his natural body then it was naturally broken and his bloud was actually poured forth before the passion for he gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his body was delivered broken his bloud was shed Now those words were spoken either properly and naturally and then they were not true because his body was yet whole his bloud still in the proper channels or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sence and so it was true as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spake for that which he then ministred was the Sacrament of his Passion 3. Secondly If Christ gave his body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory or it was not If it was not then it is not now and then their dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our blessed Saviour which therefore would have been needless and ineffective so fearful are the consequents of this strange doctrine 4. Thirdly If Christ gave his body properly in the last Supper and not only figuratively and in sacrament then it could not be a representment or sacrament of his Passion but a real exhibition of it but that it was a Sacrament only appears by considering that it was then alive that the Passion was future that the thing was really to be performed upon the Cross that then he was to be delivered for the life of the world In the last Supper all this was in type and sacrament because it was before and the substance was to follow after 5. Fourthly If the natural body of Christ was in the last Supper under the accidents of bread then his body at the same time was visible and invisible in the whole substance visible in his person invisible under the accidents of bread and then it would be inquired what it was which the Apostles received what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally or whether it be imaginable that the Apostles understoood it in the literal sence when they saw his body stand by unbroken alive integral hypostatical 6. Fifthly If Christs body were naturally in the Sacrament I demand whether it be as it was in the last Supper or as upon the Cross or as it is now in Heaven Not as in the last Supper for then it was frangible but not broken but typically by design in figure and in Sacrament as it is evident in matter of fact 2. Not as on the Cross for there the body was frangible and broken too and the blood spilled and if it were so now in the Sacrament besides that it were to make Christs glorified body passible and to crucifie the Lord of life again it also were not the same body which Christ hath now for his Body that he hath now is spiritual and incorruptible and cannot be otherwise much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly and yet be the same body 3. Not as in Heaven where it is neither corruptible nor broken for then in the Sacrament there were given to us Christs glorified body and then neither were the Sacrament a remembrance of Christs death neither were the words of Institution verified This is my body which is broken besides in this we have Bellarmines confession Neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi ut est in coelo But then if it be remembred that Christ hath no other body but that which is in Heaven and that can never be otherwise than it is and so it cannot be received otherwise properly it unanswerably follows that if it be received in any other manner as it must if it be at all it must be received not naturally or corporally but spiritually and indeed By a figure or a sacramental spiritual sence all these difficulties are easily assoiled but by the natural never 7. Sixthly At the last Supper they eat the blessed Eucharist but it was not in remembrance of Christs death for it was future then and therefore not then capable of being remembred any more than a man can be said to remember what will be done to morrow it follows from hence that then Christ only instituted a Sacrament or figurative mysterious representment of a thing that in the whole use of it was variable by heri and cras and therefore never to be naturally verified but on the Cross by a proper and natural presence because then it was so and never else at that time it was future and now it is past and in both it is relative to his death therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sence for that as it could not be remembred then so neither broken now that is nothing of it is natural but it is wholly ritual mysterious and sacramental For that this was the sacrament of his death appears in the words of Institution and by the preceptive words Do this in remembrance of me And in the reason subjoyned by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Therefore when Christ said This is my body given or broken on my part taken eaten on yours it can be nothing else but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacramental image of his death to effect which purpose it could not be necessary or useful to bring his natural body that so the substance should become his own shadow the natural presence be his own Sacrament or rather the image and representment of what he once suffered His body given in the Sacrament is the application and memory of his death and no more that as Christ in Heaven represents his death in the way of intercession so do we by our ministery but as in Heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified a rememoration of his crucifixion of his death passion by which he reconciled God and man so it is in the Sacrament after our manner This is my body given for you that is This is the Sacrament of my death in which my body was given for you For as Aquinas said in all sciences words signifie things but it is proper to Theology that things themselves signified or expressed by voices should also signifie something beyond it This is my body are the sacramental words or those words by which the mystery or the thing is sacramental it must therefore signifie something beyond these words and so they do for they signifie the death which Christ suffered in that body It is but an imperfect conception of the mystery to say it is the Sacrament of Christs body only or his blood but it is ex parte rei a Sacrament of the death of his body and to us a participation or an exhibition of it as it became beneficial to us that
corpus meum viz. spiritualiter than to say hoc est that is sub his speciebus est corpus meum And this was the sence of Ocham the Father of the Nominalists it may be held that under the species of bread there remains also the substance because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible and of all the manners this is most reasonable and more easie to maintain and from thence follow fewer inconveniences than from any other Yet because of the determination of the Church viz. of Rome all the Doctors commonly hold the contrary By the way observe that their Church hath determined against that against which neither the Scripture nor reason hath determined 2. The case is clearer in the other kind as in transition I noted above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic calix I demand to what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic This does refer What it demonstrates and points at The text sets the substantive down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup that is the wine in this cup of this it is that he affirmed it to be the blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in his blood that is this is the sanction of the everlasting Testament I make it in my blood this is the Symbol what I do now in sign I will do to morrow in substance and you shall for ever after remember and represent it thus in Sacrament I cannot devise what to say plainer than that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 points at the chalice Hoc potate merum So Juvencus a Priest of Spain in the reign of Constantine Drink this wine But by the way this troubled some body and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into Hunc potate meum but that the cheat was too apparent And if it be so of one kind it is so in both that is beyond all question Against this Bellarmine brings argumentum robustissimum a most robustious argument By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or cup cannot be meant the wine in the cup because it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for you referring to the cup for the word can agree with nothing but the cup therefore by the cup is meant not wine but blood for that was poured out To this I oppose these things 1. Though it does not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it must refer to it and is an ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of case called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is not unusual in the best masters of Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Demosthenes so also Goclenius in his Grammatical problemes observes another out of Cicero Benè autem dicere quod est peritè loqui non habet definitam aliquam regionem cujus terminis septa teneatur Many more he cites out of Plato Homer and Virgil and me thinks these men should least of all object this since in their Latin Bible Sixtus Senensis confesses and all the world knows there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties hyperbata and Antipâ—oses But in the present case it is easily supplyed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequently understood and implyed in the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in my bloud which is shed for you 2. If it were referred to cup then the figure were more strong and violent and the expression less litteral and therefore it makes much against them who are undone if you admit figurative expressions in the institution of this Sacrament 3. To what can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup and let what sence soever be affixed to it afterwards if it do not suppose a figure then there is no such thing as figures or words or truth or things 4. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears by S. Matthew and S. Mark where the word is directly applyed to bloud S. Paul uses not the word and Bellarmine himself gives the rule verba Domini rectiùs exposita à Marco c. When one Evangelist is plain by him we are to expound another that is not plain and S. Basil in his reading of the words either following some ancienter Greek copy or else mending it out of the other Evangelists changes the case into perfect Grammar and good Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. Thirdly symbols of the blessed Sacrament are called bread and the cup after Consecration that is in the whole use of them This is twice affirmed by S. Paul The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communication so it should be read of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communication of the body of Christ as if he had said This bread is Christs body though there be also this mystery in it This bread is the communication of Christs body that is the exhibition and donation of it not Christs body formally but virtually and effectively it makes us communicate with Christs body in all the effects and benefits A like expression we have in Valerius Maximus where Scipio in the feast of Jupiter is said Graccho Communicasse concordiam that is consignasse he communicated concord he consigned it with the sacrifice giving him peace and friendship the benefit of that communication and so is the cup of benediction that is when the cup is blessed it communicates Christs blood and so does the blessed bread for to eat the bread in the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christians they are the words of S. Austin Omnes de uno pane participamus so S. Paul we all partake of this one bread Hence the argument is plain That which is broken is the communication of Christs body But that which is broken is bread therefore bread is the communication of Christs body The bread which we break those are the words 7. Fourthly The other place of S. Paul is plainer yet Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. And so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye declare the Lords death till he come and the same also vers 27. three times in this chapter he calls the Eucharist Bread It is bread sacramental bread when the communicant eats it But he that in the Church of Rome should call to the Priest to give him a piece of bread would quickly find that instead of bread he should have a stone or something as bad But S. Paul had a little of the Macedonian simplicity calling things by their own plain names 8. Fifthly against this some little things are pretended in answer by the Roman Doctors 1. That the holy Eucharist or the sacred body is called bread because it is made of bread as Eve is
