An exact collection of the works of Doctor Jackson ... such as were not published before : Christ exercising his everlasting priesthood ... or, a treatise of that knowledge of Christ which consists in the true estimate or experimental valuation of his death, resurrection, and exercise of his everlasting sacerdotal function ... : this estimate cannot rightly be made without a right understanding of the primeval state of Adam ...

CHAP. LIV.

Three Errors Disparaging Christs Priest-hood.

1. The Novatian, denying the Reception of some Sort of Sin∣ners. 2. A Late Contrary Error, affirming, That every Sin which some sort of men Committ is pardoned before it be Committed. 3. The Romish Doctrine of the Masse giving scandal to the Jew. All of them Respectively derogating from the Infi∣nite value or Continual Efficacie of Christs Everlasting Priest∣hood.

THe First Error in this kind which did grow into an Heresie was that of Novatus, Qui negavit lapsis poenitenti••m, who would not have Back∣sliders or Revolters from Christianitie,* 1.1 to be upon any Terms or te∣stifications of repentance, re-admitted into the Church, or made partakers of Absolution. This Heresi•• (as all others) took its Original from a plausi••le Truth or practise of former times. The Truth is, that in those times wherein men professing Christianitie were every day called unto the Fierie Tryal; This Backsliding or Relapse unto Idolatrie or outward Profession of Idolatrie, even after Baptism, was so rife, that the Church would not admitt any such as had thus revolted unto the Estate or Condition of Penitentiaries, nor give them Absolution upon private testifications of sorrow for their Revolt. Now if Novatus did only deny that unto such backssiders or Revolters, which the Church in her purest times, would not Grant them; why was he condem∣ned by the Church in Ages following for an Heretick? If his Opinion were an Heresie, why was not the Practise of the Antient Church Heretical? Some Grave and Learned late Writers, would have the Novatas Heresie, not pre∣cisely to consist in that he denyed Absolution, or Communion with the Church

unto Revolters, but in that he maintained, That the Church had no right or Power to grant Absolution unto such Backsliders as Cornelius then Bishop of Rome (with the Advice and consent of his Clergie) did grant unto; but that this was a Case reserved to God himself.

That such Backsliders or Revolters might at the point of death be Absol∣ved, Novatian himself had once solemnly profest. But after Cornelius, his Competitioner for the Bishoprick of Rome (being preferred to that Dignitie) had authorized this Practise, he begun to set abroach his Error (whatsoe∣ver that were) and to accuse Cornelius, and his adherents, as Authors of Here∣sie and Novelties in the Church. Had this Novatian been constant to his for∣mer Tenets, and Profession, made, before Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome, against him; he could not have denyed either of these Two Points of Truth: Either that God had mercie in store, for Revolters from Christianitie when they did repent; or, the Churches Power to grant Absolution, or other comfort spiritual, unto those to whom she might out of charitable discretion pre∣sume God was merciful, or to whom God had not forbid her to shew mercy or compassion. For Christ had commanded her to be merciful, as her Heavenly Father is merciful.

But it were too much Charitie to presume, that a man, of such a proud and turbulent Spirit, as Novatian was, (in the depth of such discontent as took possession of his spirit, upon Cornelius his Preferment to so great a dignitie as the Bishoprick of Rome, unto his prejudice) would be constant to his for∣mer Principles, either in whole, or in part: As either to grant, that God had mercy in store for Revolters, or that the Church had power to Absolve them upon such significations of repentance as belonged unto her Cognizance. Nor, can we without breach of Charitie think, that either Novatian or any other Heretick in those times, would be so gross as to deny the Churches Power to Absolve men from any sinne, from which they were perswaded God had or would absolve them. And it is a clear Case that the Novatians did ground their Errour, or Contradiction to the Church wherein they lived, upon that place of the Apostle, Heb. 6. 4, 5, 6. It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they fall away, to renue them again unto repentance; seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame: and grounding their Error, or maintaining it, by this place, it is evident, that they held Lapsos, or Revolters from Christianitie unto Heathenism, to be in the same estate, Which mo∣dern Divines conceive all such to b•• in as sin against the Holy Ghost. But of the true meaning or extent of the Apostles words in the forecited place, or how the absolute unpardonablness of sin against the holy Ghost, may be thence concluded, I have nothing for the present to say. It sufficeth to know, that this Error of the Novatians, was by the Ancient Church, wherein they lived, Condemned for an Heresie. Yet hence it will not follow, that their Heresie (in the Judgment of them which condemned it) did properly or precisely con∣sist in denying the Churches authoritie to absolve sinnes of what kind soever; but rather in avouching this particular sin of Apostasie or revolting from Christia∣nitie, to be in it self unpardonable, or uncapable of Repentance. If it had been in it self unpardonable, or so adjudged by the Primitive Church: Navatian had been no Heretick, in withstanding Cornelius Bishop of Rome and the particular Churches which consented with him, or in denying to admit the Revolters from Christianitie unto the estate or Condition of Penitentiaries in the Church; or in refusing to give them Absolution, or to hold Communion with them, after

they had voluntarily, or otherwise, observed such a course of Life, as the Church had appointed for Penitentiaries.

