them that is the worst that is to be done to such a man in Saint Paul's judgement Yet count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother SECT XXI Of the Duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1. FRom these Premisses we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulness or duty respectively of Christian Communion which is differently to be considered in respect of particular Churches to each other and of particular men to particular Churches For as for particular Churches they are bound to allow Communion to all those that profess the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion For whatsoever preserves us as members of the Church gives us title to the Communion of Saints and whatsoever Faith or belief that is to which God hath promised Heaven that Faith makes us members of the Catholick Church Since therefore the judicial Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God to make the Way to Heaven streighter then God made it or to deny to communicate with those with whom God will vouchsafe to be united and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith because they have not all our Opinions and believe not every thing necessary which we overvalue is impious and schismaticall it infers tyranny on one part and perswades and tempts to uncharitableness and animosities on both it dissolves Societies and is an enemy to peace it busies men in impertinent wranglings and by names of men and titles of factions it consigns the interessed parties to act their differences to the height and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a good life bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and societies 2. And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis and indeed the whole Church accounted the Donatists Hereticks upon this very ground because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their perswasion whereas the Authours of that Opinion for which they first did separate and make a Sect because they did not break the Churche's peace nor magisterially prescribed to others were in that disagreeing and errour accounted Catholicks Divisio enim disunio facit vos haereticos pax unitas faciunt Catholicos said Saint Augustin And to this sense is that of Saint Paul If I had all faith and had not charity I am nothing He who upon confidence of his true belief denies a charitable Communion to his brother loses the reward of both And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the Asiaticks as Pope Anicetus and Saint Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter Victor had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so bitterly reproved and condemned as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and Irenaeus Concordia enim quae est charitatis effectus est unio voluntatum non opinionum True Faith which leads to Charity leads on to that which unites wills and affections not Opinions 3. Upon these or the like considerations the Emperour Zeno published his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he made the Nicene Creed to be the medium of Catholick Communion and although he lived after the Council of Chalcedon yet he made not the Decrees of that Council an instrument of its restraint and limit as preferring the peace of Christendom and the union of charity far before a forced or pretended unity of perswasion which never was nor ever will be real and substantial and although it were very convenient if it could be had yet it is therefore not necessary because it is impossible And if men please whatever advantages to the publick would be consequent to it may be supplied by a charitable compliance and mutuall permission of Opinion and the offices of a brotherly affection prescribed us by the Laws of Christianity And we have seen it that all Sects of Christians when they have an end to be served upon a third have permitted that liberty to a second which we now contend for and which they formerly denied but now grant that by joyning hands they might be the stronger to destroy the third The Arians and Meletians joyned against the Catholicks the Catholicks and Novatians joyned against the Arians Now if men would doe that for charity which they doe for interest it were handsomer and more ingenuous For that they do permit each others disagreeings for their interests sake convinceth them of the lawfulness of the thing or else the unlawfulness of their own proceedings And therefore it were better they would serve the ends of charity then of faction for then that good end would hallow the proceeding and make it both more prudent and more pious while it serves the design of religious purposes SECT XXII That particular men may communicate with Churches of different Perswasions and how far they may doe it 1. AS for the duty of particular men in the Question of communicating with Churches of different perswasions it is to be regulated according to the Laws of those Churches For if they require no impiety or any thing unlawfull as the condition of their Communion then they communicate with them as they are servants of Christ as disciples of his Doctrine and subjects to his laws and the particular distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect hath no influence or communication with him who from another Sect is willing to communicate with all the servants of their common Lord. For since no Church of one name is infallible a wise man may have either the misfortune or a reason to believe of every one in particular that she errs in some Article or other either he cannot communicate with any or else he may communicate with all that do not make a sin or the profession of an errour to be the condition of their Communion And therefore as every particular Church is bound to tolerate disagreeing persons in the senses and for the reasons above explicated so every particular person is bound to tolerate her that is not to refuse her Communion when he may have it upon innocent conditions For what is it to me if the Greek Church denies Procession of the third Person from the second so she will give me the right hand of fellowship though I affirm it therefore because I profess the Religion of Jesus Christ and retain all matters of Faith and necessity But this thing will scarce be reduced to practice for few Churches that have framed bodies of Confession and Articles will endure any person that is not of the same Confession which is a plain demonstration that such bodies of Confession Articles doe much hurt by becoming instruments of separating and dividing Communions and making unnecessary or uncertain propositions a certain means of Schism and disunion But then men would doe well to consider whether or no such proceedings do not derive the guilt of Schism upon them who least think it and whether of the two is the
Disswasive from Popery The First Part. THE Introduction 285 Chap. I. The doctrine of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive 286 Sect. 1. That our Religion is but that their Religion is not such is proved in general first from their challenging power of making new Articles and secondly from the practice of their Indices Expurgatory with some instances of their Innovating 286 2. They Innovate in pretending power to make new Articles 290 3. They did Innovate in their doctrine of Indulgences 291 4. In their doctrine and practice about Purgatory 294 5. In their doctrine of Transubstantiation 297 6. They Innovate in their doctrine of the Half-Communion 30◠7. In that they suffer not their publick Prayers to be in a language vulgarly understood 303 8. In requiring the adoration of Images 305 9. In picturing God the Father and the Bl. Trinity 307 10. In arrogating to the Pope an universal Bishoprick 308 11. A Miscellany of many other doctrines and practices wherein that Church has Innovated Chap. II. They maintain Doctrines and Practices in opposition to us that are direct impieties and certainly destroy good life 312 Sect. 1. Such is their doctrine of Repentance 312 2. And Confession 315 3. Of Penances and Satisfactions 316 4 5. Their doctrine about Pardon and Indulgences Contrition and Satisfaction 318 6. Satisfaction and habitual sins distinction of Mortal and Venial sins by which they contract their Repentance and their Sins and mistake in cases of Conscience 322 7. Their teaching now of late that a probable opinion for which the authority of one Doctor is sufficient may in practice be safely followed 324 8. That Prayers are accepted by God ex opere operato 327 9. Such is their practice of Invocating dead Saints as Deliverers 329 10. And of Exorcising possessed persons 333 11. Sacramentals such as Holy-water Paschal-wax Agnus Dei c. 336 12. The worship of Images is Idolatry and to worship the Host. 337 13. The Summ and Conclusion of the whole Chapter 337 Chap. III. Their Docrines are such as destroy Christian Society in general and Monarchy in particular 340 Sect. 1. As equivocation mental reservation taught and defended by them c. 340 Their teaching that faith is not to be kept with Hereticks dispensing with Oaths Dissolving the bonds of duty 341 They teach the Pope has power to dispense with all the Laws of God and to dissolve contracts 2. Their Exemption of the Clergie from the secular authority as to their Estates and Persons even in matters of Theft Murder and Treason c. and the divine right of the seal of Confession 343 3. By subjecting all Christian Kings to the Pope who can as they teach depose and excommunicate Kings and that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Kings The Second Part of the Disswasive THe Introduction containing an answer to the Fourth Appendix of J. S. his Sure-footing 351 Lib. I. Sect. 1. Of the Church that the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their Faith Of Councils and their authority the Canon Law and the great contrariety in it Of the Pope of the notes of the Church 381 2. Of the sufficiency of H. Scripture to Salvation which is the foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion The sufficiency of Scripture proved by Tradition 405 3. Of Traditions and those doctrines and practices that most need the help of that Topick as of the Trinity Paedo-Baptism Baptism by Hereticks and the Lords day 420 4. There is nothing of necessity to be believed which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 436 5. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confession of the Church new Articles of Faith and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholick doctrine 446 First They do it and pretend to a power of doing it Secondly That it agrees with their interest so to do 452 6. They use indirect ways to bring their new Articles into credit e. g. the device of Indices Expurgatorii 454 First That the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge Catholick Authors Secondly That they purged the very Indices of the Father's works Thirdly They did purge the Writings of the Fathers too 7. While they enlarge the Faith they destroy Charity 459 8. The insecurity of the Roman Religion 466 9. That the Church of Rome does teach for doctrines the commandments of men 471 10. Of the Seal of Confession the First Instance 473 11. The Second Instance is the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences as a Commandment of God 477 First For which there is no ground in holy Scripture 479 Secondly Nor in Ecclesiastical Tradition either of the Latin or Greek Church 491 Lib. II. Sect. 1. Of Indulgences and Pilgrimages 495 2. Of Purgatory The testimonies of Roffensis Polyd. Virgil c. Alphonsus à Castro are vindicated 500 It is proved that Purgatory is not a consequent to the doctrine of Prayer for the dead 501 The Fathers made Prayers for those whom they believed not to be in Purgatory 502 And such Prayers are in the Roman Missal 505. The Greek and Latin Fathers teach that no Soul enters Heaven till the day of Judgment The doctrine of Purgatory was no Article in S. Austin's time 506. It was not owned by the Greek Fathers 510. It is directly contrary to the ancient Fathers of the Latin Church 512 3. Of Transubstantiation wherein the authorities out of Scotus Odo Cameracensis Roffensis Biel Alph. à Castro Pet. Lombard Durandus Justine Martyr Eusebius S. Augustine are justified from the exceptions of the Adversaries And it is proved that the Council of Laterane did not determine the Article of Transubstantiation but brake up abruptly without making any Canons at all 516 4. Of the Half-Communion 528 Of the Decree of the Council of Constance 528. The authority of S. Ambrose 530. and S. Cyprian 531 5. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown tongue 532 S. Basils authority S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas Lyra. 6. Of the Worship of Images 535 1o. The Quotations vindicated 536. of S. Cyril Chrysostom Epiphanius Austin Council of Eliberis Nicene II. Francfort First The Council of Francfort condemned the Nicene II. 540 Secondly They commanded that it should not be called a General Council ibid. Thirdly The acts of it are in the Capitular of the Emperor written in the time of the Synod 541 Of Tertullian 541. Clemens Alexandrinus 542. Origen 543. 2o. The Quotations alledged by them answered as of S. Basil S. Athanasius 544. S. Chrysostom 545. 3o. The truth confirmed 545 First Image-worship came from Simon Magus ibid. Secondly Heathens spake against it 546 Thirdly Christians did abominate it ibid. Fourthly The Heathens never charged the Christians with it ibid. Fifthly The Primitive Fathers never taught those distinctions that the Papists use to discern lawful Idolatry from Heathen Idolatry 547 Sixthly The Second Commandment is against it ibid.
matter of Faith or a Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it yet we shall have no need to make use of it since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerours but even in the succeeding Ages we have the advantage both numero pondere mensurâ in number weight and measure We do easily acknowledge that to dispute these Questions from the sayings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions and from thence can never be confuted but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation and therefore if we find any Doctrine now taught which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith and which ought not to be impos'd upon Consciences They were wise unto salvation and fully instructed to every good work and therefore the Faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture we profess also and in the same Faith we hope to be sav'd even as they But for the new Doctors we understand them not we know them not Our Faith is the same from the beginning and cannot become new But because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances and little images of things instead of solid arguments we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted and chuse this sword of Goliah to combat their errors for non est alter talis It is not easie to find a better than the Word of God expounded by the prime and best Antiquity The first thing therefore we are to advertise is that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good People of our Dioceses from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick and divert them to Propositions of their own new and unheard-of in the first Ages of the Christian Church For the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and nothing else as matter of Faith and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures we can have no new matters of belief no new Articles of faith Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence we disclaim it as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour We also do believe the Apostles Creed the Nicene with the additions of Constantinople and that which is commonly called the Symbol of Saint Athanasius and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us and in pursuance of these it is commanded by our Church that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament and collected out of the same Doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church they admitted all into their Communion that were of this Faith they condemned no Man that did not condemn these they gave Letters communicatory by no other cognisance and all were Brethren who spake this voice Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanosque judicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere said the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Christians and Catholicks viz. all they who believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity which indeed was the sum of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils And what Faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion or the firmer basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold and we after them That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge to be the adequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in is the way which we walk what they did not teach we do not publish and impose into this Faith intirely and into no other as they did theirs so we baptize our Catechumens The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd we use also and we use no other and in short we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion and in which we shall prove that they have innovated So that by their confession all the Doctrine which we teach the people as matter of Faith must be confessed to be Ancient Primitive and Apostolick or else theirs is not so for ours is the same and we both have received this Faith from the Fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition not they from us or we from them but both of us from Christ and his Apostles And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick or Primitive it is so confessedly But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first Ages which were no part of their faith which were never put into their Creeds which were not determin'd in any of the four first General Councils rever'd in all Christendom and entertain'd every where with great Religion and Veneration even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical Writings Of this sort because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many and hath adopted them into their late Creed and imposes them upon the People not only without but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God laying heavy burdens on mens Consciences and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower by their own inventions arrogating to themselves a dominion over our faith and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught corrupting the Faith of the Church of God and teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of Men and lastly having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ who alone is the Author and finisher of our Faith and hath perfected it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures therefore it is that we
opinor aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet Sed neque Latini simul omnes at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt He that pleases let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and as I suppose he shall find none or very rare mention or speech of Purgatory But neither did all the Latins at one time but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing And again Aliquandin incognitum fuit serò cognitum Vniversae Ecclesiae Deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex Scripturis partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit For somewhile it was unknown it was but lately known to the Catholick Church Then it was believ'd by some by little and little partly from Scripture partly from revelations And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory founded no question upon tradition Apostolical delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead but the truth is because it was forgotten by the Apostles and they having so many things in their heads when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it therefore they took care to send some from the dead who by new revelations should teach this old doctrine This we may conjecture to be the equivalent sence of the plain words of Roffensis But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says The words I have put into the Margent because they are many the sence of them is this 1. He finds no use of Indulgences before the stations of S. Gregory the consequent of that is that all the Latin Fathers did not receive them before S. Gregorie's time and therefore they did not receive them all together 2. The matter being so obscure Polydore chose to express his sence in the testimony of Roffensis 3. From him he affirms that the use of Indulgences is but new and lately received amongst Christians 4. That there is no certainty concerning their original 5. They report that amongst the Ancient Latins there was some use of them But it is but a report for he knows nothing of it before S. Gregorie's time and for that also he hath but a mere report 6. Amongst the Greeks it is not to this day believ'd 7. As long as there was no care of Purgatory no man look'd after Indulgences because if you take away Purgatory there is no need of Indulgences 8. That the use of Indulgences began after men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory This if I understand Latin or common sence is the doctrine of Polydore Virgil and to him I add also the testimony of Alphonsus à Castro De Purgatorio fere nulla mentio potissimum apud Graecos scriptores Qua de causa usque hodiernum diem purgatorium non est à Graecis creditum The consequent of these things is this If Purgatory was not known to the Primitive Church if it was but lately known to the Catholick Church if the Fathers seldom or never make mention of it If in the Greek Church especially there was so great silence of it that to this very day it is not believed amongst the Greeks then this Doctrine was not an Apostolical Doctrine not Primitive nor Catholick but an Innovation and of yesterday And this is of it self besides all these confessions of their own parties a suspicious matter because the Church of Rome does establish their Doctrine of Purgatory upon the Ancient use of the Church of praying for the dead But this consequence of theirs is wholly vain because all the Fathers did pray for the dead yet they never prayed for their deliverance out of Purgatory nor ever meant it To this it is thus objected It is confessed that they prayed for them that God would shew them a mercy Now Mark well If they be in Heaven they have a mercy the sentence is given for Eternal happiness If in Hell they are wholly destitute of mercy unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them I have according to my order mark'd it well but find nothing in it to purpose For though the Fathers prayed for the souls departed that God would shew them mercy yet it was that God would shew them mercy in the day of judgment In that formidable and dreadful day then there is need of much mercy unto us saith Saint Chrysostom And methinks this Gentleman should not have made use of so pitiful an Argument and would not if he had consider'd that Saint Paul prayed for Onesiphorus That God would shew him a mercy in that day that is in the day of Judgment as generally Interpreters Ancient and Modern do understand it and particularly Saint Chrysostom now cited The faithful departed are in the hands of Christ as soon as they die and they are very well and the souls of the wicked are where it pleases God to appoint them to be tormented by a fearful expectation of the revelation of the day of judgment but Heaven and Hell are reserved till the day of judgment and the Devils themselves are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day saith Saint Jude and in that day they shall be sentenc'd and so shall all the wicked to everlasting fire which as yet is but prepar'd for the Devil and his Angels for ever But is there no mercy to be shewed to them unless they be in Purgatory Some of the Ancients speak of visitation of Angels to be imparted to the souls departed and the hastening of the day of judgment is a mercy and the avenging of the Martyrs upon their Adversaries is a mercy for which the Souls under the Altar pray saith Saint John in the Revelation and the Greek Fathers speak of a fiery trial at the day of judgment through which every one must pass and there will be great need of mercy And after all this there is a remission of sins proper to this world when God so pardons that he gives the grace of repentance that he takes his judgments off from us that he gives us his holy Spirit to mortifie our sins that he admits us to work in his Laboratory that he sustains us by his power and promotes us by his Grace and stands by us favourably while we work out our salvation with fear and trembling and at last he crowns us with perseverance But at the day of Judgment there shall be a pardon of sins that will crown this pardon when God shall pronounce us pardon'd before all the world and when Christ shall actually and presentially rescue us from all the pains which our sins have deserved even from everlasting pain And that 's the final pardon for which till it be accomplished all the faithful do night and day pray incessantly although to many for whom they do pray they friendly believe that it is now certain that they shall then be glorified Saepissime petuntur illa quae
de vitâ praeteritâ judicat God judges a man by his end not by his past life and therefore no man must despair of pardon though he be not converted till about the end of his life But in these words there is a lenitive Circa finem vitae if he be converted about the end of his life that is in his last or declining years which may contain a fair portion of time like those who were called in the eleventh hour that is circa finem vitae but not in fine about not in the end of their life But S. Austin or Gennadius or whoever is Author of the book De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus speaks home to the Question but against the former doctrine Poenitentiâ aboleri peccata indubitantèr credimus etiamsi in ultimo vitae spiritu admissorum poeniteat publicâ lamentatione peccata prodantur quia propositum Dei quo decrevit salvare quod perierat stat immobile ideo quia voluntas ejus non mutatur sive emendatione vitae si tempus conceditur sive supplici confessione si continuò vitâ exceditur venia peccatorum fidelitèr praesumatur ab illo qui non vult mortem peccatoris sed ut convertatur à perditione poenitendo salvatu◠miseratione Domini vivat Si quis aliter de justissimâ Dei pietate sentit non Christianus sed Novatianus est That sins are taken off by repentance though it be but in the last breath of our life we believe without doubting He that thinks otherwise is not a Christian but a Novatian If we have time our sins are taken away by amendment of life but if we die presently they are taken off by humble confession This is his Doctrine And if he were infallible there were nothing to be said against it But to ballance this we have a more sober discourse of S. Austin in these words If any man plac'd in the last extremity of sickness would be admitted to repentance and is presently reconciled and so departs I confess to you we do not deny to him what he asks but we do not presume that he goes hence well I do not presume I deceive you not I do not presume A faithful man living well goes hence securely He that is baptized but an hour before goes hence securely He that repents and afterwards lives well goes hence securely He that repents at last and is reconciled whether he goes hence securely I am not secure Where I am secure I tell you and give security where I am not secure I can admit to repentance but I cannot give security And a little after Attend to what I say I ought to explain clearly what I say lest any one should misunderstand me Do I say he shall be damned I do not say it Do I say he shall be pardon'd I do not say it And what say you to me I know not I presume not I promise not I know not Will you free your self from doubt Will you avoid that which is uncertain Repent while thou art in health For if you do penance while you are well and sickness find you so doing run to be reconciled and if you do so you are secure Why are you secure Because you repented at that time when you could have sinned But if you repent then when you cannot sin thy sins have left thee thou hast not left them But how know you that God will not forgive him You say true How I know not I know that I know not this For therefore I give repentance to you because I know not For if I knew it would profit you nothing I would not give it you And if I did know that it would profit you I would not affright you There are but these two things Either thou shalt be pardon'd or thou shalt not Which of these shall be in thy portion I know not Therefore keep that which is certain and let go that which is uncertain Some suppose these to have been the words of S. Ambrose not of S. Austin But S. Austin hath in his Sermons de tempore something more decretory than the former discourse He that is polluted with the filth of sins let him be cleansed exomologesis satisfactione with the satisfactions of repentance Neither let him put it off that he do not require it till his death-bed where he cannot perform it For that perswasion is unprofitable It is nothing for a sinner to repent unless he finish his repentance For the voice of the penitent alone is not sufficient for the amendment of his faults for in the satisfaction for great crimes not words but works are look'd after Truly repentance is given in the last because it cannot be denied but we cannot affirm that they who so ask ought to be absolved For how can the lapsed man do penance How shall the dying man do it How can he repent who cannot do works of satisfaction or amendment of life And therefore that repentance which is required by sick men is it self weak that which is required by dying men I fear lest that also die And therefore whosoever will find mercy of God let him do his repentance in this world that he may be saved in the world to come Higher yet are the words of Paulinus Bishop of Nola to Faustus of Rhegium inquiring what is to be done to death-bed penitents Inimicâ persuasione mentitur qui maculas longâ aetate contractas subitis inutilibus abolendos gemitibus arbitratur quo tempore confessio esse potest satisfactio esse non potest He lies with the perswasion of an enemy who thinks that those stains which have been long contracting can be suddenly wash'd off with a few unprofitable sighings at that time when he can confess but never make amends And a little after Circa exequendam interioris hominis sanitatem non solùm accipiendi voluntas sed agendi expectatur utilitas And again Hujusmodi medicina sicut ore poscenda ita opere consummanda est Then a man repents truly when what he affirms with his mouth he can finish with his hand that is not only declaim against sin but also mortifie it To which I add the words of Asterius Bishop of Amasea At cum debitum tempus adveniet indeprecabile decretum corporis animae nexum dissolvet reputatio subibit eorum quae in vitâ patrata sunt poenitentia sera nihil profutura Tunc enim demum poenitentia prodest cum poenitens emendandi facultatem habet sublatâ verò copiâ rectè faciendi inutilis est dolor irrita poenitentia When the set time shall come when the irrevocable decree shall dissolve the union of soul and body then shall the memory of those things return which were done in our life time and a late repentance that shall profit nothing For then repentance is profitable when the penitent can amend his fault But when the power of doing well is taken away grief is
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be
