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 ...

SECT. VIII.

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.

CHAP. LV.

From the Text, Heb. 10. ver. 1, 2, 16, 17. And from this Maxim, [That Christ's One Sacrifice of himself was of Value absolutely Infinite;] it follows not, That such as worship God in Spirt, or, such as are received into The Covenant of Grace have their sinnes remitted before they do committ them.

That Doctrine makes Christ's Resurrection useless (in respect of us;) and Baptism needlesse. Legal worshippers Conscious, and their sins remembred in such a sort as Evangelical worshippers are not. The vast Oddes betwixt Christ's One Sacrifice and the Many Legal. We must distinguish betwixt the Infinite value and Infinite vertue of Christs sacrifice.

The precious Effects of H. Baptism, and the Eucharist, flowing from the Efficacie of Christs Sacrifice and Priesthood. How Le∣gal Sacrifices, &c, did prefigure Christ's.

1. BUt unto men which have not their Senses exercised in the Propheti∣cal and Evangelical Writings, or in the Harmonie betwixt them; the words of the Apostle in that tenth Chapter to the Hebrewes,* 1.10 ver. 1, 2 16, 17. do minister some scruple.

His words, ver. 1, 2, are these. The Law can never, with those sacrifi∣ces which they offered year by year continually, make the commers thereunto perfect; For then would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, (that is, such as were observers of the Legal worship only;) should have had no more con∣science of sin. From this Opposition between the condition of Gods people under the Law, and the Condition of his people under the New Covenant, that is, of such as worship him not by Legal Sacrifices, but in the Spirit, it may seem to be concluded, that such as are within the Covenant of Grace, or wor∣ship him in spirit, have their Sinnes remitted before they can commit them, or as soon as they begin to worship God, not by Legal sacrifices, but in the spirit. For if the sins of men thus qualified were not remitted before they were re∣ceived into the Covenant of Grace, or at least at the time when they were there∣unto admitted, they should at least have as much (if not more) Conscience of sin, as the Legal worshippers had.

2. This Scruple or Question, which the words of the Apostle, ver. 1, 2. do minister, may be fortified or Augmented from the same Apostles Inference ver. 17. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. This is the Privilege of such as are within the New Covenant.* 1.11 Now, if according to the Tenor of this privilege, God will no more remember their sinnes and iniquities who are comprized within the new Covenant, the cause or Controversie may seem concluded, that God will neither punish their sinnes, nor question them for them. For all punishment of sin, all inquisition after sin, doth include or presuppose a Remembrance or Cognizance of the sins for which men are punished or questioned.

Both these Scruples may receive strength or Countenance from that gene∣ral Maxim unto which we willingly subscribe [That the bloudy sacrifice whereby this new Covenant was made and ratified,* 1.12 was of value absolutely infinite,

for taking and putting away sinnes.] And how could it possibly be of value in∣finite for taking away sins, unlesse the sins of all, all their sins for whom it was offered, were by it taken away or remitted; So taken away, that they should be no more remembred in Gods sight, that They should have no more Conscience (or horrour) of sin?

3.* 1.13 The clear and unquestionable Points of Truth, included in the Apostles words, are but Two.

The Former, That the Legal Worshippers were conscious of sin in such a sort as the Evangelical worshippers, or men comprehended under the new Cove∣nant, are not conscious.

The Second, that God did remember the sins of such as were under the former Covenant, after such a manner as he doth not remember their sinnes who are under the new Covenant of Grace. But for the Distinct meaning of the Apostle, that is, how farre the Legal worshippers had a consciousness of sin; how farr the Evangelical worshippers have none; In what sort, measure, or man∣ner God did remember the sinnes of his people under the Old Covenant, and not remember the sinnes of his people under the new Covenant of Grace, we can have no better scantling, no more indifferent standard, than the words of the same Apostle in the same tenth Chapter, ver. 3. But in those sa∣crifices (to wit which were offered by the Law,) there is a remembrance (or commemoration) of sin made every year. But wherein did this Annual Re∣membrance or Commemoration of sin consist? The Law, as the Apostle else∣where speakes, was but a School-master unto Christ; and the Lessons, which this School-master, did, by the Annual, or other, bloudie sacrifices especially, teach, were these:

That the men, by whom or for whom these bloudie sacrifices were offered, had deserved, and as often as they offered them did deserve, to be tormented and mangled as these sacrifices were. That the ••utchery of Them was but Favorabilis commutatio poenae, a favourable exchange or diverting the punishment from themselves upon these bruit Beasts: That whiles the fire under Gods Altar did continue, Gods Wrath against sinne and sinners vvas not appeased, nor could be appeased by this kind of bloudy sacrifices.

All this the yearly and daily offering of bloudy sacrifices, did clearly testifie unto the consciences of such as offered them. And that so often as God required these sacrifices, he did call their sins unto remembrance, and as it vvere by matter of Fact proclaim unto the World, that as yet, his Wrath against sin vvas not, could not be appeased, by these or the like kind of Sacrifices. But inasmuch as the Law, though in it-self imperfect (and therefore could make nothing perfect) vvas yet an Introduction to a better Hope; the continual reiteration or repetition of these bloudy sacrifices did teach such as used them aright, to expect a more sufficient bloudy sacrifice, vvhich should fully appease the vvrath of God, and Testifie unto mens consciences, that he did remember their sins no more, in such sort as during the time of the Law he had done; that is, there should be no more exchange or commuta∣tion of punishment, no solemn remembrance of sinne, by any sacrifice (of what kind soever) for sin, but this one sacrifice should suffice for all.