That the Antient Church did neither admit open Revolters to enter into this Course or Rule of life, nor Absolve them after they had Uoluntarily, though most strictly (to the eyes of men) observed it, doth no way argue that the Church in which Cornelius lived, (or which lived after him) did erre, much lesse incurre the Censure of heresie which Novatian objected unto them, in admitting open Revolters unto the estate and Condition of Penitentiaries, or in absolving them from their sinnes after performance of such religious duties, as were by the Church required of men admitted into that estate or Condition.

2.* 1.2 The Primitive Church did deny unto Revolters, Both these Fa∣vours [1. Admission to the state of Penitentiaries: 2. Absolution upon their good behaviour after testification of repentance] onely de Facto; not de Jure. The Church in later times did onely alter the Practise or discipline (as is to be presumed) upon good cause or consideration. And to conclude or limit the Authoritie of the present Church, onely by Matter of fact, or practise of the Church in former times, is matter of Heresie, at least of Schism. And this it may be was a Branch (but not the Root) of Novatian's Heresie. His Radical Errour or Heresie was, in justifying the practise of the former Church, and in Condemning the resolution of the Church wherein he and Cornelius lived, by the fore-cited place of our Apostle, Heb. 6. Or, by his misin∣terpretation of it, that God would not be mercifull unto such as in time of persecution had denyed Christ, and either by word or practise approved the rites of the heathens: This Sin of Revolt indeed was a foul and griev∣ous sin, yet not a-like foul and grievous in all that were guiltie of it. But Even the foulest sin that can be imagined is but a work of the Divel, and there is no work which the Divel can work in man so foul, which the Son of God, who was manifested to this purpose that he might dissolve the workes of the Divel, is not able to dissolve. Onely the full measure of sin, or of obstinate continuance in foul and grievous sinnes, is excluded from repen∣tance, or other benefits of Christs Passion. Nor is the sin against the Holy Ghost, for its kind or qualitie unpardonable, but because it is alwayes a Sym∣ptom of the full measure of sin, or of obstinate and unrelenting continu∣ance in some sinfull course of life.

3. But even this Fundamental Truth [That no sin for it's nature or qualitie is unpardonable] through the bad disposition of men hath yeilded Nutriment to an errour so lately sprung up, that it is not as yet condemned for an heresie, though in it self as damnable as Novatian's Error was. The Error is this, [That Every sin which some sort of men commit, is pardoned before it be com∣mitted.] for so the Authors or mainteiners of this Errour argue.

If Every sin, especially every grosser sin, which the Elect or men regenerate do commit, were not forgiven, through the Merits of Christs Passion: the Elect themselves or men regenerate, might Totally or Finally fall from Grace, seeing every sin in its nature deserveth Everlasting death.

But that the Elect or men regenerate may either Totally or Finally fall from Grace, or be for the present in state of condemnation, is the utmost Absurditie or inconvenience, which, in Divinitie, they seek to bring their Opposites unto.

Not to trouble the Church with discussion of the Antecedent, [Whether the Elect or regenerate may fall from Grace either totally or finally] the Argument or Consequence is worth the traversing, to wit, [Whether it being granted, that

