misery 5. But that which is of special concernment is this that the Liturgy of the Church of England hath advantages so many and so considerable as not only to raise it self above the devotions of other Churches but to endear the affections of good people to be in love with Liturgy in general 6. For to the Churches of the Roman Communion we can say that ours is reformed to the reformed Churches we can say that ours is orderly and decent for we were freed from the impositions and lasting errors of a tyrannical spirit and yet from the extravagancies of a popular spirit too our reformation was done without tumult and yet we saw it necessary to reform we were zealous to cast away the old errors but our zeal was balanced with consideration and the results of authority Not like women or children when they are affrighted with fire in their clothes we shak'd off the coal indeed but not our garments lest we should have exposed our Churches to that nakedness which the excellent men of our sister Churches complained to be among themselves 7. And indeed it is no small advantage to our Liturgy that it was the off-spring of all that authority which was to prescribe in matters of Religion The King and the Priest which are the Antistites Religionis and the preservers of both the Tables joyn'd in this work and the people as it was represented in Parliament were advised withal in authorizing the form after much deliberation for the Rule Quod spectat ad omnes ab omnibus tractari debet was here observed with strictness and then as it had the advantages of discourse so also of authorities its reason from one and its sanction from the other that it might be both reasonable and sacred and free not only from the indiscretions but which is very considerable from the scandal of popularity 8. And in this I cannot but observe the great wisdom and mercy of God in directing the contrivers of the Liturgy with the spirit of zeal and prudence to allay the furies and heats of the first affrightment For when men are in danger of burning so they leap from the flames they consider not whither but whence and the first reflexions of a crooked tree are not to straightness but to a contrary incurvation yet it pleased the Spirit of God so to temper and direct their spirits that in the first Liturgy of King Edward they did rather retain something that needed further consideration than reject any thing that was certainly pious and holy and in the second Liturgy that they might also throughly reform they did rather cast out something that might with good profit have remained than not satisfie the world of their zeal to reform of their charity in declining every thing that was offensive and the clearness of their light in discerning every semblance of error or suspicion in the Roman Church 9. The truth is although they fram'd the Liturgy with the greatest consideration that could be by all the united wisdom of this Church and State yet as if Prophetically to avoid their being charg'd in after ages with a crepusculum of Religion a dark twilight imperfect Reformation they joyn'd to their own Star all the shining tapers of the other reformed Churches calling for the advice of the most eminently learned and zealous Reformers in other Kingdoms that the light of all together might shew them a clear path to walk in And this their care produced some change for upon the consultation the first form of King Edwards Service-book was approved with the exception of a very few clauses which upon that occasion were review'd and expung'd till it came to that second form and modest beauty it was in the Edition of MDLII and which Gilbertus a German approved of as a transcript of the ancient and primitive forms 10. It was necessary for them to stay some-where Christendom was not only reformed but divided too and every division would to all ages have called for some alteration or else have disliked it publickly and since all that cast off the Roman yoke thought they had title enough to be called Reformed it was hard to have pleased all the private interests and peevishness of men that called themselves friends and therefore that only in which the Church of Rome had prevaricated against the word of God or innovated against Apostolical tradition all that was par'd away But at last she fix'd and strove no further to please the people who never could be satisfied 11. The Painter that exposed his work to the censure of the common passengers resolving to mend it as long as any man could find fault at last had brought the eyes to the ears and the ears to the neck and for his excuse subscrib'd Hanc populus fecit But his Hanc ego that which he made by the rules of art and the advice of men skill'd in the same mystery was the better piece The Church of England should have par'd away all the Canon of the Communion if she had mended her piece at the prescription of the Zuinglians and all her office of Baptism if she had mended by the rules of the Anabaptists and kept up Altars still by the example of the Lutherans and not have retain'd decency by the good will of the Calvinists and now another new light is sprung up she should have no Liturgy at all but the worship of God be left to the managing of chance and indeliberation and a petulant fancy 12. It began early to discover its inconvenience for when certain zealous persons fled to Frankford to avoid the funeral piles kindled by the Roman Bishops in Queen Maries time as if they had not enemies enough abroad they fell soul with one another and the quarrel was about the Common-Prayer-Book and some of them made their appeal to the judgment of Mr. Calvin whom they prepossessed with strange representments and troubled phantasms concerning it and yet the worst he said upon the provocation of those prejudices was that even its vanities were tolerable Tolerabiles ineptias was the unhandsome Epithete he gave to some things which he was forc'd to dislike by his over-earnest complying with the Brethren of Frankford 13. Well! upon this the wisdom of this Church and State saw it necessary to fix where with advice she had begun and with counsel she had once mended And to have altered in things inconsiderable upon a new design or sullen mislike had been extreme levity and apt to have made the men contemptible their authority slighted and the thing ridiculous especially before adversaries that watch'd all opportunity and appearances to have disgraced the Reformation Here therefore it became a Law was established by an Act of Parliament was made solemn by an appendant penalty against all that on either hand did prevaricate a sanction of so long and so prudent consideration 14. But the Common-Prayer-Book had the fate of S. Paul for when it had scap'd the storms of
custom of the Church was for them who were in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Pulpit to read their offices and devotions They read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's the word in the Canon Those things which signifie the greatest or first Antiquity are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was spoken proverbially to signifie ancient things And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if these Fathers chose these words as Grammarians the singers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were such as sung ancient Hymns of Primitive antiquity which also is the more credible because the persons were noted and distinguished by their imployment as a thing known by so long an use till it came to be their appellative * The 17th and 18th Canons command that Lessons and Psalms should be said interchangeably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same Liturgy that 's the word or office of prayers to be said always at Nones and Vespers This shews the manner of executing their office of Psalmists and Readers they did not sing or say ex tempore but they read Prayers and Psalms and sung them out of a Book neither were they brought in fresh and new at every meeting but it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still the same form of prayers without variation Sect. 94. BUT then if we remember how ancient this office was in the Church and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Readers and Singers were Clerical offices deputed for publick ministry about prayers and devotions in the Church for so we are told by Simeon Thessalonicensis in particular concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he does dictate the hymns to the singers and then of the singers there is no question and that these two offices were so ancient in the Church that they were mentioned by St. Ignatius who was contemporary with the latter times of the Apostles We may well believe that set and described forms of Liturgy were as early as the days of the Apostles and continued in the continuation of those and the like offices in all descending ages Of the same design and intimation were those known offices in the Greek Church of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Socrates speaks of as of an office in the Church of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Their office was the same with the Reader they did ex praescripto praeire ad verbum referre the same which ab Alexandro notes to have been done in the religious rites of Heathen Greece The first read out of a Book the appointed prayers and the others rehearsed them after Now it is unimaginable that constant officers should be appointed to say an office and no publick office be described Sect. 95. I SHALL add but this one thing more and pass on ad alia And that is that I never yet saw any instance example or pretence of precedent of any Bishop Priest or Lay person that ever prayed ex tempore in the Church and although in some places single Bishops or peradventure other persons of less Authority did oftentimes bring prayers of their own into the Church yet ever they were compositions and premeditations and were brought thither there to be repeated often and added to the Liturgy and although the Liturgies while they were less full than since they have been were apt to receive the additions of pious and excellent Persons yet the inconvenience grew so great by permitting any forms but what were approved by a publick Spirit that the Church as She always had forms of publick Prescription so She resolved to permit no mixture of any thing but what was warranted by an equal power that the Spirits of the Prophets might be subject to the Prophets and such Spirits when they are once tried whether they be of God or no tryed by a lawful superiour and a competent Judge may then venture into the open air And it were a strange imprudence choosingly to entertain those inconveniences which our wiser Fore-fathers felt and declar'd and remedied For why should we be in love with that evil against which they so carefully arm'd their Churches by the provision and defence of Laws For this produc'd that Canon of the Councel of Mileuis in Africa Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesiâ nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo That 's the restraint and prohibition publick Prayers must be such as are publickly appointed and prescribed by our superiors and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church The reason follows Ne fortè aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum lest through ignorance or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith and good manners Their reason is good and they are witnesses of it who hear the variety of Prayers before and after Sermons there where the Directory is practised where to speak most modestly not only their private opinions but also humane interests and their own personal concernments and wild fancies born perhaps not two daies before are made the objects of the peoples hopes of their desires and their prayers and all in the mean time pretend to the holy Spirit Sect. 96. THUS far we are gone The Church hath 1 power and authority and 2 command 3 and ability or promise of assistances to make publick forms of Liturgy and 4 the Church always did so in all descents from Moses to Christ from Christ to the Apostles from them all to all descending Ages for I have instanced till St. Austin's time and since there is no Question the people were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon sayes of those of the Greek Communion they used unalterable forms of Prayers described out of the Books of publick Liturgy it remains only that I consider upon what reason and grounds of prudence and religion the Church did so and whether she did well or no In order to which I consider Sect. 97. FIRST Every man hath personal needs of his own and he that understands his own condition and hath studied the state of his Soul in order to eternity his temporal estate in order to justice and charity and the constitution and necessities of his body in order to health and his health in order to the service of God as every wise and good man does will find that no man can make such provision for his necessities as he can do for his own caeteris paribus no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of the man and therefore if he have proportionable abilities it is allowed to him and it is necessary for him to represent his own conditions to God and he can best express his own sence or at least best sigh forth his own meaning and if he be a good
if all Christian Churches had one common Liturgy there were not a greater symbol to testifie nor a greater instrument to preserve the Catholick Communion and when ever a Schism was commenc'd and that they called one another Heretick they not only forsook to pray with one another but they also altered their Forms by interposition of new Clauses Hymns and Collects and new Rites and Ceremonies only those parts that combined kept the same Liturgy and indeed the same Forms of Prayer were so much the instrument of Union that it was the only ligament of their Society for their Creeds I reckon as part of their Liturgy for so they ever were so that this may teach us a little to guess I will not say into how many Churches but into how many innumerable atoms and minutes of Churches those Christians must needs be scattered who alter their Forms according to the number of persons and the number of their meetings every company having a new Form of Prayer at every convention And this consideration will not be vain if we remember how great a blessing Unity in Churches is and how hard to be kept with all the arts in the world and how every thing is powerful enough for its dissolution But that a publick Form of Liturgy was the great instrument of Communion in the Primitive Church appears in this that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or excommunication was an exclusion à communicatione orationis conventûs omnis sancti commercii from the participation of the publick meeting and Prayers and therefore the more united the Prayer is still it is the greater instrument of Union the Authority and Consent the publick Spirit and common Acceptation are so many degrees of a more firm and indissoluble Communion Sect. 103. THIRDLY To this I add that without prescribed Forms issues of the publick Spirit and Authority publick Communion cannot be regular and certain as may appear in one or two plain instances It is a practise prevailing among those of our Brethren that are zealous for ex tempore or not enjoyned Prayers to pray their Sermons over to reduce their Doctrine into Devotion and Liturgie I mislike it not for the thing it self if it were regularly for the manner and the matter always pious and true But who shall assure me when the preacher hath disputed or rather dogmatically decreed a point of Predestination or of prescience of contingency or of liberty or any of the most mysterious parts of Divinity and then prayes his Sermon over that he then prays with the Spirit Unless I be sure that he also Preached with the Spirit I cannot be sure that he Prays with the Spirit for all he prays ex tempore Nay if I hear a Protestant preach in the Morning and an Anabaptist in the Afternoon to day a Presbyterian to morrow an Independant am I not most sure that when they have preached contradictories and all of them pray their Sermons over that they do not all pray with the Spirit More than one in this case cannot pray with the Spirit possibly all may pray against him Sect. 104. FOURTHLY From whence I thus argue in behalf of set Forms of prayer That in the case above put how shall I or any man else say Amen to their prayers that preach and pray contradictories At least I am much hindred in my devotion For besides that it derives our opinions into our devotions makes every School-point become our Religion and makes God a party so far as we can intitling him to our impertinent wranglings Besides this I say while we should attend to our addresses towards God we are to consider whether the point be true or no and by that time we have tacitely discoursed it we are upon another point which also perhaps is as questionable as the former and by this time our spirit of devotion is a little discomposed and something out of countenance there is so much other imployment for the spirit the spirit of discerning and judging All which inconveniences are avoided in set forms of Liturgy For we know before hand the conditions of our communion and to what we are to say Amen to which if we like it we may repair if not there is no harm done your devotion shall not be surprized nor your communion invaded as it may be often in your ex tempore prayers and unlimited devotions Sect. 105. FIFTHLY and this thing hath another collateral inconvenience which is of great consideration for upon what confidence can we solicite any Recusants to come to our Church where we cannot promise them that the devotions there to be used shall be innocent nor can we put him into a condition to judge for himself if he will venture he may but we can use no argument to make him choose our Churches though he would quit his own Sect. 106. SIXTHLY So that either the people must have an implicite faith in the Priest and then may most easily be abused or if they have not they cannot joyn in the prayer it cannot become to them an instrument of communion but by chance and irregularly and ex post facto when the prayer is approv'd of and after the devotion is spent for till then they cannot judge and before they do they cannot say Amen and till Amen be said there is no benefit of the prayer nor no union of hearts and desires and therefore as yet no communion Sect. 107. SEVENTHLY Publick forms of prayer are great advantages to convey an Article of faith into the most secret retirement of the Spirit and to establish it with a most firm perswasion and endear it to us with the greatest affection For since our prayers are the greatest instruments and conveyances of blessing and mercy to us that which mingles with our hopes which we owe to God which is sent of an errand to fetch a mercy for us in all reason will become the dearer to us for all these advantages And just so is an Article of belief inserted into our devotions and made a part of prayer it is extreamly confirmed by that confidence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulness of perswasion that must exclude all doubting from our prayers and it insinuates it self into our affection by being mingled with our desires and we grow bold in it by having offered it to God and made so often acknowledgment of it to him who is not to be mocked Sect. 108. AND certainly it were a very strange Liturgy in which there were no publick Confession of Faith for as it were deficient in one act of Gods worship which is offering the understanding up to God bringing it in subjection to Christ and making publick profession of it it also loses a very great advantage which might accrue to Faith by making it a part of our Liturgick devotions and this was so apprehended by the Ancients in the Church our Fathers in Christ that commonly they used to oppose a Hymn or a Collect or a Doxology in