4. That we may ascend by degrees unto the infinite value and everlasting Effi••acie of the sacrifice of the sonne of God, we are in the first place to consi∣der the odds or difference between this only Sacrifice and the sacrifices of the Law. The odds or differences between them may be reduced unto these Two Heads: First, To the Diversitie of their immediate Effects: Secondly, To their different Efficacie or proportion for effecting the several Ends to which they were especially destinated. 1. The Immediate effect of the bloudy

Sacrifices of the Law, was to cleanse or purifie the offerers from sinnes com∣mitted against the Law of Ceremonies, and this (as the Apostle termes it) was a Purification or Sanctification according to the flesh. Howbeit, this Sanctification was a shadow or picture of that purification of the Conscience or Sanctification of the Spirit, which was to be effected by the bloody Sacri∣fice of the Son of God. 2. The sacrifices of the Law were no way so Powerfull or sufficient for effecting the Sanctifying of the flesh, as the Sacri∣fice of the Son of God is for effecting the Sanctification of the spirit and Conscience. There was no one kind of Legal sacrifices, which might make a full attonement for all sinnes or sinners against the Law of Ceremonies. For every different sin or legal uncleanness they had (for the most part) a different kind of sacrifice or offering. And if a man had been this day cleansed by sacrifice from some particular sin or legal uncleanness, and had fallen again unto the like to morrow, the blood of the former sacrifice could not stead him the second time: Every particular relaps into the same sin, was to have a particular offering or fresh Sacrifice, though of the same kind with the former.

5. The infinite value of the Bloody Sacrifice of the Son of God, may, from this imperfection of the legall sacrifices, be distinctly apprehended, if we consider, that not the Jew onely but the Gentiles, one and other, were Enemies and rebells against God, all by nature the sonnes of wrath and perdition, and yet the favour of reconciliation for all that then were, or afterwards should be (albeit this world should continue a million of years) was purchased by this one bloody Sacrifice, as by a just and full price. What sinnes soever any man had committed, they did not prejudice his In∣terest in the pardon purchased; it was universal in respect of al sinners, and in respect of all sinnes; The Almighty Father's wrath against mankind, was by this Onely Sacrifice so well appeased, so fully satisfied, that he is ready to receive all into the favour and Privilege of sonnes, which will with due reverence accept of the Pardon offered, and sue it out by such meanes as he hath appointed. Now this Vniversal Favour, for all men▪ to whom nothing but vengeance was in Justice due, could not possibly be purchased by any Sacrifice, which was not of Value absolutely infinite. But to grant an ab∣solute Pardon, not onely for all sinnes past, before the acceptance of the Pardon, but for willfull obstinacie or continuance in sinne or rebellion after so Gratious a Proclamation of Pardon, could be no Effect of Gods infinite Mercy, no Fruits of Christs infinite Merits. For, infinite Merits cannot benefit men altogether unqualified or uncapable of them. And Mercy infinite must retaine the nature of mercy; it reacheth not beyond the pro∣per Object of mercy: And the proper Object of mercy, is penitencie or sorrow for Misdemeanors past or present. Willfull continuance or obstinacie in ex∣orbitant courses or contempt of mercy offered, is the Object of Justice or indignation.

6. But besides the Infinite Value, we are to acknowledge the infinite or Everlasting Efficacie, or Operative Vertue of this bloody Sacrifice of the Son of God. Want of distinguishing between these two hath occasioned many Errours or oversights in Divinitie: That there is a Distinction to be put betwixt them, we may thus conceive. Suppose the Son of God, imme∣diately after he had payed the ransom for our sinnes, or in that Instant in which he said, Consummatum Est, all is finished, had deposed or layed aside the humane nature, in which he was conceived and born to the end and pur∣pose that he might dye in it (or according to it,) his offering or Sacrifice

had been of Value infinite, in that it could purchase so Vniversal a Pardon at Gods hands for all sinners, and for all sinnes. Yet if he had laid aside the humane nature immediately after his suffering, The Everlasting Efficacie of this infinite Sacrifice had been cut off. Now besides the infinite price of our redemption which was then Payd when Christ said Consummatum Est, another End of his assumption and retaining the humane nature, was, that we might be partakers of the Everlasting Vertue of his Sacrifice and Priesthood. And herein doth this Sacrifice truely differ from the sacrifices of the Law, from all sacrifices whatsoever, in that we obtaine remission of sinnes by it, and through it, not onely as it was once offered, but by the reall Communication of its Vertue unto our soules. If there were any use or need of a second, third, or reiterated offering of it, the Vertue and Effica∣cie of it could not be imagined to be perpetually everlasting or Uncessant, but endlesse or uncessant onely by Vicissitude or Turn, in such a sense as we say, the Moone shall be Eclipsed to the worlds end; Yet is it not eclipsed at all times, but at some speciall times, throughout all Ages of the world. But if both the Value of the Sacrifice be truely infinite, and the Vertue of it everlasting without interruption or discontinuation, more Uncessant than the Motion of the heavens, or the Rest of the earth: The often offering of the Sacrifice, after what manner soever, is superfluous and blasphemous.

The true reason then, why the Body of Christ is not, or ought not to be often offered, is, not because all our sinnes were actually remitted by the once offering of it, or remitted before they were committed: but be∣cause the substance or matter of the sacrifice, is of the same force, at this day, to remit sinnes, that it was of, whilest it was offered.