these 4. Origen says that the Christian people drinketh the blood of Christ and the flesh of the word of God is true food What then so say we too but it is Spiritual food and we drink the blood Spiritually He says nothing against that but very much for it as I have in several places remarked already 5. But how can this expound the other words Christian people eat Christs flesh and drink his blood therefore when Origen says the material part the Symbolical body of Christ is eaten naturally and cast into the draught he means not the body of Christ in his material part but the accidents of bread the colour the taste the quantity these are cast out by the belly Verily a goodly argument if a man could guess in what mood and figure it could conclude 6. When a man speaks distinctly and particularly it is certain he is easier to be understood in his particular and minute meaning than when he speaks generally But here he distinguishes a part from a part one sence from another the body in one sence from the body in another therefore these words are to expound the more general and not they to expound these unless the general be more particular than that that is distinguished into kinds that is unless the general be a particular and the particular be a general 7. Amalarius was so amus'd with these words and discourse of Origen that his understanding grew giddy and he did not know whether the body of Christ were invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept till our death in the body or expired at letting of blood or exhal'd in air or spit out or breath'd forth our Lord saying That which enters into the mouth descends into the belly and so goes forth into the draught The man was willing to be of the new opinion of the Real Presence because it began to be the mode of the Age. But his folly was soberly reproved by a Synod at Carisiacum about the time of Pope Gregory the Fourth where the difficulty of Origens argument was better answered and the Article determined that the bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ which being a meat of the mind and not of the belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life 8. To expound these words of the accidents of bread only and say that they enter into the belly and go forth in the draught is a device of them that care not what they say for 1. It makes that the ejectamentum or excrement of the body should consist of colour and quantity without any substance 2. It makes a man to be nourished by accidents and so not only one substance to be changed into another but that accidents are changed into substances which must be if they nourish the body and pass in latrinam and then beyond the device of Transubstantiation we have another production from Africa a transaccidentisubstantiation a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It makes accidents to have all the affections of substances as motion substantial corruption alteration that is not to be accidents but substances For matter and form are substances and those that integrate all physical and compound substances but till yesterday it was never heard that accidents could Yea but magnitude is a material quality and ground or subject of the accidents So it is said but it is nonsence For besides that magnitude is not a quality but a quantity neither can it be properly or truly said to be material but imperfectly because it is an affection of matter and however it is a contradiction to say that it is the ground of qualities for an accident cannot be the fundamentum the ground or subject of an accident that is the formality and definition of a substance as every young scholar hath read in Aristotles Categories so that to say that it is the ground of accidents is to say that accidents are subjected in magnitude that is that magnitude is neither a quantity nor quality but a substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An accident always subsists in a subject says Porphyrie 9. This answer cannot be fitted to the words of Origen for that which he calls the quid materiale or the material part in the Sacrament he calls it the Symbolical body which cannot be affirmed of accidents because there is no likeness between the accidents the colour the shape the figure the roundness the weight the magnitude of the host or wafer and Christs body and therefore to call the accidents a Symbolical body is to call it an unsymbolical Symbol an unlike similitude a representment without analogy But if he means the consecrated bread the whole action of consecration distribution sumption manducation this is the Symbolical body according to the words of S. Paul He that drinks this cup and eats this bread represents the Lords death it is the figure of Christs crucified body of his passion and our redemption 10. It is a strange expression to call accidents a body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Aristotle a body may be called white but the definition or reason of the accident can never be affirmed of a body I conclude that this argument out of the words of our blessed Saviour urged also and affirmed by Origen do prove that Christs body is in the Sacrament only to be eaten in a Spiritual sence not at all in a Natural lest that consequent be the event of it which to affirm of Christs glorified body in the natural and proper sence were very blasphemy 2. The next argument from Scripture is taken from Christs departing from this world his going from us the ascension of his body and soul into Heaven his not being with us his being contained in the Heavens So said our blessed Saviour Vnless I go hence the Comforter cannot come and I go to prepare a place for you The poor ye have always but me ye have not always S. Peter affirms of him that the Heavens must receive him till the time of restitution of all things Now how these things can be true of Christ according to his humane nature that is a circumscribed body and a definite soul is the question And to this the answer is the same in effect which is given by the Roman Doctors and by the Vbiquitaries whom they call Hereticks These men say Christs humane nature is every where actually by reason of his hypostatical union with the Deity which is every where the Romanists say no it is not actually every where but it may be where and is in as many places as he please for although he be in Heaven yet so is God too and yet God is upon earth eodem modo says Bellarmine in the same manner the Man Christ although he be in Heaven yet also he can be out of Heaven where he please he can be in Heaven and out of Heaven Now these two opinions are concentred in the main impossibility that is that Christs body can
or lump neque id fide solùm sed reipsâ and in very deed makes us to be his body So Pope Leo. In mysticâ distributione Spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus And in his 24 Sermon of the Passion Non alia igitur participatio corporis quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus There is no other participation of the body than that we should pass into that which we receive In the mystical distribution of the Spiritual nourishment this is given and taken that we receiving the vertue of the heavenly food may pass into his flesh who became our flesh And Rabanus makes the analogie fit to this question Sicut illud in nos convertitur dum id manducamus bibimus sic nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter piè vivimus As that Christs body is converted into us while we eat it and drink it so are we converted into the body of Christ while we live obediently and piously So Gregory Nyssen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The immortal body being in the receiver changes him wholly into his own nature and Theophylact useth the same word He that eateth me liveth by me whilst he is in a certain manner mingled with me is transelementated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or changed into me Now let men of all sides do reason and let one expound the other and it will easily be granted that as we are turned into Christ body so is that into us and so is the bread into that 12. Twelfthly Whatsoever the Fathers speak of this they affirm the same also of the other Sacrament and of the Sacramentals or rituals of the Church It is a known similitude used by S. Cyril of Alexandria As the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no longer common bread but it is the body of Christ so this holy unguent is no longer meer and common oyntment but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it uses to be mistaken the Chrisme for the Grace or gift of Christ and yet this is not spoken properly as is apparent but it is in this as in the Eucharist so says the comparison Thus S. Chrysostome says that the Table or Altar is as the manger in which Christ was laid that the Priest is a Seraphim and his hands are the tongs taking the coal from the Altar But that which I instance in is that 1. They say that they that hear the word of Christ eat the flesh of Christ of which I have already given account in Sect. 3. num 10. c. As hearing is eating as the word is his flesh so is the bread after consecration in a Spiritual sence 2. That which comes most fully home to this is their affirmative concerning Baptism to the same purposes and in many of the same expressions which they use in this other Sacrament S. Ambrose speaking of the baptismal waters affirms naturam mutari per benedictionem the nature of them is changed by blessing and S. Cyril of Alexandria saith By the operation of the holy Spirit the waters are reformed to a divine nature by which the baptized cleanse their body For in these the ground of all their great expressions is that which S. Ambrose expressed in these words Non agnosco usum naturae nullus est hic naturae ordo ubi est excellentia gratiae Where grace is the chief ingredient there the use and the order of nature is not at all considered But this whole mystery is most clear in S. Austin affirming That we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ when in Baptism we are made members of Christ and are not estranged from the fellowship of that bread and chalice although we die before we eat that bread and drink that cup. Tingimur in passione Domini We are baptized into the passion of our Lord says Tertullian into the death of Christ saith S. Paul for by both Sacraments we shew the Lords death 13. Thirteenthly Upon the account of these premises we may be secur'd against all the objections or the greatest part of those testimonies from antiquity which are pretended for Transubstantiation for either they speak that which we acknowledg or that it is Christs body that it is not common bread that it is a divine thing that we eat Christs flesh that we drink his blood and the like all which we acknowledge and explicate as we do the words of institution or else they speak more than both sides allow to be literally true or speak as great things of other mysteries which must not cannot be expounded literally that is they speak more or less or diverse from them or the same with us and I think there is hardly one testimony in Bellarmine in Coccius and Perron that is pertinent to this question but may be made invalid by one or more of the former considerations But of those if there be any of which there may be a material doubt beyond the cure of these observations I shall give particular account in the sequel 14. But then for the testimonies which I shall alledge against the Roman doctrine in this article they will not be so easily avoided 1. Because many of them are not only affirmative in the Spiritual sence but exclusive of the natural and proper 2. Because it is easie to suppose they may speak hyperboles but never that which would undervalue the blessed Sacrament for an hyperbole is usual not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the lessening a mystery that may be true this never that may be capable of fair interpretations this can admit of none that may breed reverence this contempt To which I add this that the heathens slandering the Christians to be worshippers of Ceres or Liber because of the holy bread and chalice as appears in S. Austins 20 book and 13 chapter against Faustus the Manichee had reason to advance the reputation of Sacramental signs to be above common bread and wine not only so to explicate the truth of the mystery but to stop the mouth of their calumny and therefore for higher expressions there might be cause but not such cause for any lower than the severest truth and yet let me observe this by the way S. Austin answered only thus We are far from doing so Quamvis panis calicis Sacramentum ritu nostro amplectamur S. Austin might have further removed the calumny if he had been of the Roman perswasion who adore not the bread no◠eat it at all in their Synaxes until it be no bread but changed into the body of our Lord. But he knew nothing of that Neither was there ever any scandal of Christians upon any mistake that could be a probable excuse for them to lessen their expressions in the matter Eucharistical
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
then I quoted Otho according to my own sence and his but if he means it to be after the day of judgment then the limbus infantum of the Roman Church is vanish'd for the scruple was mov'd about Infants Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet And there is none such till after dooms day so that let it be as it will the Roman Church is a loser and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall But now after Saint Austin's time especially in the time of Saint Gregory and since there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death and telling strange things of their torments below many of which being gather'd together by the speculum exemplorum the Legend of Lombardy and others some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to shew that in the time when these stories were told the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear but they found Purgatory in Baths in Eves of Houses in Frosts and cold Rains upon Spits rosting like Pigs or Geese upon pieces of Ice Now to this there is nothing said but that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing which saying as it was spoken invidiously so it was to no purpose for if the Objector ever hath read the distinction which is quoted throughout he should have found the whole story at large It is the 31 example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Doway 1603. And the same words are exactly in an ancienter Edition printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any Argument if they can any way put it off from being believ'd upon any foolish pretence But then as to the thing it self though learned men deny the Dialogues of Saint Gregory from whence many of the like stories are deriv'd to be his as Possevine confesses and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms yet I am willing to admit them for his but yet I cannot but note that those Dialogues have in them many foolish ridiculous and improbable stories but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory but then the right also may be done to Saint Gregory his Doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present Article of the Church of Rome so fond they are in the alledging of Authorities that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscerning quotations For 1. Saint Gregory Pope affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole Doctrine of Purgatory For he sayes That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of Christ our Author that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body Mox forthwith we are lead to câ—lestial rewards and a little after speaking of those words of Job In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea he sayes thus Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in penal places but are held in the superior bosom of rest a great question arises what is the meaning of Blessed Job If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of Saint Gregory then fire and water can be reconcil'd This is the Doctrine of Saint Gregory in his own works for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no I shall not dispute but if I were studying