that those who are under our Charges should know the force of the Resurrection of Christ and the conduct of the Spirit and live according to the purity of God and the light of the Gospel To this let us cooperate with all wisdom and earnestness and knowledge and spiritual understanding And there is no better way in the world to do this than by ministring to persons singly in the conduct of their Repentance which as it is the work of every man so there are but few persons who need not the conduct of a spiritual guide in the beginnings and progressions of it To the assistance of this work I have now put my Symbol having by the sad experience of my own miseries and the calamities of others to whose restitution I have been called to minister been taught something of the secret of Souls and I have reason to think that the words of our dearest Lord to S. Peter were also spoken to me Tu autem conversus confirma fratres I hope I have received many of the mercies of a repenting sinner and I have felt the turnings and varieties of spiritual entercourses and I have often observed the advantages in ministring to others and am most confident that the greatest benefits of our office may with best effect be communicated to souls in personal and particular Ministrations In the following book I have given advices and have asserted many truths in order to all this I have endeavoured to break in pieces almost all those propositions upon the confidence of which men have been negligent of severe and strict living I have cancell'd some false grounds upon which many answers in Moral Theologie us'd to be made to inquiries in Cases of Conscience I have according to my weak ability described all the necessities and great inducement of a holy life and have endeavoured to do it so plainly that it may be useful to every man and so inoffensively that it may hurt no man I know but one Objection which I am likely to meet withall excepting those of my infirmity and disability which I cannot answer but by protesting the piety of my purposes but this only that in the Chapter of Original sin I speak otherwise than is spoken commonly in the Church of England whos 's ninth Article affirms that the natural propensity to evil and the perpetual lusting of the flesh against the spirit deserves the anger of God and damnation against which I so earnestly seem to dispute in the sixth Chapter of my Book To this I answer that it is one thing to say a thing in its own nature deserves damnation and another to say it is damnable to all those persons in whom it is subjected The thing it self that is our corrupted nature or our nature of corruption does leave us in the state of separation from God by being unable to bear us to Heaven imperfection of nature can never carry us to the perfections of glory and this I conceive to be all that our Church intends for that in the state of nature we can only fall short of Heaven and be condemn'd to a poena damni is the severest thing that any sober person owns and this I say that Nature alone cannot bring us to God without the regeneration of the Spirit and the grace of God we can never go to Heaven but because this Nature was not spoil'd by Infants but by persons of reason and we are all admitted to a new Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Adam presently after his fall that is even before we were born as much as we were to a participation of sin before we were born no man can perish actually for that because he is reconcil'd by this He that says every sin is damnable and deserves the anger of God says true but yet some persons that sin of mere infirmity are accounted by God in the rank of innocent persons So it is in this Article Concupiscence remains in the regenerate and yet concupiscence hath the nature of sin but it brings not condemnation These words explain the 〈◊〉 Original imperfection is such a thing as is even in the regenerate and it is of the nature of sin that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many but yet it is not daâ—â—ing because as it is subjected in unconsenting persons it loses its own natural venome and relation to guiltiness that is it may of it self in its abstracted nature be a sin and deserve Gods anger viz. in some persons in all them that consent to it but that which will always be in persons that shall never be damned that is in infants and regenerate shall 〈◊〉 damn them And this is the main of what I affirm And since the Church of England intended that Article against the Doctrine of the Pelagians I suppose I shall not be thought to recede from the spirit and sence of the Article though I use differing manners of expression because my way of explicating this question does most of all destroy the Pelagian Heresie since although I am desirous to acquit the dispensation of God and his Justice from my imputation or suspicion of wrong and am loth to put our sins upon the account of another yet I impute all our evils to the imperfections of our nature and the malice of our choice which does most of all demonstrate not only the necessity of Grace but also of Infant Baptism and then to accuse this Doctrine of Pelagianism or any newer name of Heresie will seem like impotency and weakness of spirit but there will be nothing of truth or learning in it And although this Article was penn'd according to the style of the Schools as they then did loâ—e to speak yet the hardest word in it is capable of such a sence as complies with the intendment of that whole sixth Chapter For though the Church of England professes her self fallible and consequently that all her truths may be peaceably improved yet I do think that she is not actually deceiv'd and also that divers eminently learned do consent in my sence of that Article However I am so truly zealous for her honour and peace that I wholly submit all that I say there or any where else to her most prudent judgment And though I may most easily be deceived yet I have given my reasons for what I say and desire to be tried by them not by prejudice and numbers and zeal and if any man resolves to understand the Article in any other sence than what I have now explicated all that I shall say is that it may be I cannot reconcile my Doctrine to his explication it is enough that it is consistent with the Article it self in its best understanding and compliance with the truth it self and the justification of God However he that explicates the Article and thinks it means as he says does all the honour he can to the Authority whose words if he does not understand yet the sanction
born to rule over all other creatures and begins his life with punishments for no fault but that he was born In short The body is a region of diseases of sorrow and nastiness and weakness and temptation Here is cause enough of being humbled 83. Neither is it better in the soul of man where ignorance dwells and passion rules 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After death came in there entred also a swarm of passions And the will obeys every thing but God Our judgment is often abused in matters of sense and one faculty guesses at truth by confuting another and the error of the eye is corrected by something of reason or a former experience Our fancy is often abus'd and yet creates things of it self by tying disparate things together that can cohere no more than Musick and a Cable than Meat and Syllogisms and yet this alone does many times make credibilities in the understandings Our Memories are so frail that they need instruments of recollection and laborious artifices to help them and in the use of these artifices sometimes we forget the meaning of those instruments and of those millions of sins which we have committed we scarce remember so many as to make us sorrowful or ashamed Our judgments are baffled with every Sophism and we change our opinion with a wind and are confident against truth but in love with error We use to reprove one error by another and lose truth while we contend too earnestly for it Infinite opinions there are in matters of Religion and most men are confident and most are deceiv'd in many things and all in some and those few that are not confident have only reason enough to suspect their own reason We do not know our own bodies not what is within us nor what ails us when we are sick nor whereof we are made nay we oftentimes cannot tell what we think or believe or love We desire and hate the same thing speak against and run after it We resolve and then consider we bind our selves and then find causes why we ought not to be bound and want not some pretences to make our selves believe we were not bound Prejudice and Interest are our two great motives of believing we weigh deeper what is extrinsical to a question than what is in its nature and oftner regard who speaks than what is said The diseases of our soul are infinite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Dionysius of Athens Mankind of old fell from those good things which God gave him and now is fallen into a life of passion and a state of death In summ it follows the temper or distemper of the body and sailing by such a Compass and being carried in so rotten a vessel especially being empty or filled with lightness and ignorance and mistakes it must needs be exposed to the dangers and miseries of every storm which I choose to represent in the words of Cicero Ex humanae vitae erroribus aerumnis fit ut verum sit illud quod est apud Aristotelem sic nostros animos cum corporibus copulatos ut vivos cum mortuis esse conjunctos The soul joyned with the body is like the conjunction of the living and the dead the dead are not quickned by it but the living are afflicted and die But then if we consider what our spirit is we have reason to lie down flat upon our faces and confess Gods glory and our own shame When it is at the best it is but willing but can do nothing without the miracle of Grace Our spirit is hindred by the body and cannot rise up whither it properly tends with those great weights upon it It is foolish and improvident large in desires and narrow in abilities naturally curious in trifles and inquisitive after vanities but neither understands deeply nor affectionately relishes the things of God pleas'd with forms cousen'd with pretences satisfied with shadows incurious of substances and realities It is quick enough to find doubts and when the doubts are satisfied it raises scruples that is it is restless after it is put to sleep and will be troubled in despite of all arguments of peace It is incredibly negligent of matters of Religion and most solicitous and troubled in the things of the world We love our selves and despise others judging most unjust sentences and by peevish and cross measures Covetousness and Ambition Gain and Empire are the proportions by which we take account of things We hate to be govern'd by others even when we cannot dress our selves and to be forbidden to do or have a thing is the best art in the world to make us greedy of it The flesh and the spirit perpetually are at strife the spirit pretending that his ought to be the dominion and the flesh alleaging that this is her state and her day We hate our present condition and know not how to better our selves our changes being but like the tumblings and tossings in a Feaver from trouble to trouble that 's all the variety We are extreamly inconstant and always hate our own choice we despair sometimes of Gods mercies and are confident in our own follies as we order things we cannot avoid little sins and do not avoid great ones We love the present world though it be good for nothing and undervalue infinite treasures if they be not to be had till the day of recompences We are peevish if a servant does but break a glass and patient when we have thrown an ill cast for eternity throwing away the hopes of a glorious Crown for wine and dirty silver We know that our prayers if well done are great advantages to our state and yet we are hardly brought to them and love not to stay at them and wander while we are saying them and say them without minding and are glad when they are done or when we have a reasonable excuse to omit them A passion does quite overturn all our purposes and all our principles and there are certain times of weakness in which any temptation may prevail if it comes in that unlucky minute 84. This is a little representment of the state of man whereof a great part is a natural impotency and the other is brought in by our own folly Concerning the first when we discourse it is as if one describes the condition of a Mole or a Bat an Oyster or a Mushrome concerning whose imperfections no other cause is to be inquired of but the will of God who gives his gifts as he please and is unjust to no man by giving or not giving any certain proportion of good things And supposing this loss was brought first upon Adam and so descended upon us yet we have no cause to complain for we lost nothing that was ours Praeposterum est said Paulus the Lawyer antè nos locupletes dici quà m acquisterimus We cannot be said to lose what we never had and our fathers goods were not to descend upon us