For his humane nature was consecrated by death and by his bloody Passion, to be a sacrifice of ever∣lasting Vertue, to be the continual propitiation for our sinnes.

7 If either the actual sinnes of all men,* 1.14 or the sinnes of the Elect in speciall, had been so remitted by Christs death as some conceive they were, that is, absolutely pardoned before they were committed; there had been no end or use of Christs Resurrection in respect of us; no need of Baptism: yet was Baptism, from the hour of his resurrection, necessarie unto all that did beleive in his death and resurrection. The urgent and indispensable necessitie of Baptism, especially in respect of actual beleivers, is not any where more Emphatically intimated, than in St. Peters Answer to the Jewes, Whose hearts were pierc't with sorrow that they had been the causes of Christs death. They, in this stound or sting of Conscience demand, Men and brethren what shall we do? and Peter answered them, Repent and be Baptized Every one of you, In the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes. And they that gladly received the word, were Baptized the same day. Acts 2. 37, 38, 41. These men had been deeply tainted with sin, not original onely, but with sinnes actual of the worst kind: guiltie they were in a high degree of the death of the Son of God, yet had they as well their actual as their original sinnes remitted by Baptism. It is then an unsound and imperfect Doctrin, that sin original onely is taken away or remitted by Baptism; for whatsoever sinnes are remitted or taken away by Christs death, the same sins are in the same manner remitted and taken away by Baptism into his death; actual sinnes are remitted in such as are guiltie of actual sinnes, when they are baptized, though onely sin Original be actually remitted in those which are not guiltie of actual sinnes, as in Infants. No mans sinnes are actually remitted, before he be actually guilty of them.

8. The Question is, how either sin original is remitted, or how any

work of Satan is dissolved by Baptism, And this Question in the General is righly resolved, by saying, They are remitted by faith. But this general Reso∣lytion sufficeth not, unless we know the Object of our Faith in this particular. Now the particular Object of our Faith, of that faith by which sinnes (whe∣ther by Baptism or otherwise) are remitted, is not our general Belief in Christ: even our belief of Christ dying for us in particular, will not suffice, unlesse it include our Belief of the Everlasting Vertue of his bloudie Sacrifice, and of his everlasting Priest-hood for purifying and cleansing our soules. No sinnes be truly remitted unless they be remitted by the Office or exercise of his Priest-hood; and whilest so remitted they are not remitted by any other Sa∣crifice then by the sole vertue of his body and bloud, which he once offered for all, for the sinnes of all. It is not the Vertue or Efficacie of the consecrated water in which we were washed, but the vertue of his Bloud which was once shed for us, and which by Baptism is sprinkled upon us, or communicated unto us, which immediately cleanseth us from all our sinnes. From this everlasting Vertue of this his bloudy Sacrifice, Faith, by the ministerie of bap∣tism is immediatly gotten in such as had it not before. And in such as have Faith before they be baptized, the guilt of Actual sinns is remitted by the exercise or Act of Faith, as it apprehends the everlasting Efficacy of this sacri∣fice, and by the prayer of faith, and supplication unto our High Priest. Faith then is as the mouth or appetite by which were receive this food of Life, and is a good sign of health, but it is the food itself received, which must conti∣nue health and strengthen spiritual life in us; and the food of life is no other then Christs Body and Bloud, and it is our High Priest himself, which must give us this food.

Baptism, saith St. Peter, 1 Pet. 3. 20. doth save us: what Baptism doth save us? not the putting away the filth of the flesh (yet this is the immediate effect of the water in baptism) but the answer (or stipulation) of a good conscience towards God. But how doth this kind of Baptism, or this concomitant of Baptism, save us? The Apostle in the same place tells us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: The answer or stipulation of a good conscience, includes an illumination of our spirits by the Spirit of God; a qualification, by which we are made sonnes of Light, being before the sonnes of darkness. But, That by this qualification we be∣come the sonnes of Light; That this qualification is by baptism wrought in us; That by this qualification however wrought in us, we are saved from our sinnes; All this is immediately from the vertue of Christs Resurrection. That is, as you have heard before, he was consecrated by the sufferings of death to be an everlasting Priest, and by his resurrection from death, his body and bloud became an everlasting Propitiation for sinnes, an inexhaustible Foun∣tain of Grace, by which we are purifyed from the dead works of sinne.

9. It is true again, that in the Sacrament of Christs Body and Bloud, there is a propitiation for our sinnes, because He is really present in it, who is the propitiation for our sinnes. But it no way hence followes, that there is any propitiatorie sacrifice for sin in this Sacrament. He becomes the propitia∣tion for our sinnes, he actually remits our sinnes, not directly and immedi∣ately by the Elements of Bread and Wine, nor by any other kind of Local Pre∣sence or Compresence with these Elements, than is in Baptism. The Orthodox∣al Antients use the same Language, for expressing his Presence in Baptism and in the Eucharist; they stick not to say, that Christ is present or Latent in the water, as well as in the Elements of Bread and Wine. Their meaning is, that neither of these Elements or sensible substances, can directly cleanse

us from our sinnes by any vertue communicated unto them or inherent in them, but only as they are pledges or assurances of Christs peculiar presence in them, and of our true investiture in Christ by them. We are not then to receive the Elements of bread and wine only in remembrance that Christ dy∣ed for us, but in remembrance or assurance likewise that his body which was once given for us, doth by its everlasting Vertue preserve our bodies and souls unto everlasting Life, and that his bloud, which was but once shed for us, doth still cleanse us from all our sinnes, from which in this life we are cleansed, or can hope to be cleansed. If we then receive remission of sinnes or purification from our sinnes in the Sacrament of the Eucharist (as we alwaies doe when we receive it worthily;) we receive it not immediately by the sole serious re∣membrance of his death, but by the present Efficacie or operation of his body, which was given for us, and of his Bloud which was shed for us.