to do honour to his memory I should never admit them to be his and so much the rather because the Doctrine of the Dialogues contradicts the Doctrine of his Commentaries and yet even the Purgatory which is in the Dialogues is unlike that which was declar'd at Basil for the Gregorian Purgatory supposed only an expiation of small and light faults as immoderate laughter impertinent talking which nevertheless he himself sayes are expiable by fear of death and Victoria and Jacobus de Graffis say are to be taken away by beating the breast holy water the Bishops blessing and Saint Austin sayes they are to be taken off by daily saying the Lords prayer and therefore being so easily so readily so many wayes to be purg'd here it will not be worth establishing a Purgatory for such alone but he admits not of any remaining punishment due to greater sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. But concerning Saint Gregory I shall say no more but refer the Reader to the Apology of the Greeks who affirm that Saint Gregory admitted a kind of Purgatory but whether allegorically or no or thinking so really they know not but what he said was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by way of dispensation and as it were constrained to it by the Arguments of those who would have all sins expiable after death against whom he could not so likely prevail if he had said that none was and therefore he thought himself forc'd to go a middle way and admit a Purgatory only for little or venial sins which yet will do no advantage to the Church of Rome And besides all this Saint Gregory or whoever is the Author of these Dialogues hath nothing definite or determin'd concerning the time manner measure or place so wholly new was this Doctrine then that it had not gotten any shape or feature Next I am to account concerning the Greeks whom I affirm alwayes to have differed from the Latins since they had forg'd this new Doctrine of Purgatory in the Roman Laboratories and to prove something of this I affirm'd that in the Council of Basil they publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory Against this up starts a man fierce and angry and sayes there was no such Apology publish'd in the Council of Basil for he had examined it all over and can find no such Apology I am sorry for the Gentlemans loss of his labour but if he had taken me along with him I could have help'd the learned man This Apology was written by Marcus Metropolitan of Ephesus as Sixtus Senensis confesses and that he offered it to the Council of Basil. That it was given and read to the Deputies of the Council June 14. 1438. is attested by Cusanus and Martinus Crusius in his Turco-Graecia But it is no wonder if this over-learned Author of the Letter miss'd this Apology in his search of the Council of Basil for this is not the only material thing that is missing in the Editions of the Council of Basil for Linwood that great and excellent English Canonist made an Appeal in that Council and prosecuted it with effect in behalf of King Henry of England Cum in temporalibus non recognoscat superiorem in terris c. But nothing of this now appears though it was then registred but it is no new thing to forge or to suppress Acts of Councils But besides this I did not suppose he would have been so indiscreet as to have look'd for that Apology in the Editions of the Council of Basil but it was deliver'd to the
reported by the Author of the modest discourse And the great Erasmus who liv'd and died in the communion of the Church of Rome and was as likely as any man of his age to know what he said gave this testimony in the present Question In synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit Ecclesia re nomine veteribus ignotam In the Communion the Church hath but lately defin'd Transubstantiation which both in the thing and in the name was unknown to the Ancients Now this was a fair and friendly inducement to the Reader to take from him all prejudice which might stick to him by the great noises of the Roman Doctors made upon their presence of the Fathers being on their side yet I would not so rely upon these testimonies but that I thought fit to give some little Essay of this doctrine out of the Fathers themselves To this purpose is alledged Justin M. saying of the Eucharist that it was a figure which our Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion These were quoted not as the words but as the doctrine of that Saint and the Letter will needs suppose me to mean those words which are as I find in 259 and 260. page of the Paris edition The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread which the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion These are Justins words in that place with which I have nothing to do as I shall shew by and by But because Cardinal Perron intends to make advantage of them I shall wrest them first out of his hands and then give an account of the doctrine of this holy man in the present Article both out of this place and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist which our Lord deliver'd us to do therefore says the Cardinal the Eucharistical bread is the truth since the Cake was the figure or the shadow To which I answer that though the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread yet so might that bread be a figure of something else Just as baptism I mean the external rite which although it self be but the outward part and is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figure of the inward washing by the spirit of grace and represents our being buried with Christ in his death yet it is an accomplishment in some sence of those many figures by which according to the doctrine of the Fathers it was prefigured Such as in S. Peter the waters of the deluge in Tertullian were the waters of Jordan into which Naaman descended in S. Austin the waters of sprinkling These were types and to these baptism did succeed and represented the same thing which they represented and effected or exhibited the thing it did represent and therefore in this sence they prefigur'd baptism And yet that this is but a figure still we have S. Peters warrant The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God The waters of the flood were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a type of the waters of baptism the waters of baptism were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a type answering to a type and yet even here there is a typical representing and signifying part and beyond that there is the veritas or the thing signified by both So it is in the oblation of the Cake and the Eucharistical bread that was a type of this and this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or correspondent of that a type answering to a type a figure to a figure and both of them did and do respectively represent a thing yet more secret For as S. Austin said these and those are divers in the sign but equal in the thing signified divers in the visible species but the same in the intelligible signification those were promissive and these demonstrative or as others express it those were pronunciative and these of the Gospel are contestative So Friar Gregory of Padua noted in the Council of Trent And that this was the sence of Justin M. appears to him that considers what he says 1. He does not say the Cake is a type of the bread but the oblation of the Cake that is that whole rite of offering a Cake after the Leper was cleansed in token of thankfulness and for his legal purity was a type of the bread of the Eucharist which for the remembrance of the passion which he suffer'd for these men whose minds are purged from all perverseness Jesus Christ our Lord commanded to make or do To do what To do bread or to make bread No but to make bread to be Eucharistical to be a memorial of the Passion to represent the death of Christ so that it is not the Cake and the bread that are the type and the antitype but the oblation of the Cake was the figure and the Celebration of Christs memorial and the Eucharist are the things presignified and prefigur'd But then it remains that the Eucharistical bread is but the instrument of a memorial or recordation which still supposes something beyond this and by this to be figured and represented For as the Apostle says Our Fathers did eat of the same spiritual meat that is they eat Christ but they eat him in figure that is in an external symbol so do we only theirs is abolished and ours succeeds the old and shall abide for ever Nay the very words us'd by Justin M. do evince this it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is an Eucharist it is still but bread and therefore there is a body of which this is but an outward argument a vehicle a channel and conveyance and that is the body of Christ for the Eucharistical bread is both bread and Christs body too For it is a good argument to say this is bread Eucharistical therefore this is bread and if it be bread still it must be a figure of the bread of life and this is that which I affirmed to be the sence of Justin M. The like expression to this is in his second Apology It is not common bread meaning that it is sanctified and made Eucharistical But here it may be the argument will not hold it is not common bread therefore it is bread for I remember that Cardinal Perron hath some instances against this way of arguing For the Dove that descended upon Christs head was not a common Dove and yet it follows not therefore this was a Dove The three that appeared to Abraham were not common men therefore they were men it follows not This is the sophistry of the Cardinal for the confutation of which I have so much Logick left as to prove this to be a fallacy and it will soon appear if it be reduc'd to a regular proposition This bread is not common therefore this bread is extraordinary bread
if he had foreseen he should have been written against by so learned an adversary But to let them agree as well as they can the words of Eusebius out of his last chapter I translated as well as I could the Greek words I have set in the Margent that every one that understands may see I did him right and indeed to do my Adversary right when he goes about to change not to mend the translation he only changes the order of the words but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it for he acknowledges the main Question viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table but then that l may do my self right and the question too whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him and made him to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is so far off it and hath no relation to it and not to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which it is joyn'd and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it hath a substantive of its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he repeats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements the symbols of the body and blood But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity or an innocent perswasion But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend he hath these words fully to our purpose First our Lord and Saviour and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastick Laws by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing blood And again By the wine which is the symbol of his blood he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death and believe in his blood Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the image figure or representation of his own body And Again He received not the sacrifices of blood nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses but ordained we should use bread the symbol of his own body So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament S. Macarius is cited in the Disswasive in these words In the Church is offered bread and wine the Antitype of his flesh and blood and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. A. L. saith Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar or an antitype his flesh and blood Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says yet I cannot but note that they who gave him this answer may be asham'd for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer First he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted 2. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of apposition expresly against the mind of S. Macarius and against the very Grammar of his words And after all he studies to abuse his Author and yet gets no good by it himself for if it were in the words as he hath invented it or some body else for him yet it makes against him as much saying bread and wine exhibite Christs body which is indeed true though not here said by the Saint but is directly against the Roman article because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius which in the Disswasive are translated exactly as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent There now only remains the authority of S. Austin which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England and assert to his own party I cited five places out of S. Austin to the last of which but one he gives this answer that S. Austin hath no such words in that book that is in the Tenth book against Faustus the Manichee Concerning which I am to inform the Gentleman a little better These words that which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice are in the tenth book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume as the other But the following words in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together in a close order like a continued discourse but all of them are S. Austins words as appears in the places set down in the Margent But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed but to the words he hath nothing to say To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but only the eating it in that gross carnal and sensible manner as the Capharnaites conceiv'd To which I reply that it is true that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words and although the Roman error be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites yet it was as false as unreasonable and as impossible And be the occasion of the words what they are or can be yet upon this occasion S. Austin spake words which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of but the antithesis to this is that which S. Austin urges and which comes home to our question I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers I will gratifie my Adversary or rather indeed my Unprejudicate Readers by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin agreeing perfectly with that of our Church At this time after manifest token of our liberty hath shin'd in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs
There was here no remedy no second thoughts no amends to be made But because much was not required of him and the Commandment was very easie and he had strengths more than enough to keep it therefore he had no cause to complain God might â—nd did exact at first the Covenant of Works because it was at first infinitely toleâ—â—ble But 2. From this time forward this Covenant began to be hard and by degrees beâ—â—â—e impossible not only because mans fortune was broken and his spirit troubled 〈◊〉 his passions disordered and vext by his calamity and his sin but because man upon â—â—e birth of children and the increase of the world contracted new relations and consequently had new duties and obligations and men hindred one another and their faculties by many means became disorder'd and lessen'd in their abilities and their will becoming perverse they first were unwilling and then unable by superinducing dispositions and habits contrary to their duty However because there was a necessity that man should be tied to more duty God did in the several periods of the world multiply Commandments first to Noah then to Abraham and then to his posterity and by this time they were very many And still God held over mans head the Covenant of Works 3. Upon the pressure of this Covenant all the world did complain Tanta mandata sunt ut impossibile sit servari ea said S. Ambrose the Commandments were so many and great that it was impossible they should be kept For at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertain'd but with the promise of temporal good things which to some men were perform'd by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made But I said 4. The Covenant of Works was still kept on foot How justly will appear in the sequel but the reasonableness of it was in this that men living in a state of awfulness might be under a pedagogy or severe institution restraining their loosenesses recollecting their inadvertencies uniting their distractions For the world was not then prepar'd by spiritual usages and dispositions to be governed by love and an easie yoke but by threatnings and severities And this is the account S. Paul gives of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Law was a Schoolmaster that is had a temporary authority serving to other ends with no final concluding power It could chastise and threaten but it could not condemn it had not power of eternal life and death that was given by other measures But because the world was wild and barbarous good men were few the bad potent and innumerable and sin was conducted and help'd forward by pleasure and impunity it was necessary that God should superinduce a law and shew them the rod and affright and check their confidences left the world it self should perish by dissolution The law of Moses was still a part of the Covenant of Works Some little it had of repentance Sacrifice and expiations were appointed for small sins but nothing at all for greater Every great sin brought death infallibly And as it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward obedience But this would not do it The promises were temporal and that could not secure obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by repentance the law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the Temporal only it was brought in as a pedagogy for the present necessity 5. But this pedagogie or institution was also a manuduction to the Gospel For they were used to severe laws that they might the more readily entertain the holy precepts of the Gospel to which eternally they would have shut their ears unless they had had some preparatory institution of severity and fear And therefore S. Paul also calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pedagogie or institution leading unto Christ. 6. For it was this which made the world of the Godly long for Christ as having commission to open the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hidden mystery of Justification by Faith and Repentance For the law called for exact obdience but ministred no grace but that of fear which was not enough to the performance or the engagement of exact obedience All therefore were here convinced of sin but by this Covenant they had no hopes and therefore were to expect relief from another and a better according to that saying of S. Paul The Scripture concludes all under sin that is declares all the world to be sinners that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe This S. Bernard expresses in these words Deus nobis hoc fecit ut nostram imperfectionem ostenderet Christi avidiores nos faceret Our imperfection was sufficiently manifest by the severity of the first Covenant that the world might long for salvation by Jesus Christ. 7. For since mankind could not be saved by the Covenant of works that is of exact obedience they must perish for ever or else hope to be sav'd by a Covenant of ease and remission that is such a Covenant as may secure Mans duty to God and Gods Mercy to Man and this is the Covenant which God made with mankind in Christ Jesus the Covenant of Repentance 8. This Covenant began immediately after Adams fall For as soon as the first Covenant the Covenant of works was broken God promised to make it up by an instrument of mercy which himself would find out The Seed of the woman should make up the breaches of the man But this should be acted and published in its own time not presently In the mean time man was by virtue of that new Covenant or promise admitted to Repentance 9. Adam confessed his sin and repented Three hundred years together did he mourn upon the mountains of India and God promised him a Saviour by whose obedience his repentance should be accepted And when God did threaten the old world with a floud of waters he called upon them to repent but because they did not God brought upon them the floud of waters For 120. years together he called upon them to return before he would strike his final blow Ten times God tried Pharaoh before he destroyed him And in all ages in all periods and with all men God did deal by this measure and excepting that God in some great cases or in the beginning of a Sanction to establish it with the terror of a great example he scarce ever destroyed a single man with temporal death for any nicety of the law but for long and great prevarications of it and when
in the words of the 19. verse By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Concerning which I need not make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or many whom sometimes S. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and many that is all from Adam to Moses but they are but many and not all in respect of mankind exactly answering to the All that have life by Christ which are only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those many that believe and are adopted into the Covenant of believers by this indeed it is perceivable that this was not a natural title or derivation of an inherent corruption from Adam for that must have included All absolutely and universally But that which I here dwell and rely upon is this 15. Sin is often in Scripture us'd for the punishment of sin and they that suffer are called sinners though they be innocent So it is in this case By Adams disobedience many were made sinners that is the sin of Adam pass'd upon them and sate upon their heads with evil effect like that of Bathsheba I and my son shall be accounted sinners that is evil will befall us we shall be used like sinners like Traitors and Usurpers So This shall be the sin of Egypt said the Prophet This shall be the punishment so we read it And Cain complaining of the greatness of his punishment said Mine iniquity is greater than I can bear * And to put it past all doubt not only punishment is called sin in Scripture but even he that bears it Him that knew no sin God hath made sin that we might be the righteousness of God in him and the Prophet Isaiah speaking of Christ saith Posuit peccatum animam suam He hath made his soul a sin that is obnoxious to the punishment of sin Thus it is said that Christ shall appear the second time without sin that is without the punishment of sin unto salvation for of sin formally or materially he was at first as innocent as at the second time that is pure in both And if Christ who bare our burthen became sin for us in the midst of his purest innocence that we also are by Adam made sinners that is suffer evil by occasion of his demerit infers not that we have any formal guilt or enmity against God upon that account Facti peccatores in S. Paul by Adam we are made sinners answers both in the story and in the expression to Christus factus peccatum pro nobis Christ was made sin for us that is was expos'd to the evil that is consequent to sin viz. to its punishment 16. For the further explication of which it is observable that the word sinner and sin in Scripture is us'd for any person that hath a fault or a legal impurity a debt a vitiosity defect or imperfection For the Hebrews use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for any obligation which is contracted by the Law without our fault Thus a Nazarite who had touch'd a dead body was tied to offer a sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sin and the reason is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he had sinn'd concerning the dead body and yet it was nothing but a legal impurity nothing moral And the offering that was made by the leprous or the menstruous or the diseased in profluvio seminis is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin and yet it might be innocent all the way 17. Thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said that our blessed Lord who is compared to the High-Priest among the Jews did offer first for his own sins by which word it is certain that no sin properly could be meant for Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew no sin but it means the state of his infirmity the condition of his mortal body which he took for us and our sins and is a state of misery and of distance from Heaven for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven whither Christ was not to go till by offering himself he had unclothed himself of that imperfect vesture as they that were legally impure might not go to the Temple before their offering and therefore when by death he quit himself of this condition it is said he died unto sin Parallel to this is that of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Hebrews where the state of infirmity is expresly called sin The High-Priest is himself also compassed with infirmity and by reason hereof he ought as for the people so also for himself to offer for sins This is also more expresly by S. Paul called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the likeness of the sin of the flesh and thus Concupiscence or the first motions and inclinations to sin is called sin and said to have the nature of sin that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the likeness it may be the material part of sin or something by which sin is commonly known And thus Origen observes that an oblation was to be offered even for new born children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they were not clean from sin But this being an usual expression among the Hebrews bears its sence upon the palm of the hand and signifies only the legal impurity in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the new born babes and their Mothers were involv'd Even Christ himself who had no Original sin was subject to this purification So we read in S. Luke and when the days of her purification were accomplish'd but in most books and particular in the Kings MS. it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the days of their purification But the things of this nature being called offerings for sins and the expression usual among the Jews I doubt not but hath given occasion to the Christian Writers to fancy other things than were intended 18. Having now explicated those words of S. Paul which by being misunderstood have caused strange devices in this Article we may now without prejudice examine what really was the effect of Adams sin and what evil descended upon his posterity 19. Adams sin was punish'd by an expulsion out of Paradise in which was a Tree appointed to be the cure of diseases and a conservatory of life There was no more told as done but this and its proper consequents He came into a land less blessed a land which bore thistles and briars easily and fruits with difficulty so that he was forc'd to sweat hard for his bread and this also I cannot say did descend but must needs be the condition of his children who were left to live so and in the same place just as when young Anthony had seis'd upon Marcus Cicero's land the Son also lost what he never had And thus death came in not by any new sentence or change of nature for man was created mortal and if Adam had not
I explicate it is wholly against the Pelagians for they wholly deny Original sin affirming that Adam did us no hurt by his sin except only by his example These Men are also followed by the Anabaptists who say that death is so natural that it is not by Adam's fall so much as made actual The Albigenses were of the same opinion The Socinians affirm that Adam's sin was the occasion of bringing eternal death into the World but that it no way relates to us not so much as by imputation But I having shewed in what sence Adam's sin is imputed to us am so far either from agreeing with any of these or from being singular that I have the acknowledgment of an adversary even of Bellarmine himself that it is the doctrine of the Church and he laboriously endeavours to prove that Original sin is meerly ours by imputation Add to this that he also affirms that when Zuinglius says that Original sin is not properly a sin but metonymically that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that in so saying he agrees with the Catholicks Now these being the main affirmatives of my discourse it is plain that I am not alone but more are with me than against me Now though he is pleased afterwards to contradict himself and say it is veri nominis peccatum yet because I understood not how to reconcile the opposite parts of a contradiction or tell how the same thing should be really a sin and yet be so but by a figure onely how it should be properly a sin and yet onely metonymically and how it should be the effect of sin and yet that sin whereof it is an effect I confess here I stick to my reason and my proposition and leave Bellarmine and his Catholicks to themselves 25. And indeed they that say Original sin is any thing really any thing besides Adam's sin imputed to us to certain purposes that is effecting in us certain evils which dispose to worse they are according to the nature of error infinitely divided and agree in nothing but in this that none of them can prove what they say Anselme Bonaventure Gabriel and others say that Original sin is nothing but a want of Original righteousness Others say that they say something of truth but not enough for a privation can never be a positive sin and if it be not positive it cannot be inherent and therefore that it is necessary that they add indignitatem habendi a certain unworthiness to have it being in every man that is the sin But then if it be asked what makes them unworthy if it be not the want of Original righteousness and that then they are not two things but one seemingly and none really they are not yet agreed upon an answer Aquinas and his Scholars say Original sin is a certain spot upon the soul. Melancthon considering that concupiscence or the faculty of desiring or the tendency to an object could not be a sin fancied Original sin to be an actual depraved desire Illyrious says it is the substantial image of the Devil Scotus and Durandus say it is nothing but a meer guilt that is an obligation passed upon us to suffer the evil effects of it which indeed is most moderate of all the opinions of the School and differs not at all or scarce discernibly from that of Albertus Pighius and Catharinus who say that Original sin is nothing but the disobedience of Adam imputed to us But the Lutherans affirm it to be the depravation of humane nature without relation to the sin of Adam but a vileness that is in us The Church of Rome of late sayes that besides the want of Original righteousness with an habitual aversion from God it is a guiltiness and a spot but it is nothing of Concupiscence that being the effect of it only But the Protestants of Mr. Calvin's perswasion affirm that concupiscence is the main of it and is a sin before and after Baptism but amongst all this infinite uncertainty the Church of England speaks moderate words apt to be construed to the purposes of all peaceable men that desire her communion 26. Thus every one talks of Original sin and agree that there is such a thing but what it is they agree not and therefore in such infinite Variety he were of a strange imperious spirit that would confine others to his particular fancy For my own part now that I have shown what the Doctrine of the purest Ages was what uncertainty there is of late in the Question what great consent there is in some of the main parts of what I affirm and that in the contrary particulars Men cannot agree I shall not be ashamed to profess what company I now keep in my opinion of the Article no worse Men than Zuinglius Stapulensis the great Erasmus and the incomparable Hugo Grotius who also says there are multi in Gallia qui eandem sententiam magnis same argumentis tuentur many in France which with great argument defend the same sentence that is who explicate the article intirely as I do and as S. Chrysostome and Theodoret did of old in compliance with those H. Fathers that went before them with whom although I do not desire to erre yet I suppose their great names are guard sufficient against prejudices and trifling noises and an amulet against the Names of Arminian Socinian Pelagian and I cannot tell what Monsters of appellatives But these are but Boyes tricks and arguments of Women I expect from all that are wiser to examine whether this Opinion does not or whether the contrary does better explicate the truth with greater reason and to better purposes of Piety let it be examined which best glorifies God and does honour to his justice and the reputation of his Goodness which does with more advantage serve the interest of holy living and which is more apt to patronize carelesness and sin These are the measures of wise and good men the other are the measures of Faires and Markets where fancy and noise do govern SECT VI. An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original sin according to Scripture and Reason 27. AFter all this it is pretended and talked of that my Doctrine of Original sin is against the Ninth Article of the Church of England and that my attempt to reconcile them was ineffective Now although this be nothing to the truth or falshood of my Doctrine yet it is much concerning the reputation of it Concerning which I cannot be so much displeased that any man should so undervalue my reason as I am highly content that they do so very much value her Authority But then to acquit my self and my Doctrine from being contrary to the Article all that I can do is to expound the Article and make it appear that not only the words of it are capable of a fair construction but also that it is reasonable they should be expounded so
against his justice which is revealed and to hope God will save them whom he hates who are gone from him in Adam who are born heirs of his wrath slaves of the Devil servants of sin for these Epithets are given to all the Children of Adam by the opponents in this Question is to hope for that against which his justice visibly is engaged and for which hope there is no ground unless this instance of Divine goodness were expressed in revelation For so even wicked persons on their death-bed are bidden to hope without rule and without reason or sufficient grounds of trust But besides that we hope in Gods goodness in this case is not ill but I ask Is it against Gods goodness that any one should perish for Original sin if it be against Gods goodness it is also against his justice for nothing is just that is not also good Gods goodness may cause his justice to forbear a sentence but whatsoever is against Gods goodness is against God and therefore against his justice also because every attribute in God is God himself For it is not always true to say This is against Gods goodness because the contradictory is agreeable to Gods goodness Neither is it always false to say that two contradictories may both be agreeable to Gods goodness Gods goodness is of such a latitude that it may take in both parts of the contradiction Contradictories cannot both be against Gods goodness but they may both be in with it Whatsoever is against the goodness of God is essentially evil But a thing may be agreeable to Gods goodness and yet the other part not be against it For example It is against the goodness of God to hate fools and Ideots and therefore he can never hate them But it is agreeable to Gods goodness to give Heaven to them and the joys beatifical and if he does not give them so much yet if he does no evil to them hereafter it is also agreeable to his goodness To give them Heaven or not to give them Heaven though they be contradictories yet are both agreeable to his goodness But in contraries the case is otherwise For though not to give them Heaven is consistent with the Divine goodness yet to send them to Hell is not The reason of the difference is this Because to do contrary things must come from contrary principles and whatsoever is contrary to the Divine goodness is essentially evil But to do or not to do supposes but one positive principle and the other negative not having a contrary cause may be wholly innocent as proceeding from a negative But to speak more plain Is it against Gods goodness that Infants should be damned for Original sin then it could never have been done it was essentially evil and therefore could never have been decreed or sentenced But if it be not against Gods goodness that they should perish in Hell then it may consist with Gods goodness and then to hope that Gods goodness will rescue them from his justice when the thing may agree with both is to hope without ground God may be good though they perish for Adams sin and if so and that he can be just too upon the account of what attribute shall these innocents be rescued and we hope for mercy for them 6. If Adams posterity be only liable to damnation but shall never be damned for Adams sin then all the children of Heathens dying in their Infancy shall escape as well as baptized Christian Children which if any of my disagreeing Brethren shall affirm he will indeed seem to magnifie Gods goodness but he must fall out with some great Doctors of the Church whom he would pretend to follow and besides he will be hard put to it to tell what advantage Christian Children have over Heathens supposing them all to die young for being bred up in the Christian Religion is accidental and may happen to the children of unbelievers or may not happen to the children of believers and if Baptism adds nothing to their present state there is no reason Infants should be baptized but if it does add to their present capacity as most certainly it does very much then that Heathen Infants should be in a condition of being rescued from the wrath of God as well as Christian Infants is a strange unlookt for affirmative and can no way be justified or made probable but by affirming it to be against the justice of God to condemn any for Adams sin Indeed if it be unâ—ust as I have proved it is then it will follow that none shall suffer damnation by it But if the hopes of the salvation of Heathen Infants be to be derived only from Gods goodness though Gods goodness cannot fail yet our Argument may fail for it will not follow because God is good therefore Heathen Infants shall be saved for it might as well follow God is good therefore Heathens shall be no Heathens but all turn Christians These things do not follow affirmatively but negatively they do For if it were against Gods goodness that they should be reckoned in Adam unto eternal death then it is also against his Justice and against God all the way and then they who affirm they were so reckoned must shew some revelation to assure us that although it be just in God to damn all Heathens yet that he is so good that he will not For so long as there is no revelation of any such goodness there is this principle to conâ—est against it I mean their affirming that they are in Adam justly liable to damnation and therefore without disparagement to the infinite goodness of God Heathen Infants may perish for it is never against Gods goodness to throw a sinner into Hell 7. But to come yet closer to the Question some good men and wise suppose that the Sublapsarian Presbyterians can be confuted in their pretended grounds of absolute reprobation although we grant that Adams sin is damnable to his posterity provided we say that though it was damnable yet it shall never damn us Now though I wish it could be done that they and I might not differ so much as in a circumstance yet first it is certain that the men they speak of can never be confuted upon the stock of Gods Justice because as the one says It is just that God should actually damn all for the sin of Adam So the other says It is just that God should actually sentence all to damnation and so there the case is equal Secondly They cannot be confuted upon the stock of Gods goodness because the emanations of that are wholly arbitrary and though there are negative measures of it as there is of Gods Infinity and we know Gods goodness to be inconsistent with some things yet there are no positive measures of this goodness and no man can tell how much it will do for us and therefore without a revelation things may be sometimes hoped which yet may not be presumed and therefore
and cellars and retirements think that they being upon the defensive those Princes and those Laws that drive them to it are their enemies and therefore they cannot be secure unless the power of the one and the obligation of the other be lessened and rescinded and then the being restrained and made miserable endears the discontented persons mutually and makes more hearty and dangerous Confederations King James of blessed memory in his Letters to the States of the Vnited Provinces dated 6. March 1613. thus wrote Magis autem è re fore si sopiantur authoritate publicâ ità ut prohibeatis Ministros vestros nè eas disputationes in suggestum aut ad plebem ferant ac districtè imperetis ut pacem colant se invicem tolerando in ista opinionum ac sententiarum discrepantia Eóque justiùs videmur vobis hoc ipsum suadere debere quòd neutram comperimus adeò deviam ut non possint cum fidei Christianae veritate cum animarum salute consistere c. The like counsel in the divisions of Germany at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperour Ferdinand and his excellent Son Maximilian For they had observed that violence did exasperate was unblessed unsuccessfull and unreasonable and therefore they made Decrees of Toleration and appointed tempers and expedients to be drawn up by discreet persons and George Cassander was design'd to this great work and did something towards it And Emanuel Philibert Duke of Savoy repenting of his war undertaken for Religion against the Pedemontans promised them Toleration and was as good as his word As much is done by the Nobility of Polonia So that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities but it is known that the first Persecutions of disagreeing persons were by the Arians by the Circumcellians and Donatists and from them they of the Church took examples who in small numbers did sometime perswade it sometime practise it And among the Greeks it became a publick and authorized practice till the Question of Images grew hot and high for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empress Irene who put her son's eyes out for making an Edict against Images began to be as cruel as they were deceived especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome who then blew the coals to some purpose And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affair in the Church of Rome it is remarkable that till the time of Justinian the Emperour A.D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome itself but the Bishops of Rome whose interest was much concerned in it spoke much against it and laboured the eradication of the Novatians and at last when they got power into their hands they served them accordingly but it is observed by Socrates that when the first Persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent I. at the same instant the Goths invaded Italy and became Lords of all it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true belief who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds do persecute an errour less material in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common Faith And I have heard it observed as a blessing upon S. Austin who was so mercifull to erring persons as the greatest part of his life in all senses even when he had twice changed his minde yet to tolerate them and never to endure they should be given over to the Secular power to be killed that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it he died and went to God being as a reward of his mercifull Doctrine taken from the miseries to come And yet that very thing was also a particular issue of the Divine Providence upon that City who not long before had altered their profession into truth by force and now were falling into their power who afterward by a greater force turned them to be Arians But in the Church of Rome the Popes were the first Preachers of force and violence in matters of Opinion and that so zealously that Pope Vigilius suffered himself to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperour Justinian rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons But as yet it came not so far as Death The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick the Founder of the Begging Orders of Friers the Friers Preachers in memory of which the Inquisition is intrusted onely to the Friers of his Order And if there be any force in Dreams or truth in Legends as there is not much in either this very thing might be signified by his Mother's dream who the night before Dominick was born dreamed she was brought to bed of a huge Dog with a fire-brand in his mouth Sure enough however his Disciples expound the dream it was a better sign that he should prove a rabid furious Incendiary then any thing else whatever he might be in the other parts of his life in his Doctrine he was not much better as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses against whom he so preached adeo quidem ut centum haereticorum millia ab octo millibus Catholicorum fusa interfecta fuisse perhibeantur saith one of him and of those who were taken 180 were burnt to death because they would not abjure their Doctrine This was the first example of putting erring persons to death that I find in the Roman Church For about 170 years before Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they called Heresie and recanted and relapsed and recanted again and fell again two or three times saith Gerson writing against Romant of the Rose and yet he died sicca morte his own natural death and with hope of Heaven and yet Hildebrand was once his Judge which shews that at that time Rome was not come to so great heights of bloudshed In England although the Pope had as great power here as any-where yet there were no executions for matter of Opinion known till the time of Henry the fourth who because he usurped the Crown was willing by all means to endear the Clergy by destroying their enemies that so he might be sure of them to all his purposes And indeed it may become them well enough who are wiser in their generations then the children of light it may possibly serve the policies of evil persons but never the pure and chast dâ—signs of Christianity which admits no bloud but Christ's and the imitating bloud of Martyrs but knows nothing how to serve her ends by persecuting any of her erring Children By this time I hope it will not be thought reasonable to say he that teaches mercy to erring persons teaches indifferency in Religion unless so many Fathers and so many Churches and the best of Emperours and all the world till they were abused by Tyranny
not also serve their own ends in giving their Princes such untoward counsel but we find the Laws made severally to several purposes in divers cases and with different severity Constantine the Emperour made a Sanction Vt parem cum fidelibus ii qui errant pacis quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant The Emperour Gratian decreed Vt quam quisque vellet religionem sequeretur conventus Ecclesiasticos semoto metu omnes agerent But he excepted the Manichees the Photinians and Eunomians Theodosius the elder made a law of death against the Anabaptists of his time and banished Eunomius and against other erring persons appointed a pecuniary mulct but he did no executions so severe as his sanctions to shew they were made in terrorem onely So were the Laws of Valentinian and Martian decreeing contra omnes qui prava docere tentant that they should be put to death so did Michael the Emperour but Justinian onely decreed banishment 13. But whatever whispers some Politicks might make to their Princes as the wisest and holiest did not think it lawfull for Churchmen alone to doe executions so neither did they transmit such persons to the Secular judicature And therefore when the Edict of Macedonius the President was so ambiguous that it seemed to threaten death to Hereticks unless they recanted S. Austin admonished him carefully to provide that no Heretick should be put to death alledging it not onely to be unchristian but illegal also and not warranted by Imperial constitutions for before his time no Laws were made for their being put to death but however he prevailed that Macedonius published another Edict more explicite and lesse seemingly severe But in his Epistle to Donatus the African Proconsul he is more confident and determinate Necessitate nobis impactâ indictâ ut potiùs occîdi ab eis eligamus quà m eos occidendos vestris judiciis ingeramus 14. But afterwards many got a trick of giving them over to the Secular power which at the best is no better then Hypocrisie removing envy from themselves and laying it upon others a refusing to doe that in externall act which they doe in counsel and approbation which is a transmitting the act to another and retaining a proportion of guilt unto themselves even their own and the others too I end this with the saying of Chrysostome Dogmata impia quae ab haereticis profecta sunt arguere anathematizare oportet hominibus autem parcendum pro salute eorum orandum SECT XV. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing Opinions BUT although Hereticall persons are not to be destroyed yet Heresie being a work of the flesh and all Hereticks criminal persons whose acts and Doctrine have influence upon Communities of men whether Ecclesiasticall or civil the Governours of the Republick or Church respectively are to doe their duties in restraining those mischiefs which may happen to their several charges for whose indemnity they are answerable And therefore according to the effect or malice of the Doctrine or the person so the cognizance of them belongs to several Judicatures If it be false Doctrine in any capacity and doth mischief in any sense or teaches ill life in any instance or encourages evil in any particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these men must be silenced they must be convinced by sound Doctrine and put to silence by spiritual evidence and restrained by Authority Ecclesiasticall that is by spiritual Censures according as it seems necessary to him who is most concern'd in the regiment of the Church For all this we have precept and precedent Apostolicall and much reason For by thus doing the Governour of the Church uses all that Authority that is competent and all the means that is reasonable and that proceeding which is regular that he may discharge his cure and secure his flock And that he possibly may be deceived in judging a Doctrine to be hereticall and by consequence the person excommunicate suffers injury is no argument against the reasonableness of the proceeding For all the injury that is is visible and in appearance and so is his crime Judges must judge according to their best reason guided by Law of God as their Rule and by evidence and appearance as their best instrument and they can judge no better If the Judges be good and prudent the errour of proceeding will not be great nor ordinary and there can be no better establishment of humane judicature then is a fallible proceeding upon an infallible ground And if the judgement of Heresie be made by estimate and proportion of the Opinion to a good or a bad life respectively supposing an errour in the deduction there will be no malice in the conclusion and that he endeavours to secure piety according to the best of his understanding and yet did mistake in his proceeding is onely an argument that he did his duty after the manner of men possibly with the piety of a Saint though not with the understanding of an Angel And the little inconvenience that happens to the person injuriously judged is abundantly made up in the excellency of the Discipline the goodnesse of the example the care of the publick and all those great influences into the manners of men which derive from such an act so publickly consign'd But such publick judgement in matters of Opinion must be seldome and curious and never but to secure piety and a holy life for in matters speculative as all determinations are fallible so scarce any of them are to purpose nor ever able to make compensation of either side either for the publick fraction or the particular injustice if it should so happen in the censure 2. But then as the Church may proceed thus far yet no Christian man or Community of men may proceed farther For if they be deceived in their judgement and censure and yet have passed onely spiritual censures they are totally ineffectual and come to nothing there is no effect remaining upon the Soul and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly But if any other judgement passe upon persons erring such judgements whose effects remain if the person be unjustly censured nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries If a person be excommunicate unjustly it will doe him no hurt but if he be killed or dismembred unjustly that censure and infliction is not made ineffectual by his innocence he is certainly killed and dismembred So that as the Churche's Authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent cautelous and orderly is just and competent so the proceeding is reasonable it is provident for the publick and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little as that the publick benefit makes ample compensation so long as the proceeding is but spiritual 3. This discourse is in the case of such Opinions which by the former rules are formal Heresies and upon practicall inconveniences But
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as
divinae vocationi Because the Word was made flesh therefore he was desired for life to be devoured by hearing to be ruminated or chewed by the understanding to be digested by faith For a little before he called his flesh also celestial bread still or all the way urging by an allegory of necessary food the memory of their Fathers who preferrd the bread and flesh of Egypt before the Divine calling 11. S. Athanasius or who is the Author of the Tractate upon the words Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis in his works saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The things which he speaks are not carnal but spiritual For to how many might his body suffice for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole World But for this it was that he put them in mind of the ascension of the Son of man into Heaven that he might draw them off from carnal and corporal sences and that they might learn that his flesh which he called meat was from above heavenly and spiritual nourishment For saith he the things that I have spoken they are spirit and they are life 12. But Origen is yet more decretory in this affair Est in novo Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quae dicuntur adverterit si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meam occidit haec litera If we understand these words of Christ Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood literally this letter kills For there is in the new Testament a letter that kills him who does not spiritually understand those things which are spoken 13. S. Ambrose not only expounds it in a spiritual sence but plainly denyes the proper and natural Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam sulcit That is not the bread of life which goes into the body but that which supports the substance of the soul And fide tangitur fide videtur non tangitur corpore non oculis comprehenditur this bread is touch'd by faith it is seen by faith and without all peradventure that this is to be understood of eating and drinking Christ by faith is apparent from Christ's own words verse 35. I am the bread of life he that cometh to me shall not hunger and he that believeth on me shall not thirst coming to Christ is eating him believing him is drinking his blood It is not touch'd by the body it is not seen with the eyes S. Chrysostom in his 47. Homily upon this Chapter of S. John expounds these words in a spiritual sence for these things saith he are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as have in them nothing carnal nor any carnal consequence 14. S. Austin gave the same exposition Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti and again Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem vivum Qui credit in eum manducat 15. Theophylact makes the spiritual sence to be the only answer in behalf of our not being Canibals or devourers of mans flesh as the men of Capernaum began to dream and the men of Rome though in better circumstances to this day dream on Putabant isti quòd Deus cogeret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia enim nos hoc spiritualiter intelligimus neque carnium voratores sumus imò sanctificamur per talem cibum non sumus carnis voratores The men of Capernaum thought Christ would compel them to devour mans flesh But because we understand this spiritually therefore we are not devourers of mans flesh but are sanctified by this meat Perfectly to the same sence and almost in the very words Theodorus Bishop of Hieraclea is quoted in the Greek Catena upon John 16. It were easie to add that Eusebius calls the words of Christ his flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that so also does S. Hierom saying that although it may be understood in