which is the prime and proper action of the will that only is subject to a command that is to chuse or refuse the sin The passion that is the proper effect or impress upon the fancy or body that is natural and is determin'd to the particular by the mixture of something natural with the act of the will as if an apprehension of future evils be mingled with the refusing sin that is if it be the cause of it then fear is the passion that is effected by it If the feeling some evil be the cause of the nolition then sorrow is the effect and fear also may produce sorrow So that the passion that is the natural impress upon the man cannot be the effect of a Commandment but the principle of that passion is we are commanded to refuse sin to eschew evil that 's the word of the Scripture but because we usually do feel the evils of sin and we have reason to fear worse and sorrow is the natural effect of such a feeling and such a fear therefore the Scripture calling us to repentance that is a new life a dying unto sin and a living unto righteousness expresses it by sorrow and mourning and weeping but these are not the duty but the expressions or the instruments of that which is a duty So that if any man who hates sin and leaves it cannot yet find the sharpness of such a sorrow as he feels in other sad accidents there can nothing be said to it but that the duty it self is not clothed with those circumstances which are apt to produce that passion it is not an eschewing of sin upon considerations of a present or a feared trouble but upon some other principle or that the consideration is not deep and pressing or that the person is of an unapt disposition to those sensible effects The Italian and his wife who by chance espied a Serpent under the shade of their Vines were both equal haters of the little beast but the wise only cried out and the man kill'd it but with as great a regret and horror at the sight of it as his wife though he did not so express it But when a little after they espied a Lizard and she cried again he told her That he perceiv'd her trouble was not always deriv'd from reasonable apprehensions and that what could spring only from images of things and fancies of persons was not considerable by a just value This is the case of our sorrowing Some express it by tears some by penances and corporal inflictions some by more effective and material mortifications of it but he that kills it is the greatest enemy But those persons who can be sorrowful and violently mov'd for a trifling interest and upon the arrests of fancy if they find these easie meltings and sensitive afflictions upon the accounts of their sins are not to please themselves at all unless when they have cried out they also kill the Serpent 20. I cannot therefore at all suspect that mans repentance who hates sin and chuses righteousness and walks in it though he do not weep or feel the troubles of a mother mourning over the hearse of her only son but yet such a sensitive grief is of great use to these purposes I. If it do not proceed from the present sense of the Divine judgment yet it supplies that and feels an evil from its own apprehension which is not yet felt from the Divine infliction II. It prevents Gods anger by being a punishment of our selves a condemnation of the sinner and a taking vengeance of our selves for our having offended God And therefore it is consequently to this agreed on all hands that the greater the sorrow is the less necessity there is of any outward affliction Vt possit lachrymis aequare labores According to the old rule of the Penitentiaries Sitque modus culpae justae moderatio poenae Quae tanto levior quanto contritio major Which general measure of repentances as it is of use in the particular of which I am now discoursing so it effects this perswasion that external mortifications and austerities are not any part of original and essential duty but significations of the inward repentance unto men and suppletories of it before God that when we cannot feel the trouble of mind we may at least hate sin upon another account even upon the superinduc'd evils upon our bodies for all affliction is nothing but sorrow Gravis animi poena est quem post factum poenitet said Publius To repent is a grievous punishment and the old man in the Comedy calls it so Cur meam senectam hujus sollicito amentiâ Pro hujus ego ut peccatis supplicium sufferam Why do I grieve my old age for his madness that I should suffer punishment for his sins grieving was his punishment 3. This sensitive sorrow is very apt to extinguish sin it being of a symbolical nature to the design of God when he strikes a sinner for his amendment it makes sin to be uneasie to him and not only to be displeasing to his spirit but to his sense and consequently that it hath no port to enter any more 4. It is a great satisfaction to an inquisitive conscience to whom it is not sufficient that he does repent unless he be able to prove it by signs and proper indications 21. The summ is this No man can in any sence be said to be a true penitent unless he wishes he had never done the sin 2. But he that is told that his sin is presently pardon'd upon repentance that is upon leaving it and asking forgiveness and that the former pleasure shall not now hurt him he hath no reason to wish that he had never done it 3. But to make it reasonable to wish that the sin had never been done there must be the feeling or fear of some evil Conscia mens ut cuique sua est ita concipit intra Pectora pro meritis spémque metúmque suis. 4. According as is the nature of that evil fear'd or felt so is the passion effected of hatred or sorrow 5. Whatever the passion be it must be totally exclusive of all affection to sin and produce enmity and fighting against it until it be mortified 6. In the whole progression of this mortification it is more than probable that some degrees of sensitive trouble will come in at some angle or other 7. Though the duty of penitential sorrow it self be completed in nolitione peccati in the hating of sin and our selves for doing it yet the more penal that hate is the more it ministers to many excellent purposes of repentance 22. But because some persons do not feel this sensitive sorrow they begin to suspect their repentance and therefore they are taught to supply this want by a reflex act that is to be sorrowful because they are not sorrowful This I must needs say is a fine device where it can be made to signifie something that is
Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appears either there or elsewhere * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear For what power had they of Jurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit that is My power My authority for so he explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turns neither for an independent Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is ver 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For taken away from you implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himself He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolical or Episcopal and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters men of Apostolical authority But here lies the issue and strain of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to do but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition Saint Hierom does not say but it was For he speaks only of matter of fact not of right It might have been otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Jerusalem where the Elders were Apostolical men and had Episcopal authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Judas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocess besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy
and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencies which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunal punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of special duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sin of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their several respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognizance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiastical because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things Spiritual because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity for such things only are properly spiritual 5. The Bishops Jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by the secular arm either superadding a temporal penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopal Jurisdiction hath a double part an external and an internal this is derived from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Jurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity fit Judge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Judge of that or that the Bishops were not but in case of the pervicacy of a peevish Heretick who would not submit to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Churches power It was so in the case of Aetiu◠the Arian and Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperor For all that the Prefect did or the Emperor in this case was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholicks but the precise act of Judicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aetius for his Heresie for all his confident appeal and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personal delinquencies * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Judges though Delegates of the Emperor Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever known that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose in his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aetius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offered at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial hoped to ingage the Emperor on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholick Bishops made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of powers and jurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia a man so famous and exemplary that he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperor did precede amongst the Bishops and undertook to determine causes of meer spiritual cognizance in stead of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over thing of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops The Militia and the Politia are thine but matters of Faith and Spirit are of Episcopal cognizance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedom of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and fair acknowledgment of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia and the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their Legat to desire him Vt dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse That he would be pleased to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud seipsos congregentur ubi voluerint Cúmque haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith but referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by Gods law they did appertain upon which intimation given the Bishops convened in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A Divine right to decide the Article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperor it is not lawful for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperor to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Council These are two distinct powers one from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent
for the other also without any sensible error It is not the word it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity and an affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles * And if we mark it our Blessed Saviour points it out himself The Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise authority over them and are called Benefactors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so with you Not so how Not as the Princes of the Gentiles for theirs is a temporal Regiment your Apostolate must be Spiritual They rule as Kings you as fellow servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that will be first amongst you let him be your Minister or Servant It seems then among Christs Disciples there may be a Superiority when there is a Minister or servant But it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this greatness doth consist it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in But more particularly it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must not be as the Princes of the Gentiles but it must be as the son of man so Christ sayes expresly And how was that why he came to Minister and to serve and yet in the lowest act of his humility the washing his Disciples feet he told them ye call me Lord and Master and ye say well for so I am It may be so with you Nay it must be as the son of Man But then the being called Rabbi or Lord nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio regimine in a spiritual superintendency and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may stand with the humility of the Gospel and office of Ministration So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to rule with more than a political Regiment even with an absolute and despotick and is so used in holy Scripture viz. in sequiorem partem God gave authority to man over the creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in the Septuagint and we know the power that man hath over beasts is to kill and to keep alive And thus to our blessed Saviour the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this we know how it must be exercised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rod of iron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall break them in pieces like a potters vessel That 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it shall not be so with