10. The reason why the bloud of Bulls and of Goats had no longer force or efficacie to cleanse men, though but from sinnes against the Law of Cere∣monies, then whilest they were offered, was, because their bloud was cor∣ruptible bloud, and did perish with the using. But we are not redeemed, saith S. Peter,* 1.15 with corruptible things, as silver, and Gold, but with the pretious, bloud of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish or without spot. One part of the pretious∣ness of his bloud is, that it is farr more incorruptible then silver, gold, or other pretious metall, and the less corruptible any metall is, the more pretious it is; and the more pretious it is the more uncorruptible.

Though Christ then was truly mortal when he dyed for us, yet the bloud that he shed forth for us at his death, did not become like water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered again; it did not vanish or consume as the bloud of Legal Sacrifices did; as his Body so his Bloud was, not to see or feel corruption: not a drop of Bloud which was shed for us, whether in the Garden or upon the Crosse, but was the bloud of the Son of God; but was shed by him, as willing at this price to become the ever∣lasting High Priest of our soules: and not a drop of Bloud which was so shed did cease, or shall ever cease, to be the bloud of the Son of God. His soule and body we know were disunited by death: yet were neither of them dis∣united from his Godhead or Divine Person. His Body whilest laid in the grave, was still the Body of the Son of God, as still retaining Personal Vnion with his Godhead: So was his soule, so was his Bloud, the soule and Bloud of the Son of God, as being indissolubly united to his Divine Person. Though his bloud, whilest it was shed or powred out, did lose its Physical or Local Union with his body, though one portion of it were divided from another, yet no drop of it was divided from his infinite Person. And that which the Romish Church would transferre unto each several crum of bread or drop of Wine in the Eucharist, is Originally and properly true of the several drops or divisibilities of Christs Bloud which was shed for us; whole Christ was in every one of them, indivisibly in every one of them God was, the Godhead was and is personally united to all of them.

11. Whether all and every portion of his bloud which was then shed, were, by the power of the Godhead, recollected and re-united to his Body, as his Body was to his Soule at the resurrection,* 1.16 we cannot tell; God knowes. But this we know and believe, that the self same bloud which was then shed, whether it were gathered together again, or remained dispersed, whether it were re-united to his Glorifyed Body or divided from it, is still united to the Fountain of Life, to the Godhead in the Person of the Son. And being uni∣ted to this Fountain of Life (who dwelleth in it, as light within the body of the Sun) it is of Efficacie everlasting; it hath an immortal power or force to dis∣solve

the Works of Satan in us, as well those which he worketh in us after Baptism as before. The Vertue of it, to cleanse and purge us from our sinnes (of what kind soever) is, at this day, as soveraign, as if it had been sprinkled upon our soules, whilest it issued out of his body. It is impossible it should lose its Vertue in or upon our soules, unless vve first lose our Interest in it, vvhich vve cannot lose but by abandoning the vvaies of light, and polluting our soules vvith the Works of darkness. For so long as we walk in the light, the bloud of Jesus Christ the Son of God, doth cleanse us from all our sins.

12.* 1.17 This present Efficacie of Christs body and Bloud upon our soules, or reall Communication of both, I find as a truth unquestionable amongst the An∣tient Fathers, and as a Catholick Confession. The Modern Lutheran and the mo∣dern Romanist have fallen into their several Errors concerning Christs presence in the Sacrament, from a common ignorance; neither of them conceive, nor are they vvilling to conceive, hovv Christs body and bloud should have any Real Operation upon our soules, unlesse they were so Locally present, as they might Agere per contactum, that is, either so purge our soules by Oral Manducation, as Physical Medicines do our bodies (vvhich is the pretended use of Transubstantiation) or so quicken our souls as svveet odours do the Ani∣mal spirits, which were the most probable use of the Lutheran Consubstantiati∣on. Both the Lutheran and Papists avouch the Authoritie of the Ancient Church for their opinions, but most injuriously. For more then we have said, or more than Calvin doth stiffely maintain against Zuinglius and other Sacramentaries, cannot be inferred from any speeches of the truely Orthodoxal or Ancient Fa∣thers; They all agree, that we are immediately cleansed and purifyed from our sinnes by the bloud of Christ; That his humane Nature by the inhabi∣tation of the Deitie is made to us the inexhaustible Fountain of life. But about the particular manner how life is derived to us from his humane Nature, as whether it sends its sweet influence upon our soules only from the heavenly Sanctuary wherein it dwells as in its Sphere; or vvhether his bloud vvhich vvas shed for us, may have more immediate Local presence vvith us, they no way disagree, because, they, in this kind, abhorred curiositie of dispute. As for Vbiquitie and Transubstantiation, they are the two Monsters of modern times, brought forth by ignorance, and maintained only by Faction.

And thus much of the infinite value and everlasting Vertue of Christs Sacrifi••e in comparison of Legal Sacrifices. The next Querie, is, How the everlasting Effi∣cacie of his Sacrifice, or of his Priesthood was prefigured by Legal Sacrifices or puri∣fications for sin.

