forty years after Christ. They say, We all confirm unanimously and consonantly (consonanter not consequently) with one heart and mouth, the Tenets and Say of the holy Fathers, adding nothing to those things which were delivered by them; and we believe so as the Fathers have believed, we preach so as they have taught. These words are delivered indeed by that Synod, but if that Synod be enquired into, this will make little for Oral Tradition. This Synod of Lateran was held under Pope Martin, against the Monothelites; in which were read the Testimonies of several Fathers, S. Ambrose, Austin, Basil, Cyrill, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Justine, Athanasius, Hilary, Nyssen, Nazianzen, Leo and others, with reference to whose words, the Synod added, We all confirm, etc. Where it is observable, they proceeded upon the written Testimonies read out of the Fathers, to determine what was the Doctrine of the Fathers; and this is no way of Oral Tradition, nor any thing rejected, but highly approved by Protestants. Yea, here the Bishop of Rome and his Roman Council, own that as Catholic Doctrine, which was delivered in the Writings of the Fathers, and eminent Writers in other Churches, which is not this Discoursers way. And it is further observable, that these say of the Fathers no way appear to be the Rule of their Faith, but are owned by them as Truths, unto which they all agree: whence these words Dogmata patrum omnes firmamus, we all confirm their Doctrines, cannot signify, that they make these their Rule; but that they consent with them in the things alleged, and confirm their saying to be truth. And this Protestants will do, as well as the Synod of Lateran. But that we may inquire what appears to have been the Rule of this Synod, it is observable, that none of the Father's Testimonies here cited against the Monothelites, who denied two wills in Christ, refer to any Oral Tradition, but very many to several grounds of Scripture. For instance, Leo Bishop of Rome is by Pope Martin produced in the opening that Synod, that Christ said, According to the form of God, I and my Father are one; but according to the form of a servant, I came not to do my own will, but his who sent me; where he plainly manifests two wills. Again, from Leo, He who was incarnate for us by his uncreated will, and operation of his Divinity, of his will wrought Miracles, whence he testifies, saying, As the Father raiseth the dead, and quickens them, so the Son quickeneth whom he will: by his created will and operation, he who is God above nature, as man, willingly underwent hunger, thirst, reproach, sorrow and fear, and this again the Evangelist testifies, saying, he went into an house, and would have none know, but could not lie hid: and again, They went through Galilee, and he would not that any should know; And again, he would go into Galilee; also they gave him Wine mingled with Gall, and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink So S. Austin, Ambrose, Cyril, etc. in their testimonies read in this Council, to prove the humane will of Christ, urge farther, If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt: My soul is sorrowful to death: Now is my soul troubled. And Deus-dedit Bishop of Sardinia, declared in this Council, that the testimony of cyril of urging those Texts, was for the perfect refuting those Heretics. S. Austin is likewise produced thus glozing concerning Christ's Humane Nature, If we say he was not sorry, when the Gospel saith, My soul is exceeding sorrowful; if we say he did not eat, when the Gospel saith he did eat; the worm of rottenness creepeth in, and there will be nothing left sound, than his body was not real, nor his flesh real; but what ever was written of him, brethren, is accomplished, and is true: So far S. Austin there cited and approved. So that we see they grounded all along upon the Scriptures, and the necessary consequence of his having two wills, from his having two Natures. And when in this Council was read the Type of Paul Bishop of Constantinople, wherein he prohibited all disputes, about Christ's having or not having two wills, the Council liked his intention to have all contention cease; but declared their dislike of his dealing alike with the truth and the error; yet they determined, that if he could have, and had showed by the approbation of Scripture, that both were equally subject to reproof or praise, his Type had been well. All this considered, there is no more in the words cited by this Discourser, to prove they made Oral Tradition their Rule, than when the Church of England declares her consent with any Confessions of others, or any Doctrines of the Fathers, and shall say, We agree to all there spoken; it could be thence concluded, that the Church of England hath Oral Tradition for her Rule of Faith. SECT. III. Of the Council of Sardica, and what it owned as the Rule of Faith. NExt he produceth the Council of Sardica, which is the only Council by him produced, within the first six hundred years after Christ. Out of the Synodical Epistle of that Council, sent to all Bishops, he citeth these words, We have received this Doctrine, we have been taught so, we hold this Catholic Tradition, Faith and Confession. Let us consider the place cited more largely. This Council declared, that the Heretics contended, that there were different and separate Hypostases (by which word that Council tells us, those Heretics meant Substances) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But we have received and been taught this, and have this Catholic Tradition, Faith and Confession, that there is one Hypostasis or Substance of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But 1. How did these Fathers receive this? They presently add, That the Father cannot be named or be without the Son, is the testimony of the Son himself, saying, I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and again, I and my Father are one. 2. This Council of Sardica was held not long after the first Council of Nice, and received this faith from it; and in this Council of Sardica, the Catholic Bishops did establish the determination of faith, in the Council of Nice, Socr. lib. 2. c. 20. And after the end of this Council, Hosius and Protogenes, the leading men in the Council, wrote to Julius' Bishop of Rome, testifying, that all things in the Council of Nice, were to be accounted ratified by them, which they explained as they saw need. Sozom. 3.11. Wherefore that which was the Rule of Faith, in that first and famous Council of Nice, is likewise owned to be the sufficient Rule by the Council of Sardica, especially if this was any way declared by that Nicene Council: in the same manner, as if now any English Convocation, should by public writing declare their establishing and receiving the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles, it must needs be concluded, that they own that to be the Rule of Faith, which is there declared to be such. Concerning the first Council of Nice, I shall discourse after enquiry into the second Nicene Council, which he next applies himself to in his Discourse. SECT. iv What was owned as the Rule of Faith, by the second Council of Nice. THe last Council he produceth, is the second Council of Nice; whose Authority if it was indeed on his side, yet would it no way tend to determine this Controversy; and he cannot but know, that Protestants have no great esteem for that Council, having these several things rationally to object against it. 1. That it was a Council above eight hundred years after Christ, not only celebrated in that time, when the purity of Primitive Doctrine was much declined; but even the matters therein declared concerning the worship of Images, were innovations, and not agreeable to the more ancient Church. 2. That this Council cannot in reason be pretended, to declare the general Tradition of the Church Catholic; when it is certain, that immediately before it, a Council of 330 Bishops at Constantinople, defined the contrary; and the like was presently after it done by a Germane Council. 3. They delivered that as the sense of the Church Catholic, which was not such, nor will the present Roman Church acknowledge it to be such, in Act 5. of that Council, when the Book of John of Thessalonica was read, wherein it was asserted, That the sense of the Catholic Church was, that Angels and Souls of men, were not wholly incorporeal, but had Bodies, and therefore were imitabiles picturâ, as Binius hath it, representable by Pictures; Tharasius and the Synod approved of it. Yet here Carranza in his Collection of the Councils, adds a Note, that this is not yet determined by the Church; and observes, that many of the Fathers asserted the Angels to be wholly incorporeal, whom the first Synod of Lateran seems to follow. Pamelius puts it among the Paradoxes of Tertullian, (Parad. 7.) which S. Austin condemned, to assert the Souls of men to have any effigies and colour: and both Pamelius upon Tertul. and Baron. ad an. 173. n. 31. derive the original of this Opinion from the Montanists. 4. It is evidenceable by many instances, that they satisfied themselves with very weak proof, both from Scriptures, and from the Fathers, as hath been by several Protestant Writers showed. Yet as bad as this Council was, which was bad enough; I assert, That it was not of this Discoursers judgement, that Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith. In order to the evidencing of which, I shall first examine his citations. His first citation is out of Act. 2. We imbued with the precepts of the Fathers, have so confessed, and do confess. Which words I suppose he took out of Carranza, where they are curtly delivered: for sure had he read them, as they are at large in the Council, he would never have been so mistaken, as to have applied them to Oral Tradition. The words more at large, are thus spoken by Tharasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and approved by the Synod. Adrian Primate of old Rome, seems to me to have written clearly and truly, both to our Emperors, and to us, and hath declared the ancient Tradition of the Church to be right. Wherefore we also searching by the Scriptures, by enquiring, arguing, and demonstrating, and also being imbued with the precepts of the Fathers, have so confessed, and do confess, and will confess, and do confirm the force of the Letters read. So that whatever is here spoken concerning a Rule of Faith, must be this; that that which upon inquiry may be made appear by Arguments and Demonstrations, to be the Doctrine of the Scripture, and accords with the ancient Fathers, is delivered to us by the Rule of Faith. And is this the Doctrine delivered by this Discourser, or by Protestants? Yet further, these words of Tharasius, confirming the Letters of Adrian then read; we may observe how those Letters also as they were recorded by that Council, agree with the Protestant Doctrine. Now Adrian in that Epistle to Constantine, and Irene, which Tharasius refers to, exhorts them to acquiesce in the Tradition of the Orthodox Faith, in the Church of Blessed Peter and Paul, the chief of the Apostles, and to embrace it, as it hath been done by other Emperors, honouring their Vicar with all their heart. For, these chief of the Apostles, who did begin the Catholic Orthodox Faith, did command their Faith to be preserved by writing, as by Laws enacted, even to all them who should succeed them in their Seats, and so (saith he) our Church doth keep it. Yea, as to the Question in hand then about Images, Adrian there urgeth Arguments from Scripture, with such expressions as this, As the holy Scripture hath it, so let us have it: and after his arguments from Scripture adds, wherefore it is not to be doubted; and then endeavours to show the consent of Fathers. Whence it is evident, Adrian urged the Emperors to close with the delivery of the Church of Rome, because then that Church did keep to the written Laws of the Apostles, and by this means preserved their Faith: and Scripture he follows, to put things out of doubt; this was then, as appears, the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and if that be it which will please this Discourser, let him take it, and follow it. In Act. 3. of this Council, this Discourser citys these words, We receive and venerate the Apostolical Traditions of the Church. But is this enough for this Author's purpose? 1. Is every thing that is received and venerated, made a Rule of Faith? 2. Must these Apostolical Traditions needs be Oral Tradition? Or did the Apostles deliver nothing in Writing? These words are in an Epistle of Theodore of Jerusalem, to that Council, which was by it approved: but in that Epistle, as throughout this Council they pretended to the Scriptures and Doctrine of the Fathers, cited from their Writings, to ascertain them of the Doctrine of the Apostles, as to the then disputed point concerning Images. Yea, that we may know what in that Epistle was meant by Apostolical Tradition, it is more plain in the end of that Epistle in these words; Whereas therefore it is sufficiently plain, that the Scripture receiveth them, wherefore it is lawful. Whence, though this Council was erroneous in the decision of the Controversy then in the World, for aught hath been yet produced, it doth not appear to have been in the same error with this Discourser, concerning the Rule of Faith. His next testimony from this Council is, Act. 7. where the Council have these words; We walking in the King's Highway, and insisting upon the Doctrine of our holy and Divine Fathers, and observing the Tradition of the Catholic Church, in which the holy Spirit dwells, do define. But what if the Doctrine of the Fathers, and Tradition of the Church meant by them, was not Oral, but written? As for the Father's testimonies its plain, they were not received by Oral Tradition, but were such as were found in their Writings, and were thence cited both in the Letter of Adrian in the second action of that Council, and in the testimonies produced, Act. 4. As for Tradition it is observable, that in the definition of this Council, in which are the forecited words, they declare, that they receive the Church's Traditions, whether in Custom or in Writing; but then they declare things so received by them to agree to the Gospel; and all such customs of the Church if truly such, will Protestants as hearty receive as this Council. These things they might observe, though they did not make them a Rule of Faith. And that the Tradition they relied on as the ground of their Faith, was chief the holy Scriptures, may appear probably, because in the beginning of the fourth Action, where they produce the grounds of their Tradition, they first urge several Scriptures, Exod. 25. Numb. 7. Ezek. 41. Heb. 9 and others; and after them the Father's Writings: but it appears more certainly in the seventh Action, where is their Synodical Epistle to Constantine, and Irene, in which they urge many Scriptures, to prove the truth of what this Council defined, and then say, These (to wit Scriptures) being so confessedly, and without all doubt, we believe, these things to be acceptable and pleasing to God. Whence it appears, that the Rule by which they did without all doubting believe, was the holy Scriptures; and what else is a Rule of Faith? So that they principally relied on the Scriptures, and in consent with them, on the written Doctrine of the ancient Fathers, and the customs of the Catholic Church. And this is that Protestants will not disclaim, but allow as a Rule, though they will keep better to it, than this seventh General Council (as it is called) did. Lastly, From the first Action of this Council, he citys these words, which were spoken by Basilius of Ancyra, as part of a recantation of his former opinions, and seem to be allowed by that Council: They who contemn the Writings of the holy Fathers, and the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and bring for their excuse, and inculcate the words of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus; saying, unless we were sufficiently instructed out of the Old and New Testament, we would follow the Doctrines of the Fathers, and of the six holy Synods, and the Traditions of the Catholic Church, let him be accursed. And so will Protestants say, They who contemn the preaching of the holy Fathers, and the Tradition of the Catholic Church against Arius, and those other Heretics, (which preaching and Tradition did declare itself grounded, and was truly grounded upon Scripture; embracing and venting the words of these Heretics, which we know were against Scripture, though these persons pretend Scripture to be on their side, which we know is not;) let him be accursed. Nor from these words will it follow, as he would have it, that it was ever the pretence of most execrable Heretics, to decline Tradition, and pretend sufficient light from Scripture; the contrary to this, hath been by me showed, and will be further manifested. These words do not speak it the constant practice of Heretics to pretend to Scripture; but only speak of some certain Heretics, whose time is defined to be betwixt the sixth and seventh General Councils: for if they had not lived after the sixth Council, they could not have declared, why they did not follow the six General Councils; and if they had not lived before the seventh General Council, their words could not have been there produced. But such words as these of those Heretics, which decline the true Tradition of the Church founded in Scripture, and satisfy themselves with empty pretences of Scripture, Protestants will condemn. Yet lest the gloss upon these words should not seem a sufficient answer; without further proof of what is there intimated, I shall undertake to evidence, that the Doctrine of the Fathers, and Tradition of the ancient Church against those Heretics, was such as was grounded upon Scripture, as their Rule of Faith; and that those Heretics assertions were therefore rejected, because they were contrary to these Scriptures: Which I shall do in examining what were the grounds of Faith, upon which the Catholic Fathers proceeded, at the time of the four first General Councils; in which were these Heretics condemned, as also Macedonius in the second Council. SECT. V What were the grounds of the Catholic Faith asserted against Arianism, in and at the time of the first Nicene Council? ARius being a Presbyter of Alexandria, was for his Heretical Doctrine denying the eternal Godhead of the Son, opposed and rejected by Alexander, Bishop of that place, and deposed from his Office by an Alexandrian Council, Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 6. upon which Alexander writes an Epistle to all his fellow Ministers, wherein as he lays down many Scriptures, which he declares to be full against the assertion of Arius; so he there declares, that the Arians when they had once determined to fight against Christ, would not hear the words of our Lord. And he there likewise shows, that whereas he had oftentimes overthrown them in unfolding the Divine Scriptures, they as Chamaelions' changed themselves. The same Alexander of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople, declares, that the Arians assertion did tend to destroy the holy Scriptures, and that in the Scriptures they pretended to urge, they did offer violence to the holy Scriptures. He likewise there urgeth the Scriptures against them, with such expressions as these, John is sufficient to instruct, Paul doth declare manifestly. But to leave this particular Bishop, and come to the General Council. When this famous Council of Nice was gathered together, Constantine tells them, Theodor. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 7. that they had the Doctrine of the holy Spirit in writing: for (saith he) the Evangelical and Apostolical Books, and the Oracles of the ancient Prophets, do evidently instruct us, what we ought to think of Divine things; wherefore rejecting all contentious strife, let us receive a solution of such things as are questioned, from the Divinely inspired speeches. As this Council of Nice was put forth by Pisanus, out of the Vatican Exemplar, it is observable, that they oft urge the same Scriptures which Alexander did urge against Arius: and in the third Book of that Council, The Bishops said by Eusebius, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. That [was] rejects [was not] and [God] takes away [that he was not God]: believe the things that are written, neither think nor inquire after things that are not written. So that Council. After the decision of this Council, Socr. lib. 1. c. 5. shows, that Eusebius writing of the Nicene Confession, says, The form of Execration which is set after the Creed, we thought fit to be received, because it prohibits the using of words not written, from whence almost all the confusion and disorder of the Churches do arise. Wherefore when no Scripture of Divine inspiration, useth these words [concerning the Son] that he was of things that were not, and that it was once when he was not, it is no way fit to speak or teach such things. That this Council made Scripture their Rule of decision, will yet further appear from the words of Constantine, in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, recorded, Socr. lib. 1. c. 6. where he declared, That the Council had diligently examined all things; and writing of the Arians, he adds, some blasphemed, speaking and professing to believe things contrary to the Divinely inspired Scriptures and the Faith. And Athanasius ad Epictetum speaks, how powerful the Faith of Nice might be expected to be against Heresies, which was professed according to the holy Scriptures. I shall hereafter observe somewhat more out of Athanasius, which will further declare, that at the time of this Nicene Council (of which he was a Member) Scripture was the Rule made use of against the Arians. SECT. VI What was received as the Rule of Faith, at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople? THis Council not being called against Arius, Nestorius, Dioscorus, or Eutyches, which are mentioned by this Discourser; but against Macedonius, who denied the Divinity of the holy Spirit, and other Heretics; I shall but briefly observe, That Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. declares, the design of that Council to be to make manifest by Scripture-testimonies what they conceived about the Holy Ghost, against them who adventured to reject his Lordship. And if the testimony of Evagrius being a private Historian, be not sufficient, this very same thing was before him attested and declared, concerning this second General Council, in the definition of the General Council of Chalcedon, Act. 5. And in the seventh Canon of this second Council, where they declare how they will receive those that return from Heresy, amongst other things concerning some of them are those words: We receive them as Greeks, and the first day we make them Christians, and the second Catechumen,— and so we Catechise them, and make them continue a long time in the Church, and hear the holy Scriptures, and then we Baptise them. Doth it not hence appear, that this Council owned the Scriptures as the way to the true Faith, and establishment in it, in that they would not receive Heretics until they had been long hearers of it? But I will not here neglect to mention, that at the time of this Council, Pope Damasus gathers a Council at Rome, hearing of that at Constantinople, where they declare, That after all the Prophetical, Apostolical and Evangelical Scriptures, by which the Catholic Church by the grace of God is founded; the Church of Rome is by some Synodical Decrees, above other Churches; And Christ himself said, Thou art Peter. Is not this testimony to be seen in their own Collectors of the Councils, plain enough to show what was in those days owned by the Church of Rome, as the main ground and foundation of Faith? SECT. VII. What was owned as the Rule of Faith, at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus? THis Council was gathered against Nestorius, when Celestine was Bishop of Rome, whose place was here supplied by Cyril of Alexandria. That the Nestorians than did not pretend to Scripture for their Rule, is probable in that Socr. lib. 7. c. 32. relates that they endeavoured to falsify the Copies of the Scriptures; as likewise in that an Epistle of the Nestorians to the people of Constantinople, gins thus: The Law is not delivered in writing, but is placed in the minds of the Pastors; which Epistle is extant in the Acts of the Ephesine Council, Tom. 3. c. 7. And in the Epistle of Cyril to Comanus, and Pontamion, Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. c. 18. Cyril relates, that when the Metropolitans and Bishops had disputed with Nestorius, and had clearly showed out of the Divine Scripture, that he was God, whom the Virgin bore according to the flesh, and therefore evidently concluded him to err: he was full of anger, and exclaimed in his manner wretchedly against the truth. So that it seems the Metropolitans and Bishops, who opposed Nestorius, made Scripture their Rule, as the Protestants do; but the Nestorians than were not for these written words as their Rule, but for what is written in men's hearts, in which the Nestorian assertion may claim some kindred with our Discourser. To observe further what Rule of Faith was made use of against Nestorius, we may understand it from the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, who as he was the chief opposer of Nestorius; so was he highly approved of by this Council of Ephesus, for his appearing against Nestorius, and also by Celestine Bishop of Rome, as appears in his Letters directed to him, Tom. 1. Conc. Eph. c. 16. Cyril concerning the right Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Empresses, Eudocia and Pulcheria, shows, that his Book may be of use to reduce some from error, and by various Arguments, and demonstrations of the Divine Scriptures, to strengthen them in the Faith, who are nourished in the Doctrine of truth: & in that whole Book propounds Doctrines from the several Books of the New Testament, against the Doctrine of Nestorius. And I suppose it will be granted, that that which in such a case of Heresy arising, would establish in the Faith, and reduce to the Faith, must be established upon, and have evidence from the Rule of Faith. In another Treatise of his to the same Empresses, of the same subject, he tells them, The Scriptures are the Fountains which God spoke of by his Prophet Isaiah, saying, Draw the waters out of the wells of salvation. Wholesome Fountains we call the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists: and a little after, The speeches of the Holy Fathers, and their Sanctions wisely stir us up, that we should observe diligently what is most agreeing to the holy Scriptures, and should with a quick sense contemplate the truth, hidden in the Divine letters. The same Cyril in an Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople, declared his expectation, that Nestorius would have returned from his perverse opinions, and would with reverence embrace the Faith delivered by the holy Apostles, and Evangelical Writers, as also by the whole holy Scripture, and sealed, that it might receive no damage by the voices and oracles of the holy Prophets. Is not this to make Scripture a Rule of Faith. I might add much more from Cyril; and what shall be spoken concerning Celestine, who wrote to the Ephesine Council, and approved it, will further show the Rule of Faith, at that time owned by the Roman Church. Therefore I shall here only subjoin one testimony of the whole Council of Ephesus, in their Epistle to Celestine Bishop of Rome, Tom. 4. Conc. Eph. c. 17. wherein they related, That the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius had been read in the Council, which the holy Synod did approve by its judgement, because it was in the whole agreeable to the Divine Scriptures and the Exposition of Faith, which the holy Fathers put forth, in the great Synod of Nice. We here meet with their being guided by Scripture, and the former decisions founded upon it, but the Rule of Oral Tradition, or any other unwritten Rule, was to this Age a perfect stranger. SECT. VIII. What was owned as the Rule of Faith, at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon? HAving sufficiently evidenced the Rule of Faith, at the time of the first General Council against Arius, who denied the Eternal Divinity of the Son of God; and of the second against Macedonius, who denied the Lordship of the holy Spirit; and of the third against Nestorius, who divided Christ into two Persons: I now shall briefly inquire what was owned as this Rule, at the time of the fourth General Council against Eutyches, who denied that Christ had two natures; wherein Dioscorus was also condemned. Now Eutyches was opposed by many Catholic Bishops, and more especially was opposed and condemned by Pope Leo. But the Rule by which these Bishops, as well as this General Council did condemn him, was the holy Scriptures. Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, in an Epistle of his extant amongst Leo's Epistles, Ep. 6. says, There were some who knew not the Divine readings, dispraise the Fathers, and desert the holy Scripture to their own perdition; such an one (saith he) was Eutyches amongst us. Amongst the Epistles of Leo, Ep. 53. is extant an Epistle of Eusebius Bishop of Milan, and the Council assembled with him, wherein that Synod declares their assent to the Faith, contained in Leo's Epistle sent to the East, because the brightness of light and splendour of truth did shine in it, by the assertions of the Prophets, Evangelical Authorities, and the testimonies of Apostolical Doctrine. Leo, himself (by whose means the Council of Chalcedon was called, in which the errors of Eutyches were more fully censured) in his tenth Epistle writing of the Eutychians, says, That they fall into this folly, because when they are hindered by any obscurity in attaining the knowledge of the truth, they have not recourse to the Prophetical voices, the Apostolical Letters, and Evangelical Authorities, but to themselves. And a little after of Eutyches, he speaketh thus, That he knew not what he ought to think of the incarnation of the word of God; nor was he willing to gain the light of understanding, to labour in the holy Scriptures. And in the same Epistle citys, and urges many Scriptures against Eutyches, with such expressions as these, He might have subjected himself to the Evangelical Doctrine, in Matthew speaking; He might have desired instruction from the Apostolical Preaching, reading in the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 1. He might have brought holy diligence to the Prophetical pages, and have found the promise of God to Abraham, etc. with other Scriptures in the like manner produced. These testimonies of Leo, evidence, that he owned the holy Scriptures to be the best way to come to Faith, and be established in it, and is not this to be a Rule of Faith? Yea, he further observes, that the neglect of them were the cause of swerving from the Faith. To come to the Council of Chalcedon itself. In its second Action, this tenth Epistle of Leo was read, and they declared, they all believed according to that Epistle. At the same time was read the Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, which as it was read in, and approved by the third General Council, Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. ch. 3. So being in Chalcedon read, they declared, They all believed as Cyril did; in which Epistle he shows, that we must not divide Christ into two Sons, nor make an union of Persons; for the Scripture saith, The Word was made Flesh: which is nothing else but he did partake of our flesh and blood, and made our Body his, and became Man of a Woman. Wherein he plainly enough makes use of the holy Scriptures to decide the Controversy concerning that point of Faith, or rather, to confirm that matter of Faith against its opposers. SECT. IX. Of the Rule of Faith, acknowledged by the Fathers, and first of Celestine. AS it was easy to show the general consent of the ancient Fathers, to the Protestant Doctrine in this particular; I shall now endeavour to do it in all those our Discourser pretends to be on his side; and to avoid over great prolixity, I will confine myself to them only. His first citation is from Celestine, in his Epistle to the Ephesine Council; where his words somewhat miscited by the Discourser, are to this purpose: We must by all means endeavour, that we may retain the Doctrines of Faith delivered to us, and hitherto preserved by the Apostolical Doctrine. But what is here for Oral Tradition? Doth Celestine tell us that that was the way of delivering and preserving truth till his time? No such matter; yea, in the beginning of this Epistle he saith, That is certain which is delivered in the Evangelical Letters. But that we may better understand Celestine, whose Letter to the Council of Ephesus, was written against Nestorius; consider first his Letter to Cyril, who confuted Nestorius; in which are these words: This truly is the great triumph of our Faith, that thou hast so strongly proved our assertions, and so mightily vanquished those that are contrary, by the testimony of Divine Scriptures. Yea in his Epistle to Nestorius, he calls that Heresy of Nestorius a perfidious novelty, which endeavours to pull asunder those things which the holy Scripture conjoins. And in another Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople, he hath these words of Nestorius: He fights against the Apostles, and explodes the Prophets, and despiseth the words of Christ himself, speaking of himself: of what Religion, or of what Law doth he profess himself a Bishop, who doth so foully abuse both the Old and the New Testament. And in the end of that Epistle, thus directs those Constantinopolitans; You having the Apostolical words before your eyes, be perfect in the same sense, and the same meaning. These words of Celestine seem plainly to show, that in the Romish Church, Scripture was then the way whereby to try Doctrines. But if this be not the sense of these words of this Roman Bishop, which seem so plain; I may well conclude, that the words by which the Roman Church of old delivered truth, were not generally intelligible, and so their Tradition must be uncertain. SECT. X. What was the Rule of Faith, owned by Irenaeus? THe next Father he citys is Irenaeus, from whom he citys three testimonies. From Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 4. (though the naming the Book was omitted by him) he would prove that the Apostles gave charge to the Bishops to observe Tradition, and that it is a sufficient Rule of Faith, without Scripture: in which he abuseth Irenaeus. From Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 3. he to the same end citys this as his testimony, Though there be divers tongues in the world, yet the virtue of Tradition is one and the same, the preaching of the Church is true and firm, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown over the whole world. Of which words, only the first clause is in the place cited in Irenaeus; but these words, The preaching of the Church is true and firm, etc. though glossed upon by this Discourser as considerable, are not to be there found in Irenaeus; and if they were, they would not serve his purpose, as may by and by appear. And from Irenaeus, lib. 3. c. 3. (though he miscites it, lib. 1. c. 3.) he citys words, p. 138. to prove that the Doctrine of the present Church is the Doctrine of the Apostles. Now that I may give a true account of the meaning of the words cited, and also of the judgement of Irenaeus; I shall first observe from Irenaeus himself, what kind of Heretics those in the Primitive times were, who occasioned these words, and how he confutes them, and next which was his own judgement of the Rule of Faith. Concerning the former, Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 2. tells us, That those Heretics, when they were convinced out of the Scriptures, were turned into the accusing of the Scriptures themselves, that they were not right, nor of authority; that they were variously spoken, and that the truth could not be found out of them, by those who have not Tradition: and that the truth was given in a living voice, which was the wisdom in a Mystery, which every one of these Heretics pleaded themselves had in Valentinus, or Martion, Cerinthus or Basilides. And when they were challenged to hold to the Tradition of the Apostles, and their Successors in the Church; they said they were wiser than the Apostles, and so would neither hold to Scripture nor Tradition: since they are slippery as Serpents, endeavouring every way to evade (he saith) they must be every way resisted. After this c. 3. he contends with them concerning Tradition, and shows, that the Church's Tradition is much more considerable than these Heretics; and hath the words which our Discourser citys, p. 138. All they who will hear truth may discern in the Church, the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world; after which he adds, We can mention the Bishops which were by the Apostles instituted in the Churches, and were their Successors; and if they had known any Mysteries to teach them, who are perfect, they would not have concealed them from them. Further to manifest what was this Tradition, he refers to Clemens his Epistle, saying, from thence they who will, may know the Apostolical Tradition of the Church, That there is one God, etc. Then that Polycarp who conversed with the Apostles, whom Irenaeus had seen, was a more faithful testifier than Valentinus, or Martion; and he declared the same Doctrine, and from his Epistle to the Philippians, they who will, may learn the preaching of truth; and that John who lived to the time of Trajan, was a true witness of the Apostles Tradition. Cap. 4. He observes, That the Church are the depository of truth, and if any have any dispute of any question, ought they not to have recourse to the ancient Churches in which the Apostles conversed, and from them to receive what is certain concerning the present question. And then he adds, which our Discourser also citys, p. 131. But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures, ought we not to follow the order of Tradition, which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches? To which Ordination, assent many Nations of those Barbarians, who believe in Christ, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without Paper and Ink, and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition, believing in one God, etc. And after saith, They who believe this Faith without letters, are Barbarians as to our speech. Cap. 5. He saith, Tradition being thus in the Church, let us come to that proof which is from Scripture; and so spends several Chapters in showing the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles out of Scriptures. From what hath been observed, it is evident, 1. That the Heretics Irenaeus dealt with, were in some thing of the Spirit of this Discourser, that is, only for their own Tradition, and would neither be tried by Scriptures, nor any other Tradition, but what was amongst themselves: as our Discourser will disown trial by Scriptures, and by what was delivered in the Father's Writings or Councils, Cor. 14. and from all other Churches but the Roman Church, Cor. 13, 17. 2. That the reason why he so much insisted upon Tradition, was because these Heretics, as they denied Scripture, so they pretended to the best Tradition: which way of his arguing speaks not Tradition the Rule of Faith, but of considerable use in this case; even as if we should dispute with a Pagan who owns not Christian Revelation, concerning the truth of Christian Religion; the using rational Arguments against him, will show that we count them very useful in this case, but will not conclude that we own reason and not revelation, for a Rule of Faith: so if a Christian shall urge the Doctrine of the Old Testament, as sufficient and certain against the Jew, it would be a vain consequence to infer, that he makes this only, and not the New Testament-Revelation, the Rule of his Christian Faith. 3. That Irenaeus did not think the urging the present Tradition of the Church, sufficient against those Heretics, but thought it necessary to have recourse to the ancient Church's Tradition; and this Doctrine of the ancient Church, he evidenceth sufficiently from the writings, as also from the verbal testimonies, of them who were famous in the ancient Church: and Protestants are as ready as any to appeal to the ancient Church, and had we such a man as Polycarp, who conversed with S. John, we would receive his testimony as far as Irenaeus did. But having only ancient Writings, which Irenaeus thought sufficient, in the case of Tradition, we readily appeal to them. 4. That when Irenaeus says the Apostles Tradition is manifest in the whole World, lib. 3. c. 3. or lib. 1. c. 3. though there be divers tongues in the World, yet the virtue of Tradition is one and the same. That is the Church in the whole World believes and delivers the same Faith: He speaks this against those Heretics, about those great Articles of Faith. That there is one God, and one Jesus Christ, etc. as himself expresseth, lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 3. c. 3. for even in the time of Irenaeus, there was not in all the World an agreement in all Doctrines; since Victor Bishop of Rome, and Irenaeus did not agree in this, whether it was Lawful to Excommunicate the Asian Churches for their different observation of Easter, Eus. Hist. Eccl. lib. 5. c. 6. Now is this any consequence, That Doctrine which teacheth one God, etc. against those Heretics, was generally continued in the Church till Irenaeus his time; which was not two hundred years after Christ; therefore all Doctrine must certainly be preserved without corruption in the Church's Delivery above sixteen hundred Years after Christ? though we certainly know that besides Protestants, other Churches do not now deliver the same things. 5. When he said, Ought we not to have followed Tradition, if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures? He saith not, we ought to do so now they have left them; but rather in these words intimates the contrary. But now more directly to see his opinion of the Rule of Faith, consider these words of his, lib. 3. c. 1. The Gospel they then preached, they after delivered to us by the Will of God in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith. And then showing how the Evangelists have delivered to us by Writing, saith, If any man assent not to them, he despiseth even Christ the Lord and the Father, and is condemned of himself, and resisteth his own salvation. Lib. 2. c. 46. Wherefore since the holy Scriptures, both Prophetical and Evangelical, clearly and without ambiguity, and as they may of all be heard, declare, etc. they appear very dull who blind their eyes at such a clear discovery, and will not see the light of preaching. C. 41. Having therefore the truth itself for our Rule, and the testimony of God being openly manifest, we ought not to reject the firm and clear knowledge of God. If we cannot find the solution of all things in Scripture, we must believe God in these things, knowing that the Scriptures are perfect, being spoken by the word of God, and his Spirit. Lib. 4. c. 66. Read more diligently the Gospel, which is given us by the Apostles, and read more diligently the Prophets, and you shall find every action, and every Doctrine, and every passion of our Lord, set forth in them Lib. 3. c. 11. The Gospel is the pillar and firmament of the Church, and the Spirit of life: wherefore it is consequent, that it hath four pillars— he hath given us a fourfold Gospel, which is contained in one Spirit. If then according to Irenaeus, men may believe by the Scripture, and that is the pillar and foundation of Faith, and they that seek, may find all Doctrine in it, which is there clear and manifest, is not this enough to show, he makes it a Rule of Faith? If not, we have observed him calling it by the name of a Rule also, and declaring, that none but the Barbarous Nations did then receive the Faith in an unwritten way. SECT. XI. What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith? ANd first in his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where in the beginning of his Prooem, having observed, that some who profess themselves to believe in Christ, differ in so great things, as concerning God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost: by which words he manifestly refers to such Heretics, as Irenaeus before him treated of. Such were Montanists, Valentinians, Marcionists, etc. he gins to lay a Rule he will proceed by, in the words referred to by this Author, Let the Ecclesiastical Preaching delivered from the Apostles, by order of succession, and remaining in the Church to this time be preserved: that only truth is to be believed, which in nothing differs from the Ecclesiastical Tradition. This is his Rule he will proceed by in these Books, by which in opposition to those Heretics, he means the Church's delivery of truth, which was chief contained in the Scriptures; as I shall evidence, first because he useth promiscuously the phrases of Ecclesiastical Preaching and Scripture frequently in this Prooem, and excepts against the Book called The Doctrine of Peter, as being no part of it; and in the end of the same Prooem declares, that therefore he who would treat of these things, to know what is truth in every one of them, must effect it, by taking such assertions as he findeth in the Holy Scriptures, or such as are consequent from them. Where in the end of the same Prooem, he declares in other words, the Rule laid down not many Periods before in the beginning of it; which is quite opposite to the design of Oral Tradition. I shall yet further confirm this by two other passages out of those Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The one lib. 1. c. 3. where when he had declared, that some of the Greeks and Barbarians owned the Son of God, he adds, We according to the faith of his Doctrine, which we have for certain divinely inspired, do believe, that it is no other ways possible, to expound the more eminent and more divine account of the Son of God, and to bring this to the knowledge of men, but only by that Scripture which was inspired by the Holy Ghost; that is, by the Evangelical and Apostolical, as also that of the Law and the Prophets. Now it is not conceivable, that he who believed, that without the Scriptures there could be no eminent Christian knowledge of Christ, should lay any other Rule of Faith, or exclude Scripture, from being that Rule. The other passage is lib. 4. c. 1. It is not enough, he says, for them who discourse of such and so great things, to commit the matter to humane senses, and the common understanding; but we must take for the proof of the things we speak, the testimonies also of the Divine Scriptures; which testimonies, that they may afford us certain and undoubted faith, either in such things as are to be spoken by us, or in those that are already spoken, it seems necessary to show that they are the Divine Scriptures inspired by the Spirit of God: which he there undertakes to prove. What can be spoken more fully to make Scripture both the only Rule, and a certain and undoubted Rule of Faith? And if yet nothing will satisfy but the word Rule, we shall find that also toward the end of his fourth Book immediately before his Anacephalaeosis; where he saith, our understanding is to be kept to the Rule of the Divine Letters. Though enough hath been already observed to show the great mistake of this Citation from Origen, I shall yet farther take notice, that the phrases which deceived this Author, Ecclesiastica Traditio & Ecclesiastica Praedicatio, do both of them amongst the Fathers oft signify the delivery in the Church by the holy Scriptures. But to avoid multiplying instances, concerning Ecclesiastical Tradition, I shall refer to what shall be spoken concerning Clemens Alexandrinus, whose Scholar Origen was, and to what is hereafter cited from Athanasius against Samosatenus, concerning the phrase of Ecclesiastical preaching; we may observe a like phrase in Austin de Vnitate Ecclesiae, c. 16. Let them show their Church if they can, in the prescript of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the Songs of the Psalms, in the words of the Pastor himself, in the preach and labours of the Evangelists; that is, in all the Canonical Authorities of the holy Books. Somewhat alike expression is above cited from Irenaeus, lib. 2. c. 46. and from Leo Ep. 10. in Sect. 8. n. 2. His other testimony from Origen is at the end of his 29 Hom. in Matt. We ought not to believe otherwise than as the Churches of God have delivered us by Succession. Which words he there speaks to the same purpose with the former, to assert the way of the Church's Tradition, and that Scriptural against the Heretics. To understand Origen herein it is not amiss to observe, a little before these words he expounds, the abomination of desolation, to be a word which stands in the place of the holy Scriptures, and persuades to departed from the Creator, who is the only and true God, and to believe another God we know not whom, above him to whom none is like. In which words, he evidently refers to the ancient Heretics; and in the beginning of his 30. Hom. names Basilides, Martion, Valentinus and Apelles, to whom he referred; every one of which as the Church-History informs us, brought in another God from the true. Concerning these Heresies, Hom. 29. at the end he exhorts, that though they should pretend some Scriptures, they should not believe them, but keep to the Church's Tradition. Why they are not to be believed in pretending to some places of Scripture, he showeth, Because the light of truth doth not appear from any place of Scripture, but from all Scripture, that is of the Law, Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles. That the Church's Tradition he recommends, is that only which is grounded upon, and according to Scripture is evident, in that a little before he says; The abomination of desolation, doth always superadd something to what is in the Scriptures: and the shortening those days, he expounds, that the good God will cut off all those additaments to Scripture by whom he pleaseth. Origen here all along agrees with the Protestants Rule, but no way with Oral Tradition, nor with any thing else that differs from Scripture, or adds to it, but he accounts all such, as the abomination of desolation. It were easy to observe many other testimonies from Origen, which I omit, as supposing I have from these two places chosen by this Author, shown enough that Origen owned the Rule of Scripture. Protestants as well as Origen, would not have men be deluded by the subtlety of any Heretics, who pretend to urge Scripture; and yet they no more thereby disown its being a Rule of Doctrine, than our Saviour did disown it as a Rule of Life, when he would not be tempted by the Devils citing the words of Scripture, to act against its commands. SECT. XII. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian? THree Discourses of Tertullian are referred to by this Discourser. The first of which is the Praescriptione adversus Haereticos, cited Corol. 15. where he will not allow Heretics to argue out of Scripture. The design of this Treatise of Tertullian, is to evidence that the Doctrine professed in the Church of Christ, was the true Christian Doctrine, against such Heretics (which were of the same mould with them Irenaeus and Origen opposed) who either would not admit the Scriptures, cap. 17. or else changed the very proprieties of the words, not allowing their known significations, but imagining in them strange things, which no way appear; which was the way of the Valentinians, c. 38. And these Heretics were not satisfied with what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles, but produced other things, c. 8. Against these, he pleads prescription as to the true Christian Doctrine, as being from the Apostles, and having Communion with them. He shows, there is no disputing with such Heretics from Scripture, since they will not stand to it, c. 17, 18. And since these Heretics did not own the only God, and Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit, c. 7. and 13, 14. He urgeth, That they were not to be allowed to argue from the Scriptures against the Church, since they were not Christians, and owned them not, c. 15, 16, 17. And therefore it must first be inquired from whom the Scriptures were, and by whom, and to whom, and when delivered: all which would show, that they were for them who followed Christ and his Apostles, in the Doctrine by them publicly delivered, which these Heretics pretended not to do Hence it appears, that what Tertullian here writes, is no way against the Doctrine of Protestants; but in such a case as this was, they would themselves assert the same. Now though it is impossible the Scriptures should be either a directing Rule, or a convincing, to those persons who reject them, yet in this Treatise Tertullian owns them as such to Christians who receive them, and withal asserts them as necessary to the Faith, as may appear from these particulars, c. 22. He declares, That they who receive not that Scripture, the Acts of the Apostles, cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost was sent to the Disciples; nor can they prove how, when, and by what means the Body of Christ's Church was instituted. c. 33. He prescribes against the Heretics from the Apostles Writings, c. 36. He hath these words; Run through the Churches of the Apostles, amongst which their very Authentic Letters are recited, sounding the voice, and representing the face of every one of them. What else is this but to equal the delivery by the Scriptures, with that which was from the mouths of all the Apostles? In the same Chapter he saith, John the Apostle puts together the Law and the Prophets, with the Evangelical and Apostolical Letters, and thence tenders this Faith to us to drink in. To add but one place more, c. 38. He saith, of the Heretics, As the corruption of the Doctrine could never succeed without the corruption of the instruments; so we could not have the integrity of Doctrine, without the integrity of those things by which the Doctrine is delivered: then he adds, What the Scriptures are, we are; we are from them from their beginning; and then shows, that the Church doth keep them perfect, which the Heretics do not. Next he citys Tertullian de carne Christi; where c. 2. He supposeth, That upon this account Martion did blot out so many original instruments (that is, Scriptures) lest the flesh of Christ should be proved. By what Authority? (saith Tertullian) I pray, if thou be a Prophet, foretell something; if an Apostle, preach it openly; if an Apostolical man, agree with the Apostles, (and then follow the words cited by this Author) If thou be only a Christian, believe what is delivered. Where it is manifest, these words refer not to recommend to us Oral Tradition, but the Canon of Scripture. Soon after he tells Martion, that he is not a Christian, but once was, and now hath rescinded what he then believed (where follow the next words referred to by this Author.) By rescinding what thou hast believed, thou provest that before thou didst rescind it, that was otherwise, which thou didst believe otherwise. So it was delivered; moreover, what was delivered, that was true as delivered by those whom it belonged to deliver, etc. which words are of the same nature with the former, and further condemn his rescinding, or cutting off from the Scriptures, those things which he once believed, and were faithfully delivered: for rescindere is not here to renounce, as this Discourser translates it, but to cut off or mutilate (which indeed proves, that it was otherwise before) and this is the same in sense, with what he calls his rejecting some Scriptures, c. 3. his blotting out, ch. 4. his taking them away, c. 5. and the same with what in this 2. ch. he a little before called his blotting out the instruments (of Scripture) where having propounded the question, by what Authority he did it; and continuing his Discourse on the same subject, after these words of rescinding, he gives this answer; Thou hast done it by no right at all. Yet further, that in this Discourse, de Carne Christi, he intended the Scripture for his Rule of Faith, may be proved from ch. 6 where speaking of the Body which Angels appear in; Whence it is, saith he, nothing is manifest concerning it; because the Scripture doth not declare it, c. 15. He urgeth against Valentinus seven Texts of Scripture, all which declare Christ to be Man; and saith, these only aught to suffice for prescription, to testify his humane flesh, and not spiritual, etc. c. 22. when he had used many other Scriptures, he saith, The Apostle determineth all this Controversy, when he declares him to be Abraham's Seed; and then citys Gal. 3. adding, We who read and believe these things, what kind of flesh, may we, or ought we to acknowledge in Christ? surely none other than Abraham had. In the last place, this Discourser citys two passages of Tertullian against Martion, to prove that the present Church contains in it the true Doctrine of Christ. Now if it did so in Tertullian's time it is no way consequent that any particular Church must do so now, unless it be by delivery of the same Scriptures. The first place he citys, but names not the Book, is, lib. 4. cont. Marc. l. 5. where Tertullian's design is, to declare the Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Scriptures, to be preferred before what Martion tenders, as his emending the Gospel, and so confirms the Protestant Doctrine. For having observed that Martion rejects the other Evangelists, and corrupteth Luke, He saith in the end of the fourth ch. From the times of Tiberius, to Antonine, we meet with Martion, as the first and only emender of the Gospel. And he observes his emending confirms ours, whilst he emends that which he found first, (than follow the words cited by this Author) In short, If it be manifest, that is the more true, which was the former; and that was the former which is from the beginning; that from the beginning which is from the Apostles: in like manner that will manifestly appear to be delivered from the Apostles, which is accounted Sacred in the Churches of the Apostles. In which words, Tertullian designs to establish the Scripture-writings against the Heretical corruption. Whence it follows, Let us see what Milk the Corinthians drew from Paul; to what Rule the Galatians were corrected; What the Philippians, Thessalonians and Ephesians, read, etc. so that Tertullian sends to the