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
nor charitable to extend the Gravamen and punishment beyond the instances the Apostles make or their exact parallels But then also it would be remembred that the Apostles speak as fiercely against communion with Fornicatours and all disorders practical as against communion with Hereticks If any man that is called a brother be a Fornicatour or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such a one no not to eat I am certain that a drunkard is as contrary to God and lives as contrary to the Laws of Christianity as an Heretick and I am also sure that I know what drunkenness is but I am not sure that such an Opinion is Heresie neither would other men be so sure as they think for if they did consider it aright and observe the infinite deceptions and causes of deceptions in wise men and in most things and in all doubtful Questions and that they did not mistake confidence for certainty But indeed I could not but smile at those jolly Friers two Franciscans offered themselves to the fire to prove Savonarola to be a Heretick but a certain Jacobine offered himself to the fire to prove that Savonarola had true Revelations and was no Heretick in the mean time Savonarola preacht but made no such confident offer nor durst he venture at that new kind of fire Ordeal And put case all four had past through the fire and died in the flames what would that have proved Had he been a Heretick or no Heretick the more or less for the confidence of these zealous Ideots If we mark it a great many Arguments whereon many Sects rely are no better probation then this comes to Confidence is the first and the second and the third part of a very great many of their propositions But now if men would a little turn the Tables and be as zealous for a good life and all the strictest precepts of Christianity which is a Religion the most holy the most reasonable and the most consummate that ever was taught to man as they are for such Propositions in which neither the life nor the ornament of Christianity is concerned we should find that as a consequent of this piety men would be as carefull as they could to find out all Truths and the sence of all Revelations which may concern their duty and where men were miserable and could not yet others that lived good lives too would also be so charitable as not to adde affliction to this misery and both of them are parts of good life To be compassionate and to help to bear one another's burthens not to destroy the weak but to entertain him meekly that 's a precept of charity and to edeavour to find out the whole will of God that also is a part of the obedience the choice and the excellency of Faith and he lives not a good life that does not doe both these But men think they have more reason to be zealous against Heresie then against a vice in manners because Heresie is infectious and dangerous and the principle of much evil Indeed if by an Heresie we mean that which is against an Article of Creed and breaks part of the Covenant made between God and man by the mediation of Jesus Christ I grant it to be a very grievous crime a calling God's veracity into question and a destruction also of good life because upon the Articles of Creed obedience is built and it lives or dies as the effect does by its proper cause for Faith is the moral cause of obedience But then Heresie that is such as this is also a vice and the person criminal and so the sin is to be esteemed in its degrees of malignity and let men be as zealous against it as they can and employ the whole Arsenal of the spiritual armour against it such as this is worse then adultery or murther inasmuch as the Soul is more noble then the Body and a false Doctrine is of greater dissemination and extent then a single act of violence or impurity Adultery or murther is a duel but Heresie truly and indeed such is an unlawful war it slays thousands The losing of Faith is like digging down a foundation all the superstructures of hope and patience and charity fall with it And besides this Heresie of all crimes is the most inexcusable and of least temptation for true Faith is most commonly kept with the least trouble of any grace in the world and Heresie of itself hath not onely no pleasure in it but is a very punishment because Faith as it opposes heretical or false Opinions and distinguishes from charity consists in mere acts of believing which because they are of true Propositions are natural and proportionable to the understanding and more honourable then false But then concerning those things which men now a-days call Heresie they cannot be so formidable as they are represented and if we consider that drunkenness is certainly a damnable sin and that there are more drunkards then Hereticks and that drunkenness is parent of a thousand vices it may better be said of this vice then of most of those opinions which we call Heresies it is infectious and dangerous and the principle of much evil and therefore as fit an object for a pious zeal to contest against as is any of those Opinions which trouble mens ease or reputation for that is the greatest of their malignity But if we consider that Sects are made and Opinions are called Heresies upon interest and the grounds of emolument we shall see that a good life would cure much of this mischief For First the Church of Rome which is the great Dictatrix of dogmatical Resolutions and the declarer of Heresie and calls Heretick more then all the world besides hath made that the rule of Heresie which is the conservatory of interest and the ends of men For to recede from the Doctrine of the Church with them makes Heresie that is to disrepute their Authority and not to obey them not to be their subjects not to give them the empire of our Conscience is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Heresie So that with them Heresie is to be esteemed clearly by humane ends not by Divine Rules that is formal Heresie which does materially disserve them And it would make a suspicious man a little inquisitive into their particular Doctrines and when he finds that Indulgences and Jubilees and Purgatories and Masses and Offices for the dead are very profitable that the Doctrine of Primacy of Infallibility of Superiority over Councils of indirect power in temporals are great instruments of secular honour he would be apt enough to think that if the Church of Rome would learn to lay her honour at the feet of the Crucifix and despise the world and prefer Jerusalem before Rome and Heaven above the Lateran that these Opinions would not have in them any native strength to support them against the perpetual assaults of
of men with such a power In the mean time he that submits his understanding to all that he knows God hath said and is ready to submit to all that he hath said if he but know it denying his own affections and ends and interests and humane perswasions laying them all down at the foot of his great Master Jesus Christ that man hath brought his understanding into subjection and every proud thought unto the obedience of Christ and this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the obedience of Faith which is the duty of a Christian. 14. But to proceed Besides these heresies noted in Scripture the age of the Apostles and that which followed was infested with other heresies but such as had the same formality and malignity with the precedent all of them either such as taught practical impieties or denied an Article of the Creed Egesippus in Eusebius reckons seven only prime heresies that sought to deflour the purity of the Church That of Simon that of Thebutes of Cleobius of Dositheus of Gortheus of Masbotheus I suppose Cerinthus to have been the seventh man though he express him not But of these except the last we know no particulars but that Egesippus says they were false Christs and that their doctrine was directly against God and his blessed Son Menander also was the first of a Sect but he bewitched the people with his Sorceries Cerinthus his doctrine pretended Enthusiasm or a new Revelation and ended in lust and impious theorems in matter of uncleanness The Ebionites denied Christ to be the Son of God and affirmed him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begot by natural generation by occasion of which and the importunity of the Asian Bishops St. John writ his Gospel and taught the observation of Moses Law Basilides taught it lawful to renounce the faith and take false oaths in time of Persecution Carpocrates was a very bedlam half-witch and quite mad-man and practised lust which he called the secret operations to overcome the Potentates of the World Some more there were but of the same nature and pest not of a nicety in dispute not a question of secret Philosophy not of atomes and undiscernable propositions but open defiances of all Faith of all sobriety and of all sanctity excepting only the doctrine of the Millenaries which in the best Ages was esteemed no heresy but true Catholick Doctrine though since it hath justice done to it and hath suffered a just condemnation 15. Hitherto and in these instances the Church did esteem and judge of heresies in proportion to the rules and characters of Faith For Faith being a Doctrine of piety as well as truth that which was either destructive of fundamental verity or of Christian sanctity was against Faith and if it made a Sect was heresy if not it ended in personall impiety and went no farther But those who as S. Paul says not onely did such things but had pleasure in them that doe them and therefore taught others to doe what they impiously did dogmatize they were Hereticks both in matter and form in doctrine and deportment towards God and towards man and judicable in both tribunals 16. But the Scripture and Apostolical Sermons having expressed most high indignation against these masters of impious Sects leaving them under prodigious characters and horrid representments as calling them men of corrupt minds reprobates concerning the faith given over to strong delusions to the belief of a lie false Apostles false Prophets men already condemned and that by themselves Anti-Christs enemies to God and heresy it self a work of the flesh excluding from the kingdom of heaven left such impressions in the minds of all their successors and so much zeal against such Sects that if any opinion commenced in the Church not heard of before it oftentimes had this ill luck to run the same fortune with an old heresy For because the Hereticks did bring in new opinions in matters of great concernment every opinion de novo brought in was liable to the same exception and because the degree of malignity in every errour was oftentimes undiscernable and most commonly indemonstrable their zeal was alike against all and those Ages being full of piety were sitted to be abused with an over-active zeal as wise persons and learned are with a too much indifferency 17. But it came to pass that the further the succession went from the Apostles the more forward men were in numbring heresies and that upon slighter and more uncertain grounds Some footsteps of this we shall find if we consider the Sects that are said to have sprung in the first three hundred years and they were pretty and quick in their springs and falls fourscore and seven of them are reckoned They were indeed reckoned afterward and though when they were alive they were not condemn'd with as much forwardness as after they were dead yet even then confidence began to mingle with opinions less necessary and mistakes in judgment were oftner and more publick than they should have been But if they were forward in their censures as sometimes some of them were it is no great wonder they were deceived For what principle or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had they then to judge of heresies or condemn them besides the single dictates or decretals of private Bishops for Scripture was indifferently pretended by all and concerning the meaning of it was the Question now there was no general Council all that while no opportunity for the Church to convene and if we search the communicatory letters of the Bishops and Martyrs in those days we shall find but few sentences decretory concerning any Question of Faith or new sprung opinion And in those that did for ought appears the persons were mis-reported or their opinions mistaken or at most the sentence of condemnation was no more but this Such a Bishop who hath had the good fortune by posterity to be reputed a Catholick did condemn such a man or such an opinion and yet himself erred in as considerable matters but meeting with better neighbours in his life-time and a more charitable posterity hath his memory preserved in honour It appears plain enough in the case of Nicholas the Deacon of Antioch upon a mistake of his words whereby he taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abuse the flesh viz. by acts of austerity and self-denial and mortification some wicked people that were glad to be mistaken and abused into a pleasing crime pretended that he taught them to abuse the flesh by filthy commixtures and pollutions This mistake was transmitted to posterity with a full cry and acts afterwards found out to justifie an ill opinion of him For by S. Hierom's time it grew out of Question but that he was the vilest of men and the worst of Hereticks Nicolaus Antiochenus omnium immunditiarum conditor choros duxit foemineos And again Iste Nicolaus Diaconus ita immundus extitit ut etiam in praesepi Domini nefas perpetrârit Accusations
not also serve their own ends in giving their Princes such untoward counsel but we find the Laws made severally to several purposes in divers cases and with different severity Constantine the Emperour made a Sanction Vt parem cum fidelibus ii qui errant pacis quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant The Emperour Gratian decreed Vt quam quisque vellet religionem sequeretur conventus Ecclesiasticos semoto metu omnes agerent But he excepted the Manichees the Photinians and Eunomians Theodosius the elder made a law of death against the Anabaptists of his time and banished Eunomius and against other erring persons appointed a pecuniary mulct but he did no executions so severe as his sanctions to shew they were made in terrorem onely So were the Laws of Valentinian and Martian decreeing contra omnes qui prava docere tentant that they should be put to death so did Michael the Emperour but Justinian onely decreed banishment 13. But whatever whispers some Politicks might make to their Princes as the wisest and holiest did not think it lawfull for Churchmen alone to doe executions so neither did they transmit such persons to the Secular judicature And therefore when the Edict of Macedonius the President was so ambiguous that it seemed to threaten death to Hereticks unless they recanted S. Austin admonished him carefully to provide that no Heretick should be put to death alledging it not onely to be unchristian but illegal also and not warranted by Imperial constitutions for before his time no Laws were made for their being put to death but however he prevailed that Macedonius published another Edict more explicite and lesse seemingly severe But in his Epistle to Donatus the African Proconsul he is more confident and determinate Necessitate nobis impactâ indictâ ut potiùs occîdi ab eis eligamus quà m eos occidendos vestris judiciis ingeramus 14. But afterwards many got a trick of giving them over to the Secular power which at the best is no better then Hypocrisie removing envy from themselves and laying it upon others a refusing to doe that in externall act which they doe in counsel and approbation which is a transmitting the act to another and retaining a proportion of guilt unto themselves even their own and the others too I end this with the saying of Chrysostome Dogmata impia quae ab haereticis profecta sunt arguere anathematizare oportet hominibus autem parcendum pro salute eorum orandum SECT XV. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing Opinions BUT although Hereticall persons are not to be destroyed yet Heresie being a work of the flesh and all Hereticks criminal persons whose acts and Doctrine have influence upon Communities of men whether Ecclesiasticall or civil the Governours of the Republick or Church respectively are to doe their duties in restraining those mischiefs which may happen to their several charges for whose indemnity they are answerable And therefore according to the effect or malice of the Doctrine or the person so the cognizance of them belongs to several Judicatures If it be false Doctrine in any capacity and doth mischief in any sense or teaches ill life in any instance or encourages evil in any particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these men must be silenced they must be convinced by sound Doctrine and put to silence by spiritual evidence and restrained by Authority Ecclesiasticall that is by spiritual Censures according as it seems necessary to him who is most concern'd in the regiment of the Church For all this we have precept and precedent Apostolicall and much reason For by thus doing the Governour of the Church uses all that Authority that is competent and all the means that is reasonable and that proceeding which is regular that he may discharge his cure and secure his flock And that he possibly may be deceived in judging a Doctrine to be hereticall and by consequence the person excommunicate suffers injury is no argument against the reasonableness of the proceeding For all the injury that is is visible and in appearance and so is his crime Judges must judge according to their best reason guided by Law of God as their Rule and by evidence and appearance as their best instrument and they can judge no better If the Judges be good and prudent the errour of proceeding will not be great nor ordinary and there can be no better establishment of humane judicature then is a fallible proceeding upon an infallible ground And if the judgement of Heresie be made by estimate and proportion of the Opinion to a good or a bad life respectively supposing an errour in the deduction there will be no malice in the conclusion and that he endeavours to secure piety according to the best of his understanding and yet did mistake in his proceeding is onely an argument that he did his duty after the manner of men possibly with the piety of a Saint though not with the understanding of an Angel And the little inconvenience that happens to the person injuriously judged is abundantly made up in the excellency of the Discipline the goodnesse of the example the care of the publick and all those great influences into the manners of men which derive from such an act so publickly consign'd But such publick judgement in matters of Opinion must be seldome and curious and never but to secure piety and a holy life for in matters speculative as all determinations are fallible so scarce any of them are to purpose nor ever able to make compensation of either side either for the publick fraction or the particular injustice if it should so happen in the censure 2. But then as the Church may proceed thus far yet no Christian man or Community of men may proceed farther For if they be deceived in their judgement and censure and yet have passed onely spiritual censures they are totally ineffectual and come to nothing there is no effect remaining upon the Soul and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly But if any other judgement passe upon persons erring such judgements whose effects remain if the person be unjustly censured nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries If a person be excommunicate unjustly it will doe him no hurt but if he be killed or dismembred unjustly that censure and infliction is not made ineffectual by his innocence he is certainly killed and dismembred So that as the Churche's Authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent cautelous and orderly is just and competent so the proceeding is reasonable it is provident for the publick and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little as that the publick benefit makes ample compensation so long as the proceeding is but spiritual 3. This discourse is in the case of such Opinions which by the former rules are formal Heresies and upon practicall inconveniences But
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.
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.
Seventhly It is a scandal and makes way for Heathen Idolatry 549 7. Of picturing God the Father and the H. Trinity 550 The testimonies of Tertullian Eusebius and S. Hierome alledged in the Dissuasive vindicated from the Romanists exceptions as also the testimonies of S. Austin Theodoret Damascen Nicephorus 552 553. An answer to that reply of theirs of painting the Essence of God the Father 550 551. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance Chap. I. THE Foundation and Necessity of Repentance 573 Sect. 1. Of the indispensable Necessity of Repentance in remedy to the unavoidable transgressing of the Covenant of Works 573 2. Of the possibility or impossibility of keeping the Precepts of the Gospel 576 First The Law of God is naturally possible to be kept but not morally 576. n. 15. ad 32. Secondly How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting a Law so impossible 580. n. 32. ad 35. Thirdly Since God exacteth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisdom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581. n. 35. c sequ 3. How Repentance and the Precept of perfection Evangelical can stand together 582 4. The former doctrine reduced to practice The new and old Covenant as they are expressed in the words of Scripture 587 Chap. II. Of the nature and definition of Repentance and what parts of duty are signified by it in Scripture 596 Sect. 1. The notion of those words that in the Greek and Latin languages express Repentance with the definition and parts of it 596 2. Of Repentance in general or Conversion 599 3. Descriptions of Repentance taken from the H. Scriptures 604 The indispensable necessity of a good life represented in the words of Scripture 606 Chap. III. Of the distinction of Sins Mortal and Venial in what sence to be admitted and how the smallest Sins are to be repented of and expiated 610 Sect. 1. The inconvenience as to the conduct of Conscience in distinguishing Sins into Mortal and Venial in their own nature or kind ibid. 2. Of the difference of sins and their measures 611 3. That all sins are punishable if God please even with the pains of Hell 614 4. The former doctrine reduced to practice 623. n. 36. 5. To deny that there is a sort of sins that are Venial in their own nature how it is consistent with that doctrine which teaches the possibility of keeping the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with the righteousness of David Zechary and Elizabeth 625. n. 4. Some more particular measures of practice 626. n. 46. 6. What Repentance is necessary for the more Venial sins 630 Chap. IV. Of actual single sins and what Repentance is proper for them 635 Sect. 1. A Catalogue of sins that are severely threatned in Scripture of which men commonly believe not such hard things 635 2. Whether every single act of the fore-enumerated sins puts a man out of Gods favour 640 3. What Repentance is necessary for single acts of sin 646 Chap. V. Of Habitual Sins and manner of eradication or cure and their proper instruments of pardon 652 Sect. 1. The state of the Question ibid. 2. Every man is bound to Repent of his sin assoon as he hath committed it 654 3. A sinful habit hath in it proper evils and a proper guiltiness of its own besides all that which came directly from the single actions 658 Of sinful habits 1o. in their natural capacity 659 2o. in their moral capacity 661 First they add many degrees of aversation from God ibid. Secondly they imply not only a facility but a necessity of sinning 662 Thirdly they make our Repentance more difficult 663 Fourthly they make us swallow a great sin as easily as a smaller 664 Fifthly they keep us always out of Gods favour 665 3o. in their relative capacity in reference to our aversation from God 665 4. Sinful habits do require a distinct manner of Repentance and have no promise to be pardoned but by the introduction of the contrary 669. n. 32. Against the repentance of Clinicks ibid. 5. Consideration of seven objections against the doctrine in the foregoing Section 675 6. The former doctrine reduced to practice 687 1o. The Repentance of habitual sinners who return in their vigorous years ibid. 2o. The Repentance of sinners that return not till their old age 692 3o. How sinners are to be treated who Repent not till their death-bed 695 First what hopes are left to an ill-liv'd man that Repents in his death-bed and not before ibid. Secondly what advices can bring such a one most advantage 700 Chap. VI. Of Concupiscence and Original Sin whether or no and how far we are bound to repent of it 709 Sect. 1. The doctrine explained and proved out of the Scripture ibid. 2. Consideration of the objections against the former doctrine 720 3. How God punisheth the Fathers sin upon the children 725 4. Of the causes of the universal wickedness of mankind n. 66. 727 5. Of liberty of Election remaining after Adams fall n. 71. 730 6. The practical Question 733 7. Advices relating to the matter of Original sin 714 8. Rules and measures of deportment when a curse is feared to descend upon children for their Parents fault 738 Chap. VII A farther explication of the doctrine of Original Sin 747 Sect. 1. Of the fall of Adam and the effects of it upon him and us 747 2. Adams sin is in us no more than an imputed sin and how it is so 751 3. The doctrine of the ancient Father's was that free will remained in us after the fall 753 4. Adams sin is not imputed to us to our damnation 755 5. The doctrine of antiquity in this whole matter 757 6. An exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England which is of Original Sin shewing that the former doctrine contradicts not that Article 763 Chap. VIII Of sins of Infirmity and their remedy 770 Sect. 1. Of the state of Infirmity and its first remedy ibid. 2. An exposition and vindication of that Text Rom. 7.15 ad 20. which by the mistake of some is thought to mean the state of Infirmity in the regenerate 772 3. S. Augustines exposition of those words taken up after his retractation considered 775 4. The true meaning of that Text of the Apostle fully decreed and vindicated 777 1o. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person but of one unregenerate by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 2o. that the state he describes is the state of a carnal man under the corruption of his nature ibid. 3o. from this state we are redeemed by Christ and his grace which is the second remedy 779 5. How far an unregenerate man may go in the ways of piety and religion 779 1o. An unregenerate man may be instructed in and convinced of his duty and approve the Law and confâ—ss the obligation 780 2o. he may in his will delight in goodness and desire it earnestly 781 3o. he may not only
desire to do natural or moral good things but even spiritual 784 4o. he may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake 785 5o. he may leave some sins not only for temporal interest but out of fear of God and regard to his Law ibid. 6o. he may besides abstinence from evil do many good things 786 7 o he may have received the Spirit of God and yet be in a state of distance from God ibid. 6. The character of the unregenerate state or person n. 42.787 7. What are properly and truly sins of infirmity and how far they can consist with the regenerate estate 789 8. Practical advices to be added to the foregoing considerations 795. n. 65. Chap. IX Of the effect of Repentance viz. remission of Sins 800 Sect. 1. There is no sin but with Repentance may be pardoned ibid. 2. Of pardon of sins committed after baptism 802 3. Of the difficulty of obtaining pardon The doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 803 4. Of the sin against the H. Ghost and in what sence it may be unpardonable 808 5. What sin is spoken of by our Lord Matth. 12.32 and that final impenitence is not it 810 6. The former doctrines reduced to practice 815 Chap. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance or the fruits of Repentance 820 Sect. 1. What the fruits of Repentance are in general ibid. 2. Of Contrition or godly sorrow the reasons measures and constitution of it 821 3. Of the nature and differences of Attrition and Contrition 828 4. Of Confession 830 1o. Confession is necessary to Repentance ibid. 2o. It is due only to God 831 3o. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial absolution used in their Liturgies n. 54.838 4o. The judicial absolution of a Priest does effect no material change in the Penitent as to giving of pardon 841. n. 60 5. Attrition or imperfect Repentance though with absolution is not sufficient 842 6. Of Penance or satisfactions 844. 1o. sorrow and mourning 2o. Corporal austerities 3o. Prayers 847. 4o. Alms 848. 5o. forgiving injuries 6 o restitution 849 7. The former doctrine reduced to practice 850 8. The practice of Confession 854 9. The practice of Penances and corporal austerities 858 A Discourse in Vindication of Gods Attributes of Goodness and Justice in the matter of Original Sin against the Calvinists way of understanding it 1o. THe truth of the Article with the errors and mistakes about it 869 2o. Arguments to prove the truth 872 3o. Objections answered 881 4o. An Explication of Rom. 5.12 ad 19. 887 An Answer to the Bishop of Rochesters First Letter written concerning the Sixth Chapter of Original Sin in the Discourse of Repentance 895 The Bishop of Rochesters Second Letter upon the same subject 907 An Answer to the Second Letter from the Bishop of Rochester 909 The Liberty of Prophesying EPist Dedicatory Introduction Sect. 1. Of the nature of Faith and that the duty of it is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed 941 2. Of Heresie its nature and measures That it is to be accounted according to the stricter capacity of the Christian Faith and not in opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 947 3. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary nor literally determined 965 4. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 971 5. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine questions 976 6. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Councils Ecclesiastical to expound Scripture or determine questions 984 7. Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 995 8. How unable the Fathers or Writers Ecclesiastical are to determine our questions with certainty and truth 1007 9. How incompetent the Church in its diffusive capacity is to be Judge of controversies and how impertinent that pretence of the Spirit is 1011 10. Of the authority of reason and that it proceeding on the best grounds is the best Judge 1013 11. Of some causes of error in the exercise of reason which are in themselves inculpable 1016 12. How innocent error of mere opinion is in a pious person 1022 13. Of the deportment to be used toward persons disagreeing and reasons why they are not to be punished with death 1025 14. Of the practice of Christian Churches toward persons disagreeing and when persecution first came in use 1031 15. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions 1034 16. Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions 1036 17. Of complying with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general 1038 18. A particular instance in the opinion of the Anabaptists to shew that there is so much reason on both sides of the Question that a pious person mistaking may be innocent in his error 1040 1o. The arguments usually alledged for baptizing Infants n. 3. ad 12.1041 1042 2o. How much the Anabaptists have to say in opposition to those arguments and to justifie their own tenent n. 12. ad 34.1043 ad 1051 3o. A reply to the arguments of the Anabaptists by the Author since the first Edition wherein the lawfulness of the Churches practice is established n. 34. ad fin Sect. 1051. ad 1068 19. That there ought not to be any toleration of doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publick good 1069 20. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome may be tolerated 1070 21. Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1076 22. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how far they may do it 1077 The Discourse of Confirmation INtroduction Sect. 1. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Rite of Confirmation 3 2. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery 12 3. That Confirmation which by laying on of Hands gives the H. Spirit was actually continued and practised by all succeeding Ages of the Primitive Church 15 4. The Bishops were always and are still the only Ministers of Confirmation 18 5. The whole procedure of Confirmation is by prayer and laying on of Hands 22 6. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy reception and due ministery of Confirmation 24 7. Of preparation to Confirmation and the circumstances of receiving it 28 A Discourse of Friendship 1. HOw far a perfect Friendship is authorized by the principles of Christianity 35 2. What are the requisites of Friendship 38 3. What are the lawful expressions and acts of Friendship 42 4. Whether a Friend may be dearer than a Husband or Wife 47 5. What are the duties of Friendship 49 6. Ten Rules to be observed in the conduct of Friendship 50 Five Letters about change of Religion 53 THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY WHEN Judges were instead of Kings and Hophni and Phinehas were among the Priests every