13. The Legal sacrifices, as all agree, did generally foreshaddow Christs Onely and All-sufficient Sacrifice. But in as much as they were corruptible and their vertue transient, and by reason of their corruption and transient vertue were often to be reiterated: they could not be so much as true shad∣dowes either of his offering of Himself once for all, or of the everlasting vertue of his Onely Sacrifice once offered. Their imperfection, corruption, or transi∣ent vertue, did serve as foyles to set forth the glorie and splendor of his ever∣lasting Sacrifice, and most perfect offering. Of all the Legal Sacrifices which present themselves unto my former observation, or present memory, there is one kind only which can beare the true shaddow or serve as a Modell of the Everlasting Efficacie of his onely Sacrifice once offered for all. And that was the sacrifice of the Red Heifer, Numb. 19. and the Legal Use which GODS People under the Law were to make of Her Ashes.

The correspondencie between the effects of the Ashes of this sacrifice and of the blood of Christ is gathered by our Apostle, Heb. 9. ver. 13, 14. If the Ashes of an Heyfer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctif••eth to the purification of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself to God, purge your consciences from dead workes to serve the living God. But wherein did this sacrifice picture out the Everlasting Efficacie of the Blood of the Son of God, in more peculiar manner than other Legal sacrifices did?

14. First, in that all such as were legally unclean by touching a Corps or Grave, by comming into a Tent wherein a Corps lay unburied, or suf∣fering the vessels in such a Tent to be uncovered, were to be purified by the Water of Sprinkling which was qualified or consecrated to this purpose by the Ashes of the Red Cow or Heyfer: and as often to be purified by this water as they should incurre this Legal uncleanness. And yet the sacrifice of this beast was not to be offered so often as this people did incurre these Kinds of legal uncleanness. Thus much is Evident from the practice of the Jewish Church during the time of the Law.

For this water of purification was often every year, oft-times Every month to be sprinkled upon some one or other of this people, oft-times upon one and the same man within one and the same year, even as often as he should by chance, or negligence incurre any of the former branches of uncleannesse. Yet was not this sacrifice, whose ashes were still to be mingled with the water of purification, to be offered once Every year, in every Age, or in many Ages. The Sacrifice of the Red Heyfer, as the Jewes confesse, was but nine times offered during the time of the Law; Once by Eleazar Aarons Son in the wilderness. And this sacrifice was not reiterated untill the destruction of Salomons Temple, that is, not during the space of a thousand yeares and more. It was the Second Time offered by Ezra after this peoples Return from Captivitie, and but seven times after, unto the destruction of the second Temple. And this Foolish Nation since that time hath not presumed to offer it, but expects the offering of it the tenth time by their King Messias▪ Thus is the faithless Synagogue, by Gods providence, the Keeper, not of the Sacred Oracles onely written by Moses and the prophets, but even of those Traditions which testifie the summe and truth of these Oracles, to wit, that this legal sacrifice, amongst the rest, was to be accomplished in their Messias: He was indeed to set the Period to this legal Rite, and to all the rest, not by of∣fering them after a Legal Rite or manner, but by offering up himself instead of them all, once for all, in bloodie sacrifice, in whose infinite Value and Everlasting Efficacie all other sacrifices or offerings for sin, were so termi∣nated or swallowed up, as Land-rivers or currents of waters are in the sea. But what circumstance have we from the written Text, that this sacrifice was not to be so often offered, as this people had occasion to use the water of sprinkling or the Ashes of this sacrifice to cleanse them from their former Legal pollutions?* 1.18 It is said ver. 9. that the Ashes should be laid up without the Camp in a cleane place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & reserved or kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of separation. The Ashes were to be re∣served, not for this Generation onely present, but for the use of Posteritie. As Manna, which was commanded in the same Character to be reserved in the Ark, was the Type of Christ as he is the food of life, or the bread which came down from heaven; So were these Ashes as an Emblem of the Everlasting Efficacie or operative vertue of his sacrifice. There is no Bodily substance under heaven, which can be so true an Emblem or model

of incorruption as Ashes are. Being the Remainder of bodies perfectly dissolved or corrupted, they are not capable of a second corruption. And when it is said, that the Ashes should be reserved for a water of separation, the meaning is, that one sacrifice might afford ashes enough to season or qua∣lifie as many several vessels of water, as this people for many generations should have occasion to use for Legal purification. So it is said in the same ninth verse, that the Reservation of these Ashes was a Purification for sin. A purification, not in Act onely, or for one or two turnes, but a Continual Pu∣rification: or as a Treasurie or storehouse for making as many purifications or waters of sprinkling as this people had occasion to use. And so Christ is said Heb. 1. 3. to have made a purification for our sinnes; when he had by himself purged our sinnes (saith our English) he sate down on the right hand of the Majestie on high. But the Translation (under Correction) comes somewhat short of the Original, and the shorter it comes of it, the more advantage it yeilds unto their opinion which think their sinnes were remit∣ted and purged before they were actually committed. The Apostles words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, haveing made a Purification for sin, he hath ascended into heaven. The word Purification is not to be restrained to One Act or operation, but includes or implies the Perpetual qualitie of himself or sub∣stance of his sacrifice being by this one Act consecrated to be a perpetual Fountain of purification. As he did not onely make one propitiation for our sinnes; So neither did he once actually purge us from our sinnes by offering up himself, but still remaines the purification of our sinnes: that is, he doth still purifie and cleanse us from our sinnes, as often as we seek by Faith and true repentance to be cleansed and purified by him.