you But let this be as true as it will The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticism It is clear that the form of Regiment only is distinguished not all Regiment and authority taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as the Kings of the Gentiles but as the son of man so must your Regiment be for sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Impery but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick Ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers express the authority and regiment of Bishops Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae saith Origen And Saint Hierom Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet Saint Hierom himself writing to Saint Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chief the Officers of which Ministration must govern and we must obey They must govern not in a temporal Regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a Spiritual not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So Saint Austin Nomen est operis non honoris ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth Chapter of the same Book Qui imperant serviunt iis rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio consulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the prophetical visions where the Regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the Regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spiritual the other secular And of the fatherly authority it is that the Prophet sayes Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdoms by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiastical rule or chiefty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sin if it continues and no sin if it lasts but for a week Or is it lawful to sin and domineer and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetual Dictators Calvin was perpetual President and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and Consistorial and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawful here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer and as they call it now adayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern But if the Apostles may govern then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sons of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may do the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easie to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no wayes pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority For inter se they might be equal and yet superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so
meus hic est sanguis Testamenti Now this is confuted before for it can only be true when there is no difference of subject and predicate as in all figures and sacraments and artificial representments there are Some others say This is that is this shall be my body So that is demonstrates not what is but what shall be But this prevailed not amongst them Others say that This signifies Nothing So Innocentius the third Major the Count of Mirandula De capite Fontium and Catharinus Others yet affirm that This signifies these accidents So Ruard Tapper and others whom Suarez reckons and confutes Thomas Aquinas and his Scholars affirm that This demonstrates neither bread nor the body nor nothing nor the accidents but a substance indefinitely which is under the accidents of bread as when Christ turned the water into wine he might have said Hoc est vinum not meaning that water is wine but this which is here or this which is in the vessel is wine which is an instance in which Bellarmine pleases himself very much and uses it more than once not at all considering that in this form of speech there is the same mistake as in the former for in this example there are not two things as we contend there are in the Sacrament and that to make up the proposition the understanding is forc'd to make an artificial subject and this refers to wine and is determined by his imaginary subject and makes not an essential or physical but a logical predication This which is in the vessel is wine and the proposition is identical if it be reduc'd to a substantial But when Christ said Hoc est corpus meum hoc first neither points to corpus as the others do to vinum even by their own confession nor yet secondly to an artificial subject whereby it can by imagination become demonstrative and determinate for then it were no real affirmative not at all significative much less effective of a change nor yet thirdly will they allow that it points to that subject which is really there viz. bread but what then It demonstrates something real that either 1. is not the predicate and then there would be two things disparate signified by it two distinct substances which in this case could be nothing but bread and the body of Christ or 2. it demonstrates nothing but the predicate and then the proposition were identical viz. this body of Christ is the body of Christ which is an absurd predication or else 3. it demonstrates something that is indemonstrable pointing at something that is nothing certain and then it cannot be pointed at or demonstrated for if by this which is under the species they mean any certain substance it must be bread or the body of Christ either of which undoes their cause 4. But if it be inquired by what Logick or Grammar it can be that a Pronoun demonstrative should signify indeterminately that is an individuum vagum They tell us no it does not but it signifies an individual determinate substance under the accidents of bread not according to the formality of the bread but secundùm rationem substantiae communem individuam vagè per ordinem ad accidentia but according to the formality of a substance common and individual indefinitely or indeterminately by order to those accidents So Gregory de Valentia which is as good and perfect non-sence as ever was spoken It is determinate and not determinate it is substantial in order to accidents individual and yet common universal and particular it is limited but after an unlimited manner that is it is and it is not that is it is the Logick and the Grammar and the proper sence of Transubstantiation which is not to be understood but by them that know the new and secret way to reconcile contradictories Bellarmine sweetens the sence of this as well as he may and says that the Pronoun demonstrative does point out and demonstrate the species that is the accidents of bread these accidents are certain and determinate so that the Pronoun demonstrative is on the side of the species or accidents not of the substance But yet so as to mean not the accidents but the substance and not the substance which is but which shall be for it is not the same yet which indeed is the same non-sence with the former abused or set off with a distinction the parts of which contradict each other The Pronoun demonstrative does only point to the accidents and yet does not mean the accidents but the substance under them and yet it does not mean the substance that is under them but that which shall be for the substance which is meant is not yet and it does not point at the substance but yet it means it For the substance indeed is meant by the Pronoun demonstrative but that it does not at all demonstrate it but the accidents only And indeed this is a fine secret The substance is pointed at before it is and the demonstration is upon the accidents but means the substance in obliquo but not in recto not directly but as by the bie just as a man can see a thing before it be made and by pointing at a thing which you see demonstrates or shews you a thing which shall never be seen But then if you desire to know how it was pointed at before it was that is the secret not yet revealed But finally this is the doctrine that hath prevailed at least in the Jesuits Schools This points out something under the accidents of bread meaning This which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body there it rests But before it go any further I shall disturb his rest with this Syllogism When Christ said Hoc this is my body by this he meant this which is contained under the accidents of bread is my body But at that instant that which was contained under the accidents of bread was the substance of bread Therefore to the substance of bread Christ pointed that he related to by the Pronoune demonstrative and of that he affirmed it was his body The Major is that the Jesuits contend for the Minor is affirmed by Bellarmine Quando dicitur Hoc tum non est praesens substantia corporis Christi therefore the conclusion ought to be his and owned by them However I will make bold to call it a demonstration upon their own grounds and conclude that it is bread and Christs body too and that is the doctrine of the Protestants And I add this also that it seems a great folly to declaim against us for denying the literal natural sence and yet that themselves should expound it in a sence which suffers a violence and a most unnatural ungrammatical torture for if they may change the words from the right sence and case to the oblique and indirect why may not we and it is less violence to say Hoc est corpus meum i. e. hic panis est
common day yet these negatives suppose the affirmative of their proper subject Corinthian brass is brass Colossus is a statue and Christmas day is a day But if you affirm of a counterfeit or of an image or a picture by saying it is no common thing you deny to it the ordinary nature by diminution but if it have the nature of the thing then to say it is not common denies the ordinary nature by addition and eminency the first says it is not so at all the second says it is more than so and this is taught to every man by common reason and he could have observed it if he had pleased for it is plain Justin said this of that which before the Consecration was known to be natural bread and therefore now to say it was not common bread is to say it is bread and something more 2. The second reason from the words of Justin to prove it to be natural food still is because it is that by which our blood and our flesh is nourished by change Bellarmine says that these words by which our flesh and blood is nourished mean by which they use to be nourished not meaning that they are nourished by this bread when it is Eucharistical But besides that this is gratis dictum without any colour or pretence from the words of Justin but by a presumption taken from his own opinion as if it were impossible that Justin should mean any thing against his doctrine besides this I say the interpretation is insolent Nutriuntur i. e. solent nutriri as also because both the verbs are of the present tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The flesh and blood are nourished by bread and it is the body of Christ that is both in conjunction so that he says not as Bellarmine would have him Cibus ille ex quo carnes nostrae ali solent cum prece mysticâ consecratur efficitur corpus Christi but Cibus ille quo carnes nostrae aluntur est corpus Christi The difference is material and the matter is apparent but upon this alone I rely not To the same purpose are the words of Irenaeus Dominus accipiens panem suum corpus esse confitebatur temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit Our Lord taking bread confessed it to be his body and the mixture of the cup he confirmed to be his blood Here Irenaeus affirms to be true what Bellarmine says non potest fieri cannot be done that in the same proposition bread should be the subject and body should be the praedicate Irenaeus sayes that Christ said it to be so and him we follow But most plainly in his fifth Book Quando ergo mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna quae sanguine corpore Christi nutritur and a little after he affirms that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and that this is not understood of the spiritual man but of the natural disposition or temper quae de calice qui est sanguis ejus nutritur de pane qui est corpus ejus augetur and again eum calicem qui est creatura suum sanguinem qui effusus est ex quo auget nostrum sanguinem eum panem c. qui est creatura suum corpus confirmavit ex quo nostra auget corpora it is made the Eucharist of the bread and the body of Christ out of that of which the substance of our flesh consists and is encreased by the bread which he confirmed to be his body he encreases our bodies by the blood which was poured out he encreases our blood that is the sence of Irenaeus so often repeated And to the same purpose is that of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bread which is called the Eucharist is to us the symbol of thanksgiving or Eucharist to God So also Tertullian acceptum panem distributum discipulis suis corpus suum fecit He made the bread which he took and distributed to his disciples to be his body But more plainly in his Book De Coronâ militis Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxiè patimur we cannot endure that any of the cup or any thing of the bread be thrown to the ground The Eucharist he plainly calls bread and that he speaks of the Eucharist is certain and Bellarmine quotes the words to the purpose of shewing how reverently the Eucharist was handled and regarded The like is in S. Cyprian Dominus corpus suum panem vocat sanguinem suum vinum appellat Our Lord calls bread his body and wine his blood So John Maxentius in the time of Pope Hormisda The bread which the whole Church receives in memory of the Passion is the body of Christ. And S. Cyril of Jerusalem is earnest in this affair since our Lord hath declared and said to us of bread This is my body who shall dare to doubt it which words I the rather note because Cardinal Perron brings them as if they made for his cause which they most evidently destroy For if of bread Christ made this affirmation that it is his body then it is both bread and Christs body too and that is it which we contend for In the Dialogues against the Marciâ—nites collected out of Maximus Origen is brought in proving the reality of Christs flesh and blood in his incarnation by this argument If as these men say he be without flesh and bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Of what body and of what bloud did he command the images or figures giving the bread and cup to his Disciples that by these a remembrance of him should be made But Acacius the successor of Eusebius in his Bishoprick calls it bread and wine even in the very use and sanctification of us Panis vinúmque ex hâc materiâ vescentes sanctificat the bread and wine sanctifies them that are fed with this matter In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum so S. Hierome he offered wine not water in the type representment or sacrament of his bloud To the same purpose but most plain are the words of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the exhibition of the mysteries he called bread his body and the mixture in the chalice he called bloud So also S. Austin Serm. 9. De diversis The Eucharist is our daily bread but we receive it so that we are not only nourished by the belly but also by the understanding And I cannot understand the meaning of plain Latin if the same thing be not affirmed in the little Mass-book published by Paulus 5. for the English Priests Deus qui humani generis