neither the Elect nor men regenerate can fall from Grace, we must by necessary Consequence grant, that the sins which men Elect or regenerate do after their rege∣neration commit be actually or in particular forgiven before the actuall commission of them:] or, [Whether it were not much better to grant, That men Regenerate might fall from Grace, then that their sinnes be in particular forgiven before they be actually committed by them; If the Connexion of these two were so infal∣lible, that there were a necessitie of granting both, by granting one.] Unto this Querie our Answer is, That if the impossibilitie of falling from Grace after regeneration, cannot be mainteined without Supposal or Grant, That their sinnes are forgiven, before they be committed; or that God hath as it were ante-dated a Pardon for them in particular, from the houre of Christs passion; the medicine would be much worse than the disease for which it is sought. This very Conceipt or perswasion, that our sinnes should be forgiven before they be committed, will do the soul which harb∣ours it greater harm than a Totall falling from Grace could do it. For a Totall falling from Grace, doth neither argue nor occasion just despair of pardon upon repentance; whereas the misperswasion or prejudicate opinion, that our sinnes are pardoned before they be committed, will necessarily puffe up our soules with presumption, whose swelling impostumations are no lesse dead∣ly than the wounds of despair. Though most Popes with their followers, blasphemously teach, that with what Facts soever God himself at any time hath dispensed, every Pope, for the time being, may dispense with the same; and that he may pardon every sin so far and in such manner, as God the Father and God the Son have pardoned the like: yet some latter Popes upon suite made to them, have made a Demurre, whether God at any time since the creation, did grant a Pardon or dispensation for any Fact before it was committed, which without pardon or dispensation was un∣warrantable, or in its nature damnable. And upon this scruple or Demurr have denyed to Ante-date any dispensation for those Facts or practises which their predecessors had condemned for heynous sinnes, unto those persons whose welfare and security from temporal danger they much tendred, and unto whom they shewed themselves willing to grant a Pardon for those very practises Post factum, which they would not pardon or dispence with∣all before they were committed. So that to deliver it as a point of Orthodoxal Doctrin, that God doth freely and absolutely pardon any particular sinnes, even of his Elect and dearest children before they be committed by them, is an Errour which transcends, the Licentiousness of Poperie; a Licentiousness which for degrees and malignitie exceedes the contrary rigorous Novatian errour, which denyes possibilitie of Pardon unto some grosser sinnes, as unto Relapse unto Idolatry.

4. Yet is this licentious Errour but a particular branch, and not the worst branch of that Fundamental or radical Errour before mentioned, which makes, or strives to make the Individual Nature substance or Entitie, that is in one word,* 1.3 the Bare persons of men, the Immediate Object of the Omni∣potent irresistible and immutable Decree, concerning Election and Reprobation. The manner how this Licentious Errour of Ante-dating Pardons for sinnes, springs from this Poysonous Root, is conspicuous and palpable. First the Decree of God, as all grant, is altogether immutable and irresistible: and Secondly the Individual Nature or Essence of every man, that is, his par∣ticular person, is, though not irresistible, yet indivisible and immutable, It changeth not with the conditions or dispositions of men. For though a man of a young Saint become an old Divel, though of a civil sober and

peaceable man he become a ryotous, unruly, seditious man, yet he still re∣maines the same person he was: he cannot plead in Courts of humane justice, that it was another partie, not he, which committed the misdemeanors for which he is questioned. Though his qualities or conditions alter, yet his Substance or Person alters not; whence, if Gods immutable decree of Reprobation or Election were immediately terminated unto mens Individual Natures or Substances, that is, if he had absolutely decreed to reward some particular men with everlasting Bliss, and others with everlasting miserie, without re∣spect unto their works: this Consequence would be immutable, infallible, irresistible.

Let the one sort live as they list, in Adulterie, Theft, and Murder, they should be saved. Let the others do what they can, sell all that they have and give it to the poor, fast and pray most dayes in the week, they should be damned; yea the Evill deeds of the one should be forgiven before they were committed; the others good works, or absti∣nence from Evill works, should not be capable of pardon; for as Election unto life Eternal, if it were terminated to mens persons (without respect unto their works) doth include not only a general Ante-dated Pardon for all the sins they can commit, but priviledgeth them also from all question; so doth Reprobation include an utter exclusion from all hope of Pardon, what course of life soever they take, if so be it were Terminated to their Persons or Entities, without respect unto their works.

The Orthodoxal Truth then is, that God hath decreed to reward every man accord∣ing unto all his works, not according to the foresight of his individual Nature or Per∣son. And though it be true, that it is impossible for any man to fall from the estate of Election into the estate of Reprobation, and as impossible for any man to aseend or be transported from the estate of Reprobation unto the estate of Election: Yet is it not alike impossible for him that is for the time present in a Middle State betwixt both, that is, a man capable of Gods promises in Christ and yet lyable to his Judgments, either to proceed unto the estate of Election, or to fall into the state of Reprobation. There is a necessitie that every Elected man shall be saved, that every man Reprobated shall be damned, but no like necessitie by the Eternal decree, that This or That particular man shall attain to the state of Election, or fall into the state of Reprobation. Their works or measure of working whether well or ill, their faith or want of faith, the measure & manner of both, are not so immutable or unchangable as their natures or persons are. Now Gods immutable Decree doth infallibly reward them according to the measure, manner, or qualitie of their works, or of their faith or infidelitie. For albeit the Works or Acts of mans Faith be Mutable, yet Gods purpose of rewarding every man according to his works or diffe∣rent measure of faith or infidelity is most Immutable.

