An Expository Comment on 2 Corinthians 1, Exposition · Sermon 123
SERM. CXXIII.
The truths of Christ and the Miniſters of it are alwayes the ſame.
2 COR. 1. 19.
Was not Yea and Nay, but in him was Yea.
VVE are now arrived at the laſt Particular to be conſidered in this Verſe; which is, The Predicate affirmed of the Doctrine preached by Paul and his Aſſociates: and that is, It's not Yea, and Nay, but Yea. The expreſſion hath been explained already. The ſenſe is, That the Doctrine of Chriſt is certain, conſtant, and immutable. As alſo, that ſuch only are to be accounted of, as true Doctors, who do adhere to the ſame truth. For Calvin ſaith gravely upon the Text, That this taxeth all verſatil and Proteus-like men, who can transform themſelves into any ſhape; preach one time one Doctrine, for their advantage; and then again change, and preach the contrary: or elſe, for ſinfull fear, do at one time aſſert ſuch Doctrines, as true, and afterwards retract and recant them again: whereas the truth of Chriſt is like Chriſt himſelf, The ſame yeſterday, today, and for ever, Heb. 13. 8. and like God himſelf, who changeth not: yea, in whom is no ſhadow of change. So that from the words we may obſerve,
That it is a proper note of Gods truth, and true preachers thereof, that they Gods truth, and ſo the true Preachers of it are alwayes the ſame.are alwayes the ſame.
There is no change, no contrariety in their Doctrines. As the Apoſtle (you heard) expreſſed it, If I build again the things which I deſtroyed, I make my ſelf a tranſgreſſor, Gal. 2. 18. It is in an heynous manner to tranſgreſs, when a Miniſter is thus contradictory. This Doctrine is the more to be obſerved, becauſe Stapleton in his Antidotes upon this Text maketh a long harangue, to demonſtrate, that Luther, Melanchthon, Zwinglius, Calvin, all the eminent Reformers, cannot be the true Apoſtles of Chriſt; becauſe in their writings there was yea and nay; one while they preached ſuch and ſuch things; at another time the clean contrary. Hence he brings a paſſage out of Zwinglius confeſſing that he did tempori, not rei ſcribere, he did write to ſerve the time, not the matter: that he could not deliver pearl, becauſe for the preſent auditors like ſwine would trample it under their feet, and rend him alſo; eſpecially Melanchthon is inſtanced in, as a very inconſtant man, in whoſe judgment they could put no confidence. Hence he alledgeth a Synod of the Flaccians, who were rigid Lutherans, that call his Common-places, Jocos communes, and not Locos communes; and much more to this purpoſe. We finde him triumphing in the incertainty of the Proteſtants Doctrine; ſo that although we know what they hold this year, we cannot tell what they will the next, and in the conſtancy of their Popiſh Religion, which they have adhered unto for many years. To all this we will readily grant, that the truths of Chriſt are alwayes the ſame; there cannot be any more new truths, than a new Chriſt, than a new Bible; and therefore we will grant the Theſis, but deny the Hypotheſis, or application of it to Proteſtants; that whereſoever there is yea and nay, there cannot be the truths of Chriſt. But that we may throughly underſtand this point, let us conſider theſe particulars,
Firſt, That we muſt diſtinguiſh between the external adminiſtrations, and 1. We muſt diſtinguiſh between the external formes of Gods worſhip and doctrinals.formes of Gods worſhip, and the doctrinalls; between the Diducticalls and the Rituals. For the former, though appointed by God himſelf, yet we plainly ſee a great a teration therein. What a vaſt difference is there between the ſervice and Sacraments of God, in the old, and in the new Teſtament? There was Circumciſion, and the Paſchal Lamb; we have Baptiſm, and the Lords Supper: there were Sacrifices, and many external Rites, and Ceremonies, which when Chriſt the ſubſtance came, they preſently vaniſhed, as the bloſſome falleth when the bud cometh. This great change, with ſome other Arguments, made the Marcionites of old conclude, that it was not the ſame God of the Old, and New Teſtament, but different; but that is abſurd. The Church adminiſtrations, though by Gods command, are now altered; ſo that it would be a heynous thing to circumciſe children, to offer Sacrifices to God; though once it was the peoples duty. Here you ſee