15. So then the Blood of the Legal Sacrifice or Heyfer did consecrate the Ashes to be as a Storehouse or treasury of legal purification, and the Ashes thus consecrated by this sacrifice, did hallow or consecrate the Water which was put into them to make actual purification as often as occasion required. So did our High Priest, by the One Sacrifice of Himself, consecrate his Blood to be an inexhaustible Fountain of purification Evangelical. And his Blood and Body thus consecrated once for all, do consecrate or sanctifie the Water of Baptism to cleanse or wash Infants from sin Original; and such as are of yeares when they are baptized from sinnes Actual against the moral Law of God. So doth his Blood or operative Vertue of his Everlasting sacrifice, consecrate or qualifie the Elements of Bread and Wine to purifie and cleanse our soules from such actual sinnes, as after Baptism we have committed. This perennal Efficacie or Operative Vertue of Christs Body and Blood, consecrated once for all by the sacrifice of himself, to be a perpetual puri∣fication for such as were to be consecrated Kings and Priests unto their God, which was thus pictured by the former Legal or Mosaical Rites, was more expressly foretold by the Prophet Zacharie. For having in the twelfth Chap. ver. 10. Prophesied of the piercing of the Son of Gods most pretious Body by the Jewes, (for which when God should open their eyes to see the truth, they should lament and mourn) he explicates the Use or End to which the Divine Providence had destinated this their malitious crueltie Chap. 13. 1. In that day there shall be a Fountain opened to the house of Da∣vid, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness. By this offering of himself Once for all, by this opening of his pretious Side, he hath consecrated all that are Sanctified, and all that are sanctified are sanctified by it: Yet not actually sanctified or actually consecrated by his Blood

before it be sprinkled in our hearts by Faith. And to instruct us that the Legal Water of separation or sprinkling did foreshadow the Blood of Christ, the Apostle termes it, The blood of sprinkling. Heb. 12. 24.

CHAP. LVI.

The Efficacie of Christs Sacrifice, and the Use of his Priest-hood, Two distinct several Things.

Wherein the Exercise of his Priest-hood doth consist. How it was foreshaddowed. Ordina••ces effectual by vertue of Christs Presence. Vertual Presence is a Real presence.

1. SUch as deny the Everlasting Efficacie of Christs Sacrifice may be pre∣sumed likewise to deny the Vse of his Everlasting Priesthood. How∣beit all such as grant the everlasting Efficacie of his Sacrifice cannot hence be concluded to admitt the everlasting use of his Priesthood. For these be Two distinct Points of our Belief. If Belief in Christs death▪ or in the Everlasting Efficacie of his sacrifice, were all that we are bound to believe, we were not bound to acknowledge any other Act of his Priesthood besides the offering up of himself in Sacrifice; But by this one Act of his Priesthood he was consecrated to be an Everlasting Priest. And if he be an Everlasting Priest he still executes the Office or Function of an High Priest. And it is our Du∣tie, the Chief Point of our Religion, to supplicate unto him as to The Onely High Priest of our Soules, that he would make us partakers of his Everlasting Sacrifice, as we say, ex Officio, by exercising the Office or Function of an High Priest.

The Question is, Wherein the Function or exercise of his Priesthood doth consist. To this we answer, First, Negatively, That it doth not consist in the often offering up of himself by his Priests or Ministers here on Earth; For if he were on Earth, saith the Apostle, Heb. 8. 4. he should not be a Priest. This argues, that he exerciseth his Priest-hood in the heavenly Sanctuary, not in Temples made vvith hands. So saith the Apostle more expresly, Heb. 9. 24. Christ is not entred into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven it self, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the High priest entreth into the holy place every year, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with bloud of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he ap∣peared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The truth then is, as you have heard before, that Christ by his bloudy Sa∣crifice upon the Crosse, was consecrated to be an Everlasting Priest. And that this Consecration was not accomplished untill his Resurrection from the dead. For it is not conceivable that he should be an Everlasting Priest before he became an Immortal man, and by his rising, &c, opened the Gate of Ever∣lasting life. After he was thus consecrated by death, and by the resurrecti∣on from the dead, to be an Everlasting Priest after the Order of Melchizedeck, he was not to offer any sacrifice: nor do we read that Melchizedeck offered

any. Wherein then did Melchizedecks Priesthood consist? Only in the dig∣nitie of Authoritative blessing.* 1.19 He was, (saith Moses) the Priest of the most high God, and he blessed Abraham and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most High God possessour of Heaven and Earth. St. Cyril* 1.20 in his Parallel betwixt Christ and Mel∣chisedech, speakes more expressly, and reads the Text more pun∣ctually for the Opinion of Reformed Churches, than we our selves, for the most part, doe.