seed Must every Bramble every Thistle weed And when each hindrance to the Grain is gone A fruitful crop shall rise of Corn alone When therefore there were so many ways made to the Devil I was willing amongst many others to stop this also and I dare say few Questions in Christendom can say half so much in justification of their own usefulness and necessity I know Madam that they who are of the other side do and will disavow most of these consequences and so do all the World all the evils which their adversaries say do follow from their opinions but yet all the World of men that perceive such evils to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they believe such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargeable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I do not doubt but they would as much disown the Propositions as now they do the consequents and yet I do as little doubt but that we do well to disown the first because we espy the latter and though the Man be not yet the doctrines are highly chargeable with the evils that follow it may be the men espy them not yet from the doctrines they do certainly follow and there are not in the World many men who own that which is evil in the pretence but many do such as are dangerous in the effect and this doctrine which I have reproved I take to be one of them Object 4. But if Original sin be not a sin properly why are children baptized And what benefit comes to them by Baptism I answer As much as they need and are capable of and it may as well be asked Why were all the sons of Abraham circumised when in that Covenant there was no remission of sins at all for little things and legal impurities and irregularities there were but there being no sacrifice there but of Beasts whose blood could not take away sin it is certain and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sins But secondly This Objection can press nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sin But yet so it behoved him to fulfil all Righteousness 3. Baptism is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are born only to a natural life and a natural death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because until they be born anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of Heaven and co-heirs of Jesus 4. By Bapâ—ism Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian Heresie who did suppose Nature to be so perfect that the grace of God was not necessary and that by Nature alone they could go to Heaven which because I affirm to be impossible and that Baptism is therefore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptism is the great channel of grace there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my Doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his Doctrine 5. Children are therefore Baptized because if they live they will sin and though their sins are not pardoned before-hand yet in Baptism they are admitted to that state of favour that they are within the Covenant of repentance and Pardon and this is expresly the Doctrine of S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concup cap. 26. cap. 33. tract 124. in Johan But of this I have already given larger accounts in my Discourse of Baptism Part 2. p. 194. in the Great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Original Sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so far also it is remissible for the evil that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evil purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jews who believed then the sin to be taken away when the evil of punishment is taken off so is Original Sin taken away in Baptism for though the Material part of the evil is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turned into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirm all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sence as Original stain is a sin so does Baptism bring the Pardon It is a sin metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many and just so in Baptism it is taken away that it is now the matter of a grace and the opportunity of glory and upon these Accounts the Church Baptizes all her Children Object 5. But to deny Original Sin to be a sin properly and inherently is expresly against the words of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Romans If it be I have done but that it is not I have these things to say 1. If the words be capable of any interpretation and can be permitted to signifie otherwise than is vulgarly pretended I suppose my self to have given reasons sufficient why they ought to be For any interpretation that does violence to right Reason to Religion to Holiness of life and the Divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen For in all Scriptures all good and all wise men do it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sence and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sin and sin is taken for legal impurity and for him who could not be guilty even for Christ himself as I have proved already and in the like manner sinners is used by the rule of Conjugates and denominatives but it is so also in the case of Bathsheba the Mother of Solomon 3. For the word condemnation it is by the Apostle himself limited to signifie temporal death for when the Apostle says Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not pass upon all men or if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned For if it had come for Adams sin then it had absolutely descended upon all men because from Adam all men descended and therefore all men upon that account were equally guilty as we see all men die naturally 4. The
videantur said Vincent Lirinensis in which every man knows what innumerable ways there are of being mistaken God having in things not simply necessary left such a difficulty upon those parts of Scripture which are the subject matters of controversie ad edomandam labore superbiam intellectum à fastidio revocandum as S. Austin gives a reason that all that err honestly are therefore to be pitied and tolerated because it is or may be the condition of every man at one time or other 8. The sum is this Since holy Scripture is the repository of divine truths and the great rule of Faith to which all Sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions and since all agree in the Articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries and matters of Question upon which there is a vail since there are so many Copies with infinite varieties of reading since a various Interpunction a parenthesis a letter an accent may much alter the sence since some places have divers literal sences many have spiritual mystical and Allegorical meanings since there are so many tropes metonymies ironies hyperboles proprieties and improprieties of language whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper interpretation now that the knowledge of such circumstances and particular stories is irrevocably lost since there are some mysteries which at the best advantage of expression are not easie to be apprehended and whose explication by reason of our imperfections must needs be dark sometimes weak sometimes unintelligible and lastly since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture as searching the Originals conference of places parity of reason and analogie of Faith are all dubious uncertain and very fallible he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason will be very far from confidence because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries and amidst so many difficulties And therefore a wise man that considers this would not willingly be prescribed to by others and therefore if he also be a just man he will not impose upon others for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him unless he could secure him from errour So that here also there is a necessity to conserve the liberty of Prophesying and Interpreting Scripture a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in Questions controverted and the uncertainty of any internal medium of Interpretation SECT V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture or determine Questions 1. IN the next place we must consider those extrinsecal means of Interpreting Scripture and determining Questions which they most of all confide in that restrain Prophesying with the greatest Tyranny The first and principal is Tradition which is pretended not only to expound Scripture Necesse enim est propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur But also to propound Articles upon a distinct stock such Articles whereof there is no mention and proposition in Scripture And in this topick not only the distinct Articles are clear and plain like as the fundamentals of Faith expressed in Scripture but also it pretends to expound Scripture and to determine Questions with so much clarity and certainty as there shall neither be errour nor doubt remaining and therefore no disagreeing is here to be endured And indeed it is most true if Tradition can perform these pretensions and teach us plainly and assure us infallibly of all truths which they require us to believe we can in this case have no reason to disbelieve them and therefore are certainly Hereticks if we doe because without a crime without some humane interest or collaterall design we cannot disbelieve traditive Doctrine or traditive Interpretation if it be infallibly proved to us that tradition is an infallible guide 2. But here I first consider that tradition is no repository of Articles of faith and therefore the not following it is no Argument of heresie for besides that I have shewed Scripture in its plain expresses to be an abundant rule of Faith and manners Tradition is a topick as fallible as any other so fallible that it cannot be sufficient evidence to any man in a matter of Faith or Question of heresie 3. For first I find that the Fathers were infinitely deceived in their account and enumeration of Traditions sometimes they did call some Traditions such not which they knew to be so but by Arguments and presumptions they concluded them so Such as was that of S. Austin ea quae universalis tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis instituta reperiuntur credibile est ab Apostolorum traditione descendisse Now suppose this rule probable that 's the most yet it is not certain It might come by custome whose Original was not known but yet could not derive from an Apostolical principle Now when they conclude of particular Traditions by a general rule and that general rule not certain but at the most probable in any thing and certainly false in some things it is wonder if the productions that is their judgments and pretence fail so often And if I should but instance in all the particulars in which Tradition was pretended falsely or uncertainly in the first Ages I should multiply them to a troublesome variety for it was then accounted so glorious a thing to have spoken with the persons of the Apostles that if any man could with any colour pretend to it he might abuse the whole Church and obtrude what he listed under the specious title of Apostolical Tradition and it is very notorious to every man that will but read and observe the Recognitions or stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus where there is enough of such false wares shewed in every book and pretended to be no less than from the Apostles In the first Age after the Apostles Papias pretended he received a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ before the day of Judgment should reign a thousand years upon Earth and his Saints with him in temporal felicities and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years For besides that the Millenary opinion is expresly taught by Papias Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Severus Victorinus Apollinaris Nepos and divers others famous in their time Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon says it was the belief of all Christians exactly Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
no such thing as is pretended or if they did it is but little considerable because they did not believe themselves their practice was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words But I am much eased of a long disquisition in this particular for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in itself as fallible and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question by the saying of Aeneas Sylvius that before the Nicene Council every man lived to himself and small respect was had to the Church of Rome which practice could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishops Infallibility and by consequence supreme judgment and last resolution in matters of Faith but especially by the insinuation and consequent acknowledgment of Bellarmine that for 1000 years together the Fathers knew not of the Doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility for Nilus Gerson Almain the Divines of Paris Alphonsus de Castro and Pope Adrian VI. persons who lived 1400 years after Christ affirm that Infallibility is not seated in the Pope's person that he may erre and sometimes actually hath which is a clear demonstration that the Church knew no such Doctrine as this there had been no Decree nor Tradition nor general opinion of the Fathers or of any Age before them and therefore this Opinion which Bellarmine would fain blast if he could yet in his Conclusion he says it is not propriè haeretica A device and an expression of his own without sense or precedent But if the Fathers had spoken of it and believed it why may not a disagreeing person as well reject their Authority when it is in behalf of Rome as they of Rome without scruple cast them off when they speak against it For Bellarmine being pressed with the Authority of Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica and other Fathers says that the Pope acknowledges no Fathers but they are all his children and therefore they cannot depose against him and if that be true why shall we take their Testimonies for him for if Sons depose in their Father's behalf it is twenty to one but the adverse party will be cast and therefore at the best it is but suspectum Testimonium But indeed this discourse signifies nothing but a perpetuall uncertainty in such Topicks and that where a violent prejudice or a concerning interest is engaged men by not regarding what any man says proclaim to all the world that nothing is certain but Divine Authority 13. But I will not take advantage of what Bellarmine says nor what Stapleton or any one of them all say for that will be but to press upon personal perswasions or to urge a general Question with a particular defaillance and the Question is never the nearer to an end for if Bellarmine says any thing that is not to another man's purpose or perswasion that man will be tried by his own Argument not by another's And so would every man doe that loves his liberty as all wise men do and therefore retain it by open violence or private evasions But to return 14. An Authority from Irenaeus in this Question and on behalf of the Pope's Infallibility or the Authority of the See of Rome or of the necessity of communicating with them is very fallible for besides that there are almost a dozen answers to the words of the Allegation as is to be seen in those that trouble themselves in this Question with the Allegation and answering such Authorities yet if they should make for the affirmative of this Question it is protestatio contra factum For Irenaeus had no such great opinion of Pope Victor's Infallibility that he believed things in the same degree of necessity that the Pope did for therefore he chides him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow in the Question concerning Easter-day and in a Question of Faith he expresly disagreed from the doctrine of Rome for Irenaeus was of the Millenary opinion and believed it to be a Tradition Apostolicall Now if the Church of Rome was of that opinion then why is she not now where is the succession of her Doctrine But if she was not of that opinion then and Irenaeus was where was his belief of that Churche's Infallibility The same I urge concerning S. Cyprian who was the head of a Sect in opposition to the Church of Rome in the Question of Rebaptization and he and the abettors Firmilian and the other Bishops of Cappadocia and the voicinage spoke harsh words of Steven and such as become them not to speak to an infallible Doctor and the supreme Head of the Church I will urge none of them to the disadvantage of that See but onely note the Satyrs of Firmilian against him because it is of good use to shew that it is possible for them in their ill carriage to blast the reputation and efficacy of a great Authority For he says that that Church did pretend the Authority of the Apostles cùm in multis Sacramentis Divinae rei à principio discrepet ab Ecclesia Hierosolymitana defamet Petrum Paulum tanquam authores And a little after Justè dedignor says he apertam manifestam stultitiam Stephani per quam veritas Christianae petrae aboletur Which words say plainly that for all the goodly pretence of Apostolicall Authority the Church of Rome did then in many things of Religion disagree from Divine Institution and from the Church of Jerusalem which they had as great esteem of for Religion sake as of Rome for its Principality and that still in pretending to S. Peter and S. Paul they dishonoured those blessed Apostles and destroyed the honour of their pretence by their untoward prevarication Which words I confess pass my skill to reconcile them to an opinion of Infallibility and although they were spoken by an angry person yet they declare that in Africa they were not then perswaded as now they are at Rome Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere That was their belief then and how the contrary hath grown up to that height where now it is all the world is witness And now I shall not need to note concerning S. Hierome that he gave a complement to Damasus that he would not have given to Liberius Qui tecum non colligit spargit For it might be true enough of Damasus who was a good Bishop and a right believer but if Liberius's name had been put in stead of Damasus the case had been altered with the name for S. Hierome did believe and write it so that Liberius had subscribed to Arianism And if either he or any of the rest had believ'd the Pope could not be a Heretick nor his Faith fail but be so good and of so competent Authority as to be a Rule to Christendom why did they not appeal to
the Pope in the Arian Controversie why was the Bishop of Rome made a party and a concurrent as other good Bishops were and not a Judge and an Arbitrator in the Question why did the Fathers prescribe so many Rules and cautions and provisoes for the discovery of Heresy why were the Emperours at so much charge and the Church at so much trouble as to call and convene Councils respectively to dispute so frequently to write so sedulously to observe all advantages against their Adversaries and for the truth and never offered to call for the Pope to determine the Question in his Chair Certainly no way could have been so expedite none so concluding and peremptory none could have convinc'd so certainly none could have triumphed so openly over all Discrepants as this if they had known of any such thing as his being infallible or that he had been appointed by Christ to be the Judge of Controversies And therefore I will not trouble this Discourse to excuse any more words either pretended or really said to this purpose of the Pope for they would but make books swell and the Question endless I shall onely to this purpose observe that the old Writers were so far from believing the Infallibility of the Roman Church or Bishop that many Bishops and many Churches did actually live and continue out of the Roman Communion particularly Saint Austin who with 217 Bishops and their Successors for 100 years together stood separate from that Church if we may believe their own Records So did Ignatius of Constantinople S. Chrysostome S. Cyprian Firmilian those Bishops of Asia that separated in the Question of Easter and those of Africa in the Question of Rebaptization But besides this most of them had Opinions which the Church of Rome disavows now and therefore did so then or else she hath innovated in her Doctrine which though it be most true and notorious I am sure she will never confess But no excuse can be made for S. Austin's disagreeing and contesting in the Question of Appeals to Rome the necessity of Communicating Infants the absolute damnation of Infants to the pains of Hell if they die before Baptism and divers other particulars It was a famous act of the Bishops of Liguria and Istria who seeing the Pope of Rome consenting to the fifth Synod in disparagement of the famous Council of Chalcedon which for their own interests they did not like of renounced subjection to his Patriarchate and erected a Patriarch at Aquileia who was afterwards translated to Venice where his name remains to this day It is also notorious that most of the Fathers were of opinion that the Souls of the faithfull did not enjoy the Beatifick Vision before Doomsday Whether Rome was then of that opinion or no I know not I am sure now they are not witness the Councils of Florence and Trent but of this I shall give a more full account afterwards But if to all this which is already noted we adde that great variety of opinions amongst the Fathers and Councils in assignation of the Canon they not consulting with the Bishop of Rome nor any of them thinking themselves bound to follow his Rule in enumeration of the Books of Scripture I think no more need to be said as to this particular 15. Eighthly But now if after all this there be some Popes which were notorious Hereticks and Preachers of false Doctrine some that made impious Decrees both in Faith and manners some that have determined Questions with egregious ignorance and stupidity some with apparent sophistry and many to serve their own ends most openly I suppose then the Infallibility will disband and we may doe to him as to other good Bishops believe him when there is cause but if there be none then to use our Consciences Non enim salvat Christianum quòd Pontifex constanter affirmat praeceptum suum esse justum sed oportet illud examinari se juxta regulam superiùs datum dirigere I would not instance and repeat the errours of dead Bishops if the extreme boldness of the pretence did not make it necessary But if we may believe Tertullian Pope Zepherinus approved the Prophecies of Montanus and upon that approbation granted peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia till Praxeas perswaded him to revoke his act But let this rest upon the credit of Tertullian whether Zepherinus were a Montanist or no some such thing there was for certain Pope Vigilius denied two Natures in Christ and in his Epistle to Theodora the Empress anathematiz'd all them that said he had two natures in one person S. Gregory himself permitted Priests to give Confirmation which is all one as if he should permit Deacons to consecrate they being by Divine Ordinance annext to the higher Orders and upon this very ground Adrianus affirms that the Pope may erre in definiendis dogmatibus fidei And that we may not fear we shall want instances we may to secure it take their own confession Nam multae sunt decretales haereticae says Occham as he is cited by Almain firmiter hoc credo says he for his own particular sed non licet dogmatizare oppositum quoniam sunt determinatae So that we may as well see that it is certain that Popes may be Hereticks as that it is dangerous to say so and therefore there are so few that teach it All the Patriarchs and the Bishop of Rome himself subscribed to Arianism as Baronius confesses and Gratian affirms that Pope Anastasius II. was strucken of God for communicating with the Heretick Photinus I know it will be made light of that Gregory the seventh saith the very Exorcists of the Roman Church are superiour to Princes But what shall we think of that Decretall of Gregory the third who wrote to Boniface his Legate in Germany quòd illi quorum uxores infirmitate aliquâ morbidâ debitum reddere noluerunt aliis poterant nubere Was this a doctrine fit for the Head of the Church an infallible Doctor It was plainly if any thing ever was doctrina Daemoniorum and is noted for such by Gratian Caus. 32.4.7 can quod proposuisti Where the Gloss also intimates that the same privilege was granted to the English-men by Gregory quia novi erant in fide And sometimes we had little reason to expect much better for not to instance in that learned discourse in the Canon-Law de majoritate obedientia where the Pope's Supremacy over Kings is proved from the first chapter of Genesis and the Pope is the Sun and the Emperour is the Moon for that was the fancy of one Pope perhaps though made authentick and doctrinall by him it was if it be possible more ridiculous that Pope Innocent the third urges that the Mosaicall Law was still to be observed and that upon this Argument Sanè saith he cùm Deuteronontium Secunda lex interpretetur ex vi vocabuli comprobatur ut quod
pleasing of men is his best reward and his not being condemned and contradicted all the possession of a Truth SECT XIV Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons Disagreeing and when Persecution first came in AND thus this Truth hath been practised in all times of Christian Religion when there were no collateral designs on foot nor interests to be served nor passions to be satisfied In Saint Paul's time though the censure of Heresie were not so loose and forward as afterwards and all that were called Hereticks were clearly such and highly criminal yet as their crime was so was their censure that is spiritual They were first admonished once at least for so Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose and Hierom read that place of Titus 3. But since that time all men and at that time some read it Post unam alteram admonitionem reject a Heretick Rejection from the communion of Saints after two warnings that 's the penalty Saint John expresses it by not eating with them not bidding them God speed but the persons against whom he decrees so severely are such as denied Christ to be come in the flesh direct Antichrists And let the sentence be as high as it lists in this case all that I observe is that since in so damnable Doctrines nothing but spiritual censure separation from the communion of the faithfull was enjoyned and prescribed we cannot pretend to an Apostolicall precedent if in matters of dispute and innocent question and of great uncertainty and no malignity we should proceed to sentence of Death 2. For it is but an absurd and illiterate arguing to say that Excommunication is a greater punishment and killing a less and therefore who-ever may be excommunicated may also be put to death which indeed is the reasoning that Bellarmine uses For first Excommunication is not directly and of itself a greater punishment then corporal Death because it is indefinite and incompleat and in order to a farther punishment which if it happens then the Excommunication was the inlet to it if it does not the Excommunication did not signifie half so much as the loss of a member much less Death For it may be totally ineffectual either by the iniquity of the proceeding or repentance of the person and in all times and cases it is a medicine if the man please if he will not but perseveres in his impiety then it is himself that brings the Censure to effect that actuates the judgement and gives a sting and an energy upon that which otherwise would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly but when it is at worst it does not kill the Soul it onely consigns it to that death which it had deserved and should have received independently from that sentence of the Church Thirdly and yet Excommunication is to admirable purpose for whether it refers to the person censured or to others it is prudentiall in itself it is exemplary to others it is medicinal to all For the person censured is by this means threatned into piety and the threatning made the more energeticall upon him because by fiction of Law or as it were by a Sacramental representment the pains of hell are made presentiall to him and so becomes an act of prudent judicature and excellent discipline and the best instrument of spiritual Government because the nearer the threatning is reduced to matter and the more present and circumstantiate it is made the more operative it is upon our spirits while they are immerged in matter And this is the full sense and power of Excommunication in its direct intention consequently and accidentally other evils might follow it as in the times of the Apostles the censured persons were buffeted by Satan and even at this day there is less security even to the temporal condition of such a person whom his spiritual parents have Anathematiz'd But besides this I know no warrant to affirm any thing of Excommunication for the sentence of the Church does but declare not effect the final sentence of damnation Whoever deserves Excommunication deserves damnation and he that repents shall be saved though he die out of the Churche's externall Communion and if he does not repent he shall be damned though he was not excommunicate 3. But suppose it greater then the sentence of corporal Death yet it follows not because Hereticks may be excommunicate therefore killed for from a greater to a less in a several kinde of things the argument concludes not It is a greater thing to make an excellent discourse then to make a shoe yet he that can doe the greater cannot doe this less An Angel cannot beget a man and yet he can doe a greater matter in that kinde of operations which we term spiritual and Angelicall And if this were concluding that whoever may be excommunicate may be kill'd then because of Excommunications the Church is confessed the sole and intire Judge she is also an absolute disposer of the lives of persons I believe this will be but ill doctrine in Spain for in Bulla Coenae Domini the King of Spain is every year excommunicated on Maunday-Thursday but if by the same power he might also be put to death as upon this ground he may the Pope might with more ease be invested in that part of Saint Peter's Patrimony which that King hath invaded and surprized But besides this it were extreme harsh Doctrine in a Roman Consistory from whence Excommunications issue for trifles for fees for not suffering themselves infinitely to be oppressed for any thing if this be greater then Death how great a tyranny is that which doth more then kill men for lesse then trifles or else how inconsequent is that argument which concludes its purpose upon so false pretence and supposition 4. Well however zealous the Apostles were against Hereticks yet none were by them or their dictates put to death The death of Ananias and Sapphira and the blindness of Elymas the Sorcerer amount not to this for they were miraculous inflictions and the first was a punishment to Vow-breach and Sacrilege the second of Sorcery and open contestation against the Religion of Jesus Christ neither of them concerned the case of this present question Or if the case were the same yet the Authority is not the same For he that inflicted these punishments was infallible and of a power competent but no man at this day is so But as yet people were converted by Miracles and Preaching and Disputing and Hereticks by the same means were redargued and all men instructed none tortured for their Opinion And this continued till Christian people were vexed by disagreeing persons and were impatient and peevish by their own too much confidence and the luxuriancy of a prosperous fortune but then they would not endure persons that did dogmatize any thing which might intrench upon their reputation or their interest And it is observable that no man nor no Age did ever teach the lawfulness of putting
for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the publick tranquillity as the Republick hath nothing to doe upon the ground of all the former discourses so if the Church meddles with them where they do not derive into ill life either in the person or in the consequent or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion which is all one for that those fundamental Articles are of greatest necessity in order to a vertuous and godly life which is wholly built upon them and therefore are principally necessary if she meddles farther otherwise then by preaching and conferring and exhortation she becomes tyrannical in her government makes herself an immediate judge of Consciences and perswasions lords it over their Faith destroys unity and charity and as he that dogmatizes the Opinion becomes criminal if he troubles the Church with an immodest peevish and pertinacious proposall of his Article not simply necessary so the Church does not do her duty if she so condemns it pro tribunali as to enjoyn him and all her subjects to believe the contrary And as there may be pertinacy in Doctrine so there may be pertinacy in judging and both are faults The peace of the Church and the unity of her Doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave that is the Creed for Articles of mere belief and the precepts of Jesus Christ and the practicall rules of piety which are most plain and easie and without controversie set down in the Gospels and writings of the Apostles But to multiply Articles and adopt them into the family of the Faith and to require assent to such Articles which as Saint Paul's phrase is are of doubtfull disputation equal to that assent we give to matters of Faith is to build a tower upon the top of a Bulrush and the farther the effect of such proceedings does extend the worse they are the very making such a Law is unreasonable the inflicting spiritual censures upon them that cannot doe so much violence to their understanding as to obey it is unjust and ineffectuall but to punish the person with death or with corporal infliction indeed it is effectuall but it is therefore tyrannicall We have seen what the Church may doe towards restraining false or differing Opinions next I shall consider by way of Corollary what the Prince may doe as for his interest and onely in securing his people and serving the ends of true Religion SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to severall Religions 1. FOR upon these very grounds we may easily give account of that great Question Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to several Religions For first It is a great fault that men will call the several Sects of Christians by the names of several Religions The Religion of Jesus Christ is the form of sound Doctrine and wholsome words which is set down in Scripture indefinitely actually conveyed to us by plain places and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles Those impertinencies which the wantonnesse and vanity of men hath commenced which their interests have promoted which serve not Truth so much as their own ends are far from being distinct Religions for matters of Opinion are no parts of the Worship of God nor in order to it but as they promote obedience to his Commandments and when they contribute towards it are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they do or pretend to serve And such are all the Sects and all the pretences of Christians but pieces and minutes of Christianity if they do serve the great end as every man for his own Sect and interest believes for his share it does 2. Toleration hath a double sense or purpose For sometimes by it men understand a publick licence and exercise of a Sect sometimes it is onely an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause and as they mean to answer to God Both these are very much to the same purpose unlesse some persons whom we are bound to satisfie be scandalized and then the Prince is bound to doe as he is bound to satisfie To God it is all one For abstracting from the offence of persons which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publickly or privately to doe actions of Religion concerning which we are not perswaded that they are truly holy To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light the thing is the same onely the Circumstance of publick and private is different which cannot be concerned in any thing nor can it concern any thing but the matter of Scandal and relation to the minds and fantasies of certain persons 3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute And the Question whether the Prince may tolerate divers perswasions is no more then whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his Opinion Now in this case he is just so to tolerate diversity of perswasions as he is to tolerate publick actions for no Opinion is judicable nor no person punishable but for a sin and if his Opinion by reason of its managing or its effect be a sin in itself or becomes a sin to the person then as he is to doe towards other sins so to that Opinion or man so opining But to believe so or not so when there is no more but mere believing is not in his power to enjoyn therefore not to punish And it is not onely lawfull to tolerate disagreeing Perswasions but the Authority of God onely is competent to take notice of it and infallible to determine it and fit to judge and therefore no humane Authority is sufficient to doe all those things which can justifie the inflicting temporal punishments upon such as doe not conform in their perswasions to a Rule or Authority which is not onely fallible but supposed by the disagreeing person to be actually deceived 4. But I consider that in the Toleration of a different Opinion Religion is not properly and immediately concerned so as in any degree to be endangered For it may be safe in diversity of perswasions and it is also a part of Christian Religion that the liberty of mens Consciences should be preserved in all things where God hath not set a limit and made a restraint that the Soul of man should be free and acknowledge no Master but Jesus Christ that matters spiritual should not be restrained by punishments corporal that the same meekness and charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity that gave it foundation and increment and firmness in its first publication that Conclusions should not be more dogmatical then the virtual resolution
God the Father and the holy Trinity to the great dishonour of that Sacred mystery against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church against the express doctrine of Scripture against the honour of a Divine Attribute I mean the Immensity and Spirituality of the Divine Nature You are gone to a Church that pretends to be Infallible and yet is infinitely deceived in many particulars and yet endures no contradiction and is impatient her children should enquire into any thing her Priests obtrude You are gone from receiving the whole Sacrament to receive it but half from Christ's Institution to a humane invention from Scripture to uncertain Traditions and from ancient Traditions to new pretences from Prayers which ye understood to Prayers which ye understand not from confidence in God to rely upon creatures from intire dependence upon inward acts to a dangerous temptation of resting too much in outward ministeries in the external work of Sacraments and of Sacramentals You are gone from a Church whose worshipping is Simple Christian and Apostolical to a Church where mens consciences are loaden with a burden of Ceremonies greater than that in the days of the Jewish Religion for the Ceremonial of the Church of Rome is a great Book in Folio greater I say than all the Ceremonies of the Jews contained in Leviticus c. You are gone from a Church where you were exhorted to read the Word of God the holy Scriptures from whence you found instruction institution comfort reproof a treasure of all excellencies to a Church that seals up that Fountain from you and gives you drink by drops out of such Cisterns as they first make and then stain and then reach out And if it be told you that some men abuse Scripture it is true For if your Priests had not abused Scripture they could not thus have abused you But there is no necessity they should and you need not unless you list any more than you need to abuse the Sacraments or decrees of the Church or the messages of your friend or the Letters you receive or the Laws of the Land all which are liable to be abused by evil persons but not by good people and modest understandings It is now become a part of your Religion to be ignorant to walk in blindness to believe the man that hears your Confessions to hear none but him not to hear God speaking but by him and so you are liable to be abused by him as he please without remedy You are gone from us where you were only taught to worship God through Jesus Christ and now you are taught to worship Saints and Angels with a worship at least dangerous and in some things proper to God For your Church worships the Virgin Mary with burning Incense and Candles to her and you give her Presents which by the consent of all Nations used to be esteemed a Worship peculiar to God and it is the same thing which was condemned for Heresie in the Collyridians who offered a Cake to the Virgin Mary A Candle and a Cake make no difference in the worship and your joyning God and the Saints in your worship and devotions is like the device of them that fought for King and Parliament the latter destroys the former I will trouble you with no more particulars because if these move you not to consider better nothing can But yet I have two things more to add of another nature one of which at least may prevail upon you whom I suppose to have a tender and a religious Conscience The first is That all the points of difference between us and your Church are such as do evidently serve the ends of Covetousness and Ambition of Power and Riches and so stand vehemently suspected of design and art rather than truth of the Article and designs upon Heaven I instance in the Popes power over Princes and all the World His power of dispensation The exemption of the Clergy from jurisdiction of Princes The doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences which was once made means to raise a portion for a Lady the Neece of Pope Leo the Tenth The Priests power advanced beyond authority of any warrant from Scripture a doctrine apt to bring absolute obedience to the Papacy But because this is possibly too nice for you to suspect or consider that which I am sure ought to move you is this That you are gone to a Religion in which though through God's grace prevailing over the follies of men there are I hope and charitably suppose many pious men that love God and live good lives yet there are very many doctrines taught by your men which are very ill friends to a good life I instance in your Indulgences and Pardons in which vicious men put a great confidence and rely greatly upon them The doctrine of Purgatory which gives countenance to a sort of Christians who live half to God and half to the world and for them this doctrine hath found out a way that they may go to Hell and to Heaven too The Doctrine that the Priests absolution can turn a trifling Repentance into a perfect and a good and that suddenly too and at any time even on our death-bed or the minute before our death is a dangerous heap of falshoods and gives licence to wicked people and teaches men to reconcile a wicked debauched life with the hopes of Heaven And then for Penances and temporal satisfaction which might seem to be as a plank after the shipwrack of the duty of Repentance to keep men in awe and to preserve them from sinking in an Ocean of Impiety it comes to just nothing by your doctrine for there are so many easie ways of Indulgences and getting Pardons so many Con-fraternities Stations priviledg'd Altars little Offices Agnus Dei's Amulets Hallowed devices Swords Roses Hats Church-yards and the fountain of these annexed Indulgences the Pope himself and his power of granting what and when and to whom he list that he is a very unfortunate man that needs to smart with penances and after all he may chuse to suffer any at all for he may pay them in Purgatory if he please and he may come out of Purgatory upon reasonable terms in case he should think it fit to go thither So that all the whole duty of Repentance seems to be destroyed with devices of men that seek power and gain and find error and folly insomuch that if I had a mind to live an evil Life and yet hope for Heaven at last I would be of your Religion above any in the world But I forget I am writing a Letter I shall therefore desire you to consider upon the Promises which is the safer way For surely it is lawful for a man to serve God without Images but that to worship Images is lawful is not so sure It is lawful to pray to God alone to confess him to be true and every man a lyar to call no man Master upon Earth but to rely upon God
explained 777 n. 26. Chap. 8.7 explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 7.22 23. explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 5.10 explained 818 n. 77. Rosary What it is 328. S. Sabbath THE observation of the Lord's day relieth not upon Tradition 428. The Jewish and Christian Sabbath were for many years in the Christian Church kept together 428. Sacraments The Sacraments as the Romanists teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. The Romanists cannot agree about the definition of a Sacrament 404. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to the Sacraments themselves 429. The Church of God used of old to deny the Sacrament to no dying penitent that desired it 696. Of Confession to a Priest in preparation to the Sacrament 857. Saints The Romanists teach and practise the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same confidence and in the same style as they do to God ibid. They do not onely pray to Saints to pray for them but they relie upon their merits 330. They have a Saint for every malady 330. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. Of the Invocation of Saints 467. Salvation The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to Salvation 436. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Church of Rome imposeth Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. Of the Salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. 1. Book of Samuel Chap. 2. v. 25. explained 812 813 n. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it meaneth in the style of the New Testament 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 781. Satisfaction One may according to the Roman doctrine satisfie for another man's sin 322 c. 2. § 6. The use of that word in Classical Authours 844 845 n. 72. It was the same with Confession 845 n. 72. What it signified in the sense of the Ancients 844 and 832 n. 34. The Ancients did not believe Satisfaction simply necessary to the procuring pardon from God 847. Schism Photius was the first Authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church 109 § 33. What Schism is 149 § 46. The whole stress of Religion Schismaticks commonly place in their own distinguishing Article 459. Scripture To make new Articles of Faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments and not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Scripture proves not it self to be God's Word 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best Argument to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God therefore it is a better Principle 354. The Romanists hold the Scripture for no Infallible Rule 381. Whether the Scripture be a sufficient Rule 405 406 407. In what case the Scripture can give testimony concerning it self 406. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. To believe that the Scripture contains not all things necessary to Salvation is a fountain of most Errours and Heresies 409. The doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. Things necessary to Salvation are in the Scripture easie and plain 418. Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture 419. Tradition is necessary because Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Nicene Council were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition give great advantage to the Socinians 425. That the Doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the Doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture 425 426. The validity of the Baptism of Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Romanists teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and a new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome as they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the Question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between Authority quoad nos and in se it salves not the difficulty 451. The Romanists reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Eckius his pitiful Argument to prove the Authority of the Church to be above the Scriptures ibid. Variety of Readings in it 967. n. 4. As much difference in expounding it 967 n. 5. Of the several ways taken to expound it 971 972 973. Of expounding it by Analogy of Faith 973 974 n. 4. Saint Basil's testimony for Scripture against Tradition which Perron endeavours to elude vindicated 982 983. Nothing of Auricular Confession in Scripture 479. The manner of it is to include the Consequents in the Antecedent 679 n. 52. Secular Whether this Power can give Prohibitions against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take Secular Imployment 157 § 49. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after Secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it in gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed Appeals in secular affairs from secular Tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. Saint Ambrose was Bishop and Prefect of Milain at the same time 161 § 49. Saint Austin's condition was somewhat like at Hippo 161. § 49. Bishops used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop or his Clerks might doe any office of Piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. If a Secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishops that are under him 341. Sense If the doctrine of Transubstantiation be true then the truth of Christian Religion that relies upon evidence of sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument and our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and our Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses be not in fit circumstances to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. The Touch the most certain of the Senses ibid. Signat That word as also Consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifies Baptismal Unction 110 § 33. Vid. 20. b. Sin Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. The Papists teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. Of the distinction of sins mortal and venial 329 c.
the Whale might have been said to have eaten Jonas when she swallowed him without manducation or breaking him and yet no man does speak so but in the description of that accident reckon the Whale to be fasting for all that morsel Invasúsque cibus jejunâ vixit in alvo said Alcimus Avitus Jejuni plenÃque tamen vate intemerato said Sidonius Apollinaris vivente jejunus cibo so Paulinus the fish was full and fasting that is she swallowed Jonas but eat nothing As a man does not eat Bullets or Quicksilver against the Iliacal passion but swallows them and we do not eat our pills The Greek Physicians therefore call a Pill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing to be swallowed and that this is distinct from eating Aristotle tells us speaking of the Elephant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he eats the earth but swallows the stones And Hesychius determined this thing Non comedet ex eo quisquam i. e. non dividetur quia dentium est dividere partiri cibos cum aliter mandi non possint To chew is but a circumstance of nourishment but the essence of manducation But Bellarmine adds that if you will not allow him to say so then he grants it in plain terms that Christ's body is chewed is attrite or broken with the teeth and that not tropically but properly which is the crass Doctrine which Christ reproved in the men of Capernaum To lessen and sweeten this expression he tells us it is indeed broken but how under the species of bread and invisibly well so it is though we see it not and it matters not under what if it be broken and we bound to believe it then we cannot avoid the being that which they so detested devourers of Mans flesh See Theophylact in number 15. of this section 6. Concerning the bread or the meat indeed of which Christ speaks he also affirms that whosoever eats it hath life abiding in him But this is not true of the Sacrament for the wicked eating it receive to themselves damnation It cannot therefore be understood of oral manducation but of spiritual and of eating Christ by faith that is receiving him by an instrument or action Evangelical For receiving Christ by faith includes any way of communicating with his body By baptism by holy desires by obedience by love by worthy receiving of the Holy Sacrament and it signifies no otherwise but as if Christ had said To all that believe in me and obey I will become the Author of life and salvation Now because this is not done by all that receive the Sacrament not by unworthy Communicants who yet eat the Symbols according to us and eat Christ's body according to their Doctrine it is unanswerably certain that Christ here spake of Spiritual manducation not of Sacramental Bellarmine he that answers all things whether he can or no sayes that words of this nature are conditional meaning that he who eats Christ's flesh worthily shall live for ever and therefore this effects nothing upon vicious persons yet it may be meant of the Sacrament because without his proper condition it is not prevalent I reply that it is true it is not it cannot and that this condition is spiritual manducation but then without this condition the man doth not eat Christs flesh that which himself calls the true bread for he that eats this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath life in him that is he is united to me he is in the state of grace at present For it ought to be observed that although promises de futuro possibili are to be understood with a condition appendant yet Propositions affirmative at present are declarations of a thing in being and suppose it actually existent and the different parts of this observation are observable in the several parts of the 54. verse He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life that 's an affirmation of a thing in being and therefore implies no other condition but the connexion of the predicate with the subject He that eats hath life But it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I will raise him up at the last day that 's de futuro possibili and therefore implies a condition besides the affirmation of the Antecedent viz. si permanserit if he remain in this condition and does not unravel his first interest and forfeit his life And so the Argument remains unharm'd and is no other than what I learned from Saint Austin Hujus rei Sacramentum c. de mensâ Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res verò ipsa cujus Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus particeps fuerit And it is remarkable that the context and design of this place takes off this evasion from the Adversary For here Christ opposes this eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna and prefers it infinitely because they who did eat Manna might die viz. spiritually and eternally but they that eat his flesh shall never die meaning they shall not die eternally and therefore this eating cannot be a thing which can possibly be done unworthily For if Manna as it was Sacramental had been eaten worthily they had not died who eat it and what priviledge then is in this above Manna save only that the eating of this supposes the man to do it worthily and to be a worthy person which the other did not Upon which consideration Cajetan sayes that this eating is not common to worthily and unworthily and that it is not spoken of eating the Sacrament but of eating and drinking that is communicating with the death of Jesus The Argument therefore lies thus There is something which Christ hath promis'd us which whosoever receives he receives life and not death but this is not the Sacrament for of them that communicate some receive to life and some to death saith S. Austin and a greater than S. Austin S. Paul and yet this which is life to all that receive it is Christ's flesh said Christ himself therefore Christ's flesh here spoken of is not Sacramental 7. To warrant the Spiritual sence of these words against the Natural it were easie to bring down a traditive interpretation of them by the Fathers at least a great consent Tertullian hath these words Etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse Materiâ dicti dirigendus est sensus Nam quia durum intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus quasi verè carnem suam illis edendum determinâsset ut in spiritu disponeret statum salutis praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat atque ita subjunxit Caro nihil prodest ad vivificandum scil Because they thought his saying hard and intolerable as if he had determined his flesh to be eaten by them that he might dispose the state of salvation in the spirit he premis'd It is the spirit that giveth life and then subjoyns The flesh profiteth nothing
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
reckoned and in others respersed over this Treatise But to return to the present objection it is observable that S. Cyril does not say it is not bread though the sense suppose it to be so for that would have supposed the taste to have been deceived which he affirms not and if he had we could not have believed him but he says though the sense perceive it to be bread so that it is still bread else the taste would not perceive it to be so but it is more and the sense does not perceive it for it is the body of our Lord here then is his own answer plainly opposed to the objection he says it is not bread that is it is not meer bread and so say we he says that it is the body of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antitype of the Lords body and so say we He says the sense perceives it to be bread but it is more than the sense perceives so he implies and so we affirm and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tells us and our understanding too for all it learns besides The like to this are the words of S. Chrysostome where he says We cannot be deceived by his words but our sense is often deceived look not at what is before us but observe Christs words Nothing sensible is given to us but things insensible by things sensible c. This and many higher things than this are in S. Chrysostome not only relating to this but to the other Sacrament also Think not thou receivest the body from a man but fire from the tongue of a Seraphim that for the Eucharist and for Baptism this The Priest baptizes thee not but God holds thy head In the same sence that these admit in the same sence we may understand his other words they are Tragical and high but may have a sober sence but literally they sound a contradiction that nothing sensible should be given us in the Sacrament and yet that nothing insensible should be given but what is conveyed by things sensible but it is not worth the while to stay here Only this the words of S. Chrysostome are good counsel and such as we follow for in this case we do not finally rely upon sense or resolve all into it but we trust it only for so much as it ought to be trusted for but we do not finally rest upon it but upon faith and look not on the things proposed but attend to the words of Christ and though we see it to be bread we also believe it to be his body in that sence which he intended SECT XI The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 1. WHEN we discourse of mysteries of Faith and Articles of Religion it is certain that the greatest reason in the world to which all other reasons must yield is this God hath said it therefore it is true Now if God had expresly said This which seems to be bread is my body in the natural sence or to that purpose there had been no more to be said in the affair all reasons against it had been but sophismes When Christ hath said This is my body no man that pretends to Christianity doubts of the truth of these words all men submitting their understanding to the obedience of Faith But since Christ did not affirm that he spake it in the natural sence but there are not only in Scripture many prejudices but in common sense much evidence against it if reason also protests against the Article it is the voice of God and to be heard in this question For Nunquam aliud natura aliud sapientia dicit And this the rather because there are so many ways to verifie the words of Christ without this strange and new doctrine of Transubstantiation that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason whereas the words of Christ may be many ways verified if Transubstantiation be condemned as first if Picus Mirandula's proposition be true which in Rome he offered to dispute publickly that Paneitas possit suppositare corpus Domini which I suppose if it be expounded in sensible terms means that it may be bread and Christs body too or secondly if Luthers and the ancient Schoolmens way be true that Christs body be present together with the bread In that sence Christs words might be true though no Transubstantiation and this is the sence which is followed by the Greek Church 3. If Boquinus's way be true that between the bread and Christs body there were a communication of proprieties as there is between the Deity and humanity of our blessed Saviour then as we say God gave himself for us and the blessed Virgin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God and God suffered and rose again meaning that God did it according to his assumed humanity so we may say this is Christs body by the communication of the Idioms or proprieties to the bread with which it is united 4. If our way be admitted that Christ is there after a real spiritual manner the words of Christ are true without any need of admitting Transubstantiation 5. I could instance in the way of Johannes Longus in his Annotations upon the second Apology of Justin Martyr Hoc est corpus meum that is My body is this that is is nourishment spiritual as this is Natural 6. The way of Johannes Caâ—panus would afford me a sixth instance Hoc est corpus meum that is meum as it is mea creatura 7. Johannes à Lasco Bucer and the Socinians refer hoc to the whole ministery and mean that to be representative of Christs body 8. If Rupertus the Abbots way were admitted which was confuted by Algerus and is almost like that of Boquinus that between Christs body and the consecrate symbols there was an hypostatical union then both substances would remain and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hypostasis this is the body of Christ. Many more I could reckon all which or any of which if it were admitted the words of Christ stand true and uncontradicted and therefore it is a huge folly to quarrel at them that admit not Transubstantiation and to say they deny the words of Christ. And therefore it must not now be said Reason is not to be heard against an Article of Faith for that this is an Article of Faith cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ which are capable of so many meanings Therefore reason in this case is to be heard by them that will give a reason of their faith as it is commanded in Scripture much less is that to be admitted which Fisher or Flued the Jesuit was bold to say to King James that because Transubstantiation seems so much against reason therefore it is to be admitted as if faith were more faith for being against reason Against this for the present I shall oppose the excellent words of S. Austin