then, there is a lawfull yea and nay; a time when we might circumciſe, and a time when we muſt not circumciſe. And if you ſay, Doth not this argue inconſtancy in God? doth not this contradict that glorious Attribute of his immutability? I anſwer, No; for God doth here as the Phyſician with a diſeaſed perſon, that ſometimes adminiſtreth one kinde of Phyſick, and ſometimes another; according as the nature of the diſeaſe requireth: or, as the husbandman ſoweth his ground, ſometimes with one ſeed, and ſometimes with another. God then was pleaſed to appoint ſuch a temporary worſhip, and afterwards to appoint another, which was more ſuteable to the Church, being now no longer an infant, as the Apoſtle inſinuateth, Gal. 3. 1. As therefore the mother ordereth her childe otherwiſe, while a childe, than when an adult perſon; ſo did God with his Church. But then, if we come to the Doctrinals, we ſhall finde, that the ſame truths neceſſary to ſalvation were in the Old Teſtament, as the New; Abraham, David, and all the Godly were juſtified by faith in Chriſt, as well as the Believers in the Goſpel. This indeed is that which the Socinians pertinaciouſly deny: they think that the Godly in the Old Teſtament did not believe in Chriſt; that this is a peculiar new duty required under the Goſpel, and never before, viz. to believe in Chriſt. But the Apoſtle in his Epiſtle to the Hebrews doth admirably open the myſterious ſignification of thoſe Jewiſh ceremonies and ſacrifices, ſhewing that Chriſt was repreſented therein, and that it was not the blood of Rams and goats, but of Chriſt, that did take away ſin. Hence Abraham is ſaid to ſee Chriſts day, and rejoyce. 1 Cor. 10. they are ſaid to drink of the ſpiritual rock, which was Chriſt: and Act. 15. 10, 11. Peter and the Councel ſpeaking of the yoke laid upon our fathers, addeth, But we believe, that through the grace of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, we ſhall be ſaved, even as they. The Doctrine then of Jeſus Chriſt, of the Trinity, of eternal Life were in the old Teſtament as well as the New; only more implicitely and obſcurely; the Old Teſtament being the New hidden and covered; the New being the Old revealed and explained: ſo that, the Old and New Teſtament do not contain old and new Doctrine eſſentially, but gradually; as we ſay, the old and new moon, not meaning two moons, but diſtinct diſcoveries 2. Between the growth and the change of truth.of light therein.
2. We are to distinguiſh between progreſs and growth in the ſame truth, and the alteration or change of truth into errour. And truly this is of great conſideration; for this very particular will obviate all the calumnies of the Papiſt. Let it be granted, that the firſt Reformers did not did not at firſt view, ſee all the truths of the Chriſtian Religion, but that by degrees they had ſcales fall off from their eyes, and ſome things that at firſt they thought true, or tolerable, afterwards they rejected, as falſe and abominable. And thus Calvin (de ſcandalis) anſwereth the Papiſts, who calumniate us, ſaying, If you had the ſpirit of God, why did ye not ſee all truth preſently? Why was it that ſome things did appear falſe to you afterwards, which did not ſo at firſt? This, ſaith he, is to envy us proficiency in the truth; and to expect, that the Sun in the morning ſhould ſhine as gloriouſly as at noon day. So that it is one thing addere aedificium fundamento, as Auſtin calleth it, and another thing to make a new Foundation; Thus Lyrinenſis, when he made this Objection, To what uſe are Doctors and Officers of the Church, if ſo be they muſt only receive the Doctrine delivered, and not excogitate new by their own wit? He anſwereth, There is profectus, but not permutatio allowed, a growth, but not a change. The work of the Miniſters of the Goſpel is not to finde out new, real, fundamental truths, no more than a new Chriſt, or a new Bible. he that cannot ſee by one Sun, would not by twenty; and he that will not be convinced by one Bible, would not, if there were more. Yet they are not uſeleſs, for theſe Fundamentals they are dayly to confirm, to explain, to poliſh, and affectionately to improve for Sanctification more and more: ſo that, as he ſaith▪ they muſt not deliver nova, yet they may nova: not new things, but in a new manner. When a childe groweth up