Scriptures, which may be read. Another testimony he ventures at, is lib. 1. cont. Marc. and saith it is more express: but indeed makes nothing at all for Oral Tradition. For this first Book being written to prove one only God, against Martion, who in a Treatise called his Antitheses, endeavoured to show, that there was not the same God in the Old Testament, and in the New: He observes, c. 20. that some said that Martion did not innovate the Rule, but set it right when it was corrupted, c. 21. He showeth, the Apostles never delivered any such thing as this, but fully asserted one and the same God. Nor was there ever any question about this in their days: for as there were questions about things offered to Idols, about Marriage and Divorce, about veiling Women, and the hope of the Resurrection, (in which he plainly refers to the Apostles writings): so he saith, if there had been any Question about this matter, it would have been found as a most principal thing in the Apostle (that is the Apostles writings) and then adds the words cited by this Discourser: And no other is to be acknowledged the Tradition of the Apostles, than that which is this day published in their Churches. In which words, as Irenaeus, and Tertullian elsewhere did against Heretical inventions in general, so he here establisheth the Church's Tradition against Martions' innovation: or he establisheth the Doctrine of Christ, as his Church received it, which principally included the Scriptures. And that Tertullian, chief designed against Martion, to establish the Scriptural Tradition, may appear sufficiently from what hath been above observed. To see yet more of Tertullia's mind in this case, observe that known place against Hermogenes, who asserted matter coeternal with God. Advers. Hermog. c. 22. I adore the fullness of Scripture which manifests to me both the maker and his works. But whether all things be made out of a subject matter I never yet read; Let Hermogenes his shop show it written: If it be not written, let him fear that woe, that is denounced against them who add or take away. What can be more full to show the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, than to declare that nothing may safely be received but from it, and that it is full and complete? SECT. XIII. What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith. FRom this Father he only citys one place, and that so much contrary to the plain design, which is obvious to any eye, that it appears evidently, he never took it from Clemens himself, but hath in practice discovered what certainty there is in his Oral way, or taking things upon hear-say. For showing which nothing more is needful, than the setting down the words of Clemens more largely. Strom. lib. 7. He saith, In those who are endued with knowledge, the holy Scriptures have conceived; but the Heretics who have not learned them, have rejected them as if they did not conceive: some indeed follow the truths saying, and others wrist the Scriptures to their own lusts: but if they had a Judgement of true and false, they would have been persuaded by the Divine Scriptures. (Then follow the words cited) If therefore any one, of a man becomes a Beast, like those enchanted by Circe: so he hath lost his being a man of God, and one remaining faithful to the Lord, who kicks against Ecclesiastical Tradition, and leaps into the opinions of humane Heresies. (Then his next words are) but he who returning out of error obeys the Scriptures, and commits his life to the truth; of a man in a manner becomes as God. We have the Lord the original of this Doctrine, both by the Prophets, and by the Gospel, and by the Apostles. He who is to be believed of himself, is worthy of all belief, (when he speaks) in the Lord's voice, and the Scriptures. Doubtless the Scriptures we use as our Criterion, to find out things. And then he shows, That we are not satisfied with what men say, but inquire and believe what God saith, which is the only demonstration; according to which Science, they who have tasted only of the Scriptures are faithful. What can be more plain than that Clemens his design here, is not to guide men to the Oral way, this Discourser talks of; but as Origen and Tertullulian do, so also Clemens, against the way of the ancient Heretics, who were opposers of the Scripture, commendeth the Church's Tradition, which was in the Scripture. Much more might be observed to this purpose, from this 7. Strom. of Clemens, and several other places, but that I think the very place this Author blindfoldly chose, is sufficient against him. SECT. XIV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius. OUr Discourser wisheth Protestant's would seriously weigh the Say of this Father, and consider what sustained him who was a Pillar of Faith in his days. This, we assure him, we will do; and likewise highly honour that Rule of Faith, which Athanasius made use of; which we know was not Oral Tradition, but Scripture. The first testimony he produceth from Athanasius, is in his Epistle de Synodis Arim. & Seleuc. where speaking of the Arians who were not satisfied in the Council of Nice, but sought after some other Synodical determination, where they might have the Faith; and therefore procured another Council to be called; he saith, Now they have declared themselves to be unbelievers, in seeking that which they have not: (which are part of the words cited by this Discourser: his following words, I think, cannot be found either in that Book, or elsewhere in Athanasius, which are) All therefore that are seekers of Faith are unbelievers. They only to whom Faith comes down from their Ancestors, that is, from Christ by Fathers, do not seek, and therefore they only have Faith; if thou comest to Faith by seeking, thou wast before an unbeliever. Thus far this Discourser I think frames Athanasius. Against the Arians in this Epistle Athanasius further says; If they had believed, they would not have sought it as if they had it not, and if you have wrote these things as now beginning to believe, you are not Clergymen, but begin to be Catechumen. Which words he writes upon occasion, that the Arians Confession began not, So believes the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Faith was in the presence of Constantius, put forth such a day, as Athanasius there declares. But that we may understand Athanasius his mind, where they who are Believers must have Faith, and not elsewhere seek it: (which also is the way he must understand it to come from Ancestors, if any such words be any where in Athanasius) in this very Epistle he declares it thus. It is a vain thing that they running about, pretend to desire Synods for the Faith; for the holy Scripture is more sufficient than all Synods. And if for this there should be need of a Synod, there are the Acts of the Holy Fathers, they who came together in Nice, wrote so well, that whoever faithfully read their Writings, may by them be remembered of that Religion towards Christ, which is declared in the holy Scriptures. So that these words of Athanasius as they design not the promoting Oral Tradition, so they do advance Scripture. The next testimony cited, and vainly flourished over, is from Athan. de Incarn. against Paulus Samosatenus, where he concerning this Subject of the Incarnation of the Word, shows, That such great things, and difficult to be apprehended, cannot be attained to, but by Faith. And they who have weak knowledge, if they here reject not curious questions, and keep to the Faith, ruin themselves. Wherefore (saith he) blessed Paul saith, Great is the mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh, etc. A little after he saith, To make an exact search, is that few can do, but to hold fast the Faith belongs to all who are persuaded by God. Then follow the words cited: He that searcheth after that which is above his reach, is in danger, but he who abides in the things delivered, is out of danger. Wherefore we persuade you, as also we persuade ourselves, to keep the Faith delivered, and avoid profane words of novelty, (thus far this Discourser citys, but then follows) and to fear an inquisitive search into so great Mysteries, but to confess, that God was manifest in the flesh, according to the Apostles Tradition. By this view of the whole sense of Athanasius, it is evident, he designs to put them off from curious questions, about these high Mysteries, to rely on the written Scripture- Tradition, which in these words he refers to. And in the same Treatise he urgeth other Scriptures to confirm this point, using these words concerning Scripture-testimony: it speaketh evidently, it teacheth us as manifestly. The last testimony he citys from Athanasius, is in his Epistle to Epictetus; where inveighing against him who wrote, that Christ's Body was consubstantial to his Divinity; he indeed saith, That things that are so manifestly evil, it is not fit to lay them further open, or spend more time about them, lest thereby contentious men should judge them doubtful. (Then follow the words by this Author referred to) it is sufficient to answer to such things, and say, that these things are not of the Catholic Church, nor did our Fathers so think. But his next words are, But lest our silence should make them shameless, it is requisite to speak something from the holy Scriptures. And after many arguments from Scriptures, saith, Wherefore let them confess that they have erred, being persuaded by the holy Scriptures. So that we see he no way rejects the Scriptures from being his Rule, though he said as Protestants also will, that some Heresies may be so absurd, that it is enough against them, to show them contrary to all anciently received Doctrine, and the Catholic Church: and yet even in these he referred to Scripture, as the best means of conviction. Though the judgement of Athanasius be already sufficiently manifest, I shall briefly refer to two other testimonies. One is a fragment of his 39 Epistle, where when he had reckoned the Books of Scripture, he saith, These are the wells of Salvation, in these only is the Doctrine of Godliness declared; Let no man add any thing to these, nor take any thing from them. Another testimony is observable amongst his various Treatises, against divers Heresies; he hath one (which concerns this Discourser: and if as some think it be Theodoret's Treatise, it will still be of use to us) against them, Who say men should not search out of Scriptures, but be satisfied with their own Faith. Where very much to our purpose, I only mention one short expression. wouldst thou that I should reject the Scriptures, where then shall I have knowledge? wouldst thou that I should forsake knowledge, where then should I have Faith? But I suppose I need add no more to evidence that Athanasius made Scripture the Rule of Faith. SECT. XV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith, by S. Basil? OUr Discourser likewise pretends to have S. Basil on his side, from whom he citys two testimonies, which must be examined. The first whereof is to be found in his first Book against Eunomius; where when Eunomius requires them who hear or read him, not to attribute any thing to the greater party, or the multitude, or the dignity of persons; S. Basil answers in the words this Author refers to: Shall we being persuaded by thee, judge the Tradition which in all Ages past hath prevailed under so many holy men, more dishonourable than your impious conceits. But is this to make Tradition a Rule of Faith? When I say, that I will account more honourably of S. Basil's Judgement, than of this Discoursers fond conceits; do I by this make S. Basil the Rule of Faith? And why may not S. Basil prefer other Catholic Teachers before Eunomius, and yet not make them a Rule of Faith? Yea, it is evident from the very place, he designs not here to speak of the Rule of Faith, but to speak against the arrogancy of Eunomius; yet in this Book, he urgeth many things from the Scriptures, with such Prefaces to them as these: We will demonstrate from the Scripture. We are taught of the Scripture. How accurately and evidently they testify. And these things seem to make Scripture a Rule of Faith. His other testimony is from S. Basil against the Sabellions, Arians, and Anomaeans; where observing, that those Heretics delighted in some Sophistical niceties, and did not entertain the plain delivery in the Scriptures, which was confirmed by the Fathers, he exhorts in these words; Lest thou shouldest separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son, (than follow the words cited by this Discourser) Let Tradition deter thee, the Lord taught so, the Apostles preached so, the Fathers conserved it, the Martyrs confirmed it: let it suffice thee to speak as thou art taught. And then he adds, Away with these pieces of Sophistry, either the Spirit is unbegotten, or begotten; if he be unbegotten, he is the Father; if he be begotten, he is the Son; if neither, he is then a Creature. Now that in this place, he chief intends the confirmation of the Tradition in Scripture, and the Councils decisions agreeable to this holy Scripture, is evident from the design of his whole Book, wherein he proves the truth by Scripture, and thus declares his own sense, not long before concerning the holy Spirit. We exhort you, that you would not seek to hear of us any time that which is pleasing to yourselves, but that which is well pleasing to the Lord, and agreeable to the Scriptures, and not contrary to the Fathers. These words plead for the Rule of Scriptures, not against them. But that more clearly we may understand the opinion of S. Basil concerning the Rule of Faith; I shall refer to his Treatise of Faith, Tom. 2. where he declares, That he would keep himself to what he had received from the Scriptures of Divine inspiration. And a little after saith, It is a manifest falling off from the Faith, and evidence of Pride, either to reject any thing of those things that are written, or to bring in any thing of those things that are not written: when our Lord Jesus Christ himself saith, My Sheep will hear my voice. What words could be more full to show what he owned for the Rule of Faith? SECT. XVI. What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith? THis Discourser tells us, he must not omit S. Austin. I confess, I wonder how he adventured to produce him, when it is so manifestly apparent, that he very frequently and exceeding fully declared his opinion, for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith. 1. He citys S. Austin, contra Epist. Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti, in which he brings in the Manichee, c. 14. saying, That he doth not promise any perfect Science; but such things are showed to him, and that they to whom they are told, aught to believe him in those things which they know not. To which he answers, If I must believe things unknown, (than follow the words this Author refers to) Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned, and are confirmed amongst all people, by most grave Authority? Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church, before that of the Manichees: but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith, but only maketh it the more considerable motive: and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent; Scripture may be their Rule to believe them. And S. Austin declares, Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture, which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned. What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin, The Authority of the Catholic Church, is of force to cause Faith and assurance; which (Authority) from the best established seats of the Apostles, even to this very day is strengthened by the series of Bishops succeeding them, and by the assertion of so many Nations. These words I find not in that Treatise. He indeed there saith, c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel, if the Authority of the Catholic Church had not moved him: whence it may be inferred, that he makes the Authority of the Catholic Church, sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it: and indeed, this is all can be inferred from these words here cited. And yet it is observable, that the Authority of the Catholic Church, which was so great a Motive to S. Austin, did not confine itself to the present Church, but included the Primitive Church, whence, c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles, nourished by hope, increased by Charity, and confirmed by Antiquity. His last testimony from S. Austin is, I think, mis-cited as to the place, but the words are (but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Augustine's) The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith, common to little and great in the Church. But why may not this be the Scripture? can it not be common to little and great, according to S. Austin's language? Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected, little ones are nourished, and great ones are delighted. That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith, I might very largely show, though I suppose a few expressions may suffice; Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity, and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance, here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing. And if we would have the word [Rule] he saith, De bono Viduitatis: Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle; for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine, lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know. De Civ. Dei, lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New, which we call Canonical, from thence Faith itself is conceived, out of which the just man liveth. I will yet add only one testimony more, De literis Petiliani, Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one, I will not say, if we, no way to be compared to him, who said, Though we; but as in the following words he added, If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you, either concerning Christ, or his Church, or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life; besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be accursed. But enough now of this famous Father. SECT. XVII. What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith? THe last Father referred to by our Discourser, is Petrus Chrysologus, from whom he only citys one testimony, Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals, from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast, Jesus went up into the Temple, he saith, A Christian mind knows not how (in desperationem deducere, a harsh phrase, which this Discourser seems to read disputationem, and so translates to bring into dispute, but I rather think it should be despicationem) to bring into contempt those things which are strengthened by the Tradition of the Fathers, and by time itself. But however we read it, this being spoken of Festivals, speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines. But I will see if I can meet with something, that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith. In his 99 Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven: The Woman who took the Leaven, is the Church; the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine; the three measures in which it's said she hid the Leaven, are the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels, where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word, that it is not hid from the Believer, but is hid from the unbeliever. Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin, he saith, This day the Apostles speech did fully give in itself with apparent light, to the sense of them who heard it, nor did it leave any thing doubtful too Catholic minds. Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith, Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead, we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul, asserting it by his authority, and by examples, to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add. Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained, and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith, yea so fully, that nothing can be added, and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith, (all which he asserts concerning Scriptures) must needs be a Rule of Faith. I have now done with the Fathers, and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side, have disowned his opinion, and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith, which Protestants own. SECT. XVIII. Answering the remainder of his Discourse. BUT because §. 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes, which will make all testimonies of Fathers, for Scripture against Tradition, lose their edge: I will examine them. His first Note is, That in almost all his citations of Councils, and Fathers, they speak directly against Heretics; which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholics. Now from this first Note, since I have showed, that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith, the citations to that purpose, are the more firm for Scripture. His second Note is to consider, Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture, as that it contains all Faith, etc. whether they speak of Scripture sensed, or as yet to be sensed? Truly if he be a man of reason, he will easily see that, when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth, against their opposers, who as yet disown the sense, or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully; they must needs mean the Scriptures, without any sense imposed upon them otherwise, than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them. For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures, (as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them) if they should say, we will evidence it from Scriptures, but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean. By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question, which is contrary to the whole current of our citations, from the Fathers. The third Note is, That it is frequent with the Fathers, to force Heretics to accept the sense of Scripture, from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture, and frequent to sense the Letter (even when dark) by Tradition, but never to bend Tradition to the outward show of the Letter. As to the first clause of urging upon Heretics, the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter: The Fathers never urged this but in some special case: when Heretics, such as Valentinian, and some others, who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter, disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures, and introduced wonderful strange ones. Here to preserve the Faithful, confirm the Doubtful, and reduce the wand'ring, they urged the Church's Authority, or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines, and common delivery of significations of words, as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations: yet this was in things where, to men unprejudiced, and willing to receive truth, they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture. And this is consistent (if there were the like cause) with the Principles of Protestants, as with any others. In other cases the Fathers urged against the Heretics evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter. Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture, otherwise than Protestants will do; that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith, and surely grounded upon Scripture, neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture, as to oppose such a point of Faith: and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority. But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter, is very untrue. When any truly Catholic Doctrine held by the Church, was questioned or impugned, was not Tradition bend to Scriptures Letter, when they applied themselves to it, to declare and manifest such Doctrine? Which was the general practice of the Ancients, as hath been showed. But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture, as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition? If that which is delivered by Catholic Bishops be a Tradition, S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles. c. 10. says, We must not consent with Catholic Bishops, if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God. But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say, that we must not agree with Scripture, if it speaks against what the Bishops, who are called Catholic, do deliver? His last Note is a very vain and empty one: That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable, the Rule of Faith; because most Heretics against whom they wrote, held it theirs, and therefore could not be Heretics, since they held the Rule. But first, those Heretics who pretended to own Scripture (who were not the most) did not perfectly hold the same Rule, with Catholics who held to Scripture as their Rule. The Catholics Rule is Scripture, as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense: but the Rule of Heretics who pretended to Scripture, is Scripture, as the words are wilfully perverted, contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning. But again, why may not they be Heretics, who profess to hold the Rule of Faith, if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule, and reject Doctrines declared by it? cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy, because two parties both pretend to reason? I have now dismissed his testimonies. In the last place, he undertakes to show, That the Council of Trent, and the present Church of Rome, own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition. Now though I could show that in the present Church of Rome, where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition, they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine. Yet since I have enough shown the dissent of this his opinion from the truth, and the Ancient Church; and therefore if they all were of this Author's opinion, it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine, nor against the Protestants: I will for my part let him enjoy the fruit of his labours in this particular, fearing most that Papists will endeavour in this point to deal with Protestants, as we above observed, that the Arians did with the ancient Catholics; that is, like Chamaelions', change their shape, and when they were confuted in one way, they opposed the truth in another. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions. BY WILLIAM FALKNER, D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St. Margaret's, at the Bishop's VISITATION, Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18. — And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation. THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World, is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine itself, but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians, and other Men; insomuch that Eusebius tells us, Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 13. gr. that Christianity became greatly famed every where, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it. But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper, by the Directions of the best Physicians, unless he will observe them: So it is not to be wondered, if many who own the Name of Christianity, without sincere submission thereto, have Lives unsuitable to this Profession. Hence some of them practise open Viciousness, Looseness and Debauchery; and others embrace Pride, Uncharitableness, and Disobedience, all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ. Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus, do slight his peculiar Institution● undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined; the Communion of that Catholic Church, which he founded and built upon a Rock; the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed; and the Reverence for that Ministry, which he hath established in his Church, and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare, in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation. In which Words I shall consider, I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general, without respect to the distinction of its Offices; it is the Ministry of Reconciliation. II. The Persons to whom this Ministry is committed; that is, to Us. III. The Divine Authority by which it is founded. I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry. And because it is an holy Function committed to some particular Persons by God himself, the main Business thereof cannot consist in speaking or doing such Things as may be said or done by other Men, but in the discharge of a special Office. And an Office, though it requireth Abilities in them who undertake it, yet is chief conveyed by Commission and Authority. It is possible that Corah, or some other of his Company, might be as well acquainted with the Rites of Sacrificing, and the way of ordering the Incense, as Aaron and his Sons were; but if they, not being called of God thereto, will invade the Priesthood, they must bear their Sin. Wherefore I design to discourse here of the chief and proper Charge and Business of the Gospel-Ministry, which must include the Dignity thereof. And here I shall show, 1. What is contained in it, in four Heads. 