Ep. 7. Si manifestissimae certaeque rationi velut Scripturarum Sanctarum objicitur authoritas non intelligit qui hoc facit non Scripturarum illarum sensum ad quem penetrare non potuit sed suum potiùs objicit veritati nec quod in eis sed quod in seipso velut pro eis invenit opponit He that opposes the authority of the holy Scriptures against manifest and certain reason does neither understand himself nor the Scripture Indeed when God hath plainly declared the particular the more it seems against my reasons the greater is my obedience in submitting but that is because my reasons are but Sophismes since truth it self hath declared plainly against them but if God hath not plainly declared against that which I call reason my reason must not be contested by a pretence of Faith but upon some other account Ratio cum ratione concertet 3. Secondly But this is such a fine device that it can if it be admitted warrant any literal interpretation against all the pretences of the world For when Christ said If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out Here are the plain words of Christ And Some make themselves Eunuches for the kingdom of Heaven Nothing plainer in the Grammatical sence and why do we not do it because it is an unnatural thing to mangle our body for a Spiritual cause which may be supplied by other more gentle instruments Yea but reason is not to be heard against the plain words of Christ and the greater our reason is against it the greater excellency in our obedience that as Abraham against hope believed in hope so we against reason may believe in the greatest reason the Divine revelation and what can be spoken against this 4. Thirdly Stapleton confuting Luthers opinion of Consubstantiation pretends against it many absurdities drawn from reason and yet it would have been ill taken if it should have been answered that the doctrine ought the rather to be believed because it is so unreasonable which answer is something like our new Preachers who pretend that therefore they are Spiritual men because they have no learning they are to confound the wise because they are the weak things of the world and that they are to be heard the rather because there is the less reason they should so crying stinking fish that men may buy it the more greedily But I will proceed to the particulars of reason in this Article being contented with this that if the adverse party shall refuse this way of arguing they may be reproved by saying they refuse to hear reason and it will not be easie for them in despite of reason to pretend faith for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unreasonable men and they that have not faith are equivalent in S. Pauls expression 5. First I shall lay this prejudice in the Article as relating to the discourses of reason that in the words of institution there is nothing that can be pretended to prove the conversion of the substance of bread into the body of Christ but the same will infer the conversion of the whole into the whole and therefore of the accidents of the bread into the accidents of the body And in those little pretences of Philosophy which these men sometimes make to cousen fools into a belief of the possibility they pretend to no instance but to such conversions in which if the substance is changed so also are the accidents sometimes the accident is chang'd in the same remaining substance but if the substance be changed the accidents never remain the same individually or in kind unless they be symbolical that is are common to both as in the change of elements of air into fire of water into earth Thus when Christ changed water into wine the substances being chang'd the accidents also were alter'd and the wine did not retain the colour and taste of water for then though it had been the stranger miracle that wine should be wine and yet look and taste like water yet it would have obtained but little advantage to his doctrine and person if he should have offer'd to prove his mission by such a miracle For if Christ had said to the guests To prove that I am come from God I will change this water into wine well might this prove his mission but if while the guests were wondring at this he should proceed and say wonder ye not at this for I will do a stranger thing than it for this water shall be changed into wine and yet I will so order it that it shall look like water and taste like it so that you shall not know one from the other Certainly this would have made the whole matter very ridiculous and indeed it is a strange device of these men to suppose God to work so many prodigious miracles as must be in Transubstantiation if it were at all and yet that none of these should be seen for to what purpose is a miracle that cannot be perceived It can prove nothing nor do any thing when it self is not known whether it be or no. When bread is turned into flesh and wine into blood in the nourishment of our bodies which I have seen urg'd for the credibility of Transubstantiation The bread as it changes his nature changes his accidents too and is flesh in colour and shape and dimensions and weight and operation as well as it is in substance Now let them rub their foreheads hard and tell us it is so in the holy Sacrament For if it be not so then no instance of the change of Natural substances from one form to another can be pertinent For 1. Though it be no more than is done in every operation of a body yet it is always with change of their proper accidents and then 2. It can with no force of the words of the institution be pretended that one ought to be or can be without the other For he that says this is the body of a man says that it hath the substance of a humane body and all his consequents that is the accidents and he that says this is the body of Alexander says besides the substance that it hath all the individuating conditions which are the particular accidents and therefore Christ affirming this to be his body did as much affirm the change of accidents as the change of substance because that change is naturally and essentially consequent to this Now if they say they therefore do not believe the accidents of bread to be changed because they see them remain I might reply Why will they believe their sense against faith since there may be evidence but here is certainty and it cannot be deceived though our eyes can and it is certain that Christ affirmed it without distinction of one part from another of substance from his usual accidents This is my body Hoc Hîc Nunc and Sic. Now if they think their eyes may be credited for
so neither can two places be adapted at once to one body because of their continual and united nature unity and quantity continual being as essential to quantitative bodies as succession is to them who are measured by time 5. If one body may possess and fill two places circumscriptively that it is commensurate to both of them or to as many more as it shall chance to be in then suppose a body of five foot long is in a place at Rome at Valladolid at Paris and at London in each of these places it must fill a space of five foot long because it is always commensurate to his place it will follow that a body but of five foot long shall fill up the room of twenty foot which whether it implies not a contradiction that the same body should be but five foot long and yet at the same time be twenty foot long of the same measure let all the Geometricians judge This is such a device that as one said of the witty drunkenness and arts of the Symposiac among the Greeks that amongst them a dunce could not be drunk So in this device a man had need be very cunning to speak such non-sence and make himself believe those things which are against the conceptions of all men in the world till this new doctrine turned their brains and make new propositions and new affirmatives out of old impossibilities But these people in all this affair deal with mankind as if they were beasts and not reasonable creatures or as if all their disciples were babies or fools and that to them it is lawful to say any thing and having no understanding of their own they are to efform them as they please 23. But to this objection it is answer'd that it may have a double sence That a body of five foot long may fill the space of five foot One So as the magnitude of such a body should be commensurate to that place and so a body of five foot cannot fill up the spaces of twenty foot but another way is so as the magnitude of the body should not be commensurate but only to the space of five foot but yet the same magnitude may be twice or thrice put to such a space and this may be done This is Bellarmines answer That is If you consider a body of five foot long so as it can but fill five foot space in that sence it cannot fill twenty But if you consider it so as it is commensurate to a space that is twenty foot so it cannot be being but of five foot long That this is the sence of his answer I appeal to all men that can understand common sence But though it be but of five foot long yet it may be placed twice or thrice in a space of five foot long and what then Then it fills still but a place of five foot long True in one place but if it fills five foot at Rome and at the same time five foot at Valladolid and five foot at Paris and five foot at London I pray are not four times five twenty As although the Sun have but force to drink up five measures of water in Egypt and at the same time as much in Arabia and as much in Ethiopia and as much in Greece he at the same time drinks up twenty measures though his whole force in one place be but to drink five and yet still it is but one Sun But besides all this that the same body be put twice or thrice into a space of five foot at the same time is that unreasonable thing which all the natural and congenite notices of men cry down and therefore ought not to be said confidently in a distinction without proof as if the putting it into a non-sence distinction could oblige all the world to believe it 24. Eightly But I proceed Valentia affirms that the Fathers prove the Divinity of the holy Ghost by his ubiquity and it is certain they do so as appears in S. Athanasius S. Basil S. Ambrose Didymus of Alexandria S. Cyril of Alexandria S. Austin and divers others and yet these men affirm that a body may be in many places and therefore may be in all and that it is potentially infinite is it not evident that they take from the Fathers the force of the argument because ubiquity is communicable to something that is not God or if it be not why do they give it to a creature That which can be in many places can be in all places for all the reason that forbids it to be in two thousand forbids it to be in two and if those cannot determine it to one place it cannot be determined at all I mean the nature of a body his determination to places his circumscription continuity unity quantity dimensions Nay that which is not determined by place by continuity nor by his nature but may be any where is in his own nature uncircumscribed and indefinite which is that attribute of God upon which his omnipresence does rely and that Christs body is not every where actually as is the holy Ghost it says nothing against this because he being a voluntary agent can restrain the measure of his presence as God himself does the many manners of his presence However that nature is infinite that can be every where and therefore if it can be communicated to a body to be so is not proper to God nor can it prove the holy Ghost so to be Of the same nature is that other argument used frequently by the Primitive Doctors proving two natures to be in Christ the Divine and the Humane and the difference between them is remarked in this that the Divine is in many places and in all but the Humane can be but in one at once This is affirmed by Origen S. Hilary S. Hierome S. Austin Gelasius Fulgentius and Ven. Bede But this is but variety of the same dish if both these can prevail together then either of them ought to prevail singly 25. Against all this and whatsoever else can be objected it is pretended that it is possible for a body to be in many distant places at once For Christ who is always in Heaven yet appeared to S. Paul on Earth and to many other Saints as to S. Peter to S. Anthony to S. Tharsilla S. Gregory and I cannot tell who To this I answer 1. That in all this there is nothing certain but that Christ appeared to S. Paul for it may be he appeared to him in Heaven S. Paul being on Earth for so he did to S. Stephen as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and from Heaven there might only come a voice and a light 2. It may be S. Paul saw Christ when he was wrapt up into the third Heavens for that Christ was seen by him himself affirms but he says not that he saw him at his conversion and
all that he says he saw then was that he saw a great light and heard a voice 3. That in case Christ did appear corporally to Saul on earth it follows not his body was in two places at once I have the warrant of him that is willing enough otherwise that this argument should prevail Quia non est improbabile Christum privatim ad breve tempus descendisse de coelo post ascensionem It is not unlikely that Christ might privately and for a short time descend from Heaven after his ascension For when it is said in Scripture that the Heavens must receive him till the day of restitution of all things it is to be meant ordinarily and as his place of residence but that hinders not an extraordinary commigration as a man may be said to dwell continually in London and yet sometimes to go into the country to take the air For the other instances of S. Peter and S. Anthony and the rest if I were sure they were true I would say the same answer would also serve their turn but as they are it is not material whether it does or no. 26. Another way of answering is taken from the examples of God and the reasonable soul. Concerning the soul I have these things to say 1. Whether the soul be whole in every part of the body and whole in the whole is presumed by most men but substantially proved by none but denied by a great many and those of the first rank of learned men 2. If it were it follows not that it is in two places or more because not the hand nor the foot is the adequate place of the soul but the whole body and therefore the usual expression of Philosophy saying The soul is whole in every part is not true positively but negatively that is the soul being immaterial cannot be cantoniz'd into parts by the division of the body but positively it is not true For the understanding is not in the foot nor the will in the hand and something of the soul is not organical or depending upon the body viz. The pure acts of volition some little glimpses of intuition reflexion and the like 3. If it were yet to alledge this is impertinent to their purpose unless whatsoever is true concerning a spirit can also be affirmed of a body 4. When the body is divided into parts the soul is not multiplied into fantastick or real numbers as it is pretended in Transubstantiation and therefore although the soul were whole in every part it could do no service in this question unless it were so whole in each part as to be whole when each part is divided for so it is said to be in the Eucharist which because we say is impossible we require an instance in something where it is so but because it is not so in the soul this instance is not home to any of their purposes But Bellarmine says God can make it to be so that the soul shall remain in the member that is discontinued and cut off I answer that God ever did do so nor he nor any man else can pretend unless he please to believe S. Winifreds and S. Denys's walking with their heads in their hands after their decollation but since we never knew that God did so and whether it implies a contradiction or no that it should be so God hath no where declared it is sufficient to the present purpose that it is as much a question and of it self no more evident than that a body can be conserved in many places and therefore being as uncertain as the principal question cannot give faith to it or do any service But this is to amuse unwary persons by seeming to say something which indeed is nothing to the purpose 27. But that the Omnipresence of God should be brought to prove it possible that a body may be in many places truly though I am heartily desirous to do it if I could justly yet I cannot find any colour to excuse it from great impiety But this I shall add that it is so impossible that any body should be in two places and so impossible to justifie this from the immensity of God that God himself is not in proper manner of speaking in two places he is not capable of being in any place at all as we understand being in a place he is greater than all places and fills all things and locality and place and beings and relations are all from him and therefore they cannot comprehend him But then although this immensity of God is beyond the capacity of place and he can no more be in a place than all the world can be in the bottom of a well yet if God could be limited and determined it were a contradiction to say that he could be in two places just as it is a contradiction to say there are two Gods So that this comparison of Bellarmines as it is odious up to the neighbourhood and similitude of a great impiety so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is against that Philosophy whereby we understand any of the perfective notices of God But these men would fain prevail by all means they care not how 28. But why may we not believe as well the doctrine of Transubstantiation in defiance of all the seeming impossibilities as well as we believe the doctrine of the Trinity in defiance of greater To this I answer many things 1. Because the mystery of the Trinity is revealed plainly in Scripture but the doctrine of Transubstantiation is against it as I suppose my self to have plainly proved So that if there were a plain revelation of Transubstantiation then this argument were good and if it were possible for ten thousand times more arguments to be brought against it yet we are to believe the revelation in despite of them all but when so much of revelation is against it and nothing for it it is but vain to say we may believe this as well as the doctrine of the Trinity for so we may as well argue for the heresie of the Manichees why may we not as well believe the doctrine of the Manichees in despite of all the arguments brought against it when there are so many seeming impossibilities brought against the holy Trinity I suppose the answer that I have given would be thought reasonable to every such pretence 2. As the doctrine of the holy Trinity is set down in Scripture and in the Apostles Creed and was taught by the Fathers of the first three hundred years I know no difficulties it hath what it hath met withal since proceeds from the too curious handling of that which we cannot understand 3. The Scool-men have so pried into this secret and have so confounded themselves and the Articles that they have made it to be unintelligible inexplicable indefensible in all their minuits and particularities and it is too sadly apparent in the arguments of the Antitrinitarians whose sophisms
the body of Christ. And yet these men would make us believe that all the world 's their own But Scotus does directly deny the doctrine of Conversion or Transubstantiation to be ancient so says Henriquez Ante Concilium Lateranense Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei So said Scotus himself as Bellarmine cites him and some of the Fathers of the Society in England in their prison affirm'd Rem Transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter of Transubstantiation and it was likely so because Peter Lombard whose design it was to collect the sentences of the Fathers into heads of articles found in them so nothing to the purpose of Transubstantiation that he professed he was not able to define whether the conversion of the Eucharistical bread were formal or substantial or of another kind To some it seems to be substantial saying the substance is changed into the substance Quibusdam videtur it seems and that not to all neither but to some for his part he knows not whether they are right or wrong therefore in his days the doctrine was not Catholick And me thinks it was an odd saying of Vasquez and much to this purpose that as soon as ever the later Schoolmen heard the name of Transubstantiation such a controversie did arise concerning the nature of it he says not of the meaning of the word but the nature of the thing that by how much the more they did endeavour to extricate themselves by so much the more they were intangled in difficulties It seems it was news to them to hear talk of it and they were as much strangers to the nature of it as to the name it begat quarrels and became a riddle which they could not resolve but like Achelous his horn sent forth a river of more difficulty to be waded thorough than the horn was to be broken And amongst these Schoolmen Durandus maintained an heretical opinion says Bellarmine saying that the form of bread was changed into Christs body but that the matter of bread remained still by which also it is apparent that then this doctrine was but in the forge it was once stamped upon at the Lateran Council but the form was rude and it was fain to be cast again and polished at Trent the Jesuit order being the chief masters of the mint But now I proceed to the trial of this Topick 17. I shall not need to arrest the Reader with consideration of the pretension made by the Roman Doctors out of the passions of the Apostles which all men condemn for spurious and Apocryphal particularly the passion of S. Andrew said to be written by the Priests and Deacons of Achaia For it is sufficient that they are so esteemed by Baronius censured for such by Gelasius by Philastrius and Innocentius they were corrupted also by the Manichees by additions and detractions and yet if they were genuine and uncorrupted they say nothing but what we profess Although the holy Lamb truly sacrificed and his flesh eaten by the people doth nevertheless persevere whole and alive for no man that I know of pretends that Christ is so eaten in the Sacrament that he dies for it for his flesh is eaten spiritually and by faith and that is the most true manducation of Christs body the flesh of the holy Lamb and this manducation breaks not a bone of him but then how he can be torn by the teeth of the communicants and yet remain whole is a harder matter to tell and therefore these words are very far from their sence they are nearer to an objection But I shall not be troubled with this any more save that I shall observe that one White of the Roman perswasion quoting part of these words which Bellarmine and from him the under-writers object Ego omnipotenti Deo omni die immaculatum agnum sacrifico of these words in particular affirms that without all controversie they are apocryphal 18. Next to him is S. Ignatius who is cited to have said something of this question in his epistle ad Smyrnenses speaking of certain hereticks They do not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which flesh suffered for us They that do not confess it let them be anathema for sure it is as sure as Christ is true but quomodo is the question and of this S. Ignatius says nothing But the understanding of these words perfectly depends upon the story of that time Concerning which we learn out of Tertullian and Irenaeus that the Marcosians the Valentinians and Marcionites who denied the Incarnation of the son of God did nevertheless use the Eucharistical Symbols though I say they denied Christ to have a body Now because this usage of theirs did confute their grand heresie for to what purpose should they celebrate the Sacrament of Christs body if he had none therefore it is that S. Ignatius might say They did not admit the Eucharist because they did not confess it to be the flesh of Christ for though in practice they did admit it yet in theory they denyed it because it could be nothing as they handled the matter For how could it be Christs flesh Sacramentally if he had no flesh really And therefore they did not admit the Eucharist as the Church did for in no sence would they grant it to be the flesh of Christ not the figure not the Sacrament of it lest admitting the figure they should also confess the substance But besides if these words had been against us it had signified nothing because these words are not in S. Ignatius they are in no Greek Copy of him but they are reported by Theodoret. But in these there is nothing else material than what I have accounted for I only took them in by the bie because they are great names and are objected sometimes But I shall descend to more material testimonies and consider those objections that are incident to the mention of the several Fathers supposing that the others are invalid upon the account of the premises or if they were not yet they can but pass for single opinions against which themselves and others are opposed at other times 19. Tertullian is affirmative in that sence of the article which we teach Acceptum panem distributum discipulis suis Christus corpus suum meum fecit dicendo Hoc est corpus i. e. figura corporis mei He proves against the Marcionites that Christ had a true real body in his incarnation by this argument because in the Sacrament he gave bread as the figure of his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body Fisher in his answer to the ninth question propounded by K. James and he from Card. Perron say it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answers to this place that Figura corporis mei refers after Tertullians odd
esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger and to depart from it and call upon them to stand upon the wayes and ask after the old paths and walk in them lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them who remove the ancient Land-marks which our Fathers in Christ have set for us Now that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick appears in this That in the Church of Rome there is pretence made to a power not only of declaring new Articles of faith but of making new Symbols or Creeds and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the tenth against Martyn Luther in which amongst other things he is condemn'd for saying It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith We need not add that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Petrus de Ancorano and the Famous Abbot of Panormo that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds but new Articles of Faith that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd which before never was necessary that he is the measure and rule and the very notice of all credibilities That the Canon Law is the Divine Law and whatever Law the Pope promulges God whose Vicar he is is understood to be the Promulger That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his arbitration Religion doth consist which are the very words of Hostiensis and Ferdinandus ab Inciso who were Casuists and Doctors of Law of great authority amongst them and renown The thing it self is not of dubioâ—â— disputation amongst them but actually practis'd in the greatest Instances as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth at the end of the Council of Trent by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius That this is the true Catholick Faith and that without this no Man can be saved Now since it cannot be imagined that this power to which they pretend should never have been reduc'd to act and that it is not credible they should publish so invidious and ill-sounding Doctrine to no purpose and to serve no end it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons that they have need of this Doctrine or it would not have been taught and that consequently without more ado it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this new faith and that they can therefore in no sence be Apostolical unless their being Roman makes them so To this may be added another consideration not much less material that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by Scripture they have also many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers themselves that they are not right on their side and of this they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory indices The Serpent by being so curious a defender of his head shews where his danger is and by what he can most readily be destroyed But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers Writings their thrusting in that which was spurious and like Pharaoh killing the legitimate Sons of Israel though in this they have done very much of their work and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a record infinitely worse than of themselves uncorrupted they would have been of which divers Learned Persons have made publick complaint and demonstration they have at last fallen to a new trade which hath caus'd more disreputation to them than they have gain'd advantage and they have virtually confess'd that in many things the Fathers are against them For first the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors but with this clause Iique ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt quem eundum neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt that they should keep the expurgatory Index privately neither imparting that Index nor giving a copy of it to any But it happened by the Divine Providence so ordering it that about thirteen years after a copy of it was gotten and published by Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius and since it came abroad against their wills they find it necessary now to own it and they have printed it themselves Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In Saint Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no merit but what is given us by Christ and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost and the former words are in his first Homily upon that of Saint John Ye are my friends c. The like they have done to him in many other places and to Saint Ambrose and to Saint Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Junius that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of Saint Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's Book In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors and extenuate and excuse them and finding out some Commentary we feign some convenient sence when they are oppos'd in disputations they do indeed practise but esteem it not sufficient for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors insomuch that out of one of Froben's Indices they have commanded these words to be blotted The use of Images forbidden The Eucharist no Sacrifice but the memory of a Sacrifice Works although they do not justifie yet are necessary to Salvation Marriage is granted to all that will nor contain Venial sins damn The dead Saints after this life cannot help us nay out of the Index of Saint Austin's Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur Dele Solus Deus adorandus that God alone is to be worshipped is commanded to be blotted out as being a dangerous Doctrine These Instances may serve instead of multitudes which might be brought of their corrupting the Witnesses and razing the Records of Antiquity that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reprov'd Now if