4 deprecations and 5 prayers and 6 intercessions and 7 giving of thanks will warrant and commend as so many parts of duty all the portions of the English Liturgy 34. If it were worth the pains it were very easie to enumerate the Authors and especially the occasions and time when the most minute passages such I mean as are known by distinct appellatives came into the Church that so it may appear our Liturgy is as ancient and primitive in every part as it is pious and unblameable and long before the Church got such a beam in one of her eyes which was endeavoured to be cast out at the Reformation But it will not be amiss to observe that very many of them were inserted as Antidotes and deleteries to the worst of Heresies as I have discours'd already and such was that clause through Jesus Christ our Lord who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the holy Spirit ever one God and some other phrases parallel were put in in defiance of the Macedonians and all the species of the Antitrinitarians and used by S. Ambrose in Millain S. Austin in Africa and Idacius Clarus in Spain and in imitation of so pious precedents the Church of England hath inserted divers clauses into her Offices 35. There was a great instance in the administration of the blessed Sacrament For upon the change of certain clauses in the Liturgy upon the instance of Martin Bucer instead of the bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for you preserve your body and soul unto everlasting life was substituted this take and eat this in remembrance c. and it was done lest the people accustomed to the opinion of Transubstantiation and the appendant practices should retain the same doctrine upon intimation of the first clause But in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign when certain persons of the Zuinglian opinion would have abused the Church with Sacramentary doctrine and pretended the Church of England had declared for it in the second clause of 1552 the wisdom of the Church thought it expedient to joyn both the clauses the first lest the Church should be suspected to be of the Sacramentary opinion the latter lest she should be mistaken as a Patroness of Transubstantiation And both these with so much temper and sweetness that by her care she rather prevented all mistakes than by any positive declaration in her prayers engaged her self upon either side that she might pray to God without strife and contention with her brethren For the Church of England had never known how to follow the names of men but to call Christ only her Lord and Master 36. But from the inserting of these and the like clauses which hath been done in all ages according to several opportunities and necessities I shall observe this advantage which is in many but is also very signally in the English Liturgy we are thereby enabled and advantaged in the meditation of those mysteries de quibus festivatur in sacris as the Casuists love to speak which upon solemn days we are bound to meditate and make to be the matter and occasion of our address to God for the offices are so ordered that the most indifferent and careless cannot but be reminded of the mystery in every Anniversary which if they be summ'd up will make an excellent Creed and then let any man consider what a rare advantage it will be to the belief of such propositions when the very design of the Holy-day teaches the hard handed Artizan the name and meaning of an Article and yet the most forward and religious cannot be abused with any semblances of superstition The life and death of the Saints which is very precious in the eyes of God is so remembred by his humble and afflicted handmaid the Church of England that by giving him thanks and praise God may be honoured the Church instructed by the proposition of their example and we give testimony of the honour and love we owe and pay unto Religion by the pious veneration and esteem of those holy and beatified persons 37. Certain it is that there is no part of Religion as it is a distinct vertue and is to be exercised by interiour acts and forms of worship but is in the offices of the Church of England For if the Soul desires to be humbled she hath provided forms of Confession to God before his Church if she will rejoyce and give God thanks for particular blessings there are forms of thanksgiving described and added by the Kings authority upon the Conference at Hampton-Court which are all the publick solemn and foreseen occasions for which by Law and order provision could be made if she will commend to God the publick and private necessities of the Church and single persons the whole body of Collects and devotions supplies that abundantly if her devotion be high and pregnant and prepared to fervency and importunity of congress with God the Litanies are an admirable pattern of devotion full of circumstances proportionable for a quick and an earnest spirit when the revolution of the Anniversary calls on us to perform our duty of special meditation and thankfulness to God for the glorious benefits of Christs Incarnation Nativity Passion Resurrection and Ascension blessings which do as well deserve a day of thanksgiving as any other temporal advantage though it be the pleasure of a victory then we have the offices of Christmass the Annunciation Easter and Ascension if we delight to remember those holy persons whose bodies rest in the bed of peace and whose souls are deposited in the hands of Christ till the day of restitution of all things we may by the Collects and days of Anniversary festivity not only remember but also imitate them too in our lives if we will make that use of the proportions of Scripture allotted for the festival which the Church intends to which if we add the advantages of the whole Psalter which is an intire body of devotion by it self and hath in it forms to exercise all graces by way of internal act and spiritual intention there is not any ghostly advantage which the most religious can either need or fancy but the English Liturgy in its entire constitution will furnish us withal And certainly it was a very great wisdom and a very prudent and religious Constitution so to order that part of the Liturgy which the ancients called the Lectionarium that the Psalter should be read over twelve times in the year the Old Testament once and the New Testament thrice beside the Epistles and Gospels which renew with a more frequent repetition such choice places as represent the entire body of faith and good life There is a defalcation of some few Chapters from the entire body in the order but that also was part of the wisdom of the Church not to expose to publick ears and common judgments some of the secret rites of Moses's Law or the more mysterious prophecies of the New
primitùs sunt constituti The Lord did at first ordain and the Apostles did so order it and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles and by consequence to have the same institution drive all to the same issue and are sufficient to make faith that it was the doctrine Primitive and Catholick that Episcopacy is a Divine institution which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a neve-failing succession unless where God removes the Candlestick or which is all one takes away the star the Angel of light from it that it may be invelop'd in darkness usque ad consummationem saeculi aperturam tenebrarum The conclusion of all I subjoyn in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti Bishops are distinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them by the law of God The second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition We have seen what Christ did now we shall see what was done by his Apostles And since they knew their Masters mind so well we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practice Apostolical Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes extra omne mendacium sunt non enim communicat mendacium veritati sicut non communicant tenebrae luci sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum saith S. Irenaeus SECT XIII In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches FIRST then the Apostles did presently after the Ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of Jerusalem For they knew that Jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue Petrus Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam saith Lactantius l. 4. inst famines and wars and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs own prediction which themselves recorded in Scripture And to say they understood not what they writ is to make them Enthusiasts and neither good Doctors nor wise seers But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publick affairs as was so Great desolation and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church and to fix it upon its perpetual base Secondly The Church of Jerusalem was to be the president and platform for other Churches The word of God went forth into all the world beginning first at Jerusalem and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes that other Churches might see their government from whence they receiv'd their doctrine that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream Thirdly the Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution and this to be sure they look'd for and therefore so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways they ordained S. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem there he fixt his chair there he lived Bishop for 30 years and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom If this be proved we are in a fair way for practice Apostolical First Let us see all that is said of S. James in Scripture that may concern this affair Acts 15. We find S. James in the Synod at Jerusalem not disputing but giving final determination to that Great Question about Circumcision And when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said c. He first drave the question to an issue and told them what he believed concerning it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision as with our Forefathers who used it But S. James when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter gave sentence and final determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence So he The acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative they disputed v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative but S. James his was decisive which proves him clearly if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate that S. James was the President of this Synod which considering that he was none of the twelve as I proved formerly is unimaginable were it not for the advantage of the place it being held in Jerusalem where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus as S. Clement calls him especially in the presence of S. Peter who was primus Apostolus and decked with many personal priviledges and prerogatives * Add to this that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle and to send Judas and Silas yet because they were of the Presbytery and Colledge of Jerusalem S. James his Clergy they are said as by way of appropriation to come from S. James Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Jacobo i. e. à Judaeâ nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Jacobus praefuit To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. James and in his Epistle to Hero saying that he did Minister to S. James and the Presbyters of Jerusalem which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius's time who was Suppar Apostolorum only not a contemporary Bishop here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair and Jerusalem the seat of S. James and the Clergy his own of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius he was their Ordinary * The second evidence of Scripture is Acts 21. And when we were come to Jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly and the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders were present Why unto James Why not rather unto the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders if James did not eminere were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Praepositus or Bishop of them all Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent see it testified by Antiquity to which in matter of fact and Church-story he that will not give faith upon current testimonies and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad-man and may as well disbelieve every thing that he hath not seen himself and can no way prove that himself was Christned and to be sure after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory it being impossible to prove it Eusebius reports out of S. Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
by Canon but in the cases of Colluthus and Maximus there was declaration of a past nullity and that before any Canon was made and though Synodal declarations pronounced such ordinations invalid yet none decreed so for the future which is a clear evidence that this nullity viz. in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter is not made by Canon but by Canon declared to be invalid in the nature of the thing 3. If to this be added that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by nature and institution of the order of Bishops ordination was appropriate to them then it will also from hence be evident that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependent upon positive constitution but on the exigence of the institution ** Now that the power of ordination was only in the Bishop even they who to advance the Presbyters were willing enough to speak less for Episcopacy give testimony making this the proper distinctive cognizance of a Bishop from a Presbyter that the Bishop hath power of ordination the Presbyter hath not So S. Jerome Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat All things saith he to wit all things of precise order are common to Bishops with Priests except ordination for that is proper to the Bishop And S. Chrysostome Sola quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoc tantum plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon 4. No man was called an heretick for breach of Canon but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop Aerius was by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin condemned and branded for heresie and by the Catholick Church saith Epiphanius This power therefore came from a higher spring than positive and Canonical Sanction But now proceed The Council held in Trullo complaining of the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance saith that it forced some Bishops from their residence and made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the guise of the Church give Orders and do such things as did belong to the Bishop and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases ut diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant to make Canonical ordinations of Clergy men Giving of Orders is proper it belongs to a Bishop So the Council And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul by laying on the hands of the Presbytery interprets it of Bishops for this reason because Presbyters did not impose hands There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Council that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur those things that are not done but by Bishops they were decreed still to be done by Bishops though he that was to do them regularly did fall into any infirmity whatsoever yet non sub praesentia sua Presbyteros agere permittat sed evocet Episcopum Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed to be proper to the Bishops to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted The particulars what they are are not specified in the Canon but are named before viz. Orders and Confirmation for almost the whole Council was concerning them and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi and the Canon else is not to be understood * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description or name of a Bishop used by S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man that is to ordain Clerks * And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholick Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the doctrine of Aerius denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Presbytery The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptism but no fathers or Doctors by ordination * It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the whole Clergy was against it yet the Bishop did ordain him and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined I am sure none is either expressed or intimated For it was a ruled case and attested by the Uniform practise of the Church which was set down in the third Council of Carthage Episcopus Vnus esse potest per quem dignatione Divina Presbyteri multi constitui possunt This case I instance the more particularly because it is an exact determination of a Bishops sole power of ordination Aurelius made a motion that if a Church wanted a Presbyter to become her Bishop they might demand one from any Bishop It was granted But Posthumianus the Bishop put this case Deinde qui Vnum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri How if the Bishop have but one Priest must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widow Church Yea that he must But how then shall he keep ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him That indeed would have been the objection now but it was none then For Aurelius told them plainly there was no inconvenience in it for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter no great matter he can himself ordain many and then I am sure there is a sole ordination but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church he is not so easily found ** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church ordinations were made by the Bishop and the ordainer spoken of as a single person So it is in the Nicene Council the Council of Antioch the Council of Chalcedon and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem If thou speak saith he of Paulinianus he comes now and then to visit us not as any of your Clergy but ejus à quo ordinatus est that Bishop's who ordained him * So that the issue of this argument is this The Canons of the Apostles and the rules of the Ancient Councils appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops of Presbyters to one Bishop for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together but only Origen by the Bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea Presbyters are never mentioned in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations and if alone they did it their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio * To these particulars add this that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonical which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did joyn in them and were causes in conjunction But unless they did it alone we never read that they were punishable indeed Bishops were pro toto integro as is reported by
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
in the first three hundred years did theirs we can serve God in our houses and sometimes in Churches and our faith which was not built upon temporal foundations cannot be shaken by the convulsions of war and the changes of State But they who make our afflictions an objection against us unless they have a promise that they shall never be afflicted might do well to remember that if they ever fall into trouble they have nothing left to represent or make their condition tolerable for by pretending Religion is destroyed when it is persecuted they take away all that which can support their own Spirits and sweeten persecution However let our Church be where it pleases God it shall it is certain that Transubstantiation is an evil Doctrine false and dangerous and I know not any Church in Christendom which hath any Article more impossible or apt to render the Communion dangerous than this in the Church of Rome and since they command us to believe all or will accept none I hope the just reproof of this one will establish the minds of those who can be tempted to communicate with them in others I have now given an account of the reasons of my present engagement and though it may be enquired also why I presented it to You I fear I shall not give so perfect an account of it because those excellent reasons which invited me to this signification of my gratitude are such which although they ought to be made publick yet I know not whether your humility will permit it for you had rather oblige others than be noted by them Your Predecessor in the See of Rochester who was almost a Cardinal when he was almost dead did publickly in those evil times appear against the truth defended in this Book and yet he was more moderate and better tempered than the rest but because God hath put the truth into the hearts and mouths of his successors it is not improper that to you should be offered the opportunities of owning that which is the belief and honour of that See since the Religion was reformed But lest it be thought that this is an excuse rather than a reason of my address to you I must crave pardon of your humility and serve the end of glorification of God in it by acknowledging publickly that you have assisted my condition by the emanations of that grace which is the Crown of Martyrdom expending the remains of your lessened fortunes and increasing charity upon your Brethren who are dear to you not only by the band of the same Ministery but the fellowship of the same sufferings But indeed the cause in which these papers are ingaged is such that it ought to be owned by them that can best defend it and since the defence is not with secular arts and aids but by Spiritual the diminution of your outward circumstances cannot render you a person unfit to patronize this Book because where I fail your wisdom learning and experience can supply and therefore if you will pardon my drawing your name from the privacy of your retirement into a publick view you will singularly oblige and increase those favours by which you have already endeared the thankfulness and service of R. R. Your most affectionate and endeared Servant in the Lord Jesus JER TAYLOR A DISCOURSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST In the Holy Sacrament SECT I. State of the Question 1. THE Tree of Knowledge became the Tree of Death to us and the Tree of Life is now become an Apple of Contention The holy Symbols of the Eucharist were intended to be a contesseration and an union of Christian societies to God and with one another and the evil taking it disunites us from God and the evil understanding it divides us from each other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet if men would but do reason there were in all Religion no article which might more easily excuse us from medling with questions about it than this of the holy Sacrament For as the man in Phaedrus that being asked what he carried hidden under his Cloak answered it was hidden under his Cloak meaning that he would not have hidden it but that he intended it should be secret so we may say in this mystery to them that curiously ask what or how it is Mysterium est it is a Sacrament and a Mystery by sensible instruments it consigns spiritual graces by the creatures it brings us to God by the body it ministers to the Spirit And that things of this nature are undiscernable secrets we may learn by the experience of those men who have in cases not unlike vainly laboured to tell us how the material fire of Hell should torment an immaterial soul and how baptismal water should cleanse the spirit and how a Sacrament should nourish a body and make it sure of the resurrection 2. It was happy with Christendom when she in this article retained the same simplicity which she always was bound to do in her manners and entercourse that is to believe the thing heartily and not to enquire curiously and there was peace in this Article for almost a thousand years together and yet that Transubstantiation was not determined I hope to make very evident In synaxi transubstantiationem serò definivit Ecclesia diù satis erat credere sive sub pane consecrato sive quocunque modo adesse verum corpus Christi so said the great Erasmus It was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation for a long time together it did suffice to believe that the true body of Christ was present whether under the consecrated bread or any other way so the thing was believed the manner was not stood upon And it is a famous saying of Durandus Verbum audimus motum sentimus modum nescimus praesentiam credimus We hear the Word we perceive the Motion we know not the Manner but we believe the presence and Ferus of whom Sixtus Senensis affirms that he was vir nobiliter doctus pius eruditus hath these words Cum certum sit ibi esse corpus Christi quid opus est disputare num panis substantia maneat vel non When it is certain that Christs body is there what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or no and therefore Cutbert Tonstal Bishop of Duresme would have every one left to his conjecture concerning the manner De modo quo id fieret satius erat curiosum quemque relinquere suae conjecturae sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium Lateranum Before the Lateran Council it was free for every one to opine as they please and it were better it were so now But S. Cyril would not allow so much liberty not that he would have the manner determined but not so much as thought upon Firmam fidem mysteriis adhibentes nunquam in tam sublimibus rebus illud Quomodo aut cogitemus aut proferamus For if we go about to think it
does not mean they receive him not at all Just as we say when a man eats but a little he does not eat for as good never a jot as never the better This I say is not a sufficient escape 1. Because S. Austin opposes sacramental receiving to the true and real and says that the wicked only receive it sacramentally but not the thing whose Sacrament it is so that this is not a proposition of degrees but there is a plain opposition of one to the other 2. It is true S. Austin does not say that the wicked do not receive Christ at all for he says they receive him sacramentally but he says they do not at all receive him truly and the wicked man cannot say he does and he proves this by unanswerable arguments out of Scripture 3. This excuse will not with any pretence be fitted with the sayings of the other Fathers nor to all the words of S. Austin in this quotation and much less in others which I have and shall remark particularly this that he calls that which the wicked eat nothing but signum corporis sanguinis His words are these Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio non manducat spiritualiter carnem non bibit sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis sanguinis he does not eat the body and drink the blood spiritually although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and blood Plainly all the wicked do but eat the sign of Christs body all that is to be done beyond is to eat it spiritually There is no other eating but these two and from S. Austin it was that the Schools received that famous distinction of Panis Dominus and Panis Domini Judas received the bread of the Lord against the Lord But the other Apostles received the bread which was the Lord that is his body But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third Paragraph num 7. which the Reader may please to add to this to make it fuller 10. Ninthly Lastly In the words of Institution and Consecration as they call them the words which relate to the consecrated wine are so different in the Evangelists and S. Paul respectively as appears by comparing them together that 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down 2. That they all regarded the sence and meaning of the mystery not the letters and the syllables 3. It is not possible to be certain that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they signifie for every one of the relators differ in the words though all agree in the things as the Reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth Paragraph where the four forms are set by each other to be compared 4. The Church of Rome in the consecration of the Chalice uses a form of words which Christ spake not at all nor are related by S. Matthew or S. Mark or S. Luke or S. Paul but she puts in some things and changes others her form is this Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum For this is the chalice of my blood of the New and eternal Testament the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins what is added is plain what is altered would be very material if the words were consecratory for they are not so likely to be operative and effective as the words of Christ recited by S. Matthew and S. Mark this is my blood and if this had not been the ancient form used in the Church of Rome long before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was thought of it is not to be imagined that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture to have made the Article more secret the form less operative the authority less warrantable the words less simple and natural But the corollary which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument is that the mystery was so wholly spiritual that it was no matter by what words it were expressed so the spirit of it were retained and yet if it had been an historical natural proper sence that had been intended it ought also in all reason to have been declared or much more effected by a natural and proper and constant affirmative But that there is nothing spoken properly is therefore evident because there are so many predications and all mean the same mystery Hic est sanguis meus N. Testamenti and Hic calix est N. Testamentum in meo sanguine and Hic est calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal all this declares it is mysterium fidei and so to be taken in all sences and those words are left in their Canon as if on purpose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words or for the reducing the communicants to the only apprehensions of faith It is mysterium fidei not sanguis naturalis a mystery of faith not natural blood For supposing that both the forms used by S. Matthew and S. Luke respectively could be proper and without a figure and S. Matthews Hic est sanguis Testamenti did signifie This is the divine promise for so Bellarmine dreams that Testament there signifies and that in S. Lukes words This cup is the Testament it signifies the instrument of the Testament for so a Will or a Testament is taken either for the thing willed or the Parchment in which it is written yet how are these or either of these affirmative of the wine being transubstantiated into blood It says nothing of that and so if this sence of those words does avoid a trope it brings in a distinct proposition if it be spoken properly it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine and if the same word have several sences then in the sacramental proposition as it is described by the several Evangelists there are several predicates and therefore it is impossible that all should be proper And yet besides this although he thinks he may freely say any thing if he covers it with a distinction yet the very members of this distinction conclude against his conclusion for if Testament in one place be taken for the instrument of his Testament it is a tropical loquution just as I say my bible meaning my book is the word of God that is contains the word of God it is a Metonymie of the thing containing for that which it contains But this was more than I needed and therefore I am content it should pass for nothing SECT VIII Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 1.