5. But albeit God do not Ante-date any pardon in particular for the sinnes of the Elect, is it safe hence to conclude that he is not more favourable unto them than unto other men? or doth his peculiar favour to them, (being granted,) conclude him to be an accepter of Persons? surely it would; if we did maintain that his Eternal Decree for shewing peculiar favour and mer∣cy towards the Elect, did respect only mens Persons or Individual substances; But, laying this Foundation, [That God from Eternitie hath Decreed to reward every man, not according to the prevision of his Individual Manhood or substance, but according to all his works:] Gods peculiar favour may without imputation of partialitie or acceptance of persons, be extended not to the Elect only, but unto all that are within the Covenant, unto all that without Hypocrisie or sini∣ster respects, have subscribed unto it. Yet though this peculiar favour be to

be extended to all within the Covenant, we may not deny, but that it reaches the Elect in an extraordinary measure; for ordinarily none are admitted into the number of the Elect, which have not done some works which others, not of that number, have not done. And if God out of his free bountie, re∣ward, not the men but their works, more bountifully, than he doth the works of other men, whose persons are not within his Covenant, whose works are not so capable of bountie: he cannot hence be conceived to be a Respecter of Persons, but an accepter of such in every Nation as work righteousness, or do less evill then others do. The works which St. Peter requires to the making of our Election sure, are all in their Nature and qualitie Good, all, parts of righte∣ousness; and though we cannot do them aright; yet such as hope to be par∣takers of Gods peculiar favour, must be industrious in doing them. But not these works only, but even our Subscription unto the Covenant of Grace, our Profession of being Christs Disciples, is a work capable of mercy, of peculiar favour (in respect of others which neglect this Covenant) though No work meritorious of Grace, or of better abilities to proceed in Christianitie; nor are the best works of the Elect in their nature such.

6.* 1.4 First, the good Works which He doth that is within the Covenant are more capable of reward than the like works of men which are without the Covenant: and yet the good works of the Elect are more capable of reward then the best works of him that is only within the Covenant, not in the state of Election, not confirmed in Grace. Secondly, the good Works of men within the Covenant do facilitate their progress towards Grace, and lengthen their possibilities of being confirmed in Grace. The good works of the Elect do more then strengthen their present estate in Grace, they make them capable of greater Glorie, than others Elect are, which work not after the same man∣ner, or measure as they do. But leaving the Elect and their works to God, who only knowes them: the good works of such as are within the Covenant, though as yet not confirmed in Grace, do in some degree shelter them from danger of final Apostasie or of exclusion from Grace. The more good Works such men have done, the better fruits of Faith they have shewed, the firmer they stand in the day of temptation, wherein the Fruitlesse hearer shall fall. Thus much is included in the Close of our Apostles words, Heb. 6. ver. 7, 8. The Earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God. But that which bea∣reth thornes and bryers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burn∣ed. These Hebrewes had come as neer to that shelf, upon which others had made shipwrack of faith, as any men since have done, which have escapt it. And if they had been to be judged by men according to their present Facts, they had incurred that dreadful sentence of final Rejection or Reprobation which the Apostle there denounceth against backsliders. What then was the Sheet-anchor, which, in our Apostles Divinitie, did hold them from striking against the immoveable rock of Reprobation? the Merits of their former works? So some great Professors of Romish Divinitie, do teach in their Le∣ctures de Reviviscentia meritorum, that is of the Revival of merits, being dead or abated by Relapse or Backsliding. This Title they ground upon this very Text of Scripture, being otherwise groundless, as they themselves confesse. The words of the Apostle are, ver. 9, 10. Beloved we are perswaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous, to forget your work and Labour of Love, which ye have shewed to∣wards his Name, in that ye have ministred to the Saints, and d••minister. Had it been any injustice in God to have forgotten their former works? if it had, their

works were truly meritorious, or capable of reward by plea of justice. For that work unto which reward without injustice cannot be denyed, is meritorious, or wor∣thy of the reward; yet the Apostle implies that God should have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unjust, If he had so utterly excluded these Hebrews from entring into his Rest, as he did their Forefathers from entring into the land of Promise. For albeit their la∣ter works had been much like their forefathers, yet their former works had been much better. But in what sense doth the Apostle say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God is not unjust?