thanks for them or praying to them but a direct praying for them even for holy Bishops Confessors Martyrs that God meaning in much mercy would remember them that is make them to rest in the bosom of Abraham in the Region of the living as Saint James expresses it And in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Saint Basil Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Cyril the Churches pray Be mindful O Lord of thy Saints vouchsafe to receive all thy Saints which have pleas'd thee from the beginning our Holy Fathers the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs Confessors Preachers Evangelists and all the Souls of the Just which have died in the faith but chiefly of the holy glorious and perpetual Virgin Mary the Mother of God of Saint John Baptist the Forerunner and Martyr Saint Stephen the first Deacon and first Martyr Saint Mark Apostle Evangelist and Martyr Of the same spirit were all the Ancient Liturgies or Missals and particularly that under the name of Saint Chrysostom is most full to this purpose Let us pray to the Lord for all that before time have laboured and performed the holy Offices of Priesthood For the memory and remission of sins of them that built this holy House and of all them that have slept in hope of the resurrection and eternal life in thy society of the Orthodox Fathers and our Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thou lover of men pardon them And again Moreover we offer unto thee this reasonable service for all that rest in Faith our Ancestors Fathers Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles Preachers Evangelists Martyrs c. especially the most holy and unspotted Virgin Mary and after concludes with this prayer Remember them all who have slept in hope of Resurrection to Eternal life and make them to rest where the light of thy countenance looks over them Add to these if you please the Greek Mass of Saint Peter To them O Lord and to all that rest in Christ we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing light and peace So that nothing is clearer than that in the Greek Canon they prayed for the souls of the best of all the Saints whom yet because no man believes they ever were in Purgatory it follows that prayer for the dead us'd by the Ancients does not prove the Roman Purgatory To these add the Doctrine and Practice of the Greek Fathers Dionysius speaking of a person deceased whom the Ministers of the Church had publickly pronounced to be a happy man and verily admitted into the society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world yet the Bishop prayed for him That God would forgive him all the sins which he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and region of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob where pain and sorrow and sighing have no place To the same purpose is that of Saint Gregory Nazianzen in his Funeral Oration upon his Brother Caesarius of whom he had expresly declar'd his belief that he was rewarded with those honours which did befit a new created soul yet he presently prayes for his soul Now O Lord receive Caesarius I hope I have said enough concerning the Greek Church their Doctrine and practice in this particular and I desire it may be observed that there is no greater testimony of the Doctrine of a Church than their Liturgy Their Doctors may have private Opinions which are not against the Doctrine of the Church but what is put into their publick devotions and consign'd in their Liturgies no man scruples it but it is the Confession and Religion of the Church But now that I may make my Reader some amends for his trouble in reading the trifling Objections of these Roman Adversaries and my Defences I shall also for the greater conviction of my Adversaries shew that they would not have oppos'd my Affirmation in this particular if they had understood their own Mass-book for it was not only thus from the beginning until now in the Greek Church but it is so to this very day in the Latin Church In the old Latin Missal we have this prayer Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro omnibus in tui nominis confessione defunctis ut te dextram auxilii tui porrigente vitae perennis requiem habeant à poenis impiorum segregati semper in tuae laudis laetitia perseverent And in the very Canon of the Mass which these Gentlemen I suppose if they be Priests cannot be ignorant in any part of they pray Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei dormiunt in somno pacis Ipsis Domine omnibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii lucis pacis ut indulgeas deprecamur Unless all that are at rest in Christ go to Purgatory it is plain that the Church of Rome prayes for Saints who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory I could bring many more testimonies if they were needful but I summ up this particular with the words of Saint Austin Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christiana Catholica societate defunctis etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque sub generali commemoratione suscepit Ecclesia The Church prayes for all persons that died in the Christian and Catholick Faith And therefore I wonder how it should drop from Saint Austin's Pen Injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyre But I suppose he meant it only in case the prayer was made for them as if they were in an uncertain state and so it is probable enough but else his words were not only against himself in other places but against the whole practice of the Ancient Catholick Church I remember that when it was ask'd of Pope Innocent by the Archbishop of Lyons why the Prayer that was in the old Missal for the soul of Pope Leo Annue nobis Domine animae famuli tui Leonis haec prosit oblatio it came to be chang'd into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec prosit oblatio Pope Innocent answered him that who chang'd it or when he knew not but he knew how that is he knew the reason of it because the Authority of the Holy Scripture said he does injury to a Martyr that prayes for a Martyr the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints The good man had heard the saying somewhere but being little us'd to the Bible he thought it might be there because it was a pretty saying However though this change was made in the Mass-books and prayer for the soul of Saint Leo was chang'd into a prayer to Saint Leo and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could yet because they did it so pitifully they had reason to
in their appendage to the Nicene Creed thus express I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins that is to remission of sins we are admitted by Baptism alone no other way shall we have this grace this title but by being once initiated into the Gospel to be Disciples of Jesus Not that it is to be supposed that our sins are only pardon'd when we are baptized but that by Baptism we are admitted to the state and grace of Repentance and pardon of sins And this is demonstratively certain not only upon those many instances of baptized penitents admitted to pardon and baptized Criminals called upon in Scripture to repent but upon the very nature of the Evangelical Covenant and the whole design of Christs coming For if we were not admitted to Repentance after Baptism then we were still to be judged by the Covenant of Works not by the Covenant of Faith and we should inherit by the Law or not at all and not be heirs according to promise and then Christ were dead in vain we are yet in our sins and all the world must perish because all men have sinned and so none should go to Heaven but newly baptized Infants or newly baptized Catechumens and how then could the Gospel be a New Covenant it being exactly the same with the Law for so it must be if it promise no mercy or Repentance to them that sin after our admittance to it * But Baptism is a new birth and by it we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renewed unto Repentance unto that state of life which supposes holiness and imperfection and consequently needs mercy all the way according to that saying Justus ex fide vivet The just shall live by faith that is all our righteousness all our hopes all our spiritual life is conserved by and is relying upon this Covenant of Mercy the Covenant of Faith or Repentance all his life time the just shall still need pardon and find it if he perseveres in it that is endeavours to obey according to the righteousness of Faith that is sincerely diligently and by the measures of a man Of this we shall in the sequel make use 4. For the present I consider that Repentance or Conversion admits of degrees according to the necessities of men For that Repentance which Christ and his Apostles preach'd at the opening of the Kingdom was an universal change of life which men did lead in the darkness of Heathen ignorance and idolatrous impieties among the Gentiles and the more than Heathen crimes among the Jews the whole Nation being generally false superstitious bloody persecutors proud rebellious and at last rejecters and crucifiers of their Messias whom they had long'd for ever since they were a people But in the perswasion and effecting of this Repentance there was some difference of Dispensation and Ministery 5. John the Baptist began and he preach'd Repentance to the Jews that they might believe in the Messias and so flee from the wrath to come that is from the destruction of their Nation which he prophetically foretold should come to pass for their rejecting him whom the Baptist did fore-signifie Christ and his Apostles pursued the same Doctrine still thrusting forward the design that is preaching such a Repentance as was proportionable to his purpose that is obedience to the Gospel the admission of such doctrines which did destroy the gayeties and cursed usages of the world So that the Repentance which was first preached was in order to Faith that is the Baptist and Christ and Christs Apostles preaching Repentance did mean such a conversion or change as would take them off from those crimes which so prepossess'd their hearts that by them they were indispos'd to receive Christs person and doctrine both which were so contrary to their prejudices of Pride and Covetousness Malice and Ambition 6. And therefore among the Jews Repentance was to go before Faith for they were already sufficiently disposed to believe the Revelations of God they had been used to Prophets and expected the Messias and pray'd for his day and long'd passionately for it so that they were by nothing hindred in their faith but by their lusts and secular thoughts and the way to make them believe was to cure their pride How can ye believe who receive honour one of another Their hunting after praise among the people did indispose them to the believing and receiving Christs person and doctrine Therefore until they did repent of that they could not believe and accordingly our blessed Saviour complain'd that when they saw the light which shin'd in the Ministery of John the Baptist yet they would not repent that they might believe * But afterwards the Jews when they were invited to the Religion that is to believe in Jesus were first to be called to Repentance because they had crucified the Lord of life and if they should not repent for crucifying an innocent person they would be infinitely far from believing him to be the Lord of life and their long desired Messias 7. But the Repentance that was preached to the Gentiles though it had the same design as to the event of things yet it went in another method Their Religion taught them impiety lust and folly was plac'd upon their Altars and their gods bore in their hands smoking firebrands kindled with the coals of Sodom they had false confidences and evil examples and foolish principles they had evil laws and an abominable Priesthood and their Daemons whom they call'd Gods would be worshipped with lusts and cruelty with drunkenness and revellings so that their false belief and evil Religion betrayed them to evil lives therefore they were to be recovered by being taught a better belief and a more holy Religion therefore in these faith was to go before Repentance Poenitentiae stimulus ex fide acciderat as Tertullians expression is Faith was the motive of their Repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repentance is the perfection and consummation of Faith For unless the sinner believes his action to be a sin and that evil is his portion if he sins and that he shall be happy if he live by the rule of the Commandments he can never be converted Therefore in the conversion of the Gentiles Faith was to be ordinarily the first 8. In proportion to these several methods the doctrine or state of Christianity was sometimes called Faith sometimes Repentance He that believed Jesus Christ would repent of his sins and he that did repent would believe But sometimes Infidelity stood at the gate and sometimes Malice and vile Affections That which stood next was first to be removed 9. Now the access of both these to Christ is in Scripture called Conversion or Repentance Where Faith only was wanting and the man was of Moses and a good man the becoming a Christian was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a perfection or consummation a progression rather than a returning
not to be supposed that he will snatch Infants from their Mothers breasts and throw them into the everlasting flames of Hell for the sin of Adam that is as to them for their mere natural state of which himself was Author and Creator that is he will not damn them for being good For God saw every thing that he had made and behold it was very good and therefore so is that state of descent from Adam God is the Author of it and therefore it cannot be ill It cannot be contrary to God because it is his work 38. Upon the account of these reasons I suppose it safe to affirm that God does not damn any one to Hell merely for the sin of our first Father which I summ up in the words of S. Ambrose or whoever is the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul attributed to him Mors autem dissolutio corporis est cum anima à corpore separatur Est alia mors quae secunda dicitur in Gehennâ quam non peccato Adaepatimur sed ejus occasione propriis peccatis acquiritur Death is the dividing Soul and Body There is also another death which is in Hell and is called the second Death which we do not suffer for the sin of Adam but by occasion of it we fall into it by our own sins Next we are to inquire whether or no it does not make us infallibly naturally and necessarily vitious by taking from us Original righteousness by discomposing the order of our faculties and inslaving the will to sin and folly concerning which the inquiry must be made by parts 39. For if the sin of Adam did debauch our Nature and corrupt our will and manners it is either by a Physical or Natural efficiency of the sin it self or 2. Because we were all in the loins of Adam or 3. By the sentence and decree of God 40. I. Not by any Natural efficiency of the sin it self Because then it must be that every sin of Adam must spoil such a portion of his Nature that before he died he must be a very beast 2. We also by degeneration and multiplication of new sins must have been at so vast a distance from him at the very worst that by this time we should not have been so wise as a flie nor so free and unconstrain'd as fire 3. If one sin would naturally and by physical causality destroy Original righteousness then every one sin in the regenerate can as well destroy Habitual righteousness because that and this differ not but in their principle not in their nature and constitution And why should not a righteous man as easily and as quickly fall from grace and lose his habits as Adam did Naturally it is all one 4. If that one sin of Adam did destroy all his righteousness and ours too then our Original sin does more hurt and is more punish'd and is of greater malice than our actual sin For one act of sin does but lessen and weaken the habit but does not quite destroy it If therefore this act of Adam in which certainly at least we did not offend maliciously destroys all Original righteousness and a malicious act now does not destroy a righteous habit it is better for us in our own malice than in our ignorance and we suffer less for doing evil that we know of than for doing that which we knew nothing of 41. II. If it be said that this evil came upon us because we all were in the loins of Adam I consider 1. That then by the same reason we are guilty of all the sins which he ever committed while we were in his loins there being no imaginable reason why the first sin should be propagated and not the rest and he might have sinned the second time and have sinn'd worse Add to this that the later sins are commonly the worse as being committed not only against the same law but a greater reason and a longer experience and heightned by the mark of ingratitude and deeply noted with folly for venturing damnation so much longer And then he that was born last should have most Original sin and Seth should in his birth and nature be worse than Abel and Abel be worse than Cain 2. Upon this account all the sins of all our progenitors will be imputed to us because we were in their loins when they sinn'd them and every lustful father must have a lustful son and so every man or no man will be lustful For if ever any man were lustful or intemperate when or before he begot his child upon this reckoning his child will be so too and then his grandchild and so on for ever 3. Sin is seated in the will it is an action and transient and when it dwells or abides it abides no where but in the will by approbation and love to which is naturally consequent a readiness in the inferior faculties to obey and act accordingly and therefore sin does not infect our mere natural faculties but the will only and not that in the natural capacity but in its moral only 4. And indeed to him that considers it it will seem strange and monstrous that a moral obliquity in a single instance should make an universal change in a natural suscipient and in a natural capacity When it is in nature impossible that any impression should be made but between those things that communicate in matter or capacity and therefore if this were done at all it must be by a higher principle by Gods own act or sanction and then should be referred to another principle not this against which I am now disputing 5. No man can transmit a good habit a grace or a vertue by natural generation as a great Scholar's son cannot be born with learning and the child of a Judge cannot upon his birth-day give wise sentences and Marcus the son of Cicero was not so good an Orator as his father and how can it be then that a naughty quality should be more apt to be disseminated than a good one when it is not the goodness or the badness of a quality that hinders its dissemination but its being an acquir'd and superinduc'd quality that makes it cannot descend naturally Add to this how can a bad quality morally bad be directly and regularly transmitted by an action morally good and since neither God that is the Maker of all does amiss and the father that begets sins not and the child that is begotten cannot sin by what conveyance can any positive evil be derived to the posterity 6. It is generally now adays especially believed that the soul is immediately created not generated according to the doctrine of Aristotle affirming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the soul is from without and is a Divine substance and therefore sin cannot descend by natural generation or by our being in Adams loins And how can it be that the father who contributes nothing to her production should contribute to
and whose eternal interest I do so much desire may be secured and advanced Now my Lord I had thought I had been secured in the Article not only for the truth of the Doctrine but for the advantages and comforts it brings I was confident they would not because there was no cause any men should be angry at it For it is strange to me that any man should desire to believe God to be more severe and less gentle That men should be greedy to find out inevitable ways of being damned that they should be unwilling to have the vail drawn away from the face of Gods goodness and that they should desire to see an angry countenance and be displeased at the glad tidings of the Gospel of peace It is strange to me that men should desire to believe that their pretty Babes which are strangled at the gates of the womb or die before Baptism should for ought they know die eternally and be damned and that themselves should consent to it and to them that invent Reasons to make it seem just They might have had not only pretences but reasons to be troubled if I had represented God to be so great a hater of Mankind as to damn millions of millions for that which they could not help or if I had taught that their infants might by chance have gone to Hell and as soon as ever they came for life descend to an eternal death If I had told them evil things of God and hard measures and evil portions to their children they might have complained but to complain because I say God is just to all and merciful and just to infants to fret and be peevish because I tell them that nothing but good things are to be expected from our good God is a thing that may well be wondred at My Lord I take a great comfort in this that my doctrine stands on that side where Gods justice and goodness and mercy stand apparently and they that speak otherwise in this Article are forced by convulsions and violences to draw their doctrine to comply with Gods justice and the reputation of his most glorious Attributes And after great and laborious devices they must needs do it pitifully and jejunely but I will prejudice no mans opinion I only will defend my own because in so doing I have the honour to be an advocate for God who will defend and accept me in the simplicity and innocency of my purposes and the profession of his truth Now my Lord I find that some believe this doctrine ought not now to have been published Others think it not true The first are the wise and few the others are the many who have been taught otherwise and either have not leisure or abilities to make right judgments in the question Concerning the first I have given what accounts I could to that excellent man the Lord Bishop of Sarum who out of his great piety and prudence and his great kindness to me was pleased to call for accounts of me Concerning the other your Lordship in great humility and in great tenderness to those who are not perswaded of the truth of this doctrine hath called upon me to give all those just measures of satisfaction which I could be obliged to by the interest of any Christian vertue In obedience to this pious care and prudent counsel of your Lordship I have published these ensuing Papers hoping that God will bless them to the purposes whither they are designed however I have done all that I could and all that I am commanded and all that I was counselled to And as I submit all to Gods blessing and the events of his providence and Oeconomy so my doctrine I humbly submit to my holy Mother the Church of England and rejoyce in any circumstances by which I can testifie my duty to her and my obedience to your Lordship CHAP. VII A further EXPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Original Sin SECT I. Of the Fall of Adam and the Effects of it upon Him and Vs. IT was well said of S. Augustine in this thing though he said many others in it less certain Nihil est peccato Originali ad praedicandum noâ—ius nihil ad intelligendum secretius The article we all confess but the manner of explicating it is not an apple of knowledge but of contention Having therefore turned to all the ways of Reason and Scripture I at last apply my self to examine how it was affirmed by the first and best Antiquity For the Doctrine of Original sin as I have explicated it is taxed of Singularity and Novelty and though these words are very freely bestowed upon any thing we have not learned or consented to and that we take false measures of these Appellatives reckoning that new that is but renewed and that singular that is not taught vulgarly or in our own Societies Yet I shall easily quit the proposition from these charges and though I do confess and complain of it that the usual affirmations of Original sin are a popular error yet I will make it appear that it is no Catholick doctrine that it prevailed by prejudice and accidental authorities but after such prevailing it was accused and reproved by the Greatest and most Judicious persons of Christendom And first that judgment may the better be given of the Allegations I shall bring from authority I shall explicate and state the Question that there may be no impertinent allegations of Antiquity for both sides nor clamours against the persons interested in either perswasion nor any offence taken by error and misprision It is not therefore intended nor affirmed that there is no such thing as Original sin for it is certain and affirmed by all Antiquity upon many grounds of Scripture That Adam sinned and his sin was Personally his but Derivatively ours that is it did great hurt to us to our bodies directly to our souls indirectly and accidentally 2. For Adam was made a living soul the great representative of Mankind and the beginner of a temporal happy life and to that purpose he was put in a place of temporal happiness where he was to have lived as long as he obeyed God so far as he knew nothing else being promised to him or implied but when he sinned he was thrown from thence and spoiled of all those advantages by which he was enabled to live and be happy This we find in the story the reasonableness of the parts of which teaches us all this doctrine To which if we add the words of S. Paul the case is clear The first Adam was made a living soul The last Adam was made a quickning Spirit Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual but that which is natural and afterwards that which is spiritual The first man is of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from Heaven As is the earthly such are they that are earthly and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly and as we have born
World by Adam's sin was Death Eternal that is God then decreed to punish sinners with the portion of Devils It is likely he did so but that this was the death introduced for the sin of Adam upon all Man-kind is not at all affirmed in Scripture but temporal death is the effect of Adam's sin in Adam we all die and the Death that Adam's sin brought in is such as could have a remedy or recompence by Christ but Eternal Death hath no recompence and shall never be destroyed but temporal death shall But that which I say is this that for Adam's sin alone no man but himself is or can justly be condemned to the bitter pains of Eternal Fire This depends also upon the former accounts because meer Nature brings not to Hell but choice Nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas said S. Bernard and since Original sin is not properly ours but only by imputation if God should impute Adam's sin so as to damn any one for it all our good we receive from God is much less than that evil and we should be infinitely to seek for justifications of God's justice and glorifications of his mercy or testimonies of his goodness But now the matter is on this side so reasonable in it self that let a man take what side he will he shall have parties enough and no prejudices or load of a consenting authority can be against him but that there shall be on the side of reason as great and leading persons as there are of those who have been abused by errour and prejudice In the time of S. Augustine Vincentius Victor and some others did believe that Infants dying without Baptism should never the less be saved although he believed them guilty of Original sin Bucer Peter Martyr and Calvin affirmed the same of the children of faithful Parents but Zuinglius affirmed it of all and that no Infant did lose Heaven for his Original stain and corruption Something less than this was the Doctrine of the Pelagians who exclude Infants unbaptized from the Kingdom of Heaven but promised to them an eternal and a natural beatitude and for it S. Augustine reckons them for Hereticks as indeed being impatient of every thing almost which they said But yet the opinion was imbraced lately by Ambrosius Catherinus Albertus Pighius and Hieronymus Savanarola And though S. Augustine sometimes calls as good Men as himself by the Name of Pelagians calling all them so that assign a third place or state to Infants yet besides these now reckoned S. Gregory Nazianzen and his Scholiast Nicetes did believe and reach it and the same is affirmed also by S. Athanasius or whoever is the Author of the Questions to Antiochus usually attributed to him and also by S. Ambrose or the Author of the Commentaries on S. Paul's Epistles who lived in the time of Pope Damasus that is before 400. Years after Christ and even by S. Augustine himself expresly in his third Book de libero arbitrio cap. 23. But when he was heated with his disputations against the Pelagians he denied all and said that a middle place or state was never heard of in the Church For all this the opinion of a middle state for unbaptized Infants continued in the Church and was expresly affirmed by Pope Innocent the third who although he says Infants shall not see the face of God yet he expresly denies that they shall be tormented in Hell and he is generally followed by the Schoolmen who almost universally teach that Infants shall be deprived of the Vision Beatifical but shall not suffer Hell torments but yet they stoop so much towards S. Augustin's harsh and fierce Opinion that they say this deprivation is a part of Hell not of torment but of banishment from God and of abode in the place of torment Among these they are also divided some affirming that they have some pain of sense but little and light others saying they have none even as they pleased to fancy for they speak wholly without ground and meerly by chance and interest and against the consent of Antiquity as I have already instanced But Gregorius Ariminensis Driedo Luther Melancthon and Tilmanus Heshusius are fallen into the worst of S. Augustine's opinion and sentence poor Infants to the flames of Hell for Original sin if they die before Baptism To this I shall not say much more than what I have said otherwhere But that no Catholick Writer for 400. Years after Christ did ever affirm it but divers affirmed the contrary And indeed if the Unavoidable want of Baptism should damn Infants for the fault which was also unavoidable I do not understand how it can in any sence be true that Christ died for all if at least the Children of Christian Parents shall not find the benefit of Christ's Death because that without the fault of any man they want the ceremony Upon this account some good men observing the great sadness and the injustice of such an accident are willing upon any terms to admit Infants to Heaven even without Baptism if any one of their Relatives desire it for them or if the Church desires it which in effect admits all Christian infants to Heaven Of this opinion were Gerson Biel Cajetan and some others All which to my sence seems to declare that if men would give themselves freedom of judgment and speak what they think most reasonable they would speak honour of God's mercy and not impose such fierce and unintelligibe things concerning his justice and goodness since our blessed Saviour concerning infants and those only who are like infants affirms that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven But now in the midst of this great variety of Opinions it will be hard to pick out any thing that is certain For my part I believe this only as certain That Nature alone cannot bring them to Heaven and that Adam left us in a state in which we could not hope for it but this I know also that as soon as this was done Christ was promised and that before there was any birth of Man or Woman and that God's Grace is greater and more communicative than sin and Christ was more Gracious and effective than Adam was hurtful and that therefore it seems very agreeable to God's goodness to bring them to happiness by Christ who were brought to misery by Adam and that he will do this by himself alone in ways of his own finding out And yet if God will not give them Heaven by Christ he will not throw them into Hell by Adam if his goodness will not do the first his Goodness and his Justice will not suffer him to do the second and therefore I consent to Antiquity and the Schoolmens opinion thus far that the destitution or loss of God's sight is the effect of Original sin that is by Adam's sin we were left so as that we cannot by it go to Heaven But here I differ Whereas they
that but it takes away the formality of it it is not a punishment to such but a Condition of Nature as it is to Infants For that even to them also there is no condemnation for their Original Concupiscence is Undeniable and demonstratively Certain upon this account Because even the actual desires and little Concupiscences of children are innocent and therefore much more their natural tendencies and inclinations For if a principle be criminal if a faculty be a sin much more are the acts of that faculty also a sin but if these be innocent then much more is that 40. Yet the Apostle does confess that Concupiscence and Lust hath of it self the Nature of sin Of it self that is it is in the whole kind to be reproved it is not a sin to all persons not to unconsenting persons for if it be no sin to them that resist then neither is it a sin to them that cannot consent But it hath the Nature of sin that is it is the material part of sin a principle and root from whence evil may spring according to S. Austins words Modo quodam loquendi vocatur peccatum quod peccato factum est peccati si vicerit facit reum S. Aug. lib. 1. de nup. Concup c. 23. Just as if a Man have a Natural thirst it may tempt him and is apt to incline him to drunkenness if he be of a sanguine disposition it disposes him to lust if cholerick to anger and is so much a sin as the fuel is a part of the fire but because this can be there where damnation shall not enter this Nature of sin is such as does not make a proper Guiltiness for it is a contradiction to say the sin remains and the guilt is taken away For he that hath a sin is guilty of punishment for that is he is liable to it if God pleases he may pardon if he please but if he pardons he takes away the sin For in the justified no sin can be inherent or habitual Quomodo justificati sanctificati sumus si peccatum aliquod in nobis relinquitur Hieron ad Oceanum If Concupiscence be an inherent sin in us before baptism it must either be taken away by baptism or imputed to us after baptism for if the malice remains the guilt cannot go away for God will by no means justifie the remaining sinner 41. These things I have chose to say and publish because I find that the usual doctrines about Original sin are not only false and presum'd without any competent proof but because as they are commonly believ'd they are no friends to piety but pretences of idleness and dishonourable to the reputation of Gods goodness and justice for which we ought to be very zealous when a greater indifference would better become us in the matter of our opinion or the doctrine of our sect and therefore it is not to be blam'd in me that I move the thoughts of men in the proposition for it is not an useless one but hath its immediate effects upon the Honour of God and the next upon the lives of men And therefore this hath in it many degrees of necessary doctrine and the fruits of it must needs do more than make recompence for the trouble I put them to in making new inquiries into that doctrine concerning which they were so long at ease But if men of a contrary judgment can secure the interests and advantages of piety and can reconcile their usual doctrines of Original sin with Gods justice and goodness and truth I shall be well pleased with it and think better of their doctrine than now I can But until that be done they may please to consider that there is in Holy Scripture no sign of it nor intimation that at the day of Judgment Christ shall say to any Go ye cursed sons of Adam into everlasting fire because your Father sinn'd and though I will pardon millions of sins which men did chuse and delight in yet I will severely exact this of you which you never did chuse nor could delight in this I say is not likely to be in the event of things and in the wise and merciful dispensation of God especially since Jesus Christ himself so far as appears never spake one word of it there is not any tittle of it in all the four Gospels it is a thing of which no warning was or could be given to any of Adams children it is not mention'd in the old Testament for that place of David in the 51. Psalm Clemens Alexandrinus and others of the Fathers snatch from any pretence to it and that one time where it is spoken of in the New Testament there is nothing said of it but that it is imputed to us to this purpose only that it brought in death temporal and why such Tragedies should be made of it and other places of Scripture drawn by violence to give countenance to it and all the systemes of Divinity of late made to lean upon this Article which yet was never thought to be fundamental or belonging to the foundation was never put into the Creed of any Church but is made the great support of new and strange propositions even of the fearful decree of absolute reprobation and yet was never consented in or agreed upon what it was or how it can be conveyed and was in the late and modern sence of it as unknown to the Primitive Church as it was to the Doctors of the Jews that is wholly unknown to them both why I say men should be so fierce in their new sence of this Article and so impatient of contradiction it is not easie to give a reasonable account For my own particular I hope I have done my duty having produced Scriptures and Reasons and the best Authority against it Qui potest capere capiat For I had a good spirit yea rather being good I came into a body undefiled Wisd. 8.19 20. CHAP. VIII Of Sins of Infirmity SECT I. 1. ALL Mankind hath for ever complain'd of their irremediable calamity their propensity to sin For though by the dictates of Nature all people were instructed in the general notices of vertue and vice right reason being our rule insomuch that the old Philosophers as Plutarch reports said that vertue was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disposition and force of reason And this reason having guided the wisest was form'd into laws for others yet this reason serv'd to little other purposes but to upbraid our follies and infelicities and to make our actions punishable by representing them to be unreasonable for they did certainly sin and they could no more help it than they could prevent their being sick or hungry or angry or thirsty Nature had made organs for some and senses for others and conversation and example brought in all So that if you reprov'd a Criminal he heard and understood you but could not helpt it as Laius in the Tragedy 〈◊〉
appetites of the body and its desires whether reasonable or excessive and though these things were not direct sins to us in their natural abode and first principle yet they are proper inherent miseries and principles of sin to us in their emanation But from this state Christ came to redeem us all by his grace and by his spirit by his life and by his death by his Doctrine and by his Sacraments by his Promises and by his Revelations by his Resurrection and by his Ascension by his Interceding for us and Judging of us and if this be not a conjugation of glorious things great enough to amaze us and to merit from us all our services and all our love and all the glorifications of God I am sure nothing can be added to it by any supposed need of which we have no revelation There is as much done for us as we could need and more than we could ask Nempe quod optanti Divûm promittere nemo Auderet volvenda dies en attulit ultro Vivite foelices animae quibus est fortuna peracta Jam sua The meaning of which words I render or at least recompence with the verse of a Psalm To thee O Lord I 'le pay my vow My knees in thanks to thee shall bow For thou my life keep'st from the grave And dost my feet from falling save That with the living in thy sight I may enjoy eternal light For thus what Ahasuerus said to Ester Veteres literas muta Change the old Letters is done by the birth of our Blessed Saviour Eva is changed into Ave and although it be true what Bensirach said From the woman is the beginning of sin and by her we all die yet it is now changed by the birth of our Redeemer From a woman is the beginning of our restitution and in him we all live Thus are all the four quarters of the World renewed by the second Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The East West North and South are represented in the second Adam as well as the first and rather and to better purposes because if sin did abound Grace shall super-abound I have now Madam given to you such accounts as I hope being added to my other Papers may satisfie not only your Ladiship but those to whom this account may be communicated I shall only now beg your patience since you have been troubled with Questions and enquiries and objections and little murmurs to hear my answers to such of them as have been brought to me 1. I am complained of that I would trouble the World with a new thing which let it be never so true yet unless it were very useful will hardly make recompence for the trouble I put the world to in this inquiry I answer that for the newness of it I have already given accounts that the Opinions which I impugne as they are no direct parts of the Article of Original sin so they are newer than the truth which I have asserted But let what I say seem as new as the Reformation did when Luther first preached against Indulgences the pretence of Novelty did not and we say ought not to have affrighted him and therefore I ought also to look to what I say that it be true and the truth will prove its age But to speak freely Madam though I have a great reverence for Antiquity yet it is the prime antiquity of the Church the Ages of Martyrs and Holiness that I mean and I am sure that in them my opinion hath much more warrant than the contrary But for the descending Ages I give that veneration to the great names of them that went before us which themselves gave to their Predecessors I honour their memory I read their Books I imitate their piety I examine their arguments for therefore they did write them and where the reasons of the Moderns and theirs seem equal I turn the balance on the elder side and follow them but where a scruple or a grain of reason is evidently in the other balance I must follow that Nempe qui ante nos ista moverunt non Domini nostri sed Duces sunt Seneca Ep. 33. They that taught of this Article before me are good guides but no Lords and Masters for I must acknowledge none upon earth for so am I commanded by my Master that is in Heaven and I remember what we were taught in Palingenius when we were boys Quicquid Aristoteles vel quivis dicat eorum Dicta nihil moror à vero cum fortè recedunt Saepe graves magnosque viros famâque verendos Errare labi contingit plurima secum Ingenia in tenebras consueti nominis alti Authores ubi connivent deducere easdem If Aristotle be deceiv'd and say that 's true What nor himself nor others ever knew I leave his text and let his Scholars talk Till they be hoarse or weary in their walk When wise men erre though their fame ring like Bells I scape a danger when I leave their spells For although they that are dead some Ages before we were born have a reverence due to them yet more is due to truth that shall never die and God is not wanting to our industry any more than to theirs but blesses every Age with the understanding of his truths Aetatibus omnibus omnibus hominibus communis sapientia est nec illam ceu peculium licet antiquitati gratulari All Ages and all men have their advantages in their enquiries after truth neither is wisdom appropriate to our Fathers And because even wise men may be deceived and therefore that when I find it or suppose it so for that 's all one as to me and my duty I must go after truth where-ever it is certainly it will be less expected from me to follow the popular noises and the voices of the people who are not to teach us but to be taught by us and I believe my self to have reason to complain when men are angry at a doctrine because it is not commonly taught that is when they are impatient to be taught a truth because most men do already believe a lie Recti apud nos locum tenet error ubi publicus factus est so Seneca Epist. 123. complained in his time it is a strange title to truth which error can pretend for its being publick and we refuse to follow an unusual truth Quasi honestius sit quiafrequentius and indeed it were well to do so in those propositions which have no truth in them but what they borrow from mens opinions and are for nothing tolerable but that they are usual Object 2. But what necessity is there in my publication of this doctrine supposing it were true for all truths are not to be spoken at all times and if a truth gives offence it is better to let men alone than to disturb the peace I answer with the labouring mans Proverb a Penny-worth of ease is worth a Penny at any time and a little truth
to most men and all of it to some men would be ineffectuall yet was pleased to consign our duty that it might be a direction to them that would and a conviction and a Testimony against them that would not obey I thought it might not misbecome my duty and endeavours to plead for peace and charity and forgiveness and permissions mutuall although I had reason to believe that such is the iniquity of men and they so indisposed to receive such impresses that I had as good plow the Sands or till the Air as perswade such Doctrines which destroy mens interests and serve no end but the great end of a happy eternity and what is in order to it But because the events of things are in God's disposition and I knew them not and because if I had known my good purposes would be totally ineffectuall as to others yet my own designation and purposes would be of advantage to myself who might from God's mercy expect the retribution which he is pleased to promise to all pious intendments I resolved to encounter with all Objections and to doe something to which I should be determined by the consideration of the present Distemperatures and necessities by my own thoughts by the Questions and Scruples the Sects and names the interests and animosities which at this day and for some years past have exercised and disquieted Christendom Thus far I discours'd myself into imployment and having come thus far I knew not how to get farther for I had heard of a great experience how difficult it was to make Brick without Straw and here I had even seen my design blasted in the bud and I despaired in the Calends of doing what I purposed in the Ides before For I had no Books of my own here nor any in the voicinage and but that I remembred the result of some of those excellent Discourses I had heard your Lordship make when I was so happy as in private to gather up what your temperance and modesty forbids to be publick I had come in praelia inermis and like enough might have far'd accordingly I had this onely advantage besides that I have chosen a subject in which if my own reason does not abuse me I needed no other books or aids then what a man carries with him on horseback I mean the common principles of Christianity and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which men use in the transactions of the ordinary occurrences of civil society and upon the strength of them and some other collateral assistances I have run through it utcunque and the sum of the following Discourses is nothing but the sense of these words of Scripture That since we know in part and prophesie in part and that now we see through a glass darkly we should not despise or contemn persons not so knowing as ourselves but him that is weak in the faith we should receive but not to doubtfull disputations therefore certainly to charity and not to vexations not to those which are the idle effects of impertinent wranglings And provided they keep close to the foundation which is Faith and Obedience let them build upon this foundation matter more or less precious yet if the foundation be intire they shall be saved with or without loss And since we profess ourselves servants of so meek a Master and Disciples of so charitable an Institute Let us walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called with all lowliness and meekness with long-suffering forbearing one another in love for this is the best endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit when it is fast tied in the bond of peace And although it be a duty of Christianity that we all speak the same thing that there be no divisions among us but that we be perfectly joyned together in the same mind and in the same judgement yet this unity is to be estimated according to the unity of Faith in things necessary in matters of Creed and Articles fundamental for as for other things it is more to be wished then to be hoped for There are some doubtfull Disputations and in such the Scribe the Wise the Disputer of this world are most commonly very far from certainty and many times from truth There are diversity of perswasions in matters adiaphorous as meats and drinks and holy days c. and both parties the affirmative and the negative affirm and deny with innocence enough for the observer and he that observes not intend both to God and God is our common Master we are all fellow-servants and not the judge of each other in matters of conscience or doubtfull Disputation and every man that hath faith must have it to himself before God but no man must either in such matters judge his brother or set him at nought but let us follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another And the way to doe that is not by knowledge but by charity for knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth And since there is not in every man the same knowledge but the consciences of some are weak as my liberty must not be judged of another man's weak conscience so must not I please myself so much in my right opinion but I must also take order that his weak conscience be not offended or despised for no man must seek his own but every man another's wealth And although we must contend earnestly for the Faith yet above all things we must put on charity which is the bond of perfectness And therefore this contention must be with arms fit for the Christian warfare the sword of the Spirit and the shield of Faith and preparation of the Gospel of peace in stead of shoes and a helmet of salvation but not with other arms for a Church-man must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a striker for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual and the persons that use them ought to be gentle and easie to be intreated and we must give an account of our faith to them that ask us with meekness and humility for so is the will of God that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men These and thousands more to the same purpose are the Doctrines of Christianity whose sense and intendment I have prosecuted in the following Discourse being very much displeased that so many Opinions and new Doctrines are commenc'd among us but more troubled that every man that hath an Opinion thinks his own and other mens Salvation is concern'd in its maintenance but most of all that men should be persecuted and afflicted for disagreeing in such Opinions which they cannot with sufficient grounds obtrude upon others necessarily because they cannot propound them infallibly and because they have no warrant from Scripture so to doe For if I shall tie other men to believe my Opinion because I think I have a place of Scripture which
seems to warrant it to my understanding why may not he serve up another dish to me in the same dress and exact the same task of me to believe the contradictory And then since all the Hereticks in the world have offered to prove their Articles by the same means by which true Believers propound theirs it is necessary that some separation either of Doctrine or of persons be clearly made and that all pretences may not be admitted nor any just Allegations be rejected and yet that in some other Questions whether they be truly or falsly pretended if not evidently or demonstratively there may be considerations had to the persons of men and to the Laws of charity more then to the triumphing in any Opinion or Doctrine not simply necessary Now because some Doctrines are clearly not necessary and some are absolutely necessary why may not the first separation be made upon this difference and Articles necessary be onely urged as necessary and the rest left to men indifferently as they were by the Scripture indeterminately And it were well if men would as much consider themselves as the Doctrines and think that they may as well be deceived by their own weakness as perswaded by the Arguments of a Doctrine which other men as wise call inevident For it is a hard case that we should think all Papists and Anabaptists and Sacramentaries to be fools and wicked persons certainly among all these Sects there are very many wise men and good men as well as erring And although some zeals are so hot and their eyes so inflamed with their ardours that they do not think their Adversaries look like other men yet certainly we find by the results of their discourses and the transactions of their affairs of civil society that they are men that speak and make Syllogisms and use Reason and reade Scripture and although they do no more understand all of it then we do yet they endeavour to understand as much as concerns them even all that they can even all that concerns repentance from dead works and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore methinks this also should be another consideration distinguishing the persons for if the persons be Christians in their lives and Christians in their profession if they acknowledge the Eternall Son of God for their Master and their Lord and live in all relations as becomes persons making such professions why then should I hate such persons whom God loves and who love God who are partakers of Christ and Christ hath a title to them who dwell in Christ and Christ in them because their understandings have not been brought up like mine have not had the same Masters they have not met with the same books nor the same company or have not the same interest or are not so wise or else are wiser that is for some reason or other which I neither do understand nor ought to blame have not the same Opinions that I have and do not determine their School-Questions to the sense of my Sect or interest But now I know before-hand that those men who will endure none but their own Sect will make all manner of attempts against these purposes of charity and compliance and say I or doe I what I can will tell all their Proselytes that I preach indifferency of Religion that I say it is no matter how we believe nor what they profess but that they may comply with all Sects and doe violence to their own Consciences that they may be saved in all Religions and so make way for a colluvies of Heresies and by consequence destroy all Religion Nay they will say worse then all this and but that I am not used to their phrases and forms of declamation I am perswaded I might represent fine Tragedies before-hand And this will be such an Objection that although I am most confident I shall make it apparent to be as false and scandalous as the Objectors themselves are zealous and impatient yet besides that I believe the Objection will come where my Answers will not come or not be understood I am also confident that in defiance and incuriousness of all that I shall say some men will persist pertinaciously in the accusation and deny my conclusion in despite of me Well but however I will try And first I answer that whatsoever is against the foundation of Faith or contrary to good life and the laws of obedience or destructive to humane society and the publick and just interests of bodies politick is out of the limits of my Question and does not pretend to compliance or Toleration So that I allow no indifferency nor any countenance to those Religions whose principles destroy Government nor to those Religions if there be any such that teach ill life nor do I think that any thing will now excuse from belief of a fundamental Article except stupidity or sottishness and natural inability This alone is sufficient answer to this vanity but I have much more to say Secondly The intendment of my Discourse is that permissions should be in Questions speculative indeterminable curious and unnecessary and that men would not make more necessities then God made which indeed are not many The fault I find and seek to remedy is that men are so dogmaticall and resolute in their Opinions and impatient of others disagreeings in those things wherein is no sufficient means of union and determination but that men should let Opinions and Problems keep their own forms and not be obtruded as Axioms nor Questions in the vast collection of the systeme of Divinity be adopted into the family of Faith And I think I have reason to desire this Thirdly It is hard to say that he who would not have men put to death or punished corporally for such things for which no humane Authority is sufficient either for cognizance or determination or competent for infliction that he perswades to an indifferency when he refers to another Judicatory which is competent sufficient infallible just and highly severe No man or company of men can judge or punish our thoughts or secret purposes whilest they so remain and yet it will be unequal to say that he who owns this Doctrine preaches it lawfull to men for to think or purpose what they will And so it is in matters of doubtfull disputation such as are the distinguishing Articles of most of the Sects of Christendome so it is in matters intellectual which are not cognoscible by a secular power in matters spiritual which are to be discerned by spiritual Authority which cannot make corporal inflictions and in Questions indeterminate which are doubtfully propounded or obscurely and therefore may be in utramque partem disputed or believed for God alone must be Judge of these matters who alone is Master of our Souls and hath a dominion over humane Vnderstanding And he that says this does not say that indifferency is perswaded because God alone is judge of erring persons Fourthly No part of
Lordship knows your own for out of your Mines I have digg'd the Mineral onely I have stampt it with my own image as you may perceive by the deformities which are in it But your great Name in letters will adde so much value to it as to make it obtain its pardon amongst all them that know how to value you and all your relatives and dependants by the proportion of relation For others I shall be incurious because the number of them that honour you is the same with them that honour Learning and Piety and they are the best Theatre and the best Judges amongst which the world must needs take notice of my ambition to be ascribed by my publick pretence to be what I am in all heartiness of devotion and for all the reason of the world My Honoured Lord Your Lordship 's most faithfull and most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΕΚΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ Or A DISCOURSE OF THE Liberty of Prophesying With its just Limits and Temper THe infinite variety of Opinions in matters of Religion as they have troubled Christendome with Interests Factions and partialities so have they caused great divisions of the heart and variety of thoughts and designs amongst pious and prudent men For they all seeing the inconveniences which the Disunion of Perswasions and Opinions have produced directly or accidentally have thought themselves obliged to stop this inundation of mischiefs and have made attempts accordingly But it hath hapned to most of them as to a mistaken Physician who gives excellent physick but mis-applies it and so misses of his cure so have these men their attempts have therefore been ineffectual for they put their help to a wrong part or they have endeavoured to cure the symptoms and have let the disease alone till it seem'd incurable Some have endeavoured to re-unite these fractions by propounding such a Guide which they were all bound to follow hoping that the Unity of a Guide would have perswaded Unity of mindes but who this Guide should be at last became such a Question that it was made part of the fire that was to be quenched so far was it from extinguishing any part of the flame Others thought of a Rule and this must be the means of Union or nothing could doe it But supposing all the World had been agreed of this Rule yet the interpretation of it was so full of variety that this also became part of the disease for which the cure was pretended All men resolv'd upon this that though they yet had not hit upon the right yet some way must be thought upon to reconcile differences in Opinion thinking so long as this variety should last Christ's Kingdom was not advanced and the work of the Gospell went on but slowly Few men in the mean time considered that so long as men had such variety of principles such several constitutions educations tempers and distempers hopes interests and weaknesses degrees of light and degrees of understanding it was impossible all should be of one mind And what is impossible to be done is not necessary it should be done And therefore although variety of Opinions was impossible to be cured and they who attempted it did like him who claps his shoulder to the ground to stop an earth-quake yet the inconveniences arising from it might possibly be cured not by uniting their beliefs that was to be despair'd of but by curing that which caus'd these mischiefs and accidental inconveniences of their disagreeings For although these inconveniences which every man sees and feels were consequent to this diversity of Perswasions yet it was but accidentally and by chance inasmuch as we see that in many things and they of great concernment men allow to themselves and to each other a liberty of disagreeing and no hurt neither And certainly if diversity of Opinions were of itself the cause of mischiefs it would be so ever that is regularly and universally but that we see it is not For there are disputes in Christendome concerning matters of greater concernment then most of those Opinions that distinguish Sects and make Factions and yet because men are permitted to differ in those great matters such evils are not consequent to such differences as are to the uncharitable managing of smaller and more inconsiderable Questions It is of greater consequence to believe right in the Question of the validity or invalidity of a death-bed repentance then to believe aright in the Question of Purgatory and the consequences of the Doctrine of Predetermination are of deeper and more material consideration then the products of the belief of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of private Masses and yet these great concernments where a liberty of Prophesying in these Questions hath been permitted have made no distinct Communion no Sects of Christians and the others have and so have these too in those places where they have peremptorily been determined on either side Since then if men are quiet and charitable in some dis-agreeings that then and there the inconvenience ceases if they were so in all others where lawfully they might and they may in most Christendome should be no longer rent in pieces but would be redintegrated in a new Pentecost And although the Spirit of God did rest upon us in divided tongues yet so long as those tongues were of fire not to kindle strife but to warm our affections and inflame our charities we should find that this variety of Opinions in several persons would be lookt upon as an argument onely of diversity of Operations while the Spirit is the same and that another man believes not so well as I is onely an argument that I have a better and a clearer illumination then he that I have a better gift then he received a special grace and favour and excell him in this and am perhaps excelled by him in many more And if we all impartially endeavour to find a truth since this indeavour and search onely is in our power that we shall find it being ab extra a gift and an assistance extrinsecal I can see no reason why this pious endeavour to find out truth shall not be of more force to unite us in the bonds of charity then the misery in missing it shall be to dis-unite us So that since a union of perswasion is impossible to be attained if we would attempt the cure by such remedies as are apt to enkindle and encrease charity I am confident we might see a blessed peace would bee the reward and crown of such endeavours But men are now adays and indeed always have been since the expiration of the first blessed Ages of Christianity so in love with their own Fancies and Opinions as to think Faith and all Christendome is concern'd in their support and maintenance and whoever is not so fond and does not dandle them like themselves it grows up to a quarrel which because it is in materiâ theologiae is made a quarrel in Religion and God is entitled to it and then if you