Ep. 7. Si manifestissimae certaeque rationi velut Scripturarum Sanctarum objicitur authoritas non intelligit qui hoc facit non Scripturarum illarum sensum ad quem penetrare non potuit sed suum potiùs objicit veritati nec quod in eis sed quod in seipso velut pro eis invenit opponit He that opposes the authority of the holy Scriptures against manifest and certain reason does neither understand himself nor the Scripture Indeed when God hath plainly declared the particular the more it seems against my reasons the greater is my obedience in submitting but that is because my reasons are but Sophismes since truth it self hath declared plainly against them but if God hath not plainly declared against that which I call reason my reason must not be contested by a pretence of Faith but upon some other account Ratio cum ratione concertet 3. Secondly But this is such a fine device that it can if it be admitted warrant any literal interpretation against all the pretences of the world For when Christ said If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out Here are the plain words of Christ And Some make themselves Eunuches for the kingdom of Heaven Nothing plainer in the Grammatical sence and why do we not do it because it is an unnatural thing to mangle our body for a Spiritual cause which may be supplied by other more gentle instruments Yea but reason is not to be heard against the plain words of Christ and the greater our reason is against it the greater excellency in our obedience that as Abraham against hope believed in hope so we against reason may believe in the greatest reason the Divine revelation and what can be spoken against this 4. Thirdly Stapleton confuting Luthers opinion of Consubstantiation pretends against it many absurdities drawn from reason and yet it would have been ill taken if it should have been answered that the doctrine ought the rather to be believed because it is so unreasonable which answer is something like our new Preachers who pretend that therefore they are Spiritual men because they have no learning they are to confound the wise because they are the weak things of the world and that they are to be heard the rather because there is the less reason they should so crying stinking fish that men may buy it the more greedily But I will proceed to the particulars of reason in this Article being contented with this that if the adverse party shall refuse this way of arguing they may be reproved by saying they refuse to hear reason and it will not be easie for them in despite of reason to pretend faith for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unreasonable men and they that have not faith are equivalent in S. Pauls expression 5. First I shall lay this prejudice in the Article as relating to the discourses of reason that in the words of institution there is nothing that can be pretended to prove the conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ but the same will infer the conversion of the whole into the whole and therefore of the accidents of the bread into the accidents of the body And in those little pretences of Philosophy which these men sometimes make to cousen fools into a belief of the possibility they pretend to no instance but to such conversions in which if the substance is changed so also are the accidents sometimes the accident is chang'd in the same remaining substance but if the substance be changed the accidents never remain the same individually or in kind unless they be symbolical that is are common to both as in the change of elements of air into fire of water into earth Thus when Christ changed water into wine the substances being chang'd the accidents also were alter'd and the wine did not retain the colour and taste of water for then though it had been the stranger miracle that wine should be wine and yet look and taste like water yet it would have obtained but little advantage to his doctrine and person if he should have offer'd to prove his mission by such a miracle For if Christ had said to the guests To prove that I am come from God I will change this water into wine well might this prove his mission but if while the guests were wondring at this he should proceed and say wonder ye not at this for I will do a stranger thing than it for this water shall be changed into wine and yet I will so order it that it shall look like water and taste like it so that you shall not know one from the other Certainly this would have made the whole matter very ridiculous and indeed it is a strange device of these men to suppose God to work so many prodigious miracles as must be in Transubstantiation if it were at all and yet that none of these should be seen for to what purpose is a miracle that cannot be perceived It can prove nothing nor do any thing when it self is not known whether it be or no. When bread is turned into flesh and wine into blood in the nourishment of our bodies which I have seen urg'd for the credibility of Transubstantiation The bread as it changes his nature changes his accidents too and is flesh in colour and shape and dimensions and weight and operation as well as it is in substance Now let them rub their foreheads hard and tell us it is so in the holy Sacrament For if it be not so then no instance of the change of Natural substances from one form to another can be pertinent For 1. Though it be no more than is done in every operation of a body yet it is always with change of their proper accidents and then 2. It can with no force of the words of the institution be pretended that one ought to be or can be without the other For he that says this is the body of a man says that it hath the substance of a humane body and all his consequents that is the accidents and he that says this is the body of Alexander says besides the substance that it hath all the individuating conditions which are the particular accidents and therefore Christ affirming this to be his body did as much affirm the change of accidents as the change of substance because that change is naturally and essentially consequent to this Now if they say they therefore do not believe the accidents of bread to be changed because they see them remain I might reply Why will they believe their sense against faith since there may be evidence but here is certainty and it cannot be deceived though our eyes can and it is certain that Christ affirmed it without distinction of one part from another of substance from his usual accidents This is my body Hoc Hîc Nunc and Sic. Now if they think their eyes may be credited for
to have been the established resolved doctrine of the Primitive Church this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not necessary Because although no argument can prove it Catholick but a consent yet if some as learned as holy as orthodox do dissent it is enough to prove it not to be Catholick As a proposition is not universal if there be one or three or ten exceptions but to make it universal it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must take in all 2. Secondly None of the Fathers speak words exclusive of our way because our way contains a Spiritual sence which to be true our adversaries deny not but say it is not sufficient but there ought to be more But their words do often exclude the way of the Church of Rome and are not so capable of an answer for them 3. Thirdly When the saying of a Father is brought out of which his sence is to be drawn by argument and discourse by two or three remote uneasie consequences I do not think it fit to take notice of those words either for or against us because then his meaning is as obscure as the article it self and therefore he is not fit to be brought in interpretation of it And the same also is the case when the words are brought by both sides for then it is a shrewd sign the Doctor is not well to be understood or that he is not fit in those words to be an umpire and of this Cardinal Perron is a great example who spends a volume in folio to prove S. Austin to be of their side in this article or rather not to be against them 4. Fourthly All those testimonies of Fathers which are as general indefinite and unexpounded as the words of Scripture which are in question must in this question pass for nothing and therefore when the Fathers say that in the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ that there is the body of our Lord that before consecration it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh truly his blood these and the like sayings are no more than the words of Christ This is my body and are only true in the same sence of which I have all this while been giving an account that is by a change of condition of sanctification and usage We believe that after consecration and blessing it is really Christs body which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper And upon this account we shall find that many very many of the authorities of the Fathers commonly alledged by the Roman Doctors in this question will come to nothing For we speak their sence and in their own words the Church of England expressing this mystery frequently in the same forms of words and we are so certain that to eat Christs body Spiritually is to eat him really that there is no other way for him to be eaten really than by Spiritual manducation 5. Fifthly when the Fathers in this question speak of the change of the Symbols in the holy Sacrament they sometimes use the words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Church conversion mutation transition migration transfiguration and the like in the Latin but they by these do understand accidental and Sacramental conversions not proper natural and substantial Concerning which although I might refer the Reader to see it highly verified in David Blondels familiar elucidations of the Eucharistical controversie yet a shorter course I can take to warrant it without my trouble or his and that is by the confession of a Jesuit and of no mean same or learning amongst them The words of Suarez whom I mean are these Licet antiqui Pp. c. Although the ancient Fathers have used divers names yet all they are either general as the names of conversion mutation transition or else they are more accommodated to an accidental change as the name of Transfiguration and the like only the name of Transelementation which Theophylact did use seems to approach nearer to signify the propriety of this mystery because it signifies a change even of the first elements yet that word is harder and not sufficiently accommodate For it may signify the resolution of one element into another or the resolution of a mixt body into the elements He might have added another sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transelementation For Theophylact uses the same word to express the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption and the change that is made in the faithful when they are united unto Christ. But Suarez proceeds But Transubstantiation does most properly and appositely signifie the passage and conversion of the whole substance into the whole substance So that by this discourse we are quitted and made free from the pressure of all those authorities of the Fathers which speak of the mutation conversion transition or passage or transelementation transfiguration and the like of the bread into the body of Christ these do or may only signifie an accidental change and come not home to their purpose of Transubstantiation and it is as if Suarez had said the words which the Fathers use in this question make not for us and therefore we have made a new word for our selves and obtruded it upon all the world But against it I shall only object an observation of Bellarmine that is not ill The liberty of new words is dangerous in the Church because out of new words by little and little new things arise while it is lawful to coyn new words in divine affairs 6. Sixthly To which I add this that if all the Fathers had more unitedly affirmed the conversion of the bread into Christs body than they have done and had not explicated their meaning as they have done indeed yet this word would so little have help'd the Roman cause that it would directly have overthrown it For in their Transubstantiation there is no conversion of one thing into another but a local succession of Christs body into the place of bread A change of the Vbi was not used to be called a substantial conversion But they understood nothing of our present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not used to such curious nothings and intricate falshoods and artificial nonsence with which the Roman Doctors troubled the world in this question But they spake wholly another thing and either they did affirm a substantial change or they did not If they did not then it makes nothing for them or against us But if they did mean a proper substantial change then for so much as it comes to it makes against us but not for them for they must mean a change of one substance into another by conversion or a change of substances by substitution of one in the place of another If they meant the latter then it was no conversion of one into another and then they expressed not what they meant