7. This word Injustus, is sometimes no more than non benignus, or non mi∣sericors, that is,* 1.5 not bountiful, or not merciful, to such as are in miserie. Though works of pitie, of bountie, be not works of justice or equitie, yet sometimes he that shewes pitie or favour, though in Cases wherein the positive Law of God requireth Justice or severe execution, if the case come before the Ma∣gistrate, is said to deal justly, that is, not rigorously, not hardly. So the Holy Ghost (when he gives the reason why Joseph did not seek publickly to be di∣vorced from his espoused wife THE BLESSED VIRGIN) saith, he did thus resolve, because he was A Just Man, that is, a Courteous and mild-hearted man: Not a just man according to strict and Legal justice. For by the positive Law of God, the crime which he suspected, was punishable not with divorce only, but with death. If Joseph then in resolving to put away his espoused wife privately, did the part of a just and upright man, he had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, an unjust man in our Apostles sense, if he had resolved to use the remedie or be∣nefit of the Law. Yet can no man be said strictly or properly to be unjust for using any lawful remedie, but non benignus, or non mitis; he may be said to deal rigorously▪ or hardly, or uncourteously in using the extremitie of the Law. To apply this Distinction to the Point in question: If God had exclu∣ded these Hebrewes from entring into his Rest, after they had accomplished such a measure of works as the Apostle there intimates, he had not been so merciful and bountiful unto them, as the Scripture teacheth he is to all, he had not shewed himself so gratious a Lord, nor given such incouragements to his other servants of not being wearie of weldoing, as he alwaies useth to do. Briefly, when the Apostle saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Phrase in the Original is as much as if he had said, so farr is God from being unjust, that you shall find him a most gratious and Loving Father: so farr will he be from forgetting your works and la∣bour of Love, so farr from cutting you off from entring into his Rest, that he will re∣member you with his best blessings, even with the blessing of Salvation, however your late backslidings have deserved the contrary.

But however, God be a Gratious and loving Father to all that call upon him, to all that are within his Covenant, but especially to his Elect: albeit this his Gratiousness consists in the not imputing or in remitting of their sinnes, yet is there not the least sinne, which any within his Covenant, or which any of his Elect do commit, whose Pardon must not be sought for, after the Com∣mission of it, and must actually be obteined; otherwise they should dye in their sinnes; for though the Son of God did take away the sinnes of the whole world, by his sufferings upon the Crosse: yet were no mans sinnes so taken away by him, or so dissolv'd as that he from that time did cease, or yet doth cease to dissolve them; whensoever they are committed, and their dis∣solution, by repentance sought for. Unlesse he did yet dissolve the works of the Divel in us, unlesse he did yet in peculiar manner remit sinnes; even our pettie sinnes, would inchain us unto the servitude of Satan. St. J••hn no way ex∣cludes the Elect, but speakes to men regenerate, albeit not to them alone,

when he saith, If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 John 2. 1. Now the Office of an Advocate is to plead his Clients Cause before his Judge, as either for Justice if his Cause be good, or for mercy or mitigation of Justice, if his Client be delinquent. God we know is as well a God of Justice, as of mercy, and hath as well one ear open to the Accusations which are brought against us, as another attentive to the Intercessions, which are made for us. Satan is our professed Adver∣sarie, and, after he hath inticed us to do his work, he never ceaseth to sollicit the Execution of Gods Justice or vengeance upon us. Not the best of Gods Saints may at any time plead their own cause▪ or ioyn this Issue with him;

Lord Let Justice be awarded with speed, either for us or against us; either let our Adversarie be condemned for accusing us falsely, or let us be condemned with him, if we have done unjustly.

This were to become not our own Advocates (which yet were presumption) but to turn Satans Solli∣citors even to suplicate for wo and vengeance upon our own soules. David hath taught us the Form of our Plea with God, even whilest we stand upon best termes. Lord enter not into Judgement with this thy servant for no flesh is righteous in thy sight.

9. But will the Almighty Judge of all the world be so unmindfull of his Great Attribute, as to deny Execution of Judgement upon such as have deserved it, being thereunto sollicited and importuned by his professed Ad∣versarie? or will The Son of God be so Partial as to plead for their acquittal which confess themselves Guiltie of the Crimes Objected? To this we Answer:

1. God hath Two Covenants, One of Justice, Another of Mercy. And albeit God The Father should do us no wrong, no injustice, but do Himself right, if he did, upon Every accusation, instantly Condemn us: yet seeing His Onely Son, hath by a full and alsufficient price, purchased a Reconciliation for us; He may maintaine the plea of Justice, even before the Almighty Judge, against our Adversarie, for us: Or, (haveing satisfied the Justice of God for all the sinnes of mankinde) He may Remove our Tryal from the Barre of Justice to the Throne of Grace and mercy. 2. Neither God the Father could deny Execution of Justice upon us, nor could God the Son plead so much as for our Reprival, if we should stand upon our own integritie, or our own Justification: so that Our Confession of Guilt is so farre from doing us preiudice, that it is a most necessary Condition of our Acquittal.