into a man, he ſtill retaineth his humane nature, though there be an increaſe in his ſtature; but if this childe ſhould grow into a horſe, or a bear, then this would be a change of his ſpecies, and his na…u…e: Thus the Church and her Officers they are to grow in more light, in more knowledg, in more faith; but ſtill in the ſame truth: whereas, if they degenerate into Errors and falſe Doctrines, then the ſpecies is altered: now it is not hony but gall, it is not gold but droſs, not meat but poyſon: So that if we ſee eminent men growing out of thoſe errors, and thoſe Superſtitions they were once intangled in, you muſt not call this yea and nay, but a laudable duty: for we ſee the ſpirit of God communicating it ſelf by degrees: Even as the Sun doth not preſently ariſe to its vertical point: ſo neither doth the ſpirit of God reveal all things at once: It cometh in by degrees, he could perfect our underſtandings even in this life, as much as they ſhall be in heaven, ſo that, we ſhall no longer know in part: but he is pleaſed to work gradually, even as he did make the world, not in an inſtant, but ſucceſſively. Thus we ſee he did to the very Apoſtles, they were under his Inſtruction and Government a good while, and yet were ignorant in many particulars, till at laſt he confirmed them from his ſpirit from above. The Proteſtants then are not guilty of yea and nay, though they did not at firſt d…ſcover all the abominations of Popery. Neither may we charge any particular Miniſter for yea and nay, if out of error he proceed to truth, if from darkneſs he attaineth to more light: For, although many Heretical perſons may ſhrowd themſelves under the ſerious name of new light, yet it is plain; that both Paſtors and people are to grow in new light gradually, though not ſpecifically. Thus the Apoſtle Peter, 1 Pet. 1. 19. commendeth the believers, for attending unto the word of God, as unto a light that ſhineth in a dark place, untill the day dawn, and the day-ſtarre ariſe in their hearts: not as if ever they could come to light enough, that they need not to attend to Scripture any further, that they may throw away the Bible as uſeleſs, having light enough within them. No, but that donec, that until, is continual and alwayes, as ſometimes it is uſed.
3. We are to diſtinguiſh between Yea and Nay indeed, and a ſeeming yea and nay: between … conſtant new Doctrines indeed, and thoſe that are 3. Between a ſeeming and a real yea and nay.apparently ſo. We grant, that ſuch corruptions, ſuch darkneſs may cover the face of the Church, that the true Doctrines of Chriſt may ſeem new, and be condemned for novelllſm; and the Doctor who preached them, be thought to come with his yea and nay. And thus again Luther and Melancthon with many others are condemned for their inconſtancy. They were once ours, ſay the Papiſts, they did once believe as we believed, worſhip as we worſhipped; but now they are a nay to their yea. This calumny will eaſily vaniſh, if you diſtinguiſh between new things indeed, and new things appearingly ſo. The Proteſtant Doctrine was not new indeed, if you look to the Scripture and Chriſt, it is old as they are; but then we grant, that if we conſider the Chaos, the Church was in at that time, what ſuperſtitious abominations did then prevail; we grant, what the Reformers did, all was new, their ſervice new, their Doctrine new; but the iniquity and the corruption of the times made it appear to be ſo. And indeed Popery is properly the great Novelliſme: for the Popiſh Doctrines, the Popiſh Worſhip began to creep in, when the Churches of Chriſt began to degenerate from their Primitive Inſtitution. The change then that is many times in the face of Religion, which doth ſo offend many, is not indeed ſo, but in appearance. Thoſe truths of God were formerly profeſſed in the Church; only an Eclipſe did ariſe, which obſcured the light of the Sun. As then the Sun is not changed after an Eclipſe, we do not ſee a new Sun: thus it is alſo with the truths of Chriſt; the Reformers do not bring new truths, only the darkneſs is diſpelled, and we ſee them which were long before. It is with us, as with men, whoſe heads are diſtempered; we think, ſuch and ſuch things run round, whereas indeed it is a diſtemper upon us, and it is a ſigne that we have been corrupted, when old truths ſeem new to us.