for nothing can be so but an infinite Spirit 14. Neither will it be sufficient to fly here to Gods omnipotency for God can indeed make a body to be a Spirit but can it consist with the Divine Being to make an infinite substance Can there possibly be two Categorematical that is positive substantial infinites or can it be that a finite should remaining finite yet not be finite but indefinite and in innumerable places at once God can new create the body and change it into a Spirit But can a body remaining a body be at the same time a Spirit or can it be a body and yet not be in a place is it not determined so that remaining in a place it cannot be out of it If these things could be otherwise then the same thing at the same time could be a Body and a Spirit limited and unlimited wholly in a place and wholly out of it finite and infinite a body and yet no body one and yet many the same and not the same that is it should not be it self Now although God can change any thing from being the thing it is to become another thing yet is it not a contradiction to say it should be the same it is and yet not the same These are the essential immediate consequents of supposing a body remaining a body whose essence it is to be finite and determined in one place can yet so remaining be in a thousand places Thirdly The Socinians teach that our bodies at the Resurrection shall be as they say Christs body now is changed substantially For corruptible and incorruptible mortal and immortal natural and spiritual are substantial differences and now our bodies being natural corruptible and mortal differ substantially from bodies spiritual immortal and incorruptible as they shall be hereafter and as the body of our Lord now is Now I am sure the Church of Rome allows not of this doctrine in these neither have they reason for it But do not they admit that in hypothesi which they deny in thesi For is it not a perfect change of substance that a body from finite is changed to be at least potentially infinite from being determined in one place to be indefinite and indeterminable To lose all his essential proprieties must needs infer a substantial change and that it is of the essence of a body to be in one place at least an essential propriety they will not I suppose be so impudent as to deny since they flye to the Divine omnipotency and a perpetual miracle to make it be otherwise which is a plain demonstration that naturally it is so this therefore they are to answer if they can 15. But let us see what Christian Philosophy teaches us in this particular S. Austin is a good probable Doctor and may be trusted for a proposition in Natural Philosophy These are his conclusions in this Article Corpora quae non possunt esse nisi in loco Bodies cannot be but in their place Angustias omnipotentiae corpora patiuntur nec ubique possunt esse nec semper Divinitas autem ubique praestò est The Divinity is present every where but not bodies they are not omnipotent meaning it is a propriety of God to be in many places an effect of his omnipotence But more plainly yet Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt If you take from bodies the spaces of place they will be no where and if they be no where they will not be at all and to apply this to the present question he affirms Christus homo secundùm corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est Christ as man according to the body is in a place and goes from a place and when he comes to another place is not in the place from whence he came For besides that so to do is of the verity of Christs body that it should have the same affections with ours according as it is insisted upon in divers places of the Scripture particularly S. Luke 24.39 it is also in the same place and in the story apparent that the case was not alter'd after the resurrection but Christ moved finitely by dimensions and change of places So Theodoret Dominicum corpus incorruptibile resurrexit impatibile immortale divinâ gloriâ glorificatum est à coelestibus adoratur potestatibus corpus tamen est priorem habens circumscriptionem Christs body even after the resurrection is circumscribed as it was before And therefore as it is impious to deny God to be invisible so it is profane not to believe and profess the son of God in his assum'd humility to be visible corporeal and local after the resurrection It is the saying of S. Austin 16. And I would fain know how it will be answered that they attribute to the body of Christ which is his own creature the incommunicable attribute of ubiquity either actually or potentially For let them say is it not an attribute of God to be unlimited and to be undefined by places S. Austin says it and it is affirm'd by natural reason and all the world attributes this to God as a propriety of his own If it be not his own then all the world hath been always deceived till this new generation arose If it be let them fear the horrid consequent of giving that to a creature which is the glory of the Creator And if they think to escape by saying that they do not attribute to it actual ubiquity but potential that is that though he be not yet he may be every where let it be considered if the argument of the Fathers was good by which they proved the Divinity of the holy Ghost This is every where therefore this is God is it not also as good to say This may be every where therefore this may be God And then it will be altogether as bad as any thing can be imagined for it makes the incommunicable attribute of God to be communicable to a creature and not only so but it is worse for it makes that an actual creature may be a potential God that is that there can be a God which is not eternally a God that is not a pure act a God that is not yet but that shall have a beginning in time 17. Fourthly There was not in all School Divinity nor in the old Philosophy nor in nature any more than three natural proper ways of being in a place circumscriptivè definitivè repletivé The body of Christ is not in the Sacrament circumscriptively because there he could be but in one Altar in one Wafer It is not there definitively for the same reason because to be definitely in a place is to be in it so as to be there and no where else And both these are affirmed by their
for it is as he says a conversion in which both the terms remain in the same place that is in which there are two things not converted but not one that is but it is a thing of which there never was any example But then if we ask what conversion it is after a great many fancies and devices contradicting each other at last it is found to be adductive and yet that adductive does not change the place but signifies a substantial change and yet adduction is no substantial change but accidental and yet this change is not accidental but adductive and substantial O rem ridiculam Cato jocosam It is a succession not a conversion and Transubstantiation for it is Corpus ex pane confectum a body made of bread and yet it was made before the bread was made but it is made of it as day of night not tanquam ex materiâ but tanquam ex termino not as of matter but as of a term from whence say they but that is a direct motion or succession not a substantial change For that I may use the words of Faventinus What is the formal term of this action of Transubstantiation or conversion Not the body of Christ for that is the material term the formal term is that Christs body should be contained under the Species of bread and wine Hoc autem totum est accidentale nihil addit in re nisi praesentiam realem sub speciebus But all this is accidental and nothing real but that he becomes present there For since the body of Christ relates to the accidents only accidentally it cannot in respect of them have any substantial manner of being different from that which it had before it was Eucharistical And it is no otherwise than if water on the ground were annihilated or removed or corrupted and some secret way changed from thence and in the place of it Snow should descend from Heaven or Honey or Manna it were hard to call this Conversion or Transubstantiation Just as if we should say that Augustus Caesar was converted into his successor Tiberius and Moses into Joshua and Elias into Elisha or the sentinel is substantially changed into him that relieves him 38. Twelfthly Lastly if we consider the changes that are incident to the accidents of bread and wine they would afford us another heap of incommodities for besides that accidents cannot subsist without their proper subjects and much less can they become the subjects of other accidents for what they cannot be to themselves they cannot be to others in matter of supply and subsistence it being a contradiction to say insubsistent subsistencies Besides this I say If Christs body be not invested with these accidents how do they represent it or to what purpose do they remain If they be the investiture of Christs body then the body is changed by the mutation of the accidents But however I would fain know whether an accident can be sowre or be burnt as Hesychius affirms they used in Jerusalem to do to the reliques of the holy Sacrament or can accidents make a man drunk as Aquinas supposes the Sacramental wine did the Corinthians of whom S. Paul says One is hungry and another is drunken I am sure if it can it is not the blood of Christ For Mr. Blands argument in Queen Maryes time concluded well in this instance That which is in the chalice can make a man drunk But Christs blood cannot make a man drunk Therefore that which is in the chalice is not Christs blood To avoid this they must answer to the major and say that it does not supponere universalitèr for every thing in the chalice does not make a man drunk for in it there are accidents of bread and the body besides and they do inebriate not this that is to say a man may be drunk with colour and quantity and a smell when there is nothing that smells for indeed if there were a substance to be smelt it might but that accidents can do it alone is not to be supposed unless God should work a miracle to make a man drunk which to say I think were blasphemy But again can an accidental form kill a man But the young Emperour of the house of Luxemburgh was poysoned by a consecrated wafer and Pope Victor the third had like to have been and the Arch-Bishop of York was poysoned by the chalice say Mathew Paris and Malmsbury And if the body be accidentally moved at the motion of accidents then by the same reason it may accidentally become mouldy or sowre or poysonous which methinks to all Christian ears should strike horrour to hear it spoken I will not heap up more instances of the same kind of absurdities and horrid consequences of this doctrine or consider how a man or a mouse can live upon the consecrated wafers as Aimonius tells that Lewis the fair did for forty days together live upon the Sacrament and a Jew or a Turk could live on it without a miracle if he had enough of it and yet cannot live upon accidents it being a certain rule in Philosophy Ex iisdem nutriuntur mixta ex quibus fiunt and a man may as well be made of accidents and be no substance as well as be nourished by accidents without substance Neither will I inquire how it is possible that we should eat Christs body without touching it or how we can be said to touch Christs body when we only touch and tast the the accidents of bread or lastly how we can touch the accidents of bread without the substance so to do being impossible in nature Tangere n. tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res said Lucretius and from him Tertullian in his 5 chapt of his book De animâ These and divers other particulars I will not insist upon But instead of them I argue thus from their own grounds if Christ be properly said to be touch'd and to be eaten because the accidents are so then by the same reason he may be properly made hot or cold or mouldy or dry or wet or venomous by the proportionable mutation of accidents if Christ be not properly taken and manducated to what purpose is he properly there so that on either hand there is a snare But it is time to be weary of all this and inquire after the doctrine of the Church in this great question for thither at last with some seeming confidence they do appeal Thither therefore we will follow SECT XII Transubstantiation was not the Doctrine of the Primitive Church COncerning this Topick or Head of argument I have some things to premise 1. First In this question it is not necessary that I bring a Catalogue of all the ancient writers For although to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be Catholick it is necessary by Vincentius Lirinensis his rules and by the nature of the thing that they should all agree yet to shew it not
figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Make this ascribed oblation reasonable and acceptable which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And again Mira potentia c. it is a wonderful power of God which makes that the bread should remain what it is and yet be changed into another thing And again How much more operative is the word of Christ that the things be what they were and yet be changed into another and so that which was bread before consecration now is the body of Christ Hoc tamen impossibile est ut panis sit corpus Christi Sed haec verba ad sanum intellectum sunt intelligenda ita solvit Hugo saith the Gloss in Gratian which is an open defiance of the doctrine of S. Ambrose affirming it to be impossible But because these words pinch severely they have retrenched the decisive words and leave out sint and make them to run thus that the things be changed into another which corruption is discovered by the citation of these words in Paschasius Guitmond Bertram Algerus Ivo Carnotensis Gratian and Lombard But in another place he calls the mystical chalice the type of the blood and that Christ is offered here in imagine in type image or representation in coelo in veritate the truth the substance is in heaven And again This therefore truly is the Sacrament of his flesh Our Lord Jesus himself says this is my body Before the blessing by the words it was named another species or kind after the consecration the body of Christ is signified 27. S. Chrysostome is brought on both sides and his Rhetorick hath cast him on the Roman side but it also bears him beyond it and his divinity and sober opinions have fixt him on ours How to answer the expressions hyperbolical which he often uses is easie by the use of rhetorick and customs of the words But I know not how any man can sensibly answer these words For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body although the nature of bread remains in it To the same purpose are those words on the Twenty second Psalm published amongst his works though possibly they were of some other of that time or before or after it matters not to us but much to them for if he be later and yet esteemed a Catholick as it is certain he was and the man a-while supposed to be S. Chrysostome it is the greater evidence that it was long before the Church received their doctrine The words are these That table he hath prepared to his servants and his maidens in their sight that he might every day shew us in the Sacrament according to the order of Melchisedeck bread and wine to the likeness of the body and blood of Christ. To the same purpose is that saying in the Homilies of whoever is the Author of that opus imperfectum upon S. Mat. Si igitur haec vasa c. If therefore these vessels being sanctified it be so dangerous to transfer them to private uses in which the body of Christ is not but the mystery of his body is contained how much more concerning the vessels of our bodies c. Now against these testimonies they make an out-cry that they are not S. Chrysostoms works and for this last the book is corrupted and they think in this place by some one of Berengarius's scholars for they cannot tell Fain they would believe it but this kind of talk is a resolution not to yield but to proceed against all evidence for that this place is not corrupted but was originally the sence of the Author of the Homilies is highly credible by the faith of all the old MS. and there is in the publick Library of Oxford an excellent MS. very ancient that makes faith in this particular but that some one of their scholars might have left these words out of some of their copies were no great wonder though I do not find they did but that they foisted in a marginal note affirming that these words are not in all old copies an affirmation very confident but as the case stands to very little purpose But upon this account nothing can be proved from sayings of Fathers For either they are not their own works but made by another or 2. They are capable of another sence or 3. The places are corrupted by Hereticks or 4. It is not in some old copies which pretences I am content to let alone if they upon this account will but transact the question wholly by Scripture and common sence 5. It matters not at all what he is so he was not esteemed an Heretick and that he was not it is certain since by themselves these books are put among the works of S. Chrysostom and themselves can quote them when they seem to do them service All that I infer from hence is this that whensoever these books were writ some man esteemed a good Catholick was not of the Roman perswasion in the matter of the Sacrament therefore their opinion is not Catholick But that S. Chrysostom may not be drawn from his right of giving testimony and interpretation of his words in other places in his 23 Homily upon the first of the Corinthians which are undoubtedly his own he saith As thou eatest the body of the Lord so they viz. the faithful in the old Testament did eat Manna as thou drinkest blood so they the water of the rock For though the things which are made be sensible yet they are given spiritually not according to the consequence of nature but according to the grace of a gift and with the body they also nourish the soul leading unto faith 28. The next I produce for evidence in this case is S. Austin concerning whom it is so evident that he was a Protestant in this Article that truly it is a strange boldness to deny it and upon equal terms no mans mind in the world can be known for if all that he says in this question shall be reconcilable to Transubstantiation I know no reason but it may be possible but a witty man may pretend when I am dead that in this discourse I have pleaded for the doctrine of the Roman Church I will set his words down nakedly without any Gloss upon them and let them do by themselves as much as they can Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem c. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were no Sacraments at all But from this similitude for the most part they receive the things themselves As therefore according to a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the Sacrament of the blood of
but that they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood Isidore Bishop of Sevil says Panis quem frangimus c. The bread which we break is the body of Christ who saith I am the living bread But the wine is his blood and that is it which is written I am the true vine But bread because it strengthens our body therefore it is called the body of Christ but wine because it makes blood in our flesh therefore it is reduced or referred to the blood of Christ. But these visible things sanctified by the holy Ghost pass into the Sacrament of the Divine body Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ calls the Church his body and by her as a man he ministers but as he is God he receives what is offered But the Church offers the symbols of his body and blood sanctifying the whole mass by the first fruits Symbola i. e. Signa says the Latin version The bread and wine are the signs of his body and his bloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Suidas Hesychius speaking of this mystery affirms Quòd simul panis caro est It is both bread and flesh too Fulgentius saith Hic calix est novum Testamentum i. e. Hic calix quem vobis trado novum Testamentum significat This cup is the new Testament that is it signifies it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Procopius of Gaza He gave to his disciples the image of his own body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the scholiast upon Dionysius the Areopagite These things are symbols and not the truth or verity and he said it upon occasion of the same doctrine which his Author whom he explicates taught in that Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Divine symbols being placed upon the Altar by which Christ is signified and participated But this only I shall remark that Transubstantiation is so far from having been the Primitive doctrine that it was among Catholicks fiercely disputed in the time of Charles the Bald about the year 880. Paschasius wrote for the Substantial conversion Rabanus maintain'd the contrary in his answer to Heribaldus and in his writing to Abbot Egilo There lived in the same time in the Court of Charles the Emperor a country-man of ours Jo. Scot called by some Jo. Erigena who wrote a book against the substantial change in the Sacrament He lived also sometimes in England with King Alfred and was surnamed the wise and was a Martyr saith Possevinus and was in the Roman Calender his day was the fourth of the Ides of November as is to be seen in the Martyrologie published at Antwerp 1586. But when the controversie grew publick and noted Charles the Bald commanded Bertram or Ratran to write upon the question being of the Monastery of Corbey he did so and defended our doctrine against Paschasius the book is extant and may be read by him that desires it but it is so intire and dogmatical against the substantial change which was the new doctrine of Paschasius that Turrian gives this account of it to cite Bertram what is it else but to say that Calvins heresie is not new and the Belgick expurgatory Index professeth to use it with the same equity which it useth to other Catholick writers in whom they tolerate many errors and extenuate or excuse them and sometimes by inventing some device they do deny it and put some fit sence to them when they are opposed in disputation and this they do lest the Hereticks should talk that they forbid and burn books that make against them You see the honesty of the men and the justness of their proceedings but the Spanish expurgatory Index forbids the book wholly with a penitus auferatur I shall only add this that in the Church of England Bertrams doctrine prevailed longer and till Lanfrancks time it was permitted to follow Bertram or Paschasius And when Osbern wrote the lives of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury Dunstan and Elphege by the command of Lanfranck he says that in Odo's time some Clergy-men affirmed in the Sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance and to be Christs body only in figure and tells how the Arch-bishop prayed and blood dropped out of the Host over the Chalice and so his Clerks which then assisted at Mass and were of another opinion were convinced This though he writes to please Lanfranck who first gave authority to this opinion in England and according to the opinion which then prevailed yet it is an irrefragable testimony that it was but a disputed Article in Odo's time no Catholick doctrine no Article of Faith nor of a good while after for however these Clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle who could not convince them by the Law and the Prophets by the Gospels and Epistles yet his successor he that was the fourth after him I mean Aelfrick Abbot of S. Albans and afterwards Arch-bishop of Canterbury in his Saxon Homily written above 600 years since disputes the question and determines in the words of Bertram only for a Spiritual presence not natural or substantial The book was printed at London by John Day and with it a letter of Aelfrick to Wulfin Bishop of Schirburn to the same purpose His words are these That housel that is the blessed Sacrament is Christs body not bodily but spiritually not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed bread and wine to Housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed bread This is my body And in a writing to the Arch-bishop of York he said The Lord halloweth daily by the hand of the Priest bread to his body and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so nor the self same body that Christ suffered in I end this with the words of the Gloss upon the Canon Law Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitur suo modo scil non rei veritate sed significati mysterio ut sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus i. e. significatur The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly therefore it is said meaning in the Canon taken out of S. Austin after the manner to wit not in the truth of the thing but in the mystery of that which is signified so that the meaning is it is called Christ body that is Christs body is signified which the Church of Rome well expresses in an ancient Hymn Sub duabus speciebus Signis tantùm non rebus Latent res eximiae Excellent things lie under the two species of bread and wine which are only signs not the things whereof they are signs But the Lateran Council struck all dead before which Transubstantiatio non
found out a remedy for those of old so he will also for the poor misled people of Ireland and will take away the evil minds or the opportunities of the Adversaries hindring the people from Instruction and make way that the Truths we have here taught may approach to their ears and sink into their hearts and make them wise unto Salvation Amen A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY To the People of IRELAND PART I. The INTRODVCTION THE Questions of difference between Our Churches and the Church of Rome have been so often disputed and the evidences on both sides so often produc'd that to those who are strangers to the present constitution of affairs it may seem very unnecessary to say them over again and yet it will seem almost impossible to produce any new matter or if we could it will not be probable that what can be newly alledged can prevail more than all that which already hath been so often urged in these Questions But we are not deterr'd from doing our duty by any such considerations as knowing that the same Medicaments are with success applied to a returning or an abiding Ulcer and the Preachers of God's Word must for ever be ready to put the People in mind of such things which they already have heard and by the same Scriptures and the same Reasons endeavour to destroy their sin or prevent their danger and by the same word of God to exstirpate those errors which have had opportunity in the time of our late disorders to spring up and grow stronger not when the Keepers of the field slept but when they were wounded and their hands cut off and their mouths stopp'd lest they should continue or proceed to do the work of God thoroughly A little warm Sun and some indulgent showers of a softer Rain have made many weeds of erroneous Doctrine to take root greatly and to spread themselves widely and the Bigots of the Roman Church by their late importune boldness and indiscreet forwardness in making Proselytes have but too manifestly declar'd to all the World that if they were rerum potiti Masters of our affairs they would suffer nothing to grow but their own Colocynths and Gourds And although the Natural remedy for this were to take away that impunity upon the account of which alone they do encrease yet because we shall never be Authors of such Counsels but confidently rely upon God the Holy Scriptures right Reason and the most venerable and prime Antiquity which are the proper defensatives of truth for its support and maintenance yet we must not conceal from the People committed to our charges the great evils to which they are tempted by the Roman Emissaries that while the King and the Parliament take care to secure all the publick interests by instruments of their own we also may by the word of our proper Ministery endeavour to stop the progression of such errors which we know to be destructive of Christian Religion and consequently dangerous to the interest of Souls In this procedure although we shall say some things which have not been alwayes plac'd before their eyes and others we shall represent with a fittingness to their present necessities and all with Charity too and zeal for their souls yet if we were to say nothing but what hath been often said already we are still doing the work of God and repeating his voice and by the same remedies curing the same diseases and we only wait for the blessing of God prospering that importunity which is our duty according to the advice of Solomon In the Morning sow thy seed and in the Evening withhold not thy hand for thou knowest not whether shall prosper either this or that or whether they both shall be alike good CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Roman Church in the Controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive SECT I. IT was the challenge of Saint Augustine to the Donatists who as the Church of Rome does at this day inclos'd the Catholick Church within their own circuits Ye say that Christ is Heir of no Lands but where Donatus is Co-heir Read this to us out of the Law and the Prophets out of the Psalms out of the Gospel it self or out of the Letters of the Apostles Read it thence and we believe it Plainly directing us to the Fountains of our Faith the Old and New Testament the words of Christ and the words of the Apostles For nothing else can be the Foundation of our Faith whatsoever came in after these foris est it belongs not unto Christ To these we also add not as Authors or Finishers but as Helpers of our Faith and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the Sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God in the Ages next after the Apostles Not that we think them or our selves bound to every private Opinion even of a Primitive Bishop and Martyr but that we all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire and transmitted faithfully to the after-Ages the whole faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of doctrine and sound words which was at first delivered to the Saints and was defective in nothing that belong'd unto salvation and we believe that those Ages sent millions of Saints to the bosome of Christ and seal'd the true Faith with their lives and with their deaths and by both gave testimony unto Jesus and had from him the Testimony of his Spirit And this method of procedure we now chuse not only because to them that know well how to use it to the Sober and Moderate the Peaceable and the Wise it is the best the most certain visible and tangible most humble and satisfactory but also because the Church of Rome does with greatest noises pretend her Conformity to Antiquity Indeed the present Roman Doctrines which are in difference were invisible and unheard-of in the first and best Antiquity and with how ill success their Quotations are out of the Fathers of the first three Ages every inquiring Man may easily discern But the noises therefore which they make are from the Writings of the succeeding Ages where secular interest did more prevail and the Writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of controversie and ambiguous sences fitted to their own times and questions full of proper Opinions and such variety of sayings that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively Now although things being thus it will be impossible for them to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers that their Doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church because any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholick consent yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then
the Fathers were not against them what need these Arts Why should they use them thus Their own expurgatory indices are infinite testimony against them both that they do so and that they need it But besides these things we have thought it fit to represent in one aspect some of their chief Doctrines of difference from the Church of England and make it evident that they are indeed new and brought into the Church first by way of opinion and afterwards by power and at last by their own authority decreed into Laws and Articles SECT II. FIRST We alledge that that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty and expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and we prove it first by the words of the Apostle saying If we or an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel viz. in whole or in part for there is the same reason of them both than that which we have preached let him be Anathema and secondly by the sentence of the Fathers in the third General Council that at Ephesus That it should not be lawful for any Man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed than that which was defin'd by the Nicene Council and that whosoever shall dare to compose or offer any such to any Persons willing to be converted from Paganism Judaism or Heresie if they were Bishops or Clerks they should be depos'd if Lay-men they should be accursed And yet in the Church of Rome Faith and Christianity increase like the Moon Bromyard complain'd of it long since and the mischief increases daily They have now a new Article of Faith ready for the stamp which may very shortly become necessary to salvation we mean that of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary Whether the Pope be above a Council or no we are not sure whether it be an Article of Faith amongst them or not It is very near one if it be not Bellarmine would fain have us believe that the Council of Constance approving the Bull of Pope Martin the fifth declar'd for the Popes Supremacy But John Gerson who was at the Council sayes that the Council did abate those heights to which flattery had advanc'd the Pope and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope which afterwards moderate Men durst not speak but yet some others spake them so confidently before it that he that should then have spoken to the contrary would hardly have escap'd the note of Heresie and that these Men continued the same pretensions even after the Council But the Council of Basil decreed for the Council against the Pope and the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth decreed for the Pope against the Council So that it is cross and pile and whether for a penny when it can be done it is now a known case it shall become an Article of Faith But for the present it is a probationary Article and according to Bellarmine's expression is serè de fide it is almost an Article of Faith they want a little age and then they may go alone But the Council of Trent hath produc'd a strange new Article but it is sine controversiâ credendum it must be believ'd and must not be controverted that although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not believe it necessary to salvation Now this being a matter of fact whether they did or did not believe it every man that reads their writings can be able to inform himself and besides that it is strange that this should be determin'd by a Council and determin'd against evident truth it being notorious that divers of the Fathers did say it is necessary to salvation the decree it self is beyond all bounds of modesty and a strange pretension of Empire over the Christian belief But we proceed to other Instances SECT III. THE Roman Doctrine of Indulgences was the first occasion of the great change and Reformation of the Western Churches begun by the Preachings of Martyn Luther and others and besides that it grew to that intolerable abuse that it became a shame to it self and a reproach to Christendom it was also so very an Innovation that their great Antoninus confesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly either in the Scriptures or in the sayings of the ancient Doctors And the same is affirmed by Sylvester Prierias Bishop Fisher of Rochester sayes that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory and many of the School-men confess that the use of Indulgences began in the time of Pope Alexander the third towards the end of the twelfth Century but Agrippa imputes the beginning of them to Boniface the eighth who liv'd in the Reign of King Edward the first of England 1300. years after Christ. But that in his time the first Jubilee was kept we are assur'd by Crantzius This Pope lived and died with great infamy and therefore was not likely from himself to transfer much honour and reputation to the new institution But that about this time Indulgences began is more than probable much before it is certain they were not For in the whole Canon Law written by Gratian and in the sentences of Peter Lombard there is nothing spoken of Indulgences Now because they liv'd in the time of Pope Alexander the third if he had introduc'd them and much rather if they had been as ancient as Saint Gregory as some vainly and weakly pretend from no greater authority than their own Legends it is probable that these great Men writing Bodies of Divinity and Law would have made mention of so considerable a Point and so great a part of the Roman Religion as things are now order'd If they had been Doctrines of the Church then as they are now it is certain they must have come under their cognisance and discourses Now lest the Roman Emissaries should deceive any of the good Sons of the Church we think it fit to acquaint them that in the Primitive Church when the Bishops impos'd severe penances and that they were almost quite perform'd and a great cause of pity intervened or danger of death or an excellent repentance or that the Martyrs interceded the Bishop did sometimes indulge the penitent and relax some of the remaining parts of his penance and according to the example of Saint Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian gave them ease lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow But the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences is wholly another thing nothing of it but the abused name remains For in the Church of Rome they now pretend that there is an infinite of degrees of Christ's merits and satisfaction beyond what is necessary for the salvation of his servants and for fear Christ should not have enough the Saints have a surplusage of
merits or at least of satisfactions more than they can spend or themselves do need and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure a kind of poor-mans box and out of this a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor souls in Purgatory who because they did not satisfie for their venial sins or perform all their penances which were imposed or which might have been imposed and which were due to be paâ—d to God for the temporal pains reserved upon them after he had forgiven them the guilt of their deadly sins are forc'd sadly to roar in pains not inferiour to the pains of Hell excepting only that that they are not eternal That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgences we appeal to Bellarmine Now concerning their new foundation of Indulgences the first stone of it was laid by Pope Clement the sixth in his extravagant Vnigenitus de poenitentiis remissionibus A. D. 1350. This Constitution was published fifty years after the first Jubilee and was a new device to bring in Customers to Rome at the second Jubilee which was kept in Rome in this Popes time What ends of profit and interest it serv'd we are not much concern'd to enquire but this we know that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus not long before this extravagant and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it But as to the thing it self it is so wholly new so meerly devis'd and forged by themselves so newly created out of nothing from great mistakes of Scripture and dreams of shadows from Antiquity that we are to admonish our charges that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers which were born but yesterday That which is not cannot be numbred and that which was not could not be confuted But the perfect silence of Antiquity in this whole matter is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later Laboratories of Rome For as Durandus said the Holy Fathers Ambrose Hillary Hierom Augustine speak nothing of Indulgences And whereas it is said that Saint Gregory six hundred years after Christ gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations Magister Angularis who lived about two hundred years since sayes he never read of any such any where and it is certain there is no such thing in the Writings of Saint Gregory nor in any History of that Age or any other that is authentick and we could never see any History pretended for it by the Roman Writers but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius which is so ridiculous and weak that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences and Altisiodorensis for story and record And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment reservâ—d by God after the sin is pardoned were given by Christ to his Church that no one of the ancient Doctors should tell any thing of it insomuch that there is no one Writer of authority and credit not the more ancient Doctors we have named nor those who were much later Rupertus Tuitiensis Anselm or Saint Bernard ever took notice of it but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about one thousand two hundred years after Christ and Cardinal Cajetan told Pope Adrian the sixth that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears that an Indulgence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed and therefore can be nothing of that which is now adayes pretended True it is that the Canonical penances were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations and the ancient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness and absolution without amends It became a Trumpet and a Leavy for the Holy War in Pope Vrban the Seconds time for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Sarazens and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences for concerning the value of Indulgences the complaint is both old and doubtful said Pope Adrian and he cites a famous gloss which tells of four Opinions all Catholick and yet vastly differing in this particular but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences No man could then tell and the Point was but in the infancy and since that they have made it what they please but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine and they have devised new Propositions as well as they can to make sence of it and yet it is a very strange thing a solution not an absolution it is the distinction of Bellarmine that is the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this World or in the world to come and in the end it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture or Catholick Tradition and not only so but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins that Christ and his Apostles taught not a way destructive to the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes a hope that will make men asham'd a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ a practice that supposes a new bunch of Keyes given to the Church besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdom of Heaven a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ who taught us That when we have done all that is commanded we are unprofitable servants and therefore certainly cannot supererogate or do more than what is infinitely recompenc'd by the Kingdom of Glory to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd especially since the greatest Saint cannot but say with David Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified It is a practice that hath turn'd Penances into a Fair and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard and the labours of Love into the labours of Pilgrimages superstitious and useless wandrings from place to
place and Religion into vanity and our hope in God to a confidence in man and our fears of hell to be a meer scare-crow to rich and confident sinners and at last it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady the Wife of Franceschet to Cibo Bastard Son of Pope Innocent the eighth and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters at Dice and Cards and men did vile actions that they might win Indulgences by Gaming making their way to Heaven easier Now although the Holy Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences because in their dayes it was not yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practises For besides that they teach repentance wholly reducing us to a good life a faith that intirely relies upon Christ's merits and satisfactions a hope wholly depending upon the plain promises of the Gospel a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience a labour of love a religion of justice and piety and moral vertues they do also expresly teach that pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions which are now the earnings and price of Indulgences are not requir'd of us and are not the way of salvation as is to be seen in an Oration made by Saint Gregory Nyssene wholly against pilgrimages to Jerusalem in Saint Chrysostom Saint Augustine and Saint Bernard The sence of these Fathers is this in the words of Saint Augustine God said not Go to the East and seek righteousness sail to the West that you may receive indulgence But indulge thy brother and it shall be indulg'd to thee you have need to inquire for no other indulgence to thy sins if thou wilt retire into the closet of thy heart there thou shalt find it That is All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through JESVS CHRIST and is wholly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ and perseverance in good works and intire mortification of all our sins To conclude this particular Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences be a heap almost as great as the abuses themselves yet the greatest Patrons of this new Doctrine could never give any certainty or reasonable comfort to the Conscience of any person that could inquire into it They never durst determine whether they were Absolutions or Compensations whether they only take off the penances actually impos'd by the Confessor or potentially and all that which might have been impos'd whether all that may be paid in the Court of men or all that can or will be required by the Laws and severity of God Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question Whether the Treasure of the Church consists of the Satisfactions of Christ only or of the Saints For if of Saints it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate and being finite and limited will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served and if therefore it be necessary to add the merits and satisfaction of Christ since they are an Ocean of infinity and can supply more than all our needs to what purpose is it to add the little minutes and droppings of the Saints They cannot tell whether they may be given if the Receiver do nothing or give nothing for them And though this last particular could better be resolv'd by the Court of Rome than by the Church of Rome yet all the Doctrines which built up the new Fabrick of Indulgences were so dangerous to determine so improbable so unreasonable or at best so uncertain and invidious that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines and all the cases of Conscience quite alone and slubber'd the whole matter both in the Question of Indulgences and Purgatory in general and recommendatory terms affirming that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church and that the use is wholesome And that all hard and subtil Questions viz. concerning Purgatory which although if it be at all it is a fire yet is the fuel of Indulgences and maintains them wholly all that is suspected to be false and all that is uncertain and whatsoever is curious and superstitious scandalous or for filthy lucre be laid aside And in the mean time they tell us not what is and what is not Superstitious nor what is scandalous nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence and they establish no Doctrine neither curious nor incurious nor durst they decree the very foundation of this whole matter The Churches Treasure Neither durst they meddle with it but left it as they found it and continued in the abuses and proceeded in the practice and set their Doctors as well as they can to defend all the new and curious and scandalous Questions and to uphold the gainful trade But however it be with them the Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct Innovation in the matter of Christian Religion and that was it which we have undertaken to demonstrate SECT IV. THE Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mother of Indulgences and the fear of that hath introduc'd these For the world happened to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable who being told he was likely to fall into a delirium in his feet was advis'd for remedy to take the juyce of Cotton He feared a disease that was not and look'd for a cure as ridiculous But if the Patent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built the Superstructures of Rome must fall they can be no stronger than their Supporter Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Innovation 1. We consider That the Doctrines upon which it is pretended reasonable are all dubious and disputable at the very best Such are 1. Their distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature 2. That the taking away the guilt of sins does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment that is That when a mans sin is pardoned he may be punished without the guilt of that sin as justly as with it as if the guilt could be any thing else but an obligation to punishment for having sinned which is a Proposition of which no wise man can make sence but it is certain that it is expresly against the Word of God who promises upon our repentance so to take away our sins that he will remember them no more And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way but by curing our evil hearts and taking away the punishment And this was so perfectly believ'd by the Primitive Church that they alwayes made the penances and satisfaction to be undergone before they gave absolution and
after absolution they never impos'd or oblig'd to punishment unless it were to sick persons of whose recovery they despaired not of them indeed in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments they expected they should perform what was injoyn'd them formerly But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul and a foul stain to his reputation we demand In what does this stain consist in the guilt or in the punishment If it be said that it consists in the punishment then what does the guilt signifie when the removing of it does neither remove the stain nor the punishment which both remain and abide together But if the stain and the guilt be all one or alwayes together then when the guilt is taken away there can no stain remain and if so what need is there any more of Purgatory For since this is pretended to be necessary only lest any stain'd or unclean thing should enter into Heaven if the guilt and the pain be removed what uncleanness can there be left behind Indeed Simon Magus as Epiphanius reports Haeres 20. did teach That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purgation of souls But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authentick Doctor themselves can best tell 3. It relies upon this also That God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfactions which must regularly be paid here or hereafter even by them who are pardon'd here which if it were true we were all undone 4. That the death of Christ his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye nor as it may happen of a long time after All which being Propositions new and uncertain invented by the School Divines and brought ex post facto to dress this Opinion and make it to seem reasonable and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace of the righteousness of Faith and the infinite value of Christ's Death must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self which but by these cannot be supported But to put it past suspicion and conjectures Roffensis and Polydor Virgil affirm That who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall find that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it But for the Catholick Church it was but lately known to her But before we say any more in this Question we are to premonish That there are two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity The first is That the Ancient Churches in their Offices and the Fathers in their Writings did teach and practise respectively prayer for the dead Now because the Church of Rome does so too and more than so relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory and for the souls there detaind her Doctors vainly suppose that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead that they conclude for Purgatory which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable For it is true the Fathers did pray for the dead but how That God would shew them mercy and hasten the Resurrection and give a blessed Sentence in the great day But then it is also to be remembred that they made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory even for the Patriarchs and Prophets for the Apostles and Evangelists for Martyrs and Confessors and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary So we find it in Epiphanius Saint Cyril and in the Canon of the Greeks and so it is acknowledged by their own Durandus and in their Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of Saint Leo Of which because by their latter Doctrines they grew asham'd they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God by the intercession of Saint Leo in behalf of themselves so by their new doctrine making him an Intercessor for us who by their old Doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him of which Pope Innocent being askâ—d a reason makes a most pitiful excuse Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed and indeed generally for all it is not now seasonable to discourse but to say this only that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England never did condemn by any express Article but left it in the middle and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead and her interest in the communion of Saints and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church parts and members of the Body of Christ but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead infers the belief of Purgatory every man may satisfie himself by seeing the Writings of the Fathers where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause for praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place Which thing is so certain that in the very Roman Offices we mean the Vigils said for the dead which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture speaking of the miseries of this World Repentance and Reconciliation with God the bliss after this life of them that die in Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead and in the Anthems Versicles and Responses there are Prayers made recommending to God the Soul of the newly defunct praying he may be freed from Hell and eternal death that in the day of Judgment he be not judged and condemned according to his sins but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection but not one word of Purgatory or its pains The other cause of their mistake is That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Judgment and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it and so Saint Ambrose follows him in the Opinion for it was no more so does Saint Basil Saint Hilary Saint Hierom and Lactantius as their words plainly prove as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis affirming that all men Christ only excepted shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Judgment even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory Sixtus Senensis sayes and he sayes very true that Justin Martyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius Saint Chrysostom Arethas Euthimius and Saint Bernard did all affirm that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are
kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life We do not interpose in this Opinion to say that it is true or false probable or improbable for these Fathers intended it not as a matter of faith or necessary belief so far as we find But we observe from hence that if their opinion be true then the Doctrine of Purgatory is false If it be not true yet the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory which is inconsistent with this so generally receiv'd Opinion of the Fathers is at least new no Catholick Doctrine not belived in the Primitive Church and therefore the Roman Writers are much troubled to excuse the Fathers in this Article and to reconcile them to some seeming concord with their new Doctrine But besides these things it is certain that the Doctrine of Purgatory before the day of Judgment in Saint Augustine's time was not the Doctrine of the Church it was not the Catholick Doctrine for himself did doubt of it Whether it be so or not it may be inquired and possibly it may be found so and possibly it may never so Saint Augustine In his time therefore it was no Doctrine of the Church and it continued much longer in uncertainty for in the time of Otho Frisingensis who liv'd in the year 1146. it was gotten no further than to a Quidam asserunt some do affirm that there is a place of Purgatory after death And although it is not to be denied but that many of the ancient Doctors had strange Opinions concerning Purgations and Fires and Intermedial states and common Receptacles and liberations of Souls and Spirits after this life yet we can truly affirm it and can never be convinc'd to erre in this affirmation that there is not any one of the Ancients within five hundred years whose opinion in this Article throughout the Church of Rome at this day follows But the people of the Roman Communion have been principally led into a belief of Purgatory by their fear and by their credulity they have been softned and intic'd into this belief by perpetual tales and legends by which they lov'd to be abus'd To this purpose their Priests and Friers have made great use of the apparition of Saint Hierom after death to Eusebius commanding him to lay his fack upon the corps of three dead men that they arising from death might confess Purgatory which formerly they had denied The story is written in an Epistle imputed to Saint Cyril but the ill luck of it was that Saint Hierom out-lived Saint Cyril and wrote his life and so confuted that story but all is one for that they believe it nevertheless But there are enough to help it out and if they be not firmly true yet if they be firmly believ'd all is well enough In the Speculum exemplorum it is said That a certain Priest in an extasie saw the soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eves of his house tormented with frosts and cold rains and afterwards climbing up to Heaven upon a shining Pillar And a certain Monk saw some souls roasted upon spits like Pigs and some Devils basting them with scalding Lard but a while after they were carried to a cool place and so prov'd Purgatory But Bishop Theobald standing upon a piece of Ice to cool his feet was nearer Purgatory than he was aware and was convinc'd of it when he heard a poor soul telling him that under that Ice he was tormented and that he should be delivered if for thirty dayes continual he would say for him thirty Masses and some such thing was seen by Conrade and Vdalric in a Pool of water For the place of Purgatory was not yet resolv'd on till Saint Patrick had the key of it delivered to him which when one Nicholas borrowed of him he saw as strange and true things there as ever Virgil dreamed of in his Purgatory or Cicero in his dream of Scipio or Plato in his Gorgias or Phaedo who indeed are the surest Authors to prove Purgatory But because to preach false stories was forbidden by the Council of Trent there are yet remaining more certain Arguments even revelations made by Angels and the testimony of Saint Odilio himself who heard the Devil complain and he had great reason surely that the souls of dead men were daily snatch'd out of his hands by the Alms and Prayers of the living and the Sister of Saint Damianus being too much pleas'd with hearing of a Piper told her Brother that she was to be tormented for fifteen dayes in Purgatory We do not think that the wise men in the Church of Rome believe these Narratives for if they did they were not wise But this we know that by such stories the people were brought into a belief of it and having served their turn of them the Master-builders used them as false Arches and Centries taking them away when the parts of the building were made firm and stable by Authority But even the better sort of them do believe them or else they do worse for they urge and cite the Dialogues of Saint Gregory the Oration of Saint John Damascen de Defunctis the Sermons of Saint Augustine upon the Feast of the Commemoration of All-souls which nevertheless was instituted after Saint Augustine's death and divers other citations which the Greeks in their Apology call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holds and the Castles the corruptions and insinuations of Heretical persons But in this they are the less to be blamed because better Arguments than they have no men are tied to make use of But against this way of proceeding we think fit to admonish the people of our charges that besides that the Scriptures expresly forbid us to enquire of the dead for truth the Holy Doctors of the Church particularly Tertullian Saint Athanasius Saint Chrysostom Isidor and Theophylact deny that the souls of the dead ever do appear and bring many reasons to prove that it is unfitting they should saying If they did it would be the cause of many errors and the Devils under that pretence might easily abuse the World with notices and revelations of their own and because Christ would have us content with Moses and the Prophets and especially to hear that Prophet whom the Lord our God hath raised up amongst us our blessed Jesus who never taught any such Doctrine to his Church But because we are now representing the Novelty of this Doctrine and proving that anciently it was not the Doctrine of the Church nor at all esteemed a matter of Faith whether there was or was not any such place or state we add this That the Greek Church did alwayes dissent from the Latins in this particular since they had forg'd this new Doctrine in the Laboratories of Rome and in the Council of Basil publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory How afterwards they
but the confession and acknowledgment of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus sayes that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses and and Henriquez affirms that Scotus sayes it was not ancient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance saying he talk'd at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory the Seventh nor that consent of Fathers which to so little purpose he had heap'd together Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuits in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation and in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these If it be inquir'd what kind of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it Only I know that it is not formal because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is chang'd into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former Authorities seem to consent But to this sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ then every day some substance is made the Body or Blood of Christ which before was not the body and to day something is Christ's Body which yesterday was not and every day Christ's Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the Conception These are his words which we have remark'd not only for the Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written but about fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran Council and therefore it made haste in so short time to pass from a disputable Opinion to an Article of Faith But even after the Council Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintain'd that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd And although he sayes that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christ's Body and yet the matter of bread remain and if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of bread does not remain But here his reason was overcome by authority and he durst not affirm that of which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account But by this it appears that the Opinion was but then in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain according to that old Distich Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Déque modo lis est non habitura modum And the Opinion was not determin'd in the Lateran as it is now held at Rome but it is also plain that it is a stranger to Antiquity De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis scriptoribus mentio said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of transubstantiating the bread into Christ's Body We know the modesty and interest of the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it There was no mention at all of this Article in the Primitive Church And that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be deny'd by any sober person who considers That it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerous times and argued and unsetled almost 1300. years after Christ. And that it was so will but too evidently appear by that stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law For Berengarius was by Pope Nicolaus commanded to recant his error in these words and to affirm Verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solùm in sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hundred and fourteen Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet at this day it is renounc'd by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded sayes the Gloss will lead into a heresie greater than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce and no interpretation can make it tolerable but such an one as is in another place of the Canon Law Statuimus i. e. abrogamus nothing but a plain denying it in the sence of Pope Nicolas But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reprov'd but being asham'd and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis spake more warily but yet differently from what they said at first so it was and is in this Question at first they understood it not it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sence to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best Ages of the Church these following testimonies do make evident The words of Tertullian are these The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the figure of my Body SECT II. Of PVRGATORY THAT the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty and a part of their New Religion is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester and Alphonsus à Castro whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholick verities The words of Roffensis in his eighteenth article against Luther are these Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum
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
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
be asham'd of it and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent it is put out again and the prayer for Saint Leo put in again That by these offices of holy attonement viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament a blessed reward may accompany him and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us Another Argument was us'd in the Dissuasive against the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick Doctrine when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment but that no soul enters into the supreme Heaven or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment but at that day say many of them all must pass through the universal fire To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis to all which being so evident and apparent the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word but have left the whole fabrick of the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great Authorities only one of them striving to find some fault sayes that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the Doctrine that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John c. but only reports the opinion of others To which I answer that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own Authority For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent also it is only said of Sixtus Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence but commanded it to be held by all men as saith Adrian Now although in his narrative of it Adrian begins with novissime fertur it is reported yet Senensis himself when he had said Pope John is said to have decreed this he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this Decree 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it that he gives the reason of the same even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that Opinion 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the Opinion 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed yet all that he can say against it is that apud probatos scriptores non est Vndequaque certum 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of Antiquity against this charge against Pope John only he sayes that Pope Benedict the Eleventh affirms that John being prevented by death could not finish the Decree 6. But this thing was not done in a corner the Acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the Decree were too notorious 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the Doctrine contrary to the Roman as it is this day and yet the Roman Doctors care not what they say insomuch that Saint Bernard having fully and frequently taught That no souls go to Heaven till they all go neither the Saints without the common people nor the spirit without the flesh that there are three states of souls one in the tabernacles viz. of our bodies a second in atriis or outward Courts and a third in the House of God Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd and Sixtus Senensis adds these words which thing also I do not deny yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this Opinion But that the present Doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new Article of Faith is therefore certain because it was no Article of Faith in Saint Austin's time for he doubted of it And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of Saint Austin The words I shall now produce because they will answer for themselves In the 68. Chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best Armour in which they trusted and expounds the words of Saint Paul He shall be saved yet so as by fire to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd aut inveniri aut latere and either be found or lie hid Now what is that which thus may or may not be found out This that some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire This is it which Saint Austin sayes is not incredible only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting it is not incredible such a thing may be it may be inquir'd after it may be found to be so or it may never be found but lie hid then words signifie nothing yea but the doubting of Saint Austin does not relate to the matter or question of Purgatory but to the manner of the particular punishment viz. Whether or no that pain of being troubled for the loss of their goods be not a part of the Purgatory flames sayes E. W. A goodly excuse as if Saint Austin had troubled himself with such an impertinent Question whether the poor souls in their infernal flames be not troubled that they left their lands and money behind them Indeed it is possible they might wish some of the waters of their Springs or Fish-ponds to cool their tongues but Saint Austin surely did not suspect that the tormented Ghosts were troubled they had not brought their best clothes with them and money in their purses This is too pitiful and strain'd an Answer the case being so evidently clear that the thing Saint Austin doubted of was since there was to some of the faithful who yet were too voluptuous or covetous persons a Purgatory in this world even the loss of their Goods which they so lov'd and therefore being lost so grieved for whether or no they should not also meet with another Purgatory after death that is whether besides the punishment suffered here they should not be punish'd after death how by grieving for the loss
of their Goods Ridiculous What then Saint Austin himself tells us by so much as they lov'd their goods more or less by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd And what he said of this kind of sin viz. too much worldliness with the same Reason he might suppose of others this he thought possible but of this he was not sure and therefore it was not then an Article of Faith and though now the Church of Rome hath made it so yet it appears that it was not so from the beginning but is part of their new fashion'd faith And E. W. striving so impossibly and so weakly to avoid the pressure of this Argument should do well to consider whether he have not more strained his Conscience than the words of Saint Austin But this matter must not pass thus Saint Austin repeats this whole passage verbatim in his Answer to the 8. Quest. of Dulcitius Quest. 1. and still answers in this and other appendant Questions of the same nature viz. Whether Prayers for the dead be available c. Quest. 2. And whether upon the instant of Christ's appearing he will pass to judgment Quest 3. In these things which we have describ'd our and the infirmity of others may be so exercis'd and instructed nevertheless that they pass not for Canonical Authority And in the Answer to the first Question he speaks in the style of a doubtful person Whether men suffer such things in this life only or also such certain judgments follow even after this life this Understanding of this sentence is not as I suppose abhorrent from truth The same words he also repeats in his Book de fide operibus Chap. 16. There is yet another place of S. Austin in which it is plain he still is a doubting person in the Question of Purgatory His sence is this After the death of the body until the resurrection if in the interval the spirits of the dead are said to suffer that kind of fire which they feel not who had not such manners and loves in their life-time that their wood hay and stubble ought to be consum'd but others feel who brought such buildings along with them whether there only or whether here and there or whether therefore here that it might not be there that they feel a fire of a transitory tribulation burning their secular buildings though escaping from damnation I reprove it not for peradventure it is true So Saint Austin's peradventure yea is alwayes peradventure nay and will the Bigots of the Roman Church be content with such a confession of faith as this of Saint Austin in the present Article I believe not But now after all this I will not deny but Saint Austin was much inclin'd to believe Purgatory fire and therefore I shall not trouble my self to answer the citations to that purpose which Bellarmine and from him these Transcribers bring out of this Father though most of them are drawn out of Apocryphal spurious and suspected pieces as his Homilies de S. S. c. yet that which I urge is this that Saint Austin did not esteem this to be a Doctrine of the Church no Article of Faith but a disputable Opinion and yet though he did incline to the wrong part of the Opinion yet it is very certain that he sometimes speaks expresly against this Doctrine and other times speaks things absolutely inconsistent with the Opinion of Purgatory which is more than an Argument of his confessed doubting for it is a declaration that he understood nothing certain in this affair but that the contrary to his Opinion was the more probable And this appears in these few following words Saint Austin hath these words Some suffer temporary punishments in this life only others after death others both now and then Bellarmine and from him Diaphanta urges this as a great proof of Saint Austin's Doctrine But he destroyes it in the words immediately following and makes it useless to the hypothesis of the Roman Church This shall be before they suffer the last and severest judgment meaning as Saint Austin frequently does such sayings of the General conflagration at the end of the world But whether he does so or no yet he adds But all of them come not into the everlasting punishments which after the Judgment shall be to them who after death suffer the temporary By which Doctrine of Saint Austin viz. that those who are in his Purgatory shall many of them be damn'd and the temporary punishments after death do but usher in the Eternal after judgment he destroyes the salt of the Roman fire who imagines that all that go to Purgatory shall be sav'd Therefore this testimony of Saint Austin as it is nothing for the avail of the Roman Purgatory so by the appendage it is much against it which Coquaeus Torrensis and especially Cardinal Perron observing have most violently corrupted these words by falsely translating them So Perron Tous ceux qui souffrent des peines temporelles apres lâ— mort ne viennent pas aux peines Eternelles qui auront tien apres le judgement which reddition is expresly against the sence of Saint Austin's words 2. But another hypothesis there is in Saint Austin to which without dubitation he does peremptorily adhere which I before intimated viz. that although he admit of Purgatory pains after this life yet none but such as shall be at the day of Judgment Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains let him be not only baptiz'd but also justified in Christ and truly pass from the Devil unto Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of Judgment but that then at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge And so himself declares his own sence All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved when in the day of Judgment but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd that is purg'd who build upon this foundation wood hay stubble So that in the day of Judgment the trial and escape shall be for then shall the trial and the condemnation be But yet more clear are his words in other places So at the setting of the Sun that is at the end viz. of the world the day of judgment is signified by that fire dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire and those who are to be damned in the fire nothing is plainer than that Saint Austin understood that those who are to be sav'd so as by fire are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment that was his Opinion of Purgatory And again out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment For what thing else
can be understood where it is said who shall endure the day of his coming c. 3. Saint Austin speaks things expresly against the Doctrine of Purgatory Know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Paradise according to its good deservings or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara into the hell of the damned for I know not well how else to render it And again the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham if she be faithful or in the custody of the infernal prison if it be sinful until the appointed day comes in which she shall receive her body pertinent to which is that of Saint Austin if he be Author of that excellent Book de Eccles. dogmatibus which is imputed to him After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and going from the body go unto Christ expecting the resurrection of their body But I shall insist no further upon these things I suppose it very apparent that Saint Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory and that if he had fancied right yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied There is only one Objection which I know of which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things Saint Austin speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life saith Constat autem c. but it is certain that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirits suffer when they have receiv'd their bodies shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire here is a positive determination of the Article by a word of confidence and a full certificate and therefore Saint Austin in this Article was not a doubting person To this I answer it may be he was confident here but it lasted not long this fire was made of straw and soon went out for within two Chapters after he expresly doubts as I have provâ—d 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world and if they be so referred it is most agreeable to his other sentiments 3. This Constat or decretory phrase and some lines before or after it are not in the old Books of Bruges and Colein nor in the Copies printed at Friburg and Ludovicus Vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this Objection being remov'd there remains no ground to deny that Saint Austin was a doubting person in the Article of Purgatory And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him and the same is said of him by Hofmeister but modestly and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead which is nothing to the purpose and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus à Castro and by Barnesius Well! but suppose Saint Austin did doubt of Purgatory This is no warranty to the Church of England for she does not doubt of it as Saint Austin did but plainly condemns it So one of my Adversaries objects To which I answer That the Church of England may the rather condemn it because Saint Austin doubted of it for if it be no Catholick Doctrine it is but a School point and without prejudice to the Faith may be rejected But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the Doctrine if it had been left as Saint Austin left it that is but as a meer uncertain Opinion but when the wrong end of the Opinion was taken and made an Article of Faith and damnation threatned to them that believed it not she had reason to consider it and finding it to be chaff wholly to scatter it away 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed if in any case she see more than Saint Austin did and proceed accordingly for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things of which Saint Austin indeed did not doubt but affirm'd confidently I instance in the necessity of communicating Infants and the matter of appeals to Rome The next Authority to be examin'd is that of Otho Frisingensis concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive for making him to speak of a Purgatory before whereas he speaks of one after the day of Judgment with a Quidam asserunt some affirm it viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death nay but you are deceiv'd sayes E. W. and the rest of the Adversaries he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment Now truly that is more than I said but that Otho said it is by these men confess'd But his words are these I think it ought to be search'd whether the judgment being pass'd besides the lower hell there remain a place for lighter punishments for that there is below or in hell a Purgatory place in which they that are to be savâ—d are either affected afficiantur invested punish'd with darkness only or else are boiled in the fire of expiation some do affirm What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this Opinion are such which relate to the interval between death and the last judgment Juxta illud Patriarchae lugens descendam ad inferos illud Apostoli ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day and therefore so is the Opinion for the proof of which these places are brought 2. By post judicium in the title and transacto judicio in the Chapter Otho means the particular judgment passing upon every one at their death which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day because that which he sayes some do affirm quidam asserunt is that those which are salvandi to be sav'd hereafter are either in darkness or in a Purgatory fire which therefore must be meant of the interval for after the day of judgment is pass'd and the books shut and the sentence pronounc'd none can be sav'd that are not then acquitted unless Origen's Opinion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be reintroduc'd which the Church before Otho many Ages had exploded and therefore so good and great a person would not have thought that fit to be then disputed and it was not then a Question nor a thing Undetermin'd in the Church 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgment it makes very much against the present Roman Doctrine for Otho applies the Question to the case of Infants dying without Baptism now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgment
then I quoted Otho according to my own sence and his but if he means it to be after the day of judgment then the limbus infantum of the Roman Church is vanish'd for the scruple was mov'd about Infants Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet And there is none such till after dooms day so that let it be as it will the Roman Church is a loser and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall But now after Saint Austin's time especially in the time of Saint Gregory and since there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death and telling strange things of their torments below many of which being gather'd together by the speculum exemplorum the Legend of Lombardy and others some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to shew that in the time when these stories were told the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear but they found Purgatory in Baths in Eves of Houses in Frosts and cold Rains upon Spits rosting like Pigs or Geese upon pieces of Ice Now to this there is nothing said but that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing which saying as it was spoken invidiously so it was to no purpose for if the Objector ever hath read the distinction which is quoted throughout he should have found the whole story at large It is the 31 example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Doway 1603. And the same words are exactly in an ancienter Edition printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any Argument if they can any way put it off from being believ'd upon any foolish pretence But then as to the thing it self though learned men deny the Dialogues of Saint Gregory from whence many of the like stories are deriv'd to be his as Possevine confesses and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms yet I am willing to admit them for his but yet I cannot but note that those Dialogues have in them many foolish ridiculous and improbable stories but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory but then the right also may be done to Saint Gregory his Doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present Article of the Church of Rome so fond they are in the alledging of Authorities that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscerning quotations For 1. Saint Gregory Pope affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole Doctrine of Purgatory For he sayes That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of Christ our Author that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body Mox forthwith we are lead to câ—lestial rewards and a little after speaking of those words of Job In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea he sayes thus Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in penal places but are held in the superior bosom of rest a great question arises what is the meaning of Blessed Job If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of Saint Gregory then fire and water can be reconcil'd This is the Doctrine of Saint Gregory in his own works for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no I shall not dispute but if I were studying to do honour to his memory I should never admit them to be his and so much the rather because the Doctrine of the Dialogues contradicts the Doctrine of his Commentaries and yet even the Purgatory which is in the Dialogues is unlike that which was declar'd at Basil for the Gregorian Purgatory supposed only an expiation of small and light faults as immoderate laughter impertinent talking which nevertheless he himself sayes are expiable by fear of death and Victoria and Jacobus de Graffis say are to be taken away by beating the breast holy water the Bishops blessing and Saint Austin sayes they are to be taken off by daily saying the Lords prayer and therefore being so easily so readily so many wayes to be purg'd here it will not be worth establishing a Purgatory for such alone but he admits not of any remaining punishment due to greater sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. But concerning Saint Gregory I shall say no more but refer the Reader to the Apology of the Greeks who affirm that Saint Gregory admitted a kind of Purgatory but whether allegorically or no or thinking so really they know not but what he said was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by way of dispensation and as it were constrained to it by the Arguments of those who would have all sins expiable after death against whom he could not so likely prevail if he had said that none was and therefore he thought himself forc'd to go a middle way and admit a Purgatory only for little or venial sins which yet will do no advantage to the Church of Rome And besides all this Saint Gregory or whoever is the Author of these Dialogues hath nothing definite or determin'd concerning the time manner measure or place so wholly new was this Doctrine then that it had not gotten any shape or feature Next I am to account concerning the Greeks whom I affirm alwayes to have differed from the Latins since they had forg'd this new Doctrine of Purgatory in the Roman Laboratories and to prove something of this I affirm'd that in the Council of Basil they publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory Against this up starts a man fierce and angry and sayes there was no such Apology publish'd in the Council of Basil for he had examined it all over and can find no such Apology I am sorry for the Gentlemans loss of his labour but if he had taken me along with him I could have help'd the learned man This Apology was written by Marcus Metropolitan of Ephesus as Sixtus Senensis confesses and that he offered it to the Council of Basil. That it was given and read to the Deputies of the Council June 14. 1438. is attested by Cusanus and Martinus Crusius in his Turco-Graecia But it is no wonder if this over-learned Author of the Letter miss'd this Apology in his search of the Council of Basil for this is not the only material thing that is missing in the Editions of the Council of Basil for Linwood that great and excellent English Canonist made an Appeal in that Council and prosecuted it with effect in behalf of King Henry of England Cum in temporalibus non recognoscat superiorem in terris c. But nothing of this now appears though it was then registred but it is no new thing to forge or to suppress Acts of Councils But besides this I did not suppose he would have been so indiscreet as to have look'd for that Apology in the Editions of the Council of Basil but it was deliver'd to the
Council by the Greeks and the Council was wise enough not to keep that upon publick record however if the Gentleman please to see it he may have it among the Booksellers if he will please to ask for the Apologia Graecorum de igne purgatorio published by Salmasius it was supposed to be made by Marc Archbishop but for saving the Gentleman's charge or trouble I shall tell him a few words out of that Apology which will serve his turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For these Reasons the Doctrine of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church as that which slackens the endeavours of the diligent as perswading them not to use all means of contention to be purged in this life since another purgation is expected after it And it is infinitely to be wondred at the confidence of Bellarmine for as for this Objector it matters not so much that he should in the face of all the world say that the Greek Church never doubted of Purgatory whereas he hath not brought one single true and pertinent testimony out of the Greek Fathers for the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory but is forc'd to bring in that crude Allegation of their words for prayer for the dead which is to no purpose as all wise men know Indeed he quotes the Alchoran for Purgatory an authentick Author it seems to serve such an end But besides this two memorable persons of the Greek Church Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica and Marc Archbishop of Ephesus have in behalf of the Greek Church written against the Roman Doctrine in this particular And it is remarkable that the Latines were and are so put to it to prove Purgatory fire from the Greek Fathers that they have forg'd a citation from Theodoret which is not in him at all but was first cited in Latin by Thomas Aquinas either out of his own head or cosen'd by some body else And quoted so by Bellarmine which to wise men cannot but be a very great Argument of the weakness of the Roman cause in this Question from the Greek Fathers and that Bellarmine saw it but yet was resolv'd to run through it and out-face it but Nilus taking notice of it sayes that there are no such words in Theodoret in the many Copies of his Works which they had In Greek it is certain they are not and Gagneius first translated them into Greek to make the cheat more prevalent but in that translation makes use of those words of the Wisdom of Solomon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gold in the fornace meaning it of the affliction of the Righteous in this world but unluckily he made use of that Chapter In the first verse of which Chapter it is said The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them which is a testimony more pregnant against the Roman Purgatory than all that they can bring from the Greek Fathers for it And this Gentleman confutes the Dissuasive as he thinks by telling the story according as his own Church hath set it down who as with subtle and potent Arts they forc'd the Greeks to a seeming Union so they would be sure not to tell the World in their own Records how unhandsomely they carried themselves But besides this the very answer which the Archbishop of Ephesus gave to the Latines in that Council and which words the Objector here sets down and confesses are a plain confutation of himself for the Latins standing for a Purgatory fire temporary the Archbishop of Ephesus denies it saying That the Italians confess a fire both in the present World and Purgatory by it that is before the day of Judgment and in the world to come but not Purgatory but Eternal But the Greeks hold a fire in the world to come only meaning Eternal and a temporary punishment of souls that is that they go into a dark place and of grief but that they are purged that is delivered from the dark place by Priests Prayers and Sacrifices and by Alms but not by fire Then they fell on disputing about Purgatory fire to which the Greeks delay'd to answer And afterwards being pressed to answer they refus'd to say any thing about Purgatory and when they at the upshot of all were utcunque United Joseph the Patriarch of C. P. made a most pitiful confession of Purgatory in such general and crafty terms as sufficiently shew'd that as the Greeks were forc'd to do something so the Latins were content with any thing for by those terms the Question between them was no way determin'd Romae veteris Papam Domini nostri Jesu Christi vicarium esse concedere atque animarum purgationem esse non inficior He denied not that there is a Purgatory No for the Greeks confess'd it in this world before death and some of them acknowledged a dark place of sorrow after this life but neither fire nor Purgatory for the Purgation was made in this world and after this world by the prayers of the Priests and the alms of their friends the purgation was made not by fire as I cited the words before The Latins told them there should be no Union without it The Greek Emperour refus'd and all this the Objector is pleas'd to acknowledge but after a very great bussle made and they were forc'd to patch up a Union hope to get assistance of the Latins But in this also they were cosen'd and having lost C. P. many of the Greeks attributed that fatal loss to their dissembling Union made at Florence and on the other side the Latins imputed it to their Opinion of the Procession of the Holy Ghost however the Greek Churches never admitted that union as is averred by Laonicus Chalcondylas de rebus Turcicis lib. 1. non longè ab initio And it is a strange thing that this affair of which all Europe was witness should with so little modesty be shuffled up and the Dissuasive accused for saying that which themselves acknowledge But see what some of themselves say Vnus est ex notissimis Graecorum Armenorum erroribus quo docent nullum esse purgatorium quo animae ex hac luce migrantes purgentur sordibus quas in hoc corpore contraxerunt saith Alphonsus à Castro It is one of the most known errors of the Greeks and Armenians that they teach there is no Purgatory And Aquinas writing contra Graecorum errores labours to prove Purgatory And Archbishop Antoninus who was present at the Council of Florence after he had rejected the Epistle of Eugenius adds Errabant Graeci purgatorium negantes quod est haereticum Add to these the testimony of Roffensis and Polydore Virgil before quoted Vsque ad hunc diem Graecis non est creditum purgatorium and Gregory de Valentia saith Expresse autem purgatorium negarunt Waldenses haeretici ut refert Guido Carmelita in summa de haeresi Item scismatici Graeci
Denis means that death is the end of all the agonies of this life A goodly note and never revealed till then and now as if this were a good argument to encourage men to contend bravely and not to fear death because when they are once dead they shall no more be troubled with the troubles of this life indeed you may go to worse and death may let you into a state of being as bad as hell and of greater torments than all the pains of this world put together amount to But to let alone such ridiculous subterfuges see the words of S. Dionys They that live a holy life looking to the true promises of God as if they were to behold the truth it self in that resurrection which is according to it with firm and true hope and in a Divine joy come to the sleep of death as to an end of all holy contentions now certainly if the doctrine of Purgatory were true and that they who had contended here and for all their troubles in this world were yet in a tolerable condition should be told that now they shall go to worse he that should tell them so would be but one of Jobs comforters No the servant of God coming to the end of his own troubles viz. by death is filled with holy gladness and with much rejoycing ascends to the way of Divine regeneration viz. to immortality which word can hardly mean that they shall be tormented a great while in hell fire The words of Justin Martyr or whoever is the Author of those Questions and Answers imputed to him affirms that presently after the departure of the soul from the body a distinction is made between the just and the unjust for they are brought by Angels to places worthy of them the souls of the just to Paradise where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels but the souls of the unrighteous to the places in Hades the invisible region or Hell Against these words because they pinch severely E. W. thinks himself bound to say something and therefore 1. whereas Justin Martyr says after our departure presently there is a separation made he answers that Justin Matyr means here to speak of the two final states after the day of judgment for so it seems he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presently after death to mean the day of judgment of the time of which neither men nor Angels know any thing And whereas Justin Martyr says that presently the souls of the righteous go to Paradise E. W. answers 2. That Justin does not say that all just souls are carried presently into Heaven no Justin says into Paradise true but let it be remembred that it is so a part of Heaven as limbus infantum is by themselves call'd a part of hell that is a place of bliss the region of the blessed But 3. Justin says that presently there is a separation made but he says not that the souls of the righteous are carried to Paradise That 's the next answer which the very words of Justin do contradict There is presently a separation made of the just and unjust for they are by the Angels carried to the places they have deserved This is the separation which is made one is carried to Paradise the other to a place in hell But these being such pitiful offers at answering the Gentleman tries another way and says 4. That this affirmative of Justin contradicts another saying of Justin which I cited out of Sixtus Senensis that Justin Martyr and many other of the Fathers affirm'd that the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life To this I answer that one opinion does not contradict another for though the Fathers believ'd that they who die in the Lord rest from their labours and are in blessed places and have antepasts of joy and comforts yet in those places they are reserv'd unto the judgment of the great day The intermedial joy or sorrow respectively of the just and unjust does but antedate the final sentence and as the comforts of Gods spirit in this life are indeed graces of God and rewards of Piety as the torments of an evil conscience are the wages of impiety yet as these do not hinder but that the great reward is given at dooms-day and not before so neither do the joys which the righteous have in the interval They can both consist together and are generally affirm'd by very many of the Greek and Latin Fathers And methinks this Gentleman might have learn'd from Sixtus Senensis how to have reconcil'd these two opinions for he quotes him saying there is a double beatitude the one imperfect of soul only the other consummate and perfect of soul and body The first the Fathers call'd by several names of Sinus Abrahae Atrium Dei sub Altare c. The other perfect joy the glory of the resurrection c. But it matters not what is said or how it be contradicted so it seem but to serve a present turn But at last if nothing of this will do these words are not the words of Justin for he is not the Author of the Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos To which I answer it matters not whether they be Justins or no But they are put together in the collection of his works and they are generally called his and cited under his name and made use of by Bellarmine when he supposes them to be to his purpose However the Author is Ancient and Orthodox and so esteem'd in the Church and in this particular speaks according to the doctrine of the more Ancient Doctors well but how is this against Purgatory says E. W. for they may be in secret receptacles after they have been in Purgatory To this I answer that he dares not teach that for doctrine in the Church of Rome who believes that the souls deliver'd out of Purgatory go immediately to the heaven of the Blessed and therefore if his book had been worth the perusing by the Censors of books he might have been questioned and followed Mr. Whites fortune And he adds it might be afterwards according to Origens opinion that is Purgatory might be after the day of judgment for so Origen held that all the fires are Purgatory and the Devils themselves should be sav'd Thus this poor Gentleman thinking it necessary to answer one argument against Purgatory brought in the Dissuasive cares not to answer by a condemned heresie rather than reason shall be taught by any son of the Church of England But however the very words of the Fathers cross his slippery answers so that they thrust him into a corner for in these receptacles the godly have joy and they enter into them as soon as they die and abide there till the day of judgment S. Ambrose is so full pertinent and material to
and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECT III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholick nor Apostolick In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholick faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can find no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sence of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canâ—ne Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expresly taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for Ocham is not the man I mean however the Printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the Printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more publick name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Now if Roffensis have the same thing too this Author of the Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fierâ— carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of hereticks but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretick by Scripture alone or reasons alone And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies sed adeo tamen certa in â—ide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the Article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kind Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so