If God the Father then at any time (as hitherto at all times he hath done) deferre the execution of Justice upon us, which our adversarie dayly sollicites against us, he defers it at the Plea or Intercession of this our Advocate; not for our own sakes. And it is worth the noteing, that as the reason why the Psalmist will not have us ioyn issue with our adversary in point of Justice, is, because No flesh is righteous in Gods sight; so our Apostle, to shew that our Advocate though partaker with us of flesh & blood, is Exempted from this Vni∣versal Negative, enstyles Him by the name of Jesus Christ the righteous. If He were not righteous, even in Gods sight, He could be no fitt Advocate, to stand betwixt us and Gods Justice, to avert his Judgements from, and draw down his mercy and blessing upon us.

But in respect of what sinnes, is Jesus Christ the Righteous said, to be our Advocate, an Advocate even for the Elect and regenerate? Is he their Advocate, onely in respect of sinnes committed before their regeneration, or before their Confirmation in Grace? or an Advocate also for the remission of those sinnes which they have committed after their regeneration by Bap∣tism, or after the increase of Justifying or sanctifying Grace, whether pro∣cured

by receiving of Christs Body and Blood or by other meanes? If our Advocate he were onely in respect of sinnes committed before Baptism, or of sinnes inherent by nature, the Apostle had not said, If any man sin we have an Advocate, but if any man hath sinned he hath an Advocate. or, Intercession is alreadie made for him by his Advocate. The title which he bestowes upon his Disciples [Little Children] argues them to have been, in his esteem, men regenerate, and more free (as he hoped) from ordinary sinnes, than other men, at the least he wrote unto them, to the end that they should not sin after they had been cleansed from their sinnes, but yet he addes [if any man shall hereafter fall into any sin, We (He saith not, YOU; as takeing him∣self included in the number of those which stood in need of Advocation) have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous.] This implyes that Christ doth not cease to execute the Office of an Advocate for the rege∣nerate, so long as they live here on earth. For it is not the Office of any Advocate, to plead for the remission of those sinnes, which are alreadie remitted, or from which he knowes his Clients to be cleare exempted, before they have committed them. If then the son of God make intercession for the sinnes of the Elect or regenerate, whilest they live here on earth, their sinnes are not remitted, untill He have made intercession for them, nor doth He intercede for actual sinnes till after they be committed.

10. However, if the Son of God be our Advocate onely unto God the Father,* 1.6 whether in respect of sinnes past or now present, He as Advocate, doth onely plead our Pardon, It is God the Father, then, which must grant the Pardon; and if every sin be a work of Satan: the pardoning of sin is the Dissolution or destruction of the work of Satan. How then is it said that the Son of God doth destroy or dessolve the workes of Satan in us? As the Al∣mighty Father is said to have made the world, for he spake the word and it was made, yet he made it by the Eternal Word his Onely Son: so albeit the Father likewise, do give the Fiat or Warrant, that our sinnes may be remit∣ted, or that the workes of Satan may be dissolved in us, yet they must be dissolved by the Son, as immediatly by the Son as the world was Created by the Son.* 1.7 For this reason the Apostle in the forecited place doth not con∣tent himself with the onely Title of Advocate, but adds withall, that he is the Propitiation for our sinnes, and not for ours onely, but for the sinnes of the whole world. He saith not, (though that be most true) He hath made the Propiti∣ation for our sin; lest haply any man should hence collect, that all his sinnes were forgiven before they were committed, because the Propi∣tiation was made for them before they were committed. For albeit the Propitiatorie Sacrifice was of value infinite and all-sufficient for the full ran∣som of the World: yet is it not sufficient for us which believe, that Christ dyed for us to look onely upon the Propitiation which he then Made for us (for that is past) but upon himself as he still continues the propitiation for our sinnes; so saith the Apostle, He is the propitiation for our sinnes; not onely an Advocate to plead for us unto his Father, that our sinnes may be remitted, but this request being granted, he is withall the High Priest which must remit them; and not our high priest onely, but the Propitiation by which Every work of Satan in us must immediately be dissolved. Again, though all unto whom St. John wrote this Epistle, were not regenerate, yet it is certaine that all such as walk in the light are regenerate; yet saith St. John Chap. 1. 7. If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another; and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son—, what hath it done? Cleansed us from all our sinnes. Though that be in a good sense most true,