2. This exercise of Christs spiritual Priesthood in the heavenly Sanctuary, was foreshaddowed by sundry services and sacrifices of the Law, By that Solemn Attonement which the High Priest made in the most holy place: and, as we have often said, by the sacrifice of the Red Heifer also; Albeit that solemnitie did prefigure him likewise in the Act of his Consecration, or designation to his heavenly Sanctuary. This Heifer was slain by another without the Camp, in Eleazars sight, and yet Eleazar the Priest was to sprinkle the bloud of this sacrifice before the Tabernacle of the Congregation, that is, with his face towards the Sanctuary, on which unless he did constantly look, whilest he did sprinkle the bloud, the service was frustrated, as the Jews say. This testifyed that the validity of this Act or the purification intended by it, was to be expected from the Sanctuary; Christ likewise was slain by the hands of sinful men without the City.* 1.21 And yet though slain by them, he offered himself by the eter∣nal Spirit. And whether by This eternal spirit, or by his spirit (as man) or by both; certain it is, that by the Spirit, he sprinkleth the bloud of the new Covenant upon us, and prepareth a way for us to the heavenly Sanctuary. As the people under the Law might not enter into the Congregation, nor the Priests into the Sanctuary untill they had been purifyed from their un∣cleanness by the water of sprinkling: so neither could we or any of Gods people have accesse unto the most holy Place or heavenly Sanctuary untill the way were prepared for us, by the bloud of the Son of God, nor untill we be sprinkled and purifyed with his Bloud. Having therefore brethren boldnesse to enter into the holyest by the bloud of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the vaile, that is to say, his flesh. And having an high Priest, over the house of God, Let us draw neer with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience, and our bodies wa∣shed with pure water, Heb. 10. 19, 20, 21, 22. He consecrated the Way it self, by his Bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross: from the very moment in which the Vail did rend asunder, the door was opened and the Way prepared. But we must be qualifyed for walking in this way, and for entring into this heavenly San∣ctuary, by the present exercise of his everlasting Priesthood, which is a Priesthood of blessing, not of sacrifice. And yet he blesseth us by communicating the vertue and efficacie of his Everlasting Sacrifice unto our soules.

This participation, and this Blessing by it, the full expiation of our sinnes, we are to expect from his heavenly Sanctuary.

3.* 1.22 God, saith the Apostle, Hebrews 6. 17. willing more abundantly to shew unto the heires of promise the immutabilitie of his Counsel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, inter∣posed himself by an oath (or, word by word) he mediated by an Oath. The Tenor of this Oath, as you have heard before, was, That he would requite Abraham as we say in kind;* 1.23 That as Abraham was then willing to offer up his Son, his only Son, Isaac in bloudy sacrifice unto him▪ So he would offer or give His Only Son for Abraham and for all such as should follow his Example of Faith and obedience. It was in the same promise (confirmed by oath) imply∣ed▪ That This only Son of God should be the seed of Abraham; that in this one seed of Abraham all the nations of the earth should be blessed. That for the derivati∣on

of this Blessing upon all the Nations upon earth, this seed of Abraham should be made a Priest after the order of Melchisedek. The hope in this Promise, thus confirmed by oath to Abraham, is by the Apostle in the same 6. Chap. ver. 19. termed, an Anchor of the soule Both sure and stedfast. But why an Anchor, sure, and stedfast? Because it entreth into that within the vaile, to wit, into the Heavenly Sanctuary, which was prefigured by the Most Holy Place within the material Tabernacle or earthly Sanctuary, into which none might come besides the high priest, nor he saveing once a year, and then not without Blood; For he was to purifie or sanctifie it by the blood of the sacrifices which were offered without the Camp or Congregation up∣on the day of the Attonement. And thus The Son of God being crucified without the City of Jerusalem, did by his blood then shed enter into the heavenly Sanctuary, and even purifie it by his blood. Heb. 19. 23, 24. But what doth our hope apprehend within the vail? The Apostle tells us Heb. 6. 20. Even Jesus made an high priest after the order of Melchisedek; that is, an high priest to blesse us in the Name of the Most High God, to make us blessed, e∣ven blessed as the Sonnes of God, or such as he himself, as man, is, that is, Kings and Priests unto our God. That this his Priesthood is a Priesthood of Blessing, and offereth the Blessing promised unto Abraham to all the Na∣tions of the Earth, aswell unto the Gentile as unto the Jew (though in the first place unto the Jew) St. Peter witnesseth, Acts. 3. 25, 26. Te are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our Fa∣thers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be Blessed. Vnto you FIRST God having raysed up his Son Jesus, sent him to blesse you, in turning away every one of you from his Ini∣quities.

4. Yet seeing he entred not into the heavenly Sanctuary without blood, seeing he purified Even Heaven it self by his Blood; We may not expect the Blessing promised unto Abraham otherwise than by the Vertue of his Blood, nor may we expect that his Blood or Vertue of it should be com∣municated to us, otherwise than by the Exercise or Office of his everlasting Priesthood, unto which he was consecrated by his blood. He now workes the like Cures in our soules by the Vertue of this Priesthood, which he wrought in mens Bodies, whilest he lived here on earth, by the Vertue or presence of his Prophetical Function. We may Baptize with water in his Name, and with water sanctified by his blood: yet unless he baptize with the spirit sent from his heavenly Sanctuary, and say unto every one whome we Baptize, as he did unto the Leper, I will, be thou clean; our washing is but in vain, our whole Action is but a Ceremonie. We his Priests or ministers may upon Confession made unto us either in General or in Particular, Absolve his people from their sinnes; for this Authoritie he hath given us [whose sinnes ye remitt they are remitted, whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained.] Yet un∣less He by his spirit, or sweet influence of Grace, say unto the soule, whom we Absolve, as he some-times did unto the man sick of the Palsy, Be of good chear, thy sinnes be forgiven thee; Our Absolution is but a Complement; although without our Absolution he do not in this sort Absolve his people of∣tentimes from their sinnes. We may Consecrate the Elements ofBread & Wine, and administer them so consecrated, as Vndoubted Pledges of his Bodie and Blood, by which the new Covenant was sealed, and the General Pardon purchased: Yet unless he grant some actual Influence of his spirit, and suffer such Vertue to goe out from his Humane Nature now placed in his Sanctuarie, as he once did unto the woman that was cured of her Issue of