expounding the Sacrament Nothing needs to be plainer By the way let me observe this that the words cited by Tertullian out of Jeremy are expounded and recited too but by allusion For there are no such words in the Hebrew Text which is thus to be rendred Corrumpanus veneno cibum ejus and so cannot be referred to the Sacrament unless you will suppose that he fore-signified the poysoning the Emperour by a consecrated wafer But as to the figure this is often said by him for in the first book against Marcion he hath these words again nec reprobavit panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus creatoris He refused not bread by which he represents his own body wanting or using in the Sacraments the meanest things of the Creator For it is not to be imagined that Tertullian should attempt to perswade Marcion that the bread was really and properly Christs body but that he really delivered his body on the Cross that both in the old Testament and here himself gave a figure of it in bread and wine for that was it which the Marcionites denied saying on the cross no real humanity did suffer and he confutes them by saying these are figures and therefore denote a truth 8. However these men are resolved that this new answer shall please them and serve their turn yet some of their fellows great Clerks as themselves did shrink under the pressure of it as not being able to be pleased with so laboured and improbable an answer For Harding against Juel hath these words speaking of this place which interpretation is not according to the true sence of Christs words although his meaning swerve not from the truth And B. Rhenanus the author of the admonition to the Reader De quibusdam Tertulliani dogmat◠seems to confess this to be Tertullians error Error putantium corpus Christi in Eucharistiâ tantùm esse sub figurâ jam olim condemnatus The error of them that think the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only in a figure is now long since condemned But Garetius Bellarmine Justinian Coton Fevardentius Valentia and Vasquez in the recitation of this passage of Tertullian very fairly leave out the words that pinch them and which clears the article and bring the former words for themselves without the interpretation of id est figura corporis mei I may therefore without scruple reckon Tertullian on our side against whose plain words no real exception can lye himself expounding his own meaning in the pursuance of the figurative sence of this mystery 20. Concerning Origen I have already given an account in the ninth Paragraph and other places casually and made it appear that he is a direct opposite to the doctrine of Transubstantiation And the same also of Justin Martyr Paragraph the fifth number 9. Where also I have enumerated divers others who speak upon parts of this question on which the whole depends whither I refer the Reader Only concerning Justin Martyr I shall recite these words of his against Tryphon Figura fuit panis Eucharistiae quem in recordationem passionis facere praecepit The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion 21. Clemens Alexandrinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The blood of Christ is twofold the one is carnal by which we are redeemed from death the other spiritual viz. by which we are anointed And this is to drink the blood of Jesus to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord. But the power of the word is the Spirit as blood is of the flesh Therefore in a moderated proposition and convenience wine is mingled with water as the Spirit with a man And he receives in the Feast viz. Eucharistical tempered wine unto faith But the Spirit leadeth to incorruption but the mixture of both viz. of drink and the word is called the Eucharist which is praised and is a good gift or grace of which they who are partakers by faith are sanctified in body and soul. Here plainly he calls that which is in the Eucharist Spiritual blood and without repeating the whole discourse is easie and clear And that you may be certain of S. Clement his meaning he disputes in the same chapter against the Encratites who thought it not lawful to drink wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For be ye sure he also did drink wine for he also was a man and he blessed wine when he said Take drink 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my blood the blood of the vine for that word that was shed for many for the remission of sins it signifies allegorically a holy stream of gladness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the thing which had been blessed was wine he shewed again saying to his disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it new with you in my fathers kingdom Now S. Clement proving by Christs sumption of the Eucharist that he did drink wine must mean the Sacramental Symbol to be truly wine and Christs blood allegorically that holy stream of gladness or else he had not concluded by that argument against the Encratites Upon which account these words are much to be valued because by our doctrine in this article he only could confute the Encratites as by the same doctrine explicated as we explicate it Tertullian confuted the Marcionites and Theodoret and Gelasius confuted the Nestorians and Eutychians if the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been true these four heresies had by them as to their particular arguments relating to this matter been unconfuted 22. S. Cyprian in his Tractate de unctione which Canisius Harding Bellarmine and Lindan cite hath these words Dedit itaque Dominus noster c. Therefore our Lord in his table in which he did partake his last banquet with his disciples with his own hands gave bread and wine but on the cross he gave to the souldiers his body to be wounded that in the Apostles the sincere truth and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread should be his flesh and blood and by what reasons causes might agree with effects and diverse names and kinds viz. bread and wine might be reduced to one essence and the signifying and the signified might be reckoned by the same words and in his third Epistle he hath these words Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur wine by which Christs blood is showen or declared Here I might cry out as Bellarmine upon a much slighter ground Quid clariùs dici potuit But I forbear being content to enjoy the real benefits of these words without a triumph But I will use it thus far that it shall outweigh the words cited out of the tract de coenâ Domini by Bellarmine by the Rhemists by the Roman Catechism by Perron
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
instance but regular and certain in the prevarication Vetuleius Pavo would be sure to be drunk at the feasts of Saturn and take a surfeit in the Calends of January he would be wanton at the Floralia and bloody in the Theatres he would be prodigal upon his birth day and on the day of his marriage sacrifice Hecatombs to his Pertunda Dea and he would be sure to observe all the solemnities and festivals of vice in their own particulars and instances and thought himself a good man enough because he could not be called a drunkard or a glutton for one act and by sinning singly escap'd the appellatives of scorn which are usually fix'd upon vain persons that are married to one sin * Naturally to contract the habit of any one sin is like the entertaining of a Concubine and dwelling upon the folly of one miserable woman But a wandring habit is like a Libido vaga the vile adulteries of looser persons that drink at every cistern that runs over and stands open for them For such persons have a supreme habit a habit of disobedience and may for want of opportunity or abilities for want of pleasure or by the influence of an impertinent humour be kept from acting always in one scene But so long as they choose all that pleases them and exterminate no vice but entertain the instances of many their malice is habitual their state is a perfect aversation from God For this is that which the Apostle calls The body of sin a compagination of many parts and members just as among the Lawyers a flock a people a legion are called bodies and corpus civitatis we find in Livy corpus collegiorum in Caius corpus regni in Virgil and so here this union of several sins is the body of sin and that is the body of death And not only he that feeds perpetually upon raw fruit puts himself into an ill habit of body but he also does the same thing who to day drinks too much and to morrow fills himself with cold fruits and the next day with condited mushromes and by evil orders and carelesness of diet and accidental miscarriages heaps up a multitude of causes and unites them in the production and causality of his death This general disorder is indeed longer doing but it kills as fatally and infallibly as a violent surfeit And if a man dwells in the kingdome of sin it is all one whether he be sick in one or in twenty places they are all but several rooms of the same Infirmatory and ingredients of the same deadly poison He that repeats his sin whether it be in one or in several instances strikes himself often to the heart with the same or with several daggers 3. Having thus premised what was necessary for the explication of the nature of vicious habits we must consider that of vicious habits there is a threefold capacity 1. A Natural 2. A Moral 3. A Relative as it denominates a man in relation to God 1. Of the Natural capacity of sinful habits 4. The natural capacity of sinful habits is a facility or readiness of the faculty to do the like actions and this is naturally consequent to the frequent repetition of sinful acts not voluntary but in its cause and therefore not criminal by a distinct obliquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Aristotle Actions are otherwise voluntary than habits We are masters of our actions all the way but of habits only in the beginning But because it was in our choice to do so or otherwise therefore the habit which is consequent is called voluntary not then chosen because it cannot then be hindred and therefore it is of it self indifferent an evil indeed as sickness or crookedness thirst or famine and as death it self to them that have repented them of that sin for which they die but no sin if we consider it in its meer natural capacity * Nay so it may become the exercise of vertue the scene of trouble indeed or danger of temptation and sorrow but a field of victory For there are here two things very considerable 5. I. That God for the glorification of his mercy can and does turn all evil into some good so to defeat the Devils power and to produce honour and magnification to his own goodness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For so God uses to do if we sin we shall smart for it but he turns it into good And S. Austin applies that promise that all things shall work together for good to them that fear God even to this particular etiam ipsa peccata nimirum non ex naturâ suâ sed ex Dei virtute sapientiâ if all things then sins also not by their proper efficacy but by the over-ruling power and wisdom of God like that of Phocylides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that will be a good man must be often deceiv'd that is buy his wit at a dear rate And thus some have been cur'd of pride by the shames of lust and of lukewarmness by a fall into sin being awakened by their own noddings and mending their pace by their fall And so also the sense of our sad infirmities introduc'd by our vicious living and daily prevarications may become an accidental fortification to our spirits a new spur by the sense of an infinite necessity and an infinite danger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whoever repents after such sad intervals of sorrow and sin either must do more than other men or they do nothing to purpose For besides that an ordinary care cannot secure them who have brought tempters home to themselves a common industry cannot root out vicious customes a trifling mortification cannot crucifie and kill what hath so long been growing with us besides this for this will not directly go into the account for this difficulty the sinner must thank himself he must do more actions of piety to obtain his pardon and to secure it But because they need much pardon and an infinite care and an assiduous watchfulness or they perish infallibly therefore all holy penitents are to arise to greater excellencies than if they had never sinned Major deceptae fama est gloria dextrae Si not erasset fecerat illa minùs Scaevola's hand grew famous for being deceived and it had been less reputation to have struck his enemy to the heart than to do such honourable infliction upon it for missing And thus there is in heaven more joy over one repenting sinner than over ninety nine just persons that need it not there is a greater deliverance and a mightier miracle a bigger grace and a prodigy of chance it being as S. Austin affirms a greater thing that a sinner should be converted than that being converted he should afterwards be saved and this he learn'd from those words of S. Paul But God commended his love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for
non poenae utitur He uses the right of Empire not of justice of dominion not of punishment of a Lord not of a Judge And Philo blames it for the worst of institutions when the good sons of bad Parents shall be dishonoured by their Fathers stain and the bad sons of good Parents shall have their Fathers honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the law praises every one for their own not for the vertue of their Ancestors and punishes not the Fathers but his own wickedness upon every mans head And therefore Josephus calls the contrary way of proceeding which he had observ'd in Alexander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a punishment above the measures of a man and the Greeks and Romans did always call it injustice Illic immeritam maternae pendere linguae Andromedam poenas injustus jusserat Ammon And hence it is that all Laws forbear to kill a woman with child lest the Innocent should suffer for the Mothers fault and therefore this just mercy is infinitely more to be expected from the great Father of spirits the God of mercy and comfort And upon this account Abraham was confident with God Wilt thou slay the righteous with the wicked shall not the Judge of all the world do right And if it be unrighteous to slay the righteous with the wicked it is also unjust to slay the righteous for the wicked Ferréine ulla civitas laborem istiusmodi legis ut condemnetur Filius aut Nepos si Pater aut Avus deliquissent It were an intolerable Law and no community would be govern'd by it that the Father or Grandfather should sin and the Son or Nephew should be punish'd I shall add no more testimonies but only make use of the words of the Christian Emperors in their Laws Peccaâ—a igitur suos teâ—eant auctores nec ulteriùs progrediatur metus quà m reperiatur delictum Let no man trouble himself with unnecessary and melancholy dreams of strange inevitable undeserved punishments descending upon us for the faults of others The sin that a man does shall be upon his own head only Sufficient to every man is his own evil the evil that he does and the evil that he suffers SECT IV. Of the Causes of the Vniversal wickedness of Mankind 66. BUT if there were not some common natural principle of evil introduced by the sin of our Parent upon all his posterity how should all men be so naturally inclined to be vicious so hard and unapt so uneasie and so listless to the practices of vertue How is it that all men in the world are sinners and that in many things we offend all For if men could chuse and had freedom it is not imaginable that all should chuse the same thing As all men will not be Physicians nor all desire to be Merchants But we see that all men are sinners and yet it is impossible that in a liberty of indifferency there should be no variety Therefore we must be content to say that we have only a liberty of adhesion or delight that is we so love sin that we all chuse it but cannot chuse good 67. To this I answer many things 1. If we will suppose that there must now be a cause in our nature determining us to sin by an irresistible necessity I desire to know why such principle should be more necessary to us than it was to Adam what made him to sin when he fell He had a perfect liberty and no ignorance no original sin no inordination of his affections no such rebellion of the inferior faculties against the superior as we complain of or at least we say he had not and yet he sinned And if his passions did rebel against his reason before the fall then so they may in us and yet not be long of that fall It was before the fall in him and so may be in us and not the effect of it But the truth of the thing is this He had liberty of choice and chose ill and so do we and all men say that this liberty of chusing ill is still left to us But because it is left here it appears that it was there before and therefore is not the consequent of Original sin But it is said that as Adam chose ill so do we but he was free to good as well as to evil but so are not we we are free to evil not to good and that we are so is the consequent of original sin I reply That we can chuse good and as naturally love good as evil and in some instances more A man cannot naturally hate God if he knows any thing of him A man naturally loves his Parents He naturally hates some sort of uncleanness He naturally loves and preserves himself and all those sins which are unnatural are such which nature hates and the law of nature commands all the great instances of vertue and marks out all the great lines of justice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a law imprinted in the very substance of our natures and incorporated in all generations of reasonable creatures not to break or transgress the laws which are appointed by God Here only our nature is defective we do not naturally know nor yet naturally love those supernatural excellencies which are appointed and commanded by God as the means of bringing us to a supernatural condition That is without Gods grace and the renovation of the Spirit of God we cannot be saved Neither was Adams case better than ours in this particular For that his nature could not carry him to Heaven or indeed to please God in order to it seems to be confessed by them who have therefore affirmed him to have had a supernatural righteousness which is affirmed by all the Roman party But although in supernatural instances it must needs be that our Nature is defective so it must needs have been in Adam and therefore the Lutherans who in this particular dream not so probably as the other affirming that justice was natural in Adam do yet but differ in the manner of speaking and have not at all spoken against this neither can they unless they also affirm that to arrive at Heaven was the natural end of man For if it be not then neither we not Adam could by Nature do things above Nature and if God did concreate Grace with Adam that Grace was nevertheless Grace for being given him as soon as he was made For even the holy Spirit may be given to a Chrysome child and Christ and S. John Baptist and the Prophet Jeremy are in their several measures and proportions instances of it The result of which is this That the necessity of Grace does not suppose that our Nature is originally corrupted for beyond Adams mere Nature something else was necessary and so it is to us 68. II. But to the main objection I answer That it is certain there is not only one but many common principles from which sin derives it self into
the manners of all men 1. The first great cause of an universal impiety is that at first God had made no promises of Heaven he had not propounded any glorious rewards to be as an argument to support the superior faculty against the inferior that is to make the will chuse the best and leave the worst and to be as a reward for suffering contradiction For if the inferior faculty be pleas'd with its object and that chance to be forbidden as it was in most instances there had need be something to make recompence for the suffering the displeasure of crossing that appetite I use the common manner of speaking and the distinction of superior and inferior faculties though indeed in nature there is no such thing and it is but the same faculty divided between differing objects of which I shall give an account in the Ninth Chapter Section 3. But here I take notice of it that it may not with prejudice be taken to the disadvantage of this whole Article For if there be no such difference of facultie◠founded in Nature then the rebellion of the inferior against the superior is no effect of Adams sin But the inclination to sensual objects being chastis'd by laws and prohibitions hath made that which we call the rebellion of the inferior that is the adherence to sensual objects which was the more certain to remain because they were not at first enabled by great promises of good things to contest against sensual temptations And because there was no such thing in that period of the world therefore almost all flesh corrupted themselves excepting Abel Seth Enos and Enoch we find not one good man from Adam to Noah and therefore the Apostle calls that world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world of the ungodly It was not so much wonder that when Adam had no promises made to enable him to contest his natural concupiscence he should strive to make his condition better by the Devils promises If God had been pleased to have promis'd to him the glories he hath promised to us it is not to be suppos'd he had fallen so easily But he did not and so he fell and all the world followed his example and most upon this account till it pleas'd God after he had tried the world with temporal promises and found them also insufficient to finish the work of his graciousness and to cause us to be born anew by the revelations and promises of Jesus Christ. 69. II. A second cause of the universal iniquity of the world is because our Nature is so hard put to it in many instances not because Nature is originally corrupted but because Gods laws command such things which are a restraint to the indifferent and otherwise lawful inclinations of Nature I instance in the matters of Temperance Abstinence Patience Humility Self-denial and Mortification But more particularly thus A man is naturally inclined to desire the company of a woman whom he fancies This is naturally no sin for the natural desire was put into us by God and therefore could not be evil But then God as an instance and trial of our obedience put fetters upon the indefinite desire and determin'd us to one woman which provision was enough to satisfie our need but not all our possibility This therefore he left as a reserve that by obeying God in the so reasonable restraint of our natural desire we might give him something of our own * But then it is to be considered that our unwillingness to obey in this instance or in any of the other cannot be attributed to Original sin or natural disability deriv'd as a punishment from Adam because the particular instances were postnate a long time to the fall of man and it was for a long time lawful to do some things which now are unlawful But our unwillingness and averseness came by occasion of the law coming cross upon our nature not because our nature is contrary to God but because God was pleas'd to superinduce some Commandments contrary to our nature For if God had commanded us to eat the best meats and drink the richest wines as long as they could please us and were to be had I suppose it will not be thought that Original sin would hinder us from obedience But because we are forbidden to do some things which naturally we desire to do and love therefore our nature is hard put to it and this is the true state of the difficulty Citò nequitia subrepit virtus difficilis inventa est Wickedness came in speedily but vertue was hard and difficult 70. III. But then besides these there are many concurrent causes of evil which have influence upon communities of men such as are Evil Examples the similitude of Adams transgression vices of Princes wars impunity ignorance error false principles flattery interest fear partiality authority evil laws heresie schism spite and ambition natural inclination and other principiant causes which proceeding from the natural weakness of humane constitution are the fountain and proper causes of many consequent evils Quis dabit mundum ab immundo saith Job How can a clean thing come from an unclean We all naturally have great weaknesses and an imperfect constitution apt to be weary loving variety ignorantly making false measures of good and evil made up with two appetites that is with inclination to several objects serving to contrary interests a thing between Angel and Beast and the later in this life is the bigger ingredient Hominem à Naturâ noverca in lucem edi corpore nudo fragili atque infirmo animo anxio ad molestias humili ad timores debili ad labores proclivi ad libidines in quo Divinus ignis sit obrutus ingenium mores So Cicero as S. Austin quotes him Nature hath like a stepmother sent man into the world with a naked boy a frail and infirm mind vex'd with troubles dejected with fears weak for labours prone to lusts in whom the Divine fire and his wit and his manners are covered and overturn'd And when Plato had fiercely reprov'd the baseness of mens manners by saying that they are even naturally evil he reckons two causes of it which are the diseases of the Soul but contracted he knew not how Ignorance and Improbity which he supposes to have been the remains of that baseness they had before they entred into bodies whither they were sent as to a prison This is our natural uncleanness and imperfection and from such a principle we are to expect proper and proportion'd effects and therefore we may well say with Job What is man that he should be clean and he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous That is our imperfections are many and we are with unequal strengths call'd to labour for a supernatural purchase and when our spirit is very willing even then our flesh is very weak And yet it is worse if we compare our selves as Job does
the image of the Earthly we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly Now this I say That flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven neither doth corruption inherit incorruption This Discourse of the Apostle hath in it all these propositions which clearly state this whole Article There are two great heads of Mankind the two Adams the first and the second The first was framed with an earthly body the second had viz. after his resurrection when he had died unto sin once a spiritual body The first was Earthly the second is Heavenly From the first we derive an Earthly life from the second we obtain a Heavenly all that are born of the first are such as he was naturally but the effects of the Spirit came only upon them who are born of the second Adam From him who is earthly we could have no more than he was or had the spiritual life and consequently the Heavenly could not be derived from the first Adam but from Christ only All that are born of the first by that birth inherit nothing but temporal life and corruption but in the new birth only we derive a title to Heaven For flesh and blood that is whatsoever is born of Adam cannot inherit the Kingdom of God And they are injurious to Christ who think that from Adam we might have inherited immortality Christ was the Giver and Preacher of it he brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel It is a singular benefit given by God to mankind through Jesus Christ. 3. Upon the affirmation of these premises it follows That if Adam had stood yet from him we could not have by our natural generation obtained a title to our spiritual life nor by all the strengths of Adam have gone to Heaven Adam was not our representative to any of these purposes but in order to the perfection of a temporal life Christ only is and was from eternal ages designed to be the head of the Church and the fountain of spiritual life And this is it which is affirmed by some very eminent persons in the Church of God particularly by Junius and Tilenus that Christus est fundamentum totius praedestinationis all that are or ever were predestinated were predestinated in Christ Even Adam himself was predestinated in him and therefore from him if he had stood though we should have inherited a temporal happy life yet the Scripture speaks nothing of any other event Heaven was not promised to Adam himself therefore from him we could not have derived a title thither And therefore that inquity of the School-men Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ should have been incarnate was not an impertinent Question though they prosecuted it to weak purposes and with trifling arguments Scotus and his Scholars were for the affirmative and though I will not be decretory in it because the Scripture hath said nothing of it nor the Church delivered it yet to me it seems plainly the discourse of the Apostle now alledged That if Adam had not sinned yet that by Christ alone we should have obtained everlasting life Whether this had been dispensed by his Incarnation or some other way of oeconomy is not signified 4. But then if from Adam we should not have derived our title to Heaven though he had stood then neither by his Fall can we be said to have lost Heaven Heaven and Hell were to be administred by another method But then if it be enquired what evil we thence received I answer That the principal effect was the loss of that excellent condition in which God placed him and would have placed his posterity unless sin had entred He should have lived a long and lasting life till it had been time to remove him and very happy Instead of this he was thrown from those means which God had designed to this purpose that is Paradise and the trees of life he was turned into a place of labour and uneasiness of briars and thorns ill air and violent chances nova febrium terris incubuit cohors the woman was condemned to hard labour and travel and that which troubled her most obedience to her Husband his body was made frail and weak and sickly that is it was leâ—t such as it was made and left without remedies which were to have made it otherwise For that Adam was made mortal in his nature is infinitely certain and proved by his very eating and drinking his sleep and recreation by ingestion and egestion by breathing and generating his like which immortal substances never do and by the very tree of life which had not been needful if he should have had no need of it to repair his decaying strength and health 5. The effect of this consideration is this that all the product of Adam's sin was by despoiling him and consequently us of all the superadditions and graces brought upon his nature Even that which was threatned to him and in the narrative of that sad story expressed to be his punishment was no lessening of his nature but despoiling him of his supernaturals And therefore Manuel Pelaeologus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common driness of our nature and he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Fathers sin we fell from our Fathers graces Now according to the words of the Apostle As is the earthly such are they that are earthly that is all his posterity must be so as his nature was left in this there could be no injustice For if God might at first and all the way have made man with a necessity as well as a possibility of dying though men had not sinned then so also may he do if he did sin and so it was but this was effected by disrobing him of all the superadded excellencies with which God adorned and supported his natural life But this also I add that if even death it self came upon us without the alteration or diminution of our nature then so might sin because death was in re naturali but sin is not and therefore need not suppose that Adam's nature was spoiled to introduce that 6. As the sin of Adam brought hurt to the body directly so indirectly it brought hurt to the soul. For the evils upon the body as they are only felt by the soul so they grieve and tempt and provoke the soul to anger to sorrow to envy they make weariness in religious things cause desires for ease for pleasure and as these are by the body always desired so sometimes being forbidden by God they become sins and are always apt to it because the body being a natural agent tempts to all it can feel and have pleasure in And this is also observed and affirmed by S. Chrysostom and he often speaks it as if he were pleased in this explication of the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Together with death entred a whole troop of affections or passions For when the body became mortal then of necessity it did admit desires
it before a sinner can be tied to it For to have displeased God is a great evil but what is it to me if it will bring no evil to me It is a Metaphysical and a Moral evil but unless it be also naturally and sensibly so it is not the object of a natural and proper grief It follows therefore that the state of a repenting person must have in it some more causes of sorrow than are usually taught or else in vain can they be called upon to weep and mourn for their sins Well may they wring their faces and their hands and put on black those disguises of passion and curtains of joy those ceremonies and shadows of rich widows and richer heirs by which they decently hide their secret smiles well may they rend their garments but upon this account they can never rend their hearts 7. For the stating of this Article it is considerable that there are several parts or periods of sorrow which are effected by several principles In the beginning of our repentance sometimes we feel cause enough to grieve For God smites many into repentance either a sharp sickness does awaken us or a calamity upon our house or the death of our dearest relative and they that find sin so heavily incumbent and to press their persons or fortunes with feet of lead will feel cause enough and need not to be disputed into a penitential sorrow They feel Gods anger and the evil effects of sin and that it brings sorrow and then the sorrow is justly great because we have done that evil which brings so sad a judgment 8. And in the same proportion there is always a natural cause of sorrow where there is a real cause of fear and so it is ever in the beginning of repentance and for ought we know it is for ever so and albeit the causes of fear lessen as the repentance does proceed yet it will never go quite off till hope it self be gone and passed into charity or at least into a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into that fulness of confidence which is given to few as the reward of a lasting and conspicuous holiness And the reason is plain For though it be certain in religion that whoever repents shall be pardoned yet it is a long time before any man hath repented worthily and it is as uncertain in what manner and in what measures and in what time God will give us pardon It is as easie to tell the very day in which a man first comes to the use of reason as to tell the very time in which we are accepted to final pardon The progressions of one being as divisible as the other and less discernible For reason gives many fair indications of it self whereas God keeps the secrets of this mercy in his sanctuary and draws not the curtain till the day of death or judgment 9. Add to this that our very repentances have many allays and imperfections and so hath our pardon And every one that sins hath so displeased God that he is become the subject of the Divine anger Death is the wages what death God please and therefore what evil soever God will inflict or his mortality can suffer and he that knows this hath cause to fear and he that fears hath cause to be grieved that he is fallen from that state of divine favour in which he stood secured with the guards of Angels and covered with Heaven it self as with a shield in which he was beloved of God and heir of all his glories 10. But they that describe repentance in short and obscure characters and make repentance and pardon to be the children of a minute and born and grown up quickly as a fly or a mushrome with the dew of a night or the tears of a morning making the labours of the one and the want of the other to expire sooner than the pleasures of a transient sin are so insensible of the sting of sin that indeed upon their grounds it will be impossible to have a real godly sorrow For though they have done evil yet by this doctrine they feel none and there is nothing remains as a cause of grief unless they will be sorrowful for that they have been pleased formerly and are now secured nothing remains before them or behind but the pleasure that they had and the present confidence and impunity and that 's no good instrument of sorrow Securitas delicti etiam libido est ejus Sin takes occasion by the law it self if there be no penalty annexed 11. But the first in-let of a godly sorrow which is the beginning of repentance is upon the stock of their present danger and state of evil into which by their sin they are fallen viz. when their guilt is manifest they see that they are become sons of death expos'd to the wrath of a provoked Deity whose anger will express it self when and how it please and for ought the man knows it may be the greatest and it may be intolerable and though his danger is imminent and certain yet his pardon is a great way off it may be Yea it may be No it must be hop'd for but it may be missed for it is upon conditions and they are or will seem very hard Sed ut valeas multa dolenda feres So that in the summ of affairs however that the greatest sinner and the smallest penitent are very apt and are taught by strange doctrines to flatter themselves into confidence and presumption yet he will have reason to mourn and weep when he shall consider that he is in so sad a condition that because his life is uncertain it is also uncertain whether or no he shall not be condemned to an eternal prison of flames so that every sinner hath the same reason to be sorrowful as he hath who from a great state of blessings and confidence is fallen into great fears and great dangers and a certain guilt and liableness of losing all he hath and suffering all that is insufferable They who state repentance otherwise cannot make it reasonable that a penitent should shed a tear And therefore it is no wonder that we so easily observe a great dulness and indifferency so many dry eyes and merry hearts in persons that pretend repentance it cannot more reasonably be attributed to any cause than to those trifling and easie propositions of men that destroy the causes of sorrow by lessening and taking off the opinion of danger But now that they are observed and reproved I hope the evil will be lessened But to proceed 12. II. Having now stated the reasonableness and causes of penitential sorrow the next inquity is into the nature and constitution of that sorrow For it is to be observed that penitential sorrow is not seated in the affections directly but in the understanding and is rather Odium than Dolor it is hatred of sin and detestation of it a nolition a renouncing and disclaiming it whose expression is a resolution never
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
and those great advantages which by this Doctrine so understood may be reaped if men will be quiet and patient void of prejudice and not void of Charity This Madam is reason sufficient why I offer so many justifications of my Doctrine before any man appears in publick against it but because there are many who do enter into the houses of the rich and the honourable and whisper secret oppositions and accusations rather than arguments against my Doctrine the good Women that are zealous for Religion and make up in the passions of one faculty what is not so visible in the actions and operations of another are sure to be affrighted before they be instructed and men enter caveats in that Court before they try the cause But that is not all For I have found that some men to whom I gave and designed my labours and for whose sake I was willing to suffer the persecution of a suspected truth have been so unjust to me and so unserviceable to your self Madam and to some other excellent and rare personages as to tell stories and give names to my proposition and by secret murmurs hinder you from receiving that good which your wisdom and your piety would have discerned there if they had not affrighted you with telling that a Snake lay under the Plantane and that this Doctrine which is as wholsome as the fruits of Paradise was enwrapped with the infoldings of a Serpent subtile and fallacious Madam I know the arts of these men and they often put me in mind of what was told me by M. Sackvill the late Earl of Dorsets Vncle that the cunning Sects of the World he named the Jesuits and the Presbyterians did more prevail by whispering to Ladies than all the Church of England and the more sober Protestants could do by fine force and strength of argument For they by prejudice or fears terrible things and zealous nothings confident sayings and little stories governing the Ladies Consciences who can perswade their Lords their Lords will convert their Tenants and so the World is all their own I should wish them all good of their profits and purchases if the case were otherwise than it is but because they are questions of Souls of their interest and advantages I cannot wish they may prevail with the more Religious and Zealous Personages and therefore Madam I have taken the boldness to write this tedious Letter to you that I may give you a right understanding and an easie explication of this great Question as conceiving my self the more bound to do it to your satisfaction not only because you are Zealous for the Religion of this Church and are a person as well of Reason as of Religion but also because you have passed divers obligations upon me for which all my services are too little a return DEVS JVSTIFICATVS OR A VINDICATION OF THE Glory of the DIVINE ATTRIBUTES In the Question of ORIGINAL SIN IN Order to which I will plainly describe the great lines of difference and danger which are in the errors and mistakes about this Question 2. I will prove the truth and necessity of my own together with the usefulness and reasonableness of it 3. I will answer those little murmurs by which so far as I can yet learn these men seek to invade the understandings of those who have not leisure or will to examine the thing it self in my own words and arguments 4. And if any thing else falls in by the by in which I can give satisfaction to a Person of Your great Worthiness I will not omit it as being desirous to have this Doctrine stand as fair in your eyes as it is in all its own colours and proportions But first Madam be pleased to remember that the question is not whether there be any such thing as Original Sin for it is certain and confessed on all hands almost For my part I cannot but confess that to be which I feel and groan under and by which all the World is miserable Adam turned his back upon the Sun and dwelt in the dark and the shadow he sinned and fell into Gods displeasure and was made naked of all his supernatural endowments and was ashamed and sentenced to death and deprived of the means of long life and of the Sacrament and instrument of Immortality I mean the Tree of Life he then fell under the evils of a sickly body and a passionate ignorant uninstructed soul his sin made him sickly his sickness made him peevish his sin left him ignorant his ignorance made him foolish and unreasonable His sin left him to his nature and by his nature who ever was to be born at all was to be born a child and to do before he could understand and be bred under Laws to which he was always bound but which could not always be exacted and he was to chuse when he could not â—eason and had passions most strong when he had his understanding most weak and was to ride a wild horse without a bridle and the more need he had of a curb the less strength he had to use it and this being the case of all the World what was every mans evil became all mens greater evil and though alone it was very bad yet when they came together it was made much worse like Ships in a storm every one alone hath enough to do to out-ride it but when they meet besides the evils of the storm they find the intolerable calamity of their mutual concussion and every Ship that is ready to be oppressed with the tempest is a worse tempest to every vessel against which it is violently dashed So it is in mankind every man hath evil enough of his own and it is hard for a man to live soberly temperately and religiously but when he hath Parents and Children Brothers and Sisters Friends and Enemies Buyers and Sellers Lawyers and Physicians a Family and a Neighbourhood a King over him or Tenants under him a Bishop to rule in matters of Government spiritual and a People to be ruled by him in the affairs of their Souls then it is that every man dashes against another and one relation requires what another denies and when one speaks another will contradict him and that which is well spoken is sometimes innocently mistaken and that upon a good cause produces an evil effect and by these and ten thousand other concurrent causes man is made more than most miserable But the main thing is this when God was angry with Adam the man fell from the state of grace for God withdrew his grace and we returned to the state of mere nature of our prime creation And although I am not of Petrus Diaconus his mind who said that when we all fell in Adam we fell into the dirt and not only so but we fell also upon a heap of stones so that we not only were made naked but defiled also and broken all in pieces yet this I believe to be certain that
Testament they dishonour and make a pageantry of the Sacrament they ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves in a sign without effect making Baptism like the fig-tree in the Gospel full of leaves but no fruit and they invocate the Holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree 24. Thus far the Anabaptists may argue and men have disputed against them with so much weakness and confidence that we may say of them as S. Gregory Nazianzen observes of the case of the Church in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They have been encouraged in their errour more by the accidental advantages we have given them by our weak arguings then by any excellency of their wit and much less any advantage of their cause It concerned not the present design of this Book to enquire whether these men speak true or no for if they speak probably or so as may deceive them that are no fools it is argument sufficient to perswade us to pity the erring man that is deceived without design and that is all that I intended But because all men will not understand my purpose or think my meaning innocent unless I answer the Arguments which I have made or gathered for mine and their adversaries although I say it be nothing to the purpose of my Book which was onely to represent that even in a wrong cause there may be invincible causes of deception to innocent and unfortunate persons and of this truth the Anabaptists in their question of Paedo baptism is a very great instance yet I will rather chuse to offend the rules of Art then not to fulfill all the requisites of charity I have chosen therefore to adde some animadversions upon the Anabaptists plea upon all that is material and which can have any considerable effect in the Question For though I have used this art and stratagem of peace justly by representing the Enemie's strength to bring the other party to thoughts of charity and kind comportments yet I could not intend to discourage the right side or to make either a mutiny or defection in the Armies of Israel I do not as the Spies from Canaan say that these men are Anakims and the city-walls reach up to Heaven and there are giants in the Land I know they are not insuperable but they are like the blind and the lame set before a wall that a weak man can leap over and a single troup armed with wisedome and truth can beat all their guards But yet I think that he said well and wisely to Charles the fighting Duke of Burgundy that told him that the Switzers strength was not so to be despised but that an honourable peace and a Christian usage of them were better then a cruel and a bloudy war The event of that battel told all the world that no Enemy is to be despised and rendred desperate at the same time and that there are but few causes in the world but they do sometimes meet with witty Advocates in themselves put on such semblances of truth as will if not make the victory uncertain yet make peace more safe prudent mutual charity to be the best defence And First I do not pretend to say that every Argument brought by good men and wise in a righâ— cause must needs be demonstrative The Divinity of the eternal Son of God is a Truth of as great concernment and as great certainty as any thing that ever was disputed in the Christian Church and yet he that reads the writings of the Fathers and the Acts of Councils convened about that great Question will find that all the armour is not proof which is used in a holy War For that seems to one which is not so to another and when a man hath one sufficient reason to secure him and make him confident every thing seems to him to speak the same sense though to an adversary it does not for the one observes the similitude and pleaseth himself the other watches onely the dissonancies and gets advantage because one line of likeness will please a believing willing man but one will not do the work and where many dissimilitudes can be observed but one similitude it were better to let the shadow alone then hazard the substance And it is to be observed that Hereticks and misbelievers do apply themselves rather to disable truth then directly to establish their errour and every Argument they wrest from the hand of their adversaries is to them a double purchase it takes from the other and makes him less and makes himself greater the way to spoil a strong man is to take from him the armour in which he trusted and when this adversary hath espied a weak part in any discourse he presently concludes that the cause is no stronger and reckons his victories by the colours that he takes though they signified nothing to the strength of the cause And this is the main way of proceeding in this Question for they rather endeavour to shew that we cannot demonstrate our part of the Question then that they can prove theirs And as it is indeed easier to destroy then to build so it is more agreeable to the nature and to the design of Heresie and therefore it were well that in this and in other Qâ—stions where there are watchfull adversaries we should fight as Gideon did with three hundred hardy brave fellows that would stand against all violence rather then to make a noise with rams Horns and broken pitchers like the men at the siege of Jericho And though it is not to be expected that all Arguments should be demonstrative in a true cause yet it were well if the Generals of the Church which the Scripture affirms is terrible as an army with banners should not by sending out weak parties which are easily beaten weaken their own army and give confidence to the Enemy Secondly Although it is hard to prove a negative and it is not in many cases to be imposed upon a Litigant yet when the affirmative is received and practised whoever will disturb the actual perswasion must give his reason and offer proof for his own Doctrine or let me alone with mine For the reason why negatives are hard to prove is because they have no positive cause but as they have no being so they have no reason but then also they are first and before affirmatives that is such which are therefore to prevail because nothing can be said against them Darkness is before light and things are not before they are and though to prove that things are something must be said yet to prove they are not nothing is to be alledged but that they are not and no man can prove they are But when an affirmative hath entred and prevailed because no effect can be without some positive cause therefore this which came in upon some cause or other must not be