restraint Certainly then this pretended restraint is no such formidable thing These men themselves do it by directing all of the matter and much of the manner and Christ himself did it by prescribing both the matter and the words too Sect. 123. SIXTHLY These restraints as they are called or determinations of the Spirit are made by the Spirit himself For I demand when any Assembly of Divines appoint the matter of prayers to all particular Ministers as this hath done is that appointment by the Spirit or no If no then for ought appears this directory not being made by Gods Spirit may be an enemy to it But if this appointment be by the Spirit then the determination and limitation of the Spirit is by the spirit himself and such indeed is every pious and prudent constitution of the Church in matters spiritual Such as was that of St. Paul to the Corinthians when he prescribed orders for publick Prophesying and Interpretation and speaking with Tongues The Spirit of some he so restrained that he bound them to hold their peace he permitted but two or three to speak at one meeting the rest were to keep silence though possibly six or seven might at that time have the spirit Sect. 124. SEVENTHLY Is it not a restraint of the spirit to sing a Psalm in Metre by appointment Clearly as much as appointing Forms of prayer or Eucharist And yet that we see done daily and no scruple made Is not this to be partial in judgment and inconsiderate of what we do Sect. 125. EIGHTHLY And now after all this strife what harm is there in restraining the spirit in the present sence What prohibition What law What reason or revelation is against it What inconvenience in the nature of the thing For can any man be so weak as to imagine a despite is done to the spirit of grace when the gifts given to his Church are used regularly and by order As if prudence were no gift of Gods spirit as if helps in Government and the ordering spiritual matters were none of those graces which Christ when he ascended up on high gave unto men But this whole matter is wholly a stranger to reason and never seen in Scripture Sect. 126. FOR Divinity never knew any other vitious restraining the spirit but either suppressing those holy incitements to vertue and good life which God's Spirit ministers to us externally or internally or else a forbidding by publick authority the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments to speak such truths as God hath commanded and so taking away the liberty of prophesying The first is directly vitious in materia speciali The second is tyrannical and Antichristian And to it persecution of true Religion is to be reduced But as for this pretended limiting or restraining the Spirit viz. by appointing a regular Form of prayer it is so very a Chimaera that it hath no footing or foundation upon any ground where a wise man may build his confidence Sect. 127. NINTHLY But lastly how if the Spirit must be restrained and that by precept Apostolical That calls us to a new account But if it be not true what means Saint Paul by saying The spirits of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets What greater restraint than subjection If subjected then they must be ruled if ruled then limited prescribed unto and as much under restraint as the spirits of the superiour Prophets shall judge convenient I suppose by this time this Objection will trouble us no more But perhaps another will Sect. 128. FOR Why are not the Ministers to be left as well to their liberty in making their Prayers as their Sermons I answer the Church may if she will but whether she doth well or no let her consider This I am sure there is not the same reason and I fear the experience the world hath already had of it will make demonstration enough of the inconvenience But however the differences are many Sect. 129. FIRST Our Prayers offered up by the Minister are in behalf and in the name of the People and therefore great reason they should know beforehand what is to be presented that if they like not the message they may refuse to communicate especially since people are so divided in their opinions in their hopes and in their faiths it being a duty to refuse communion with those prayers which they think to have in them the matter of sin or doubting Which reason on the other part ceases For the Minister being to speak from God to the people if he speaks what he ought not God can right himself however is not a partner of the sin as in the other case the people possibly may be Sect. 130. SECONDLY It is more fit a liberty be left in Preaching than Praying because the address of our discourses and exhortations are to be made according to the understanding and capacity of the audience their prejudices are to be removed all advantages to be taken and they are to be surprized that way they lie most open But being crafty I caught you saith St. Paul to the Corinthians And discourses and arguments ad hominem upon their particular principles and practises may more move them than the most polite and accurate that do not comply and wind about their fancies and affections St. Paul from the absurd practise of being baptized for the dead made an excellent Argument to convince the Corinthians of the Resurrection But this reason also ceases in our prayers For God understandeth what we say sure enough he hath no prejudices to be removed no infirmities to be wrought upon and a fine figure of Rhetorick a pleasant cadence and a curious expression move not him at all No other twinings and compliances stir him but charity and humility and zeal and importunity which all are things internal and spiritual It was observed by Pliny Deos non tam accuratis adorantium precibus quà m innocentiâ sanctitate laetari gratiorémque existimari qui delubris eorum puram castámque mentem quà m qui meditatum carmen intulerit And therefore of necessity there is to be great variety of discourses to the people and permissions accordingly but not so to God with whom a Deus miserere prevails as soon as the great Office of forty hours not long since invented in the Church of Rome or any other prayers spun out to a length beyond the extension of the office of a Pharisee Sect. 131. THIRDLY I fear it cannot stand with our reverence to God to permit to every spirit a liberty of publick address to him in behalf of the people Indeed he that is not fit to pray is not always fit to preach but it is more safe to be bold with the people than with God if the persons be not so fit In that there may be indiscretion but there may be impiety and irreligion in this The people may better excuse and pardon an indiscretion or a rudeness if any such should happen than
all the benefits which before were the consequents of Conformity and Unity will be lost and if they be not valuable I leave it to all them to consider who know the inconveniences of Publick disunion and the Publick disunion that is certainly consequent to them who do not communicate in any common forms of Worship and to think that the Directory will bring Conformity is as if one should say that all who are under the same Hemisphere are joyned in communi patriâ and will love like Country-men For under the Directory there will be as different religions and as different desires and as differing forms as there are several varieties of Men and manners under the one half of Heaven who yet breath under the same half of the Globe Sect. 139. BUT ask again what benefit can the publick receive by this form or this no form For I know not whether to call it Shall the matter of Prayers be better in all Churches shall God be better served shall the Word of God and the best Patterns of Prayers be always exactly followed It is well if it be But there is no security given us by the Directory for the particulars and special instances of the matter are left at every Mans dispose for all that and we must depend upon the honesty of every particular for it and if any man proves an Heretick or a Knave then he may introduce what impiety he please into the publick forms of Gods Worship and there is no law made to prevent it and it must be cured afterward if it can but before-hand it is not prevented at all by the Directory which trusts every man Sect. 140. BUT I observe that all the benefit which is pretended is that it will make an able Ministry Maximus verò studiorum fructus est praemium quoddam amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas said an excellent person And it is very true to be able to speak excellent things without long considering is an effect of a long industry and greatest learning but certainly the greatest enemy in the world to its production Much learning and long use of speaking may enable a man to speak upon sudden occasions but speaking without consideration will never make much learning Nec quisquam tantum fidit ingenio ut sibi speret incipienti statim posse contingere sed sicut in cogitatione praecipimus ita facilitatem quoque extemporalâ—m à parvis initiis paulatim perducemus ad summam And to offer that as a means of getting learning which cannot be done at all as it ought but after learning is already gotten in a very great degree is highest mistaking I confess I am very much from believing the allegation and so will every man be that considers what kind of men they are that have been most zealous for that way of conceived Prayer I am sure that very few of the learnedst very many ignorants most those who have made least abode in the Schools of the Prophets And that I may disgrace no mans person we see Trades-men of the most illiberal arts and women pretend to it and do it with as many words and that 's the main thing with as much confidence and speciousness of spirit as the best amongst them Sed nec tumultuarii nec fortuiti sermonis contextum mirabor unquam quem jurgantibus etiam mulierculis superfluere video said Quintilian And it is but a small portion of learning that will serve a man to make conceived Forms of Prayer which they may have easily upon the stock of other men or upon their own fancy or upon any thing in which no learning is required He that knows not this knows nothing of the craft that may be in the Preachers trade But what Is God better served I would fain see any authority or any reason or any probability for that I am sure ignorant men offer him none of the best sacrifices ex tempore and learned men will be sure to deliberate and know God is then better served when he is served by a publick than when by a private Spirit I cannot imagine what accruements will hence come to the Publick it may be some advantages may be to the private interests of men For there are a sort of men whom our Blessed Saviour noted Who do devour Widows houses and for a pretence make long Prayers They make Prayers and they make them long by this means they receive double advantages for they get reputation to their ability and to their piety And although the Common-Prayer-Book in the Preface to the Directory be charged with unnecessary length yet we see that most of these men they that are most eminent or would be thought so make their Prayers longer and will not lose the benefits which their credit gets and they by their credit for making their Prayers Sect. 141. ADDE this that there is no promise in Scripture that he who prays ex tempore shall be heard the better or that he shall be assisted at all to such purposes and therefore to innovate in so high a matter without a warrant to command us or a promise to warrant us is no better than vanity in the thing and presumption in the person He therefore that considers that this way of Prayer is without all manner of precedent in the Primitive Church against the example of all famous Churches in all Christendom in the whole descent of XV Ages without all command or warrant of Scripture that it is unreasonable in the nature of the thing against prudence and the best wisdom of humanity because it is without Deliberation that it is innovation in a high degree without that authority which is truly and by inherent and Ancient right to command and prescribe to us in external Forms of Worship that it is much to the disgrace of the first Reformers of our Religion that it gives encouragement to the Church of Rome to quarrel with some reason and more pretence against our Reformation as being by the Directory confessed to have been done in much blindness and therefore might erre in the excess as well as in the defect throwing out too much as casting off too little which is the more likely because they wanted no zeal to carry them far enough He that considers the universal deformity of publick Worship and the no means of Union no Symbol of publick Communion being publickly consigned that all Heresies may with the same authority be brought into our Prayers and offered to God in the behalf of the people with the same authority that any truth may all the particular matter of our Prayers being left to the choice of all men of all perswasions and then observes that actually there are in many places Heresie and Blasphemy and Impertinency and illiterate Rudenesses put into the Devotion of the most solemn Days and the most publick Meetings and then lastly that there are divers parts of Liturgie for which no
primitùs sunt constituti The Lord did at first ordain and the Apostles did so order it and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles and by consequence to have the same institution drive all to the same issue and are sufficient to make faith that it was the doctrine Primitive and Catholick that Episcopacy is a Divine institution which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a neve-failing succession unless where God removes the Candlestick or which is all one takes away the star the Angel of light from it that it may be invelop'd in darkness usque ad consummationem saeculi aperturam tenebrarum The conclusion of all I subjoyn in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti Bishops are distinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them by the law of God The second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition We have seen what Christ did now we shall see what was done by his Apostles And since they knew their Masters mind so well we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practice Apostolical Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes extra omne mendacium sunt non enim communicat mendacium veritati sicut non communicant tenebrae luci sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum saith S. Irenaeus SECT XIII In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches FIRST then the Apostles did presently after the Ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of Jerusalem For they knew that Jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue Petrus Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam saith Lactantius l. 4. inst famines and wars and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs own prediction which themselves recorded in Scripture And to say they understood not what they writ is to make them Enthusiasts and neither good Doctors nor wise seers But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publick affairs as was so Great desolation and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church and to fix it upon its perpetual base Secondly The Church of Jerusalem was to be the president and platform for other Churches The word of God went forth into all the world beginning first at Jerusalem and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes that other Churches might see their government from whence they receiv'd their doctrine that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream Thirdly the Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution and this to be sure they look'd for and therefore so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways they ordained S. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem there he fixt his chair there he lived Bishop for 30 years and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom If this be proved we are in a fair way for practice Apostolical First Let us see all that is said of S. James in Scripture that may concern this affair Acts 15. We find S. James in the Synod at Jerusalem not disputing but giving final determination to that Great Question about Circumcision And when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said c. He first drave the question to an issue and told them what he believed concerning it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision as with our Forefathers who used it But S. James when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter gave sentence and final determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence So he The acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative they disputed v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative but S. James his was decisive which proves him clearly if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate that S. James was the President of this Synod which considering that he was none of the twelve as I proved formerly is unimaginable were it not for the advantage of the place it being held in Jerusalem where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus as S. Clement calls him especially in the presence of S. Peter who was primus Apostolus and decked with many personal priviledges and prerogatives * Add to this that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle and to send Judas and Silas yet because they were of the Presbytery and Colledge of Jerusalem S. James his Clergy they are said as by way of appropriation to come from S. James Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Jacobo i. e. à Judaeâ nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Jacobus praefuit To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. James and in his Epistle to Hero saying that he did Minister to S. James and the Presbyters of Jerusalem which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius's time who was Suppar Apostolorum only not a contemporary Bishop here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair and Jerusalem the seat of S. James and the Clergy his own of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius he was their Ordinary * The second evidence of Scripture is Acts 21. And when we were come to Jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly and the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders were present Why unto James Why not rather unto the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders if James did not eminere were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Praepositus or Bishop of them all Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent see it testified by Antiquity to which in matter of fact and Church-story he that will not give faith upon current testimonies and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad-man and may as well disbelieve every thing that he hath not seen himself and can no way prove that himself was Christned and to be sure after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory it being impossible to prove it Eusebius reports out of S. Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