blood; unless this Vertue do as immediately reach our Soules as it did her bodie, we do not Really receive his Body and Blood with the Elements of Bread and Wine. We do not so receive them as to have our sinnes re∣mitted or dissolved by them: we do not by receiving them become of his flesh and of his Bones. We gain no degree of Real Vnion with him, which is the Sole Use or fruit of his Real Presence. Christ might be Locally Present as he was with many here on earth, and yet not Really Present. But with whomsoever he is Vertually Present, that is, to whomsoever he communicates the Influence of his Bodie and Blood by his spirit, he is Really Present with them, though Locally Absent from them. Thus he was really present with the woman, which was cured of her bloodie issue, by touching the hemme of his garment. But not so really present with the multitude that did throng and press upon him, that were locally more present with him. She did not desire so much as to touch his Bodie with her hand, for she said in her self, If I may but touch the Hemme of his garmennt I shall be whole. And yet by our Saviours interpretation, She did touch him more immediately than they which were neerer unto him, which thrust or thronged him. And the reason why she alone did more immediately touch him than any of the rest, was, because Vertue of healing did goe out from him to her alone. It is true then (for our Saviour saith it) her Faith did make her whole, and yet she was made whole by the Vertue which went out from him; this was the fruit or effect of her Faith, or rather the Reward or Consequent of her Faith. In like sort, as many as are healed from their sinnes, whether by the Sacrament of Baptism or the Eucharist, are healed by Faith relatively or instrumentally. Faith is as the mouth or organ, by which we receive the medicine: but it is the Vertual influence derived from the Body and Blood of Christ which properly or efficiently doth cure out soules and dissolve the works of Satan in us.

This woman, as St. Matthew relates the storie, had said within her self, if I may but touch the hemme of his garment I shall be whole: She wanted either the opportunitie or boldness to touch the fore-part of his garment, or to come into his sight or presence. Yet he then knew, not onely, that she had touched the Hemme of his garment, but what she had said within herself, and out of his knowledge of this her faith and humilitie, he did pronounce and make her whole. Now it is but one and the same Act of one and the same Divine Wisdom, to know the hearts and secret thoughts of men a farre off and neere at hand. And therefore a matter as easie, for the Son of God, or for the man Christ Jesus in whom the Godhead dwelleth bodily, though still remayning at the right hand of God, to know the hearts and secret thoughts of all such as present themselves at his Table here on earth, aswell as he knew the secret thoughts of this woman which came behind him. What need then is there of his Bodily Presence in the Sacrament, or of any other presence than the influence or emission of vertue from his heavenly Sanctu∣ary unto our soules? He hath left us the consecrated Elements of bread and wine, to be unto us more than the hemme of his garment. If we do but touch and tast them with the same faith by which this woman touched the hemme of his garment, this our faith shall make us whole, and stanch the running issues (and cleanse or cure the leprous sores) of our soules, as per∣fectly as it did this womans issue of blood.

But of Christ's Presence with us (Especially in the B. Sacrament of his Body and Blood) we shall take occasion to speake somewhat more, in Handling the Article of His Sitting at the Right-Hand of God, which may

perhaps give the Reader some degree of Satisfaction, and Line out the Right Mean betwixt Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation; or between the Romanist and the Lutheran, at least between the Lutheran and other reformed Churches.

A Note relateing to the precedent Chapter; First Paragraph, or Number 1. Those words, St. Cyrill in his Parallels &c.

I Conceive the Author meanes St. Cyrill's Comments (or Strictures) upon Genesis: and in them This Place, or These words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,—.] and in These words his Eye was fixt upon [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ex••ulit, or pro••ulit, it is not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] obtulit. That is, Melchisedek Brought out, or Caryed forth, not OFFERED Bread and Wine. Cyrill. Alex. Tom. 1. Glaphyrorum Lib: 2. Paris. Edit. 1638. Fol. 47.

To which I may adde, that the same S. Cyrill in the same Book, p. 62. Sayes, That Melchizedek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. (according to Sylburgius, Suidas, and Hesychius.) Procuravit, Adornavit, Exportavit, Commeatum Commodavit; not obtulit as Andr. Schotus translates it there. And again, p. 63.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. apportantem, afferentem; not offerentem as the same Schotus translates it also. But it is the Roman Ingenie to Catch at this place. So Maldonate, to despight Calvin, corrects the Magnifyed Vulgar Latin, altering it, to,—et erat Sacrificans— but partially, for his Criticism Being given, it will amount to no more, then,—erat mini∣strans—. See this Author's 9. Book. Chap. 10. Where he cites Philo Judaeus. Lib. 2. S. leg. Allegor. Making Melchizedeks Bringing forth Bread and Wine not an Act of Pietie and Religion, but of Hospitalitie; Opposite to Ammons Churlish niggardliness, who afforded not (the posteritie of Abraham in their travel) Bread and Water.

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.
• * 1.10

  An Objecti∣on made.
• * 1.11

  Fortified.
• * 1.12

  Reinforced.
• * 1.13

  Answered.
• * 1.14

  Christs Resur∣rection, our baptism need∣less; if sinnes be remitted before they be commit∣ted.
• * 1.15

  1 Pet. 1. 18.
• * 1.16

  See Chap▪ 46. Numb 2.
• * 1.17

  1 John 1. 7.
• * 1.18

  Numb. 19.
• * 1.19

  See Book 9. Ch 9. and 11:
• * 1.20

  See the note at the end of this Chapter.
• * 1.21

  Heb. 9. 14.
• * 1.22

  See Book. 9. Chapt▪ 19.
• * 1.23

  See Book. 8. Chapt. 30. and Book. 9. Chap. 17: