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
ask'd or given or presum'd * But if our consent was in it then either it was included naturally or by an express will of God that made it so It can no way be imagined how our will can be naturally included for we had no natural being We had no life and therefore no action and therefore no consent For it is impossible there should be an act of will in any sence when there is an act of understanding in no sence * But if by a Divine act or decree it became so and not by our act then we only are said to consent because God would have it so which if we speak intelligibly is to charge God with making us guilty when we were not to say we consented when we did not 31. VIII In pursuance of which argument I consider that whatsoever can be said to consent must have a being either in or out of its causes But our will was not in being or actual existence when Adam sinned it was then in its causes But the soul and so the will of man hath no cause but God it being with the soul immediately created If therefore we sinned we could not sin in our selves for we were not born nor could we sin in Adam for he was not the cause of our will it must therefore be that we sinn'd in God for as was our being so must our action be but our being was then only in God our will and our soul was in him only tanquam in 〈◊〉 causâ therefore in him was our action or consent or what we please to call it Which affirmative what sence or what piety or what probability it can have in it I suppose needs not much inquiry 32. IX To condemn Infants to Hell for the fault of another is to deal worse with them than God did to the very Devils who did not perish but for an act of their own most perfect choice 33. X. This besides the formality of injustice and cruelty does add and suppose a circumstance of a strange ungentle contrivance For because it cannot be supposed that God should damn Infants or Innocents without cause it finds out this way that God to bring his purposes to pass should create a guilt for them or bring them into an inevitable condition of being guilty by a way of his inventing For if he did make any such agreement with Adam he beforehand knew that Adam would forfeit all and therefore that unavoidably all his posterity should be surpris'd This is to make pretences and to invent justifications and reasons of his proceedings which indeed are all one as if they were not For he that can make a reason for an action otherwise unjust can do it without any reason especially when the reason it self makes the misery as fatal as a decree without a reason And if God cannot be supposed to damn infants without just cause and therefore he so order'd it that a cause should not be wanting but he infallibly and irresistibly made them guilty of Adams sin is not this to resolve to make them miserable and then with scorn to triumph in their sad condition For if they could not deserve to perish without a fault of their own how could they deserve to have such a fault put upon them If it be unjust to damn them without cause is it not also unjust to make a cause for them whether they will or no 34. XI It is suppos'd and generally taught that before the fall Adam had Original righteousness that is not only that he was innocent as children new born are of actual sin which seems to be that which Divines call Original righteousness there being no other either taught or reasonable but a rare rectitude of the inner man a just subordination of the inferior faculties to the superior an excellent knowledge and clear light and therefore that he would sin had so little excuse that well it might deserve such a punishment so great as himself suffered Indeed if he had no such rare perfections and rectitude I can say nothing to the particular but to the Question this that if Adam had it not then he could not lose it nor his posterity after him as it is fiercely and mightily pretended that they did But if he had this rectitude and rare endowments what equity is it that his posterity who had no such helps to resist the sin and were so far from having any helps at all to resist it that they had no notice of it neither of the law nor the danger nor the temptation nor the action till it was past I say what equity is it that his posterity should in the midst of all these imperfections be equally punished with him who sinned against so great a light and so mighty helps 35. XII Infants cannot justly perish for Adams sin unless it be just that their wills should be included in his will and his will justly become theirs by interpretation Now if so I ask Whether before that sin of Adam were our wills free or not free For if we had any will at all it must be free or not free If we had none at all how could it be involv'd in his Now if our wills were free why are they without our act and whether we will or no involv'd in the will of another If they were not free how could we be guilty * If they were free then they could also dissent If they were not free then they could not consent and so either they never had or else before Adams fall they lost their liberty 36. XIII But if it be inquired seriously I cannot imagine what can be answered Could we prevent the sin of Adam could we hinder it were we ever ask'd Could we if we had been ask'd after we were born a month have given our negative Or could we do more before we were born than after were we or could we be tied to prevent that sin Did not God know that we could not in that case dissent And why then shall our consent be taken in by interpretation when our dissent could not be really acted But if at that time we could not dissent really could we have dissented from Adams sin by interpretation If not then we could dissent no way and then it was inevitably decreed that we should be ruin'd for neither really nor by interpretation could we have dissented But if we could by interpretation have dissented it were certainly more agreeable to Gods goodness to have interpreted for us in the better sence rather than in the worse being we did neither really and actually and if God had so pleased he rather might with his goodness have interpreted us to have dissented than he could with justice have interpreted us to have consented and therefore certainly he did so or would have done if there had been need 37. XIV Lastly the Consequent of these is this That because God is true and just and wise and good and merciful it is
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
great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respectively but meer derivations from tradition Apostolical for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their souls * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart and erecting another altar he is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the 32 Canon as a lover of Principality intimating that he arrogates Episcopal dignity and so is ambitious of a Principality The issue then is this * The Presbyters and Clergy and Laity must obey therefore the Bishop must govern and give them laws It was particularly instanced in the case of Saint Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these laws so he reckoning up the extent of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction of Bishops SECT XXXVI Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Spiritual causes of the Laity THE Bishops were Ecclesiastical Judges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for souls they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coercion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coercion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent persons makes the Bishops hand to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated by the Bishop he must not be received by any else but by him that did so censure him unless the Bishop that censured him be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Council only it is permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of Bishops Si fortè aliquâ indignatione aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui excommunicati sint if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion and when the Synod is met hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum so the Canon Vt ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas Episcoporum suorum offensas meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur quousque in communi vel ipsi Episcopo suo visum fuerit humaniorem circà eos ferre sententiam The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod or their own Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence ** This Canon we see relates to the Canon of the Apostles and affixes the judicature of Priests and Deacons to the Bishops commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocess and jurisdiction The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognizance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop calling aid from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractory and disobedient Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione vel potestate ad concordiam trahat inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet If the Bishops reason will not end the controversies of Clergie-men his power must but if any man list to be contentious intimating as I suppose out of the Nicene Council with frivolous appeals and impertinent protraction the Synod of Bishops must condemn him viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the cause of a Bishop and the other of the Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod viz. of Bishops according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon or a Priest or Deacon by his own Bishop if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopeless of absolution But here we see that the ordinary Judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omni modo in the next Canon Si quis Presbyter vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo privatim congregationem effecerit altare erexerit Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere nec morem gerere primò secundò vocanti hic damnetur omni modo Quòd si Ecclesiam conturbare solicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exteras opprimatur What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first or second Summons let him be deposed and if he shall persist to disturb the Church let him be given over to the secular powers * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop c. as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles The Result of these Sanctions is this The Bishop is the Judge the Bishop is to inflict censures the Presbyters and Deacons are either to obey or to be deposed No greater evidence in the world of a Superiour jurisdiction and this established by all the power they had and this did extend not only to the Clergy but to the Laity for that 's the close of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This constitution is concerning the Laity and the Presbyters and the Deacons and all that are within the rule viz. that if their Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere But the Audientia Episcopalis The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Clergy-man have any cause against a Clergy-man let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to Secular Courts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first let the cause be examined before their own Bishop or by the Bishops leave before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergie in matters criminal but also the civil causes of the Clergie must be submitted to the Bishop under pain of the Canon * I end this with the attestation of the Council of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the
in their Diocesses all I mean in the sence above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii as most certainly she is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser pains in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal then they give the Church what she must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a vey secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat He betrays the individual and inseparable right of holy Church For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is begged or borrowed none of her own nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheep hear his voice and the call of his shepherd-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him viz. in matters of spiritual import * And since all power is derived from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regal power but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdom became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of souls and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz. both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himself obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the laws of Christendom The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor to desire him
to go forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Milaine shews that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis quòd Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance And the Emperor did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captain a Consul or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater than his If thou darest not remove him tell it me I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures than in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandal or danger to her self or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawful to inflict them things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognizance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls such a power Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognizance viz. things spiritual and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever which are either sins directly or by reduction All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we add this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspicious scandalous or criminal true or imaginary real actions or personal in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or real injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories besides their own and being for this their cognizance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory no appeal from them but they shall hear and determine with final resolution and it will be sin and therefore punishable to complain of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the modesty of their several demands and the reasonableness and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question the cause would soon be determined and the little finger of Presbytery not only in its exemplary and tried practices but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns nay than the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldom happens otherwise but that they who usurp a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate SECT XXXVII Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shews the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendom S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I do not here dispute
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
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
it would improve thy diligence then what thou wouldest do in case thou didst know do that now thou dost not know and whatever thy notice or perswasion be the thing in it self will be more secure and thou shalt find it in the end But if any mad is curious of the event and would fain know of the event of his soul let him reveal the state of his soul to a godly and a prudent Spiritual Guide and he when he hath search'd diligently and observ'd him curiously can tell him all that is to be told and give him all the assurance that is to be given and warrant him as much as himself hath receiv'd a warrant to do it Unless God be pleased to draw the Curtains of his Sanctuary and open the secrets of his eternal Counsel there is no other certainty of an actual pardon but what the Church does minister and what can be prudently derived from our selves For to every such curious person this only is to be said Do you believe the promises That if we confess our sins and forsake them if we believe and obey we shall be pardoned and saved If so then enquire whether or no thou dost perform the conditions of thy pardon How shall I know Examine thy self try thy own spirit and use the help of a holy and a wise guide He will teach thee to know thy self If after all this thou answerest that thou canst not tell whether thy heart be right and thy duty acceptable then sit down and hope the best and work in as much light and hope as thou hast but never enquire after the secret of God when thou dost not so much as know thy self and how canst thou hope to espy the most private Counsels of Heaven when thou canst not certainly perceive what is in thy own hand and heart But if thou canst know thy self you need not enquire any further If thy duty be performed you may be secure of all that is on Gods part 70. V. When ever repentance begins know that from thence-forward the sinner begins to live but then never let that repentance die Do not at any time say I have repented of such a sin and am at peace for that for a man ought never to be at peace with sin nor think that any thing we can do is too much Our repentance for sin is never to be at an end till faith it self shall be no more for Faith and Repentance are but the same Covenant and so long as the just does live by faith in the Son of God so long he lives by repentance for by that faith in him our sins are pardoned that is by becoming his Disciples we enter into the Covenant of Repentance And he undervalues his sin and overvalues his sorrow who at any time fears he shall do too much or make his pardon too secure and therefore sets him down and says Now I have repented 71. VI. Let no man ever say he hath committed the sin against the Holy Ghost or the unpardonable sin for there are but few that do that and he can best confute himself if he can but tell that he is sorrowful for it and begs for pardon and hopes for it and desires to make amends this man hath already obtained some degrees of pardon and S. Paul's argument in this case also is a demonstration If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life That is if God to enemies gives the first grace much more will he give the second if they make use of the first For from none to a little is an infinite distance but from a little to a great deal is not so much And therefore since God hath given us means of pardon and the grace of Repentance we may certainly expect the fruit of pardon for it is a greater thing to give repentance to a sinner than to give pardon to the penitent Whoever repents hath not committed the great sin the Unpardonable For it is long of the man not of the sin that any sin is unpardonable 72. VII Let every man be careful of entring into any great states of sin lest he be unawares guilty of the great offence Every resisting of a holy motion calling us from sin every act against a clear reason or revelation every confident progression in sin every resolution to commit a sin in despite of conscience is an access towards the great sin or state of evil Therefore concerning such a man let others fear since he will not and save him with fear plucking him out of the fire but when he begins to return that great fear is over in many degrees for even in Moses's law there were expiations appointed not only for error but for presumptuous sins The PRAYER I. O Eternal God gracious and merciful I adore the immensity and deepest abysse of thy Mercy and Wisdom that thou dost pity our infirmities instruct our ignorances pass by thousands of our follies invitest us to repentance and dost offer pardon because we are miserable and because we need it and because thou art good and delightest in shewing mercy Blessed be thy holy Name and blessed be that infinite Mercy which issues forth from the fountains of our Saviour to refresh our weariness and to water our stony hearts and to cleanse our polluted souls O cause that these thy mercies may not run in vain but may redeem my lost soul and recover thy own inheritance and sanctifie thy portion the heart of thy servant and all my faculties II. BLessed Jesus thou becamest a little lower than the Angels but thou didst make us greater doing that for us which thou didst not do for them Thou didst not pay for them one drop of blood nor endure one stripe to recover the fallen stars nor give one groan to snatch the accursed spirits from their fearful prisons but thou didst empty all thy veins for me and gavest thy heart to redeem me from innumerable sins and an intolerable calamity O my God let all this heap of excellencies and glorious mercies be effective upon thy servant and work in me a sorrow for my sins and a perfect hatred of them a watchfulness against temptations severe and holy resolutions active and effective of my duty O let me never fall from sin to sin nor persevere in any nor love any thing which thou hatest but give me thy holy Spirit to conduct and rule me for ever and make me obedient to thy good Spirit never to grieve him never to resist him never to quench him Keep me O Lord with thy mighty power from falling into presumptuous sins lest they get the dominion over me so shall I be innocent from the great offence Let me never despair of thy mercies by reason of my sins nor neglect my repentance by reason of thy infinite loving kindness but let thy goodness bring me and all sinners to repentance and thy