yet our Apostle doth not So speak, Lest haply such as had attained unto this Communion of Saints, or participation with the Children of Light, being thus farre cleansed by Christs bloud, might take occasion to think, that all their sinnes, aswel those that are to come, as those which were past, were already pardoned by him, or that they were as truly cleansed from the guilt of sinnes future, as of sins already committed & past. But the Apostle (making himself one of the number to whom he speaks) says, If WE walk in the light, the bloud of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, that is, it never ceaseth to cleanse the Elect or regenerate from the sins which they never cease, in some mea∣sure or other, to committ, or harbour in them. And if there were not a perpetual Remission of our sinnes, or if this cleansing us from our sinnes by the bloud of Christ were not as perpetual and continual as our Commission of sinne is, our Case, even the Case of men regenerate, would be Lamentable. So farre is it from truth, that the sinnes of any man be forgiven before they be committed, or that any man is by the bloud of Christ actually cleansed from those sinnes which as yet have not actually polluted his soul and consci∣ence, that, as bad Diet casts men into a Relapse of those diseases from which they had been lately cured, so the sinnes which we commit this hour, will call our former sinnes to remembrance in Gods sight, until these later as well as the former be actually forgiven, or untill we be actually cleansed from these later by the bloud of Christ. I should now proceed unto the manner how the Son of God doth dissolve those works which Satan worketh in us after Baptism or regeneration, or how we are actually cleansed from sinne by his bloud:

11.* 1.8 But here again I find the Truth besett with Two Errors or Extremes, the One Positive, or an Heresie maintained by the Romish Church, which in effect denies the infinite value or everlasting Efficacie of Christs bloudy Sacrifice upon the Crosse: The Other Extreme is an Incogitancy of some men which magnisie the everlasting Efficacie or infinite value of Christs Bloudie Sacri∣fice, not too much (for so they cannot) but amiss: they make it everlast∣ing after such a manner, or rather make such use or application of its everlasting Efficacie or infinite value, to themselves and to their hearers, as makes his Everlasting Priesthood, to be uselesse, or needlesse. To begin with the First Error or Extreme.

Is it possible, that, That Church which challengeth the Title of Catholick as her own peculiar, should deny the most Fundamental Article of Catholick Faith, as is the everlasting Efficacie or infinite value of Christs Bloudie Sacrifice?

In expresse terms, or directly, she doth not deny it, Her Advo∣cates dare not professe the denyal of it. For so most of their Faction whom they lead blindfold, would forsake them, as Hereticks and Aliens from the Antient and Orthodoxal Church Yet the more stifly the greatest Scholars in that Church deny the imputation or Charge which we lay upon them; the better proof we shall gain from them, that they are the men, which, as the Apostle saith, are given over to believe Lyes; that they are the men, on whose soules the spirit of delusion hath seazed; If we shall decypher the im∣pression or Character of that spirit so clearly, that every one, which is not sworn to their Faction, whether Jew, Mahumetan, or Heathen, or other more indifferent, though but indued with Common Reason, may run and read it. Let us see then how they expose the greatest Mysteries of our Salvation, unto the just scorn and derision of the lew, Mahumetan, or Heathen, without possibilitie of Apologie for their manifest contradicting the Principles not of Christianitie only, but of Common Reason. Thus you may imagine

any Iewish School-Boy or young Artist Catechized in the Rudiments of his own Religion would oppose the greatest Rabbines in the Romish Church.

We of the Jewish Nation, once had our ordinary Priests which offered sacrifices daily in the temple, we had our high Priest which went into the most holy place once a year, with the bloud of the Anniversary and solemn sacrifices; ye Christian Catholicks (so ye term your selves) teach your hearers, as your Apostle hath taught you, that the best sacrifices which our Fathers used were but Shadowes fore-signifying the taking away of sin, they did not, they could not take away sins, or cleanse the consciences of such as offered them; And why could not our sacrifices take away sin? your Apostle gives this Reason, because they were often offered, Heb. 10. ver. 1. 2. &c. Ye Christian Catholicks have your high Priest, who, as ye say, offered himself up in bloudy sacrifice unto God for your sinnes; was this his sacrifice perfect, or was it not? Did it take away sinnes more perfectly then the sacrifices which our Fathers used, or did it not? ye say, It did, we say It did not, it could not: if your Apostles Principles or Expositions of Scrip∣tures be true, and your practise not false or unlawful. Your Priests (as you confess) stand daily ministring and offering the same sacrifice, which your high Priest did offer, and therefore by your Apostles argument against us, and by your practise, this sacrifice can never take away sinne: it is more the same sacrifice than the sacrifices of the Law were, And yet it is offered oft∣ner and in more places than any Legal sacrifices were.

