Page images
PDF
EPUB

X.

not, and yet continued a Christian that he might come to CHAP. understand it; "the weak." Let no man marvel, that the Romans, who took St. Paul for an apostle, should not understand that, which St. Paul had proved by this whole epistle. For he proveth it by the mystical sense of the Old Testa50 ment; which they who had submitted to the faith could not own nevertheless, until they understood the reason, why God gave the Law with an intent to bring in the gospel by it. Let no man think, that they were not fit to be baptized (for such were they all to whom St. Paul writes), that understood not this, belonging to the foundation of faith". Baptism maketh all "disciples" of Christ, and therefore findeth them not so. It is necessary, that he who is baptized should undertake all that, which he shall come to learn that Christ hath taught. It is not necessary, that he should know what it is; knowing, that salvation is not to be had without doing all that, whatsoever it is, which it shall appear that Christ hath taught.

CHAPTER XI.

COMPARED WITH HIS ORDERS AT CORINTH, AND ELSEWHERE.

BUT seeing St. Paul forbiddeth the Corinthians to " scandalize the weak," in eating meats that had been sacrificed [1 Cor. viii. 9.] 51 to idols; we must not state the case of the Romans without considering how the case of the Corinthians may concern ito. Here St. Paul distinguishes scholastically, that such meats might be eaten either as God's creatures materially, or formally as meats sacrificed to idols, which idolaters feasted upon after their sacrifices in honour of their idols; as we see by his words, 1 Cor. x. 7,-" Nor be ye idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play." And Dan. v. 4: "They drunk wine, and praised the gods of gold and

See S. Irenæus as quoted in Epilogue, Conclusion, § 4, note a.

The greater part of this chapter is repeated from the previous and until

now unpublished tract of Thorndike's,
entitled The Plea of Weakness &c.
Disc. and Answered, sect. iii. § 4, &c.

XI.

CHAP. silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone." St. Paul then resolveth, that Christians may eat meats sacrificed to idols as God's creatures; and that they cannot be polluted by being sacrificed to idols, which are "nothing" but that, when there may be occasion for Christians to think, that a Christian eats them as idolaters did (as eating them "in an idol temple," or "being invited" home "by an idolater”), in such cases it was necessary to forbear for Christian charity's sake; lest a "weak" Christian, seeing a "strong" Christian eat them, should think he eat them as idolaters did, and doing so himself should fall into misprision of idolatry: 1 Cor. viii. 7—10; x. 27, 28. And by this ex-52 ample we may gather, by the way, what St. Paul means, Rom. xiv. 15, 20: "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died; for meat destroy not the work of God." He means, that the danger was no less (if the Gentiles should not forbear the Jews, but despise their weakness, that could not see themselves free of the Law), than that they should fall into dislike with the faith, and return to the Jews' religion again. So the danger at Corinth was idolatry; at Rome, apostasy. St. Paul then forbids the Corinthians to "make inquiry for conscience' sake" (1 Cor. x. 27), whether that which is sold in the shambles had been sacrificed to an idol or not. But Daniel did "make inquiry for conscience' sake," when he resolved "not to be polluted with the king's meat" (Dan. i. 5, 8); taking all of it to be dedicated to idols in the first-fruits of itP. For this, being the custom of the heathen, made all their meats suspicious, as dedicated to their idols. Tobit is not canonical Scripture; but it is as old as the Old Testament in Greek". The author of it relates, for his commendation, that he "kept" himself "from eating the bread of the Gentiles," when his "brethren and kindred did eat of it" (Tobit i. 10-12); "be- 53 cause" he "remembered God with all his heart." This sig

P See Plea of Weakness &c., sect. iii. §4, note q: and Grotius there quoted.

The book of Tobit was originally written in Chaldee (S. Hieron., Epist. ad Chrom. et Heliodorum, Op. tom. i. p. 1158), and is assumed therefore to date during the Captivity (so Serarius, ap. Corn. à Lap. ad lib. Tobiæ). Whether the Greek Version (from which

that in our Bibles is taken) is as old as the LXX., is very dubious. The Vulgate Latin is S. Jerom's translation from a lost Chaldee original. The Hebrew copies published by Munster and Fagius are modern translations from the Greek. See Corn. à Lap., Pref. ad lib. Tobiæ; Calmet's Dictionary; Dupin, Hist. of Canon of Old and New Testaments.

XI.