the honesty of his heart caused God so to pardon him as to bring him to the knowledge of Christ which God therefore did because it was necessary necessitate medii no salvation was consistent with the actual remanency of that error but in the Question of Circumcision although they by consequence did overthrow the end of Christ's coming yet because it was such a consequence which they being hindred by a prejudice non impious did not perceive God tolerated them in their error till time and a continual dropping of the lessons and dictates Apostolical did wear it out and then the doctrine put on its apparel and became clothed with necessity they in the mean time so kept to the foundation that is Jesus Christ crucified and risen again that although this did make a violent concussion of it yet they held fast with their heart what they ignorantly destroyed with their tongue which Saul before his conversion did not that God upon other Titles than an actual dereliction of their error did bring them to salvation 5. And in the descent of so many years I find not any one Anathema past by the Apostles or their Successors upon any of the Bishops of Jerusalem or the Believers of the Circumcision and yet it was a point as clearly determined and of as great necessity as any of those Questions that at this day vex and crucifie Christendom 6. Besides this Question and that of the Resurrection commenced in the Church of Corinth and promoted with some variety of sence by Hymenaeus and Philetus in Asâ—a who said that the Resurrection was past already I do not remember any other heresie named in Scripture but such as were errors of impiety seductiones in materiâ practicâ such as was particularly forbidding to marry and the heresie of the Nicolaitans a doctrine that taught the necessity of lust and frequent fornication 7. But in all the Animadversions against errors made by the Apostles in the New Testament no pious person was condemned no man that did invincibly erre or bonâ mente but something that was amiss in genere morum was that which the Apostles did redargue And it is very considerable that even they of the Circumcision who in so great numbers did heartily believe in Christ and yet most violently retain Circumcision and without Question went to heaven in great numbers yet of the number of these very men they came deeply under censure when to their error they added impiety So long as it stood with charity and without humane ends and secular interests so long it was either innocent or connived at but when they grew covetous and for filthy lucres sake taught the same doctrine which others did in the simplicity of their hearts then they turned Hereticks then they were termed Seducers and Titus was commanded to look to them and to silence them For there are many that are intractable and vain bablers Seducers of minds especially they of the Circumcision who seduce whole houses teaching things that they ought not for filthy lucres sake These indeed were not to be induced but to be silenced by the conviction of sound doctrine and to be rebuked sharply and avoided 8. For heresie is not an error of the understanding but an error of the will And this is clearly insinuated in Scripture in the stile whereof Faith and a good life are made one duty and vice is called opposite to Faith and heresie opposed to holiness and sanctity So in S. Paul For saith he the end of the Commandment is charity out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned à quibus quòd aberrarunt quidam from which charity and purity and goodness and sincerity because some have wandred deflexerunt ad vaniloquium And immediately after he reckons the oppositions to faith and sound doctrine and instances only in vices that stain the lives of Christians the unjust the unclean the uncharitable the lyer the perjur'd person si quis alius qui sanae doctrinae adversatur these are the enemies of the true doctrine And therefore S. Peter having given in charge to adde to our vertue patience temperance charity and the like gives this for a reason for if these things be in you and abound ye shall be fruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. So that knowledge and faith is inter praecepta morum is part of a good life And Saint Paul calls Faith or the form of sound words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the doctrine that is according to godliness 1 Tim. 6.3 And veritati credere and in injustitiâ sibi complacere are by the same Apostle opposed and intimate that piety and faith is all one thing faith must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intire and holy too or it is not right It was the heresie of the Gnosticks that it was no matter how men lived so they did but believe aright Which wicked doctrine Tatianus a learned Christian did so detest that he fell into a quite contrary Non est curandum quid quisque credat id tantum curandum est quod quisque faciat And thence came the Sect Encratites Both these heresies sprang from the too nice distinguishing the faith from the piety and good life of a Christian They are both but one duty However they may be distinguished if we speak like Philosophers they cannot be distinguished when we speak like Christians For to believe what God hath commanded is in order to a good life and to live well is the product of that believing and as proper emanation from it as from its proper principle and as heat is from the fire And therefore in Scripture they are used promiscuously in sence and in expression as not only being subjected in the same person but also in the same faculty faith is as truly seated in the will as in the understanding and a good life as meerly derives from the understanding â—s the will Both of them are matters of choice and of election neither of them an effect natural and invincible or necessary antecedently necessaria ut fiant non necessariò facta And indeed if we remember that S. Paul reckons heresie amongst the works of the flesh and ranks it with all manner of practical impieties we shall easily perceive that if a man mingles not a vice with his opinion if he be innocent iâ— his life though deceived in his doctrine his errour is his misery not his crime it makes him an argument of weakness and an object of pity but not a person sealed up to ruine and reprobation 9. For as the nature of faith is so is the nature of heresie contraries having the same proportion and commensuration Now faith if it be taken for an act of the understanding meerly is so far from being that excellent grace that justifies us that it is not good at all in any kind but in genere naturae and makes the understanding better in it self or pleasing to God just
practicâ or directly destructive of the Faith or the body of Christianity such of which Saint Peter speaks bringing in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them these are the false Prophets who out of covetousness make merchandise of you through cozening words Such as these are truly heresies and such as these are certainly damnable But because there are no degrees either of truth or falshood every true proposition being alike true that an errour is more or less damnable is not told us in Scripture but is determined by the man and his manners by circumstances and accidents and therefore the censure in the Preface and end are Arguments of his zeal and strength of his perswasion but they are extrinsecal and accidental to the Articles and might as well have been spared And indeed to me it seems very hard to put uncharitableness into the Creed and so to make it become as an Article of Faith though perhaps this very thing was no Faith of Athanasius who if we may believe Aquinas made this manifestation of Faith non per modum Symboli sed per modum doctrinae that is if I understand him right not with a purpose to impose it upon others but with confidence to declare his own belief and that it was prescribed to others as a Creed was the act of the Bishops of Rome so he said nay possibly it was none of his So said the Patriarch of C. P. Meletius about one hundred and thirty years since in his Epistle to John Douza Athanasio falsò adscriptum Symbolum cum Pontificum Rom. appendice illâ adulteratum luce lucidiùs contestamur And it is more than probable that he said true because this Creed was written originally in Latine which in all reason Athanasius did not and it was translated into Greek it being apparent that the Latine Copy is but one but the Greek is various there being three Editions or Translations rather expressed by Genebrard lib. 3. de Trinit But in this particular who list may better satisfie himself in a disputation de Symbolo Athanasii printed at Wertzburg 1590. supposed to be written by Serrarius or Clencherus 37. And yet I must observe that this Symbol of Athanasius and that other of Nice offer not at any new Articles they only pretend to a further Explication of the Articles Apostolical which is a certain confirmation that they did not believe more Articles to be of belief necessary to salvation If they intended these further Explanations to be as necessary as the dogmatical Articles of the Apostles Creed I know not how to answer all that may be objected against that but the advantage that I shall gather from their not proceeding to new matters is laid out ready for me in the words of Athanasius saying of this Creed This is the Catholick Faith and if his authority be good or his saying true or he the Author then no man can say of any other Article that it is a part of the Catholick Faith or that the Catholick Faith can be enlarged beyond the contents of that Symbol and therefore it is a strange boldness in the Church of Rome first to add twelve new Articles and then to add the Appendix of Athanasius to the end of them This is the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved 38. But so great an Example of so excellent a man hath been either mistaken or followed with too much greediness all the World in factions all damning one another each party damn'd by all the rest and there is no disagreeing in opinion from any man that is in love with his own opinion but damnation presently to all that disagree A Ceremony and a Rite hath caused several Churches to Excommunicate each other as in the matter of the Saturday Fast and keeping Easter But what the spirits of men are when they are exasperated in a Question and difference of Religion as they call it though the thing it self may be most inconsiderable is very evident in that request of Pope Innocent the Third desiring of the Greeks but reasonably a man would think that they would not so much hate the Roman manner of consecrating in unleavened bread as to wash and scrape and pare the Altars after a Roman Priest had consecrated Nothing more furious than a mistaken zeal and the actions of a scrupulous and abused conscience When men think every thing to be their Faith and their Religion commonly they are so busie in trifles and such impertinencies in which the scene of their mistake lies that they neglect the greater things of the Law charity and compliances and the gentleness of Christian Communion for this is the great principle of mischief and yet is not more pernicious than unreasonable 39. For I demand Can any man say and justifie that the Apostles did deny Communion to any man that believed the Apostles Creed and lived a good life And dare any man tax that proceeding of remissness and indifferency in Religion And since our blessed Saviour promised salvation to him that believeth and the Apostles when they gave this word the greatest extent enlarged it not beyond the borders of the Creed how can any man warrant the condemning of any man to the flames of Hell that is ready to die in attestation of this Faith so expounded and made explicite by the Apostles and lives accordingly And to this purpose it was excellently said by a wise and a pious Prelate St. Hilary Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam quaestiones vocat c. In absoluio nobis facili est aeternitas Jesum suscitatum à mortuis per Deum credere ipsum esse Dominum confiteri c. These are the Articles which we must believe which are the sufficient and adequate object of the Faith which is required of us in order to Salvation And therefore it was that when the Bishops of Istria deserted the Communion of Pope Pelagius in causâ trium Capitulorum He gives them an account of his Faith by recitation of the Creed and by attesting the four General Councils and is confident upon this that de fidei firmitate nulla poterit esse quaestio vel suspicio generari let the Apostles Creed especially so explicated be but secured and all Faith is secured and yet that explication too was less necessary than the Articles themselves for the Explication was but accidental but the Articles even before the Explication were accounted a sufficient inlet to the Kingdome of Heaven 40. And that there was security enough in the simple believing the first Articles is very certain amongst them and by their Principles who allow of an implicite faith to serve most persons to the greatest purposes for if the Creed did contain in it the whole Faith and that other Articles were in it implicitely for such is the doctrine of the School and particularly of Aquinas then he that explicitely believes all the Creed
other Masters whose Theorems might abate the strength of their first perswasions and it is a great advantage in those cases to get possession and before their first principles can be dislodg'd they are made habitual and complexionall it is in their nature then to believe them and this is helped forward very much by the advantage of love and veneration which we have to the first parents of our perswasions And we see it in the Orders of Regulars in the Church of Rome That Opinion which was the Opinion of their Patron or Founder or of some eminent Personage of the Institute is enough to engage all the Order to be of that Opinion and it is strange that all the Dominicans should be of one Opinion in the matter of Predetermination and immaculate Conception and all the Franciscans of the quite contrary as if their understandings were formed in a different mold and furnished with various principles by their very Rule Now this prejudice works by many principles but how strongly they do possess the understanding is visible in that great instance of the affection and perfect perswasion the weaker sort of people have to that which they call the Religion of their Fore-fathers You may as well charm a Fever asleep with the noise of bells as make any pretence of Reason against that Religion which old men have intailed upon their heirs male so many generations till they can prescribe And the Apostles found this to be most true in the extremest difficulty they met with to contest against the Rites of Moses and the long Superstition of the Gentiles which they therefore thought fit to be retained because they had done so formerly Pergentes non quò eundum est sed quò itur and all the blessings of this life which God gave them they had in conjunction with their Religion and therefore they believed it was for their Religion and this perswasion was bound fast in them with ribs of iron the Apostles were forced to unloose the whole conjuncture of parts and principles in their understandings before they could make them malleable and receptive of any impresses But the observation and experience of all wise men can justifie this truth All that I shall say to the present purpose is this that consideration is to be had to the weakness of persons when they are prevailed upon by so innocent a prejudice and when there cannot be arguments strong enough to over-master an habitual perswasion bred with a man nourished up with him that always eat at his table and lay in his bosome he is not easily to be called Heretick for if he keeps the foundation of Faith other Articles are not so clearly demonstrated on either side but that a man may innocently be abused to the contrary And therefore in this case to handle him charitably is but to doe him justice And when an Opinion in minoribus articulis is entertained upon the title and stock of education it may be the better permitted to him since upon no better stock nor stronger arguments most men entertain their whole Religion even Christianity itself 5. Fifthly there are some persons of a differing perswasion who therefore are the rather to be tolerated because the indirect practices and impostures of their adversaries have confirmed them that those Opinions which they disavow are not from God as being upheld by means not of God's appointment For it is no unreasonable discourse to say that God will not be served with a lie for he does not need one and he hath means enough to support all those Truths which he hath commanded and hath supplied every honest cause with enough for its maintenance and to contest against its adversaries And but that they which use indirect arts will not be willing to lose any of their unjust advantages nor yet be charitable to those persons whom either to gain or to undoe they leave nothing unattempted the Church of Rome hath much reason not to be so decretory in her sentences against persons of a differing perswasion for if their cause were entirely the cause of God they have given wise people reason to suspect it because some of them have gone to the Devil to defend it And if it be remembred what tragedies were stirred up against Luther for saying the Devil had taught him an argument against the Mass it will be of as great advantage against them that they goe to the Devil for many arguments to support not onely the Mass but the other distinguishing Articles of their Church I instance in the notorious forging of Miracles and framing of false and ridiculous Legends For the former I need no other instances then what hapned in the great contestation about the immaculate Conception when there were Miracles brought on both sides to prove the contradictory parts and though it be more then probable that both sides play'd the jugglers yet the Dominicans had the ill luck to be discovered and the actors burn'd at Berne But this discovery hapned by providence for the Dominican Opinion hath more degrees of probability then the Franciscan is clearly more consonant both to Scripture and all Antiquity and this part of it is acknowledged by the greatest Patrons themselves as Salmeron Posa and Wadding yet because they played the knaves in a just Question and used false arts to maintain a true proposition God Almighty to shew that he will not be served by a lie was pleased rather to discover the Imposture in the right Opinion then in the false since nothing is more dishonourable to God then to offer a sin in sacrifice to him and nothing more incongruous in the nature of the thing then that truth and falshood should support each other or that true Doctrine should live at the charges of a lie And he that considers the arguments for each Opinion will easily conclude that if God would not have truth confirmed by a lie much less would he himself attest a lie with a true Miracle And by this ground it will easily follow that the Franciscan party although they had better luck then the Dominicans yet had not more honesty because their cause was worse and therefore their arguments no whit the better And although the argument drawn from Miracles is good to attest a holy Doctrine which by its own worth will support itself after way is a little made by Miracles yet of itself and by its own reputation it will not support any fabrick for in stead of proving a Doctrine to be true it makes that the Miracles themselves are suspected to be Illusions if they be pretended in behalf of a Doctrine which we think we have reason to account false And therefore the Jews did not believe Christ's Doctrine for his Miracles but disbelieved the truth of his Miracles because they did not like his Doctrine And if the holiness of his Doctrine and the Spirit of God by inspirations and infusions and by that which Saint Peter calls a surer word
prejudices Epiphanius makes Pride to be the onely cause of Heresies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride and Prejudice cause them all the one criminally the other innocently And indeed S. Paul does almost make Pride the onely cause of Heresies his words cannot be expounded unless it be at least the principal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consents not to sound words and the doctrine that is according to godliness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The summe is this If ever an Opinion be begun with pride or manag'd with impiety or ends in a crime the man turns Heretick but let the errour be never so great so it be not against an Article of Creed if it be simple and hath no confederation with the personal iniquity of the man the Opinion is as innocent as the person though perhaps as false as he is ignorant and therefore shall burn though he himself escape But in these cases and many more for the causes of deception encrease by all accidents and weaknesses and illusions no man can give certain judgement upon the persons of men in particular unless the matter of fact and crime be accident and notorious The man cannot by humane judgement be concluded a Heretick unless his Opinion be an open recession from plain demonstrative Divine Authority which must needs be notorious voluntary vincible and criminal or that there be a palpable serving of an end accidental and extrinsecall to the Opinion 3. But this latter is very hard to be discerned because those accidental and adherent crimes which make the man a Heretick in Questions not simply fundamental or of necessary practice are actions so internall and spiritual that cognizance can but seldome be taken of them And therefore to instance though the Opinion of Purgatory be false yet to believe it cannot be Heresie if a man be abused into the belief of it invincibly because it is not a Doctrine either fundamentally false or practically impious it neither proceeds from the will nor hath any immediate or direct influence upon choice and manners And as for those other ends of upholding that Opinion which possibly its Patrons may have as for the reputation of their Churche's Infallibility for the advantage of Dirges Requiems Masses Monthly minds Anniversaries and other Offices for the dead which usually are very profitable rich and easie these things may possibly have sole influences upon their understanding but whether they have or no God onely knows If the Proposition and Article were true these ends might justly be subordinate and consistent with a true Proposition And there are some Truths that are also profitable as the necessity of maintenance to the Clergy the Doctrine of Restitution giving Alms Lending freely Remitting debts in cases of great necessity and it would be but an ill argument that the Preachers of these Doctrines speak false because possibly in these Articles they may serve their own ends For although Demetrius and the Craftsmen were without excuse for resisting the preaching of S. Paul because it was notorious they resisted the Truth upon ground of profit and personal emoluments and the matter was confessed by themselves yet if the Clergy should maintain their just Rights and Revenues which by pious dedications and donatives were long since ascertained upon them is it to be presumed in order of Law and charity that this end is in the men subordinate to truth because it is so in the thing itself and that therefore no judgement in prejudice of these truths can be made from that observation 4. But if aliunde we are ascertained of the truth or falshood of a Proposition respectively yet the judgement of the personal ends of the men cannot ordinarily be certain and judicial because most commonly the acts are private and the purposes internall and temporal ends may sometimes consist with truth and whether the purposes of the men make these ends principal or subordinate no man can judge and be they how they will yet they do not always prove that when they are conjunct with errour the errour was caused by these purposes and criminal intentions 5. But in Questions practical the Doctrine itself and the person too may with more ease be reproved because matter of fact being evident and nothing being so certain as the experiments of humane affairs and these being the immediate consequents of such Doctrines are with some more certainty of observation redargued then the speculative whose judgement is of itself more difficult more remote from matter and humane observation and with less curiosity and explicitness declared in Scripture as being of less consequence and concernment in order to God's and Man's great end In other things which end in notion and ineffective contemplation where neither the Doctrine is malicious nor the person apparently criminal he is to be left to the judgement of God and as there is no certainty of humane judicature in this case so it is to no purpose it should be judged For if the person may be innocent with his Errour and there is no rule whereby it can certainly be pronounced that he is actually criminal as it happens in matters speculative since the end of the Commandment is love out of a pure conscience and faith unfeigned and the Commandment may obtain its end in a consistence with this simple speculative Errour why should men trouble themselves with such Opinions so as to disturb the publick charity or the private confidence Opinions and persons are just so to be judged as other matters and persons criminal For no man can judge any thing else it must be a crime and it must be open so as to take cognizance and make true humane judgement of it And this is all I am to say concerning the causes of Heresies and of the distinguishing Rules for guiding of our judgements towards others 6. As for guiding our judgements and the use of our Reason in judging for ourselves all that is to be said is reducible to this one Proposition Since Errours are then made sins when they are contrary to charity or inconsistent with a good life and the honour of God that judgement is the truest or at least that opinion most innocent that 1. best promotes the reputation of God's Glory and 2. is the best instrument of holy life For in Questions and interpretations of dispute these two analogies are the best to make Propositions and conjectures and determinations Diligence and care in obtaining the best Guides and the most convenient assistances prayer and modesty of spirit simplicity of purposes and intentions humility and aptness to learn and a peaceable disposition are therefore necessary to finding out Truths because they are parts of good life without which our Truths will doe us little advantage and our errours can have no excuse But with these dispositions as he is sure to find out all that is necessary so what Truth he inculpably misses of he is sure is therefore not necessary because he could not find it when
receptive of any interpretation rather then the Commonwealth be disarmed of its necessary supports and all Laws made ineffectual and impertinent For the interest of the Republick and the well being of Bodies politick is not to depend upon the nicety of our imaginations or the fancies of any peevish or mistaken Priests and there is no reason a Prince should ask John-a-Brunck whether his understanding would give him leave to reign and be a King Nay suppose there were divers places of Scripture which did seemingly restrain the politicall use of the Sword yet since the avoiding a personal inconvenience hath by all men been accounted sufficient reason to expound Scripture to any sense rather then the literal which infers an unreasonable inconvenience and therefore the pulling out an eye and the cutting off a hand is expounded by mortifying a vice and killing a criminal habit much rather must the Allegations against the power of the Sword endure any sense rather then it should be thought that Christianity should destroy that which is the onely instrument of Justice the restraint of vice and support of Bodies politick It is certain that Christ and his Apostles and Christian Religion did comply with the most absolute Government and the most imperial that was then in the world and it could not have been at all endured in the world if it had not for indeed the world itself could not last in regular and orderly communities of men but be a perpetuall confusion if Princes and the Supreme power in Bodies politick were not armed with a coercive power to punish malefactors the publick necessity and universal experience of all the world convinces those men of being most unreasonable that make such pretences which destroy all Laws and all Communities and the bands of civil Societies and leave it arbitrary to every vain or vicious person whether men shall be safe or Laws be established or a murtherer hanged or Princes rule So that in this case men are not so much to dispute with particular Arguments as to consider the interest and concernment of Kingdoms and publick Societies For the Religion of Jesus Christ is the best establisher of the felicity of private persons and of publick Communities it is a Religion that is prudent and innocent humane and reasonable and brought infinite advantages to mankind but no inconvenience nothing that is unnatural or unsociable or unjust And if it be certain that this world cannot be governed without Laws and Laws without a compulsory signifie nothing then it is certain that it is no good Religion that teaches Doctrine whose consequents will destroy all Government and therefore it is as much to be rooted out as any thing that is the greatest pest and nuisance to the publick interest And that we may guess at the purposes of the men and the inconvenience of such Doctrine these men that did first intend by their Doctrine to disarm all Princes and Bodies politick did themselves take up arms to establish their wild and impious fancy And indeed that Prince or Commonwealth that should be perswaded by them would be exposed to all the insolencies of forreiners and all mutinies of the Teachers themselves and the Governours of the people could not doe that duty they owe to their people of protecting them from the rapine and malice which will be in the world as long as the world is And therefore here they are to be restrained from preaching such Doctrine if they mean to preserve their Government and the necessity of the thing will justifie the lawfulness of the thing If they think it to themselves that cannot be helped so long it is innocent as much as concerns the publick but if they preach it they may be accounted Authours of all the consequent inconveniences and punisht accordingly No Doctrine that destroys Government is to be endured For although those Doctrines are not always good that serve the private ends of Princes or the secret designs of State which by reason of some accidents or imperfections of men may be promoted by that which is false and pretending yet no Doctrine can be good that does not comply with the formality of Government itself and the well-being of Bodies politick Augur cùm esset Cato dicere usus est optimis auspiciis ea geri quae pro Reipub. salute gererentur quae contra Rempub fierent contra auspicia fieri Religion is to meliorate the condition of a people not to doe it disadvantage and therefore those Doctrines that inconvenience the publick are no parts of good Religion Vt Respub salva sit is a necessary consideration in the permission of Prophesyings for according to the true solid and prudent ends of the Republick so is the Doctrine to be permitted or restrained and the men that preach it according as they are good subjects and right Commonwealths-men For Religion is a thing superinduced to temporal Government and the Church is an addition of a capacity to a Commonwealth and therefore is in no sense to disserve the necessity and just interests of that to which it is superadded for its advantage and conservation 2. And thus by a proportion to the rules of these instances all their other Doctrines â—re to have their judgement as concerning Toleration or restraint for all are either speculative or practicall they are consistent with the publick ends or inconsistent they teach impiety or they are innocent and they are to be permitted or rejected accordingly For in the Question of Toleration the foundation of Faith good life and Government is to be secured in all other cases the former considerations are effectuall SECT XX. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome is tolerable 1. BUT now concerning the Religion of the Church of Rome which was the other instance I promised to consider we will proceed another way and not consider the truth or falsity of the Doctrines for that is not the best way to determine this Question concerning permitting their Religion or Assemblies Because that a thing is not true is not Argument sufficient to conclude that he that believes it true is not to be endured but we are to consider what inducements they are that possess the understanding of those men whether they be reasonable and innocent sufficient to abuse or perswade wise and good men or whether the Doctrines be commenced upon design and managed with impiety and then have effects not to be endured 2. And here first I consider that those Doctrines that have had long continuance and possession in the Church cannot easily be supposed in the present professors to be a design since they have received it from so many Ages and it is not likely that all Ages should have the same purposes or that the same Doctrine should serve the severall ends of divers Ages But however long prescription is a prejudice oftentimes so insupportable that it cannot with many Arguments be retrenched as relying upon these grounds that Truth is more