2. What must be rejected from it. 1. As God's Officers, they are to prepare Persons for receiving the Blessings of the Gospel. And because the Wrath of God will come on the Children of Disobedience, and the way to be happy is by the Faith of Christ, and becoming holy and good; the Officers of the Christian Church, by a peculiar Authority, are publicly to declare the Doctrines of Faith, and the great Certainty and Evidence thereof, to make Men well-grounded Christians, and the Directions and Rules of holy Life, together with the great Motives which tend to persuade the practice of them. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Teachers; and the Instruction of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears as anciently as from Justin Martyr, to be one part of their public Performances in the Church: Just. Mart. Apol. 2. And the Practice hereof is commended in the Scriptures, and the ancient Writers, as early as Ignatius, exhorting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignat. Epist. ad Polycarp. to exhort and persuade all Men for their Salvation. And these Instructions are to be accounted of greater moment, because delivered by those to whom God hath granted his Commission; as the declaring the Law, or giving a Charge by a Judge, or particular Officer, is more than the Discourse of a private Person. The Flock of Christ ought to have such a respect to the Shepherds he hath appointed, as to think it their Duty to be taught and guided by them: Since our Saviour declared not only concerning his Apostles, but even of the Seventy, Mat. 10.40. He who heareth you, heareth me; and more generally with a Note of Remark concerning all those who are sent by him, Luke 16.16. Joh. 13.20. that he who receiveth them, receiveth him. To this Head also belongeth another part of Ministerial Power, in preparing Men for God's Blessing, which was more remarkably exercised under the vigour of Primitive Discipline, in enjoining particular Rules for, and examining the Probation-State of the Catechumeni, who from Paganism embraced Christianity, and of them who for their Offences came under the then severe Discipline of Penitents. This Authority the Apostle made use of in this Epistle concerning the Incestuous Corinthian, 2 Cor. 2.6, 7. declaring his Grief and Punishment to have been sufficient; and this was, Baron. an. 57.1. & 58.36. Illyr. Praefat. ad Ep. Pauli. as both Baronius and Illyricus think, in the next Year after the Sentence of his Excommunication was inflicted. And besides the present Interest of Ministerial Power, with respect to Rules of open Discipline, it is of great use for them who have exposed their Souls to great Dangers; and also for disquieted Minds, in such Cases as press their Consciences, to take the particular Counsel of their Guides, whom God hath appointed to watch for their Souls. Heb. 13.17. Which might be a great Help to secure some from their growing Perplexities, and others from running on in Viciousness, or turning aside unto Delusions. 2. This Function contains an Authority from God to receive Persons under the Terms of Reconciliation, and to bless them in God's Name. As they are Stewards of the Mysteries of God, they have a peculiar Right to dispense to his People his holy Sacraments, as signal Pledges of his Grace and Favour. Hereupon they who receive Baptism at their hands, being duly qualified for it, receive thereby Remission of Sins, become Members of Christ, and Heirs of Salvation. And as St. Paul was directed to be baptised, and wash away his Sins; so the Christian Church hath generally acknowledged Baptism to be, Acts 22.16. Clem. Alex. Paed. l. 1. c. 6. as Clemens Alexandrinus expresseth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Laver to make us clean from our Sins. And the ordinary dispensing Baptism, is a proper Act of the Ministerial Power, both in that Christ gave commission to his Apostles to baptise, and especially because this is a particular Exercise of the Keys, in receiving Members into the Church of Christ; and is also the dispensing the Symbol of Remission of Sins, which is included under that Commission of Christ, Whose soever Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them. John. 20.23. In the Holy Communion also the pious and penitent Christian receiveth at the hands of him who by his Office dispenseth it, the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ, and a Testimony of God's Favour and Blessing. And because this Sacrament is the Application of Christ's Sacrifice offered for the Remission of Sins, a devout, humble and penitent Person doth hereby receive Pardon; to which purpose St. Ambrose, Qui manducaverit hoc corpus, De Sacrament. l. 4. c. 5, 6. fiet ei remissio peccatorum. And again, Debeo illum (Sanguinem) semper accipere, ut semper mihi peceata dimittantur: Which Words speak the receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrament to include Remission of Sins. And the dispensing and consecrating this holy Sacrament, must needs be proper to the special Officers of the Christian Church, since no Man, without God's particular Authority, can dispense and consecrate the Pledges of his Grace, and of Remission of Sins, as tendered from him. The pronouncing Absolution by them to whom the Gospel giveth this Authority, doth also from God tender and apply Remission of Sins to the Pious and Contrite, by virtue of our Saviour's Words, Whose Sins ye remit, they are remitted; but by no means to the Disobedient and Neglectful. The Augustine Confession declareth Absolution to be highly esteemed, quia est Vox Dei, & mandato Dei pronunciatur; Conf. August. cap. de Confess. as being the Voice of God, and pronounced by his Command. In like manner the giving a Benediction or Blessing by them, whether generally in the Public Service, or more particularly in some special Offices, is an Application of the Blessing of God, by his Authority, unto the pious Christian, Numb. 6.27. but not to the Wicked and Evil-doers. Even in Aaron's blessing the People, God declared that he himself would bless them: And the whole intention of the Gospel is a Dispensation of God's Blessing, which cometh upon them who serve him. The Blessed Jesus was sent to Bless, in turning Men from their Iniquities; to such he gins his Sermon in the Mount with Blessing, Mat. 5.3.4. Luke 24.50, 51 and this also was the last action he performed immediately upon his Ascension into Heaven. Most of the Apostolical Epistles both begin and end with Benedictions, which persons partake of according to their pious qualifications: For when not only the Apostles, but also the Seventy were commanded to pronounce Peace to the House or Place where they came, Mat. 10.12, 13 Luke 10.5.6. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Peace, being, according to the usual Jewish Phrase, a comprehension of all Blessing) our Saviour tells them, that if the Son of Peace be there, their Peace shall rest upon it; if not, it shall turn to them again. The ancient Church to this end used particular Benedictions in Confirmation, Ordination, receiving Penitents, Matrimony, and to dying Persons; but all these the Corruption of Times hath transformed into reputed proper Sacraments: And those Blessings in Confirmation and Ordination are most Solemn, the former of which was granted even by S. Hierome, Hier. adv. Luc. according to the custom of the Church all over the World, to be performed by the Bishop only. And in our Administration thereof, the serious renewing the Baptismal Covenant (which is a necessary duty of Christian Profession) is a good disposition for receiving the Blessing of God; and on this account Confirmation is not to be slighted, or wilfully neglected by those who have a high esteem for the Blessing of God. 3. They who receive this Ministry, are to guide the Church and Christian Society, that its Members may please God, not forfeit his Favour, or provoke his Displeasure. The most things contained under this head will respect those Ministers of the Church, who are the chief Governors thereof; and the things established by their consent and agreement. The Church of God is a most excellent Society, and his Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those who are to have the care and ordering of this Family of God; Titus 1.7. and such public Worship as is ordered according to the Will of God being acceptable to him, it belongs to them to take care of the performance thereof; and also of establishing Order and Decency; and the framing and executing such Rules and Canons for Government and Discipline as are meet: And though the external Sanction of these things is well ordered by the Secular power; yet the directive part, and the spiritual Authority belongs to the Guides of the Church, who by the Gospel are appointed therein Rulers and Precedents: Hence Inferiors are required to obey them that are over them, and submit themselves; and Titus was sent to Crete, to order the things that were wanting; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes. 5.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Tim. 5, 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13.7, 17.24. Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 3.5. 1 Pet. 5.2. and Bishops in general stand charged by S. Paul and St. Peter, to take care of the Church of God. And as that is a requisite to Order and due Reverence in Religious Worship; to them also belongs the setting apart, and consecrating Places, for the public Service of God. But because there can be no security for Order, where every Officer may act independently at his own Pleasure; therefore they have Authority to order Uniformity, which is in itself desirable, and aught to be observed, not only with respect to the secular Sanction; but together therewith, in compliance also with the Ecclesiastical Authority invested in Synods, which hath in all Ages from the Apostles, been honoured in the Christian Church; of which the observation of the Canons of the several Counsels and Codes, is an experimental Evidence. And as the mutual Consent of Pastors in Synods is according to natural Prudence, directly pursueth the great ends of Peace and Unity, and by their agreement addeth Weight to their Authority; so this Case is eminently included in that Promise of our Saviour, Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. Mat. 18.20. Act. 16.4, 5. Act. 21.18, 24, 26. Act. 8.14. And St. Paul himself yielded manifest Obedience both to the Decrees of the Council at Jerusalem, Act. 15. And to that other Council, Act. 21. And so did S. Peter and S. John to another Council. And since Christians being established in the Truth, is of great use both to their own and the Church's Peace; in order hereunto the Pastors of the Church in Councils have power to abandon Heretical and dangerous Doctrines, and to require submission to the Truth they declare. This was done in the Synod of the Apostles, against the necessity of Circumcision; and in the four first general Councils, concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Person of the Mediator. And such Decisions concerning matters of Doctrine, when managed aright, have been deservedly reverenced in the Church; since one end of God's appointing these Officers is, that we should be no more Children, tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine. Eph. 4.14. And upon this account a particular Honour is due to the established Doctrine of our Church, which hath a high agreement with the Rule of Scripture, and the Catholic and Primitive Church. Besides these things, all particular Officers of the Church in their charge, are to watch over those committed to them, as much as in them lies, with special regard to the Sick, and to those also who need to be Catechised in the Principles of Religion, John 21.15. (it being our Saviour's first charge to S. Peter to feed his Lambs,) with earnest Prayer for the Grace and Blessing of God upon them all. 4. The Ministry of Reconciliation includeth an Authority of rebuking and admonishng Offenders, of casting them out of the Church, and of restoring them again upon Repentance. This hath been the ordinarily received sense of those great words of our Saviour, Mat. 18.18. Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever ye shall lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. There is indeed a late Objection made, that these words speak not of binding and losing Persons, but Things; and that it is usual with the Jewish Writers to express the binding and losing of Things, not of Persons; meaning thereby the declaring or judging such things prohibited or allowed. But besides what may be otherwise said, I think it sufficient at present to observe, that the admitting this notion may well enough consist with the true sense of these words; which if interpreted by it, will import: 1. That the power of binding and losing hath a considerable respect to such things, as the Cases, Offences, and Penitent Performances of persons; and suitably our Saviour after his Resurrection gave his Apostles the authority of remitting and retaining Sins, which phrase also immediately respecteth not Persons but Things; but yet binding in this sense must include an authoritative declaring the Practices of Men to be so far Evil, as to deprive the offending Persons of their Christian Privileges. 2. These words will also imply that the Officers of the Church are entrusted to bind and continue, or to lose and discharge the observation of Penitential Rules; and accordingly the Apostle saith, to whom you forgive any thing, I forgive it also in the Person of Christ, 2 Cor. 2.10. And even this severe part of Ecclesiastical Power, is for Edification, not Destruction, both to the whole Church, and to the Offender, that through Repentance his Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord; and so is properly included under the Ministry of Reconciliation. The general result of all I have said, is, That the Office of the Ministry is of very high and great importance; and such persons who have a low esteem thereof, if they have any reverence for their Saviour, let them seriously consider, whether he who is Truth and Goodness, can be thought to use such high expressions in this case, as to declare his giving them the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and that what they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and such like; to impose upon the World which he came, to guide and save, and upon his Church which he so dearly loves, with empty sounds of great things, which signify little or nothing. What a mighty sense had the Primitive Christians of this power of the Keys, when the Penitent Offenders under censure undertook, according to some Canons, the strict observation of Penance, Conc. Ancyr. c. 16. Elib. c. 2, 7, 47, 63. Valent. cap. 3. sometimes for 20 or 30 years, and even to the end of their Life, that they might obtain Absolution, and the Peace of the Church, and its Communion: And under this severe Discipline, as Tertullian describes it by the name of their Exomologesis, de Poenit. c. 9 they did lie in Sackcloth and Ashes; they never used such or Diet as might appear pleasant; they frequently exercised themselves in Fasting, Prayers and Tears, crying to God day and night; and among other things, they made humble Supplication, even upon their Knees, unto the Members of the Church, and fell down prostrate before its Officers; it being their custom, Presbyteris advolvi, & charis Dei adgeniculari. And all this was done in the greatest degree, while the Church was under persecution from the Civil Power. But that which they apprehended, and which I doubt not to be true, Exam. Conc. Trid. de Poeni. is, that, as Chemnitius expresseth it, Christus est qui per ministerium absolvit, & peccata remittit; it is Christ who gives Absolution by his Ministry, viz. where they proceed according to his Will. And, as under the Law, he who trespassed, beside the amendment of his fault, and restitution, either in things Sacred or Civil, was to have recourse to the Trespass-Offering, for obtaining the Mercy of God; even so under the Gospel, he who performs the other conditions of Christianity, aught, where it may be had, to apply himself also to the Ministerial power of remitting Sin; and the receiving this Testimony, together with that of a good Conscience, upon a Christian Penitent Deportment, is, next to the great Absolution by Christ, the greatest encouragement for Peace and Comfort. Only I must here add, which I desire may be particularly observed, that the principal way of ministerial dispensing Remission of Sins, and other Blessings of the Gospel, to them who fall not under gross enormities, and the censures of the Church (though performed also in its degree in Doctrine, and other Benedictions and Absolutions) is chief done by Administering the Holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to persons duly qualified. And it is one of the miscarriages of the Roman Church, that they take too little notice of this advantage in receiving the Holy Eucharist, and do inordinately advance their Sacrament of Penance so far into its place, as to be esteemed the only Sacrament after Baptism, wherein may be obtained remission of Sins. Wherefore I conceive, that as that Man who being converted to Christianity, doth profess the Doctrine, and embrace the practice thereof in other things, but wholly omitteth Christian Baptism, doth thereby deprive himself of the ordinary visible Testimony of God's favour, and runs himself upon the needless hazard, of hoping to find acceptance by extraordinary Grace, in the neglect of the ordinary means thereof: even so is it with those adult persons, who being otherwise piously disposed, do ordinarily neglect the attendance upon the Lord's Supper, which is particularly appointed of God, to be a means of conveying and applying the benefits of Christ's Holy Sacrifice, for remission of Sins, and other blessings of the Covenant, to them who are worthy and meet to receive the same. And if this, which to me seemeth a great Truth, was duly heeded, the frequent attendance upon the Holy Communion, and other Services of God, would be, as it was in the Primitive Times, generally looked on as a Duty of very great importance, in Persons adult, and resolving upon a true Christian course of life. Having asserted the nature and excellency of the Ministerial Power; it will be necessary also to disclaim and reject from it these two things. 1. That the Ministry of Reconciliation is not appointed to offer in the Mass a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for the Quick and the Dead; and herewith must be rejected also the Power of effecting Transubstantiation. St. Chrysostom truly asserteth, Chrysost. in 2 Cor. 2.5. That it is not the same thing which is done by Christ, (i. e. in reconciling us by his Sacrifice,) and by his Ministry. But the Priestly Authority, according to the Romish Ordination, Pontif. Rom. is chief placed in this proper Power of Sacrificing, their Form being, Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, etc. And all the Orders of their Ministry have some proper thing appointed for them, which relateth to this Sacrifice of the Mass. That is properly Ordo, Th. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 9 c. 1. saith F. Layman, where there is gradus potestatis ad peragendum Missae Sacrificium, or a degree of Power to perform something about the Sacrifice of the Mass. Much to the same purpose is in many other Writers, and even in the Roman Catechism ad Parcchoes, in which, as also in the Council of Trent itself, Cat. ad Par. de Ord. Sacr. Concil. Trid. Sess. 23. cap. 2. their Priesthood is reckoned as the highest of their seven Orders, partly upon this account, and partly because this Notion serveth further to advance the Dignity and Eminency of the Pope. But there is no such Sacrifice of the Mass in the Religion of our Saviour. Indeed here it must be granted and asserted, that the Elements for the Communion were usually offered to God to be set apart for a sacred Use; and that all Christian Worship being in a large sense the offering spiritual Sacrifices to God, so is especially the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, because therein is eminently a Commemoration of the only Sacrifice of Christ, with a peculiar Address unto God thereby, and it, and the Benefits thereof, are mystically represented and exhibited therein. And in this sense it is ordinarily called a Sacrifice, and a commemorating Sacrifice, in ancient Writers and Liturgies. But the Romish Church not satisfied herewith, in the Trent-Assembly thundereth an Anathema against them who deny their Mass to be verum & proprium Sacrificium, Concil. Trid. Seff. 22. Can. 1, 3. a true and proper Sacrifice, and to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and the Dead, for Sins, Punishments, etc. And they assert, that the Elements being properly transubstantiated, Christ doth in this sense yield himself to be sacrificed, per Sacerdotes sub signis immolandum; Ibid. cap. 1, 2. and that this is as completely a Sacrifice for Sin, as that he himself once offered, and the very same, solâ offerendi ratione diversa. And Bellarmine dares to say of this Sacrifice of the Mass, Bellarm. in Expos. Doctr. Christ. de Penitent. Mundum Deo reconciliat, it reconciles the World to God. But this their Sacrifice is contrary to the Doctrine of the Scripture, and derogatory to the Honour of Christ's Oblation, in that it was the Excellency of his Sacrifice, above the Aaronical Ones, that there is no place for the daily Offering and Repetition thereof, Heb. 7.27. Chap. 10.10, 11, 12, 14.18. Chap. 9.25, 26, 28. since by one Offering once made, he hath perfectly accomplished the End of Sacrificing, as the Apostle largely asserteth, nor can he die any more. And their Transubstantiation, on which this is founded, carrieth so plain Contradictions to the Evidence of Sense, the Principles of Reason, and the plain Assertions of Scripture, and is attended with such numerous and palpable Absurdities, that the general Belief of such a thing by those of the Romish Communion, may be placed among the chief Miracles really wrought in that Church. And the Sacrifice of Christ was on this account expiatory, in that by the Satisfaction he made to his Father, he so far appeased his Wrath, and procured his Favour towards Man, as to obtain the Terms, Grace, and Blessings of the New Covenant. Wherefore if the very same Sacrifice be really offered in every Mass, it must be to the same end, and then not only the Redemption of Man must be there made, but the original Sanction of the Gospel-Covenant must be then, and not before established. Besides this, as the Highpriest, who offered the Expiatory Sacrifice under the Law, must enter with the Blood thereof into the Holy of Holies: So the Apostle acquaints us, that Christ, who is an Highpriest, and an Highpriest after the Order of Melchisedec, offering himself as an Expiation for Sin, must by his Blood-enter into the holy Place not made with hands, even into Heaven itself. Wherefore no Man can undertake properly to offer this Sacrifice, but such an Highpriest, who with the Blood thereof doth enter into Heaven itself, Heb. 9.11, 12, 23, 24 and not still abide upon Earth. 2. We must reject all Power of reconciling any adult Persons unto God, who do not perform the other Conditions of the Gospel-Covenant. If Simon Magus receive Baptism in Hypocrisy, he doth not receive Remission of Sins, but is in the Bond of Iniquity; and the Devil may enter into him who taketh the holy Communion unworthily, as he entered into Judas. He that comes to receive Reconciliation without pious care of serious Repentance, is as the Man under the Law, who came to be purified, but brings an unclean thing with him before the Lord, which is a kind of bidding Defiance to the Holiness of God, and the Purity of his Worship. Now the Church of England declares in her Liturgy, that Christ hath left a Power to his Church to absolve all Sinners who truly repent, and believe in him: And that he is the merciful Receiver of all true penitent Sinners, and most willing to pardon us, if we come unto him with faithful Repentance, if we will submit ourselves to him, and from henceforth walk in his Ways; with much more to that purpose. But in the Romish Church, where they make such a distinction between Contrition and Attrition, as that the latter is an imperfect Grief, which doth not include the Love of God above all, nor doth always take in with it a Detestation of Sin, as the former doth; their Doctors, out of a strange Looseness of Principles, assert, the Duty of Contrition very rarely to oblige any Man. And even the Council of Trent favoureth that Position, Sess. 14. cap. 4. That Attrition, with the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution, is sufficient to please God; concerning which the Generality of their Authors speak much more plain, and many of them urge the Authority of this Council. This is called by Valentia, receptissimum Axioma, a most received Maxim; and though there are some Doctors, Greg. de Val. Tom. 4. Disp. 7. Qu. 8. Punct. 3. who require Contrition as needful with that Sacrament, he saith, this is Sententia vix tolerabilis, an Assertion that may hardly be tolerated. Filiucius, who was Professor in the Jesuits College at Rome, and the Pope's Penitentiary, asserteth, Filiuc. Tr. 6. c. 8. n. 197. Ex vi justitiae ad Deum, etc. That upon account of doing what in Justice we own to God, he that hath Attrition with the Sacrament, is not bound in Duty to be contrite, no, not in the hour of Death. Indeed he there saith, that upon account of Charity to God or themselves, Men may be bound to be contrite, viz. if they would secure themselves, though they should miss the Sacrament of Penance, or would do more for God than he requireth. Filiuc. Tr. 7. c. 6. n. 14. M. Canus de Poenit. Relect. 4. But in another place he tells us, That enough is done to satisfy the Duty of Repentance, by Attrition with the Sacrament. And Canus asserteth, Deus nihil amplius exigit: God requires no more, than either Contrition without the Sacrament, or Attrition with the Sacrament. To the same purpose also speaketh Becanus; and Greg. de Valentia denieth it to be needful with the Sacrament, Becan. Scholar Th. part. 3. c. 35. qu. 6. to have any such Disposition which is putata Contritio, or which they suppose to be Contrition. But is this a Doctrine suitable to the Purity of God, and the holy Jesus, that Men may all their Life-time be so like to Devils, as not to have any single Act of Hatred against Sin, or of Love of God above all things, and yet by a few Words of the Priest, as strange a thing as the Power of Transubstantiating, be transformed into Saints, but without any real Holiness at all? Is this a Representation of Religion like that made in the Scripture, The Doctrine according to Godliness, which requires the doing the Will of our Father which is in Heaven, and declares, that without Holiness no Man shall see God? Or is this like the Primitive Spirit of Christianity, where serious diligence in the Exercises of Contrition and Piety, was thought requisite for receiving Absolution? Shall these Men be accounted the Patrons of Good Works, who against the Doctrine of St. James assert, that Men may be saved without Works, or any holy Action? and who run up to the highest and most absurd Positions of Solifidianism, even the Belief of the Nonnecessity of holy Actions and Dispositions? They have found a way, if it be a safe one, how Works of Iniquity, though they stand condemned by our Saviour, may have an entrance into Heaven without true Conversion. But such will find, that, De Poen. c. 5. as Tertullian spoke in a like Case, Saluâ veniâ in Gehennam detrudentur; notwithstanding their Pardon, they will be cast down to Hell: For if we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in Darkness, we lie, and do not the Truth. These Doctrines of Rome are fit for the Synagogue of Satan, but no such unclean thing may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But whomsoever they follow, let us follow St. Peter, to be diligent, that we may be found of him in Peace, without spot, and blameless. I now come to discourse of the Persons to whom this Ministration is committed, which I shall speak to in a fourfold Consideration. 