several offices the Canon extends its prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority But it was more clearly and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church we have good witness for it S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my Author Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire nec praesente Antistite infantem tingere aut signare nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corporis Sanguinis Christi conficere nec eo corà m posito populum docere vel benedicere c. It is not lawful for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery nor to baptize any Catechumens nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood in the presence of the Bishop without his command From this place of S. Leo if it be set in conjunction with the precedent we have fair evidence of this whole particular It is not lawful to do any offices without the Bishops leave So S. Ignatius so the Canons of the Apostles so Tertullian so the Councils of Antioch and Chalcedon It is not lawful to do any offices in the Bishops presence without leave so S. Leo. The Council of Carthage joyns them both together neither in his presence nor without his leave in any place Now against this practice of the Church if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to do by Gratian Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo dicat quis major est Christo. He that will not let Presbyters do what they are commanded to do by God let him tell us if any man be greater than Christ viz. whose command it is that Presbyters should preach Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave might not Presbyters do their duty without a license This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole Diocess he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock so the Canon of the 1 Apostles so 2 Ignatius to the Council of 3 Antioch so every where The Presbyters are admitted in partem solicitudinis but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocess is in the Bishop and without the Bishops admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administring Sacraments yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixt And therefore it is that a Presbyter may not do these acts without the Bishops leave because they are actions of relation and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred or some particular person for a Priest must not preach to the stones as some say Venerable Bede did nor communicate alone the word is destructive of the thing nor baptize unless he have a Chrysome Child or a Catechumen So that all of the Diocess being the Bishops charge the Bishop must either authorize the Priest or the Priest must not meddle lest he be what S. Peter blamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop in anothers Diocess Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing of consecrating c. For these he had by his ordination but that in giving license he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions and did quoad hoc take him in partem solicitudinis and concredit some part of his Diocess to his administration cum cura animarum But then on the other side because the whole cure of the Diocess is in the Bishop he cannot exonerate himself of it for it is a burden of Christs imposing or it is not imposed at all therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not divest him of his own power or any part of it nor yet ease him of his care but that as he must still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visit and see to his Diocess so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocess and this appears in these places now quoted insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potestas minoris And though because the Bishop could not do all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocess therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate himself looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a general supravision yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocess there he being present might do any office because it was in his own charge which he might concredit to another but not exonerate himself of it And therefore praesente Episcopo saith the Council of Carthage and S. Leo if the Bishop be present the Presbyter without leave might not officiate For he had no subjects of his own but by trust and delegation and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence who could not simul omnibus interesse but then where he was present the cause of delegation ceasing the jurisdiction also ceased or was at least absorpt in the greater and so without leave might not be exercised like the stars which in the noon-day have their own natural light as much as in the night but appear not shine not in the presence of the Sun This perhaps will seem uncouth in those Presbyters who as the Council of Carthage's expression is are contrarii honori Episcopali but yet if we keep our selves in our own form where God hath placed us and where we were in the Primitive Church we shall find all this to be sooth and full of order For Consider The elder the prohibition was the more absolute and indefinite it runs Without the Bishop it is not lawful to baptize to consecrate c. So Ignatius The prohibition is without limit But in descent of the Church it runs praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present they must not without leave The thing is all one and a derivation from the same original to wit the Vniversality of the Bishops Jurisdiction but the reason of the difference of expression is this At first Presbyters were in Cities with the Bishop and no parishes at all concredited to them The Bishops lived in Cities the Presbyters preached and offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them Here they had no ordinary charge and therefore the first prohibitions run indefinitely they must not do any Clerical offices sine Episcopo unless the Bishop sends them But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct and the Presbyters fixt upon ordinary charges then it was only praesente Episcopo if the Bishop was present they might not officiate without leave For in his absence they might do
can be understood where it is said who shall endure the day of his coming c. 3. Saint Austin speaks things expresly against the Doctrine of Purgatory Know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Paradise according to its good deservings or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara into the hell of the damned for I know not well how else to render it And again the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham if she be faithful or in the custody of the infernal prison if it be sinful until the appointed day comes in which she shall receive her body pertinent to which is that of Saint Austin if he be Author of that excellent Book de Eccles. dogmatibus which is imputed to him After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and going from the body go unto Christ expecting the resurrection of their body But I shall insist no further upon these things I suppose it very apparent that Saint Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory and that if he had fancied right yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied There is only one Objection which I know of which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things Saint Austin speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life saith Constat autem c. but it is certain that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirits suffer when they have receiv'd their bodies shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire here is a positive determination of the Article by a word of confidence and a full certificate and therefore Saint Austin in this Article was not a doubting person To this I answer it may be he was confident here but it lasted not long this fire was made of straw and soon went out for within two Chapters after he expresly doubts as I have provâ—d 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world and if they be so referred it is most agreeable to his other sentiments 3. This Constat or decretory phrase and some lines before or after it are not in the old Books of Bruges and Colein nor in the Copies printed at Friburg and Ludovicus Vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this Objection being remov'd there remains no ground to deny that Saint Austin was a doubting person in the Article of Purgatory And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him and the same is said of him by Hofmeister but modestly and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead which is nothing to the purpose and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus à Castro and by Barnesius Well! but suppose Saint Austin did doubt of Purgatory This is no warranty to the Church of England for she does not doubt of it as Saint Austin did but plainly condemns it So one of my Adversaries objects To which I answer That the Church of England may the rather condemn it because Saint Austin doubted of it for if it be no Catholick Doctrine it is but a School point and without prejudice to the Faith may be rejected But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the Doctrine if it had been left as Saint Austin left it that is but as a meer uncertain Opinion but when the wrong end of the Opinion was taken and made an Article of Faith and damnation threatned to them that believed it not she had reason to consider it and finding it to be chaff wholly to scatter it away 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed if in any case she see more than Saint Austin did and proceed accordingly for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things of which Saint Austin indeed did not doubt but affirm'd confidently I instance in the necessity of communicating Infants and the matter of appeals to Rome The next Authority to be examin'd is that of Otho Frisingensis concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive for making him to speak of a Purgatory before whereas he speaks of one after the day of Judgment with a Quidam asserunt some affirm it viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death nay but you are deceiv'd sayes E. W. and the rest of the Adversaries he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment Now truly that is more than I said but that Otho said it is by these men confess'd But his words are these I think it ought to be search'd whether the judgment being pass'd besides the lower hell there remain a place for lighter punishments for that there is below or in hell a Purgatory place in which they that are to be savâ—d are either affected afficiantur invested punish'd with darkness only or else are boiled in the fire of expiation some do affirm What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this Opinion are such which relate to the interval between death and the last judgment Juxta illud Patriarchae lugens descendam ad inferos illud Apostoli ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day and therefore so is the Opinion for the proof of which these places are brought 2. By post judicium in the title and transacto judicio in the Chapter Otho means the particular judgment passing upon every one at their death which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day because that which he sayes some do affirm quidam asserunt is that those which are salvandi to be sav'd hereafter are either in darkness or in a Purgatory fire which therefore must be meant of the interval for after the day of judgment is pass'd and the books shut and the sentence pronounc'd none can be sav'd that are not then acquitted unless Origen's Opinion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be reintroduc'd which the Church before Otho many Ages had exploded and therefore so good and great a person would not have thought that fit to be then disputed and it was not then a Question nor a thing Undetermin'd in the Church 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgment it makes very much against the present Roman Doctrine for Otho applies the Question to the case of Infants dying without Baptism now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgment
if he had foreseen he should have been written against by so learned an adversary But to let them agree as well as they can the words of Eusebius out of his last chapter I translated as well as I could the Greek words I have set in the Margent that every one that understands may see I did him right and indeed to do my Adversary right when he goes about to change not to mend the translation he only changes the order of the words but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it for he acknowledges the main Question viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table but then that l may do my self right and the question too whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him and made him to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is so far off it and hath no relation to it and not to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which it is joyn'd and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it hath a substantive of its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he repeats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements the symbols of the body and blood But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity or an innocent perswasion But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend he hath these words fully to our purpose First our Lord and Saviour and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastick Laws by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing blood And again By the wine which is the symbol of his blood he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death and believe in his blood Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the image figure or representation of his own body And Again He received not the sacrifices of blood nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses but ordained we should use bread the symbol of his own body So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament S. Macarius is cited in the Disswasive in these words In the Church is offered bread and wine the Antitype of his flesh and blood and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. A. L. saith Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar or an antitype his flesh and blood Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says yet I cannot but note that they who gave him this answer may be asham'd for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer First he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted 2. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of apposition expresly against the mind of S. Macarius and against the very Grammar of his words And after all he studies to abuse his Author and yet gets no good by it himself for if it were in the words as he hath invented it or some body else for him yet it makes against him as much saying bread and wine exhibite Christs body which is indeed true though not here said by the Saint but is directly against the Roman article because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius which in the Disswasive are translated exactly as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent There now only remains the authority of S. Austin which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England and assert to his own party I cited five places out of S. Austin to the last of which but one he gives this answer that S. Austin hath no such words in that book that is in the Tenth book against Faustus the Manichee Concerning which I am to inform the Gentleman a little better These words that which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice are in the tenth book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume as the other But the following words in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together in a close order like a continued discourse but all of them are S. Austins words as appears in the places set down in the Margent But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed but to the words he hath nothing to say To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but only the eating it in that gross carnal and sensible manner as the Capharnaites conceiv'd To which I reply that it is true that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words and although the Roman error be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites yet it was as false as unreasonable and as impossible And be the occasion of the words what they are or can be yet upon this occasion S. Austin spake words which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of but the antithesis to this is that which S. Austin urges and which comes home to our question I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers I will gratifie my Adversary or rather indeed my Unprejudicate Readers by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin agreeing perfectly with that of our Church At this time after manifest token of our liberty hath shin'd in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs
but some few instead of many but those most easie to be done and most glorious to be understood and most pure in their observation our Lord himself and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered such is the Sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord which when every one takes he understands whither they may be referr'd that he may give them veneration not with carnal service but with a spiritual liberty For as to follow the letter and to take the signs for the things signified by them is a servile infirmity so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandring error But he that understands not what the sign signifies but yet understandeth it to be a sign is not press'd with servitude But it is better to be press'd with unknown signs so they be profitable than by expounding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery from which they were brought fâ—â—th All this S. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and if by these words he does not intend to affirm that they are the signs signifying Christs body and blood let who please to undertake it make sence of them for my part I cannot To the same purpose are these other words of his Christ is in himself once immolated and yet in the Sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solemnities of Easter but every day with the people Neither indeed does he lye who being ask'd shall answer that he is sacrificed For if the Sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are Sacraments they were altogether no Sacraments but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves sicut ergo secundum quendam modum c. As therefore after a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of Faith viz. Baptism is Faith Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself but every day in the Sacrament that properly this in figure that in substance this in similitude that naturally this sacramentally and spiritually But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice as we call the Sacrament Christs body viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures This is S. Austins sence which indeed he frequently so expresses Now I desire it may be observed that oftentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist calls it the body and blood of Christ he oftentimes adds by way of explication that he means it in the Sacramental figurative sence but whenever he calls it the figure or the Sacrament of Christs body he never offers to explain that by any words by which he may signifie such a real or natural being of Christs body there as the Church of Rome dreams of but he ought not neither would be have given offence or Umbrage to the Church by any such incurious and loose handling of things if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise than that it was Christs body in a Sacramental sence Though I have remark'd all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right for be sets down the words in Latin but they conclude nothing against Transubstantiation Why so because though the Paschal was a type of a type a figure of a figure yet in S. Gregories sence Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven To this pitiful answer the reply is easie S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured that in the Eucharist he still is figured there more obscurely here more clearly but yet still but typically or in figure nunc quidem adhuc typicè here we are partakers of him typically Afterwards we shall see him perfectly meaning in his Fathers Kingdom So that the Saint affirms Christ to be receiv'd by us in the Sacrament after a figurative or typical manner and therefore not after a substantial as that is oppos'd to figurative Now of what is this a type of himself to be more clearly seen in Heaven hereafter It is very true it is so for this whole ceremony and figurative ritual receiving of Christs body here does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christs body is not here for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same to say a thing that is present is a figure of it self hereafter is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says Nemo est sui ipsius imago saith S. Hilary and yet if it were possible to be otherwise yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible Bellarmine being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sacrament the figure of Christs body says it is in some sence a figure of Christs body on the Cross and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christs body glorified Now suppose both these dreamers say right then this Sacrament which whether you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christs body cannot be that body of which so many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W's answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of its self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topick of Authority in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in Heaven and the other in Earth because Heaven and Earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as
his disciples should not wear rings or engrave them with the images of their Gods as Moses many ages before made an express law that no man should make any graven cast or painted image and of this he gives two reasons 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we may not attend to sensible things but pass on to the things discernible by the understanding 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The custome of seeing so readily causes that the Majesty of God becomes vile and contemptible and by matter to worship that which is perceiv'd intellectually is to disesteem him by sensation Now the Reader may perceive that S. Clemens speaks against the making of any images not only of Jupiter and the Heathen Gods but of the true God of whatsoever intelligible being we ought to worship and that upon such reasons which will greatly condemn the Roman practices But hence also it is plain how careless and trifling this objector is minding no truth but the number of objections See yet further out of S. Clement Nobis enim est aperte vetitum fallacem artem exercere Non facies enim inquit Propheta cujusvis rei similitudinem we are forbidden to exercise that cosening art viz. of making pictures or images for says the prophet meaning Moses thou shalt not make the likeness of any thing E. W. it seems could not find these words of S. Clement in his Paraenetick He should have said his Protreptick for I know of no Paraenetick that he hath written But E. W. followed the Printers error in the Margent of the Dissuasive and very carefully turned over a book that was not and compared it in bigness with a book that was But I will not suppose this to be ignorance in him but only want of diligence however the words are to be found in the 41. page of this Protreptick or his admonition to the Gentiles and now they are quoted and the very page named only I desire E. W. to observe that in this place S. Clement uses not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simulachrum but cujusvis rei similitudinem In the place which was quoted out of Origen in his fourth book against Celsus speaking of the Jews he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All makers of Images were turned from their common-wealth for not a painter or a statuary was admitted their laws wholly forbidding them lest any occasion should be given to dull men or that their mind should be turned from the worship of God to earthly things by these temptations Then he quotes the law of God against making images and adds by which law this was intended that being content with the truth of things they should beware of lying figments There it is plain that Origen affirms the law of God to have forbidden the making images any similitude of things in Heaven Earth or Waters which law also he in another place affirms to be of a moral and eternal obligation that is not to be spoken to them only who came out of the terrestrial Egypt and therefore is of Christian duty And of the same mind are S. Irenaeus Tertullian S. Cyprian and S. Austin affirming the whole decalogue except the law of the Sabbath to be an unalterable or natural law But for the further verification of the testimony from Origen against the worship of images in the Primitive Church I thought fit to add the concurrent words of the prudent and learned Cassander Quantum autem veteres initio Ecclesiae ab omni veneratione imaginum abhorruerunt declarat unus Origenes adversus Celsum but of this I shall have occasion to speak yet once more And so at last all the quotations are found to be exact and this Gentleman to be greatly mistaken From the premisses I infer if in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images certainly it is unimaginable they should worship them and the argument is the stronger if we understand their opinion rightly for neither the second Commandment nor yet the Ancient Fathers in their Commentaries on them did absolutely prohibit all making of Images but all that was made for religious worship and in order to Adoration according as it is expressed in him who among the Jews collected the negative precepts which Arias Montanus translated in Latin the second of which is signum cultus causa ne facito the third simulachrum Divinum nullo pacto conflato the fourth signa religiosa nulla ex materia facito The authorities of these Fathers being rescued from slander and prov'd very pungent and material I am concerned in the next place to take notice of some authorities which my adversaries urge from antiquity to prove that in the Primitive Church they did worship images Concerning their general Council viz. the second Nicene I have already made account in the preceeding periods The great S. Basil is with great solemnity brought into the Circus and made to speak for images as apertly plainly and confidently as Bellarmine or the Council of Trent it self His words are these I admit the holy Apostles and Prophets and Martyrs and in my prayer made to God call upon them that by their intercession God may be propitious unto me Whereupon I honour and adore the characters of their images and especially those things being delivered from the holy Apostles and not prohibited but are manifested or seen in all our Churches Now I confess these words are home enough and do their business at the first sight and if they prove right S. Basil is on their side and therefore E. W. with great noise and preface insults and calls them Unanswerable The words he says are found in S. Basils 205. Epistle ad Julianum I presently consulted S. Basils works such as I had with me in the Countrey of the Paris Edition by Guillard 1547. and there I found that S. Basil had not 205. Epistles in all the number of all written by him and to him being but 180. of which that to Julianus is one viz. Epistle 166. and in that there is not one word to any such purpose as is here pretended I was then put to a melius inquirendum Bellarmine though both he and Lindan and Harding cry up this authority as irrefragable quotes this authority not upon his own credit but as taking it from the report of a book published 1596 called Synodus Parisiensis which Bellarmine calls Vnworthy to see the light From hence arises this great noise and the fountain being confessedly corrupt what wholsome thing can be expected thence But in all the first and voluminous disputations of Bellarmine upon this Question he made no use of this authority he never saw any such thing in S. Basils works or it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted it But the words are in no ancient Edition of S. Basil nor in any Manuscript that is known in
the world 2. John Damascen and Germanus Bishop of C. P. who wrote for the worship of images and are the most learned of all the Greeks that were abu'sd in this Question yet they never urg'd this authority of S. Basil which would have been more to their purpose than all that they said beside 3. The first mention of this is in an Epistle of Pope Adrian to the Emperors in the seventh Synod and that makes the business more suspicious that when the Greek writers knew nothing of it a Latin Bishop a stranger not very well skill'd in Antiquity should find this out which no man ever saw before him nor since in any Copy of S. Basils works But in the second Nicene Council such forgeries as these were many and notorious S. Gregory the Great is there quoted as Author of an Epistle de veneratione imaginum when it is notorious it was writ by Gregory III. and there were many Basils and any one of that name would serve to give countenance to the error of the second Nicene Synod but in S. Basil the Great there is not one word like it And therefore they who set forth S. Basils works at Paris 1618. who either could not or ought not to have been ignorant of so vile a cheat were infinitely to blame to publish this as the issue of the right S. Basil without any mark of difference or note of inquiry There is also another saying of S. Basil of which the Roman writers make much and the words are by Damascen imputed to the Great S. Basil Imaginis honor exemplum transit which indeed S. Basil speaks only of the statues of the Emperors and of that civil honour which by consent and custome of the world did pass to the Emperor and he accepted it so but this is no argument for religious images put up to the honour of God he says not the honour of any such image passes to God for God hath declar'd against it as will appear in the following periods and therefore from hence the Church of Rome can have no argument no fair pretence and yet upon this very account and the too much complying with the Heathen rites and manners and the secular customs of the Empire the veneration of images came into Churches But suppose it be admitted to be true yet although this may do some countenance to Thomas aquinas and Bonaventures way of worshipping the image and the sampler with the same worship yet this can never be urg'd by all those more moderate Papists who make the worship to an image of a lower kind For if it be not the same worship then they that worship images worship God and his Saints by the image not as they deserve but give to them no more than the image it self deserves let them take which part they please so that they will but publickly own it But let this be as it will and let it be granted true that the honour done to the image can pass to the sampler yet this is but an arbitrary thing and a King may esteem it so if he please but if the King forbids any image to be made of him and counts it a dishonour to him then I hope it is and that 's the case now for God hath forbidden any such way of passing honour to him by an image of him and he hath forbidden it in the second Commandment and this is confessed by Vasquez So that upon this account for all the pretence of the same motion to the image and the sampler to pass such a worship to God is no better than the doing as the Heathen did when they worshipped Mercury by throwing stones at him Another authority brought by E. W. for veneration of images is from Athanasius but himself damns it in the Margent with and without ingenuity for ingenuously saying that he does not affirm it to be the Great Athanasius yet most disingenuously he adds valeat quantum valere potest that is they that will be cosened let them And indeed these Questions and Answers to Antiochus are notoriously spurious for in them are quoted S. Epiphanius and Gregory Nyssen Chrysostom Scala Johannis Maximus and Nicephorus who were after Athanasius and the book is rejected by Delrio by Sixtus Senensis and Possevine But with such stuff as this the Roman Doctors are forc'd to build their Babel and E. W. in page 56. quotes the same book against me for worshipping the Cross together with another spurious piece de Cruce passione Domini which Nannius a very learned man of their own and professor at Lovaine rejects as it is to be seen in his Nuncupatory Epistle Yea but S. Chrysostoms Liturgy is very clear for it is said that the Priest turns himself to our Saviours picture and bows his head before the picture and says this prayer These words indeed are very plain but it is not plain that these are S. Chysostom's words for there are none such in S. Chrysostoms Liturgy in the Editions of it by Claudius de Saintes or Morellus and Claudius Espencaeus acknowledges with great truth and ingenuity that this Liturgy begun and compos'd by S. Chrysostom was inlarged by many things put into it according to the variety of times And it is evidently so because divers persons are there commemorated who liv'd after the death of Chrysostom as Cyrillus Euthymius Sabas and Johannes Eleemosynarius whereof the last but one lived 126. years the last 213. years after S. Chrysostom Now how likely nay how certain it is that this very passage was not put in by S. Chrysostom but is of later interpolation let all the world judge by that known saying of S. Chrysostom Quid enim est vilius atque humilius homine ante res inanimatas se incurvante saxa venerante What in the world is baser and more abject than to see a man worshipping stones and bowing himself before inanimate things These are his great authorities which are now come to nothing what he hath from them who came after these I shall leave to him to make his best of them for about the time of Gregory some began to worship images and some to break them the latter of which he reproves and the former he condemns what it was afterwards all the world knows But now having clear'd the Question from the trifling arguments of my adversaries I shall observe some things fit to be considered in this matter of images 1. It came at first from a very base and unworthy stock I have already pointed at this but now I shall explain it more fully it came from Simon Magus and his crew Theodoret says that the followers of Simon brought in the worship of images viz. of Simon in the shape of Jupiter and Helena in the figure of Minerva but S. Austin says that Simon Magus himself imagines suam cujusdam meretricis quam sibi sociam scelerum fecerat discipulis suis praebuisse adorandas E. W.