nifies, that the more religious did observe it; though not CHAP. commanded by the Law. It seems they were only forbidden by the Law to go to the feasts, which they, the Gentiles, made of their sacrifices; lest they should worship their gods, as they that invited them did (Exod. xxxiv. 15), and as they did with the Madianites (Numb. xxv. 2). The forbearing of idolaters' meat was "a hedge to the Law"," that they might be the further off from transgressing it; but brought in under the prophets, and observed by the more religious. And the Jews have reason, when they tell us, that Nehemiah was dispensed with "for drinking the wine of the Gentiles, because he was cup-bearer to the kings." Whereby it appears, that St. Paul leaves it to the charity of every Christian, to use his freedom so sparingly as not to offend a "weak" Christian. But under the Law it became a rule, that all the strong" should forbear that, which might possibly offend "the weak." And therefore, when the apostles at Jerusalem enjoin those, that were converted of Gentiles, 54 to "abstain from meats sacrificed to idols;" they do forbid [Acts xv. 29.] them to eat such meats, even materially, and command them to "make inquiry for conscience' sake," as the Jews used to do, and as converted Gentiles did in the land of promise. For the ordinance of Acts xv. 23 [29], addresseth only to the Churches of Judæa, and to those, which Paul and Barnabas, being sent from Antiochia, had founded in Cilicia and the parts adjacent: Acts xiii. 2, 3, 14, &c.; xiv. 26; xv.; xvi. 4. The reason of this difference is manifest by the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xii. 2: "Ye know ye were Gentiles, carried after these dumb idols, as ye were led." Whereas Paul and Barnabas addressed first to the Jews, and founded Churches of them for the greatest part. So that, the hopes of winning the Jews remaining, the dispensation was to take place. But the Church of Rome consisted of Gentiles, as well as of Jews; whereas, in the Church of Corinth, there is no account at all had of the Jews. And, therefore, the forbearance required at Corinth is out of fear of idolatry; at Rome, of apostasy.

See Epilogue, Bk. III. Of the

See Plea of Weakness &c., sect. iii. Laws of the Church, c. xxxi. § 36, § 4, note r: and Vatablus there quoted. note d.

СНАР.

XII.

CHAPTER XII.

THE PRESENT CASE OF THIS TIME STATED.

55

HAVING thus stated the case, in which St. Paul ordereth this forbearance; let us state our case, in which it is demanded by consequence. But that cannot be done but out of the premisses. We must suppose the Church of England, a member of the whole Church, desires to reform itself, because the rest of the Church will not join in the same work; but desires to continue a member of the whole Church, and not to give any cause of interrupting unity by improving Christianity. I know some of them, that demand toleration, do not allow any such thing as a Church of England, when they are understood. For how should they own any right of sovereign powers to give law to the Church of their dominions, that allow them no right to punish the transgression of such laws? But the case must be stated upon the terms proposed, nevertheless, as to those that acknowledge national Churches; excepting for those that make this plea, when we 56 see time. This only, I think, would be said;-that the Church of England is not now to be reformed, but, having been reformed, is now questioned, as if the reformation of it were not yet perfect;-and therefore the boldness is taken by a private person of my condition to give an opinion what is most wanting in the reformation of it, because it cannot be said what is unduly demanded, until it may be said what is due to be done. But it must be remembered, that the demand is made in behalf of those, that had made a schism in the Church of England by ordaining or being ordained presbyters by presbyters, without and against the will of their bishops". In behalf of those it hath been demanded, that

See Just Weights and Measures, Pref. to Christian Readers, note a.The allusion is to the Independents; see below, c. xxix.: and to Dr. Owen, at the time of the publishing of this tract one of the leaders of the Independents (see Baxter, Life and Times edited by Sylvester, Pt. iii.), who in his treatise of schism, published in

1657, employs a chapter in proving that there was no such thing as a Church of England. That he and the Independents "demanded toleration" in 1667, see the note prefixed to The True Principle of Comprehension.

"See Plea of Weakness &c., sect. iii. § 8. And see also the note prefixed to The True Princ. of Comprehension.

XII.

their ordinations may stand valid and good, and the persons CHAP. enabled by the law of the land to minister the offices of their ..orders and to be trusted with the cure of souls by their bishops. And not only so, but it hath been further demanded, that some of those laws, by which religion is settled in the kingdom, be repealed for their sakes; that they may have 57 no pretence to scruple the office of the ministry. Not that it is now said (as for this hundred years it hath been said"), that the laws which they would have repealed are against God's law, and that therefore they cannot yield them obedience: but that the ministers, or people that will follow them, have a "doubt" in conscience, which they cannot be cleared of, that it is not lawful for them to yield them obedience; and that they cannot do it without sinning and incurring damnation by doing against their consciencesa. And this is also the case, in which those, that acknowledge no Church of England, no right in Christian powers to give law to the Church within their own dominions, do demand liberty to separate from the Church into their private conventicles": protesting, that they cannot hold communion with the Church settled by the laws of the land; no, not though reformed to the content of those hitherto mentioned; and pretending the same reason from St. Paul,-that they should incur sin and damnation, doing it in that "doubt" which [Rom. xiv. they cannot be cleared ofc.

See Plea of Weakness &c., ibid., § 7, 8 and also in the note prefixed to the True Principle of Comprehension.

See Plea of Weakness &c., sect. iii. § 12, note e.

As by Travers, Cartwright, and the Mar-prelate people, and the supporters of the Discipline: and generally by those against whom Hooker and Bancroft wrote. That the nonconformists still maintained the same tone when driven to it by their own position, see above in Plea of Weakness &c., sect. i. § 3, note e: but it was so obviously inconsistent with a plea of

"weakness" and "indifferent things,"
that they practically gave it up.

See Just Weights and Measures,
c. iii. § 13, 14, c. xix. § 6, 7: and Plea of
Weakness &c., sect. i. § 2, notes c, d.

b Scil. the Independents: see Just Weights and Measures, Preface, note a ; the note prefixed to the True Principle of Comprehension; and below, c. xxix.

Quoted by the non-conformists repeatedly as covering their case: e. g. in the Petition for Peace, p. 19. 4to. Lond. 1661; and by Corbet, Disc. of Relig. of England, sect. xv. p. 30.

23.]

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »