hath in an instant infus'd into us to have done the acts of that grace frequently For it is certain by experience that the frequent doing the actions of any grace increases the grace and yet the grace or aids of Gods Spirit are as necessary for the growth as for the beginnings of grace We cannot either will or do without his help he worketh both in us that is we by his help alone are enabled to do things above our nature But then we are the persons enabled and therefore we do these works as we do others not by the same powers but in the same manner 54. When God raises a Cripple from his couch and gives him strength to move though the aid be supernatural yet the motion is after the manner of nature And it is evident in the matter of faith which though it be the gift of God yet it is seated in the Understanding which operates by way of discourse and not by intuition The believer understands as a Man not as an Angel And when Christ by miracle restor'd a blind eye still that eye did see by reception or else by emission of species just so as eyes that did see naturally So it is in habits For it is a contradiction to say that a perfect habit is infus'd in an instant For if a habit were infus'd it must be infus'd as a habit is acquir'd for else it is not a habit As if a motion should be infus'd it must still be successive as well as if it were natural 55. But this device of infus'd habits is a fancy without ground and without sence without authority or any just grounds of confidence and it hath in it very bad effects For it destroys all necessity of our care and labour in the ways of godliness all cautions of a holy life it is apt to minister pretences and excuses for a perpetually wicked life till the last of our days making men to trust to a late Repentance it puts men upon vain confidences and makes them relie for salvation upon dreams and empty notions it destroys all the duty of man and cuts off all entercourse of obedience and reward But it is sufficient that there is no ground for it in Scripture nor in Antiquity nor in right Reason but it is infinitely destructive of all that wise conduct of Souls by which God would glorifie himself by the means of a free obedience and it is infinitely confuted by all those Scriptures which require our cooperation with the assistance of Gods holy Spirit For all the helps that the Spirit of Grace ministers to us is far from doing our work for us that it only enables us to do it for our selves and makes it reasonable that God should therefore exact it of us because we have no excuse and cannot plead disability To which purpose that discourse of S. Paul is highly convincing and demonstrative Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to our desire so it is better read that is fear not at all but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughly do your duty for according as you desire and pray God will be present to you with his grace to bear you through all your labours and temptations And therefore our conversion and the working our salvation is sometimes ascribed to God sometimes to men to God as the prime and indeficient cause to man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the fellow-worker with God it is the expression of S. Paul The Scripture mentions no other effect of Gods grace but such as I have now described But that Grace should do all our work alone and in an instant that which costs the Saints so much labour and fierce contentions so much sorrow and trouble so many prayers and tears so much watchfulness and caution so much fear and trembling so much patience and long-suffering so much toleration and contradiction and all this under the conduct of the Spirit in the midst of all the greatest helps of grace and the inhabitation of the holy Spirit of God that all this labour and danger should be spar'd to a vile person who hath griev'd and extinguish'd Gods holy Spirit and a way contriv'd for him that he should enjoy the pleasures of this world and the glories of the next is such a device as if it had any ground or colourable pretence for it would without the miracles of another grace destroy all piety from the face of the earth And in earnest it seems to me a strange thing that the Doctors of the Church of Rome should be so loose and remiss in this Article when they are so fierce in another that takes from such persons all manner of excuse It is I say very strange that it should be so possible and yet withal so unnecessary to keep the Commandments 56. Obj. 2. But if a single act of contrition cannot procure pardon of sins that are habitual then a wicked man that returns not till it be too late to root out vicious habits must despair of salvation I answer That such a man should do well to ask his Physician whether it be possible for him to escape that sickness If his Physician say it is then the man need not despair for if he return to life and health it will not be too late for him by the grace of God to recover in his soul. But if his Physician say he cannot recover first let the Physician be reproved for making his patient to despair I am sure he hath less reason to say he cannot live than there is to say such a person hath no promise that he shall be saved without performing the condition But the Physician if he be a wise man will say So far as he understands by the rules of his art this man cannot recover but some secret causes of things there are or may be by which the event may be better than the most reasonable predictions of his art The same answer I desire may be taken in the Question of his soul. Concerning which the Curate is to preach the rules and measures of God but not to give a resolution concerning the secret and final sentence 2. The case of the five foolish Virgins if we may construe it as it is expressed gives a sad account to such persons and unless that part of the Parable be insignificant which expresses their sorrow their diligence their desire their begging of oyle their going out to buy oyle before the Bridegroom came but after it was noised that he was coming and the insufficiency of all this we may too certainly conclude that much more than a single act of contrition and a moral revocation that is a sorrow and a nolition of the past sins may be done upon our death-bed without effect without a being accepted to pardon and salvation 3. When things are come
material But I fear it will not often For how can a man be sorrowful for not being sorrowful For either he hath reason at first to be sorrowful or he hath not If he hath not why should he be sorrowful for not doing an unreasonable act If he hath reason and knows it it is certain he will be as sorrowful as that cause so apprehended can effect but he can be no more and so much he cannot chuse but be But if there be cause to be sorrowful and the man knows it not then he cannot yet grieve for that for he knows no cause and that is all one as if he had none But if there be indeed a cause which he hath not considered then let him be called upon to consider that and then he will be directly and truly sorrowful when he hath considered it and hath reason to be sorrowful because he had not considered it before that is because he had not repented sooner but to be sorrowful because he is not sorrowful can have no other good meaning but this We are to endeavour to be displeased at sin and to use all the means we can to hate it that is when we find not any sensitive sorrow or pungency of spirit let us contend to make our intellectual sorrow as great as we can And if we perceive or suspect we have not true repentance let us beg of God to give it and let us use the proper means of obtaining the grace and if we are uncertain concerning the actions of our own heart let us supply them by prayer and holy desires that if we cannot perceive the grace in the proper shape and by its own symptoms and indications we may be made in some measure humbly confident by other images and reflexions by seeing the grace in another shape so David Concupivi desiderare justificationes tuas I have desired to desire thy justifications that is either I have prayed for that grace or I have seen that I have that desire not by a direct observation but by some other signification But it is certain no man can be sorrowful for not being sorrowful if he means the same kind and manner of sorrow as there cannot be two where there is not one and there cannot be a reflex ray where there was not a direct 23. But if there be such difficulty in the questions of our own sorrow it were very well that even this part of repentance should be conducted as all the other ought by the ministery of a spiritual man that it may be better instructed and prudently managed and better discerned and led on to its proper effects But when it is so help'd forward it is more than Contrition it is Confession also of which I am yet to give in special accounts SECT III. Of the Natures and Difference of Attrition and Contrition 24. ALL the passions of the irascible faculty are that sorrow in some sence or other which will produce repentance Repentance cannot kill sin but by withdrawing the will from it and the will is not to be withdrawn but by complying with the contrary affection to that which before did accompany it in evil Now whatever that affection was pleasure was the product it was that which nurs'd or begot the sin Now as this pleasure might proceed from hope from possession from sense from fancy from desire and all the passions of the concupiscible appetite so whe◠there is a displeasure conceived it will help to destroy sin from what passion soever of what faculty soever that displeasure can be produced 25. If the displeasure at sin proceeds from any passion of the irascible faculty it is that which those Divines who understand the meaning of their own words of art commonly call Attrition that is A resolving against sin the resolution proceeding from any principle that is troublesome and dolorous and in what degree of good that is appears in the stating of this Question it is acceptable to God not an acceptable repentance for it is not so much but it is a good beginning of it an acceptable introduction to it and must in its very nature suppose a sorrow or displeasure in which although according to the quality of the motives of attrition or the disposition of the penitent there is more or less sensitive trouble respectively yet in all there must be so much sorrow or displeasure as to cause a dereliction of the sin or a resolution at least to leave it 26. But there are some natures so ingenuous and there are some periods of repentance so perfect and some penitents have so far proceeded in the methods of holiness and pardon that they are fallen out with sin upon the stock of some principles proceeding from the concupiscible appetite such are Love and Hope and if these have for their object God or the Divine promises it is that noblest principle of repentance or holy life which Divines call Contrition For hope cannot be without love of that which is hoped for if therefore this hope have for its object temporal purchases it is o◠may be a sufficient cause of leaving sin according as the power and efficacy of the hope shall be but it will not be sufficient towards pardon unless in its progression it joyn with some better principle of a spiritual grace Temporal Hope and temporal Fear may begin Gods work upon our spirits but till it be gone farther we are not in the first step of an actual state of grace But as attrition proceeds from the motives of those displeasing objects which are threatned by God to be the evil consequents of sin relating to eternity so Contrition proceeds from objects and motives of desire which are promises and benefits received already or to be received hereafter But these must also be more than temporal good things for hopes and fear relating to things though promised or threatned in holy Scripture are not sufficient incentives of a holy and acceptable repentance which because it is not a transient act but a state of holiness cannot be supported by a transitory and deficient cause but must wholly rely upon expectation and love of things that are eternal and cannot pass away Attrition begins with fear Contrition hath hope and love in it The first is a good beginning but it is no more before a man can say he is pardoned he must be gone beyond the first and arrived at this The reason is plain because although in the beginnings of Repentance there is a great fear yet the causes of this fear wear away and lessen according as the repentance goes on and are quite extinguished when the penitent hath mortified his sin and hath received the spirit of adoption the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the confidence of the sons of God but because repentance must be perfect and must be perpetual during this life it must also be maintained and supported by something that is lasting and will not wear off and that is hope
For there is not only a not repenting a not rescinding of the past act by a contrary nolition but there is a continuance in it and a repetition of the same cause of death as if a man should marry death the same death so many times over it is an approving of our shame a taking it upon us an owning and a securing our destruction and before a man can arrive thither he must have broken all the instruments of his restitution in pieces and for his recovery nothing is left unless a Palladium fall from Heaven the man cannot live again unless God shall do more for him than he did for Lazarus when he raised him from the dead SECT IV. Sinful habits do require a distinct manner of Repentance and have no promise to be pardon'd but by the introduction of the contrary 32. THIS is the most material and practical difficulty of the Question for upon this depends the most mysterious article of Repentance and the interest of dying penitents For if a habit is not to be pardoned without the extirpation of that which is vicious and the superinducing its contrary this being a work of time requires a particular grace of God and much industry caution watchfulness frequent prayers many advices and consultations constancy severe application and is of so great difficulty and such slow progression that all men who have had experience of this imployment and have heartily gone about to cure a vicious habit know it is not a thing to be done upon our death-bed That therefore which I intend to prove I express in this Proposition A vicious habit is not to be pardon'd without the introduction of the contrary either in kind or in perfect affection and in all those instances in which the man hath opportunities to work 33. The Church of Rome whose Chairs and Pulpits are dangerous guides in the article of Repentance affirms that any sin or any habit of sin may be pardon'd by any single act of contrition the continued sin of forty years may be wash'd off in less than forty minutes nay by an act of attrition with the Priestly absolution which proposition if it be false does destroy the interest of souls and it cannot be true because it destroys the interest of piety and the necessities of a good life The reproof of this depends upon many propositions of which I shall give as plain accounts as the thing will bear 34. I. Every habit of vice may be expelled by a habit of vertue naturally as injustice by justice gluttony by temperance lust by chastity but by these it is not meritoriously remitted and forgiven because nothing in nature can remit sins or be the immediate natural disposition to pardon All this is the gift of God a grace obtain'd by our holy Redeemer the price of his bloud but in this the case is all one as it is in the greatest innocence of the best of men which if it be not allowed by incorporation into Christ and sanctified by faith wants its proper title to Heaven and so it is with Repentance For nature cannot teach us this lesson much less make it acceptable For it depending wholly upon Gods graciousness and free forgiveness can be taught only by him by whom it is effectual and this is conveyed to us by our blessed Lord according to that saying Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 35. II. Although a habit cannot be the meritorious cause of pardoning the contrary habit yet to him that hath contracted a vicious habit it is necessary in order to his pardon that he root out that habit and obtain the contrary in some degrees of prevalency so that the scales be turned on that side where is the interest of vertue and this depends upon the evidence of the former proposition If to be an habitual sinner be more than to be guilty of those actual sins by which the habit was contracted then as it is necessary to rescind the act of sin by an act of contrition and repentance so also it is as necessary that the habit be retracted by a habit that every wound may have its balsam and every broken bone be bound up and redintegrate 36. III. But in the case of habitual sins the argument is more pressing For if the act which is past and remains not yet must be reversed by its contrary much rather must that be taken off which does remain which actually tempts us by which we are in a state exactly contrary to the state of grace For some seldom acts of sin and in trifling instances may stand with the state of holiness and be incident to a good man but no vicious habit can neither in a small matter nor in a great this is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a destroyer and therefore as it hath a particular obliquity so it must have a special repentance a repentance proper to it that is as an act rescinds an act so must a habit be oppos'd to a habit a single act of contrition to a single sin and therefore it must be more no less than a lasting and an habitual contrition to obtain pardon for the habit And although a habit can meritoriously remit a habit no more than an act can do an act they being both equal as to that particular yet they are also dispositions equally at least on this hand necessary for the obtaining pardon of their respective contraries 37. IV. It is confessed on all sides that every single sin which we remember must be repented of by an act of repentance that must particularly touch that sin if we distinctly remember it it must distinctly be revok'd by a nolition a sorrow and moral revocation of it Since therefore every habit is contracted by many single actions every one of which if they were sinful must some way or other be rescinded by its contrary the rescission of those will also introduce a contrary habit and so the question will be evinc'd upon that account For if we shall think one act of sorrow can abolish many foul acts of sin we but deceive our selves we must have many for one as I have already made to appear a multitude of sighs and prayers against every foul action that we remember and then the consequent is plain that upon this reckoning when a habit is contracted the actions which were its principle cannot be rescinded but by such Repentances which will extinguish not only the formality but the material and natural effect of that cursed production at least in very many degrees 38. V. A habit oppos'd to a habit hath greater effect than an act oppos'd to an act and therefore is not only equally requisite but the more proper remedy and instance of repentance For an act of it self cannot naturally extinguish the guilt nor meritoriously obtain its pardon but neither can it destroy its natural being which was not permanent and therefore not to be wrought upon by an after act But to oppose a habit to a
provoca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synesius To be provoked to a Duel to be challenged And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom Ad precandum vos provoco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Thou makest me or compellest me to shed tears Suaviter omnia That 's the way S. Paul takes Meekly but yet so as to do his office to keep all in their several duties and that is by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command these things for so he summes up the Bishops duty towards Presbyters Neophytes and Widows Give all these things in charge Command all to do their duty Command but not objurgate Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage For indeed it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy how he should exercise his Jurisdiction over Presbyters and people if he had had no Jurisdiction and coercive authority at all Nay and howsoever Saint Paul forbids Timothy to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it intimating upon great occasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be but an urging or an exhortation is not all for S. Paul gives him coercive jurisdiction as well as directive Over Widows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reject the younger widows viz. à collegio viduarum ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae Over Presbyters for he commands him to have sufficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters of which if he was not to take cognizance it was to no purpose to number witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Receive not a publick accusation foro externo against a Priest Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum c. to wit in causes criminal That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power to take cognizance in causes criminal then for his punishing in such cases it follows in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reprehend them publickly that is disgrace them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indecorus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul is to call them to publick account that 's one part of the jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to examine Plato Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give an account of ones life Idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iliad But the words in S. Paul will clear the business Let them that sin be publickly shamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the rest may fear A punishment most certainly something that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malum in genere poenae What else should they fear to sin Most true But why upon this reprehension if not for fear of being punished Add to all this that here is in this Chapter the plain giving of a jurisdiction an erection of a Judicatory and is all the way direction for his proceeding in cases criminal appears most evidently v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels that thou observe these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without prejudging the cause of any man before it comes in open contestation under publick test of witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing nothing for favour or partiality Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory than these mandates of S. Paul Lastly to make up his Episcopal function compleat S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders Lay hands suddenly on no man Sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat custodiri Nè facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem peccat enim si non probat sic ordinet Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est Haec Episcopus custodiens castum se exhibebit religioni cujus rei infuturo praemium consequetur So S. Ambrose upon the place who is so far from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishops Consistory that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the Judicature and coercive Jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy Adde to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholick and unquestioned Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have been ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul Sed Lucas saith he in actibus Apostolorum plurimos ejus socios memorat sicut Timothei Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus ab eo ordinatus praeficitur S. Ambrose affirms that S. Paul having ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him to instruct him in his Episcopal Office Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolam quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare And that this Epistle was written to instruct S. Timothy for his own person and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop is the united concurrent testimony of S. Vincentius Tertullian S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose Oecumenius Epiphanius Primasius and S. Gregory As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted he uses it as an argument against the madness and stupidity of Aerius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one Docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus quis Presbyter quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus Presbyterum ne objurges c. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the general Council of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From S. Timothy until now there have been 27 Bishops ordained in Ephesus Who desires a multitude of testimonies though enough already have deposed in the cause besides the evidence of Scripture may to these add that saying of S. Chrysostom that to Timothy was committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Theodoret calling him Episcopum Asianorum the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy which if it were not writ by S. Paul yet at least will prove a Primitive record and very ancient the fragment of the Martyrdom of S. Timothy in Photius S. Hierom S. Theophylact Isidore and Nicephorus And now all is well if after all this Timothy do not prove an Evangelist for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause and though neither pertinent nor true yet shall be laid in the balance against all the evidence of Scripture and Catholick Antiquity But do the work of an Evangelist saith S. Paul therefore it is clear S. Timothy was no Bishop No was not That 's hard But let us try however 1.
same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his own Bishop that other Bishop must by no means receive him into his communion Thus far we have matter of publick right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Judge of the causes and persons of Clergy-men and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolical Canons of the General Councils of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councils of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Judge in all matters of Spiritual cognizance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Ignatius calls them Counsellors and Assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmatical resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would chuse in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspicion Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocess yet he also must assert his own priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumcliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their own place and the Gospel and their Bishop set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might do nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affair of their own heads Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself by his own authority alone suspends them till his return and so shews that his authority was independent theirs was not and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his own authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have asked the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholick custom ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi and they seldom were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters do in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra Episcopo servent Let them keep your petitions for the Bishop to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chair and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop he complained to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae Authoritate haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa eum Potestate Honoris tui ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. John Chrysostom says That in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furio sum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergie that he was hated by them which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excess of power and authority is the subject matter of rigour and austerity But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio Nunquam poteris ô Episcope hos corrigere nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos Thou canst not amend the Clergie unless thou strikest them all with thy pastoral rod. S. John Chrysostom did not indeed do so but non multum pòst temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergie-men for divers causes and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him * But here we see that the power of censures was
after absolution they never impos'd or oblig'd to punishment unless it were to sick persons of whose recovery they despaired not of them indeed in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments they expected they should perform what was injoyn'd them formerly But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul and a foul stain to his reputation we demand In what does this stain consist in the guilt or in the punishment If it be said that it consists in the punishment then what does the guilt signifie when the removing of it does neither remove the stain nor the punishment which both remain and abide together But if the stain and the guilt be all one or alwayes together then when the guilt is taken away there can no stain remain and if so what need is there any more of Purgatory For since this is pretended to be necessary only lest any stain'd or unclean thing should enter into Heaven if the guilt and the pain be removed what uncleanness can there be left behind Indeed Simon Magus as Epiphanius reports Haeres 20. did teach That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purgation of souls But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authentick Doctor themselves can best tell 3. It relies upon this also That God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfactions which must regularly be paid here or hereafter even by them who are pardon'd here which if it were true we were all undone 4. That the death of Christ his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye nor as it may happen of a long time after All which being Propositions new and uncertain invented by the School Divines and brought ex post facto to dress this Opinion and make it to seem reasonable and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace of the righteousness of Faith and the infinite value of Christ's Death must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self which but by these cannot be supported But to put it past suspicion and conjectures Roffensis and Polydor Virgil affirm That who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall find that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it But for the Catholick Church it was but lately known to her But before we say any more in this Question we are to premonish That there are two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity The first is That the Ancient Churches in their Offices and the Fathers in their Writings did teach and practise respectively prayer for the dead Now because the Church of Rome does so too and more than so relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory and for the souls there detaind her Doctors vainly suppose that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead that they conclude for Purgatory which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable For it is true the Fathers did pray for the dead but how That God would shew them mercy and hasten the Resurrection and give a blessed Sentence in the great day But then it is also to be remembred that they made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory even for the Patriarchs and Prophets for the Apostles and Evangelists for Martyrs and Confessors and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary So we find it in Epiphanius Saint Cyril and in the Canon of the Greeks and so it is acknowledged by their own Durandus and in their Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of Saint Leo Of which because by their latter Doctrines they grew asham'd they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God by the intercession of Saint Leo in behalf of themselves so by their new doctrine making him an Intercessor for us who by their old Doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him of which Pope Innocent being askâ—d a reason makes a most pitiful excuse Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed and indeed generally for all it is not now seasonable to discourse but to say this only that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England never did condemn by any express Article but left it in the middle and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead and her interest in the communion of Saints and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church parts and members of the Body of Christ but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead infers the belief of Purgatory every man may satisfie himself by seeing the Writings of the Fathers where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause for praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place Which thing is so certain that in the very Roman Offices we mean the Vigils said for the dead which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture speaking of the miseries of this World Repentance and Reconciliation with God the bliss after this life of them that die in Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead and in the Anthems Versicles and Responses there are Prayers made recommending to God the Soul of the newly defunct praying he may be freed from Hell and eternal death that in the day of Judgment he be not judged and condemned according to his sins but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection but not one word of Purgatory or its pains The other cause of their mistake is That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Judgment and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it and so Saint Ambrose follows him in the Opinion for it was no more so does Saint Basil Saint Hilary Saint Hierom and Lactantius as their words plainly prove as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis affirming that all men Christ only excepted shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Judgment even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory Sixtus Senensis sayes and he sayes very true that Justin Martyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius Saint Chrysostom Arethas Euthimius and Saint Bernard did all affirm that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are
Council by the Greeks and the Council was wise enough not to keep that upon publick record however if the Gentleman please to see it he may have it among the Booksellers if he will please to ask for the Apologia Graecorum de igne purgatorio published by Salmasius it was supposed to be made by Marc Archbishop but for saving the Gentleman's charge or trouble I shall tell him a few words out of that Apology which will serve his turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For these Reasons the Doctrine of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church as that which slackens the endeavours of the diligent as perswading them not to use all means of contention to be purged in this life since another purgation is expected after it And it is infinitely to be wondred at the confidence of Bellarmine for as for this Objector it matters not so much that he should in the face of all the world say that the Greek Church never doubted of Purgatory whereas he hath not brought one single true and pertinent testimony out of the Greek Fathers for the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory but is forc'd to bring in that crude Allegation of their words for prayer for the dead which is to no purpose as all wise men know Indeed he quotes the Alchoran for Purgatory an authentick Author it seems to serve such an end But besides this two memorable persons of the Greek Church Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica and Marc Archbishop of Ephesus have in behalf of the Greek Church written against the Roman Doctrine in this particular And it is remarkable that the Latines were and are so put to it to prove Purgatory fire from the Greek Fathers that they have forg'd a citation from Theodoret which is not in him at all but was first cited in Latin by Thomas Aquinas either out of his own head or cosen'd by some body else And quoted so by Bellarmine which to wise men cannot but be a very great Argument of the weakness of the Roman cause in this Question from the Greek Fathers and that Bellarmine saw it but yet was resolv'd to run through it and out-face it but Nilus taking notice of it sayes that there are no such words in Theodoret in the many Copies of his Works which they had In Greek it is certain they are not and Gagneius first translated them into Greek to make the cheat more prevalent but in that translation makes use of those words of the Wisdom of Solomon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gold in the fornace meaning it of the affliction of the Righteous in this world but unluckily he made use of that Chapter In the first verse of which Chapter it is said The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them which is a testimony more pregnant against the Roman Purgatory than all that they can bring from the Greek Fathers for it And this Gentleman confutes the Dissuasive as he thinks by telling the story according as his own Church hath set it down who as with subtle and potent Arts they forc'd the Greeks to a seeming Union so they would be sure not to tell the World in their own Records how unhandsomely they carried themselves But besides this the very answer which the Archbishop of Ephesus gave to the Latines in that Council and which words the Objector here sets down and confesses are a plain confutation of himself for the Latins standing for a Purgatory fire temporary the Archbishop of Ephesus denies it saying That the Italians confess a fire both in the present World and Purgatory by it that is before the day of Judgment and in the world to come but not Purgatory but Eternal But the Greeks hold a fire in the world to come only meaning Eternal and a temporary punishment of souls that is that they go into a dark place and of grief but that they are purged that is delivered from the dark place by Priests Prayers and Sacrifices and by Alms but not by fire Then they fell on disputing about Purgatory fire to which the Greeks delay'd to answer And afterwards being pressed to answer they refus'd to say any thing about Purgatory and when they at the upshot of all were utcunque United Joseph the Patriarch of C. P. made a most pitiful confession of Purgatory in such general and crafty terms as sufficiently shew'd that as the Greeks were forc'd to do something so the Latins were content with any thing for by those terms the Question between them was no way determin'd Romae veteris Papam Domini nostri Jesu Christi vicarium esse concedere atque animarum purgationem esse non inficior He denied not that there is a Purgatory No for the Greeks confess'd it in this world before death and some of them acknowledged a dark place of sorrow after this life but neither fire nor Purgatory for the Purgation was made in this world and after this world by the prayers of the Priests and the alms of their friends the purgation was made not by fire as I cited the words before The Latins told them there should be no Union without it The Greek Emperour refus'd and all this the Objector is pleas'd to acknowledge but after a very great bussle made and they were forc'd to patch up a Union hope to get assistance of the Latins But in this also they were cosen'd and having lost C. P. many of the Greeks attributed that fatal loss to their dissembling Union made at Florence and on the other side the Latins imputed it to their Opinion of the Procession of the Holy Ghost however the Greek Churches never admitted that union as is averred by Laonicus Chalcondylas de rebus Turcicis lib. 1. non longè ab initio And it is a strange thing that this affair of which all Europe was witness should with so little modesty be shuffled up and the Dissuasive accused for saying that which themselves acknowledge But see what some of themselves say Vnus est ex notissimis Graecorum Armenorum erroribus quo docent nullum esse purgatorium quo animae ex hac luce migrantes purgentur sordibus quas in hoc corpore contraxerunt saith Alphonsus à Castro It is one of the most known errors of the Greeks and Armenians that they teach there is no Purgatory And Aquinas writing contra Graecorum errores labours to prove Purgatory And Archbishop Antoninus who was present at the Council of Florence after he had rejected the Epistle of Eugenius adds Errabant Graeci purgatorium negantes quod est haereticum Add to these the testimony of Roffensis and Polydore Virgil before quoted Vsque ad hunc diem Graecis non est creditum purgatorium and Gregory de Valentia saith Expresse autem purgatorium negarunt Waldenses haeretici ut refert Guido Carmelita in summa de haeresi Item scismatici Graeci
There was here no remedy no second thoughts no amends to be made But because much was not required of him and the Commandment was very easie and he had strengths more than enough to keep it therefore he had no cause to complain God might â—nd did exact at first the Covenant of Works because it was at first infinitely toleâ—â—ble But 2. From this time forward this Covenant began to be hard and by degrees beâ—â—â—e impossible not only because mans fortune was broken and his spirit troubled 〈◊〉 his passions disordered and vext by his calamity and his sin but because man upon â—â—e birth of children and the increase of the world contracted new relations and consequently had new duties and obligations and men hindred one another and their faculties by many means became disorder'd and lessen'd in their abilities and their will becoming perverse they first were unwilling and then unable by superinducing dispositions and habits contrary to their duty However because there was a necessity that man should be tied to more duty God did in the several periods of the world multiply Commandments first to Noah then to Abraham and then to his posterity and by this time they were very many And still God held over mans head the Covenant of Works 3. Upon the pressure of this Covenant all the world did complain Tanta mandata sunt ut impossibile sit servari ea said S. Ambrose the Commandments were so many and great that it was impossible they should be kept For at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertain'd but with the promise of temporal good things which to some men were perform'd by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made But I said 4. The Covenant of Works was still kept on foot How justly will appear in the sequel but the reasonableness of it was in this that men living in a state of awfulness might be under a pedagogy or severe institution restraining their loosenesses recollecting their inadvertencies uniting their distractions For the world was not then prepar'd by spiritual usages and dispositions to be governed by love and an easie yoke but by threatnings and severities And this is the account S. Paul gives of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Law was a Schoolmaster that is had a temporary authority serving to other ends with no final concluding power It could chastise and threaten but it could not condemn it had not power of eternal life and death that was given by other measures But because the world was wild and barbarous good men were few the bad potent and innumerable and sin was conducted and help'd forward by pleasure and impunity it was necessary that God should superinduce a law and shew them the rod and affright and check their confidences left the world it self should perish by dissolution The law of Moses was still a part of the Covenant of Works Some little it had of repentance Sacrifice and expiations were appointed for small sins but nothing at all for greater Every great sin brought death infallibly And as it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward obedience But this would not do it The promises were temporal and that could not secure obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by repentance the law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the Temporal only it was brought in as a pedagogy for the present necessity 5. But this pedagogie or institution was also a manuduction to the Gospel For they were used to severe laws that they might the more readily entertain the holy precepts of the Gospel to which eternally they would have shut their ears unless they had had some preparatory institution of severity and fear And therefore S. Paul also calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pedagogie or institution leading unto Christ. 6. For it was this which made the world of the Godly long for Christ as having commission to open the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hidden mystery of Justification by Faith and Repentance For the law called for exact obdience but ministred no grace but that of fear which was not enough to the performance or the engagement of exact obedience All therefore were here convinced of sin but by this Covenant they had no hopes and therefore were to expect relief from another and a better according to that saying of S. Paul The Scripture concludes all under sin that is declares all the world to be sinners that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe This S. Bernard expresses in these words Deus nobis hoc fecit ut nostram imperfectionem ostenderet Christi avidiores nos faceret Our imperfection was sufficiently manifest by the severity of the first Covenant that the world might long for salvation by Jesus Christ. 7. For since mankind could not be saved by the Covenant of works that is of exact obedience they must perish for ever or else hope to be sav'd by a Covenant of ease and remission that is such a Covenant as may secure Mans duty to God and Gods Mercy to Man and this is the Covenant which God made with mankind in Christ Jesus the Covenant of Repentance 8. This Covenant began immediately after Adams fall For as soon as the first Covenant the Covenant of works was broken God promised to make it up by an instrument of mercy which himself would find out The Seed of the woman should make up the breaches of the man But this should be acted and published in its own time not presently In the mean time man was by virtue of that new Covenant or promise admitted to Repentance 9. Adam confessed his sin and repented Three hundred years together did he mourn upon the mountains of India and God promised him a Saviour by whose obedience his repentance should be accepted And when God did threaten the old world with a floud of waters he called upon them to repent but because they did not God brought upon them the floud of waters For 120. years together he called upon them to return before he would strike his final blow Ten times God tried Pharaoh before he destroyed him And in all ages in all periods and with all men God did deal by this measure and excepting that God in some great cases or in the beginning of a Sanction to establish it with the terror of a great example he scarce ever destroyed a single man with temporal death for any nicety of the law but for long and great prevarications of it and when
expiation of them they fancy and consequently give what allowance they list to those whom they please to mislead For in innumerable Cases of Conscience it is oftner inquired whether a thing be Venial or Mortal than whether it be lawful or not lawful and as Purgatory is to Hell so Venial is to Sin a thing which men fear not because the main stake they think to be secured for if they may have Heaven at last they care not what comes between And as many men of the Roman perswasion will rather chuse Purgatory than suffer here an inconsiderable penance or do those little services which themselves think will prevent it so they chuse venial sins and hug the pleasures of trifles warming themselves at phantastick fires and dancing in the light of the Glo-worms and they love them so well that rather than quit those little things they will suffer the intolerable pains of a temporary Hell for so they believe which is the testimony of a great evil and a mighty danger for it gives testimony that little sins can be beloved passionately and therefore can minister such a delight as is thought a price great enough to pay for the sufferance of temporal evils and Purgatory it self 3. But the evil is worse yet when it is reduc'd to practice For in the decision of very many questions the answer is It is a venial sin that is though it be a sin yet there is in it no danger of losing the favour of God by that but you may do it and you may do it again a thousand thousand times and all the venial sins of the world put together can never do what one mortal sin can that is make God to be your enemy So Bellarmine expresly affirms But because there are many Doctors who write Cases of Conscience and there is no measure to limit the parts of this distinction for that which is not at all cannot be measured the Doctors differ infinitely in their sentences some calling that Mortal which others call Venial as you may see in the little Summaries of Navar and Emanuel Sà the poor souls of the Laity and the vulgar Clergy who believe what is told them by the Authors or Confessors they chuse to follow must needs be in infinite danger and the whole body of Practical Divinity in which the life of Religion and of all our hopes depends shall be rendred dangerous and uncertain and their confidence shall betray them unto death 4. To bring relief to this state of evil and to establish aright the proper grounds and measures of Repentance I shall first account concerning the difference of sins and by what measures they are so differenc'd 2. That all sins are of their own nature punishable as God please even with the highest expressions of his anger 3. By what Repentance they are cur'd and pardon'd respectively SECT II. Of the difference of sins and their measures 5. I. SINS are not equal but greater or less in their principle as well as in their event It was one of the errors of Jovinian which he learned from the Schools of the Stoicks that all sins are alike grievous Nam dicunt esse pares res Furta latrociniis magnis parva minantur Falce recisuros simili se si sibi regnum Permittant homines For they supposed an absolute irresistible Fate to be the cause of all things and therefore what was equally necessary was equally culpable that is not at all and where men have no power of choice or which is all one that it be necessary that they chuse what they do there can be no such thing as Laws or sins against them To which they adding that all evils are indifferent and the event of things be it good or bad had no influence upon the felicity or infelicity of man they could neither be differenc'd by their cause nor by their effect the first being necessary and the latter indifferent * Against this I shall not need to oppose many Arguments for though this follows most certainly from their doctrine who teach an irresistible Decree of God to be the cause of all things and actions yet they that own the doctrine disavow the consequent and in that are good Christians but ill Logicians But the Article is sufficiently cleared by the words of our B. Lord in the case of Judas whose sin as Christ told to Pilate was the greater because he had not power over him but by special concession in the case of the servant that knows his Masters will and does it not in the several condemnations of the degrees and expressions of anger in the instances of Racha and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou vain man or Thou fool by this comparing some sins to gnats and some to Camels and in proportion to these there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luke many stripes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. James a greater condemnation * Thus to rob a Church is a greater sin than to rob a Thief To strike a Father is a higher impiety than to resist a Tutor To oppress a Widow is clamorous and calls aloud for vengeance when a less repentance will vote down the whispering murmurs of a trifling injury done to a fortune that is not sensible of smaller diminutions Nec vincit ratio tantundem ut peccet idémque Qui teneros caules alieni fregerit horti Vt qui nocturnus Divûm sacra legerit He is a greater criminal that steals the Chalice from a Church than he that takes a few Coleworts or robs a garden of Cucumers But this distinction and difference is by something that is extrinsecal to the action the greatness of the mischief or the dignity of the person according to that Omne animi vitium tanto conspectius in se Crimen habet quanto major qui peccat habetur 6. II. But this when it is reduc'd to its proper cause is because such greater sins are complicated they are commonly two or three sins wrapt together as the unchastity of a Priest is uncleanness and scandal too Adultery is worse than Fornication because it is unchastity and injustice and by the fearful consequents of it is mischievous and uncharitable Et quas Euphrates quas mihi misit Orontes Me capiant Nolo furta pudica thori So Sacriledge is theft and impiety And Apicius killing himself when he suppos'd his estate would not maintain his luxury was not only a self-murtherer but a gluttonous person in his death Nil est Apici tibi gulosius factum So that the greatness of sins is in most instances by extension and accumulation that as he is a greater sinner who sins often in the same instance than he that sins seldom so is he who sins such sins as are complicated and intangled like the twinings of combining Serpents And this appears to be so because if we take single sins as uncleanness and theft no man can tell which is the greater sin neither
to sin and a pursuance of that resolution by abstaining from the occasions by praying for the Divine aid by using the proper remedies for its mortification This is essential to repentance and must be in every man in the highest kind For he that does not hate sin so as rather to chuse to suffer any evil than to do any loves himself more than he loves God because he fears to displease himself rather than to displease him and therefore is not a true penitent 13. But although this be not grief or sorrow properly but hatred yet in hatred there is ever a sorrow if we have done or suffered what we hate and whether it be sorrow or no is but a speculation of Philosophy but no ingredient of duty It is that which will destroy sin and bring us to God and that is the purpose of repentance 14. For it is remarkable that sorrow is indeed an excellent instrument of repentance apt to set forward many of its ministeries and without which men ordinarily will not leave their sins but if the thing be done though wholly upon the discourses of reason upon intuition of the danger upon contemplation of the unworthiness of sin or only upon the principle of hope or fear it matters not which is the beginning of repentance For we find fear reckoned to be the beginning of wisdom that is of repentance of wise and sober counsels by Solomon We find sorrow to be reckoned as the beginning of repentance by S. Paul Godly sorrow worketh repentance not to be repented of So many ways as there are by which God works repentance in those whom he will bring unto salvation to all the kinds of these there are proper apportion'd passions and as in all good things there is pleasure so in all evil there is pain some way or other and therefore to love and hatred or which is all one to â—leasure and displeasure all passions are reducible as all colours are to black and white So that though in all repentances there is not in every person felt that sharpness of sensitive compunction and sorrow that is usual in sad accidents of the world yet if the sorrow be upon the intellectual account though it be not much perceived by inward sharpnesses but chiefly by dereliction and leaving of the sin it is that sorrow which is possible and in our power and that which is necessary to repentance 15. For in all inquiries concerning penitential sorrow if we will avoid scruple and vexatious fancies we must be careful not to account of our sorrow by the measures of sense but of religion David grieved more for the sickness of his child and the rebellion of his son so far as appears in the story and the Prophet Jeremy in behalf of the Jews for the death of their glorious Prince Josiah and S. Paula Romana at the death of her children were more passionate and sensibly afflicted than for their sins against God that is they felt more sensitive trouble in that than this and yet their repentances were not to be reproved because our penitential sorrow is from another cause and seated in other faculties and fixed upon differing objects and works in other manners and hath a divers signification and is fitted to other purposes and therefore is wholly of another nature It is a displeasure against sin which must be expressed by praying against it and fighting against it but all other expressions are extrinsecal to it and accidental and are no parts of it because they cannot be under a command as all the parts and necessary actions of repentance are most certainly 16. Indeed some persons can command their tears so Gellia in the Epigram Si quis adest jussae prosiliunt lachrymae She could cry when company was there to observe her weeping for her Father and so can some Orators and many Hypocrites and there are some that can suppress their tears by art and resolution so Vlysses did when he saw his wife weep he pitied her but Intra palpebras ceu cornu immota tenebat Lumina vel ferrum lachrymas astúque premebat he kept his tears within his eye-lids as if they had been in a phial which he could pour forth or keep shut at his pleasure But although some can do this at pleasure yet all cannot And therefore S. John Climacus speaks of certain penitents 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who because they could not weep expressed their Repentance by beating their breasts and yet if all men could weep when they list yet they may weep and not be sorrowful and though they can command tears yet sorrow is no more to be commanded than hunger and therefore is not a part or necessary duty of Repentance when sorrow is taken for a sensitive trouble 17. But yet there is something of this also to be added to our duty If our constitution be such as to be apt to weep and sensitively troubled upon other intellectual apprehensions of differing objects unless also they find the same effect in their Repentances there will be some cause to suspect that their hatred of sin and value of obedience and its rewards are not so great as they ought to be The Masters of spiritual life give this rule Sciat se culpabiliter durum qui deflet damna temporis vel mortem amici dolorem verò pro peccatis lachrymis non ostendit He that weeps for temporal losses and does not in the same manner express his sorrow for his sins is culpably obdurate which proposition though piously intended is not true For tears are emanations of a sensitive trouble or motion of the heart and not properly subject to the understanding and therefore a man may innocently weep for the death of his friend and yet shed no tears when he hath told a lie and still be in that state of sorrow and displeasure that he had rather die himself than chuse to tell another lie Therefore the rule only hath some proportions of probability in the effect of several intellectual apprehensions As he that is apt to weep when he hath done an unhansome action to his friend who yet will never punish him and is not apt to express his sorrow in the same manner when he hath offended God I say he may suspect his sorrow not to be so great or so real but yet abstractedly from this circumstance to weep or not to weep is nothing to the duty of Repentance save only that it is that ordinary sign by which some men express some sort of sorrow And therefore I understand not the meaning of that prayer of S. Austin Domine dagratiam lachrymarum Lord give me the grace of tears for tears are no duty and the greatest sorrow oftentimes is the driest and excepting that there is some sweetness and ease in shedding tears and that they accompany a soft and a contemplative person an easie and a good nature and such as is apt for religious impressions I know no use of them but
the injury which I have already suffered he cannot make me equal amends because whatever he does to me for the future still it is true that I did suffer evil from him formerly therefore it is necessary that I do what I can to the reparation of that but because what is done and past cannot be undone I must make it up as well as I can that is I must confess my sin and be sorry for it and submit to the judgment of the offended party and he is bound to forgive me the sin and I am bound to make just and prudent amends according to my power for here every one is bound to do his share If the offending person hath done his part of duty the offended must do his that is he must forgive him that wrong'd him if he will not God will untie the penitent man and with the same chain fast bind him that is uncharitable 39. But my brother may be hurt by me though I have taken nothing from him nor intended him injury He may be scandalized by my sin that is tempted to sin incouraged in his vileness or discontented and made sorrowful for my unworthiness and transgression In all these cases it is necessary that we repent to them also that is that we make amends not only by confession to God but to our brethren also For when we acknowledge our folly we affright them from it and by repentance we give them caution that they may not descend into the same state of 〈◊〉 And upon this account all publick criminals were tied to a publick Exoâ—ologesis or Repentance in the Church who by confession of their sins acknowledged their error and entred into the state of repentance and by their being separate from the participation and communion of the mysteries were declared unworthy of a communion with Christ and a participation of his promises till by repentance and the fruits worthy of it they were adjudged capable of Gods pardon 40. At the first this was as the nature of the thing exacted it in case of publick and notorious crimes such which had done injury and wrought publick scandal and so far was necessary that the Church should be repaired if she have been injured if publick satisfaction be demanded it must be done if private be required only then that is sufficient though in case of notorious crimes it were very well if the penitent would make his repentance as exemplary as Modesty and his own and the publick circumstances can permit 41. In pursuance of this in the Primitive Church the Bishop and whom he deputed did minister to these publick satisfactions and amends which custom of theirs admitted of variety and change according as new scandals or new necessities did arise For though by the nature of the thing they only could be necessarily and essentially obliged who had done publick and notorious offences yet some observing the advantages of that way of repentance the prayers of the Church the tears of the Bishop the compassion of the faithful the joy of absolution and reconciliation did come in voluntarily and to do that by choice which the notorious criminals were to do of necessity Then the Priests which the penitents had chosen did publish or enjoyn them to publish their sins in the face of the Church but this grew intolerable and was left off because it grew to be a matter of accusation before the criminal Judge and of upbraiding in private conversation and of confidence to them that fought for occasion and hardness of heart and face and therefore they appointed one only Priest to hear the cases and receive the addresses of the penitents and he did publish the sins of them that came only in general and by the publication of their penances and their separation from the mysteries and this also changed into the more private and by several steps of progression dwindled away into private repentance towards men that is confession to a Priest in private and private satisfactions or amends and fruits of repentance and now Auricular Confession is nothing else but the publick Exomologesis or Repentance Ecclesiastical reduced to ashes it is the reliques of that excellent Discipline which was in some cases necessary as I have declared and in very many cases useful until by the dissolution of manners and the extinction of charity it became unsufferable and a bigger scandal than those which it did intend to remedy The result is this That to enumerate our sins before the Holy man that ministers in holy things that is Confession to a Priest is not virtually included in the duty of Contrition for it not being necessary by the nature of the thing nor the Divine Commandment is not necessary absolutely and properly in order to pardon and therefore is no part of Contrition which without this may be a sufficient disposition towards pardon unless by accident as in the case of scandal the criminal come to be obliged Only this one advantage is to be made of their doctrine who speak otherwise in this Article The Divines in the Council of Trent affirm That they that are contrite are reconciled to God before they receive the Sacrament of Penance as they use to speak that is before Priestly absolution If then a man can be contrite before the Priest absolves him as their saying supposes and as it is certain they may and if the desire of absolution be as they say included in Contrition and consequently that nothing is wanting to obtain pardon to the penitent even before the Priest absolves him it follows that the Priests absolution following this perfect disposition and this actual pardon can effect nothing really the man is pardon'd before-hand and therefore his absolution is only declarative God pardons the man and the Priest by his office is to tell him so when he sees cause for it and observes the conditions completed Indeed if absolution by the Minister of the Church were necessary then to desire it also would be necessary and an act of duty and obedience but then if the desire in case it were necessary to desire it would make Contrition to be complete and perfect and if perfect contrition does actually procure a pardon then the Priestly absolution is only a solemn and legal publication of Gods pardon already actually past in the Court of Heaven For an effect cannot proceed from causes which are not yet in being and therefore the pardon of the sins for which the penitent is contrite cannot come from the Priests ministration which is not in some cases to be obtain'd but desir'd only and afterwards when it can be obtain'd comes when the work is done God it may be accepts the desire but the Priests ministery afterwards is not cannot be the cause why God did accept of that desire because the desire is accepted before the absolution is in being 42. But now although this cannot be a necessary duty for the reasons before reckon'd because the Priest is
does but declare it so it effects it not 71. VIII And after all it is certain that the words of absolution effect no more than they signifie If therefore they do pardon the sin yet they do not naturally change the disposition or the real habit of the sinner And if the words can effect more they may be changed to signifie what they do effect for to signifie is less than to effect Can therefore the Church use this form of absolution I do by the power committed unto me change thy Attrition into Contrition The answer to this is not yet made for their pretence is so new and so wholly unexamined that they have not yet considered any thing of it It will therefore suffice for our institution in this useful material and practical question that no such words were instituted by Christ nor any thing like them no such were used by the Primitive Church no such power pretended And as this new doctrine of the Roman Church contains in it huge estrangements and distances from the spirit of Christianity is another kind of thing than the doctrine and practice of the Apostolical and succeeding ages of the Church did publish or exercise so it is a perfect destruction to the necessity of holy life it is a device only to advance the Priests office and to depress the necessity of holy dispositions it is a trick to make the graces of Gods holy Spirit to be bought and sold and that a man may at a price become holy in an instant just as if a Teacher of Musick should undertake to convey skill to his Scholar and fell the art and transmit it in an hour it is a device to make dispositions by art and in effect requires little or nothing of duty to God so they pay regard to the Priest But I shall need to oppose no more against it but those excellent words and pious meditation of Salvian Non levi agendum est contritione ut debita illa redimantur quibus mors aeterna debetur nec transitoriâ opus est satisfactione pro malis illis propter quae paratus est ignis aeternus It is not a light contrition by which those debts can be redeem'd to which eternal death is due neither can a transitory satisfaction serve for those evils for which God hath prepared the vengeance of eternal fire SECT VI. Of Penances or Satisfactions 72. IN the Primitive Church the word Satisfaction was the whole word for all the parts and exercises of repentance according to those words of Lactantius Poenitentiam proposuit ut si peccata nostra confessi Deo satisfecerimus veniam consequamur He propounded repentance that if we confessing our sins to God make amends or satisfaction we may obtain pardon Where it is evident that Satisfaction does not signifie in the modern sence of the word a full payment to the Divine Justice but by the exercises of repentance a deprecation of our fault and a begging pardon Satisfaction and pardon are not consistent if satisfaction signifie rigorously When the whole debt is paid there is nothing to be forgiven The Bishops and Priests in the Primitive Church would never give pardon till their satisfactions were performed To confess their sins to be sorrowful for them to express their sorrow to punish the guilty person to do actions contrary to their former sins this was their amends or Satisfaction and this ought to be ours So we find the word used in best Classick Authors So Plautus brings in Alcmena angry with Amphitruo Quin ego illum aut deseram Aut satisfaciat mihi atque adjuret insuper Nolle esse dicta quae in me insontem protulit i. e. I will leave him unless he give me satisfaction and swear that he wishes that to be unsaid which he spake against my innocence for that was the form of giving satisfaction to wish it undone or unspoken and to add an oath that they believe the person did not deserve that wrong as we find it in Terence Adelph Ego vestra haec novi nollem factum jusjurandum dabitur esse te indignum injuriâ hâc Concerning which who please to see more testimonies of the true sence and use of the word Satisfactions may please to look upon Lambinus in Plauti Amphitr and Laevinus Torrentius upon Suetonius in Julio Exomologesis or Confession was the word which as I noted formerly was of most frequent use in the Church Si de exomologesi retractas gehennam in corde considera quam tibi exomologesis extinguet He that retracts his sins by confessing and condemning them extinguishes the flames of Hell So Tertullian The same with that of S. Cyprian Deo patri misericordi precibus operibus suis satisfacere possunt They may satisfie God our Father and merciful by prayers and good works that is they may by these deprecate their fault and obtain mercy and pardon for their sins Peccatum suum satisfactione humili simplici confitentes So Cyprian confessing their sins with humble and simple satisfaction plainly intimating that Confession or Exomologesis was the same with that which they called Satisfaction And both of them were nothing but the publick exercise of repentance according to the present usages of their Churches as appears evidently in those words of Gennadius Poenitentiae satisfactionem esse causas peccatorum exscindere nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere To cut off the causes of sins and no more to entertain their whispers and temptations is the satisfaction of repentance and like this is that of Lactantius Potest reduci liberari si eum poeniteat actorum ad meliora conversus satisfaciat Deo The sinner may be brought back and freed if he repents of what is done and satisfies or makes amends to God by being turned to better courses And the whole process of this is well described by Tertullian Exomologesis est quâ delictum Domino nostrum confitemur non quidem ut ignaro sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur confessione poenitentia nascitur penitentiâ Deus mitigatur we must confess our sins to God not as if he did not know them already but because our satisfaction is dispos'd and order'd by confession by confession our repentance hath birth and production and by repentance God is appeased 73. Things being thus we need not immerge our selves in the trifling controversies of our later Schools about the just value of every work and how much every penance weighs and whether God is so satisfied with our penal works that in justice he must take off so much as we put on and is tied also to take our accounts Certain it is if God should weigh our sins with the same value as we weigh our own good works all our actions and sufferings would be found infinitely too light in the balance Therefore it were better that we should do what we can and humbly beg of God to weigh them both with vast allowances of
that while the good man lived were never thought of for his daughters were Virgins and his Sons lived in holy coelibate all their lives and himself lived in chast Wedlock and yet his memory had rotted in perpetual infamy had not God in whose sight the memory of the Saints is precious preserved it by the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus and from him of Eusebius and Nicephorus But in the Catalogue of Hereticks made by Philastrius he stands mark'd with a black character as guilty of many heresies By which one testimony we may guess what trust is to be given to those Catalogues Well This good man had ill luck to fall into unskilful hands at first but Irenaeus Justin Martyr Lactantius to name no more had better fortune for it being still extant in their writings that they were of the Millenary opinion Papius before and Nepos after were censured hardly and the opinion put into the catalogue of heresies and yet these men never suspected as guilty but like the children of the Captivity walkt in the midst of the flame and not so much as the smell of fire passed on them But the uncertainty of these things is very memorable in the story of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch contesting with Eusebius Pamphilus Eustathius accused Eusebius for going about to corrupt the Nicene Creed of which slander he then acquitted himself saith Socrates and yet he is not cleared by posterity for still he is suspected and his fame not clear However Eusebius then scaped well but to be quit with his Adversary he recriminates and accuses him to be a favourer of Sabellius rather than of the Nicene Canons an imperfect accusation God knows when the crime was a suspicion proveable only by actions capable of divers constructions and at the most made but some degrees of probability and the fact it self did not consist in indivisibili and therefore was to stand or fall to be improved or lessened according to the will of the Judges whom in this cause Eustathius by his ill fortune and a potent Adversary found harsh towards him in so much that he was for heresy deposed in the Synod of Antioch and though this was laid open in the eye of the world as being most ready at hand with the greatest ease charged upon every man and with greatest difficulty acquitted by any man yet there were other suspicions raised upon him privately or at least talkt of ex post facto and pretended as causes of his deprivation lest the sentence should seem too hard for the first offence And yet what they were no man could tell saith the story But it is observable what Socrates saith as in excuse of such proceedings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is the manner among the Bishops when they accuse them that are deposed they call them wicked but they publish not the actions of their impiety It might possibly be that the Bishops did it in tenderness of their reputation but yet hardly for to punish a person publickly and highly is a certain declaring the person punished guilty of a high crime and then to conceal the fault upon pretence to preserve his reputation leaves every man at liberty to conjecture what he pleaseth who possibly will believe it worse than it is in as much as they think his judges so charitable as therefore to conceal the fault lest the publishing of it should be his greatest punishment and the scandal greater than his deprivation However this course if it were just in any was unsafe in all for it might undoe more than it could preserve and therefore is of more danger than it can be of charity It is therefore too probable that the matter was not very fair for in publick sentences the acts ought to be publick but that they rather pretend heresy to bring their ends about shews how easie it is to impute that crime and how forward they were to doe it And that they might and did then as easily call Heretick as afterward when Vigilius was condemned of heresie for saying there were Antipodes or as the Fryars of late did who suspected Greek and Hebrew of heresie and called their Professors Hereticks and had like to have put Terence and Demosthenes into the Index Expurgatorius sure enough they rail'd at them pro concione therefore because they understood them not and had reason to believe they would accidentally be enemies to their reputation among the people 18. By this instance which was a while after the Nicene Council where the acts of the Church were regular judicial and orderly we may guess at the sentences passed upon heresy at such times and in such cases when their process was more private and their acts more tumultuary their information less certain and therefore their mistakes more easie and frequent And it is remarkable in the case of the heresy of Montanus the scene of whose heresie lay within the first three hundred years though it was represented in the Catalogues afterwards and possibly the mistake concerning it is to be put upon the score of Epiphanius by whom Montanus and his Followers were put into the Catalogue of Hereticks for commanding abstinence from meats as if they were unclean and of themselves unlawful Now the truth was Montanus said no such thing but commanded frequent abstinence enjoyned dry diet and an ascetick Table not for conscience sake but for Discipline and yet because he did this with too much rigour and strictness of mandate the Primitive Church misliked it in him as being too near their errour who by a Judaical superstition abstained from meats as from uncleanness This by the way will much concern them who place too much sanctity in such Rites and Acts of Discipline for it is an eternal Rule and of never failing truth that such abstinencies if they be obtruded as Acts of original immediate duty and sanctity are unlawfull and superstitious if they be for Discipline they may be good but of no very great profit it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Paul says profiteth but little and just in the same degree the Primitive Church esteemed them for they therefore reprehended Montanus for urging such abstinences with too much earnestness though but in the way of Discipline for that it was no more Tertullian who was himself a Montanist and knew best the opinions of his own Sect testifies and yet Epiphanius reporting the errours of Montanus commends that which Montanus truly and really taught and which the Primitive Church condemned in him and therefore represents that heresie to another sence and affixes that to Montanus which Epiphanius believed a heresie and yet which Montanus did not teach And this also among many other things lessens my opinion very much of the integrity or discretion of the old Catalogues of Hereticks and much abates my confidence towards them 19. And now that I have mentioned them casually in passing by I shall give a short account of them for
the Lord taketh them up and so it is in this particular what is wanting to them by the neglect of others God will supply by his own graces and immediate dispensation But if Baptism be made necessary to all then it ought to be procured for those who cannot procure it for themselves just as meat and drink and physick and education And it is in this as it is in blessing little babes cannot ask it but their needs require it and therefore as by their friends they were brought to Christ to have it so they must without their asking minister it to them who yet are bound to seek it as soon as they can The precept bindes them both in their several periods Ad 31. But their next great strength consists in this Dilemma If Baptism does no good there needs no contention about it if it does then either by the opus operatum of the Sacrament or by the dispositions of the suscipient If the former that 's worse then Popery if the latter then Infants cannot receive it because they cannot dispose themselves to its reception I answer that it works its effect neither by the Ceremony alone nor yet by that and the dispositions together but by the grace of God working as he please seconding his own Ordinance and yet Infants are rightly disposed for the receiving the blessings and effects of Baptism For the understanding of which we are to observe that God's graces are so free that they are given to us upon the accounts of his own goodness onely and for the reception of them we are tied to no other predispositions but that we do not hinder them For what worthiness can there be in any man to receive the first grace before grace there can be nothing good in us and therefore before the first grace there is nothing that can deserve it because before the first grace there is no grace and consequently no worthiness But the dispositions which are required in men of reason is nothing but to remove the hinderances of God's grace to take off the contrarieties to the good Spirit of God Now because in Infants there is nothing that can resist God's Spirit nothing that can hinder him nothing that can grieve him they have that simplicity and nakedness that passivity and negative disposition or non-hinderances to which all that men can doe in disposing themselves are but approaches and similitudes and therefore Infants can receive all that they need all that can doe them benefit And although there are some effects of the Holy Spirit which require natural capacities to be their foundation yet those are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or powers of working but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the inheritance and the title to the Promises require nothing on our part but that we can receive them that we put no hinderance to them for that is the direct meaning of our Blessed Saviour He that doth not receive the kingdome of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein that is without that nakedness and freedome from obstruction and impediment none shall enter Upon the account of this Truth all that long harangue that pursues this Dilemma in other words to the same purposes will quickly come to nothing For Baptism is not a mere Ceremony but assisted by the grace of the Lord Jesus the communication of the Holy Spirit and yet it requires a duty on our part when we are capable of duty and need it but is enabled to produce its effect without any positive disposition even by the negative of children by their not putting a bar to the Holy Spirit of God that God may be glorified and may be all in all Two particulars more are considerable in their Argument The first is a Syllogism made up out of the words of S. Paul All that are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The Minor proposition is with a little straining some other words of S. Paul thus But they that put on Christ or the new man must be formed in righteousness and holiness of truth for so the Apostle Put ye on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness But Infants cannot put on Christ to any such purposes and therefore cannot be baptized into Christ. I answer that to put on Christ is to become like unto him and we put him on in all ways by which we resemble him The little babes of Bethlehem were like unto Christ when it was given to them to die for him who died for them and us We are like unto him when we have put on his robe of righteousness when we are invested with the wedding garment when we submit to his will and to his doctrine when we are adopted to his inheritance when we are innocent and when we are washed and when we are buried with him in Baptism The expression is a metaphor and cannot be confined to one particular signification but if it could yet the Apostle does not say that all who in any sense put on the new man are actually holy and righteous neither does he say that by the new man is meant Christ for that also is another metaphor and it means a new manner of living When Christ is opposed to Adam Christ is called the new man but when the new man is opposed to the old coversation then by the new man Christ is not meant and so it is in this place it signifies to become a new man and it is an exhortation to those who had lived wickedly now to live holily and according to the intentions of Christianity But to take two metaphors from two several books and to concentre them into one signification and to make them up into one Syllogism is fallacia quatuor terminorum they prove nothing but the craft of the men or the weakness of the cause For the words to the Ephesians were spoken to them who already had been baptized who had before that in some sense put on Christ but yet he calls upon them to put on the new man therefore this is something else and it means that they should verifie what they had undertaken in Baptism which also can concern children but is seasonable to urge it to them as S. Paul does to the Ephesians after their Baptism But yet after all let the argument press as far as it is intended yet Infants even in the sense of the Apostle do put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness for so are they they are a new creation they are born again they are efformed after the image of Christ by the designation and adoption of the Holy Spirit but as they cannot doe acts of reason and yet are created in a reasonable nature so they are anew created in righteousness even before they can doe acts spiritual that is they are designati sanctitatis as Tertullian's expression is they are in the second birth as in the first instructed
lawful or not but which were better To Confirm Infants or to stay to their Childhood or to their riper years Aquinas Bonaventure and some others say it is best that they be Confirmed in their Infancy quia dolus non est nec obicem ponunt they are then without craft and cannot hinder the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them And indeed it is most agreeable with the Primitive practice that if they were Baptized in Infancy they should then also be Confirmed according to that of the famous Epistle of Melchiades to the Bishops of Spain Ità conjuncta sunt haec duo Sacramenta ut ab invicem nisi morte praeveniente non possint separari unum altero ritè persici non potest Where although he expresly affirms the Rites to be two yet unless it be in cases of necessity they are not to be severed and one without the other is not perfect which in the sence formerly mentioned is true and so to be understood That to him who is Baptized and is not Confirmed something very considerable is wanting and therefore they ought to be joyned though not immediately yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to reasonable occasions and accidental causes But in this there must needs be a liberty in the Church not only for the former reasons but also because the Apostles themselves were not Confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Others therefore say That to Confirm them of Riper years is with more edification The confession of Faith is more voluntary the election is wiser the submission to Christ's discipline is more acceptable and they have more need and can make better use of their strengths than derived by the Holy Spirit of God upon them and to this purpose it is commanded in the Canon Law that they who are confirmed should be perfectae aetatis of full age upon which the Gloss says Perfectam vocat fortè duodecim annorum Twelve years old was a full age because at those years they might then be admitted to the lower services in the Church But the reason intimated and implied by the Canon is because of the Preparation to it They must come Fasting and they must make publick Confession of their Faith And indeed that they should do so is matter of great edification as also are the advantages of choice and other preparatory abilities and dispositions above-mentioned They are matter of edification I say when they are done but then the delaying of them so long before they be done and the wanting the aids of the Holy Ghost conveyed in that Ministery are very prejudicial and are not matter of edification But therefore there is a third way which the Church of England and Ireland follows and that is that after Infancy but yet before they understand too much of Sin and when they can competently understand the Fundamentals of Religion then it is good to bring them to be Confirmed that the Spirit of God may prevent their youthful sins and Christ by his Word and by his Spirit may enter and take possession at the same time And thus it was in the Church of England long since provided and commanded by the Laws of King Edgar cap. 15. Vt nullus ab Episcopo confirmari diu nimiùm detrectârit That none should too long put off his being Confirmed by the Bishop that is as is best expounded by the perpetual practice almost ever since as soon as ever by Catechism and competent instruction they were prepared it should not be deferred If it have been omitted as of late years it hath been too much as we do in Baptism so in this also it may be taken at any age even after they have received the Lord's Supper as I observed before in the Practice and Example of the Apostles themselves which in this is an abundant warrant But still the sooner the better I mean after that Reason begins to dawn but ever it must be taken care of that the Parents and God-fathers the Ministers and Masters see that the Children be catechised and well instructed in the Fundamentals of their Religion For this is the necessary preparation to the most advantageous reception of this Holy Ministery In Ecclesâ—is potissimùm Latinis non nisi adultiore aetate pueros admitti videmus vel hanc certè ob causam ut Parentibus Susceptoribus Ecclesiarum Praesectis occasio detur pueros de Fide quam in Baptismo professi sunt diligentiùs instituendi admonendi said the excellent Cassander In the Latin Churches they admit children of some ripeness of age that they may be more diligently taught and instructed in the Faith And to this sence agree S. Austin Walafridus Strabo Ruardus Lovaniensis and Mr. Calvin For this was ever the practice of the Primitive Church to be infinitely careful of Catechizing those who came and desired to be admitted to this holy Rite they used Exorcisms or Catechisms to prepare them to Baptism and Confirmation I said Exorcisms or Catechisms for they were the same thing if the notion be new yet I the more willingly declare it not only to free the Primitive Church from the suspicion of Superstition in using Charms or Exorcisms according to the modern sence of the word or casting of the Devil out of innocent Children but also to remonstrate the perpetual practice of Catechizing Children in the eldest and best times of the Church Thus the Greek Scholiast upon Harmenopulus renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive Exorcist was the Catechist And Balsamon upon the 26. Canon of the Council of Laodicea says that to Exorcize is nothing but to Catechize the unbelievers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some undertook to Exorcize that is says he to Catechize the unbelievers And S. Cyril in his Preface to his Catechisms speaking to the Illuminati Festinent says he pedes tui ad Catecheses audiendas Exorcismos studiosè suscipe c. Let your feet run hastily to hear the Catechisms studiously receive the Exorcisms although thou beest already inspired and exorcized that is although you have been already instructed in the Mysteries yet still proceed For without Exorcisms or Catechisms the Soul cannot go forward since they are Divine and gathered out of the Scriptures And the reason why these were called Exorcisms he adds Because when the Exorcists or Catechists by the Spirit of God produce fear in your hearts and do inkindle the Spirit as in a furnace the Devil flies away and Salvation and hope of Life Eternal does succeed according to that of the Evangelist concerning Christ They were astonished at his Doctrine for his word was with power and that of S. Luke concerning Paul and Barnabas The Deputy when he saw what was done was astonished at the Doctrine of the Lord. It is the Lord's Doctrine that hath the power to cast out Devils and work Miracles Catechisms are the best Exorcisms