But the thing is this Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then Luther followed The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ but ceases not to be what it was But this is not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion which is that the substance of bread ceases to be and nothing remains but the accident Quartam opinionem addit Magister that is Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion that the substance of bread is not converted but is annihilated this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion Now of these four opinions all which were then permitted and disputed Peter Lombard seems to follow the second but if this was his opinion it was no more for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no truly I think it is very hard for any man to tell for this question was but in the forge not polished not made bright with long handling And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences I told of no opinion of his at all but that in his time they did not know whether it viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true or no that is the generality of the Roman Catholicks did not know and he himself could not define it And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this Article and they that differ in their judgments about an Article and yet esteem the others Catholick may think what they please but they Cannot tell certainly what is truth But then as for Peter Lombard himself all that I said of him was this that he could not tell he could not determine whether there was any substantial change or no. If in his after discourse he declares that the change is of substances he told it for no other than as a meer opinion if he did let him answer for that not I for that he could not determine it himself expresly said it in the beginning of the eleventh distinction And therefore these Gentlemen would better have consulted with truth and modesty if they had let this alone and not have made such an outcry against a manifest truth Now let me observe one thing which will be of great use in this whole affair and demonstrate the cange of this doctrine These three opinions were all held by Catholicks and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the Gloss of the Canon Law it self For this opinion was not fix'd and setled nor as yet well understood but still disputed as we see in Lombard and Scotus And although they all agreed in this as Salmeron observes of these three opinions as he cites them out of Scotus that the true body of Christ is there because to deny this were against the faith and therefore this was then enough to cause them to be esteem'd Catholicks because they denied nothing which was then against the â—aith but all agreed in that yet now the case is otherwise for whereas one of the opinions was that the substance of bread remains and another opinion that the substance of bread is annihilated but is not converted into the body of Christ now both of these opinions are made heresie and the contrary to them which is the third opinion pass'd into an article of faith Quod vero ibi substantia panis non remanet jam etiam ut articulus fidei definitum est conversionis sive transubstantiationis nomen evictum So Salmeron Now in Peter Lombards time if they who believed Christs real presence were good Catholicks though they believed no Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation that is did not descend into consideration of the manner why may they not be so now Is there any new revelation now of the manner Or why is the way to Heaven now made narrower than in Lombards time For the Church of England believes according to one of these opinions and therefore is as good a Catholick Church as Rome was then which had not determined the manner Nay if we use to value an Article the more by how much the more Ancient it is certainly it is more honourable that we should reform to the Ancient model rather than conform to the new However this is also plainly consequent to this discourse of Salmeron The abettâ—râ— of those three opinions some of them do deny something that is of faith therefore the faith of the Church of Rome now is not the same it was in the days of Peter Lombard Lastly this also is to be remark'd that to prove any ancient Author to hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation as it is at this day an Article of faith at Rome it is not enough to say that Peter Lombard or Durand or Scotus c. did say that where bread was before there is Christs body now for they may say that and more and yet not come home to the present Article and therefore E. W. does argue weakly when he denies Lombard to say one thing viz. that he could not define whether there was a substantial change or no which indeed he spake plainly because he brings him saying something as if he were resolv'd the change were substantial which yet he speaks but obscurely And the truth is this question of Transubstantiation is so intricate and involved amongst them seems so contrary to sense and reason and does so much violence to all the powers of the soul that it is no wonder if at first the Doctors could not make any thing distinctly of it However whatever they did make of it certain it is they more agreed with the present Church of England than with the present Church of Rome for we say as they said Christs body is truly there and there is a conversion of the Elements into Christs body for what before the Consecration in all sences was bread is after Consecration in some sence Christs body but they did not all of them say that the substance of bread was destroyed and some of them denied the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ which whosoever shall now do will be esteemed no Roman Catholick And therefore it is a vain procedure to think they have prov'd their doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Fathers also if the Fathers tell us That bread is chang'd out of his nature into the body of Christ that by holy invocation it is no more common bread that as water in Cana of Galilee was chang'd into wine so in the Evangelist wine is changed into blood That bread is only bread before the sacramental words but after consecration is made the body of Christ. For though I very much doubt all these things in equal and full measures cannot be prov'd out of the Fathers yet suppose they were yet all this comes not up to the Roman
Article of Transubstantiation All those words are true in a very good sence and they are in that sence believ'd in the Church of England but that the bread is no more bread in the Natural sence and that it is naturally nothing but the natural body of Christ that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other this is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be inferred from the former propositions if they had been truly alledged and therefore all that is for nothing and must be intended only to cosen and amuse the Reader that understands not all the windings of this labyrinth In the next place I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this Article For says E. W. the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitely declared in the Lateran Council But in the Dissuasive it was said that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council where many things indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed Nothing says Platina that is says my Adversary nothing concerning the holy land and the aids to be raised for it but for all this there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation To this I reply that it is as true that nothing was done in this question as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War for one was as much decreed as the other For if we admit the acts of the Council that of giving aid to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. â—anon alias 71. So that this answer is not true But the truth is neither the one nor the other was decreed in that Council For that I may inform this Gentleman in a thing which possibly he never heard of this Council of Lateran was never published nor any acts of it till Cochlaeus published them A. D. 1538. For three years before this John Martin published the Councils and then there was no such thing as the acts of the Lateran Council to be found But you will say how came Cochlaeus by them To this the answer is easie There were read in the Council sixty Chapters which to some did seem easie to others burthensome but these were never approved but the Council ended in scorn and mockery and nothing was concluded neither of faith nor manners nor war nor aid for the Holy Land but only the Pope got mony of the Prelates to give them leave to depart But afterwards Pope Gregory IX put these Chapters or some of them into the Decretals but doth not intitle any of these to the Council of Lateran but only to Pope Innocent in the Council which Cardinal Perron ignorantly or wilfully mistaking affirms the contrary But so it is that Platina affirms of the Pope plurima decreta retulit improbavit Joachimi libellum damnavit errores Almerici The Pope recited 60. heads of decrees in the Council but no man says the Council decreed those heads Now these heads Cochlaeus says he found in an old book in Germany And it is no ways probable that if the Council had decreed those heads that Gregory IX who published his Uncles decretal Epistles which make up so great a part of the Canon Law should omit to publish the decrees of this Council or that there should be no acts of this great Council in the Vatican and that there should be no publication of them till about 300. years after the Council and that out of a blind corner and an old unknown Manuscript But the Book shews its original it was taken from the Decretals for it contains just so many heads viz. LXXII and is not any thing of the Council in which only were recited LX. heads and they have the same beginnings and endings and the same notes and observations in the middle of the Chapters which shews plainly they were a meer force of the Decretals The consequent of all which is plainly this that there was no decree made in the Council but every thing was left unfinished and the Council was affrighted by the warlike preparations of them of Genoa and Pisa and all retir'd Concerning which affair the Reader that desires it may receive further satisfaction if he read the Antiquitates Britannicae in the life of Stephen Lancton out of the lesser History of Matthew Paris as also Sabellicus and Godfride the Monk But since it is become a question what was or was not determined in this Lateran Council I am content to tell them that the same authority whether of Pope or Council which made Transubstantiation an article of faith made Rebellion and Treason to be a duty of Subjects for in the same collection of Canons they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature the one being the first Canon and the other the third The use I shall make of all is this Scotus was observed above to say that in Scripture there is nothing so express as to compel us to believe Transubstantiation meaning that without the decree and authority of the Church the Scripture was of it self insufficient And some others as Salmeron notes affirm that Scripture and Reason are both insufficient to convince a heretick in this article this is to be prov'd ex Conciliorum definitione Patrum traditione c. by the definition of Councils and tradition of the Fathers for it were easie to answer the places of Scripture which are cited and the reasons Now then since Scripture alone is not thought sufficient nor reasons alone if the definitions of Councils also shall fail them they will be strangely to seek for their new article Now for this their only Castle of defence is the Lateran Council Indeed Bellarmine produces the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second in which Berengarius was forc'd to recant his error about the Sacrament but he recanted it into a worse error and such which the Church of Rome disavows at this day And therefore ought not to pretend it as a patron of that doctrine which she approves not And for the little Council under Greg. 7. it is just so a general Council as the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or a particular is an Universal But suppose it so for this once yet this Council medled not with the modus viz. Transubstantiation or the ceasing of its being bread but of the Real Presence of Christ under the Elements which is no part of our question Berengarius denied it but we do not when it is rightly understood Pope Nicholaus himself did not understand the new article for it was not fitted for publication until the time of the Lateran Council and how nothing of this was in that Council determin'd I have already made appear and therefore as Scotus said the Scripture alone could not evict this article so he also said in his argument made for the Doctors that held the first opinion mentioned before out of
Innocentius Nec invenitur ubi Ecclesia istam veritatem determinet solenniter Neither is it found where the Church hath solemnly determin'd it And for his own particular though he was carried into captivity by the symbol of Pope Innocent 3. for which by that time was pretended the Lateran Council yet he himself said that before that Council it was no article of faith and for this thing Bellarmine reproves him and imputes ignorance to him saying that it was because he had not read the Roman Council under Greg. 7. nor the consent of the Fathers And to this purpose I quoted Henriquez saying that Scotus saith the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not ancient the Author of the Letter denies that he saith any such thing of Scotus But I desire him to look once more and my Margent will better direct him What the opinion of Durandus was in this Question if these Gentlemen will not believe me let them believe their own friends But first let it be consider'd what I said viz. that he maintain'd viz. in disputation that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd 2. That by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held 3. That nevertheless it is possible it should be so 4. That it is no contradiction that the matter of bread should remain and yet it be Christs body too 5. That this were the easier way of solving the difficulties That all this is true I have no better argument than his own words which are in his first question of the eleventh distinction in quartum num 11. n. 15. For indeed the case was very hard with these learned men who being pressed by authority did bite the file and submitted their doctrine but kept their reason to themselves and what some in the Council of Trent observed of Scotus was true also of Durandus and divers other Schoolmen with whom it was usual to deny things with a kind of courtesie And therefore Durandus in the places cited though he disputes well for his opinion yet he says the contrary is modus tenendus de facto But besides that his words are as I understand them plain and clear to manifest his own hearty perswasion yet I shall not desire to be believed upon my own account for fear I be mistaken but that I had reason to say it Henriquez shall be my warrant Durandus dist qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed absque assertione c. He saith it is probable but without assertion that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity And a little after he adds out of Cajetan Paludanus and Soto that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous but after the Council of Trent it seems to be heretical And yet he says it was held by Aegidius and Euthymius who had the good luck it seems to live and die before the Council of Trent otherwise they had been in danger of the inquisition for heretical pravity But I shall not trouble my self further in this particular I am fully vindicated by Bellarmine himself who spends a whole Chapter in the confutation of this error of Durandus viz. that the matter of bread remains he endeavours to answer his arguments and gives this censure of him Itaque sententia Durandi hâ—retica est Therefore the sentence of Durandus is heretical although he be not to be called a heretick because he was ready to acquiesce in the judgment of the Church So Bellarmine who if he say true that Durandus was ready to submit to the judgment of the Church then he does not say true when he says the Church before his time had determined against him but however that I said true of him when I imputed this opinion to him Bellarmine is my witness Thus you see I had reason for what I said and by these instances it appears how hardly and how long the doctrine of Transubstantiation was before it could be swallowed But I remember that Salmeron tells of divers who distrusting of Scripture and reason had rather in this point rely upon the tradition of the Fathers and therefore I descended to take from them this armour in which they trusted And first to ease a more curious inquiry which in a short dissuasive was not convenient I us'd the abbreviature of an adversaries confession For Alphonsus à Castro confess'd that in Ancient writers there is seldome any mention made of Transubstantiation one of my adversaries says this is not spoken of the thing but of the name of Transubstantiation but if à Castro meant this only of the word he spake weakly when he said that the name or word was seldom mention'd by the Ancients 1. Because it is false that it was seldom mention'd by the Ancients for the word was by the Ancient Fathers never mention'd 2. Because there was not any question of the word where the thing was agreed and therefore as this saying so understood had been false so also if it had been true it would have been impertinent 3. It is but a trifling artifice to confess the name to be unknown and by that means to insinuate that the thing was then under other names It is a secret cosenage of an unwary Reader to bribe him into peace and contentedness for the main part of the Question by pleasing him in that part which it may be makes the biggest noise though it be less material 4. If the thing had been mentioned by the Ancients they need not would not ought not to have troubled themselves and others by a new word to have still retained the old proposition under the old words would have been less suspicious more prudent and ingenious but to bring in a new name is but the cover for a new doctrine and therefore S. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid prophanas vocum novitates the prophane newness of words that is it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture and with that simplicity openness easiness and candor and not with new and unhallowed words such as is that of Transubstantiation 5. A Castro did not speak of the name alone but of the thing also de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body of this manner of conversion that is of this doctrine now doctrines consist not in words but things however his last words are faint and weak and guilty for being convinc'd of the weakness of his defence of the thing he left to himself a subterfuge of words But let it be how it will with à Castro whom I can very well spare if he will not be allowed to speak sober sence and as a wise man should we have better and fuller testimonies in this affair That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter or thing of Transubstantiation said the Jesuits in prison as is
Adversaries put me often to sight with His words are these He viz. the Apostle S. Paul saith that he is unworthy of the Lord who otherwise celebrates the mystery than it was deliver'd by him For he cannot be devout that presumes otherwise than it was given by the Author Therefore he before admonishes that according to the order delivered the mind of him that comes to the Eucharist of our Lord be devout for there is a judgment to come that as every one comes so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ because they who come without the discipline of the delivery or tradition and of conversation are guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. One of my Adversaries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be understood only of the Priest and it appears so by the word celebrat not recipit he that celebrates otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer that first it is plain and S. Ambrose so expresses his meaning to be of all that receive it for so he says that the mind of him that cometh to the Eucharist of our Lord ought to be devout 2. It is an ignorant conceit that S. Ambrose by celebrat means the Priest only because he only can celebrate For however the Church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the Priest yet in the Primitive Church it was no more than recipit or accedit ad Eucharistiam which appears not only by S. Ambrose his expounding it so here but in S. Cyprian speaking to a rich Matron Locuples dives Dominicum celebrare te credis corban omnino non respicis Dost thou who art rich and opulent suppose that you celebrate the Lords Supper or sacrifice who regardest not the poor mans basket Celebrat is the word and receive must needs be the signification and so it is in S. Ambrose and therefore I did as I ought translate it so 3. It is yet objected that I translate aliter quam ab eo traditum est otherwise than he appointed whereas it should be otherwise than it was given by him And this surely is a great matter and the Gentleman is very subtle But if he be ask'd whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did to be given as he gave it I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing But ab eo traditum est of it self signifies appointed for this he deliver'd not only by his hands but by his commandment of Hoc facite that was his appointment Now that all this relates to the whole institution and doctrine of Christ in this matter and therefore to the duplication of the Elements the reception of the chalice as well as the consecrated bread appears first by the general terms qui aliter mysterium celebrat he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered 2. These words are a Commentary upon that of S. Paul He that eats this bread and drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Now hence S. Ambrose arguing that all must be done as our Lord delivered says also that the bread must be eaten and the cup drunk as our Lord delivered and he that does not do both does not do what our Lord delivered 3. The conclusion of S. Ambrose is full to this particular They are guilty of the body and blood of Christ who came without the discipline of the delivery and of conversation that is they who receive without due preparation and not after the manner it was delivered that is under the differing symbols of bread and wine To which we may add that observation of Cassander and of Vossius that the Apostles represented the persons of all the faithful and Christ saying to them Take and eat he also said Drink ye all of this he said not Eat ye all of this and therefore if by vertue of these words Drink ye all of this the Laity be not commanded to drink it can never be proved that the Laity are commanded to eat Omnes is added to bibite but it is not expresly added to Accipite Comedite and therefore Paschasius Radbertus who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christs incarnation so expounds the precept without any hesitation Bibite ex hoc omnes i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes Drink ye all of this as well they that minister as the rest of the believers And no wonder since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it For saith S. Cyprian If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine but took water instead of it and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all but whatever the instance was or could be S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians Abeo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did that the Bishops would not do tamen quoniam quidam c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly In calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus author Doctor fecit docuit c. In sanctifying the cup of the Lord and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem originem traditionis Dominicae to the root and original of the Lords delivery Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says that when the chalice was sanctified it was also ministred to the people I desire it be considered whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution Do they do what Christ did Do they teach what Christ taught Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do and thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason for they always believed that a
peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs blood for us and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls bread and drink being the natural provisions and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly the body being given for our bodies and the blood for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the blood and finally this in the integrity signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants The words are these seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their wine with it To these words 1. I say that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion yet it is falsely said that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mention'd So ignorant so deceitful or deceiv'd is E. W in the doctrine of the Church of England But then as for his foolish sarcasm calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread which he does in scorn he might have considered that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread it is more like Marchpane than common bread and besides that as Salmeron acknowledges anciently Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented and that Durandus affirming the same thing says that the Grecians continue it to this day besides this I say the Author of the Roman order says Cassander took it very ill that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum scraps of little penies or pieces of money and not worthy to be called bread being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity and it is little noted they having so many greater changes to answer for But it seems this Section was too hot for them they loved not much to meddle with it and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure but desire the Reader who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium or the Cases of Conscience only I must needs observe that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome To which I only add that for above 700. years after Christ it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup how it is since and how it comes to be so is too plain But it seems the Church hath power to dispence in this affair because S. Paul said that the Ministers of Christ are dispensers of the mysteries of God as was learnedly urg'd in the Council of Trent in the doctrine about this question SECT V. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown Tongue THE Question being still upon the novelty of the Roman doctrines and Practices I am to make it good that the present article and practice of Rome is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church To this purpose I alledged S. Basil in his Sermon or book de variis scripturae locis But say my adversaries there is no such book Well! was there such a man as S. Basil If so we are well enough and let these Gentlemen be pleas'd to look into his works printed at Paris 1547. by Carola Guillard and in the 130. page he shall see this Book Sermon or Homily in aliquot scripturae locis at the beginning of which he hath an exhortation in the words placed in the Margent there we shall find the lost Sheep The beginning of it is an exhortation to the people congregated to get profit and edification by the Scriptures read at morning prayer the Monitions in the Psalms the precepts of the Proverbs Search ye the beauty of the history and the examples and add to these the precepts of the Apostles But in all things joyn the words of the Gospel as the Crown and perfection that receiving profit from them all ye may at length turn to that to which every one is sweetly affected and for the doing of which he hath received the grace of the Holy Spirit Now this difficulty being over all that remains for my own justification is that I make it appear that S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas and Lyra do respectively exhort to the study of the Scriptures exhorting even the Laity to do so and testifie the custom of the Ancient Church in praying in a known tongue and commending this as most useful and condemning the contrary as being useless and without edification I shall in order set down the doctrine they deliver in their own words and then the impertinent cavils of the adversaries will of themselves come to nothing S. Chrysostom commenting upon S. Pauls words concerning preaching and praying for edification and so as to be understood coming to those words of S. Paul If I pray with my tongue my spirit prayeth but my mind is without fruit you see saith he how a little extolling prayer he shews that he who is such a one viz. as the Apostle there describes is not only unprofitable to others but also to himself since his mind is without fruit Now if a man praying what he understands not does
not cannot profit himself how can he that stands by who understands no more be profited by that which does him that speaks no good For God understands though he does not and yet he that so prays reaps no benefit to himself and therefore neither can any man that understands no more The affirmation is plain and the reason cogent To the same purpose are the words of S. Chrysostom which A. L. himself quotes out of him If one speaks in only the Persian tongue or some other strange tongue but knows not what he saith certainly he will be a barbarian even to himself and not to another only because he knows not the force of the words This is no more than what S. Paul said before him but they all say that he who hears and understands not whether it be the speaker or the scholar is but a Barbarian Thus also S. Ambrose in his Commentary upon the words of S. Paul The Apostle says It is better to speak a few words that are open or understood that all may understand than to have a long oration in obscurity That 's his sence for reading and preaching Now for prayer he adds The unskilful man hearing what he understands not knows not when the prayer ends and answers not Amen that is so be it or it is true that the blessing may be established and a little after If ye meet together to edifie the Church those things ought to be said which the hearers may understand For what profit is it to speak with a tongue when he that hears is not profited Therefore he ought to hold his peace in the Church that they who can profit the hearers may speak S. Austin compares singing in the Church without understanding to the chattering of Parrots and Magpies Crows and Jackdaws But to sing with understanding is by the will of God given to man And we who sing the Divine praises in the Church must remember that it is written Blessed is the people that understands singing of praises Therefore most beloved what with a joyn'd voice we have sung we must understand and discern with a serene heart To the same purpose are the words of Lyra and Aquinas which I shall not trouble the Reader withall here but have set them down in the Margent that the strange confidence of these Romanists out-facing notorious and evident words may be made if possible yet more conspicuous In pursuance of this doctrine of S. Paul and the Fathers the Primitive Christians in their several Ages and Countries were careful that the Bible should be translated into all languages where Christianity was planted That the Bibles were in Greek is notorious and that they were us'd among the people S. Chrysostom homil 1. in Joh. 8. is witness that it was so or that it ought to be so For he exhorts Vacemus ergo scripturis dilectissimi c. Let us set time apart to be conversant in the Scripture at least in the Gospels let us frequently handle them to imprint them in our minds which because the Jews neglected they were commanded to have their books in their hands but let us not have them in our hands but in our houses and in our hearts by which words we may easily understand that all the Churches of the Greek communion had the Bible in their vulgar tongue and were called upon to use them as Christians ought to do that is to imprint them in their hearts and speaking of S. John and his Gospel he says that the Syrians Indians Persians and Ethiopians and infinite other nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they grew wise by translating his S. Johns doctrines into their several languages But it is more that S. Austin says The divine Scripture by which help is supplied to so great diseases proceeded from one language which opportunely might be carried over the whole world that being by the various tongues of interpreters scattered far and wide it might be made known to the Nations for their salvation And Theodoret speaks yet more plainly We have manifestly shown to you the inexhausted strength of the Apostolick and prophetick doctrine for the Vniversal face of the Earth whatsoever is under the Sun is now full of those words For the Hebrew books are not only translated into the Greek idiom but into the Roman tongue the Egyptian Persian Indian Armenian Scythian Sauromatick languages and that I may speak once for all into all tongues which at this day the Nations use By these authorities of these Fathers we may plainly see how different the Roman doctrine and practice is from the sentiment and usages of the Primitive Church and with what false confidence the Roman adversaries deny so evident truth having no other way to make their doctrine seem tolerable but by out-facing the known sayings of so many excellent persons and especially of S. Paul who could not speak his mind in apt and intelligible words if he did not in his Epistle to the Corinthians exhort the Church to pray and prophesie so as to be understood by the Catechumens and by all the people that is to do otherwise than they do in the Roman Church Christianity is a simple wise intelligible and easie Religion and yet if a man will resolve against any proposition he may wrangle himself into a puzle and make himself not to understand it so though it be never so plain what is plainer than the testimony of their own Cajetan That it were more for the edification of the Church that the prayers were in the vulgar tongue He says no more than S. Paul says and he could not speak it plainer And indeed no man of sence can deny it unless he affirms at the same time that it is better to speak what we understand not than what we do or that it were better to serve God without that noble faculty than with it that is that the way of a Parrot and a Jackdaw were better than the way of a man and that in the service of God the Priests and the people are to differ as a man and a bird But besides all this was not Latin it self when it was first us'd in Divine service the common tongue and generally understood by many Nations and very many Colonies and if it was then the use of the Church to pray with the understanding why shall it not be so now however that it was so then and is not so now demonstrates that the Church of Rome hath in this material point greatly innovated Let but the Roman Pontifical be consulted and there will be yet found a form of ordination of Readers in which it is said that they must study to read distinctly and plainly that the people may understand But now it seems that labour is sav'd And when a notorious change was made in this affair we can tell by calling to mind the following story The Moravians did say Mass in the Slavonian tongue for