4. We may therefore truly conclude, that antiquity and conſent are inſeparable properties of a true Church. That Church which retaineth Doctrines of the 4. Antiquity and conſent are properties of a true Church.greateſt Antiquity, and which doth agree with the Primitive Apoſtolical Churches, that muſt needs be a true Church, for truth is alwayes alike. That cannot be true Doctrine in one age which is not in another: though men are apt to be changed by the times they live in, yet Gods truth cannot be. When therefore the Papiſts bring antiquity, and conſent as notes of a true Church, we deny they can, or are to be called notes, becauſe it is not Antiquity barely, but antiqvity in the true Doctrine: nor Conſent meerly ſo, but conſent with the Primitive Churches Doctrine. So that True Doctrine is properly the note of the Church; only we add, that Antiquity and Conſent with the Primitive times do inſeparably follow the true Doctrine. Now the ground of this certainty and equality of the truths of Chriſt is, becauſe they are Gods truths, Chriſts truths: if they were the truths of mens making, then they might alter and change as they pleaſe, then it might be formed, reformed, and transformed into all the ſhapes that mens Intereſts could put them upon; then truth might alter according to the climates, cuſtomes, and advantages of men; then truth might be one thing at Rome, and another thing at Conſtantinople: then we might ſay, ſuch things were truth in one age, and ye the contrary truth in another. Popery was truth in Queen Maries dayes, and Proteſtantiſme in Queen Elizabeths. And truly ſome men are ſo Atheiſtical, or ſelf-ſeeking, that they account truth, as the Apoſtle ſaid, ſome did godlineſs, even outward gain; and therefore, when ſuch an opinion is gainfull, then it is truth, but when not ſo, then it is Hereſie.
Uſe of Inſtruction. How odious Inſtability and Inconſtancy is in matter of Religion, whether it be in private Chriſtians, or publick Officers? It plainly diſcovereth, that not the truth of Chriſt, but ſome other uncertain motive prevaileth with thee; either thy profit, or thy applauſe, or the times, or cuſtomes, or the Lawes of the Land, or ſome other mutable reſpect doth work upon thee: and if ſo, then thou canſt not but be a reed ſhaken with every winde of Doctrine. Thou art then but as an Inſtrument of muſick, making no other ſound, nor no longer then thou art breathed into. Profit will make thee a Papiſt, profit will make thee a proteſtant, profit will make thee an Heretick. How contrary is ſuch a fickle temper to the nature of Faith? which is the ſubſtance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not ſeen.
Uſe 2d of Inſtruction. How falſe that poſition is of ſome Papiſts, That the Church may make Articles of Faith; and that the Authority of the Church maketh the Authority of the Scripture, at leaſt towards us? So that the Scriptures would have no more authority then Titus Livius, or Aeſops fables, in reſpect of our duty to believe, were it not for the Churches Authority. No leſs blaſphemous is that other compariſon of another Papiſt, reſembling the Scripture to a noſe of wax? If ſo, then no wonder, if they make what truths, and what religions they pleaſe; then we may call it, the Popes truth, the Churches truth, and not the truth of God. It is a ridiculous paſſage of a Papiſt (Ford againſt Taylor) ſaying, that it is probable, the Church will make that Opinion about the immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary to be an Article of Faith. As if the Church could make that neceſſary to be believed, if we would be ſaved, that was not alwayes ſo. Why may ſhe not as well make a new Bible, ſet up a new Chriſt, as they eſtabliſh a new Article of Faith?