much exact in requiring the capacity of the person as the Number of the Ordainers But let them answer it For my part I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case than if a lay-man had done it it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though the ordination was absolutely Uncanonical yet it being in the exigence of Necessity and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon it was valid in naturâ rei though not in forma Canonis and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis Bishops must ordain Bishops It was never heard that Priests did or de jure might These premises do most certainly infer a real difference between Episcopacy and the Presbyterate But whether or no they infer a difference of order or only of degree or whether degree and order be all one or no is of great consideration in the present and in relation to many other Questions 1. Then it is evident that in Antiquity Ordo and Gradus were used promiscuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Greek word and for it the Latins used Ordo as is evident in the instances above mentioned to which add that Anacletus says that Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcoporum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirâ—â— Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem secundum Presbyteralem tertium Leviticum And these among the Greeks are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three degrees So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is a censure used alike in the censures of Bishops Priests and Deacons They are all of the same Name and the same consideration for order distance and degree amongst the Fathers Gradus and Ordo are equally affirmed of them all and the word Gradus is used sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently So Felix writing to S. Austin Non tantum ego possum contra tuam virtutem quia mira virtus est Gradus Episcopalis and S. Cyprian of Cornelius Ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis Gradibus ascendit Degree and Order are used in common for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons which corresponds to a degree in qualities and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale was at first called ordinatio Episcopi Stir up the Grace that is in thee juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum saith Sedulius And S. Hierom prophetiae gratiam habebat cum Ordinatione Episcopatus Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior Ordinaret majorem saith S. Ambrose proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro Ordinatum edit saith Tertulliâ—n and S. Hierome affirms that S. James was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. Ordinatus was the the word at first and afterwards Consecratus came in conjunction with it when Moses the Monk was to be ordained to wit a Bishop for that 's the title of the story in Theodoret and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him absit says he ut manus tua me Consecret 3. In all orders there is the impress of a distinct Character that is the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices which before his ordination he had no power to do A Deacon hath an order or power Quo pocula vitae Misceat latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church whereby he is enabled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council of Ancyra does intimate But a Bishop hath a higher yet for besides all the offices communicated to Priests and Deacons he can give orders which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order For Ordo is designed by the Schools to be traditio potestatis spiritualis Collatio gratiae ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica a giving a spiritual power and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination and a distinct power as I shall shew in the descent it must needs be a distinct order both according to the Name given it by antiquity and according to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome obtruded indeed upon no grounds for they would define order to be a special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum or the regiment of the Church and ordaining labourers for the harvest and therefore not to be a distinct order But this to them that consider things sadly is true or false according as any man list For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to the consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sence Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more than a Presbyter hath But then why these men should only call this power an order no man can give a reason For 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order and I think before Hugo de S. Victore and the Master of the Sentences no man ever denied it to be an order 2. According to this rate I would fain know the office of a Sub-deacon and of an Ostiary and of an Acolouthite and of a Reader come to be distinct Orders for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo as they have de integro And if I mistake not that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist is more a new power in order to consecration than all those inferior officers put together have in all and yet they call them Orders and therefore why not Episcopacy also I cannot imagine unless because they will not *** But however in the mean time the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome without all reason and against all Antiquity This only by the way The enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse
For since say they that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest work of the most secret mystery greatest power and highest dignity that is competent to man and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much superiour to a Presbyter who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Counterpoise of a Bishop Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome would infer an identity of order though a disparity of degree but the Men of the other world would infer a parity both of order and degree too The first are already answered in the premises The second must now be served 1. Then whether power be greater of Ordaining Priests or Consecrating the Sacrament is an impertinent Question possibly it may be of some danger because in comparing Gods ordinances there must certainly be a depression of one and whether that lights upon the right side or no yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God to do that which in Gods estimate may tantamount to a direct undervaluing but however it is unprofitable of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith or manners and besides cannot fix it self upon any basis there being no way of proving either to be more excellent than the other 2. The Sacraments and mysteries of Christianity if compared among themselves are greater and lesser in several respects For since they are all in order to several ends that is productive of several effects and they all are excellent every rite and sacrament in respect of its own effect is more excellent than the other not ordained to that effect For example Matrimony is ordained for a means to preserve Chastity and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his Church and therefore in these respects is greater than baptism which does neither But * Baptism is for remission of sins and in that is more excellent than Matrimony the same may be said for ordination and consecration the one being in order to Christs natural body as the Schools speak the other in order to his mystical body and so have their several excellencies respectively but for an absolute preheminence of one above the other I said there was no basis to fix that upon and I believe all men will find it so that please to try But in a relative or respective excellency they go both before and after one another Thus Wool and a Jewel are better than each other for wool is better for warmth and a jewel for ornament A frogg hath more sense in it than the Sun and yet the Sun shines brighter 3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater than ordaining Priests yet that cannot hinder but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order because the power of ordaining hath in it the power of consecrating and something more it is all that which makes the Priest and it is something more besides which makes the Bishop Indeed if the Bishop had it not and the Priest had it then supposing consecration to be greater than ordination the Priest would not only equal but excel the Bishop but because the Bishop hath that and ordination besides therefore he is higher both in Order and Dignity 4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest Clerical power in the world and that the Bishop and the Priest were equal in the greatest power yet a lesser power than it superadded to the Bishops may make a distinct order and superiority Thus it was said of the son of Man Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis he was made a little lower than the Angels It was but a little lower and yet so much as to distinguish their Natures for he took not upon him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham So it is in proportion between Bishop and Priest for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church viz. consecration of the venerable Eucharist yet differing in a less is paulò minor Angelis a little lower than the Bishop the Angel of the Church yet this little lower makes a distinct order and enough for a subordination * An Angel and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spiritual essence they both discourse they have both election and freedom of choice they have will and understanding and memory impresses of the Divine image and loco-motion and immortality And these excellencies are being precisely considered of more real and eternal worth than the Angelical manner of moving so in an instant and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition and yet for these superadded parts of excellency the difference is no less than specifical If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus what we call difference in nature there will be a difference in order here and of the same consideration 5. Lastly it is considerable that these men that make this objection do not make it because they think it true but because it will serve a present turn For all the world sees that to them that deny the real presence this can be no objection and most certainly the Anti-episcopal men do so in all sences and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration more than in ordination Nay is there any such thing as consecration at all This also would be considered from their principles But I proceed One thing only more is objected against the main Question If Episcopacy be a distinct order why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest as abstracting from the Laws of the Church a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon for if it be the impress of a distinct character it may be imprinted per saltum and independently as it is in the order of a Presbyter To this I answer It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independent as it is in all those offices of humane constitution which are called the inferior orders For the office of an Acolouthite of an Exorcist of an Ostiary are no way dependent on the office of a Deacon and therefore a man may be Deacon that never was in any of those and perhaps a Presbyter too that never was a Deacon as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples But a Bishop though he have a distinct character yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter but supposes it ex vi ordinis For since the power of ordination if any thing be is the distinct capacity of a Bishop this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be in the Bishop for how else can he ordain a Presbyter with a power that