1. To us, the Officers of the Gospel-Dispensation, not to the false Apostles, nor yet to the Jewish Priesthood. The Ministry of the New Testament excelleth that of the Old, even as the New Covenant, and the Grace of the Gospel goeth beyond the Law, as the Apostle discourseth largely, in the third Chapter of this second Epistle to the Corinthians. The Legal Dispensation in general was a Dispensation of Condemnation, which pronounced a Curse upon Offenders, but gave not Power and Grace to perform Obedience; and the external Observations therein enjoined were a heavy Yoke: And that Acceptance which holy Men had with God under the Law, was not from the particular Jewish Covenant, as such, but chief from the Terms of Grace declared to Abraham, who is called the Father of the Circumcision, to them who are not of the Circumcision only, but who walk in the Steps of the Faith of Abraham. Rom. 4.11. Indeed they had then Sacrifices for Sin, and a Way of Atonement; but these things, as they were strictly legal, did only tend to obtain the Favour of God, that the Offenders should not be cut off, or be exposed to Temporal Judgements: But it was not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should purge away Sins, the Gild of which their repeated Oblations did declare to continue. And the Reverence to God, and Obedience, was in these Observations chief valuable. But these Sacrifices, as they fell under a more large Consideration, were also Evidences of the Mercy of God in receiving Sinners, and were Testimonies of God's particular Favour, in being willing to bless that People, if they would hear his Voice, and obey him; and did also adumbrate the Grace of the New Testament, Rom. 3.21. which the Apostle tells us was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. But the Gospel-Ministration declareth Christ by his Mediation to have actually obtained and effected a complete Way of Reconciliation, and confirmed that Covenant which is established upon better Promises, and is properly and eminently the Ministration of Righteousness, proposing most excellent Blessings, with a sure and plain way to obtain them, and affording such Assistances as are needful. And this Gospel-Reconciliation is so committed to the Ministry, that they ministerially dispense the Blessings thereof, by declaring its Doctrine, by Benedictions and Absolutions, and by dispensing the Sacramental Symbols of Divine Grace. 2. To us, with primary respect to St. Paul, who wrote this Epistle, and the other Apostles. They were in a peculiar manner entrusted with the Ministry of Reconciliation, for they were the chief Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection, and the principal Testifiers of the Christian Faith, and received their Doctrine and Office immediately from Christ. They were the Foundations, next to Christ himself, of the Christian Church, and the infallible Guides thereof, and were furnished with singular Assistances, and the Power of the Holy-Ghost. And the Extent of their Authority was in some parts thereof unconfined and unlimited; even St. Paul saith, he received Grace and Apostleship for Obedience to the Faith, Rom. 1.5. among all Nations, including Rome also, divers Years after St. Peter was said to be Bishop there. The Apostles were the highest Officers of the Christian Church, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. under Christ himself; and the Scriptures tell us, God set therein first Apostles, and therefore none above them. Indeed St. Peter, whom we highly honour as an eminent Apostle, had a kind of Primacy of Order yielded to him, but with no design to depress the other Apostles, above whom he had no distinction of Office. The Power of binding and losing promised to St. Peter, Mat. 16.19. was on like manner given to them all, Mat. 18.18. And that ample Commission, John 20.21, 23. As my Father sent me, so send I you: Whose soever Sins ye remit, etc. doth give them all an equal Authority. And though St. Paul was last called, we read that St. Peter gave to him the right-hand of Fellowship; Gal. 2.9. 2. Cor. 11.5. Chap. 12.11. and in two several places of this second Epistle to the Corinthians, the Holy-Ghost tells us he was in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles. And though there are many Privileges and Prerogatives reckoned up to St. Peter, in which Subject many Romish Writers are very diligent; the Prerogatives of St. Paul, upon due consideration, will either equal them, or not be much inferior to them. It was St. Paul, not St. Peter, who was taken up into the third Heaven, who saw our Saviour after his Ascension into Glory, who laboured more abundantly than they all, who was miraculously called, and was in a peculiar manner the Apostle of the Gentiles, and who wrote a much greater part of the New Testament than any other of the Apostles did. And for that late Notion, That the Power of the Keys was given only to St. Peter, in that he was appointed by Christ, singly to declare the Gospel first to the Gentiles: both this confined sense of the Power of the Keys, and of its being peculiar to S. Peter, is against the sense of Antiquity; and also that which is particularly insisted on is a mistake. For though God by a Vision directed St. Peter to open the Door to the Gentiles; yet all the Apostles had before that time the Commission which he first made use of, to go and teach all Nations, Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. and Preach the Gospel to every Creature: So that this was not a singular Authority committed to St. Peter; but he was first made choice of to have a right understanding of the extent of his Commission. And it is not to be doubted, but that Authority which did belong to all the Apostles, of leading Men to the Church, receiving them into it, governing them in it, and excluding them from it, doth contain the chief part of the power of the Keys. 3. To us, not only to the Apostles, but even to other Officers of the Church, as Bishops and Priests or Presbyters, is given this Ministry of Reconciliation: for if we consider the nature of this Office, the Ministry of Reconciliation, or which is all one, the Ministry of the Gospel must not cease, till the end of it in the Salvation of Men be accomplished. And our Saviour both promiseth his Presence and Authority to be with his Ministry unto the end of the World; and establisheth them in his Church till we all come in the Unity of the Faith, Mat. 28.20. Eph. 4.14. and Knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect Man. And we may further observe, That in writing this second Epistle to the Corinthians; it is manifest from the Inscription thereof, that Timothy therein joined with S. Paul. Now, though he was no Apostle, nor a Companion of St. Paul till after the Council of Jerusalem, as appears from the History of the Acts; yet he here, as well as St. Paul, hath a share in the Ministry of Reconciliation. That Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus, is generally declared by the Ancient Writers. Eusebius attesteth it; Eus. Hist. l. 3. c. 4. and besides others, this was expressed by Leontius in the great Council of Chalcedon; Conc. Chalc. Action. 11. there being then preserved an exact Record and Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church. And though Learned Men herein disagree, and there is manifest difficulty in fixing the Chronology; it is greatly probable, from comparing the Epistles to Timothy with the History of the Acts, that he was not yet made Bishop of Ephesus, when this Epistle to the Corinthians was written: And this might then give some fair probability from the instance of Timothy, that that Order of Priest or Presbyter, as distinct from a Bishop, was of an Apostolical, and therefore a Divine Original. But because several difficulties, too large to be here discussed, must be obviated for the clearing this particular; I shall rather fix upon another Consideration, which may be sufficient to persuade the same. It is very evident from the History of the Acts, and some expressions in the Epistles; that for several years after the famous Church of Ephesus was founded by St. Paul, Timothy the first Bishop there, was usually with St. Paul in his Journeys, or by his Command in other places. Now it may be acknowledged, that the chief Government and power of Censure in several Churches, was for some time reserved in the hands of the Apostles themselves, though at a distance, as is evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians, it was concerning the Church of Corinth. But he who shall think that in all this time they had no Church-Officer fixed amongst them in that great Church of Ephesus, to administer the Holy Communion, and celebrate other needful Ministerial Performances, must account the Apostles to have had no great care of the Churches they planted, nor the Churches to have had any great zeal for the Religion they embraced, which no Man can judge, who hath any knowledge of the Spirit of that Primitive Christianity. But if they had in the Church of Ephesus, other fixed Officers distinct from the Bishop, to celebrate the Holy Communion, and other necessary acts of ordinary Ministration, then must the Order of Presbyters be of as early original in the Church, as the History of the Acts; and then the ordaining Elders in every Church, must take in those who are distinctly called Priests or Presbyters. To this I add, that the Office of Presbyter includeth an Authority to tender in God's Name remission of Sins, and as from him to exhibit to his Church the Sacramental Symbols of his Grace; and upon that account no such Office could ever have its Original from any lower than Apostolical and Divine Authority. 4. To us, in different Ranks and Orders in the Church, not in a parity and equality. Here is S. Paul an Apostle, and Timothy in an Order inferior to him. When Christ was upon Earth, he appointed the Apostles, and the Seventy; and when he Ascended, he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers. And though most of these were Officers by an extraordinary Commission, which are ceased; yet when Timothy was fixed at Ephesus, where there then were Presbyters, as I have showed, the chief power of Government, and the care of Ordination was entrusted in his hands singly, as is manifest, and hath been oft observed from the Epistles to Timothy. The like appears concerning Titus; as also that the chief care of the Churches of Asia, was in the hands of the Angels of those Churches. If we consult the Ancient state of the Church, this chief Government in a single Person or Bishop, in those ancient times, took place as far as Christianity itself reached. Besides what may be said from particular Writers, 1 Can. Ap. 2. Can. Nic. 19 the first General Council of Nice, and the more ancient Code called the Canons of the Apostles, do both of them not only frequently mention, as distinct Offices, the Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon; but also express this distinction between Bishop, and Presbyter. 1. 2 Can. Ap. 1. Can: Nic. 4. 3 Can. Ap. 15, 31, 32, 38. Conc. Nic. c. ●. That the peculiar power of Ordaining doth reside in the Bishop. 2. That he receiveth his Episcopal Office by a special Ordination thereto. 3. That he hath a particular power of governing and censuring the Laiety, and other Clergy. And he who shall consider that many things in the Scripture may receive considerable Light, from understanding the custom of the Jews, and even of the Gentiles, must needs acknowledge that an account of the practice and customs of the Christian Church, may lead us to the true sense of those expressions of Scripture which have relation thereto; especially, since no Man without this help can give a satisfactory account of the distinct work and business of those ordinary Church-Officers, which are particularly mentioned in Scripture: Wherefore I doubt not but according to the Scripture, and the Universal practice of the ancient Church throughout the World; the power of the Keys, and of remitting and retaining Sins, which takes in the whole Office of the Ministry, is in some eminent parts of it wholly reserved to Bishops, while other parts thereof are dispensed by Priests, and some by Deacons; Ignat. ad Smyr. Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. yet so, that these ever acted with submission to the Bishop, as is asserted by Ignatius and Tertullian. I shall only here further observe, that in the very beginning of Christianity, the distinction of the Officers of the Christian Church was owned and acknowledged to be correspondent and parallel to the distinction of the Officers of the Jewish Temple-Service, the observing of which seemeth of considerable moment in this case. Even St. Hierome declares, That what place Aaron, Hieron. ad Evagr. Epiph. Haer. 29. & 78. Hieronym. de scrip. Eccles. in Jacobo. Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 23 gr. his Sons and the Levites had in the Temple, the same have the Bishops, Priests and Deacons in the Church. It is related concerning St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, by Epiphanius out of Clemens, that he did wear the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which is in the Septuagint, the Plate upon the high Priest's Mitre, on which was engraven, Holiness to the Lord,) and he, as also S. Hierome, and Eusebius from Egesippus, relate, that to him only it was lawful to enter into the Holy of Holies. 〈…〉 Now all these Christian ●●●iters, with others who use somewhat like expressions, as ●●●crates concerning St. John, must never be thought to ●●●●pire together to impose Fables upon the after-Ages. 〈◊〉 ●ould they be so much wanting in the knowledge of Christianity, as to imagine that these great Officers of the Christian Church, were Jewish High Priests, and ministered in their Temple-Service; but the sense of these expressions, though they may seem at first view obscure, is, that S. James was acknowledged to have a like eminency of Office above others in the Christian Church of Jerusalem, as the Jewish Highpriest had above other Priests in the Jewish Church. Naz. Or. 5. And Nazianzen expresseth his being ordained Bishop by these and other like words: saith he, Thou anointedst me an Highpriest, and brought'st me to the Altar of the Spiritual Burnt-Offering, sacrificedst the Calf of Initiation, and madest me view the Holy of Holies. Which words evidence, that the Christian Bishop, by an Allegorical Allusion, was described by words primarily relating to the Jewish Highpriest, because of a Parallel eminency in each of them. Now this Observation shows the distinction of these Officers of the Christian Church, Euseb. HIst. l. 2. c. 1. Hieron. de script. Eccles. from the very beginning thereof, St. James being ordained Bishop of Jerusalem very soon after our Saviour's Ascension. And this will further evidence, that as the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and the Jewish Writers frequently mention the Officers of the Temple-Service, only by the names of Priests and Levites, including therein the Highpriest, whose Office was distinct from the other Priests; so it is no prejudice to the like distinction of Offices under the New Testament, that in the Scriptures and some other ancient Writers, the Officers above Deacons are sometimes expressed by the name of Bishops, sometime of Elders, Priests or Presbyters; whilst yet we have very plain Testimony of the singular eminency of one, who hath since been peculiarly called the Bishop. I come now to the last thing to be discoursed of, the Divine Authority by which this Ministry is established. God in Christ hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation; and this speaketh three things. 1. The true Original of this Function. God the Father gave the Ministry of Reconciliation; our Lord sent his Apostles, as his Father sent him; and the Holy Ghost made the Elders of Ephesus to be Overseers of the Flock. And here not only St. Paul, who was called immediately, but Timothy also (even as those other Elders of Ephesus,) being called by Men, whom God made chief Officers in his Church, received this Ministry by Divine Authority; and therefore the Administrations thereof are performed in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This therefore is such a Sanction, as every Person upon Earth ought to reverence; and whosoever either despise or oppose this Ministry, had need seriously and timely to consider whose Authority they undertake to affront. When our Saviour appointed the Twelve Apostles, and afterwards the Seventy, Mat. 10.15. Luke 10, 12. he bids them both to shake off the Dust of their Feet against that City that should not receive them; and tells them it shall be more tolerable for Sodom in that day, than for that City; and declares further even to the Seventy, who were then of the lowest rank of them whom he sent: Luke 10.16. he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. But for all those who are employed about God's Work, and are warranted by his Authority; if they be faithful in his Service, 1 Pet. 5.4. they shall be here under his Care, and hereafter partakers of his Reward. St. Peter acquaints us, that when the chief Shepherd shall appear, they shall receive a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away; Rev. l. 16, 20. ch. 2. l. and St. John assures us, That our Lord himself holdeth the seven Stars, or the Angels of the seven Churches in his right hand. 2. This speaks also the Excellency of this Ministry. As it is from God, it is properly and eminently a Gift of God, even a Gift of that high Nature, that when Christ in his glorious Exaltation received Gifts for Men, he then gave some Pastors and Teachers, Eph. 4. 1●. and as Head of his Church, established this fixed Ministry. And if we consider it as it respects Men, the most excellent Designs are thereby pursued, to wit, the promoting among Men the Glory of God, and the Kingdom and Government of Jesus Christ; and the conducting Men into the Ways of God, and thereby unto Peace and Reconciliation with him, and to everlasting Happiness. Hereupon they who serve God in this Office, 1 Cor. 3.9. 2 Cor. 6.1. are owned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fellow-workers with God himself, as under God, carrying on the great Design of God and his Goodness in the World. And this speaks it an Institution of great Value, Worth, and Honour. And as I above noted this Ministry to excel the Jewish Priesthood, which yet was very excellent; so St. Chrysostom observes, That God hath given this high Honour thereto, Chrysost. de Sacerdot. l. 3. c. 5. which he hath not given to the holy Angels and Archangels themselves, to be Ministers of Reconciliation, and to dispense in his Name the Pledges of his Grace and Favour unto the Members of his Church. 3. This showeth that no Man may take this Honour unto himself, but he that entereth into any Order of this Ministry, must do it in that way which God appointeth. The Apostles were constituted and commissionated immediately by Christ himself; and as he committed the general Care of his Church to them, he therewith endued them with a Power to ordain others, which is a chief part of that Care, and of great concernment for the present and future Good of the Church. The Assistants of the Apostles, and the first Bishops and other Officers of the several Churches, were ordained by some one or more of the Apostles, or of those Apostolical Men who received Ordination from them. The ancient Testimonies of the Fathers assure us, Tert. de Praesc. c. 32. Iren l. 3. c. 3. Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 35. gr. Acts 6.3, 6. Acts 14.23. Eus. Hist. l. 3. c. 23. gr. that Clemens was ordained by St. Peter, and Polycarp by St. John. The Scriptures acquaint us, that the seven Deacons were constituted by the twelve Apostles; and where Paul and Barnabas came, they ordained Elders in every Church. And Eusebius declares, as a Matter of certain Truth, that St. John in his old Age, in some places made Bishops, and in others planted whole Churches. After the Apostles had committed particular Churches to the Care of their Bishops or Metropolitans, they also entrusted the Power of Ordination peculiarly in their hands, which indeed is included in committing to them the chief Care of the Church. Titus 1.5. 1 Tim. 3. 1-14, 15. To this purpose Titus was appointed to ordain Elders in every City of Crete; and Timothy directed how he ought to behave himself in the Church of God, concerning the Ordination of its Officers. And from these Principles, the Truth of what Clemens Romanus declareth may be easily inferred, Epist. ad Cor. p. 57 That the Apostles ordered that when those chief Officers of the Church, whom they had appointed, should die, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, others in their places should succeed them in the same Office and Ministration, and therefore with a Power of Ordination. And the universal Consent of genuine Antiquity, shows the ancient Church to have received and followed that Platform and Model which was framed by the Apostles, for Episcopal Eminency in Government, and Power in Ordination. To this purpose both Tertullian and Irenaeus urge this, Tert. de Praesc. c. 32. Iren. adv. Haer. l. 3. c. 3. as a convictive Argument against the later Brood of Heresies, That the Catholic Church could produce such a Catalogue of their Bishops, and the Succession of them, which would manifest that the first of them who was fixed in their several Churches, was there placed by the Apostles themselves, or by Apostolical Men their Assistants. And the Succession in divers chief Churches is still preserved in ancient Writers, and Ecclesiastical Historians. And that the Power of Ordination especially was peculiar to the Bishop, besides the Testimony of ancient Canons, and Practice, is acknowledged even by St. Hierom. Hieron. ad Evagr. ● And the placing of this Power in a single Person was of great necessity and usefulness, for preserving the Church's Peace and Unity. From hence I conclude, that Episcopal Ordination was, according to the Constitution of the Apostles, and constant Practice of the Ancient Church, the only regular way of entering into this Office and Ministry of Reconciliation: and he that knows how easy a thing it is to raise plausible Objections almost against any thing, will not be much moved by such as some produce in this case, against so plain Evidence and general Testimony. Indeed there have been some, and but some Protestant Foreign Churches, (not the Bohemian, as some English Writers have unfaithfully misrepresented it, nor those of Sueden, and the Danish Dominions, nor divers others in Germany,) who have been without this Episcopal Ordination; and it must be said, that in this particular, which is a matter of moment, they are defective in that Primitive Apostolical Order which we observe. But in the first fixing these Churches, and their Ministry, all things seem not to have been done as they would have chosen, but as their present Circumstances would give them leave, while they wanted that Privilege which our Reformation enjoyed, the Consent of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors. For besides the Expressions of particular Writers, the French Protestants, in their General Confession, Confess. Gallic. c. 31. concerning the Entrance into the Ministry, pleaded a Necessity in their Reformation, of having some things done extra ordinem, out of the regular Way, with respect to the making up the Ruins and Decays of the Church. Yea, those Churches themselves, and the most worthy Men among them, are no Opposers, but Approvers of this Government and Order, as hath been sufficiently showed concerning many principal Persons among them. And even in the Synod of Dort, when those sent from England asserted Episcopacy as Apostolical, there was not (as they declared in their joint Attestation) any one Person in that Synod, who spoke a Word against it; yea, as Bishop Hall acquaints us, the Precedent of the Synod said, Domine, Divine Right of Episcopacy, part 1. c. 4. non licet nobis esse tam faelices: We may not be such happy Men. Now I conceive, it becomes private Persons not to be over forward in judging other Churches, but to express as much Charity towards them as the case will bear; but to show no such respect to any, as to neglect a due Reverence to whatsoever is of God. Wherefore I shall only note three things in general. 1. That it is indeed a Truth, that some positive Precepts may in extraordinary cases be dispensed with by the Goodness of God, who will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice. This was that which warranted David's Men in eating the Shewbread. In this case Circumcision was forborn in the Wilderness; and the Jewish Casuists thought that Precept not to oblige, Hor. Hebr. in 1 Cor. 7.19. when the circumcising an Infant was inevitably like to procure his Death. The sacrificing in another place than that which God had singly appointed, was practised by Samuel, as well as others, after the Destruction of Shiloh, and before the Building of the Temple; and by Elijah, under the general Defection of Israel. The celebrating Baptism by Persons unordained, was allowed in the ancient Church, Hieron. adv. Lucif. si necessitas cogit, as St. Hierom phraseth it. And the Command that all the Males of Israel should three times in the Year appear before the Lord, doth yet by the Letter of the Scripture give allowance to him who was in a Journey, and by the reasonable Interpretation of the Jewish Writers, 1 Sam. 1.21. V Seld. de Syn. l. 1. c. 7. p. 186, 187. the same Liberty was to be extended to those in Childhood and Infancy, (as Samuel was) and to those in Sickness, Old-Age, and such like. 2. Yet it becomes all good Men, who are to obey God, and reverence his Institutions, not to be forward in judging themselves disobliged, by the appearance of such Cases as they account extraordinary, from Obedience to any of his Rules of Order. When Saul thought he had a Case of Necessity to warrant his Sacrificing, yet God was highly displeased therewith, and deprived him of his Kingdom: Nor might Vzzah touch the shaking Ark. 3. In ordinary cases, he who willingly breaks positive Rules established by God's Authority, is guilty of heinous moral Evil, in disobedience to God's Commands, contempt of his Government, and despising the Blessings which he tenders by those Institutions. Wherefore since Episcopal Ordination hath been of so general Practice, from the Apostles, in the Church of God, and is regularly established and continued in this Kingdom, no Man in this Church, with respect to Order, Unity, and Apostolical Institution, can reasonably expect that God will ever own him as his Officer in the Ministry of Reconciliation, unless he be admitted thereto by such Ordination. And private Christians, both out of Duty to God, and out of respect to their own Safety, may not so esteem of any who oppose themselves against this Order, because of the Danger under the New Testament, of perishing in the gainsaying of Core. And let every Person, whosoever he be, be wary how upon any pretence whatsoever he undertakes to execute any proper part of the Power of the Keys, unless he be set apart thereunto by regular Ordination. And now I shall conclude my Discourse with three Inferences. First; This gives us an account whence all that Opposition and Difficulty doth arise, which the Ministration of the Gospel, and the faithful Servants of God therein do meet with. The Devil will use his utmost Power, by all his Methods, to hinder so good a Work as this Ministration is intended for. Hence the Holy Jesus, and most of his Apostles, met with opposition even unto Death. And as all the Persecutions of the Christian Church had an especial eye upon the Clergy, so that violent one under Dioclesian, Eus. Hist. l. 3. c. 12. for the first Year, singled them only out to be the Subjects of his Fury. These are the ordinary Mark, against whom all the Church's Enemies shoot their poisoned Arrows, envenomed from the Malignity of the Old Serpent. And when the Evil One cannot proceed by open Violence, he oft makes use of Instruments to fix slanderous Censures and Calumnies upon the Officers of Christ, to render their Ministration the less prosperous and successful in the World: Insomuch that their Devoutness in Religion is by some upbraided with Ceremoniousness; and their conscientious Observance of due Order, and Averseness to Faction, is branded with the odious Term of Popery; and their embracing the necessary Reformation of the Church, is by others stigmatised with the infamous Names of Heresy and Schism. Thus our Saviour was called Beelzebub, himself accused of Blasphemy, and his Doctrine of Heresy. Besides these things, the vicious and scandalous Practices of too many who profess the Truth, the various Schisms, and other manifold Corruptions in the Doctrine and Practice of Religion; and I wish I might not add the undue Proceed of some Patrons in conferring Ecclesiastical Preferments, are all of them dangerous Methods, made use of by the Evil One, to hinder the attaining the great Ends of this Ministration. Secondly; I now address myself to you, my Reverend Brethren. It is a weighty Charge, a Business of great Importance, that we are called unto; and as we are Stewards of the Living God, it is required of us that we be found faithful. And for the putting us in mind of that serious Care and Diligence which we are to use in our Ministry, I know not how to speak otherwise so well, as by recommending the serious and frequent considering that useful Exhortation in the Book of Ordination. And let us particularly look well to our own Paths; for though the Excellency of God's Ordinances doth not depend upon the Instruments, yet if a Blemish appears in any of our Lives, it becomes a great Prejudice to the Designs we should carry on among Men, and will open the Mouths of our Enemies; and if there be a Judas among the Apostles, the Devil is ready to make a special use of him to his purposes. But let us observe that Rule, which but a few Verses after my Text, the Apostle tells us was the Practice of himself, and other Officers of the Christian Church, Giving no Offence in any thing, that the Ministry be not blamed, but in all things approving ourselves as the Ministers of God. 2 Cor. 6.3, 4. Thirdly; Let every one in their places lay to their helping-Hand, to promote the Success of this Ministry upon themselves and others. Wherefore let every Man who lives under the Dispensation of the Gospel, reject all Wickedness of Life, and exercise himself unto Godliness; and so he will certainly advantage himself, and probably others by his good Example. And let all those who have the management of the Authority of the Church in their hands, indifferently check the Neglect and Contempt of the Public Service of God, and all other Viciousness and Evil which comes within the Limits of their Authority, and countenance and encourage all real Virtue, Goodness, Holiness, and Religion. And those Parish-Officers, who stand charged upon their Oaths to give an account of Offences, which is noted by our 26th Canon, to be the chief Means whereby public Offences may be reform and punished, and whose Miscarriage is there severely censured; let not them sinfully neglect their Oath and their Duty, the right Discharge of which may tend to the Glory of God, the flourishing of the Church and Religion, and the bringing Men into the Ways of Happiness. And because the Apostle proposeth that humbling Question concerning the Ministerial Charge, Who is sufficient for these Things? Let us earnestly implore the Help and Grace of God to assist us, and succeed our Ministrations to the great Good of Men. And let every devout Christian join his fervent and frequent Prayer to this end and purpose, That he who hath committed to us this Ministration, would bring all those who partake thereof, unto true Holiness of Life here, and eternal Happiness hereafter, through the Merits of Jesus Christ our Lord: To whom, with the Father and the Holy-Ghost, be all Glory for evermore. Amen. A SERMON Preached at NORWICH, March 2. 