mystery tamen veriùs corpus Christi sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est that so does Clemens Alexandrinus that S. Basil sayes that his Doctrine and his mystical coming is his flesh and blood that S. Bernard sayes to imitate his life and communicate with his passion is to eat his flesh But I decline for the present to insist upon these because all of them excepting S. Hierom only may be supposed to be mystical Expositions which may be true and yet another Exposition may be true too It may suffice that it is the direct sence of Tertullian Origen Athanasius S. Ambrose S. Austin and Theophylact that these woâ—ds of Christ in the sixth of S. John are not to be understood in the natural or proper but in the spiritual sence The spiritual they declare not to be the mystical but the literal sence and therefore their testimonies cannot be eluded by any such pretence 17. And yet after all this suppose that Christ in these words did speak of the Sacramental manducation and affirm'd that the bread which he would give should be his flesh what is this to Transubstantiation That Christ did speak of the Sacrament as well as of any other mystery of this amongst others that is of all the wayes of taking him is to me highly probable Christ is the food of our souls this food we receive in at our ears mouth our hearts and the allusion is plainer in the Sacrament than in any other external right because of the similitude of bread and eating which Christ used upon occasion of the miracle of the loaves which introduc'd all that discourse But then this comes in only as it is an act of faith for the meat which Christ gives is to be taken by faith himself being the Expounder Now the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist being acts and Symbols and consignations of faith and effects of believing that is of the first and principal receiving him by faith in his words and submission to his Doctrine may well be meant here not by vertue of the words for the whole form of expression is Metaphorical not at all proper but by the proportion of reason and nature of his effect it is an act or manner of receiving Christ and an issue of faith and therefore is included in the mystery The food that Christ said he would give is his flesh which he would give for the life of the world viz. to be crucified and killed And from that verse forward he doth more particularly refer to his death for he speaks of bread only before or meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now he speaks of flesh and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and drink and therefore by Analogy he may allude to the Sacrament which is his similitude and representation but this is but the meaning of the
second or third remove if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse it can primarily relate to nothing but his death upon the Cross at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world and so giving it it became meat the receiving this gift was a receiving of life for it was given for the life of the world The manner of receiving it is by faith and hearing the word of God submitting our understanding the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ conforming to his doctrine and example and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation so they come under this discourse and no otherwise 18. But to return This very allegory of the word of God to be called meat and particularly Manna which in this Chapter Christ particularly alludes to is not unusual in the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses said unto them This is the word which the Lord hath given us to eat This is the word which the Lord hath ordained you see what is the food of the soul even the eternal Word of God c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God the most honourable and eldest of things is called Mana and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The soul is nourished by the Word qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum 19. And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus of Eusebius S. Basil S. Hierome and S. Bernard which I wav'd before all agreeing upon this exposition that the word of God Christs doctrine is the flesh he speaks of and the receiving it and practising it are the eating his flesh for this sence is the literal and proper and S. Hierom is express to affirm that the other exposition is mystical and that this is the more true and proper and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they only give the mystical sence is one of his confident sayings without reason or pretence of proof and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament I answer it is sufficient that they agree in this sence and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sence of eating Christ in the Sacrament particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and Saint Ambrose above quoted to which I add the words of Eusebius in the third book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica expounding the 63. verse of the sixth of Saint John he brings in Christ speaking thus Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood But know ye that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation and to affirm ours though to do so be not usual unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause is a device to escape rather than to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men I conclude It is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrinâ coelesti sic enim dicit panem suum ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine so he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus S. Basil Athanasius Eusebius S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Austin Theophylact and S. Bernard are a good security for the sence of a place of Scripture we have read their evidence and may proceed to sentence 20. But it was impossible but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink and signifying the receiving Christ crucified and communicating with his passion in all the wayes of Faith and Sacrament should also meet with as allegorical expounders and for the likeness of expression be referr'd to sacramental manducation And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantiation though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament so is he also in the Sacrament as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy Hearer so is he to the worthy Communicant as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him so to all that obediently remember him so Christ's flesh is meat indeed however it be taken if it be taken spiritually but not however it be taken if it be taken carnally He is nutritive in all the wayes of spiritual manducation but not in all the wayes of natural eating by their own confession nor in any by ours And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion if they should gain one of the premises But the truth is this It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament neither if it were would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation 21. I will not be alone in my assertion though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out Saint Austin saith the same Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum vobis Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit nos That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritually ye are not to eat that body which ye see I have commended a Sacrament to you which being understood spiritually will give you life where besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one And again Vt quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus similitudinem quoque sanguinis carnis sumamus ita ut veritas non desit in sacramento ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus That as we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor the Pagans ridiculously affirm that we should drink the blood of the crucified Man Nothing could be spoken more plain in this Question We receive Christ's body in the Eucharist as we are baptized into his death that is by figure and likeness In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh so as the Heathen may calumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught
utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento tribue quaesumus ut eorum corporibus nostris subsidium non desit mentibus The present gifts were appointed for the nourishment both of soul and body Who please may see more in Macarius 27. Homily and Ammonius in his Evangelical harmony in the Bibliotheca PP and this though it be decryed now adays in the Roman Schools yet was the doctrine of Scotus of Durandus Ocham Cameracensis and Biel and those men were for Consubstantiation that Christs natural body was together with natural bread which although I do not approve yet the use that I now make of them cannot be denied me it was their doctrine that after consecration bread still remains after this let what can follow But that I may leave the ground of this argument secure I add this that in the Primitive Church eating the Eucharistical bread was esteemed a breaking the fast which is not imaginable any man can admit but he that believes bread to remain after consecration and to be nutritive as before but so it was that in the second age of the Church it was advised that either they should end their station or fast at the communion or defer the communion to the end of the station as appears in Tertullian de Oratione cap. 14. which unanswerably proves that then it was thought to be bread and nutritive even then when it was Eucharistical and Picus Mirandula affirms that if a Jew or a Christian should eat the Sacrament for refection it breaks his fast The same also is the doctrine of all those Churches who use the Liturgies of S. James S. Mark and S. Chrysostome who hold that receiving the holy communion breaks the fast as appears in the disputation of Cardinal Humbert with Nicetas about 600 years ago The summ of all is this If of bread Christ said This is my body because it cannot be true in a proper natural sence it implying a contradiction that it should be properly bread and properly Christs body it must follow That it is Christs body in a figurative improper sence But if the bread does not remain bread but be changed by blessing into our Lords body this also is impossible to be in any sence true but by affirming the change to be only in use virtue and condition with which change the natural being of bread may remain For he that supposes that by the blessing the bread ceases so to be that nothing of it remains must also necessarily suppose that the bread being no more it neither can be the body of Christ nor any thing else For it is impossible that what is taken absolutely from all being should yet abide under a certain difference of being and that that thing which is not at all should yet be after a certain manner Since therefore as I have proved the bread remains and of bread it was affirmed This is my body it follows inevitably that it is figuratively not properly and naturally spoken of bread That it is the flesh or body of our Lord. SECT VI. Est corpus meum 1. THE Next words to be considered are Est corpus This is my body and here begins the first Topical expression Est that is significat or repraesentat exhibet corpus meum say some This is my body it is to all real effects the same to your particulars which my body is to all the Church it signifies the breaking of my body the effusion of my blood for you and applies my passion to you and conveys to you all the benefits as this nourishes your bodies so my body nourishes your souls to life eternal and consigns your bodies to immortality Others make the trope in Corpus so that Est shall signify properly but Corpus is taken in a spiritual sence sacramental and Mysterious not a natural and presential whether the figure be in Est or in Corpus is but a question of Rhetorick and of no effect That the proposition is tropical and figurative is the thing and that Christs natural body is now in heaven definitively and no where else and that he is in the Sacrament as he can be in a Sacrament in the hearts of faithful receivers as he hath promised to be there that is in the Sacrament mystically operatively as in a moral and divine instrument in the hearts of receivers by faith and blessing this is the truth and the faith of which we are to give a reason and account to them that disagree But this which is to all the purpose which any one pretends can be in the sumption of Christs body naturally yet will not please the Romanists unless Est Is signifie properly without trope or metonymie and corpus be corpus naturale Here then I joyn issue It is not Christs body properly or naturally for though it signifies a real effect yet it signifies the body figuratively or the effects and real benefits 2. Now concerning this there are very many inducements to infer the figurative or tropical interpretation 1. In the language which our blessed Lord spake there is no word that can express significat but they use the word Is the Hebrews and the Syrians always joyn the names of the signs with the things signified and since the very essence of a sign is to signifie it is not an improper elegancy in those languages to use Est for significat 2. It is usual in the Old Testament as may appear to understand est when the meaning is for the present and not to express it but when it signifies the future then to express it the seven fat cows seven years the seven withered ears shall be seven years of famine 3. The Greek interpreters of the Bible supply the word est in the present tense which is omitted in the Hebrew as in the places above quoted but although their Language can very well express signifies yet they follow the Hebrew Idiom 4. In the New Testament the same manner of speaking is retained to declare that the nature and being of signs is to signifie they have no other esse but significare and therefore they use est for significat The Seed is the word the Field is the World the Reapers are the Angels the Harvest is the End of the World the Rock is Christ I am the Door I am the Vine my Father is the husbandman I am the way the truth and the life Sarah and Agar are the two Testaments the Stars are the Angels of the Churches the Candlesticks are the Churches and many more of this kind we have therefore great and fair and frequent precedents for expounding this est by significat for it is the style of both the Testaments to speak in signs and representments where one disparate speaks of another as it does here the body of Christ of the bread which is the Sacrament especially since the very institution of it is representative significative and commemorative For so said our