12. Some devoted to the Romish religion will perhaps say in their hearts; the Doctors of our Church know well enough how to untye these knots, which the Iewes cast; albeit so learnedly and so subtilly, that no un∣learned man can perceive how they untye them. If men will thus believe or rely upon their Teachers skill without any true experiment of it; we can∣not help it. Yet if you will believe me upon the faith of a Christian, I never yet could see any Romish Writer, which leaves not the former knot worse then he found it, after he had used all the paines and skill he had to untwist it. The wisest and most learned of them, usually let it slide away without medling. Many of you perhaps have read what the Rhemists in their Notes upon the tenth to the Hebrewes, have attempted, To make you believe that all is loose: The Apostle (say they) speakes of the sacrifices of the Law, not of the sacrifice of the Mass. It is true indeed, he speakes of the sacrifices of the Law, for he proves them to be unperfect, unsufficient: but he proves them to be unsufficient by such a Reason as will conclude more strongly, not only against the sa∣crifice of the Mass, (if so the sacrifice of the Masse, were as lawfull as the Le∣gal sacrifices sometimes were, or the Reiteration of it, not more abominable in the sight of God, then the restauration of Legal bloudie sacrifices at this day would be:) But against Christs bloudy sacrifice upon the† 1.9 Cross, also. The only Reason by which the Apostle proves the best kind of Legal sacrifices, even whilest they were lawfully used and according to Gods ap∣pointment, to have been altogether unsufficient for taking away sinne, is, be∣cause they were to be often offered: Now every particular must be proved by an universal, and A true universal Rule or Principle includes the same reason in every particular. The Apostle could not prove the Legal Services to have been imperfect for this Reason, that they were often offered, unless this Vniversal were true and taken by him as granted, [That no sacrifices or sacrifice of what kind so∣ever which is often offered can be perfect or sufficient to take away sinnes.] This uni∣versal Reason the Apostle takes as granted by Light of Nature and Common

Reason, and so frames his Argument from the Authoritie of Scriptures, and the consonancie of Common Reason or light of nature, ver. 15. The Holy Ghost ALSO is witnesse, &c.

It is as idle and as frivolous a shift wherewith the same Rhemists seek to put off their ignorant Readers, when they tell them, that, Christs body was but once offered up in a bloudy manner, but may and ought to be often offered up in a bloud∣less manner. The very root and ground of this distinction if you examine it by our Apostles Argument, includes a confession or acknowledgement of the CRIME or HERESIE which we object unto them, to wit, that The bloudy Sacrifice of the Son of God, is not by their doctrine of infinite value, nor of force and vertue everlasting, but infinite only secundum quid, (i. e.) infinite in the Nature of a bloudie sacrifice, not so simply infinite as to exclude all other sacrifice or offering for sin. For if it had been of value infinite, or All-sufficient to take away sin whilest it was of∣fered up in a bloudy manner, there had been no more offering, either requi∣red or left for sin, whether a bloudie or a bloudlesse offering, whether after a bloudy or a bloudless manner; for if Once offered it were in the nature of an offering infinite, it necessarily took away all other offerings, or manner of offering for sin.

A Note Relating to the precedent Chapter.

EUsebius, Socrates, and Theodoret amongst the Greeks: Primasius, and Austin amongst the Latines do not distinguish betwixt these two Ominous names, Novatus, and Novatianus. But St. Cyprian, in his 49. Epistle, shews plainly that they were of two distinct persons, though agreeing too well in Schism and Heresie. Novatus was an African (new Monster,) a Preshyter in the Church of Carthage, (where S. Cyprian was Bishop) vir sui nominis; for he was Rerum novarum semper Cupidus, disobedient to his Bishop, spightful against the Order, unnatural to his Father (who dyed for hunger and lay too long unburied) unfaithful to the Orphan, the Widdow, the Church-stock, unkind to his wife, whom he made to miscarry with a kick. (Damnat sacrificantium manus ipse nocentior pedibus, says S. Cyprian.) Thus qualified, fearing Excommunication, He fled to Rome, and joyned with Novatianus a Roman Presbyter, who was, about that time, brewing his Schism against Cornelius Bishop of Rome: These Two were the Ring∣leaders of the Sect of the Cathari. See S. Cyprian. Epist. 49. (and Epist. 51. 52.) with Rigaltius his Notes.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Of Novatus See Euseb. L. 6. c. 42. & Socrates Lib. 4. ch. 23.
• * 1.2

  The Primi∣tive Church did hold both to be lawfull but not expe∣dien for the present Times.
• * 1.3

  See his Answer to Mr. B.
• * 1.4

  Gods grati∣ousness to the Elect, and his respect to their good works.
• * 1.5

  See Book 9. Ch. 12. Numb. 3.
• * 1.6

  It is the Advo∣cate's Office to plead for pardon: The Iudge which hath Power.
• * 1.7

  1 Iob. 2. 1, 2.
• * 1.8

  The Error of the sacrifice of the Mass.
• † 1.9

  He meanes, if it needed to be often offered.