unreasonableness I will not say but the same liberty in expounding Scripture or if it be not licence taken but that the Scripture it self is so full and redundant in sences quite contrary what man soever or what company of men soever shall use this principle will certainly find such rare productions from several places that either the unreasonableness of the thing will discover the errour of the proceeding or else there will be a necessity of permitting a great liberty of judgment where is so infinite variety without limit or mark of necessary determination If the first then because an errour is so obvious and ready to our selves it will be great imprudence or tyranny to be hasty in judging others but if the latter it is it that I contend for for it is most unreasonable when either the thing it self ministers variety or that we take licence to our selves in variety of interpretations or proclaim to all the world our great weakness by our actually being deceived that we should either prescribe to others magisterially when we are in errour or limit their understandings when the thing it self affords liberty and variety SECT IV. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 1. THese considerations are taken from the nature of Scripture it self but then if we consider that we have no certain ways of determining places of difficulty and question infallibly and certainly but that we must hope to be saved in the belief of things plain necessary and fundamental and our pious endeavour to find out Gods meaning in such places which he hath left under a cloud for other great ends reserved to his own knowledge we shall see a very great necessity in allowing a liberty in Prophesying without prescribing authoritatively to other mens consciences and becoming Lords and Masters of their Faith Now the means of expounding Scripture are either external or internal For the external as Church Authority Tradition Fathers Councils and Decrees of Bishops they are of a distinct consideration and follow after in their order But here we will first consider the invalidity and uncertainty of all those means of expounding Scripture which are more proper and internal to the nature of the thing The great Masters of Commentaries some whereof have undertaken to know all mysteries have propounded many ways to expound Scripture which indeed are excellent helps but not infallible assistances both because themselves are but moral instruments which force not truth ex abscondito as also because they are not infallibly used and applyed 1. Sometime the sence is drawn forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what rule shall ascertain me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I have a mind to apply it another hath not For in a contexture where one part does not always depend upon another where things of differing natures intervene and interrupt the first intentions there it is not always very probable to expound Scripture and take its meaning by its proportion to the neighbouring words But who desires satisfaction in this may read the observation verified in S. Gregory's Morals upon Job lib. 5. c. 22. and the instances he there brings are excellent proof that this way of Interpretation does not warrant any man to impose his Expositions upon the belief and understanding of other men too confidently and magisterially 2. Secondly Another great pretence or medium is the conference of places which Illyricus calls ingens remedium foelicissimam expositionem sanctae scripturae and indeed so it is if well and temperately used but then we are beholding to them that do so for there is no rule that can constrain them to it for comparing of places is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing that may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may more amuse the most intelligent Observer The Anabaptists take advantage enough in this proceeding and indeed so may any one that list and when we pretend against them the necessity of baptizing all by authority of nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ spiritu they have a parallel for it and tell us that Christ will baptize us with the holy Ghost and with fire and that one place expounds the other and because by fire is not meant an Element or any thing that is natural but an Allegory and figurative expression of the same thing so also by water may be meant the figure signifying the effect or manner of operation of the holy Spirit Fire in one place and water in the other do but represent to us that Christs baptism is nothing else but the cleansing and purifying us by the holy Ghost But that which I here note as of greatest concernment and which in all reason ought to be an utter overthrow to this topick 〈◊〉 an universal abuse of it among those that use it most and when two places seem to have the same expression or if a word have a double signification because in this place it may have such a sence therefore it must because in one of the places the sence is to their purpose they conclude that therefore it must be so in the other too An instance I give in the great Question between the Socinians and the Catholicks If any place be urged in which our blessed Saviour is called God they shew you two or three where the word â—od is taken in a depressed sence for a quasi Deus as when God said to Moses Constitui te Deum Pharaonis and hence they argue because I can shew the word is used for a Deus factus therefore no argument is sufficient to prove Christ to be Deus verus from the appellative of Deus And might not another argue to the exact contrary and as well urge that Moses is Deus verus because in some places the word Deus is used pro Deo aeterno Both ways the Argument concludes impiously and unreasonably It is a fallacy à posse ad esse affirmativè because breaking of bread is sometimes used for an Eucharistical manducation in Scripture therefore I shall not from any testimony of Scripture affirming the first Christians to have broken bread together conclude that they lived hospitably and in common society Because it may possibly be eluded therefore it does not signifie any thing And this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend and any man that reads any controversies of any side shall find as many instances of this vanity almost as he finds arguments from Scripture this fault was of old noted by S. Austin for then they had got the trick and
neither expressed nor involved I understand not But then if you extend the analogie of Faith further than that which is proper to the rule or Symbol of Faith then every man expounds Scripture according to the analogie of Faith but what His own Faith which Faith if it be questioned I am no more bound to expound according to the analogie of another mans Faith than he to expound according to the analogie of mine And this is it that is complained on of all sides that overvalue their own opinions Scripture seems so clearly to speak what they believe that they wonder all the world does not see it as clear as they do but they satisfie themselves with saying that it is because they come with prejudice whereas if they had the true belief that is theirs they would easily see what they see And this is very true For if they did believe as others believe they would expound Scriptures to their sence but if this be expounding according to the analogie of Faith it signifies no more than this Be you of my mind and then my arguments will seem concluding and my Authorities and Allegations pressing and pertinent And this will serve on all sides and therefore will doe but little service to the determination of Questions or prescribing to other mens consciences on any side 5. Lastly Consulting the Originals is thought a great matter to Interpretation of Scriptures But this is to small purpose For indeed it will expound the Hebrew and the Greek and rectifie Translations But I know no man that says that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easie and certain to be understood and that they are hard in Latine and English The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed the least is in the language If the Original Languages were our mother tongue Scripture is not much the easier to us and a natural Greek or a Jew can with no more reason or authority obtrude his Interpretations upon other mens consciences than a man of another Nation Add to this that the inspection of the Original is no more certain way of Interpretation of Scripture now than it was to the Fathers and Primitive Ages of the Church and yet he that observes what infinite variety of Translations of the Bible were in the first Ages of the Church as S. Hierom observes and never a one like another will think that we shall differ as much in our Interpretations as they did and that the medium is as uncertain to us as it was to them and so it is witness the great number of late Translations and the infinite number of Commentaries which are too pregnant an Argument that we neither agree in the understanding of the words nor of the sence 6. The truth is all these ways of Interpreting of Scripture which of themselves are good helps are made either by design or by our infirmities ways of intricating and involving Scriptures in greater difficulty because men do not learn their doctrines from Scripture but come to the understanding of Scripture with preconceptions and idea's of doctrines of their own and then no wonder that Scriptures look like Pictures wherein every man in the room believes they look on him only and that wheresoever he stands or how often soever he changes his station So that now what was intended for a remedy becomes the promoter of our disease and our meat becomes the matter of sickness And the mischief is the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it for there is no rule no limit no certain principle by which all men may be guided to a certain and so infallible an Interpretation that he can with any equity prescribe to others to believe his Interpretations in places of controversie or ambiguity A man would think that the memorable Prophecy of Jacob that the Scepter should not depart from Judah till Shiloh come should have been so clear a determination of the time of the Messias that a Jew should never have doubted it to have been verified in Jesus of Nazareth and yet for this so clear vaticination they have no less than twenty six Answers S. Paul and S. James seem to speak a little diversly concerning Justification by Faith and Works and yet to my understanding it is very easie to reconcile them but all men are not of my mind for Osiander in his confutation of the book which Melancthon wrote against him observes that there are twenty several opinions concerning Justification all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan Confession There are sixteen several opinions concerning original sin and as many definitions of the Sacraments as there are Sects of men that disagree about them 7. And now what help is there for us in the midst of these uncertainties If we follow any one Translation or any one mans Commentary what rule shall we have to chuse the right by or is there any one man that hath translated perfectly or expounded infallibly No Translation challenges such a prerogative to be authentick but the Vulgar Latine and yet see with what good success For when it was declared authentick by the Council of Trent Sixtus put forth a Copie much mended of what it was and tied all men to follow that but that did not satisfie for Pope Clement revives and corrects it in many places and still the Decree remains in a changed subject And secondly that Translation will be very unapt to satisfie in which one of their own men Isidore Clarius a Monk of Brescia found and mended eight thousand faults besides innumerable others which he says he pretermitted And then thirdly to shew how little themselves were satisfied with it divers learned men among them did new translate the Bible and thought they did God and the Church good service in it So that if you take this for your precedent you are sure to be mistaken infinitely If you take any other the Authors themselves do not promise you any security If you resolve to follow any one as far only as you see cause then you only do wrong or right by chance for you have certainty just proportionable to your own skill to your own infallibility If you resolve to follow any one whithersoever he leads we shall oftentimes come thither where we shall see our selves become ridiculous as it happened in the case of Spiridion Bishop of Cyprus who so resolved to follow his old book that when an eloquent Bishop who was desired to Preach read his Text Tu autem tolle cubile tuum ambula Spiridion was very angry with him because in his book it was tolle lectum tuum and thought it arrogance in the preacher to speak better Latine than his Translator had done And if it be thus in Translations it is far worse in Expositions Quia scil Scripturam sacram pro ipsa sui altitudine non uno eodemque sensu omnes accipium ut penè quot homines tot illic sententiae erui posse