blessed Saviour Do this in memorial of me and this doing ye shew forth the Lords death till he come saith S. Paul 3. Secondly the second credibility that our blessed Saviours words are to be understood figuratively is because it is a Sacrament For mysterious and tropical expressions are very frequently almost regularly and universally used in Scripture in Sacraments and sacramentals And therefore it is but a vain discourse of Bellarmine to contend that this must be a proper speaking because it is a Sacrament For that were all one as to say he speaks mystically therefore he speaks properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greek for a Sacrament and all the Greek that is for it in the New Testament and when S. Paul tells of a man praying in the spirit but so as not to be understood he expresses it by speaking mysteries The mysterious and sacramental speaking is secret and dark But so it is in the sacrament or covenant of circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my Covenant and yet it was but the seal of the Covenant if you believe S. Paul it was a Sacrament and a consignation of it but it is spoken of it affirmatively and the same words are used there as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both places 4. And upon this account two other usual objections pretending that this being a Covenant and a Testament it ought to be expressed without a figure are dissolved For here is a Covenant and a Testament and a Sacrament all in one and yet the expression of them is figurative and the being a Testament is so far from supposing all expression in it to be proper and free from figure that it self the very word Testament in the institution of the holy Sacrament is tropical or figurative est Testamentum that is est signum Testamenti it is that is it signifies And why they should say that a Testament must have in it all plain words and no figures or hard sayings that contend that both the Testaments New and Old are very full of hard sayings and upon that account forbid the people to read them I confess I cannot understand Besides this though it be fit in temporal Testaments all should be plain yet we see all are not plain and from thence come so many suits of Law yet there is not the same reason in spiritual or divine and in humane Testaments for in humane there is nothing but legacies and express commands both which it is necessary that we understand plainly but in divine Testaments there are mysteries to exercise our industry and our faith our patience and inquiry some things for us to hope some things for us to admire some things to pry into some things to act some things for the present some things for the future some things pertaining to this life some things pertaining to the life to come some things we are to see in a glass darkly some things reserved till the vision of Gods face And after all this in humane Testaments men ought to speak plainly because they can speak no more when they are dead But Christ can for he being dead yet speaketh and he can by his Spirit make the Church understand as much as he please and he will as much as is necessary and it might be remembred that in Scripture there is extant a record of Jacobs Testament and of Moses which we may observe to be an allegory all the way I have heard also of an Athenian that had two sons and being asked on his deathbed to which of his two sons he would give his goods to Leon or Pantaleon which were the names of his two sons he only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but whether he meant to give all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Leon or to Pantaleon is not yet known And in the Civil Law it is noted that Testaments have figurative expressions very often and therefore decreed Non n. in causâ Testamentorum ad definitionem strictam sive propriam verborum significationem saith the Gloss utique descendendum est cum plerumque abusivè loquantur nec propriis vocabulis ac nominibus semper utantur Testatores l. non aliter Sect. Titius F. de legat fidei com And there are in Law certain measures for presumption of the Testators meaning These therefore are trifling arrests even a commandment may be given with a figurative expression and yet be plain enough such was that of Jesus Pray ye the Lord of the Harvest that he would send Labourers into his Harvest and that Jesus commanded his Disciples to prepare the Passeover and some others so Rent your hearts and not your garments c. And an article of faith may be expressed figuratively so is that of Christs sitting at the right hand of his Father And therefore much more may there be figurative expressions in the institution of a mysterie and yet be plain enough Tropica loquutio cum fit ubi fieri solet sine labore sequitur intellectus said S. Austin l. 3. de Doct. Christ. c. 37. Certain it is the Church understood this well enough for a Thousand years together and yet admitted of figures in the institution and since these new men had the handling of it and excluded the figurative sence they have made it so hard that themselves cannot understand it nor tell one anothers meaning But it suffices as to this particular that in Scripture doctrines and promises and precepts and prophecies and histories are expressed sometimes figuratively Dabo tibi claves and Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis and The dragon drew the third part of the Stars with his tail and Fight the good fight of faith Put on the armour of righteousness and very many more 5. Thirdly And indeed there is no possibility of distinguishing sacramental propositions from common and dogmatical or from a commandment but that these are affirmative of a nature those of a mystery these speak properly they are figurative such as this Vnless a man be born of water and the Spirit be cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven The proposition is sacramental mystical and figurative Go and baptize that 's a precept therefore the rather is it literal and proper So it is in the blessed Sacrament the institution is in Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave to his disciples saying Take eat In these also there is a precept and in the last words Hoc facite this do in remembrance of me But the Sacramental proposition or the mystical which explicates the Sacrament is Hoc est corpus meum and either this is or there is no sacramental proposition in this whole affair to explicate the mysterie or the being a sacrament But this is very usual in sacramental propositions For so baptism is called regeneration and it is called a burial by S. Paul for we are buried with him in baptism then baptism
the Question in hand and so destructive of the Roman hypothesis that nothing can be said against it His words are these therefore in all regards death is good because it divides those that were always fighting that they may not impugn each other and because it is a certain port to them who being toss'd in the sea of this world require the station of faithful rest and because it makes not our state worse but such as it finds every one such it reserves him to the future judgment and nourishes him with rest and withdraws him from the envy of present things and composes him with the expectation of future things E. W. thinking himself bound to say something to these words answers It is an excellent saying for worse he is not but infinitely better that quit of the occasions of living here is ascertain'd of future bliss hereafter which is the whole drift of the Saint in that Chapter Read it and say afterwards if I say not true It is well put off But there are very many that read him who never will or can examine what S. Ambrose says and withal such he hopes to escape But as to the thing That death gives a man advantage and by its own fault no disadvantage is indeed not only the whole drift of that Chapter but of that whole book But not for that reason only is a man the better for death but because it makes him not worse in order to Eternity nay it does not alter him at all as to that for as death finds him so shall the judgment find him and therefore not purified by Purgatory for such he is reserved and not only thus but it cherishes him with rest which would be very ill done if death carried him to Purgatory Now all these last words and many others E. W. is pleas'd to take no notice of as not being for his purpose But he that pleases to see more may read the 12. and 18. Chapters of the same Treatise S. Gregorie's saying that after this life there is no purgation can no way be put off by any pretences For he means it of the time after death before the day of judgment which is directly oppos'd to the doctrine of the Church of Rome and unless you will suppose that S. Gregory believ'd two Purgatories it is certain he did not believe the Roman for he taught that the purgation which he calls Baptism by fire and the saving yet as by fire was to be perform'd at the day of judgment and the curiosity of that trial is the fierceness of that fire as Nicetas expounds S. Gregories words in his oration in sancta lumina So that S. Gregory affirming that this world is the place of purgation and that after this world there is no purgation could not have spoken any thing more direct against the Roman Purgatory S. Hilary and S. Macarius speak of two states after death and no more True says E. W. but they are the two final states That is true too in some sence for it is either of eternal good or evil but to one of these states they are consigned and determined at the time of their death at which time every one is sent either to the bosom of Abraham or to a place of pain where they are reserved to the sentence of the great day S. Hilary's words are these There is no stay or delaying For the day of judgment is either an eternal retribution of beatitude or of pain But the time of our death hath every one in his laws whiles either Abraham viz. the bosome of Abraham or pain reserves every one unto the Judgment These words need no Commentary He that can reconcile these to the Roman Purgatory will be a most mighty man in controversie And so also are the words of S. Macarius when they go out of the body the quires of Angels receive their souls and carry them to their proper place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a pure world and so lead them to the Lord. Such words as these are often repeated by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Ancient Church I summ them up with the saying of S. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is not death that happens to the righteous but a translation For they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest And as a man would go out of prison so do the Saints go out of this troublesome life unto those good things which are prepared for them Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in Purgatory by Joh. Gerson in his querela defunctorum and Sr. Tho. More in his supplication of souls and it will be found that the doctrine of the Fathers differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome as much as heaven and hell rest and labor horrid torments and great joy I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo which one of my adversaries could not find because the Princes was mistaken It is the 91. Epistle so known and so us'd by the Roman writers in the Qu. of Confession that if he be a man of learning it cannot be suppos'd but he knew where to find them The words are these But if any of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being intercepted by any obstacle falls from the benefit of the present Indulgences and before he comes to the constituted remedies shall end his temporal life by humane condition or frailty that which abiding in the body he hath not received being out of the flesh he cannot Now against these words of S. Leo set the present doctrine of the Church of Rome that what is not finished of penances here a man may pay in Purgatory and let the world judge whether S. Leo was in this point a Roman Catholick Indeed S. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away but I hope the Roman Doctors will excuse the Saint because the distinction is but new and modern But this testimony of S. Gregory must not go for a single Testimony That which abiding in the body could not be receiv'd out of the body cannot that is when the soul is gone out of the body as death finds them so shall the day of judgment find them And this was the sence of the whole Church for after death there is no change of state before the General Trial no passing from pain to rest in the state of separation and therefore either there are no Purgatory pains or if there be there is no â—ase of them before the day of judgment and the Prayers and Masses of the Church cannot give remedy to one poor soul and this must of necessity be confessed by the Roman Doctors or else they must shew that ever any one Catholick Father did teach that after death
and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECT III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholick nor Apostolick In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholick faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can find no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sence of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canâ—ne Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expresly taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for Ocham is not the man I mean however the Printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the Printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more publick name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Now if Roffensis have the same thing too this Author of the Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fierâ— carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of hereticks but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretick by Scripture alone or reasons alone And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies sed adeo tamen certa in â—ide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the Article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kind Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so