1678. JOEL 2.12. Therefore also now saith the Lord, Turn ye even to me with all your heart. IN the foregoing part of this Prophecy there is a dismal appearance of things concerning Judah, a heavy threatening of sad Calamities therein, both by Famine and Sword, in the first Chapter and former part of the second. The dreadfulness hereof is represented according to an usual Prophetic Style, as if God was making the whole Fabric of his Creation to totter; v. 10. The Earth shall quake before them, and the Heavens shall tremble, the Sun and Moon shall be dark, and the Stars shall withdraw their shining. And this great Calamity was like to be the more sad, because of the terror of God's Vengeance going along with it, v. 11. The Day of the Lord is great and very terrible, and who can abide it? In such a case as this, these words (which our Church directeth to be read at the beginning of Lent, which is now near, and which are of excellent use at all times,) are the beginning of the Prophetical Direction for their help and recovery from this sad Condition; and such a Remedy as recovereth one gasping for Life, is worth the valuing. Now here upon the first mention of returning to God, are some overtures of hope, v. 13. He is gracious and merciful. v. 14. Who knows if he will return and repent? And after the continuance of solemn and serious Devotion, required in the following Verses, we have a plain and clear promise of help, v. 18. Then will the Lord he jealous for his Land, and pity his People. So excellent and efficacious a prescription is true Repentance and returning to God, that upon this the Scene of affairs is presently changed. And whereas all that part of this Prophecy which goeth before this Text, contained doleful and heavy Judgements: From this Verse forward there are great Blessings and Comforts promised to Judah, and Judgements denounced against her Enemies, even unto the end of this whole Prophecy. Thus hereby the dark Night endeth in the appearance of a bright Day; and the stormy Tempest is blown over, and behold a Calm. In these words we have, 1. The Authority by which they are commanded, Therefore also now saith the Lord. So that we have here a Divine Law and Precept, even with respect to these foregoing Circumstances, which had a terrible Aspect: But how sad soever they were, God himself directs to a way of help. There is no state, how perplexed and uncomfortable soever in this World, but which is intended of God to deter Men from Sin. Even in the severest threaten of God's Wrath and Anger there is, as Cl. Alexandrinus expresseth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a kindness and love to Men, by such Threaten to reclaim them from their Sin, and reduce them from the Paths of Ruin. And this Phrase, therefore also now saith the Lord, doth also give notice of somewhat remarkable which followeth, which requireth our special attention and diligent observation. 2. The chief thing here expressed, is, the Precept or useful Direction itself; Turn ye even unto me with all your heart. This I shall insist upon, and thence shall undertake to show, That Pious and Penitent behaviour towards God, and hearty turning to him, is always useful, and is the best way for remedy under the greatest difficulties. And of this I shall discourse (as the nature of the subject requireth,) with the greatest plainness and evidence that I can. The Duty here enjoined, is of great concernment and usefulness: To a Man's self, a quickened and renewed exercise of his Duty brings inward Peace, entitles him to the Blessing and Favour of God, and the Rewards of his Kingdom. The state of the World, and of the Church is such, That many Men know not whither to look or turn; and then the most useful and necessary undertaking is, to direct their eyes to God, and turn unto him. Other acts of prudent care are in their places needful also; but there is no true Prudence in the neglect of this which is of greatest moment: The Prodigal Son in his straits could take no wiser course than to bethink himself, and return to his Father; and thereby he takes the best care of his Duty and his Welfare both together. And this true penitent application to God, is the sure and only way to obtain his favour. Zech. 1.3. Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of Hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts. In speaking to this Duty, I shall inquire into these two things. I. What Encouragements have we for obtaining good from God by our hearty turning to him? II. What is it to turn to God with all our heart; or what must be done by us for the right performing this Duty? Qu. 1. What Encouragements have we that we may receive good from God by hearty turning to him? This enquiry is suitable to the design and occasion of my Text, these words being proposed as a way for receiving help and good. This also is of great use with respect to the Duty itself; since Men are not forward to undertake things which they think will be to no purpose, and will tend to no advantage. And this also is needful with respect to the general state of Religion; since he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Wherefore I shall here consider the more general encouragement we have to turn to God, from the nature of God himself; and then the particular encouragements from the state and nature of Christianity. Among the various Encouragements from the Nature and Being of God, I shall only mention two things. 1. God's Supreme Government and Authority. Upon this account his favour is highly valuable, because he disposeth of all the great Affairs and Concerns of Men. For he order the final Judgement which concerns the eternal state of Men; and this will proceed according to the Rules of Righteousness and the New-Covenant, and according to the Sentence which will then be pronounced, must every Man's endless Condition be. But with respect to that Day, those who are hard and impenitent do treasure up Wrath against the day of Wrath; but those who turn unto God, shall inherit Life: And God so disposeth of all private and public Affairs in this World, that thereupon it is of great concernment to have him well-pleased with us. And if a gracious Prince standing by his faithful Subject, or a righteous Judge taking in with an honest and just Cause, be the Advantage of those who are concerned therein; much more is the Kindness and Care of God greatly valuable: For no Evil befalls any without his hand, nor are there any public Calamities but such as are his Judgements. He can, and oft doth defeat the Counsels of Men, and discover their secret Contrivances; and he governs them and their Actions, and the Events thereof. Herein we have hitherto had cause to admire the Goodness and Wisdom of God, and his Counsel shall stand. 2. The Goodness and Purity of his Nature. This shows his great readiness to express his Favour to them who hearty turn to him. The Order and Beauty of the Creation, and the constant and abundant Supplies of Providence, are Evidences of God's great Bounty, and Readiness to communicate of his Goodness to his Creatures. The Light of this World is not so diffusive of itself, as the Goodness of God is, since from him, as the Father of Lights, cometh every good Gift. But that Purity (which the Perfection of the Divine Being doth assure us to be in God, and which even our own Consciences must also acknowledge) speaks Goodness and Piety to be acceptable to God, and the Persons who are exercised therein to be peculiarly the Objects of his Favour. And as he is a Governor, Obedience and Reverence must be both due to him, and pleasing in his sight. And indeed no good Man is so highly pleased with Goodness and Seriousness, as the holy God is; and there is nothing in his whole Creation that he esteems so much. He hath said, Heaven is my Throne, and Earth is my Footstool; but to this Man will I look, that is poor, and of a contrite Spirit. Isa. 66.1, 2. Now upon this consideration of the Divine Goodness, the Ninevites proceeded in their Repentance; and though that was undertaken upon uncertain hopes, yet with good success. But we have plain Promises and Directions to our Duty, and as plain Promises annexed thereunto, such as Ezek. 18.20. I will judge you, O House of Israel, every one according to his Ways, saith the Lord God. ' Repent, and turn yourselves from all your Transgressions, so Iniquity shall not be your Ruin. I come now to consider some peculiar Encouragements from Christianity, and shall here mention three. 1. From the coming of the Son of God into the World. He came to be a Mediator, and a Sacrifice, and to assure us, that God is ready to be reconciled to all them that turn to him, and entertain the Terms of his Covenant. And therefore those who are truly penitent, shall by virtue of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ, and the Reconciliation he hath thereby made, obtain the Favour of God. This was so much designed by our Saviour, that Repentance was one of the first things he preached, Mat. 4.17. Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent. And among the last Things which he committed to his Apostles before his Ascension, this was one, That Repentance, and Remission of Sins, should be preached in his Name among all Nations. Luke 24.47. And is it not our great Comfort, that the Encouragements to true Repentance are assured by the Doctrine of the Gospel, and by the Death of Christ, and that they are confirmed by both the Sacraments of the New Testament? If God had not been willing to receive humble Penitents, and to give them his Blessings, would he have sent his Son, and have given so great a Blessing to the World, as to put us upon returning to him? And if Christ came to call Sinners to Repentance, will he not own and receive them who obey his Call? It is true indeed, that the Proposals of the Gospel do chief relate to God's bestowing spiritual and eternal Blessings (and our Care should be especially about these things) but even temporal Blessings are not excluded from the Promises of God. 2. From the Glory of Christ's Exaltation. He who upon Earth proposed the Grace and Doctrine of Repentance, hath now in Heaven all Authority and Power to dispense the Blessings he promised to them who obey him. And he is faithful and true to perform his Word. Would you obtain Remission of Sin, and the Favour of God? He, as our Highpriest, is our Intercessor, effectually to procure this Blessing from God for them who hearty turn to him. And as our King, he is himself empowered to dispense this Favour of God; For God hath exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give Forgiveness of Sins. Acts 5.31. And he who took so much pains to seek after the straying Sheep, will no doubt embrace them who by his care do return. If you seek for the Welfare and Preservation of the Church of God, and its being defended against its Enemies; as humble pious Christians are the Heirs of Promise, these Blessings are the Benefits contained in the Covenant and Promise of God. And withal, there are special Encouragements from our Saviour's Exaltation, for our expecting to receive these Mercies: For our Saviour being exalted at God's right-hand, is now made an Head over all things to the Church; and this includes both his near Relation which he beareth to it, and that also he taketh upon himself a very particular Care of it. And his Exaltation is so fatal to his and his Church's Enemies, that he must reign till all his Enemies be made his Footstool. Hereupon he tells Saul, going to Damascus, that it was hard for him to kick against the Pricks. His Enemies must fall before his Power, but he will effect what he undertakes to uphold. 3. From the more particular Consideration of the State of the Gospel-Church. The Christian Church is made up of returning Penitents, but these are owned of God as his Children and Heirs, and they shall shine as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father. And such is God's Care of this Society of his Church, that if it walk in his Way, it shall be supported by him, though Earth and Hell should contrive against it. Yet no particular Branch or Part of the Christian Church hath any security of its standing, or any assurance from God that it shall be preserved, but upon the Conditions of its holding the Faith, and practising Piety and Obedience, or hearty Repentance. And indeed it can have none, because there can be no particular Promise from God against the Nature and Terms of the New Covenant, which enjoins Faith and Obedience as necessary Conditions of Acceptance with God. The Romish Church pretends that she can never fall, but must always continue, because of that Promise of our Saviour, Mat. 16.18. On this Rock I will build my Church. But to this all I shall say at this time, is, That these Words do no way particularly refer to the Roman Church, as it would arrogate to itself. And our Lord hath plainly declared to us, that no Church or Persons whatsoever can be represented by a House built upon a Rock, which will stand notwithstanding all Oppositions, but those who hear and obey his Doctrine, which the Church of Rome doth not. But all who neglect this Faith and Practice, are as those who build on the Sand; their House will fall, and great will be the Fall thereof. Mat. 7.24, 25, 26, 27. And that there was no particular Privilege of this Nature ever intended to be granted to the Church of Rome, is further manifest from that Epistle St. Paul wrote to the Romans: For with some particular respect to that Church, he lets them know, If God spared not the natural Branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee; and if thou continue not in his Goodness, thou also shalt be cut off; Rom. 11.21, 22. But all particular Churches whatsoever, who hearty obey the Doctrine of the Gospel, are secured of God's especial Care and Preservation from those Words of our Saviour, John 15.2. Every Branch in me that beareth Fruit, my Father purgeth it, that it may bring forth more Fruit. The fruitful part of his Vineyard will not want his Care. And it is our great Comfort, that God's Catholic Church stands by his Foundation upon a Rock, so that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, or no kind of Destruction shall be able to overcome it. So that whatever Enemies it hath in the World, they, like the proud and mighty Waves, if they dash themselves against the Rock, will be broken in pieces; but the Rock itself, and that which is built upon it, as an impregnable Fortress, standeth firm. For the Comfort of the Primitive Christians, the Book of the Revelations gave them assurance, that God would take care that his Church should not be overwhelmed by the Persecutions it endured, but should prevail under them. And if it had not been from the Support of the Power of God, the Christian Church in its weakest Estate could never have stood against the Wisdom and Power of the World, which was then engaged against it; but God then did, and yet will uphold his Church even to the end. And with a particular eye to God's especial Care hereof in these latter Times, we read, that when the Thousand Years were ended, and the Nations, and Gog and Magog compassed the Camp of the Saints, and the beloved City, than Fire came from God out of Heaven, and devoured them, Rev. 20.8, 9 And those Interpreters, who would understand these Phrases of the Camp of the Saints, and the Beloved City, concerning any particular City or Place upon Earth, seem not herein to observe the Nature of the Prophetic Style, which will direct us to understand it of the more eminent and chief part of the Christian Church. Wherefore we have great grounds for expecting Good from God, if we mind our Duty to him. Now upon this Encouragement, let us in the Fear of God undertake this Duty, that we may be instrumental to the procuring Good to the Church of God, and that we ourselves may be Partakers of eternal Happiness. This is the way to have God to be our Friend; and no other Peace in the World can be concluded and secured upon those advantageous Terms, as our having Peace with God may be. And therefore I shall now come to the second thing I proposed to discourse of, what we are here commanded to do. Quest. 2. What is it to turn to God with all our Heart? Answ. This is one and the same thing with Repentance. The Septuagint express this Phrase of Turning in the Text by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or being converted to God. And this supposeth or includeth, 1. A serious Consideration and minding of our Rule, together with the Motives that should put us upon a Practice answerable thereto. This Rule is the Word of God, or the Holy Scripture, as superadded to the natural Light of Reason and Conscience. Upon due pondering of this, Josiah's Heart was tender, and he humbled himself, and undertook a Reformation. 2. Selfreflection and Examination of our Minds, Ways, and Actions by this Rule, with this steadfast purpose, that nothing may be entertained or allowed in us, which is not agreeable thereunto. 3. An humble and serious Sorrow for past Miscarriages, with hearty and unfeigned Confession of Sin, and earnest Supplication to God for the obtaining Mercy. 4. A resolved undertaking to forsake all Evil in Heart and Life, and to do our Duty. These things are so plain in the Nature of them, and so evidently necessary in their general Consideration, that they need not either further Explication or Proof. The Practice and Exercise of Repentance, and turning to God, taketh in all these; but both the Phrase of Turning, and the chief Design of Repentance hath principal respect to the last of them, it being all one to turn to God, and to return to, and carefully set upon our Duty. And therefore I shall now insist on this; and that we may practise these things to good effect, I shall urge some particular Instances, which are of great use to be performed in our minding this Duty. 1. In avoiding Schisms and Divisions, and practising Unity and Peace. 2. In the forsaking Debauchery and Profaneness, and the embracing Seriousness and Sobriety. 3. In rejecting all Irreligion, and Neglect of the Worship of God, and engaging ourselves in true Piety and hearty Devotion. 1. In the avoiding Schisms and Divisions, and practising Unity and Peace. How many and frequent are the Precepts for Peace and Unity delivered in the Doctrine of our Saviour? and how earnestly is this urged and inculcated? If there be any Consolation in Christ, etc. (saith the Apostle, Phil. 2.1, 2.) Fulfil ye my Joy, being of one accord, and of one mind. And if we view and consider the Business of our Religion, as it was delivered by our Saviour and his Apostles, this will be found to be one of its great and weighty Precepts. And shall we then be forward to contend about other lesser things, to the neglect of this? As the Scribes and Pharisees would tithe Mint, Anise, and Cummin, but neglected the weighty Things of God's Law. St. Paul tells us, The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink, but Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy-Ghost: For he that in these Things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of Men. Rom. 14.17, 18. In which Words it is very plainly asserted, that whilst some other Things which Men may contend about, are of less moment, these Things here mentioned are of great concernment to Religion itself, and the being esteemed of God and good Men. And as Peace is one of these great Duties here urged, so that the Apostle had a very particular Eye thereupon, may be concluded from the Words immediately following, v. 19 Let us therefore follow after the Things which make for Peace. And the Neglect of this Duty is very hurtful and pernicious to the Christian Church: For as in the Body, when it is rend and torn, and the Members disjointed, there must be from this very Cause great Disorders, Weakness, and Feebleness; so is it also in the Church of God. Yea, these Things are to be accounted of dangerous Consequence, for the undermining or shaking the Kingdom of Christ, since our Lord himself hath told us, that a Kingdom divided against itself, is brought to Desolation. And shall any good Man be pleased to join with the Enemy in his Designs against the welfare, stability and safety of the Church of Christ? Now, besides many other Arguments which might be insisted on, to dissuade from Schisms and Divisions, there are two things I shall recommend to you, as being well worthy your serious consideration. First, making Divisions in the Church, either includes a total want, or at least a defect in a great degree of the true Spirit of Christianity: This must needs be so, because the observing Peace and Unity are so great a part and duty of our Religion. If we reflect on our Baptism, we are baptised into one Body, and therefore are to observe Unity. And when S. Paul urgeth the Ephesians to take care of that great Duty, of walking worthy of that Vocation wherewith they were called, Eph. 4.1. To that end he most particularly and largely insists on their keeping the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace, v. 3, etc. And from this very Reason he concluded the Corinthians to be carnal, because of the envying, strife, and divisions that were among them, 1 Cor. 3.3. And wherever the Peace and Unity of the Church is broken from those corrupt Principles of Pride, Self-will, and the carelessness of obeying God's Commandments, this speaks such an unchristian temper as will exclude such Persons from the Kingdom of God. And therefore those very phrases the Apostle makes use of to express the Discords and Rents in the Church of Corinth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are all of them enumerated in his Epistle to the Galatians, (though there they be rendered by other English Words, Gal. 5.20.) among those Works of the Flesh, concerning which we are told with earnestness of expression, that they that do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. And I think it considerable to be further observed, that even in such Persons who are of a better Spirit, and who in the main, close with the other Duties and Rules of Christianity, their miscarriage in this particular, in not holding the Peace and Unity of the Church, will lessen and abate the degrees of that future Glorious Reward which they would otherwise receive: And this I think is sufficiently declared by St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians; when he had rebuked the Corinthians for their Divisions, one being of Paul, and another of Apollo, 1 Cor. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. he still keeping his Eye upon, and having an aim at these Divisions, as appears from that third, and the former part of the fourth Chapter, tells them concerning them who hold to that only foundation which the Apostles laid, If any shall build thereupon that which will not abide the Trial; if his work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by Fire. v. 15. That is, if any such person shall be engaged in Divisions in the Church, or in any other unwarrantable Action or Doctrine, it shall go the worse with him, and be hereafter to his loss; and though he escape Misery and obtain Life, it shall be with the greater hazard, danger, and difficulty. And therefore he who would seek his own greatest Good, must carefully avoid this miscarriage. Secondly; Consider how extremely opposite, and contrary divisions in the Church are to Christ himself. He is one Lord and Head, he hath by one Spirit and in one Baptism established his Church to be one Body in one and the same Faith and Doctrine, and upon the same Hope of their Calling; and under the same Only God and Father of all. And all these things S. Paul urgeth, as containing in them special Obligations for Christian Unity, Eph. 4.3, 4, 5, 6. And besides all the Precepts of his Doctrine, let us seriously observe how much our dying Saviour did earnestly and again, desire and pray that all his Disciples might be one, John 17.11, 21, 23. And this he twice expresseth in his Prayer to be desired to this end, that the World might believe that thou hast sent me. Now if it would be an unworthy thing for any person against all reason and duty to oppose the Dying Request of the best Friend he ever had in the World; it must needs be unaccountable to act against that which was even at the point of Death, so affectionately and importunately desired by our Lord and Saviour. Was this aimed at by our Lord as an useful means to bring over the World to believe in him? and will any who have any Honour for Christ or Love for Men be so uncharitable as to be engaged in any such Works as tend to keep off Men from Christianity; and from obtaining Salvation by Jesus Christ. But this is sufficiently intimated by our Saviour to be the sad effect of the Divisions in his Church. To all this I shall further add that it is related by Crusius (Turcograec. lib. 3. part 1. p. 234.) that it is the daily Prayer of the Turks, that Christians may not be at Unity. And they who are of the Church of Rome express their delight and satisfaction in our Disagreements. Baronius (Annal. Eccles. An. 344. n. 9) makes use of this as a considerable Argument against the truth of the Protestant Doctrine: and Salmeron (Tom. 9 Tr. 16. n. 1.) declares that this is that which giveth them expectations of prevailing against us. And now shall any who own themselves the true followers of Christ, so undertake to contradict the dying Request of their Saviour, as in the mean time to choose that which complieth with, and gratifieth the Desires both of the professed Enemies of his Religion, and of those also who strangely corrupt and pervert his Doctrine and Gospel? But after all this, or whatsoever else may be spoken to this purpose, there are two sorts of Men who I doubt are not like to be persuaded. 1. I fear there are some fierce Men, who are so far from having hearts inclined to do this Duty, that they have not Patience to hear it, but rather to turn angry, and to cry out, as the Lawyer did to our Saviour, Thus saying, thou reproachest us also. But it will become them, and others too, to bethink themselves of the sad danger of all those persons who will not hearken, but stop their Ears to such plain Duties as those of Peace and Unity are. But these Truths must be spoken, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. 