This discourse is to suppose it false and we are to direct our proceedings accordingly And therefore I shall not need to urge with how many fair words and gay pretences this Doctrine is set off apt either to cozen or instruct the conscience of the wisest according as it is true or false respectively But we finde says the Romanist in the History of the Maccabees that the Jews did pray and make offerings for the dead which also appears by other testimonies and by their Form of prayers still extant which they used in the Captivity It is very considerable that since our Blessed Saviour did reprove all the evil Doctrines and Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees and did argue concerning the dead and the Resurrection against the Sadducees yet he spake no word against this publick practice but left it as he found it which he who came to declare to us all the will of his Father would not have done if it had not been innocent pious and full of charity To which by way of consociation if we adde that Saint Paul did pray for Onesiphorus that the Lord would sheâ— him a mercy in that day that is according to the style of the New Testament the day of Judgement the result will be that although it be probable that Onesiphorus at that time was dead because in his salutations he salutes his houshold without naming him who was the Major domo against his custom of salutations in other places yet besides this the prayer was for such a blessing to him whose demonstration and reception could not be but after death which implies clearly that then there is a need of mercy and by consequence the dead people even to the day of Judgement inclusively are the subject of a misery the object of God's mercy and therefore fit to be commemorated in the duties of our piety and charity and that we are to recommend their condition to God not onely to give them more glory in the re-union but to pity them to such purposes in which they need which because they are not revealed to us in particular it hinders us not in recommending the persons in particular to God's mercy but should rather excite our charity and devotion For it being certain that they have a need of mercy and it being uncertain how great their need is it may concern the prudence of charity to be the more earnest as not knowing the greatness of their necessity 12. And if there should be any uncertainty in these Arguments yet its having been the universal practice of the Church of God in all places and in all Ages till within these hundred years is a very great inducement for any member of the Church to believe that in the first Traditions of Christianity and the Institutions Apostolical there was nothing delivered against this practice but very much to insinuate or enjoyn it because the practice of it was at the first and was universal And if any man shall doubt of this he shews nothing but that he is ignorant of the Records of the Church it being plain in Tertullian and Saint Cyprian who were the eldest Writers of the Latine Church that in their times it was ab antiquo the custom of the Church to pray for the Souls of the faithfull departed in the dreadfull mysteries And it was an Institution Apostolical says one of them and so transmitted to the following Ages of the Church and when once it began upon slight grounds and discontent to be contested against by Aerius the man was presently condemn'd for a Heretick as appears in Epiphanius 13. But I am not to consider the Arguments for the Doctrine itself although the probability and fair pretence of them may help to excuse such persons who upon these or the like grounds do heartily believe it but I am to consider that whether it be true or false there is no manner of malice in it and at the worst it is but a wrong errour upon the right side of charity and concluded against by its Adversaries upon the confidence of such Arguments which possibly are not so probable as the grounds pretended for it 14. And if the same judgement might be made of any more of their Doctrines I think it were better men were not furious in the condemning such Questions which either they understood not upon the grounds of their proper Arguments or at least consider not as subjected in the persons and lessened by circumstances by the innocency of the event or other prudential considerations 15. But the other Article is harder to be judged of and hath made greater stirs in Christendom and hath been dasht at with more impetuous Objections and such as do more trouble the Question of Toleration For if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false as upon much evidence we believe it is then it is accused of introducing Idolatry giving Divine worship to a creature adoring of bread and wine and then comes in the precept of God to the Jews that those Prophets who perswaded to Idolatry should be slain 16. But here we must deliberate for it is concerning the lives of men and yet a little deliberation may suffice For Idolatry is a forsaking the true God and giving Divine worship to a creature or to an Idol that is to an imaginary god who hath no foundation in essence or existence and is that kind of superstition which by Divines is called the superstition of an undue object Now it is evident that the object of their adoration that which is represented to them in their minds their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the blessed Sacrament is the onely true and eternal God hypostatically joyned with his holy Humanity which Humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacramental signs And if they thought him not present they are so far from worshipping the bread in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to doe so which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatricall If their confidence and fancy-full Opinion hath engaged them upon so great mistake as without doubt it hath yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to Idolatry Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas And although they have done violence to all Philosophy and the reason of man and undone and cancelled the principles of two or three Sciences to bring in this Article yet they have a Divine Revelation whose literal and grammatical sense if that sense were intended would warrant them to doe violence to all the Sciences in the Circle And indeed that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against natural reason is no Argument to make them disbelieve it who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School and which now-a-days pass for the Doctrine of the Church
at Trent then we also have a question to ask and that is Where was your Religion before Trent The Council of Trent determined That the Souls departed before the day of Judgment enjoy the Beatifical Vision It is certain this Article could not be shewn in the Confession of any of the ancient Churches for most of the Fathers were of another opinion But that which is the greatest offence of Christendom is not only that these doctrines which we say are false were yet affirmed but that those things which the Church of God did always reject or held as Uncertain should be made Articles of Faith and so become parts of your Religion and of these it is that I again ask the question which none of your side shall ever be able to answer for you Where was your Religion before Trent I could instance in many particulars but I shall name one to you which because the thing of it self is of no great consequence it will appear the more unreasonable and intolerable that your Church should adopt it into the things of necessary belief especially since it was only a matter of fact and they took the false part too For in the 21. Sess. Chap. 4. it is affirmed That although the holy Fathers did give the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants yet they did it without any necessity of salvation that is they did not believe it necessary to their salvation Which is notoriously false and the contrary is marked out with the black-lead of every man almost that reads their Works and yet your Council says this is sine controversiâ credendum to be believed without all controversie and all Christians forbidden to believe or teach otherwise So that here it is made an Article of Faith amongst you that a man shall neither believe his reason nor his eyes and who can shew any Confession of Faith in which all the trent-Trent-doctrine was professed and enjoyned under pain of damnation And before the Council of Constance the doctrine touching the Popes power was so new so decried that as Gerson says he hardly should have escaped the note of Heresie that would have said so much as was there defined So that in that Article which now makes a great part of your belief where was your Religion before the Council of Constance And it is notorious that your Council of Constance determined the doctrine of the Half-communion with a Non obstante to Christ's institution that is with a defiance to it or a noted observed neglect of it and with a profession it was otherwise in the Primitive Church Where then was your Religion before John Hus and Hierom of Prague's time against whom that Council was convened But by this instance it appears most certainly that your Church cannot shew her Confessions immediately after Christ and therefore if we could not shew ours immediately before Luther it were not half so much For since you receded from Christ's Doctrine we might well recede from yours and it matters not who or how many or how long they professed your doctrine if neither Christ nor his Apostles did teach it So that if these Articles constitute your Church your Church was invisible at the first and if ours was invisible afterwards it matters not For yours was invisible in the days of light and ours was invisible in the days of darkness For our Church was always visible in the reflections of Scripture and he that had his eyes of Faith and Reason might easily have seen these Truths all the way which constitute our Church But I add yet farther that our Church before Luther was there where your Church was in the same place and in the same persons For divers of the Errors which have been amongst us reformed were not the constituent Articles of your Church before Luther's time for before the last Councils of your Church a man might have been of your Communion upon easier terms and Indulgences were indeed a practice but no Article of Faith before your men made it so and that very lately and so were many other things besides So that although your men cozen the credulous and the simple by calling yours The old Religion yet the difference is vast between Truth and their affirmative even as much as between old Errors and new Articles For although Ignorance and Superstition had prepared the Oar yet the Councils of Constance and Basil and Trent especially were the Forges and the Mint Lastly If your men had not by all the vile and violent arts of the world stopped the mouths of dissenters the question would quickly have been answered or our Articles would have been so confessed so owned and so publick that the question could never have been asked But in despite of all opposition there were great numbers of professors who did protest and profess and practise our doctrines contrary to your Articles as it is demonstrated by the Divines of Germany in Illyricus his Catalogus testium veritatis and in Bishop Morton's Appeal But with your next objection you are better pleased and your men make most noise with it For you pretend that by our confession Salvation may be had in your Church but your men deny it to us and therefore by the confession of both sides you may be safe and there is no question concerning you but of us there is great question for none but our selves say that we can be saved I answer 1. That Salvation may be had in your Church is it ever the truer because we say it If it be not it can add no confidence to you for the Proposition gets no strength by our affirmative But if it be then our authority is good or else our reason and if either be then we have more reason to be believed speaking of our selves because we are concerned to see that our selves may be in a state of hope and therefore we would not venture on this side if we had not greater reason to believe well of our selves than of you And therefore believe us when it is more likely that we have greater reason because we have greater concernments and therefore greater considerations 2. As much charity as your men pretend us to speak of you yet it is a clear case our hope of your Salvation is so little that we dare not venture our selves on your side The Burger of Oldwater being to pass a River in his journey to Daventry bad his man try the ford telling him he hoped he should not be drowned for though he was afraid the River was too deep yet he thought his Horse would carry him out or at least the Boats would fetch him off Such a confidence we may have of you but you will find that but little warranty if you remember how great an interest it is that you venture 3. It would be remembred that though the best ground of your hope is not the goodness of your own faith but the greatness of our charity yet we that charitably
Scripture both for the confirmation of good things and also for the reproof of the evil S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 12. Illuminat saith Attend not to my inventions for you may possibly be deceiv'd but trust no word unless thou dost learn it from the Divine Scriptures and in Catech. 4. Illum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine and holy mysteries of Faith without the Divine Scriptures nor to be moved with probable discourses Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is derived not from witty inventions but from the demonstration of Divine Scriptures Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de Scripturis Sanctis so S. Hierom in Psal. 89. And again Hoc quia de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur in Matth. 23. Si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat So S. Chrysostom in Psal. 95. Homil. Theodoret Dial. 1. cap. 6. brings in the Orthodox Christian saying to Eranistes Bring not to me your Logismes and Syllogismes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I rely only upon Scriptures I could reckon very very many more both elder and later and if there be any Universal Tradition consigned to us by the Universal Testimony of Antiquity it is this that the Scriptures are a perfect repository of all the Will of God of all the Faith of Christ and this I will engage my self to make very apparent to you and certain against any opposer Upon the supposition of which it follows that whatever the Church of Rome obtrudes as necessary to Salvation and an Article of Faith that is not in Scripture is an Innovation in matter of Faith and a Tyranny over Consciences which whosoever submits to prevaricates the rule of the Apostle commanding us that we stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath set us free To the other Question Whether an Ecclesiastical Tradition be of equal authority with Divine I answer Negatively And I believe I shall have no adversary in it except peradventure some of the Jesuited Bigots An Ecclesiastical Tradition viz. a positive constitution of the Church delivered from hand to hand is in the power of the Church to alter but a Divine is not Ecclesiastical Traditions in matters of Faith there are none but what are also Divine as for Rituals Ecclesiastical descending by Tradition they are confessedly alterable but till they be altered by abrogation or desuetude or contrary custom or a contrary reason or the like they do oblige by vertue of that Authority whatsoever it is that hath power over you I know not what Mr. G. did say but I am confident they who reported it of him were mistaken He could not say or mean what is charged upon him I have but two things more to speak to One is you desire me to recite what else might impede your compliance with the Roman Church I answer Truth and Piety hinder you For you must profess the belief of many false propositions and certainly believe many Uncertain things and be uncharitable to all the world but your own party and make Christianity a faction and you must yield your reason a servant to man and you must plainly prevaricate an institution of Christ and you must make an apparent departure from the Church in which you received your Baptism and the Spirit of God if you go over to Rome But Sir I refer you to the two Letters I have lately published at the end of my Discourse of Friendship and I desire you to read my Treatise of the Real Presence and if you can believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation you can put off your reason and your sense and your religion and all the instruments of Credibility when you please and these are not little things In these you may perish an error in these things is practical but our way is safe as being upon the defence and intirely resting upon Scripture and the Apostolical Churches The other thing I am to speak to is the report you have heard of my inclinations to go over to Rome Sir that party which needs such lying stories for the support of their Cause proclaim their Cause to be very weak or themselves to be very evil Advocates Sir be confident they dare not tempt me to do so and it is not the first time they have endeavoured to serve their ends by saying such things of me But I bless God for it it is perfectly a Slander and it shall I hope for ever prove so Sir if I may speak with you I shall say very many things more for your confirmation Pray to God to guide you and make no change suddenly For if their way be true to day it will be so to morrow and you need not make haste to undo your self Sir I wish you a setled mind and a holy Conscience and that I could serve you in the capacity of Your very Loving Friend and Servant in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Munday Jan. 11. 1657. THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Perceive that you are very much troubled and I see also that you are in great danger but that also troubles me because I see they are little things and very weak and fallacious that move you You propound many things in your Letter in the same disorder as they are in your Conscience to all which I can best give answers when I speak with you to which because you desire I invite you and promise you a hearty endeavour to give you satisfaction in all your material inquiries Sir I desire you to make no haste to change in case you be so miserable as to have it in your thoughts for to go over to the Church of Rome is like death there is no recovery from thence without a Miracle because Unwary souls such are they who change from us to them are with all the arts of wit and violence strangely entangled and ensur'd when they once get the prey Sir I thank you for the Paper you inclosed The men are at a loss they would fain say something against that Book but know not what Sir I will endeavour if you come to me to restore you to peace and quiet and if I cannot effect it yet I will pray for it and I am sure God can To his Mercy I commend you and rest Your very affectionate Friend in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Febr. 1. 1657 8. THE THIRD LETTER SIR THE first Letter which you mention in this latter of the 10 th of March I received not I had not else failed to give you an answer I was so wholly unknowing of it that I did not understand your Servant's meaning when he came to require an answer But to your Question which you now propound I answer
his posterity 870 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him 587 n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall 748 n. 14. The following of Adam cannot be original sin 764 n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven 748 n. 3 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 748 n. 4. Adam was made mortal 779 n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent 750 n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation 714 n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency 717 n. 40. nor because we were in his loins 717 n. 41. nor because of the decree of God 717 n. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What latitude of signification it hath 809 n. 39. Aelfrick Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation 266 n. 12. Aerius How he could be an heretick being his errour was not against any fundamental article 150 ss 48. He was never condemned by any general Council 150 ss 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was 151 ss 48. Aggravate No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person 614 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word in the Scripture 639 n. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 638 n. 14. Alms. Are a part of repentance 848 n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon ibid. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 617 n. 21. and 619 n. 26. S. Ambrose He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time 160 ss 49. His testimony against transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered 19 b. 20 b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The notion of the word 809 n. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The importance of the word 617 n. 122. Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.10 explained 58. § 9. Of worshipping them 467. Antiquity The reverence that is due to it 882. Apostle Whence that name was taken 48 § 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles ibid. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. to Philip. 2.25 does not signifie Messenger but Apostle 49 § 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity 59 § 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles 48 § 4. Apostles in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Of the Canons that go under their names 981 n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles 310 § 10. c. l. 1. Arius His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach 128 § 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. How his heresie began 958 n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius 959 n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed 958 959 960 n. 26 ad 36. Art How much it changes nature 652 n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of the word 665 n. 18. and 637 n. 8. Athanasius The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others 963. Concerning his Creed ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine then translated into Greek 963 n. 36. Attrition What it is 842 n. 63. and 828 n. 25. The difference between it and contrition ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient demonstrated by many arguments 830 n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution is not equal to contrition 842 n. 62 64. S. Augustine He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical 161 § 49. His authority against Transubstantiation 261 262 § 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven 501 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory 507 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation 525 His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting Rom. VII 15 775 n. 18. His inconstancy in the question whether concupiscence be a sin 913. Austerity Of the acts of austerity in Religion of what use they are 955 n. 18. Authority That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience 160 § 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Apostle means by it Tit. III. 11 780 n. 30. and 951 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 689 n. 5. B. Baptism THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine though born of Christian parents were not baptized till they were at full age 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture 426 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. Of the Scripture Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism 802 n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded 426 and 718 n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance 802 n. 8 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance 803 n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin why in our infancy are we baptized That objection answered 884. The state of unbaptized Infants 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation 20 b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use 26 b. Of the change
Gentiles 601 n. 6 7. Two kinds of Conversion one the same with Repentance the other different from it 602 n. 10. The synonymal terms by which Repentance is signified in Scripture 602 n. 11 12. Every relapse after Repentance makes the sin less pardonable 815 n. 11 61 64. Repentance is not true unless the sinner be brought to that pass that he seriously wishes he had never done the sin 827 n. 21. The method and progression of Repentance 827 n. 22. The method of Repentance in the Primitive Church 832 833. The usual acts of Repentance what they are 845 n. 74. Tertullian's description of Repentance 848 n. 80. The penitent must take care that his Repentance injure not his health 852 n. 94. and 858 n. 112. Restitution Considered as a part of Repentance 849 n. 84. No Repentance is entire without Restitution where it is required 648 n. 50. Book of the Revelation Chap. 19. v. 9. Blessed are they that are called to the marriage of the Lamb explained 679 n. 62. Righteousness What was the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees 673 n. 45. The Righteousness of the Law and Gospel how they differ 673 n. 46. Romanists The arts by which they have managed the Article of Transubstantiation Ep. Ded. to Real pres 174. It is acknowledged by them that Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. They and the Non-conformists have always in England encreased alternately as the State minded the reducing either Pref. to Diss. pag. 2 3. They make Propositions which are not in Scripture to be Articles of Faith which is condemned by the Fathers Pref. pag. 4 5. The Character of the Roman Catholick Religion as it is professed by the Irish Pref. to Diss. pag. 6 7 8. Where the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to be found 313 c. 2. § 1. How that Church abuseth Contrition 314. The Roman Doctors prevaricate in the whole Doctrine of Repentance 321. They teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. That one man may satisfie for the sins of another is their Doctrine 322 c. 2. § 6. They hold that habits of sin are no sins 322 c. 2. § 6. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. They teach that neither Attention nor Devotion are required in our Prayers 327 c. 2. § 8. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. They teach the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same style as they pray to God ibid. They teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. They interpret the Blessed Virgin to be the Throne of Grace 329. Of their Exorcisms 333 § 10. They attribute the conveying of Grace to things of their own inventing 337 § 11. The Sacraments they teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. They teach Lying and Equivocation 340. They teach that a man may steal or lie for a good end 341 c. 3. § 1. They keep no Faith with Hereticks 341. They teach the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God 342. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken to save the life of a King or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Pope hath power as they teach to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians 344. An Excommunicate King they teach may be deposed or killed 344 c. 3. § 3. A Son or Wife they absolve from their duty to Husband or Father if the Husband or Father be heretical 345. Their Religion no friend to Kings 345. Their Opinions so injurious to Kings are not the Doctrines of private men onely 345. They have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. Of what Authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They hold the Scripture for no infallible Rule 381 § 1. Even among them the Authority of General Councils is but precarious 391. The great uncertainties the Romanists do relie upon 397 400. Instances of some Doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others not to be de fide 398. Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. The Character of the Church of Rome 403. Neither the Church of Rome nor the Fathers nor School-men are agreed upon the definition of a Sacrament 404. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to their Sacraments 429. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed in that Article of the Catholick Church by restraining it to the Roman 448. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. They teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. Their Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of the Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Of the Miracles wrought now-a-days by the Romanists 452. The uncharitableness of that Church 460. That Church arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences 461. The Church of Rome imposes Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church ibid. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling Propositions into their Faith 462. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. The dangers in which they are that live in the Roman Communion 466 467. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Their doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men 473 477. Divers other instances wherein they teach for doctrines the Commandments of men 494. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere Innovation 531 532. That Church would have sold the Rite of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. Ded. to the Treatise of Confirmation pag. 5. They teach that Confirmation is a Sacrament and yet hold it not necessary 3. b. Epistle to the Romans Chap. 5. v. 12. ad 19. explained 887 888 889 900 901 903. Chap. 5. v. 12. largely explained 885 887 888 889. Chap. 6.23 The wages of sin is death explained 621 n. 33. Chap. 6.13 20. explained 667 n. 27. Chap. 7.23 explained 723 n. 52. Chap. 7.14 explained 671 n. 40. Chap. 6.7 explained 672 n. 44. Chap. 7.7 explained 689 n. 5. Chap. 5.12 explained 709 710. Chap. 5.13 14. explained 710 n. 7 11. Chap. 7.23 explained 773 and 772. Chap. 7.15 19. explained 772 773. Saint Augustine restrained the words of this Apostle Rom. 7.15 to the matter of Desires and Concupiscence and excluded all evil actions from the meaning of that Text 775 n. 18. Reasons against that Interpretation given by that Father 776 n. 19. Chap. 7.9