which Pope John the Eighth severely reprov'd them and commanded them to do so no more but being better inform'd he wrote a letter to their Prince Sfentoputero in which he affirms that it is not contrary to faith and found doctrine to say Mass and other prayers in the Slavonian tongue and adds this reason because he that Hebrew Greek and Latin hath made the others also for his glory and this also he confirms with the authority of S. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians and some other Scriptures only he commanded for the decorum of the business the Gospel should first be said in Latin and then in the Slavonian tongue But just two hundred years after this the Tables were turned and though formerly these things were permitted yet so were many things in the Primitive Church but upon better examination they have been corrected And therefore P. Gregory the seventh wrote to Vratislaus of Bohemia that he could not permit the celebration of the divine offices in the Slavonian tongue and he commanded the Prince to oppose the people herein with all his forces Here the world was strangely altered and yet S. Paul's Epistle was not condemned of heresie and no Council had decreed that all vulgar languages were prophane and no reason can yet be imagined why the change was made unless it were to separate the Priest from the people by a wall of Latin and to nurse stupendious ignorance in them by not permitting to them learning enough to understand their publick prayers in which every man was greatly concerned Neither may this be called a slight matter for besides that Gregory the seventh thought it so considerable that it was a just cause of a war or persecution for he commanded the Prince of Bohemia to oppose the people in it with all his forces besides this I say to pray to God with the understanding is much better than praying with the tongue that alone can be a good prayer this alone can never and then the loss of all those advantages which are in prayers truly understood the excellency of devotion the passion of desires the ascent of the mind to God the adherence to and acts of confidence in him the intellectual conversation with God most agreeable to a rational being the melting affections the pulses of the heart to and from God to and from our selves the promoting and exercising of our hopes all these and very many more which can never be intire but in the prayers and devotions of the heart and can never be in any degree but in the same in which the prayers are acts of love and wisdom of the will and the understanding will be lost to the greatest part of the Catholick Church if the mouth be set open and the soul be gag'd so that it shall be the word of the mouth but not the word of the mind All these things being added to what was said in this article by the Disswasive will more than make it clear that in this article the consequents of which are very great the Church of Rome hath causelesly troubled Christendom and innovated against the Primitive Church and against her own ancient doctrines and practices and even against the Apostle But they care for none of these things Some of their own Bigots profess the thing in the very worst of all these expressions for so Reynolds and Gifford in their Calvino Turcismus complain that such horrid and stupendious evils have followed the translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages that they are of force enough ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi Divina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Although they did rely upon the authority Apostolical or Divine yet they ought to be taken away So that it is to no purpose to urge Scripture or any argument in the world against the Roman Church in this article for if God himself command it to be translated yet it is not sufficient and therefore these men must be left to their own way of understanding for beyond the law of God we have no argument I will only remind them that it is a curse which God threatens to his rebellious people I will speak to this people with men of another tongue and by strange lips and they shall not understand This is the curse which the Church of Rome contends earnestly for in behalf of their people SECT VI. Of the Worship of Images THAT society of Christians will not easily be reformed that think themselves oblig'd to dispute for the worship of Images the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaick Religion and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue and no man can excuse but witty persons that can be bound by no words which they can interpret to a sence contradictory to the design of the common a thing for the hating of and abstaining from which the Jews were so remark'd by all the world and by which as by a distinctive cognizance they were separated from all other Nations and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day and for the not observing of which they are intolerably scandaliz'd at those societies of Christians who without any necessity in the thing without any pretence of any Law of God for no good and for no wise end and not without infinite danger at least of idolatry retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones Such men as these are too hard for all laws and for all arguments so certain it is that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understanding that if in the will and interests of men there be a perverseness and a non-compliance and that it is not bent by prudent and wise â—lexures and obedience to God and the plain words of God in Scripture nothing can ever prevail neither David nor his Sling nor all the worthies of his army In this question I have said enough in the Disswasive and also in the Ductor Dubitantium but to the arguments and fulness of the perswasion they neither have nor can they say any thing that is material but according to their usual method like flies they search up and down and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore or would make their proselytes believe so I shall therefore first vindicate those few quotations which the Epistles of his brethren except against for there are many and those most pregnant which they take no notice of as bearing in them too clear a conviction 2. I shall answer such testimonies which some of them steal out of Bellarmine and which they esteem as absolutely their best And 3. I shall add something in confirmation of that truth of God which I here have undertaken to defend First for the questioned quotations against the worship of Images S. Cyril was nam'd in the Disswasive as denying that the Christians
did give veneration and worship to the Image even of the cross it self but no words of S. Cyril were quoted for the denial is not in express words but in plain and direct argument for being by Julian charg'd with worshipping the cross S. Cyril in behalf of the Christians takes notice of their using the cross in a religious memory of all good things to which by the cross of Christ we are ingag'd that is he owns all that they did and therefore taking no notice of any thing of worship and making no answer to that part of the objection it is certain that the Christians did not do it or that he could not justifie them in so doing But because I quoted no words of S. Cyril I now shall take notice of some words of his which do most abundantly clear this particular by a general rule Only the Divine Nature is capable of adoration and the Scripture hath given adoration to no nature but to that of God alone that and that alone ought to be worshipped But to give yet a little more light to this particular it may be noted that before S. Cyrils time this had been objected by the Pagans particularly by Caecilius to which Minutius answers by directly denying it and saying that the Pagans did rather worship crosses that is the woodden parts of their Gods The Christians indeed were by Tertullian called Religiosi crucis because they had it in thankful use and memory and us'd it frequently in a symbolical confession of their not being asham'd but of their glorying in the real cross of Christ But they never worshipped the material cross or the figure of it as appears by S. Cyrils owning all the objections excepting this only of which he neither confessed the fact nor offered any justification of it when it was objected but professed a doctrine with which such practice was inconsistent And the like is to be said of some other of the Fathers who speak with great affections and veneration of the cross meaning to exalt the passion of Christ and in the sence of S. Paul to glory in the cross of Christ not meaning the material cross much less the image of it which we blame in the Church of Rome And this very sence we have expressed in S. Ambrose Sapiens Helena egit quae crucem in capite regum levavit ut Christi Crux in Regibus adoretur The figure of the material cross was by Helena plac'd upon the heads of Kings that the cross of Christ in Kings might be ador'd How so He answers Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni It is to the holy redemption not to the cross materially taken this were insolent but the other is piety In the same manner also S. Chrysostom is by the Roman Doctors and particularly by Gretser and E. W. urg'd for the worshipping Christs cross But the book de cruce latrone whence the words are cited Gretser and Possevine suspect it to be a spurious issue of some unknown person It wants a Father and sometimes it goes to S. Austin and is crouded into his Sermons de Tempore But I shall not trouble my discourse any farther with such counterfeit ware What S. Chrysostoms doctrine was in the matter of Images is plain enough in his indubitate works as is and shall be remark'd in their several places The famous testimony of Epiphanius against the very use of Images in Churches being urg'd in the Disswasive as an irrefragable argument that the Roman doctrine is not Primitive or Catholick the contra-scribers say nothing but that when S. Hierom translated that Epistle of S. Epiphanius it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Hierom translated which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Hieroms time A likely matter but spoken upon slight grounds It appears not saith the Objector that this story was in it then To whom does it not appear To Bellarmine indeed it did not nor to this Objector who writes after him Alan Cope denied that Epiphanius ever wrote any such Epistle at all or that S. Hierom ever translated any such but Bellarmine being asham'd of such unreasonable boldness found out this more gentle answer which here we have from our Objector well but now the case is thus that this story was put into the Epistle by some Iconoclast is vehemently suspected by Bellarmine and Baronius But this Epistle vehemently burns their fingers and the live-coal sticks close to them and they can never shake it off For 1. who should add this story to this Epistle not any of the reformed Doctors for before Luthers time many ages this Epistle with this story was known and confessed and quoted in the Manuscript copies of divers Nations 2. This Epistle was quoted and set down as now it is with this story by Charles the great above DCCC years ago 3. And a little after by the Fathers in the Council of Paris only they call the Author John Bishop of C. P. instead of Jerusalem 4. Sirmondus the Jesuit cites this Epistle as the genuine work of Epiphanius 5. Marianus Victor and Dionysius Petavius a Jesuit of great and deserved same for learning in their Editions of Epiphanius have published this whole Epistle and have made no note given no censure upon this story 6. Before them Thomas Waldensis and since him Alphonsus à Castro acknowledge this whole Epistle as the proper issue of Epiphanius 7. Who can be suppos'd to have put in this story The Iconoclasts Not the Greeks because if they had they would have made use of it for their advantage which they never did in any of their disputations against images insomuch that Bellarmine makes advantage of it because they never objected it Not the Latins that wrote against images for though they were against the worship of images yet they were not Iconoclasts Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was but he could not put this story in for before his time it was in as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome as himself testifies But after all this if there was any foul play in this whole affair the cosenage lies on the other side for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius and only the Latin copies remain and in all of them of Epiphanius's works this story still remains But how the Greek came to be lost though it be uncertain yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of
other hereticks It is most likely here it might go away But however the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular The authority of S. Austin reprehending the worship of images was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent in which describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion he presses it on to â—ssue Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name Follow not the troops of the unskilful who in true religion it self either are superstitious or so given to lusts that they have forgotten what they have promis'd to God I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchres and pictures I know that there are many who live luxuriously over the graves of the dead That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vitious is plain and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons But see what follows But how vain how hurtful how sacrilegious they are I have purpos'd to shew in another volume Then addressing himself to the Manichees who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholicks did reproach the Catholick Church he says Now I admonish you â—hat at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholick Church by reproaching the manners the of these men viz. worshippers of pictures and sepulchres and livers riotously over the dead whom she her self condemns and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct By these words now cited it appears plainly that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians who in his time did worship pictures were not only superstitious but condemned by the Church This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said but that he did say so we have his own words for witness Yea but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of Pictures alone what then Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious and their actions vain hurtful and sacrilegious But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these because he says it of the others too But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitious I know not what this offer of an answer means certain it is when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post he wries his back and shrinks from the blow though he knows he cannot get loose In the Margent of the Dissuasive there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at but the Letter says that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose That is now to be tryed The purpose for which they were brought is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margent the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry and to the condemnation of the Roman doctrine as the first was of the Roman practice The words are these Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side or that because the Father is said to sit it is to be supposed that he does it with bended knees lest we fall into that sacriledge for which the Apostle execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man For for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart So S. Austin Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section as more relating to the proper matter of it as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God but here it serves without any sensible error and where ever it is it throws a stone at them and hits them But of this more in the sequel But the third testimony however it pleases A. L. to deny it does speak home to this part of the question and condemns the Roman hypothesis the words are these See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote or that ye make shapes and images But it adds also saying Your God is a consuming fire and a zealous God These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God be so blames the Scriptures that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books concerning the not worshipping of images as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images Therefore he would seem to favour images which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect meaning the sect of the Manichees who to comply with the Pagans did retain the worship of images And now the three testimonies are verified and though this was an unnecessary trouble to me and I fear it may be so to my Reader yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this that in S. Austins sence that which Romanists do now the Manichees did then only these did it to comply with the Heathens and those out of direct and meer superstition But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that which the Jews did in this viz. that which was written Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God thou shalt not make an idol to thee and such like things and in the latter place he affirms that the second Commandment is moral viz. that all of the Decalogue are so but only the fourth I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul he says Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos ejus non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question and does great effort to the Roman practices E. W. takes notice of it and his best answer to it is that it hath often been answered already He says true it hath been answered
both often and many ways The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bishops who in the 36. Canon decreed this placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches That 's the decree The reason they give is ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls So that there are two propositions 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures ne quod colitur adoratur By which Mark E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches illi soli servies but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls or 2. defaced by the Heathen the first of these is Bellarmines the latter is Perrons answer But too childish to need a severer consideration But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames upon boards or cloth as it is in many Churches in Rome and other places 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches for fear of spoiling one kind of them they might have permitted others though not these 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think that in that age in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images they should be so curious to preserve their pictures and reserve them for â—doration 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution ne quod colitur adoratur and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it is so unlike the religion of Christians the piety of those ages the Oeconomy of the Church and the analogy of the Commandment that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him that shall so perversly invent an Unreasonable Commentary rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony But some are wiser and consider that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd but that they be not in the Churches and that what is adorable be not there painted and not be not there spoiled The not painting them is the utmost of their design not the preserving them for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls and preserved well enough and easily repaired upon decay therefore this is too childish to blot them out for fear they be spoiled and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out Agobardus Bishop of Lions above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis imaginibus which was published by Papirius Massonus and thus illustrates it Recte saith he nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere Nec quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition not the ridiculous preserving the pictures So it was Understood then But then 2. Agobardus reads it Nec not Ne quod colitur which reading makes the latter part of the Canon to be part of the sanction and no reason of the former decree pictures must not be made in Churches neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius that the Canon is not genuine is plainly confuted this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius and so many ages after the Council And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron who tells a story that in Granada in memory of this Council they use frames for pictures and paint none upon the wall at this day It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sence of the Patrons of images and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches Now then let this Canon be confronted with the Council of Trent Sess. 25. decret de S. S. invoc Imagines Christi Deiparae virginis aliorum sanctorâ—m in templis praesertim habendas retinendas that the images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saints be had and kept especially in Churches and in the world there cannot be a greater contradiction between two than there is between Eliberis and Trent the old and the new Church for the new Church not only commands pictures and images to be kept in Churches but paints them upon walls and neither fears thieves nor moisture There are divers other little answers amongst the Roman Doctors to this uneasie objection but they are only such as venture at the telling the secret reasons why the Council so decreed as Alan Cope saith it was so decreed lest the Christians should take them for Gods or lest the Heathen should think the Christians worshipped them so Sanders But it matters not for what reason they decreed Only if either of these say true then Bellarmine and Perron are false in their conjectures of the reason But it matters not for suppose all these reasons were concentred in the decree yet the decree it self is not observ'd at this day in the Roman Church but a doctrine and practice quite contrary introduced And therefore my opinion is that Melchior Canus answers best aut nimis duras aut parum rationi consentaneas à Consiliis provincialibus interdum editas non est negandum Qualis illa non impudenter modo verum etiam impie à Concilio Elibertino de tollendis imaginibus By this we may see not only how irreverently the Roman Doctors use the Fathers when they are not for their turns but we may also perceive how the Canon condemns the Roman doctrine and practice in the matter of images The next inquiry is concerning matter of History relating to the second Synod of Nice in the East and that of Francfurt in the West In the Dissuasive it was said that Eginardus Hincmarus Aventinus c. affirmed 1. That the Bishops assembled at Francfurt and condemned the Synod of Nice 2. That they commanded it should not be called a General Council 3. They published a book under the name of the
Emperor confuting that Unchristian Assembly These things were said out of these Authors not supposing that every thing of this should be prov'd from every one of them but the whole of it by its several parts from all these put together 1. That the Bishops of Francfurt condemned the Synod of Nice or the seventh General Whether the Dissuasive hath said this truly out of the Authors quoted by him we need no further proof but the confession of Bellarmine Auctores antiqui omnes conveniunt in hoc quod in concilio Francofordiensi sit reprobata Synodus VII quae decreverat imagines adorandas Ita Hincmarus Aimonius Rhegino Ado alii passim docent So that if the objector blames the Dissuasive for alledging these authorities let him first blame Bellarmine who confesses that to be true which the Dissuasive here affirms Now that by the VII Synod Bellarmine means the II. Nicene appears by his own words in the same chapter Videtur igitur mihi in Synodo Francofordiensi vere reprobatam Nicaenam II. Synodum sed per errorem materialiter c. And Bellarmine was in the right not only those which the Dissuasive quoted but all the Ancient Writers saith Bellarmine So the Author of the life of Charles the Great speaking of the Council of Francfurt Their Queen Fastrada died Pseudosynodus Graecorum quam falso septimam vocabant pro imaginibus rejecta est à pontificibus The same is affirmed by the Annals of the Francks by Adhelmus Benedictinus in his Annals in the same year by Hincmarus Rhemensis in an Epistle to Hincmarus his Nephew by Strabus the Monk of Fulda Rhegino Prumiensis Vrspergensis and Hermanus Contractus in their Annals and Chronicles of the year 794. By Ado Viennensis sed pseudosynodus quam septimam Graeci appellant pro adorandis imaginibus abdicata penitus the same is affirmed by the annals of Eginhardus and by Aimoinus and Aventinus I could reckon many more if more were nececessary but these are they whom the Dissuasive quoted and some more against this truth nothing material can be said only that Hincmarus and Aimonius which are two whom the Dissuasive quotes do not say that the Synod of Francfurt rejected the second Nicene but the Synod of C. P. But to this Bellarmine himself answers that is is true they do so but it is by mistake and that they meant the Council which was kept at Nice so that the Dissuasive is justified by his greatest adversary But David Blondel answers this objection by saying that C.P. being the head of the Eastern Empire these Authors us'd the name of the Imperial city for the provinces under it which answer though it be ingenious yet I rather believe that the error came first from the Council of Francfurt who called it the Synod at C. P. and that after it these Authors took it up but that error was not great but always excusable if not warrantable because the second Nicene Council was first appointed to be at C.P. but by reason of the tumults of the people was translated to Nice But to proceed That Blondus whom the Dissuasive also quotes saith the Synod of Francfurt abrogated the seventh Synod the objector confesses and adds that it confuted the Felician heresie for taking away of images concerning which lest the less wary Reader should suppose the Synod of Francfurt to have deternin'd for images as Alan Cope Gregory de Valentia Vasquez Suarez and Binius would fain have the world believe I shall note that the Synod of Francfurt did at the same time condemn the Heresie of Felix Vrgetitanus which was that Christ was the adopted son of God Now because in this Synod were condemned the breakers of images and the worshippers of images some ignorantly amongst which is this Gentleman the objector have suppos'd that the Felician Heresie was that of the Iconoclasts 2. Now for the second thing which the Dissuasive said from these Authors that the Fathers at Francfurt commanded that the second Nicene should not be called a general Council that matter is sufficiently cleared in the proof of the first particular for if they abrogated it and called it pseudosynodum and decreed against it hoc ipso they caused it should not be or be called a General Synod But I shall declare what the Synod did in the words of Adhelmus Benedictinus Synodus etiam quae paucos ante annos C. P. sub Helena Constantino filio ejus congregata ab ipsis non tantum septima verum etiam Vniversalis est appellata ut nec septima nec Vniversalis diceretur habereturque quasi supervacua in totum ab omnibus abdicata est 3. Now for the third thing which the Dissuasive said that they published a book under the name of the Emperor I am to answer that such a book about that time within three or four years of it was published in the name of the Emperor is notoriously known and there was great reason to believe it was written three or four years before the Synod and sent by the Emperor to the Pope but that divers of the Church of Rome did endeavour to perswade the world that the Emperor did not write it but that it was written by the Synod and contains the acts of the Synod but published under the Emperors name Now this the Dissuasive affirm'd by the authority of Hincmarus who does affirm it and of the same opinion is Bellarmine Scripti videntur in Synodo Francofordiensi acta continere synodi Francofordiensis enim asserit Hincmarus ejus temporis Author So that by all this the Reader may plainly see how careful the Dissuasive was in what was affirm'd and how careless this Gentleman is of what he objects Only this I add that though it be said that this book contained the acts of the Synod of Francfurt though it might be partly true yet not wholly For this Synod did indeed do so much against that of the Greeks and was so decretory against the worship of Images quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur said Hoveden and Matthew of Westminster that it is vehemently suspected that the Patrons of Images the objector knows whom I mean have taken a timely course with it so that the monuments of it are not to be seen nor yet a famous and excellent Epistle of Alcuinus written against the Greek Synod though his other works are in a large volume carefully enough preserved It was urg'd as an argument à minori ad majus that in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images and therefore it was impossible that the worship of images should then be the doctrine or practice of the Catholick Church To this purpose Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen were alledged First for Tertullian of whom the Letter says that he said no such thing sure it is this man did not care what he said supposing it sufficient to
their Religion or their Churches But now since these periods it is plain that the case is altered and when the learned Christians of the Roman communion write against the Jews they are forced to make apologies for the scandal they give to the Jews in their worshipping of images as is to be seen besides Leontius Neopolitanus of Cyprus his apology which he published for the Christians against the Jews in Ludovicus Carretus his Epistle in Sepher Amana and Fabianus Fioghus his Catechetical Dialogues But I suppose this case is very plain and is a great conviction of the innovation in this matter made by the Church of Rome 5. The matter of worshipping images looks so ill so like Idolatry so like the forbidden practices of the Heathens that it was infinitely reasonable that if it were the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church the Primitive Priests and Bishops should at least have considered and stated the question how far and in what sence it was lawful and with what intention and in what degrees and with what caution and distinctions this might lawfully be done particularly when they preach'd and wrote Commentaries and explications upon the Decalogue especially since there was at least so great a semblance of opposition and contradiction between the commandment and any such practice God forbidding any image and similitude to be made of himself or any thing else in Heaven or in Earth or in the Sea and that with such threatnings and interminations of his severe judgments against them that did make them for worship and this thing being so constantly objected by all those many that opposed their admission and veneration it is certainly very strange that none of the Fathers should take notice of any difficulty in this affair They objected the Commandment against the Heathens for doing it and yet that they should make no account nor take notice how their worshipping Saints and God himself by images should differ from the Heathen superstition that was the same thing to look upon This indeed is very Unlikely But so it is Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus speak plainly enough of this matter and speak plain down-right words against making and worshipping images and so careless they were of any future chance or the present concern of the Roman Church that they do not except the image of the true God nor the image of Saints and Angels no not of Christ or the Blessed Virgin Mary her self Nay Origen expounds the Commandments and S. Austin makes a professed commentary upon them but touch'd none of these things with the top of his finger only told that they were all forbidden we are not so careless now adays in the Church of Rome but carefully expound the Commandments against the unsufferable objections of the Hereticks of late and the Prophets and the Fathers of old But yet for all this a suspicious man would conclude that in the first 400. years there was no need of any such explications inasmuch as they had nothing to do with images which only could make any such need 6. But then in the next place I consider that the second Commandment is so plain so easie so peremptory against all the making and worshipping any image or likeness of any thing that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbidden it is so expressed that upon supposition that God did intend to forbid it wholly it could not more plainly have been expressed For the prohibition is absolute and universal and therefore of all particulars and there is no word or sign by the vertue of which it can with any probability be pretended that any one of any kind is excepted Now then to this when the Church of Rome pretends to answer they over-do it and make the matter the more suspicious Some of them answer by saying that this is no moral Commandment not obligatory to Christians but to the Jews only Others say that by this Commandment it is only forbidden to account an image to be very God so Cajetan Others say that an idol only is forbidden and that an image is no idol Others yet distinguish the manner of worshipping saying that the image is worshipp'd for the Samplers sake not for its own And this worship is by some called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or service by others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying that the first is to images of Saints the other to God only And yet with this difference Some saying that the image of God is ador'd with the same kind of adoration that God is only it is to the image for Gods sake so S. Thomas of Aquine and generally his scholars Others say that it is a religious kind of Worship due to Images but not at all Divine some say it is but a civil worship And then it is for the image sake and so far is intransitive but whatever is paid more to the image is transitive and passes further And whatsoever it be it cannot be agreed how it ought to be paid whether properly or improperly Vnivocally or aequivocally for themselves or for something else whether analogically or simply whether absolutely or by reduction And it is remarkable what Bellarmine answers to the Question with what kind of worship images may be ador'd He answers with this proposition The worship which by it self and properly is due to images is a certain imperfect worship which analogically and reductively pertains to a kind of that worship which is due to the Exemplar and a little after to the images a certain inferiour worship is due and that not all one but various according to the variety of images To the images of Saints is due dulia secundum quid which if you do not understand Bellarmine in the next words explains most clearly dulia secundum quid is as a man may say reductive and analogical But after all this we may be mistaken and we cannot tell whom to follow nor what to do in the case Thomas and his Scholars warrant you to give the same worship to Gods image as to God And is the easiest way indeed to be understood and indeed may quickly be understood to be direct idolatry Bellarmine and others tell you stay not so altogether but there is a way to agree with S. Thomas that it shall be the same worship and not the same worship for it is the same by reduction that is it is of the same kind and therefore Divine but it is imperfectly divine as if there could be degrees in Divine worship that is as if any worship could be divine and yet not the greatest But if this seems difficult Bellarmine illustrates it by similitudes This worship of images is the same with the worship of the Example viz. of God or of Christ as it happens just as a painted man is the same with a living man and a painted horse with a living horse for a painted man and a painted horse differ specifically as the true man and the