2. And others there are who will acknowledge in general the Truth of all I have said of the great Sin and Evil of Schisms and Divisions. And though they be engaged in the dividing Parties, will plead their own Innocence, and charge the fault of these Divisions wholly upon the order and constitution of our Church, and not upon themselves. Now here much might be said to show that the Worship and Service of God in our Church is agreeable to the true Christian Rule; and that on the other hand there are many things unaccountable, yea, and unlawful, which are embraced without scruple by Dissenters, and contended for by the dividing Parties. But this would be too long for me to insist upon in my present Discourse. Wherefore, instead thereof, I shall mention a sensible and ocular Demonstration, that it is not the Constitution of our Church, but the ill temper of dividing Spirits, that is the true cause of our Divisions; And that is this, That when this Constitution was thrown aside between thirty and forty years since, the Rents and Divisions of the Church were not by this means removed, but to the grief of good Men they were greatly increased thereby; and the Spirits of many Men in this particular have been the worse ever since. Let all of us therefore take heed to ourselves, that we keep in the paths of Peace and Unity; and let us mourn and pray for others who neglect them. II. A second thing to be done in our turning to God, is the forsaking all Viciousness and Debauchery, and becoming Serious and Sober. Vice defiles and debaseth the nature of Man. It is so much against Reason and Conscience, and is so far condemned by the common sense of Mankind, that it generally passeth for a disparagement in the World. And Viciousness is so much against the interest of Men, and the good of the World, that thereupon it is prohibited and punished by the Laws even of Barbarous Nations. This is the great Folly of Evil Men, whilst hereby under the appearances of trifling Pleasures, great Cheats are imposed upon Men, who should be wiser than to be thus decoyed into Temporal Evils and Eternal Miseries. Now in turning to God, there must be a breaking off from Sin by Repentance; or a Care to departed from Evil, and to do Good. Nor is it enough that there be a mere restraint upon outward Actions of Evil; but there must be also an hearty Resolution and inward Hatred against Sin, and a sincere Love of what is Good: And that this may be effectual, it must be set upon timely and presently; as a Wise Man will use his utmost diligence to put a stop to a dangerous Disease before it be too late, and it become incurable. To this purpose let these three things be considered. First, Consider how all Vice and Wickedness of Life is contrary to the nature of God; Such is the Purity of the Divine Being, that Sin is more opposite and hateful unto God, than to the most Virtuous Man that lives in the World. God is Light, and in him is no Darkness at all; and it is as possible for the black Darkness to stand before the brightness of the Sun's Light, as for the workers of Iniquity to be approved by the Holy God: The singular purity of his Laws, and the exceeding dreadfulness of his Threats against Wickedness, are intended to deter Men from the commission thereof. And if we take notice of the instances and examples of God's displeasure against Sin, these are very numerous. It was Disobedience that turned Adam out of Paradise; Debauchery and Wickedness was that which unpeopled the old World, and caused them to be destroyed by a Deluge; and Sodom and Gomorrah to be consumed by Fire and Brimstone from Heaven. By the like sinful practices, the Jews who were God's peculiar People, and to whom he was as an Husband, were divorced from him; and divers Calamities have been brought down upon other Persons and Nations. And yet all these things come far short of what will be manifested at the great Day, when the terrible Sentence of Eternal Perdition will be pronounced against all Evil-doers, who shall perish with everlasting Destruction from the Presence of the Lord. Secondly; Consider how much wicked works are peculiarly opposite to Christianity. Sin is of the nature of the Devil; he is the Spirit that worketh in the Children of Disobedience; but the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil, 1 Joh. 3.8. The Life of Christ was such, that thereby he left us an example that we should follow his Steps who did no Sin; and his Doctrine teacheth us, that we should deny Ungodliness and Worldly Lusts. Even our Baptism is an undertaking to Renounce the Devil, and become dead unto Sin. And it is more unaccountable for Debauchery to be in a Christian, than for the brutish nature to inhabit the Soul and Body of a Man; because this not only opposeth our Profession of Christianity, but the designs of our Redeemer also. His coming into the World, and his Death and Passion was, that he might redeem us from all Iniquity, and purify to himself a People zealous of good Works. But that the Works of Darkness should be embraced by the Children of Light; that they should yield up themselves to the Evil one, who have plentiful Aids and Assistances of Divine Grace to withstand and overcome him, is a thing altogether inexcusable. Thirdly; Consider, that Viciousness is the more intolerable, when God's hand appears to be lifted up. Corrections and Judgements are some of the last and most powerful means which God makes use of for Man's amendment. By these Pharaoh was brought to Submission, and Ahab to Humiliation: And it hath been observed, that the Israelites after the Seventy years' Captivity in Babylon, were never prone to follow after other Gods, as they had frequently done before, notwithstanding their Instructions from the Prophets for towards a Thousand years; and it is then expected that when God's Judgements are in the Earth, the Inhabitants of the World will learn Righteousness; for there must be great obstinacy and hardness, where the fears or strokes of the hand of God make no Impression. Now we have heard of the Calamities of Neighbour Countries, and God hath exercised us with severe Chastisements not many years since; his hand is now stretched out: if we hearty turn to him, we have reason to hope it will be for our help; but if not, we have cause to fear it will be to our hurt. III. The third and last thing I shall mention to be done in hearty turning to God, is, To reject all Irreligion and neglect of the Worship of God, and to be exercised in the Religious Service of God, with true Piety and hearty Devotion. Wherefore, 1. Let no neglect of Religion have any place amongst us, or let all miscarriages herein be carefully amended. The Worship of God, and the Institutions of our Blessed Saviour are by too many disregarded. But yet the Love and Fear of God, the serving him, and walking in all good Conscience before him, is greatly needful to be undertaken with serious Diligence. This is a very great Duty of Man; for if a Child be obliged to give Honour and Reverence to his Father, or a Servant to his Master, or a Subject to his Prince, much more must Man stand engaged to worship and serve his Creator. The Precepts in the Holy Scripture to this purpose, are so plain and frequent, that no Man who reads the Scriptures can be ignorant of them; and they who never read them, do acknowledge this Duty by the evidence of the light of Nature itself. Our owning Christianity is not only a Name or Profession, but is an undertaking to mind that Piety which is suitable to Religion. In this Profession St. Paul declares his own great care to have been to worship the God of his Fathers after the way which the Jews called Heresy, that is, according to the true Rules and Doctrine of Christianity. And the whole multitude of the Christian Church is represented by St. John, as standing before the Throne, and crying with a loud voice, Salvation be to God and to the Lamb (Rev. 7.9, 10.) and therefore they are not worthy to be accounted any part of the Christian Church, who neglect the Worship of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This also is our interest and benefit. For the most noble and excellent employment of Man is in those things which relate to God and Goodness, when otherwise in the neglect of this, he is taken up either about empty Vanities, mean Earth, or sordid Filth. But the Service of God is both his Honour and his Advantage, and the Promises which are made to Religious Piety are great and sure; but because they are proposed under the terms of a Covenant, there can be no security of enjoying the present Blessings of God, and no possibility of attaining endless Felicity without these Holy Exercises. 2. Let the exercise of Religion be performed with hearty and serious Devotion, even with Fasting, and solemn Humiliation and Prayer; these are Duties directed by the Prophet Joel in the latter part of this Verse of my Text, to express our hearty turning unto God: And the Church doth particularly at this time call upon us to mind these Holy Exercises; they are Duties useful at all times, and are excellent qualifications to dispose us aright for the obtaining the Pardon of our own Sins, as they include the practice of Humility, Piety, Faith and Repentance. Amongst the Jews, the solemn day of Atonement and Remission was a day of devout Fasting and Afflicting their Souls. And after S. Paul had been stricken down to the Ground as he went toward Damascus, after he had Fasted three days and Prayed, Ananias was then sent to him by our Saviour, that he might arise and be Baptised, and wash away his Sins, Acts 9.9, 11, 17, 18. ch. 22.16. At this time the methods of God's Providence do eminently require our more than ordinary diligence in these Duties for the averting his Judgements, and the preserving us and our Posterity from Ruin and Misery. Let those who have been Vicious and Disobedient, engage herein with Reformation and Amendment of Life. And let the most Pious Men also undertake it with the greatest seriousness, even in them it is an exercise of Repentance, as indeed the whole practice of Christianity is; for the Christian Life is a turning to God, from whom sinful Man had estranged himself; and the whole thereof is described by Repenting, and turning to God, and doing works meet for Repentance; and the Repentance undertaken therein, is not only in some short transitory acts, but it taketh in the whole course of a Christian Progress. These devout Performances of the best Men are of great use for obtaining public Blessings from God. And it cannot be supposed that the Religious Addresses of Moses or Josiah, who were Men of great Piety, should be less acceptable to God, or less effectual for the good of Man, than the Repentance of Ahab or Manasseh, or of the Ninevites. But let these things be done with true uprightness and sincerity of Heart, and then our Blessed Saviour hath assured them who so fast and pray in secret, that their Heavenly Father will reward them openly. But withal, that these Duties may be pleasing to God, it is necessary that they be accompanied with those other things which I have before pressed. Fasting and Prayer, in the neglect of Peace and Unity, and of Holiness and Piety, is as the sacrificing an unclean thing, far from being approved of God; and this is the account the Prophet Isaiah gives, why God would not accept these very performances of the Jews, Behold (saith he) ye fast for Strife and Debate, and to smite with the Fist of wickedness. Wherefore now let us take the advice in the Text, and resolve on the pious practice thereof, especially in these particulars I have insisted on. For the further enforcing of which, I shall in concluding observe three things. First, That it was God's own direction in these words of Joel. This was indeed immediately given to the Jews, but the Apostle tells us, Rom. 15.4. Whatsoever things were written afore-time, were written for our Learning, that we through Patience and Comfort of the Scripture might have hope. That which God thinks fit to advise us, it is our Wisdom to practise. For when the Policy of Wise Men may be outwitted, and all sinful contrivances will increase danger, the Counsel of God that will stand; and, as Wisdom speaks, (Prov. 1.33.) Whoso hearkneth to me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from the fear of Evil. Secondly; Reflect again on the case in which this was directed. Besides the terribleness of the Armies which were to come against them in the former Verses of this second Chapter of Joel, God lets them know that he himself was like to be on their Enemy's side against them, v. 11. The Lord shall utter his Voice before his Army. The Prophet Joel was sent to make Proclamation of God's Controversy with them; but though this was declared by a Message from God, it was not so absolutely determined, but that there was still an Help and Remedy reserved, if they would make use thereof, by turning to God with all their heart. In like manner, when Ionas was sent to Nineveh to declare that within forty days it should be destroyed, upon its Repentance it was spared. And the Prophet Jeremy assures us, that at what instant God shall speak concerning a Nation, or concerning a Kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy; if that Nation turn from their Evil, he will repent of the Evil that he thought to do unto them. No case is so bad, but if this course be made use of, it will appear hopeful. Thirdly; Consider the greatness of the effect. I observed before, that in this Prophecy from this Text forward, are contained Promises of Deliverance. The effect was also answerable to these Promises. Indeed the precise time of Joel's Prophecy is not certain: It is thought both by the Jewish writers, and by Ancient Fathers, that his time was contemporary with that of Hosea; and this Prophecy in all probability must be dated before the latter part, if not before the beginning of Hezekiah's Reign: and accordingly Grotius seems very reasonably to understand the beginning of this Chapter to refer to Sennacherib's Army which invaded Judah; this Army here mentioned was indeed called the Northern Army, Joel 2.20. but this expression might well enough agree to the Assyrian Army; as may appear from Zeph. 2.3. He will stretch out his hand against the North, and destroy Assyria. Now at this time the Sins of Judah were great and many, especially under Ahaz, their Condition was low and despised, and their Enemy was potent, proud and insolent; yet upon the Pious Reformation of Judah under Hezekiah, and their earnest Religious Addresses to God, their Enemies proud Designs were wholly blasted, and themselves ruined; and the blessing of God came down upon Judah and Jerusalem. And God grant that we may take that course, that we may enjoy the Blessing of God, and have it ever continued to these Churches and Realms, even until the coming again of our Blessed Saviour: to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be all Honour, and Glory, and Praise, now and evermore. Amen. A SERMON Preached on S. Mat. 5.20. For I say unto you, That except your Righteousness shall exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. RELIGION and Righteousness is so suitable to, and perfective of the Nature of Man, that it hath been thereupon recommended by the wisest Men, and greatest Philosophers. It is of such concernment for humane Society, that all Lawgivers and Governors have thought it necessary to prohibit and restrain the Violation thereof. And it carrieth so much of the Image of God in it, that all his Revelations to the Patriarches and Prophets, and especially that by the Holy Jesus to the Christian Church, do greatly insist upon it. When the Gentile World went greatly astray by their abominable Idolatries, and their gross Impurities, even in their pretendedly Religious Rites, the Doctrine of the Gospel appears to turn them from the Power of Satan unto God. When the Jews had been under a lower Dispensation, our Lord gives his Disciples more excellent Rules, and enlargeth the Precepts of the Moral Law, as was truly asserted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, St. Augustine, and other ancient Writers. And why should it be thought strange, that Lawgiver should add to the Precepts already given, and extend them further, who established many new Duties, such as to believe the peculiar Doctrines of the Christian Faith, to perform many religious Services in his Name, and with an eye to him; to attend on the Gospel-Sacraments; to reverence the Christian Ministry, and the Power of the Keys; and to own and embrace Communion with the diffusive Catholic Church in all Nations? He laid new Obligations upon his Disciples concerning Divorce, and the changing the Zeal of Elias into Christian Meekness. And it is but reasonable to expect, that under the Instructions and Motives of Christianity, there should be required greater Measures of the Love of God and Goodness. But when the Jewish Church had in their Principles and Practices grossly degenerated from the great Design of the Law, and many Corruptions were introduced, our Lord protests against them, and gives his Disciples this Admonition, That their Righteousness must exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. The Pharisees were the strictest Sect of the Jews at that time, the Scribes were their chief Teachers and Guides; their Righteousness here intended, was what was according to the Rules and Doctrines they delivered and received: Against that Leaven of Doctrine our Lord warned his Disciples. Mat. 16.12. The outdoing and exceeding this Righteousness is so necessary, that it is enjoined under this severe Sanction, That otherwise we can in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is a Phrase peculiar to St. Matthew, among all the Penmen of the Scripture, but hath been observed not to be unusual in the Talmud, Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.3. and other Jewish Writers. It sometimes expresseth in this Evangelist the Kingdom of Christ in his Church on Earth; but in this place and others, the Kingdom of Glory and eternal Happiness. But if any should think these Words directly to assert, that none whose Righteousness exceeds not that of the Pharisees, and their Teachers the Scribes, can be true Members of the Christian Church, and Christ's Kingdom upon Earth, he must consequently acknowledge that they cannot be Heirs of Heaven. Yet these Pharisees were not so wholly irreligious, but that they attended the Temple and Synagogues, made many Prayers, seemed to have a great Veneration for the Law, and a Zeal for the Honour of the God of Israel. They were not so grossly dissolute and debauched, as to give themselves up to Uncleanness, Intemperance, and all Unmercifulness; but they condemned Adultery, fasted, and gave Alms. Wherefore it may be needful to inquire, I. What were the Miscarriages in their Righteousness, and wherein must we exceed them, if ever we attain to Happiness? II. How stands the Case of those Societies who chief pretend to Christianity, as to their exceeding or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees? III. What is the Result of these Inquiries? I. Touching their Miscarriages and Defects. 1. They placed much Righteousness in their being a peculiar Party, and maintaining a kind of Separation. They were a particular Sect, having and needlessly affecting singular Practices and Opinions, different from the other Jews, and such as were not enjoined in the Law of Moses. The Name Pharisee is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate and divide; and themselves were distinguished into seven sorts, as the Jewish Writers tell us. They did not indeed withdraw themselves from the Synagogue, or Temple Publick-Worship, since, as Josephus saith, Antiq. Jud. l. 18. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whatsoever referred to God, both Prayer, and other parts of Worship, were much ordered by their Model. But concerning the Synagogue-Worship, there is probable Evidence, that the several chief Sects among the Jews, and therefore the Pharisees as one of them, had their distinct Assemblies. And it is certain, the Pharisees did reject the best of Men from their Synagogue-Communion, merely for doing their necessary Duty, in professing, upon the fullest Divine Testimony, that Jesus was the Christ, and becoming his Followers. And in the Temple-Worship, the Pharisees were guilty of a kind of Separation, under an appearance of Communion: For since the daily Sacrifice in the Temple was a Burnt-Offering, and therefore appointed for Expiation and Atonement, Num. 28.3. the Devotions of them who attended at the Temple at the Hours of Prayer and Sacrifice ought to be conformable thereunto; but the Pharisees Prayer there, as our Saviour describes it, had nothing in it of humble Supplication for God's Mercy and Favour, but he thanks God he was not as other Men. And this Spirit of Division was so much the worse in them, because it was founded in an high Conceit, and great Confidence of their own Righteousness, though they had little reason for it, and in a contempt of others. But now such a proud Temper is inconsistent with Christianity, which makes Humility a necessary Qualification for the obtaining everlasting Life. And Divisions and Separations are so unaccountable for the Members of the same Body the Church to be engaged in, that the Doctrine of Christ gives us frequent Precepts, earnest Exhortations, and pressing Arguments to Peace and Unity, and plainly expresseth the great Danger of Misery in the neglect thereof. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Contests, fierce Heats and Divisions are reckoned among those Works of the Flesh which exclude from the Kingdom of God, Gal. 5. can any think the great Discords in the Church unconcerned herein, when the Concord of Christians is here chief enjoined, and the Neglect thereof is every way exceeding hurtful, and when all these very Expressions are used by St. Paul to set forth the Divisions of the Church of Corinth? 1 Cor. 3.3. And therefore wherever Rents or Schisms in the Church are Works of the Flesh, as they must be when they are the Product of Pride, Self-will, or voluntary Disobedience to, or Neglect of the Precepts of Peace and Unity, they are destructive. The Ancient Church charged an high Gild upon these Practices. Cypr. ep. 76. ● St. Cyprian accounts Schism greatly to deprive Men of the Hope of Christianity. And St. Austin maintains against the Donatists, that their Separation was as great a Sin as that of the Traditores, who gave up the Scriptures into the hands of their Persecutors, with which Crime the Donatists falsely charged one of the Ordainers of Caecilianus, and pretended this as a ground of their Separation. 2. Their Righteousness did much consist in such a Zeal as was disorderly, fierce, furious, and censorious. They were diligent in compassing Sea and Land to make Proselytes, but it was that they might be their Followers and Admirers. Their professing a great Respect to the Prophets, and their Pretence of Traditions, was chief to gain Credit to their own Dictates. Their Zeal was a violent espousing the Interest of their own Errors, and was not so much for God, and his Law, as for themselves, and their own Party; like that of the Donatists, Annal. Eccles. an. 306. n. 42. mentioned by Baronius, who could with more patience hear Men speak lightly of Christ, than of Donatu●. And they were so censorious, that they not only despised the Publicans, but esteemed the People as not knowing the Law, to be cursed; and condemned the most holy Jesus for a Blasphemer, an Enemy to Caesar, and one who cast out Devils by the Prince of Devils. Their violent Fierceness was evident by their bloody Cruelties under the Government of Alexandria, and at other times, Jos. Antiq. l. 13. c. 2●●. and especially in their being much concerned in prosecuting our Lord to the Death, and treating him with so many Indignities, and his Apostles after him with various Methods of Hatred and Cruelty, and particularly murdering James the Just, the first Bishop of Jerusalem. But in the Religion of our Saviour, the contrary Temper of pursuing true and sincere Piety, Faith, and the Fear and Love of God, and of Mercifulness, Meekness and Charity, is made indispensably necessary to our eternal Happiness. And to this end we are commanded to learn of Christ to be meek and lowly, Mat. 11.29. that we may find Rest unto our Souls. But if St. James and St. John be for calling for Fire from Heaven, this is declared to be greatly opposite to the Spirit of the Gospel: For though it allows and establisheth just Rules of Government, and the Use of the Power of the Sword therein, yet it condemns all Cruelty and Fury. And if St. Peter in his Zeal will unwarrantably draw his Sword, he must receive a severe Check from our Lord and Master. 3. They miscarried also by their unduly affecting the Vogue and Applause of Men in their Religious Performances. To this purpose they made broad their Philacteries, Exod. 13.2, 5. Deut. 6.4. & Ch. 11, 13, 14, 15. that they might seem to Men to give great respect to those Precepts of the Law inscribed in them, concerning the worshipping, acknowledging, and obeying God. And for a pretence of extraordinary Sanctity, they made use of long Prayers, and put up their Devotions even in the Corners of the Streets. And their Fasting, Praying, and giving Alms, was done that they might be seen of Men, while it might well have become such Actions to have been managed by a better Principle. By this means they gained a great Interest among the People, but made use of it to very ill purposes, even to the opposing the Doctrine of our Saviour. And Josephus tells us, Antiq. Jud. l. 13. c. 18. they could 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by their Credit bring the People to be illaffected either to the King or the Highpriest. But our Saviour pronounceth frequent Woes against them for their Hypocrisy, and lets them know that all this while they are out of God's Favour, and that what is highly esteemed among Men is an Abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16.15. Now both Reason and Religion will recommend a good Name as useful and desirable, so far as it can be gained in doing our Duty, and practising Sincerity. But if the World be so degenerate, that the faithful and upright Man must needs meet with Censures and Revile here, as Christ himself and his Apostles did, so must all his Disciples, take up the Cross, and bear the Reproach. In this case the Blessed Jesus declared, Luke 6.26. Woe be to you, when all Men shall speak well of you. And whereas the Scribes and Pharisees are said to do all their Works to be seen of Men, Mat. 23.5. St. Hierom there affirms, that he who in this is like to them, Hieronym. in Mat. 23. Scriba & Pharisaeus est, is in the same condition with the Scribes and Pharisees. When St. Peter, against the Rule of his Duty, would withdraw from the Gentiles, to ingratiate himself with the Jews, St. Paul thought it necessary to reprove him sharply, as not walking uprightly, and according to the Truth of the Gospel. Indeed the inordinate Pursuit of Vainglory, and the valuing the Esteem or Favour of any Men above the discharge of a good Conscience, is so opposite to true Religion, to a lively Sense of God, and Faith in him, that in this respect our Saviour said, How can ye believe, which receive Honour one of another? 4. Their Righteousness superstitiously laid a great stress on little outside Things, and such as were no parts of real Religion. They were strict in washing those hands which remained polluted by evil Works, and in washing Pots and Tables, as if these and such other Things were of doctrinal necessity. They were careful to tithe Mint and Anise, and appeared hugely scrupulous about the Obligation of their unlawful Vow of Corban, but with respect to that Vow could without regret dispense with the neglect of honouring superior Relations, against the fifth Commandment. They received the Traditions of their Scribes with a great and inordinate Veneration, even above the Law itself; and of these unwritten Traditions they had a great Number, as the Scripture intimateth, and Josephus expressly testifieth. Ant. l. 13. c. 18 And out of a pretext of Purity they rejected all Converse with Publicans, though such as were justified rather than themselves. But true Christian Righteousness must consist in minding and chief valuing the great Duties of true Piety and Holiness. And by our Saviour's Doctrine, a Woe is denounced against the Pharisees little Strictnesses, while they neglected the weighty things of the Law. And their observing and urging those things as greatly necessary, which indeed were not truly good, were so far from pleasing God, that our Lord declared, That in vain they worshipped him, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men; Mat. 15.9. therein applying to them those Words of the Prophet Esay, according to the Version of the Septuagint. Isa. 29.13. 5. They were haughty and imperious, but not submissive to Rulers and Governors. They were forward to bind heavy Burdens on the Shoulders of others, but were not themselves willing to stoop to the Duties of Obedience and Subjection. They were so little Friends to Caesar, that by them the Question was propounded, Mat. 22.15, 17. Whether it was lawful to give Tribute to Caesar, or no? and were so averse to Authority, that as Josephus relates, they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make War, and otherwise were injurious towards, and spoke evil of their Governors. And they were frequently turbulent and tumultuous. But by the Evangelical Doctrine, only the Humble and Lowly can enter into Heaven. The Son of God himself so far promoted Submission to all in Authority, that he was obedient to his Parents, was himself baptised of John. And the New Testament earnestly enjoins upon us Obedience to them who have the Rule over us, and denounceth Damnation to those who resist the higher Powers. 