Council of Pisa is neque approbatum neque reprobatum which is the greatest folly of all and most prodigious vanity So that by something or other either they were not convened lawfully or they did not proceed Conciliariter or 't is not certain that the Council was General or no or whether the Council were approbatum or reprobatum or else it is partim confirmatum partim reprobatum or else it is neque approbatum neque reprobatum by one of these ways or a device like to these all Councils and all Decrees shall be made to signifie nothing and to have no Authority 7. Thirdly There is no General Council that hath determined that a General Council is infallible no Scripture hath recorded it no Tradition universal hath transmitted to us any such proposition So that we must receive the Authority at a lower rate and upon a less probability then the things consigned by that Authority And it is strange that the Decrees of Councils should be esteemed authentick and infallible and yet it is not infallibly certain that the Councils themselves are infallible because the belief of the Councils infallibility is not proved to us by any medium but such as may deceive us 8. Fourthly But the best instance that Councils are some and may all be deceived is the contradiction of one Council to another for in that case both cannot be true and which of them is true must belong to another judgment which is less then the solennity of a General Council and the determination of this matter can be of no greater certainty after it is concluded then when it was propounded as a Question being it is to be determined by the same Authority or by a less then it self But for this allegation we cannot want instances The Council of Trent allows picturing of God the Father The Council of Nice altogether disallows it The same Nicene Council which was the seventh General allows of picturing Christ in the form of a Lamb But the sixth Synod by no means will indure it as Caranza affirms The Council of Neocaesarea confirmed by Leo IV. dist 20. de libellis and approved by the first Nicene Council as it is said in the seventh Session of the Council of Florence forbids second Marriages and imposes Penances on them that are married the second time forbidding Priests to be present at such Marriage-Feasts Besides that this is expresly against the Doctrine of Saint Paul it is also against the Doctrine of the Council of Laodicea which took off such Penances and pronounced second Marriages to be free and lawfull Nothing is more discrepant then the third Council of Carthage and the Council of Laodicea about assignation of the Canon of Scripture and yet the sixth General Synod approves both And I would fain know if all General Councils are of the same mind with the Fathers of the Council of Carthage who reckon into the Canon five Books of Solomon I am sure Saint Austin reckoned but three and I think all Christendom beside are of the same opinion And if we look into the title of the Law de Conciliis called Concordantia discordantiarum we shall finde instances enough to confirm that the Decrees of some Councils are contradictory to others and that no wit can reconcile them And whether they did or no that they might disagree and former Councils be corrected by later was the belief of the Doctors in those Ages in which the best and most famous Councils were convened as appears in that famous saying of S. Austin speaking concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks and how much the Africans were deceived in that Question he answers the Allegation of the Bishops Letters and chose National Councils which confirmed S. Cyprian's opinion by saying that they were no final determination For Episcoporum literae emendari possunt à Conciliis nationalibus Concilia nationalia à plenariis ipsáque plenaria priora à posterioribus emendari Not onely the occasion of the Question being a matter not of fact but of Faith as being instanced in the Question of rebaptization but also the very fabrick and oeconomy of the words put by all the answers of all those men who think themselves pressed with the Authority of S. Austin For as National Councils may correct the Bishops Letters and General Councils may correct National so the later General may correct the former that is have contrary and better Decrees of manners and better determinations in matters of faith And from hence hath risen a Question Whether is to be received the former or the later Councils in case they contradict each other The former are nearer the fountains Apostolicall the later are of greater consideration The first have more Authority the later more reason The first are more venerable the later more inquisitive and seeing And now what rule shall we have to determine our beliefs whether to Authority or Reason the Reason and the Authority both of them not being the highest in their kind both of them being repudiable and at most but probable And here it is that this great uncertainty is such as not to determine any body but fit to serve every body and it is sport to see that Bellarmine will by all means have the Council of Carthage preferred before the Council of Laodicea because it is later and yet he prefers the second Nicene Council before the Council of Frankfurt because it is elder S. Austin would have the former Generals to be mended by the later but Isidore in Gratian saies when Councils do differ standum esse antiquioribus the elder must carry it And indeed these probables are buskins to serve every foot and they are like magnum parvum they have nothing of their own all that they have is in comparison of others so these Topicks have nothing of resolute and dogmaticall truth but in relation to such ends as an interessed person hath a minde to serve upon them 9. Fifthly There are many Councils corrupted and many pretended and alledged when there were no such things both which make the Topick of the Authority of Councils to be little and inconsiderable There is a Council brought to light in the edition of Councils by Binius viz. Sinuessanum pretended to be kept in the year 303. but it was so private till then that we find no mention of it in any ancient Record Neither Eusebius nor Ruffinus S. Hierom nor Socrates Sozomen nor Theodoret nor Eutropius nor Bede knew any thing of it and the eldest allegation of it is by Pope Nicolas I. in the ninth Century And he that shall consider that 300 Bishops in the midst of horrid Persecutions for so then they were are pretended to have conven'd will need no greater Argument to suspect the imposture Besides he that was the framer of the engine did not lay his ends together handsomly for it is said that the deposition of Marcellinus by the Synod was told to Diocletian
no such thing as is pretended or if they did it is but little considerable because they did not believe themselves their practice was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words But I am much eased of a long disquisition in this particular for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in itself as fallible and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question by the saying of Aeneas Sylvius that before the Nicene Council every man lived to himself and small respect was had to the Church of Rome which practice could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishops Infallibility and by consequence supreme judgment and last resolution in matters of Faith but especially by the insinuation and consequent acknowledgment of Bellarmine that for 1000 years together the Fathers knew not of the Doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility for Nilus Gerson Almain the Divines of Paris Alphonsus de Castro and Pope Adrian VI. persons who lived 1400 years after Christ affirm that Infallibility is not seated in the Pope's person that he may erre and sometimes actually hath which is a clear demonstration that the Church knew no such Doctrine as this there had been no Decree nor Tradition nor general opinion of the Fathers or of any Age before them and therefore this Opinion which Bellarmine would fain blast if he could yet in his Conclusion he says it is not propriè haeretica A device and an expression of his own without sense or precedent But if the Fathers had spoken of it and believed it why may not a disagreeing person as well reject their Authority when it is in behalf of Rome as they of Rome without scruple cast them off when they speak against it For Bellarmine being pressed with the Authority of Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica and other Fathers says that the Pope acknowledges no Fathers but they are all his children and therefore they cannot depose against him and if that be true why shall we take their Testimonies for him for if Sons depose in their Father's behalf it is twenty to one but the adverse party will be cast and therefore at the best it is but suspectum Testimonium But indeed this discourse signifies nothing but a perpetuall uncertainty in such Topicks and that where a violent prejudice or a concerning interest is engaged men by not regarding what any man says proclaim to all the world that nothing is certain but Divine Authority 13. But I will not take advantage of what Bellarmine says nor what Stapleton or any one of them all say for that will be but to press upon personal perswasions or to urge a general Question with a particular defaillance and the Question is never the nearer to an end for if Bellarmine says any thing that is not to another man's purpose or perswasion that man will be tried by his own Argument not by another's And so would every man doe that loves his liberty as all wise men do and therefore retain it by open violence or private evasions But to return 14. An Authority from Irenaeus in this Question and on behalf of the Pope's Infallibility or the Authority of the See of Rome or of the necessity of communicating with them is very fallible for besides that there are almost a dozen answers to the words of the Allegation as is to be seen in those that trouble themselves in this Question with the Allegation and answering such Authorities yet if they should make for the affirmative of this Question it is protestatio contra factum For Irenaeus had no such great opinion of Pope Victor's Infallibility that he believed things in the same degree of necessity that the Pope did for therefore he chides him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow in the Question concerning Easter-day and in a Question of Faith he expresly disagreed from the doctrine of Rome for Irenaeus was of the Millenary opinion and believed it to be a Tradition Apostolicall Now if the Church of Rome was of that opinion then why is she not now where is the succession of her Doctrine But if she was not of that opinion then and Irenaeus was where was his belief of that Churche's Infallibility The same I urge concerning S. Cyprian who was the head of a Sect in opposition to the Church of Rome in the Question of Rebaptization and he and the abettors Firmilian and the other Bishops of Cappadocia and the voicinage spoke harsh words of Steven and such as become them not to speak to an infallible Doctor and the supreme Head of the Church I will urge none of them to the disadvantage of that See but onely note the Satyrs of Firmilian against him because it is of good use to shew that it is possible for them in their ill carriage to blast the reputation and efficacy of a great Authority For he says that that Church did pretend the Authority of the Apostles cùm in multis Sacramentis Divinae rei à principio discrepet ab Ecclesia Hierosolymitana defamet Petrum Paulum tanquam authores And a little after Justè dedignor says he apertam manifestam stultitiam Stephani per quam veritas Christianae petrae aboletur Which words say plainly that for all the goodly pretence of Apostolicall Authority the Church of Rome did then in many things of Religion disagree from Divine Institution and from the Church of Jerusalem which they had as great esteem of for Religion sake as of Rome for its Principality and that still in pretending to S. Peter and S. Paul they dishonoured those blessed Apostles and destroyed the honour of their pretence by their untoward prevarication Which words I confess pass my skill to reconcile them to an opinion of Infallibility and although they were spoken by an angry person yet they declare that in Africa they were not then perswaded as now they are at Rome Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere That was their belief then and how the contrary hath grown up to that height where now it is all the world is witness And now I shall not need to note concerning S. Hierome that he gave a complement to Damasus that he would not have given to Liberius Qui tecum non colligit spargit For it might be true enough of Damasus who was a good Bishop and a right believer but if Liberius's name had been put in stead of Damasus the case had been altered with the name for S. Hierome did believe and write it so that Liberius had subscribed to Arianism And if either he or any of the rest had believ'd the Pope could not be a Heretick nor his Faith fail but be so good and of so competent Authority as to be a Rule to Christendom why did they not appeal to
that he hath been in great esteem with posterity And if that be all why the opinion of the following Ages shall be of more force then the opinion of the first Ages against whom Saint Austin in many things clearly did oppose himself I see no reason Or whether the first Ages were against him or no yet that he is approved by the following Ages is no better Argument for it makes his Authority not be innate but derived from the opinion of others and so to be precaria and to depend upon others who if they should change their opinions and such examples there have been many then there were nothing left to urge our consent to him which when it was at the best was onely this because he had the good fortune to be believed by them that came after he must be so still and because it was no Argument for the old Doctors before him this will not be very good in his behalf The same I say of any company of them I say not so of all of them it is to no purpose to say it for there is no Question this day in contestation in the explication of which all the old Writers did consent In the assignation of the Canon of Scripture they never did consent for six hundred years together and then by that time the Bishops had agreed indifferently well and but indifferently upon that they fell out in twenty more and except it be in the Apostles Creed and Articles of such nature there is nothing which may with any colour be called a consent much less Tradition Universal 4. But I will rather chuse to shew the uncertainty of this Topick by such an Argument which was not in the Fathers power to help such as makes no invasion upon their great reputation which I desire should be preserved as sacred as it ought For other things let who please reade M. Daillé du vray usage des Peres But I shall onely consider that the Writings of the Fathers have been so corrupted by the intermixture of Hereticks so many false books put forth in their names so many of their Writings lost which would more clearly have explicated their sense and at last an open profession made and a trade of making the Fathers speak not what themselves thought but what other men pleased that it is a great instance of God's providence and care of his Church that we have so much good preserved in the Writings which we receive from the Fathers and that all truth is not as clear gone as is the certainty of their great Authority and reputation 5. The publishing books with the inscription of great names began in Saint Paul's time for some had troubled the Church of Thessalonica with a false Epistle in Saint Paul's name against the inconvenience of which he arms them in 2 Thess. 2.1 And this encreased daily in the Church The Arians wrote an Epistle to Constantine under the name of Athanasius and the Eutychians wrote against Cyril of Alexandria under the name of Theodoret and of the Age in which the seventh Synod was kept Erasmus reports Libris falso celebrium virorum titulo commendatis scatere omnia It was then a publick business and a trick not more base then publick But it was more ancient then so and it is memorable in the books atributed to Saint Basil containing thirty Chapters De Spiritu Sancto whereof fifteen were plainly by another hand under the covert of Saint Basil as appears in the difference of the style in the impertinent digressions against the custome of that excellent man by some passages contradictory to others of Saint Basil by citing Meletius as dead before him who yet lived three years after him and by the very frame and manner of the discourse and yet it was so handsomly carried and so well served the purposes of men that it was indifferently quoted under the title of Saint Basil by many but without naming the number of Chapters and by Saint John Damascen in these words Basilius in opere triginta capitum de Spiritu Sancto ad Amphilochium and to the same purpose and in the number of 27 and 29 Chapters he is cited by Photius by Euthymius by Burchard by Zonaras Balsamon and Nicephorus But for this see more in Erasmus his Preface upon this book of Saint Basil. There is an Epistle goes still under the name of Saint Hierom ad Demetriadem virginem and is of great use in the Question of Predestination with its appendices and yet a very learned man 800 years agone did believe it to be written by a Pelagian and undertakes to confute divers parts of it as being high and confident Pelagianism and written by Julianus Episc. Eclanensis but Gregorius Ariminensis from Saint Austin affirms it to have been written by Pelagius himself I might instance in too many There is not any one of the Fathers who is esteemed Authour of any considerable number of books that hath escaped untouched But the abuse in this kind hath been so evident that now if any interessed person of any side be pressed with an Authority very pregnant against him he thinks to escape by accusing the Edition or the Authour or the hands it passed through or at last he therefore suspects it because it makes against him both sides being resolved that they are in the right the Authorities that they admit they will believe not to be against them and they which are too plainly against them shall be no Authorities And indeed the whole world hath been so much abused that every man thinks he hath reason to suspect whatsoever is against him that is what he pleaseth which proceeding onely produces this truth that there neither is nor can be any certainty nor very much probability in such Allegations 6. But there is a worse mischief then this besides those very many which are not yet discovered which like the pestilence destroys in the dark and grows into inconvenience more insensibly and more irremediably and that is corruption of particular places by inserting words and altering them to contrary senses a thing which the Fathers of the sixth General Synod complain'd of concerning the Constitutions of Saint Clement quibus jam olim ab iis qui à fide aliena sentiunt adulterina quaedam etiam à pietate aliena introducta sunt quae divinorum nobis Decretorum elegantem venustam speciem obscurârunt And so also have his Recognitions so have his Epistles been used if at least they were his at all particularly the fifth Decretall Epistle that goes under the name of Saint Clement in which community of Wives is taught upon the Authority of Saint Luke saying the first Christians had all things common if all things then Wives also says the Epistle a forgery like to have been done by some Nicolaitan or other impure person There is an Epistle of Cyril extant to Successus Bishop of Diocaesarea in which he relates
God but others that can judge at all must either chuse their Guides who shall judge for them and then they oftentimes doe the wisest and always save themselves a labour but then they chuse too or if they be persons of greater understanding then they are to chuse for themselves in particular what the others doe in general and by chusing their Guide and for this any man may be better trusted for himself then any man can be for another For in this case his own interest is most concerned and ability is not so necessary as honesty which certainly every man will best preserve in his own case and to himself and if he does not it is he that must smart for 't and it is not required of us not to be in errour but that we endeavour to avoid it 2. He that follows his Guide so far as his Reason goes along with him or which is all one he that follows his own Reason not guided onely by natural arguments but by Divine revelation and all other good means hath great advantages over him that gives himself wholly to follow any humane Guide whatsoever because he follows all their reasons and his own too he follows them till Reason leaves them or till it seems so to him which is all one to his particular for by the confession of all sides an erroneous Conscience binds him when a right Guide does not bind him But he that gives himself up wholly to a Guide is oftentimes I mean if he be a discerning person forced to doe violence to his own understanding and to lose all the benefit of his own discretion that he may reconcile his Reason to his Guide And of this we see infinite inconveniences in the Church of Rome for we find persons of great understanding oftentimes so amused with the Authority of their Church that it is pity to see them sweat in answering some objections which they know not how to doe but yet believe they must because the Church hath said it So that if they reade study pray search records and use all the means of art and industry in the pursuit of truth it is not with a resolution to follow that which shall seem truth to them but to confirm what before they did believe and if any Argument shall seem unanswerable against any Article of their Church they are to take it for a temptation not for an illumination and they are to use it accordingly which makes them make the Devil to be the Author of that which God's Spirit hath assisted them to find in the use of lawful means and the search of truth And when the Devil of falshood is like to be cast out by God's Spirit they say that it is through Beelzebub which was one of the worst things that ever the Pharisees said or did And was it not a plain stifling of the just and reasonable demands made by the Emperour by the Kings of France and Spain and by the ablest Divines among them which was used in the Council of Trent when they demanded the restitution of Priests to their liberty of Marriage the use of the Chalice the service in the Vulgar tongue and these things not onely in pursuance of Truth but for other great and good ends even to take away an infinite scandal and a great Schism And yet when they themselves did profess it and all the world knew these reasonable demands were denied merely upon a politick consideration yet that these things should be framed into Articles and Decrees of Faith and they for ever after bound not onely not to desire the same things but to think the contrary to be Divine truths never was Reason made more a slave or more useless Must not all the world say either they must be great hypocrites or doe great violence to their understanding when they not onely cease from their claim but must also believe it to be unjust If the use of their Reason had not been restrained by the tyranny and imperiousness of their Guide what the Emperour and the Kings and their Theologues would have done they can best judge who consider the reasonableness of the demand and the unreasonableness of the deniall But we see many wise men who with their Optandum esset ut Ecclesia licentiam daret c. proclaim to all the world that in some things they consent and do not consent and do not heartily believe what they are bound publickly to profess and they themselves would clearly see a difference if a contrary Decree should be framed by the Church they would with an infinite greater confidence rest themselves in other propositions then what they must believe as the case now stands and they would find that the Authority of a Church is a prejudice as often as a free and modest use of Reason is a temptation 3. God will have no man pressed with another's inconveniences in matters spiritual and intellectual no man's Salvation to depend upon another and every tooth that eats sour grapes shall be set on edge for itself and for none else and this is remarkable in that saying of God by the Prophet If the Prophet ceases to tell my people of their sins and leads them into errour the people shall die in their sins and the bloud of them I will require at the hands of that Prophet meaning that God hath so set the Prophets to guide us that we also are to follow them by a voluntary assent by an act of choice and election For although accidentally and occasionally the sheep may perish by the shepherd's fault yet that which hath the chiefest influence upon their final condition is their own act and election and therefore God hath so appointed Guides to us that if we perish it may be accounted upon both our scores upon our own and the Guides too which says plainly that although we are intrusted to our Guides yet we are intrusted to ourselves too Our Guides must direct us and yet if they fail God hath not so left us to them but he hath given us enough to ourselves to discover their failings and our own duties in all things necessary And for other things we must doe as well as we can But it is best to follow our Guides if we know nothing better but if we do it is better to follow the pillar of fire then a pillar of cloud though both possibly may lead to Canaan But then also it is possible that it may be otherwise But I am sure if I doe my own best then if it be best to follow a Guide and if it be also necessary I shall be sure by God's grace and my own endeavour to get to it But if I without the particular ingagement of my own understanding follow a Guide possibly I may be guilty of extreme negligence or I may extinguish God's Spirit or doe violence to my own Reason And whether intrusting myself wholly with another be not a laying up my talent in
first Council of Arles decreed concerning the Arrians that if they had been Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they should not be re-baptized Manus tantùm eis imponatur ut accipiant Spiritum Sanctum that is Let them be Confirm'd let there be Imposition of hands that they may receive the Holy Ghost The same is decreed by the second Council of Arles in the case of the Bonasiact But I also find it in a greater record in the General Council of Constantinople where Hereticks are commanded upon their Conversion to be received secundùm constitutum Officium there was an Office appointed for it and it is in the Greeks Euchologion sigillatos primò scil Vnctos Vnguento Chrismatis c. signantes eos dicimus Sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti It is the form of Confirmation used to this day in the Greek Church So many Fathers testifying the practice of the Church and teaching this Doctrine and so many more Fathers as were assembled in six Councils all giving witness to this holy Rite and that in pursuance also of Scripture are too great a Cloud of Witnesses to be despised by any man that calls himself a Christian. SECT IV. The BISHOPS were always and the only Ministers of Confirmation SAint Chrysostom asking the reason why the Samaritans who were Baptized by Philip could not from him and by his Ministery receive the Holy Ghost answers Perhaps this was done for the honour of the Apostles to distinguish the supereminent dignity which they bore in the Church from all inferior Ministrations but this answer not satisfying he adds Hoc donum non habebat erat enim ex Septem illis id quod magìs videtur dicendum Vnde meâ sententiâ hic Philippus unus ex septem erat secundus à Stephano ideo Baptizans Spiritum Sanctum non dabat neque enim facultatem habebat hoc enim donum solorum Apostolorum erat This Gift they had not who Baptized the Samaritans which thing is rather to be said than the other for Philip was one of the Seven and in my opinion next to S. Stephen therefore though he Baptized yet he gave not the Holy Ghost for he had no power so to do for this Gift was proper only to the Apostles Nam virtutem quidem acceperant Diaconi faciendi Signa non autem dandi aliis Spiritum Sanctum igitur hoc erat in Apostolis singulare unde praecipuos non alios videmus hoc facere The Ministers that Baptized had a power of doing Signs and working Miracles but not of giving the Holy Spirit therefore this Gift was peculiar to the Apostles whence it comes to pass that we see the chiefs in the Church and no other to do this S. Dionys says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is need of a Bishop to Confirm the Baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this was the ancient custom of the Church And this was wont to be done by the Bishops for conservation of Unity in the Church of Christ said S. Ambrose A solis Episcopis By Bishops only said S. Austin For the Bishops succeeded in the place and ordinary Office of the Apostles said S. Hierom. And therefore in his Dialogue against the Luciferians it is said That this observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend that the Bishops only might by Imposition of Hands confer the Holy Ghost that it comes from Scripture that it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that it is done for the prevention of Schisms that the safety of the Church depends upon it But the words of P. Innocentius I. in his first Epistle and third Chapter and published in the first Tome of the Councils are very full to this particular De consignandis Infantibus manifestum est non ab alio quà m ab Episcopo fieri licere nam Presbyteri licèt sâ—nt Sacerdotes Pontificatûs tamen apicem non habent haec autem Pontificibus solis deberi ut vel consignent vel paracletum Spiritum tradant non solùm consuetudo Ecclesiastica demonstrat verùm illa lectio Actuum Apostolorum quae asserit Petrum Joannem esse directos qui jam Baptizatis traderent Spiritum Sanctum Concerning Confirmation of Infants it is manifest it is not Lawful to be done by any other than by the Bishop for although the Presbyters be Priests yet they have not the Summity of Episcopacy But that these things are only due to Bishops is â—ot only demonstrated by the custom of the Church but by that of the Acts of the Apostles where Peter and John were sent to minister the Holy Ghost to them that were Baptized Optatus proves Macarius to be no Bishop because he was not conversant in the Episcopal Office and Imposed hands on none that were Baptized Hoc unum à majoribus fit id est à summis Pontificibus quod à minoribus perfici non potest said P. Melchiades This of Confirmation is only done by the greater Ministers that is by the Bishops and cannot be done by the lesser This was the constant Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Church and derived from the practice and tradition of the Apostles and recorded in their Acts written by S. Luke For this is our great Rule in this case what they did in Rituals and consigned to Posterity is our Example and our warranty we see it done thus and by these men and by no others and no otherwise and we have no other authority and we have no reason to go another way The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luke the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Chrysostom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philo and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Governour in Ecclesiasticals his Office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach such things as are not set down in Books their Practice is a Sermon their Example in these things must be our Rule or else we must walk irregularly and have no Rule but Chance and Humour Empire and Usurpation and therefore much rather when it is recorded in Holy Writ must this Observation be esteemed Sacred and inviolable But how if a Bishop be not to be had or not ready S. Ambrose is pretended to have answered Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus A Presbyter may consign if the Bishop be not present and Amalarius affirms Sylvestrum Papam praevidentem quantum periculosum iter arriperet qui sine Confirmatione maneret quantum potuit subvenisse propter absentiam Episcoporum necessitate addidisse ut à Presbytero Vngerentur That Pope Sylvester fore-seeing how dangerous a Journey he takes who abides without Confirmation brought remedy as far as he could and commanded that in the absence of Bishops they should be anointed by the Priest and therefore it is by some supposed that factum valet sieri non debuit The thing ought
this state which he describes is the state of a carnal man under the corruption of his nature upon whom the law had done some change but had not cured him 3. That from this state of evil we are redeemed by the Spirit of Christ by the Grace of the Gospel and now a Child of God cannot complain this complaint 25. I. That he puts on the person of another by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or translation as was usual with S. Paul in very many places of his Epistles is evident by his affirming that of the man whom he here describes which of himself were not true I was alive without the law once Of S. Paul's own person this was not true for he was bred and born under the law circumcised the eighth day an Hebrew of the Hebrews as touching the law a Pharisee he never was alive without the law But the Israelites were whom he therefore represents indefinitely under a single person the whole Nation before and under the law I was alive once without the law but when the Commandment came that is when the law was given sin revived and I died that is by occasion of the law sin grew stronger and prevailed 2. But concerning the Christian and his present condition he expresly makes it separate from that of being under the law and consequently under sin But now we are delivered from the law that being dead wherein we were held that we should serve in newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter We are delivered It is plain that some sort of men are freed from that sad condition of things of which he there complains and if any be it must be the regenerate And so it is For the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is to represent and prove that salvation is not to be had by the law but by Jesus Christ and that by that discipline men cannot be contain'd in their duty and therefore that it was necessary to forsake the law and to come to Christ. To this purpose he brings in a person complaining that under the discipline of the law he was still under the power of sin Now if this had been also true of a regenerate person of a Christian renewed by the Spirit of grace then it had been no advantage to have gone from the Law to Christ as to this argument for still the Christian would be under the same slavery which to be the condition of one under the law S. Paul was to urge as an argument to call them from Moses to Christ. 26. II. That this state which he now describes is the state of a carnal man under the corruption of his nature appears by his saying that sin had wrought in him all manner of concupiscence that sin revived and he died that the motions of sin which were by the law did work in the members to bring forth fruit unto death and that this was when we were in the flesh that he is carnal sold under sin that he is carried into captivity to the law of sin that sin dwells in him and is like another person doing or constraining him to do things against his mind that it is a State and a Government a Law and a Tyranny For that which I do I allow not plainly saying that this doing what we would not that is doing against our conscience upon the strength of passion and in obedience to the law of sin was the state of them who indeed were under the law but the effect of carnality and the viciousness of their natural and ungracious condition Here then is the description of a natural and carnal man He sins frequently he sins against his conscience he is carnal and sold under sin sin dwells in him and gives him laws he is a slave to sin and led into captivity Now if this could be the complaint of a regenerate man from what did Christ come to redeem us how did he take away our sins did he only take off the punishment and still leave us to wallow in the impurities and baser pleasures perpetually to rail upon our sins and yet perpetually to do them How did he come to bless us in turning every one of us from our iniquity How and in what sence could it be true which the Apostle affirms He did bear our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead unto sin should live unto righteousness But this proposition I suppose my self to have sufficiently proved in the reproof of the first exposition of these words in question only I shall in present add the concurrent testimony of some Doctors of the Primitive Church Tertullian hath these words Nam etsi habitare bonum in carne suâ negavit sed secundum legem literae in quâ fuit secundum autem legem Spiritus cui nos annectit liberat ab infirmitate carnis Lex enim inquit Spiritus vitae manumisit te à lege delinquentiae mortis Licet enim ex parte ex Judaismo disputare videatur sed in nos dirigit integritatem plenitudinem disciplinarum propter quos laborantes in lege per carnem miserit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis delinquentiae propter delinquentiam damnaverit delinquentiam in carne Plainly he expounds this Chapter to be meant of a man under the law according to the law of the letter under which himself had been he denied any good to dwell in his flesh but according to the law of the Spirit under which we are plac'd he frees us from the infirmity of the flesh for he saith the law of the Spirit of life hath freed us from the law of sin and death Origen affirms that when S. Paul says I am carnal sold under sin Tanquam Doctor Ecclesiae personam in semetipsum suscipit infirmorum he takes upon him the person of the infirm that is of the carnal and says those words which themselves by way of excuse or apology use to speak But yet says he this person which S. Paul puts on although Christ does not dwell in him neither is his body the Temple of the holy Ghost yet he is not wholly a stranger from good but by his will and by his purpose he begins to look after good things But he cannot yet obtain to do them For there is such an infirmity in those who begin to be converted that is whose mind is convinc'd but their affections are not master'd that when they would presently do all good yet an effect did not follow their desires S. Chrysostom hath a large Commentary upon this Chapter and his sence is perfectly the same Propterea subnexuit dicens Ego verò carnalis sum hominem describens sub lege ante legem degentem S. Paul describes not himself but a man living under and before the law and of such a one he says but I am carnal Who please to see more
authorities to the same purpose may find them in S. Basil Theodoret S. Cyril Macarius S. Ambrose S. Hierom and Theophylact The words of the Apostle the very purpose and design the whole Oeconomy and Analogy of the sixth seventh and eighth Chapters do so plainly manifest it that the heaping up more testimonies cannot be useful in so clear a case The results are these I. The state of men under the law was but a state of carnality and of nature better instructed and soundly threatned and set forward in some instances by the spirit of fear only but not cured but in many men made much worse accidentally II. That to be pleased in the inner man that is in the Conscience to be convinc'd and to consent to the excellency of vertue and yet by the flesh that is by the passions of the lower man or the members of the body to serve sin is the state of Unregeneration III. To do the evil that I would not and to omit the good that I fain would do when it is in my hand to do what is in my heart to think is the property of a carnal unregenerate man And this is the state of men in nature and was the state of men under the law For to be under the law and not to be led by the Spirit are all one in S. Paul's account For if ye be led by the Spirit ye are not under the law saith he And therefore to be under the law being a state of not being under the Spirit must be under the government of the flesh that is they were not then sanctified by the Spirit of grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ they were not yet redeemed from their vain conversation Not that this was the state of all the sons of Israel of them that liv'd before the law or after but that the law could do no more for them or upon them Gods Spirit did in many of them work his own works but this was by the grace of Jesus Christ who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world this was not by the works of the law but by the same instruments and grace by which Abraham and all they who are his children by promise were justified But this is the consequent of the third proposition which I was to consider 27. III. From this state of evil we are redeemed by Christ and by the Spirit of his grace Wretched man that I am quis liberabit who shall deliver me from the body of this death He answers I thank God through Jesus Christ so S. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact S. Hierom the Greek Scholiast and the ordinary Greek copies do commonly read the words in which words there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they are thus to be supplied I thank God through Jesus Christ we are delivered or there is a remedy found out for us But Irenaeus Origen S. Ambrose S. Austin and S. Hierom himself at another time and the Vulgar Latin Bibles instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gratia Domini Jesu Christi the grace of God through Jesus Christ. That is our remedy he is our deliverer from him comes our redemption For he not only gave us a better law but also the Spirit of grace he hath pardon'd all our old sins and by his Spirit enables us for the future that we may obey him in all sincerity in heartiness of endeavour and real events From hence I draw this argument That state from which we are redeemed by Jesus Christ and freed by the Spirit of his grace is a state of carnality of unregeneration that is of sin and death But by Jesus Christ we are redeemed from that state in which we were in subjection to sin commanded by the law of sin and obeyed it against our reason and against our conscience therefore this state which is indeed the state S. Paul here describes is the state of carnality and unregeneration and therefore not competent to the servants of Christ to the elect people of God to them who are redeemed and sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. The parts of this argument are the words of S. Paul and proved in the foregoing periods From hence I shall descend to something that is more immediately practical and cloth'd with circumstances SECT V. How far an Vnregenerate man may go in the ways of Piety and Religion 28. TO this inquiry it is necessary that this be premised That between the regenerate and a wicked person there is a middle state so that it is not presently true that if the man be not wicked he is presently Regenerate Between the two states of so vast a distance it is impossible but there should be many intermedial degrees between the Carnal and Spiritual man there is a Moral man not that this man shall have a different event of things if he does abide there but that he must pass from extreme to extreme by this middle state of participation The first is a slave of sin the second is a servant of righteousness the third is such a one as liveth according to Natural reason so much of it as is left him and is not abused that is lives a probable life but is not renewed by the Spirit of grace one that does something but not all not enough for the obtaining salvation For a man may have gone many steps from his former baseness and degenerous practices and yet not arrive at godliness or the state of pardon like the children of Israel who were not presently in Canaan as soon as they were out of Egypt but abode long in the wilderness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they begin to be instructed that is their state Thou art not far from the Kingdom of Heaven said our blessed Saviour to a well disposed person but he was not arrived thither he was not a subject of the Kingdom These are such whom our blessed Lord calls The weary and the heavy laden that is such who groan under the heavy pressure of their sins whom therefore he invites to come to him to be eased Such are those whom S. Paul here describes to be under the law convinced of sin pressed vexed troubled with it complaining of it desirous to be eased These the holy Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained disposed to life eternal but these were not yet the fideles or believers but from that fair disposition became believers upon the preaching of the Apostles 29. In this third state of men I account those that sin and repent and yet repent and sin again for ever troubled when they have sinn'd and yet for ever or most frequently sinning when the temptation does return 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They sin and accuse and hate themselves for sinning Now because these men mean well and fain would be quit of their sin at their own rate and are not scandalous and impious they flatter