6. And lastly; They left themselves and their Followers at a licentious Liberty in many weighty Matters of Doctrine and Practice. They could suffer their Hands to be Polluted by devouring Widows Houses, and their Tables by Extortion and Excess. They made void the Commands of God by their Traditions, and were such Casuists, as to allow Swearing by Heaven and Earth, and to account such Oaths, as those by the Temple and the Altar, to leave no Obligation; when Swearing by the Gold of the Temple, or the Gift upon the Altar, did oblige. And it is manifest from this fifth chapter of St. Matthew, that according to their strictest Rules, they gave allowance to inward Wrath, and Hatred, and Lust, if it did not break forth in open Murder, or Adultery, as was noted by Tertullian, Tert. de Idolat. c. 2. who also observeth how strictly extensive our Saviour's Doctrine is, even against the unchaste Eye and inward Wrath, or in the phrase of St. John, That he that hateth his Brother is a Murderer. But the excellent Christian Rules of Life, which command the inward Man, and far outdo the lose Principles of the Pharisees, are many of them proposed by the Blessed Jesus in this and the following Chapters, and are included under that Sanction at the close of this Sermon on the Mount, that he that hears these words of his, and doth them not, is likened to him who builds his House on the Sand, which ends in a dreadful fall. And Virtuous Practices are so far from pleading any allowance from Christianity, that, Whosoever breaks the least Commandment, and teacheth Men so, shall be called least, or not be accounted of, in the Kingdom of Heaven. These things I have discoursed of, are sufficient to show the gross miscarriages of the Pharisaical Righteousness, in opposing the necessary Duties of Unity, Meekness, Sincerity, true Religious Piety, Obedience, and Universal Holiness; and therefore this could be no safe way to the Kingdom of Heaven. I now come to the second Enquiry; How stands the case of those Societies, who lay the chief claims to Christianity, as to their exceeding, or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, in these particulars? And here I shall not ransack the remote and distant parts of the World, but take notice only of those with which we are concerned; as, the Church of England, the present Roman Church, and the Dissenting Parties among us. Nor shall I strain resemblances to make the Cases appear Parallel, but shall take notice of things as they really are, to observe how far there is a likeness to, or compliance with the Spirit of Pharisaism. And here I profess, that I seriously wish well to all Men of what Party soever; and therefore whatever I shall say that speaks the error or danger of any of them, is not out of design to cast reproach upon them, but out of this true Charitable End, to warn others to take heed thereof; and I should be glad if it might make any of them consider of the error of their way. 1. Concerning Separation and Division. This was esteemed by the ancient Church as an heinous Crime. St. Chrysostom equals it with Heresy, Chr. in Eph. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. and St. Cyprian makes it a greater offence than that of the Lapsi. The Church of England is clear herein; it owns and professeth the Catholic and Apostolic Faith and Doctrine, and none other, and appoints a way of Worship agreeable thereto, and so gives no cause to warrant any Separation from her. Our Case with respect to the Romish Church, is in part like that of the Apostles, with regard to the Scribes and Pharisees, whilst they professed the true Christian Doctrine, and worshipped God after the way which was unjustly called Heresy; Joh. 12.42. the Pharisees sentenced such to be put out of the Synagogue: And the Talmud of the Venice Edition hath been observed to affirm, That Jesus himself was Excommunicated with the Shammatha, or great Excommunication: And because we (as we ought) reject the evil and corrupt Romish Doctrines and Practices, they censure us as Heretics, and let fly their anathemas in various Canons of Trent, and yearly denounce their Excommunications in the Bull in Coena Domini. And besides this, we cannot join in the main part of the Romish Worship, without embracing their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices: Nor have they any Right of Jurisdiction over us. And all this acquits us from the Crime of Schism in our Reformation. But they at Rome, though they keep to their public Worship as the Pharisees did, are yet grossly guilty of Schism, by unjustly rejecting all other Christian Churches, who make use of their own just Rights; and are not more ready to submit to St. Peter's pretended Successor, and his Impostures, than to the Precepts and Doctrines of his and our Lord and Master. And herein they pass Sentence, as the Pharisee did against the Publican, upon them who are better than themselves. Other Parties at home, practise Divisions in an higher degree than the Pharisees did, openly separating themselves from the public Assemblies of our Christian Worship. 2. Concerning fierceness and furiousness of Zeal. Our Church entertains no Bloody nor Uncharitable Doctrines or Tenants; its Rules concerning Government, contain as much mildness as can consist with Peace and Order; and its Practice rather more, by reason of the distemper and disorder of the minds of Men. But such is the Romish fierceness, that in the highest violation of Charity, they exclude other Churches from Salvation. And their furious Zeal appears by Fire and Faggot, by bloody Inquisitions, Massacres, and Rebellions; by Horrid Treasons and cruel Conspiracies; of which the World hath had, and we have abundant Evidence. These things are so unlike Christianity, and Jesus the Saviour, that they betray themselves to be from the Abaddon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When Espencoeus, a learned Doctor of Paris, Esp. in 1. T● Digr. l. 2. had observed how the ancient Canons obliged all the Clergy against engaging in War and Blood; he acknowledgeth, and smartly taxeth the contrary practice of the late Romish Church and her Bishops, as herein degenerating from the Spirit of Christianity, veteris Gentilismi ritu, with a greater suitableness to the temper of Pagans. And in other Dissenting Parties, it is too manifest how prone their forward and leading Men are to censorious Uncharitableness, and rash Judging; and how ready they have been, unjustly to take up the Sword, and pursue the Interest of their Party with War and Blood; with such circumstances as I forbear to mention. And the consideration of this temper may give us some account of the great eagerness, and restless earnestness of these erring Parties, in propagating their particular Interests. 3. Concerning the aiming to gain the applause and favour of Men in the neglect of Duty. Our Church, in its Rules of Doctrine, lays the same stress upon all Duties to God or Man, that the Gospel of our Saviour doth; without yielding to the Humours of the Profane, the Debauched, or the Turbulent and Unruly. The Romanists suit themselves to all Dispositions; they have severe Rules in some of their Regular Societies, for the more Serious; but they take great care to gratify Wicked and Debauched Persons also, with as much Liberty as they can well desire. Their Casuists generally declare, That an act of Attrition, or such Sorrow for Sin as is not accompanied with hatred against it, or the true Love of God, is at last sufficient, with Absolution, to remove the guilt of Sin, and secure them from Eternal Death. But if temporal Punishment remains for them, this can only bring them to Purgatory; and here they may have considerable help from Indulgences, and the Treasury of the Church, which are dispensed for Ave-maries' and other Prayers, visiting certain places, having Masses said for their Souls, and by other works, without their becoming really holy and good. And besides this, their feigned Miracles and Revelations, their pretended power of Transubstantiating, of dispensing the Treasury of Merits in the Church, and of justifying them who are not contrite, by Absolution, seem methods contrived to gain admiration from the People. And other Sects make their Interests, and seek Reputation by popular Arts; and often by promoting or conniving at Uncharitableness, men's high Conceits of themselves, and a Temper averse from Unity and Obedience; which are things of a very evil Nature: And some of their chief Teachers acknowledge, that in some things they act against their own Judgements in compliance with their People. 4. Concerning Superstitious urging those things as parts of Religion which are not such. Our Church owneth no necessary Article of Faith, but what is in our Creed, nor any Doctrines of Christianity, but what are deducible from the Holy Scriptures. Our Constitutions for Decency, and Rules of Order are established only as such; and are withal innocent, useful, few, and agreeing to Primitive Christianity. But at Rome, a great part of their Religion, as they make it, consists in acknowledging many things to be de Fide; which are neither contained in the Scriptures, agreeing with them, nor acknowledged in the ancient Church; in entertaining various false Doctrines and pretended Traditions with equal reverence to the Holy Scriptures; and in using divers Rites as operative of Divine Aid and Grace, which God never appointed to that end. Our other dividing Parties are too nigh the Pharisaical Doctrine concerning the Obligation of their voluntary Vow against their Duty to Superiors. And many of them lay a Doctrinal Necessity, either upon disowning Episcopal Authority, which hath so great a Testimony of Apostolical Appointment: Or, in being against Forms of Prayer, at least such, wherein the People vocally join; or, in condemning as sinful, innocent Appointments, decent Ceremonies, and suitable Gestures. And those who own not these Positions, nor condemn our Worship as sinful, and yet divide from us; must assert other Positions for Doctrines, which are equally erroneous and dangerous: For, if their Principles be agreeable to their Practice, they must assert, that Men may break the Church's Peace, and expose it to the greatest hazards, gratify its Enemies, and disobey Authority, which are great Sins, to maintain an opposition to those things which themselves dare not charge with any Sin. But this is to aver such Doctrine to be from God, which is contrary to his Religion, his Nature and his Will, and are but the Precepts of Men; and it is to strain at a Gnat, but swallow a Camel. Now, if to counterfeit the Seal, or Coin, or falsely to pretend to the Authority of an Earthly Prince, be greatly culpable; can it be otherwise to stamp a Divine Impression on things which God disowns. 5. Concerning Obedience and Submission to Superiors; this Duty is regularly enjoined in our Church, both with respect to Private Relations, Spiritual Guides, and Civil Rulers. In the Romish Church there is strict Obedience required in their several Orders, to the Superiors thereof; in the Laiety to the Clergy; and in all, to the Pope: But this is so irregular, that thereby the natural Honour to Parents is much discharged; and St. Peter's Precept of Honouring the King, is, under the name of his Vicar, changed into such Positions, as when occasion serves, may encourage the Deposing and Murdering him. And among other Dissenters, their Divisions, as they are circumstantiated, are ipso facto such visible Testimonies of their want of Submission to their Ecclesiastical and Civil Governors, that nothing need be added. And it is known there were some of these Parties, whose Principles allowed them to take Arms against their King; and who exposed his Royal Person to Violence and Death. 6. Concerning a lose and licentious Life. Our Church requires a Sincere, Holy Exercise, and presseth all the Precepts of our Saviour, and the Motives and Arguments of the Gospel; and enjoineth the careful observation of our Baptismal Vow. But in the Romish Church, he that considers the immoral looseness of the Jesuits and other Casuists, may wonder that such things should be owned by Men of any Religion, much more of them who profess the Christian Religion. For instance; By our Saviour's Doctrine, to love God with all the heart, is the great and first Commandment. But Azorius asserts, Azor. Tom. 1. l. 9 c. 4. That it is hard to fix any time, when this Precept of Loving God doth oblige to any exercise thereof, with respect to itself, but only when it is necessary to Repentance. And he roundly saith, We are not obliged to any exercise of Love to God, when we attain to the use of Reason, nor at the receiving any Sacrament, not at Confession, nor at the approach of Death. Filiuc. Tr. 22. c. 9 Filiucius thinks this Opinion probable (and therefore safe by their Doctrine of Probability) but prefers another Opinion, which is but little better; That we are bound to act Love to God at the time of Death, and in some other extraordinary cases if they happen; and that ordinarily Men ought to exercise an act of Love to God, at lest once in five years. But I am amazed to think how sparing such Men were of inward Religious Devotion, and what Strangers to it! And for the practice of Repentance, which is another great Duty of our Religion. Though Contrition, which includes an hating and forsaking Sin, and turning to God, be acknowledged of good use by them; yet Filiucius saith, Fil. Tr. 6 c 8. n. 196, 197, and 208. Men are not obliged to acts of Contrition every year, but once in five or seven years; and that if they die without them, they may be saved. But Layman declares, Laym. l. 5. Tr. 6. c. 2. n. 6. That the Precept and Duty of Repentance is satisfied by coming once in a year with Attrition to Confession, and the Sacrament of Penance, and by doing the same at the time of Death. But is not this a Religion set up to undermine the Holy Gospel of our Saviour, and to entitle those workers of Iniquity to Heaven, whom his Doctrine will condemn to Hell? And our other Parties give too much allowance to some particular miscarriages which I have before mentioned. And many of them lay not that stress they ought, on a Holy Life in general (which is included under Conversion and Repentance) in that they do not account it a necessary condition or previous qualification for the obtaining the Favour of God, and the Pardon of Sin, or, which is all one, for Justification. Having now gone through these Heads of Discourse, I shall further here observe three things. First, That the Romanists are not only thus far guilty of equal, but are chargeable with much greater miscarriages than those of the Scribes and Pharisees. I might have run on the Parallel farther: as when the one devoured Widows Houses, under a pretence of long Prayers; the other carry on the like designs of Covetousness and Extortion, by their Indulgences and Masses for the Dead. But the Pharisees were not so degenerate, as to offer their Prayers or Sacrifices to Saints, or even to Angels (though the Law was given by their Ministration,) but to such the Romish Church directs a great part of her Religious Worship. They gave not Divine Honour, either to the Temple, which was the place of God's Presence, or to any Sacrifice, as the Papists do to the Host. They worshipped not the Invisible God under the debasing representation of an Image, as the Samaritans did, and the Romanists do. And when God appointed a continual Burnt-Offering, with a Meat-Offering and Drink-Offering, they did not make so bold as to alter his Institutions, and withdraw one part thereof, as they at Rome have done concerning the distribution of the Eucharistical Cup. And when the Pharisees had only so much Pride, as vainly to account themselves righteous, and far better than others; they did not, as the Romanists do, pretend to such Supererogation, and so great a stock of Merits, as to be able thereby to supply the defects of others. But if they at Rome had what they pretend, it had need be a vast Treasury of good Works, to make amends for the notorious bad ones, which are the result of the Positions allowed and maintained in that Church. The Pharisees claimed a great Authority to be Masters of the Faith of others; but it doth not appear that they founded this in so high and unreasonable a claim to Infallibility, as they at Rome do; the holding of which engageth them to continue in all their other Errors. Nor were they so deeply uncharitable, as utterly to exclude the Essens, and all other Sects from the favour of God, as the Romanists deal with all other Churches; nor did they debar the people from reading the Scriptures. Secondly; I observe that other Dividing Parties, though they are very different among themselves, and are not all to be alike esteemed of; yet either all, or most of them, have some miscarriages not received by the Scribes and Pharisees: for instance, the Pharisees did not slight or neglect the Sacraments of the Old Testament, either Circumcision, or the Passover; as too many now do, one or both the Sacraments of the New. They never gave way that the Temple-Sacrifices, and other such like Services of God, should be performed by any other, but only those Priests whom God had appointed for that purpose; when many in our days can admit and allow the performance of Christian Ministrations by those who have no Regular, Authoritative and Justifiable Ordination: And such things, however some esteem of them, are of the greater moment, because they violate the peculiar Institutions of our Lord, and the ordinary way that he hath appointed for the conveying and applying the Grace of the Gospel, and the benefits of his Death and Passion. Thirdly; I observe also, that it must be acknowledged there were other great Crimes of the Scribes and Pharisees, which are not chargeable on any of those Parties, of whom I have discoursed: Such were their professed disowning our Saviour and his Doctrine, their actual contriving his Death, and their obstinacy under those various mighty Miracles which were frequently wrought before their Eyes. But as the former Transgressions which I mentioned, have been particularly proved destructive, so I think them to be especially intended in this severe censure of our Saviour, of the insufficiency of their Righteousness. For these words were uttered soon after he began to teach; and before the Scribes and Pharisees had declared their greatest enmity to his Person, their obstinacy under his Miracles, or their contrivement of his Death; and therefore they must have respect to their Righteousness, according to that time when these words were spoken. And the scope of his Discourse shows him to condemn, as greatly defective, such Rules of Doctrine and Practice, as they then directed and proposed. I now come in the third place, as my Conclusion, to note the result of these Inquiries in two particulars. First; This should warn those of the Romish, and other opposite Persuasions, to consider seriously of their own Danger, and of what may conduce to their Safety. If they think themselves sufficiently secure, so did also the Scribes and Pharisees, of whom our Saviour judged otherwise. And I could hearty wish, that all persons of their several Divisions were really free from all things sinful and dangerous. I think myself obliged to express as much Charity to others, as can be consistent with Truth and a sober Judgement. And therefore I freely acknowledge that the several Parties who divide from our Church, are not all equally chargeable with many things I have insisted on; and I verily hope, that in all these various divisions there may be several particular persons led aside by mere mistake and misapprehension, and whose uprightness of intention may be a preservative to them from much of that evil they might otherwise be engaged in. And though all Sin is every where prejudicial, I hope also that those miscarriages which such persons are brought into, by their undiscerned Errors, will not exclude them from the Mercy of God; and many of their Practices may be better than their Principles. But whilst any of us may express our Charity towards them, and hope the best, it becomes them to have that care of themselves, as to fear the worst: For Charity doth not make the Condition of other Men safe unto whom it is extended, but this must be determined by the Judgement of God. Those Persons, whose Minds or Practices are really worse than other Men hope them to be, are in never the better State for such charitable Hopes. And whosoever are engaged in any of those Evils which were included in Pharisaism, and condemned in Christianity, had need carefully to reflect on themselves, and hearty and timely to amend. But if any should be offended at a Discourse that represents to them the Danger of their Practices, and should be more ready to censure it as uncharitable, than to weigh and consider it; they may know, that as this speaks a very bad Temper of Mind prevailing in them, so the letting Men alone in their sinful Actions, is so far from being any part of that Charity which our Saviour practised or enjoined, that it is more agreeable with the Temper of the Evil One, who is willing that they who do amiss should continue in their Evil, be flattered therein, and not so consider thereof as to forsake it. Secondly; Let all who are of our Church, and whoever embrace the true Catholic Communion, be careful and serious in practising Holiness and Righteousness. Our Doctrine and Profession condemneth and disowneth all unsound Principles and corrupt Practices. And as the more devout Jews daily blessed God, that they were born Jews, and not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles; so have we great reason to praise God, that we live in this excellent Church, and are thereby free from various Snares, to which many others are exposed. But if amongst us, Debauchery, Profaneness, or Irreligion, prevail upon any Persons whomsoever, such Wickedness of Life will exclude Persons of the purest Profession and Belief from ever entering into Heaven. St. Austin sometimes warns against this, Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 20. c. 9 & de fid. & oper. as a considerable Defect in the Pharisees Righteousness, that while they sat in Moses' Chair, our Lord tells us, they say, but do not. If ever we will be happy, our Practice must answer our Profession; the Doctrine of Christianity is a Doctrine according to Godliness, and must be improved to that End. An Heretical or Schismatical Life, as some ancient Writers call that vicious Conversation which separates the Man from the Ways of God and Religion, is the more unaccountable and inexcusable, when it contradicteth and crosseth the most Catholic Profession, and the best Rules of Duty clearly proposed. Wherefore let us be careful, that as the Righteousness required in the Doctrine of our Church, in conformity to the Gospel of our Saviour, doth greatly exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees; so may that of our Lives also, in conformity to that Doctrine: Which God of his Mercy grant, through the Merits of our holy and blessed Saviour, To whom, etc. FINIS. BOOKS Printed for, and Sold by Ric. Chiswell. SPeed's Maps and Geography of Great Britain and Ireland, and of Foreign Parts. Dr. Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers, in 2 Vol. Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time. Sir Tho. Herbert's Travels into Persia, etc. B. Wilkin's real Character, or Philosophical Language. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. Guillim's Display of Heraldry, with large Additions. Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England, in 2 Vol. — Account of the Confessions and Prayers of the Murderers of Esquire Thynn. Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion. Herodoti Historia, Gr. Lat. cum varils Lect. Bishop Sanderson's Sermons, with his Life. Fowlis' History of Romish Conspir. Treas. and Usurpat. Dalton's Office of Sheriffs, with Additions. — Office of a Justice of Peace, with Additions. Lord Cook's Reports, in English. Edmund's on Caesar's Commentaries. Sir John Davis' Reports. Judge Yelverton's Reports. The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits, Seminary Priests, Recusants, the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance explained by divers Judgements, and Resolutions of the Judges; with other Observations thereupon, by Will. Cawley, Esq; Josephus Antiquities and Wars of the Jews, with Figures. QVARTO. DR. Littleton's Dictionary, Latin and English. Bishop Nicholson on the Church Catechism. History of the late Wars of New-England. D. Outram de Sacrificiis. Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery. Parkeri Disputationes de Deo. The Magistrate's Authority asserted, in a Sermon, By James Paston. Dr. Jane's Fast Sermon before the Commons. 1679. Mr. John Jame's Visitation Sermon, April 9 1671. Mr. John Cave's Fast Sermon on 30 of Jan. 1679. — Assize Sermon at Leicester, July 31. 1679. Dr. Parker's Demonstration of the Divine Authority of the Law of Nature and the Christian Religion. Mr. William's Sermon before the Lord Mayor, 1679. — History of the Powder Treason, with a vindication of the proceed relating thereunto. Speculum Baxteriunum, or Baxter against Baxter. Mr. Hook's new Philosophical Collections. Bibliotheca Norfolciana, sive Catalogus Lib. Manuscript. & impress: in omni Arte & Lingua, quos Hen. Dux Norfolciae Regiae Societati Londinensi pro scientiae naturali promovenda donavit. OCTAVO. BIshop Wilkin's Natural Religion. Dr. Ashton's Apology for the Honours and Revenues of the Clergy. Lord Hollis' Vindication of the Judicature of the House of Peers, in the Case of Skinner. — Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in Case of Appeals. — Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in Case of Impositions. — Letters about the Bishop's Votes in Capital Cases. Dr. Grew's Idea of Philological History, on Roots. Spaniard's Conspiracy against the State of Venice. Dr. Brown's Religio Medici: with Digbies Observations. Dr. Sympson's Chemical Anatomy of the Yorkshire Spaws; with a Discourse of the Original of Hot Springs and other Fountains. — Hydrological Essays, with an Account of the Alum Works at Whitby, and some Observations about the Jaundice. Organon Salutis: or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach. With divers new Experiments of the Virtue of Tobacco and Coffee: with a Preface of Sir Henry Blunt. Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity, in three parts. Ignatius Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness. Dr. Sanway's Unreasonableness of the Romanists. Record, of Urines. The Trials of the Regicides, in 1660. Certain genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon, in Arguments Civil, Moral, Natural, etc. with a large account of all his Works, by Dr. Tho. Tennison. Dr. Puller's Discourse of the Moderation of the Church of England. Sir John Munson's Discourse of Supreme Power and Common Right. Dr. Henry Bagshaw's Discourses on select Texts. Mr. Seller's Remarks, relating to the State of the Church in the three first Centuries. The Country-man's Physician. Dr. Burnet's account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester. — Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England. — History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-Lands. Markham's Perfect Horseman. Dr. Sherlock's Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies. — Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation. — A Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Job about Catholic Communion. The History of the House of Estee, the Family of the Duchess of York. Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha, or Natural Power of Kings. Mr. John Cave's Gospel to the Romans. Lawrence's Interest of Ireland in its Trade and Wealth stated. DVODECIMO. HOdder's Arithmetic. Grotius de Veritate Religionis Christiana. Bishop Hacket's Christian Consolations. An Apology for a Treatise of Humane Reason, Written by M. Clifford, Esq; VICESIMO QVARTO. VAlentine 's Devotions. Pharmacopoeia Collegii Londinensis reformata. Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell. AN Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon in the East-Indies, Together with an Account of the detaining in Captivity the Author and divers other Englishmen now living there, and of the Author's miraculous Escape: Illustrated with Fifteen Copper Figures, and an exact Map of the Island. By Capt. Robert Knox, a Captive there near 20 years. Folio. Mr. Camfield's two Discourses of Episcopal Confirmation. Octavo. Bishop Wilkin's Fifteen Sermons, never before Extant. Mr. John Cave's two Sermons of the Duty and Benefit of Submission to the Will of God in Afflictions. Quarto. Dr. Crawford's serious Expostulation with the Whigs in Scotland. 4ᵒ. A Letter giving a Relation of the present state of the Difference between the French King and the Court of Rome; to which is added, The Pope's Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy, and their Protestation. Published by Dr. Burnet. Sir James Turner's Pallas Armata, or Military Essays of the ancient Grecian, Roman and Modern Art of War. Folio. Mr. Tanner's Primordia: Or, The Rise and Growth of the first Church of God described. Octavo. A Letter writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion; together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction. Translated into English, and examined by Dr. Gilb. Burnet. Octavo. Dr. Cave's Dissertation concerning the Government of the ancient Church by Bishops, Metropolitans and Patriarches: more particularly concerning the ancient Power and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome, and the Encroachments of that upon other Sees, especially Constantinople. Octavo. Dr. John Lightfoot's Works in English, in two Volumes. Folio. Mr. Selden's Janus Anglorum Englished, with Notes: To which is added his Epinomis, concerning the ancient Government and Laws of this Kingdom, never before Extant. Also two other Treatises written by the same Author: One of the Original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Testaments; the other of the Disposition or Administration of Intestates Goods: Now the first time published. Folio. Jus Regium, or the Foundations of Monarchy in general; and more especially of the Monarchy of Scotland; maintained against Buchanan, Napthali, Dolman, Milton, etc. By Sir George Mackenzie, His Majesty's Advocate in Scotland. Octavo. Several Discourses, viz. Of Purity and Charity. Of Repentance. Of seeking first the Kingdom of God. By Hezekiah Burton, D.D. Published by John Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury. Octavo. FINIS.