true horse do and yet the painted man is no man and the painted horse is no horse The effect of which discourse is this that the worship of images is but the image of worship hypocrisie and dissimulation all the way nothing real but imaginative and phantastical and indeed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine with their Saints Thomas and Bonaventure yet it is the best way to avoid idolatry because they give no real worship to images But then on the other side how do they mock God and Christ by offering to them that which is nothing by pretending to honour them by honouring their images when the honour they do give to images is it self but imaginary and no more of reality in it than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man However if you will not commit down-right idolatry as some of their Saints teach you then you must be careful to observe these plain distinctions and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image you do it not materially but formally not as it is of such a substance but as it is a sign next take care that you observe what sort of image it is and then proportion your right kind to it that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due and be careful that if dulia only be due that your worship be not hyperdulical In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases and according but to a few Doctors and therefore when you have got all these cases together be sure that in all other cases it be transitive But then when the worship is pass'd on to the Exemplar you must consider that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship though the kind be perfect and that it is but analogical and it is reductive and it is not absolute not simple not by it self not by an act to the image distinct from that which is to the Example but one and the same individual act with one intention as to the supreme kind though with some little variety if the kinds be differing Now by these easie ready clear and necessary distinctions and rules and cases the people being fully and perfectly instructed there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment because the Commandment does not forbid any worship that is transitive reduct accidental consequential analogical and hyperdulical and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest doctors teach now a days But now after all this the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images and no manner of way and trouble the peoples heads with no distinction for by these no man can ever be at peace or Understand the Commandment which without these laborious devices by which they confess the guilt of the Commandment does lie a little too heavy upon them would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curious that the second Commandment be not expos'd to the eyes and ears of the people leaving it out of their manuals breviaries and Catechisms as if when they teach the people to serve God they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments And when at any time they do set it down they only say thus Non facies tibi Idolum which is a word not us'd in the second Commandment at all and if the word which is there us'd be sometimes translated Idolum yet it means no more than similitude or if the words be of distinct signification yet because both are expresly forbidden in that Commandment it is very ill to represent the Commandment so as if it were observ'd according to the intention of that word yet the Commandment might be broken by the not observing it according to the intention of the other word which they conceal But of this more by and by 7. I consider that there is very great scandal and offence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity the very Turks and Jews with whom the worship of Images is of very ill report and that upon at least the most probable grounds in the world Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report and to walk circumspectly and charitably towards them that are without and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile Now if we consider that if the Christian Church were wholly without Images there would nothing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church or to any grace which is in order to Heaven and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby-ceremonies as the Synagogue did and yet on the other side that the Jews and Turks are the more much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus by the Image-worship done by his pretended servants the consequent will be that to retain the worship of Images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians and puts limits and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale 8. It is also very scandalous to Christians that is it makes many and endangers more to fall into the direct sin of idolatry Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome that almost all the holy Fathers damned the worship of Images for this very reason for fear of idolatry and Cassander says that all the ancients did abhor all adoration of Images and he cites Origen as an instance great enough to verifie the whole affirmative Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid This authority E.W. pag. 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question saying that Origen hath nothing against the use of Images and declares our Christian doctrine thus then he recites the words above quoted than which Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument The Scripture doth not say that God made the world it only declares the Christian doctrine thus In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth c. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people And of this danger S. Austin gives a rational account No man doubts but idols want all sense But when they are plac'd in their seats in an honourable sublimity that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice by the very likeness of living members and senses although they be senseless and without life
circumscriptionis figurae expertis Dei simulachrum effingere queat Extremae itaque dementiae atque impietatis fuerit Divinum numen fingere figurare This is the principle to confute the Doctor why but the Doctor thinks that in the world there cannot be clearer wordâ— for the reproof of picturing God and the Holy Trinity For to do so is madness and extreme impiety so says Damascen But stay says E. W. these words of Damascen are as who should say He that goes about to express by any Image the perfect similitude of Gods intrinsecal perfections or his Nature which is immense without body or figure would be both impious and act the part of a Mad-man But how shall any man know that these words of Damascen are as much as to say this meaning of E. W. and where is this principle as he calls it of Damascen by which the Doctor is so every where silenc'd Certainly E. W. is a merry Gentleman and thinks all mankind are fools This is the ridiculous Commentary of E. W. but Damascen was too learned and grave a person to talk such wild stuff And Cardinal Cajetan gives a better account of the doctrine of Damascen The Authority of Damascen in the very letter of it condemns those Images viz. of God of folly and impiety And there is the same reason now concerning the Deity which was in the old law And it is certain that in the old law the Images of God were forbidden To the like purpose is that of the famous Germanus who though too favourable to pictures in Churches for veneration yet he is a great enemy to all pictures of God Neque â—nim invisibilis Deitatis imaginem similitudinem vel schema vel figuram aliquam formamus c. as who please may see in his Epistle to Thomas Bishop of Claudiopolis But let us consider when God forbad the children of Israel to make any likeness of him did he only forbid them to express by any Image the perfect similitude of his intrinsecal perfections Had the children of Israel leave to picture God in the form of a man walking in Paradise Or to paint the Holy Trinity like three men talking to Abraham Was it lawful for them to make an Image or picture or to use E. W. his expression to exhibit to their eyes those visible or circumscribed lineaments which any man had seen And when they had exhibited these forms to the eyes might they then have fallen down and worshipped those forms which themselves exhibited to their own and others eyes I omit to enquire how they can prove that God appear'd in Paradise in the form of a man which they can never do unless they will use the Friers argument Faciamus hominem ad similitudinem nostram c. and so make fair way for the Heresie of the Anthropomorphites But I pass on a little further Did the Israelites when they made a molten calf and said These are thy Gods O Israel did they imagine that by that Image they represented the true form essence or nature of God Or did the Heathens ever pretend to make any Image of the intrinsecal perfections of any of their Majores or Minores Dii or any of their Daemons and dead Heroes And because they neither did nor could do that may it therefore be concluded that they made no Images of their Gods Certain it is the Heathens have as much reason to say they did not picture their Gods meaning their nature and essence but by symbolical forms and shapes represented those good things which they suppos'd them to have done Thus the Egyptians pictur'd Joseph with a Bushel upon his head and called him their God Serapis but they made no Image of his essence but symbolically represented the benefit he did the Nation by preserving them in the seven years famine Thus Ceres is painted with a Hook and a Sheaf of corn Pomona with a Basket of Apples Hercules with a Club and Jupiter himself with a handful of symbolical Thunderbolts This is that which the Popish Doctors call picturing God not in his Essence but in history or in symbolical shapes For of these three ways of picturing God Bellarmine says the two last are lawful And therefore the Heathens not doing the first but the second and the third only are just so to be excused as the Church of Rome is But then neither these nor those must pretend that they do not picture God For whatever the intention be still an Image of God is made or else why do they worship God by that which if it be no image of God must by their own doctrine be an Idol And therefore Bellarmines distinction is very foolish and is only crafty to deceive for besides the impertinency of it in answering the charge only by declaring his intention as being charged with picturing God he tells he did it indeed but he meant not to paint his nature but his story or his symbolical significations which I say is impertinent it not being inquir'd with what purpose it is done but whether or no and an evil thing may be done with a good intention Besides this I say that Bellarmines distinction comes just to this issue God may be painted or represented by an image not to express a perfect similitude of his form or nature but to express it imperfectly or rather not to express it but ad explicandam naturam to explain it not to describe him truly but historically though that be a strange history that does not express truly and as it is But here it is plainly acknowledged that besides the history the very Nature of God may be explicated by pictures or images provided they be only metaphorical and mystical as if the only reason of the lawfulness of painting God is because it is done imperfectly and unlike him or as if the metaphor made the Image lawful just as if to do Alexander honour you should picture him like a Bear tearing and trampling every thing or to exalt Caesar you should hang upon a table the pictures of a Fox and a Cock and a Lion and write under it This is Cajus Julius Caesar. But I am ashamed of these prodigious follies But at last why should it be esteemed madness and impiety to picture the nature of God which is invisible and not also be as great a madness to picture any shape of him which no man ever saw But he that is invested with a thick cloud and encircled with an inaccessible glory and never drew aside the Curtains to be seen under any representment will not suffer himself to be expos'd to vulgar eyes by phantastical shapes and ridiculous forms But it may be the Church of Rome does not use any such impious practice much less own so mad a doctrine for one of my adversaries says that the picturing the forms or appearances of God is all that some in their Church allow that is some do and some do
not So that it may be only a private opinion of some Doctors and then I am to blame to charge Popery with it To this I answer that Bellarmine indeed says Non esse tam certum in Ecclesia an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive Trinitatis quam Christi Sanctorum It is not so certain viz. as to be an article of faith But yet besides that Bellarmine allows it and cites Cajetan Catharinus Payva Sanders and Thomas Waldensis for it this is a practice and doctrine brought in by an unproved custom of the Church Constat quod haec consuetudo depingendi Angelos Deum modo sub specie Columbae modo sub Figura Trinitatis sit ubique inter Catholicos recepta The picturing Angels and God sometimes under the shape of a Dove and sometimes under the figure of the Trinity is every where received among the Catholicks said a great Man amongst them And to what purpose they do this we are told by Cajetan speaking of Images of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost saying Haec non solum pinguntur ut ostendantur sicut Cherubim olim in Templo sed ut adorentur They are painted that they may be worshipped ut frequens usus Ecclesiae testatur This is witnessed by the frequent use of the Church So that this is received every where among the Catholicks and these Images are worshipped and of this there is an Ecclesiastical custom and I add In their Mass-book lately printed these pictures are not infrequently seen So that now it is necessary to shew that this besides the impiety of it is against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church and is an innovation in religion a propriety of the Roman doctrine and of infinite danger and unsufferable impiety To some of these purposes the Disswasive alledged Tertullian Eusebius and S. Hierom but A. L. says these Fathers have nothing to this purpose This is now to be tried These men were only nam'd in the Disswasive Their words are these which follow 1. For Tertullian A man would think it could not be necessary to prove that Tertullian thought it unlawful to picture God the Father when he thought the whole art of painting and making Images to be unlawful as I have already proved But however let us see He is very curious that nothing should be us'd by Christians or in the service of God which is us'd on or by or towards Idols and because they did paint and picture their Idols cast or carve them therefore nothing of that kind ought to be in rebus Dei as Tertullian's phrase is But the summ of his discourse is this The Heathens use to picture their false Gods that indeed befits them but therefore is unfit for God and therefore we are to flee not only from Idolatry but from Idols in which affair a word does change the case and that which before it was said to appertain to Idols was lawful by that very word was made Unlawful and therefore much more by a shape or figure and therefore flee from the shape of them for it is an Unworthy thing that the Image of the living God should be made the Image of an Idol or a dead thing For the Idols of the Heathens are silver and gold and have eyes without sight and noses without smell and hands without feeling So far Tertullian argues And what can more plainly give his sence and meaning in this Article If the very Image of an Idol be Unlawful much more is it unlawful to make an Image or Idol of the living God or represent him by the Image of a dead man But this argument is further and more plainly set down by Athanasius whose book against the Gentiles is spent in reproving the Images of God real or imaginary insomuch that he affirms that the Gentiles dishonour even their false Gods by making Images of them and that they might better have pass'd for Gods if they had not represented them by visible Images And therefore That the religion of making Images of their Gods is not piety but impious For to know God we need no outward thing the way of truth will direct us to him And if any man ask which is that way viz. to know God I shall say it is the soul of a man and that understanding which is planted in us for by that alone God can be seen and Vnderstood The same Father does discourse many excellent things to this purpose as that a man is the only Image of God Jesus Christ is the perfect Image of his Glory and he only represents his essence and man is made in the likeness of God and therefore he also in a less perfect manner represents God Besides these if any many desires to see God let him look in the book of the creature and all the world is the Image and lively representment of Gods power and his wisdom his goodness and his bounty But to represent God in a carved stone or a painted Table does depauperate our understanding of God and dishonours him below the Painters art for it represents him lovely only by that art and therefore less than him that painted it But that which Athanasius adds is very material and gives great reason of the Command why God should severely forbid any Image of himself Calamitati enim tyrannidi servienâ—es homines Vnicum illud est nulli Communicabile Dei nomen lignis lapidibusque imposâ—runt Some in sorrow for their dead children made their Images and fancied that presence some desiring to please their tyrannous Princes put up their statues and at distance by a phantastical presence flattered them with honours And in process of time these were made Gods and the incommunicable name was given to wood and stones Not that the Heathens thought that Image to be very God but that they were imaginarily present in them and so had their Name Hujusmodi igitur initiis idolorum inventio Scriptura â—este apud homines coepit Thus idolatry began saith the Scripture and thus it was promoted and the event was they made pitiful conceptions of God they confined his presence to a statue they worshipped him with the lowest way â—maginable they descended from all spirituality and the noble ways of Understanding and made wood and stone to be as it were a body to the Father of Spirits they gave the incommunicable name not only to dead men and Angels and Daemons but to the Images of them and though it is great folly to picture Angelical Spirits and dead Heroes whom they never saw yet by these steps when they had come to picture God himself this was the height of the Gentile impiety and is but too plain a representation of the impiety practised by too many in the Roman Church But as we proceed further the case will be yet clearer Concerning the testimony of Eusebius I wonder that any writer of Roman controversies should be ignorant and being
in the first book of the Greek and Latin Bibliotheca Patrum out of which I shall only transcribe these words Non esse faciendum imagines Dei imo si quis quid simile attentaverit hunc exâ—remis suppliciis veluti Ethnicis communicantem dogmatis subjici Let them translate it that please only I remember that Aventinus tells a story that Pope John XXII caused to be burnt for Hereticks those persons who had painted the Holy Trinity which I urge for no other reason but to shew how late an innovation of religion this is in the Church of Rome The worship of Images came in by degrees and it was long resisted but until of late it never came to the height of impiety as to picture God and to worship him by Images But this was the state and last perfection of this sin and hath spoiled a great part of Christianity and turn'd it back to Ethnicism But that I may summ up all I desire the Roman Doctors to weigh well the words of one of their own Popes Gregory II. to the Question Cur tamen Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi non oculis subjicimus Why do we not subject the Father of our Lord Jesus to the eyes He answers Quoniam Dei natura spectanda proponi non potest ac fingi The nature of God cannot be expos'd to be beheld nor yet feign'd He did not conclude that therefore we cannot make the Image of his essence but none at all nothing of him to be expos'd to the sight And that this is his direct and full meaning besides his own words we may conclude from the note which Baronius makes upon it Postea in usu venisse ut pingatur in Ecclesia Pater Spiritus Sanctus Afterwards it became an use in the Church viz. the Roman to paint the Father and the Holy Ghost And therefore besides the impiety of it the Church of Rome is guilty of innovation in this particular also which was the thing I intended to prove THE END VNVM NECESSARIVM OR The Doctrine and Practice OF REPENTANCE DESCRIBING The Necessities and Measures of a Strict a Holy and a Christian Life AND Rescued from Popular Errors By JER TAYLOR Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor Poenitentiae compensatione redimendam proponit impunitatem Deus Praeveniamus faciem ejus in confessione Tertul. de Poenit. Cor contritum S PETER MARY MAGDALENE LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent Majesty 1673. TO The Right Honourable and Noblest Lord RICHARD Earl of Carbery c. MY LORD THE duty of Repentance is of so great and universal concernment a Catholicon to the evils of the Soul of every man that if there be any particular in which it is worthy the labours of the whole Ecclesiastical Calling to be instant in season and out of season it is in this duty and therefore I hope I shall be excused if my Discourses of Repentance like the duty it self be perpetually increasing and I may like the Widow in the Gospel to the unjust Judge at least hope to prevail with some men by my importunity Men have found out so many devices and arts to cousen themselves that they will rather admit any weak discourses and images of Reason than think it necessary to repent speedily severely and effectively We find that sinners are prosperous and God is long before he strikes and it is always another mans case when we see a judgment happen upon a sinner we feel it not our selves for when we do it is commonly past remedy Indeed it was to be pitied in the Heathen that many of them were tempted to take the thriving side when Religion it self was unprosperous When Jupiter suffered his golden Scepter to be stole and the Image never frown'd and a bold fellow would scrape the Ivory thigh of Hercules and go away without a broken pate for all the Club that was in his hand they thought they had reason to think there was no more sacredness in the Images of their gods than in the statues of Vigellus and because the event of all regular actions was not regular and equal but Catiline was hewn down by the Consuls sword for his Rebellion and for the same thing Caesar became a Prince they believed that the Powers that govern'd these extraregular events must it self be various and changeable and they call'd it Fortune But My Lord that Christians should thus dote upon temporal events and the little baits of fishes and the meat of dogs adoring every thing that is prosperous and hating that condition of things that brings trouble is not to be pardon'd to them who profess themselves Servants and Disciples of a Crucified Lord and Master But it is upon the same account that men are so hardly brought to repent or to believe that Repentance hath in it so many parts and requires so much labour and exacts such caution and cannot be performed without the best assistances or the greatest skill in spiritual notices They find sin pleasant and prosperous gay and in the fashion And though wise men know it is better to be pleas'd than to be merry to have rest and satisfaction in wisdom and perfective notices of things than to laugh loud and fright sobriety away with noises and dissolution and forgetfulness yet this severer pleasure seems dull and flat and men generally betake themselves to the wildnesses of sin and hate to have it interrupted by the intervening of the sullen grace of Repentance It was a sprightly saying of him in the Comedy Ego vitam Deorum proptereà sempiternam esse arbitror Quòd voluptates eorum propriae sunt Nam mihi immortalitas Parta est si huic nulla aegritudo gaudio intercesserit Our immortality is to be reckoned by the continuance of our pleasure My life is then perpetual when my delights are not interrupted And this is the immortality that too many men look after by incompetent means But to be called upon to Repentance and when men inquire what that is to be told it is all the duty of a returning man the extermination of sin the mortification of all our irregular appetites and all that perfection of righteousness which can consist with our state of imperfection and that in order to these purposes we must not refuse the sharpest instruments that they may be even cut off which trouble us but that we suffer all the severity of voluntary or imposed discipline according as it shall be judged necessary this is it which will trouble men such I mean who love a beggerly ease before a laborious thriving trade a foul stable to some beasts is better than a fair way and therefore it is that since all Christians are convinced of the necessity the indispensable necessity of Repentance they have resolved to admit it but they also resolve they will not understand what it is Vna herclè falsa lachrymula one
their own Preachers and holiness of life was not so severely demanded but that men believe their Country Articles and Heaven gates at no hand might be permitted to stand open to any one else Thence came hatred variance emulation and strifes and the Wars of Christendom which have been kindled by Disputers and the evil lives which were occasioned and encouraged by those proceedings are the best confutation in the world of all such disputations But now when we come to search into that part of Theologie which is most necessary in which the life of Christianity and the interest of Souls the peace of Christendom and the union of Minds the sweetness of Society and the support of Government the usefulness and comfort of our lives the advancement of Vertue and the just measures of Honour we find many things disordered the Tables of the Commandments broken in pieces and some parts are lost and some disorder'd and into the very practice of Christians there are crept so many material errors that although God made nothing plainer yet now nothing is more difficult and involv'd uncertain and discompos'd than many of the great lines and propositions in Moral Theologie Nothing is more neglected more necessary or more mistaken For although very many run into holy Orders without just abilities and think their Province is well discharged if they can preach upon Sundays and men observing the ordinary preaching to be little better than ordinary talk have been made bold to venture into the Holy Sept and invade the secrets of the Temple as thinking they can talk at the same rate which they observe to be the manner of vulgar Sermons yet they who know to give a just value to the best things know that the Sacred Office of a Priest a Minister of Religion does not only require great holiness that they may acceptably offer the Christian Sacrifices and Oblations of Prayer and Eucharist for the people and become their fairest examples but also great abilities and wise notices of things and persons strict observation deep remembrances prudent applications courage and caution severity and mercy diligence and wisdom that they may dispence the excellent things of Christianity to the same effect whither they were design'd in the Counsels of Eternity that is to the glory of God and the benefit of Souls But it is a sad thing to observe how weakly the Souls of men and women are guided with what false measures they are instructed how their guides oftentimes strive to please men rather than to save them and accordingly have fitted their Discourses and Sermons with easie theoremes such which the Schools of learning have fallen upon by chance or interest or flattery or vicious necessities or superinduc'd arts or weak compliances But from whatsoever cause it does proceed we feel the thing There are so many false principles in the institutions and systemes of moral or Casuistical Divinity and they taught so generally and believed so unquestionably and so fitted to the dispositions of men so complying with their evil inclinations so apt to produce error and confidence security and a careless conversation that neither can there be any way better to promote the interest of souls nor to vindicate truth nor to adorn the science it self or to make Religion reasonable and intelligible or to promote holy life than by rescuing our Schools and Pulpits and private perswasions from the believing such propositions which have prevailed very much and very long but yet which are not only false but have immediate influence upon the lives of men so as to become to them a state of universal temptation from the severities and wisdom of Holiness When therefore I had observed concerning the Church of England which is the most excellently instructed with a body of true Articles and doctrines of Holiness with a discipline material and prudent with a Government Apostolical with dignities neither splendid nor sordid too great for contempt and too little for envy unless she had met with little people greatly malicious and indeed with every thing that could instruct or adorn a Christian Church so that she wanted nothing but the continuance of peace and what she already was that amongst all her heaps of excellent things and Books by which her sons have ministred to piety learning both at home and abroad there was the greatest scarcity of Books of Cases of Conscience and that while I stood watching that some or other should undertake it according to the ability which God gave them and yet every one found himself hindred or diverted persecuted or disabled and still the work was left undone I suffered my self to be invited to put my weak hand to this work rather than that it should not be done at all But by that time I had made some progression in the first preparatory discourses to the work I found that a great part of that learning was supported by principles very weak and very false and that it was in vain to dispute concerning a single case whether it were lawful or no when by the general discoursings of men it might be permitted to live in states of sin without danger or reproof as to the final event of souls I thought it therefore necessary by way of address and preparation to the publication of the particulars that it should appear to be necessary for a man to live a holy life and that it could be of concern to him to inquire into the very minutes of his conscience For if it be no matter how men live and if the hopes of Heaven can well stand with a wicked life there is nothing in the world more unnecessary than to enquire after cases of Conscience And if it be sufficient for a man at the last to cry for pardon for having all his life time neither regarded Laws nor Conscience certainly they have found out a better compendium of Religion and need not be troubled with variety of rules and cautions of carefulness and a lasting holiness nor think concerning any action or state of life whether it be lawful or not lawful for it is all one whether it be or no since neither one nor the other will easily change the event of things For let it be imagined what need there can be that any man should write cases of Conscience or read them if it be lawful for a man thus to believe and speak I have indeed often in my younger years been affrighted with the fearful noises of damnation and the Ministers of Religion for what reasons they best know did call upon me to deny my appetite to cross my desires to destroy my pleasures to live against my nature and I was afraid as long as I could not consider the secrets of things but now I find that in their own Books there are for me so many confidences and securities that those fears were most unreasonable and that as long as I live by the rules and measures of nature I do not offend
of Valentinian hath these words Blessed is he truly who even in his old age hath amended his error Blessed is he who even just before the stroke of death turns his mind from vice Blessed are they whose sins are covered for it is written Cease from evil and do good and dwell for evermore Whoever therefore shall leave off from sin and shall in any age be turned to better things he hath the pardon of his former sins which either he hath confessed with the affections of a penitent or turned from them with the desires of amends But this Prince hath company enough in the way of his obtaining pardon For there are very many who could in their old age recal themselves from the slipperiness and sins of their youth but seldom is any one to be found who in his youth with a serious sobriety will bear the heavy yoke And I remember that when Faustus Bishop of Rhegium being asked by Paulinus Bishop of Nola from Marinus the Hermit whether a man who was involved in carnal sins and exercised all that a criminous person could do might obtain a full pardon if he did suddenly repent in the day of his death did answer peevishly and severely and gave no hopes nor would allow pardon to any such Avitus the Archbishop of Vienna reproved his pride and his morosity and gave express sentence for the validity of such a repentance and that Gentleness hath been the continual Doctrine of the Church for many Ages insomuch that in the year 1584. Henry Kyspenning a Canon of Xant published a Book intituled The Evangelical Doctrine of the meditation of death with solid exhortations and comforts to the sick from the currents of Scripture and the Commentaries of the Fathers where teaching the sick man how to answer the objections of Satan he makes this to be the fifteenth I repent too late of my sins He bids him answer It is not late if it be true and to the Thief upon the Cross Christ said This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise And afterwards a short prayer easily pierceth Heaven so it be darted forth with a vehement force of the spirit Truly the history of the Kings tells that David who was so great a sinner used but three syllables for he is read to have said no more but Peccavi I have sinned For S. Ambrose said The flame of the sacrifice of his heart ascends up to Heaven Because we have a merciful and gentle Lord and the correction of our sins needs not much time but great fervour And to the same purpose are the words of Alcuinus the Tutor of Charles the Great It behoves us to come to repentance with all confidence and by faith to believe undoubtedly that by repentance our sins may be blotted out Etiamsi in ultimo vitae spiritu commissa poeniteat although we repent of our sins in the last breath of our life Now after all these grounds of hope and confidence to a sinner what can be pretended in defiance of a sinful life and since men will hope upon one ground though it be trifling and inconsiderable when there are so many doctrinal grounds of hopes established propositions parts of Religion and Articles of faith to rely upon for all these particulars before reckoned men are called upon to believe earnestly and are hated and threatned and despised if they do not believe them what is there left to discourage the evil lives of men or to lessen a full iniquity since upon the account of the premises either we may do what we list without sin or sin without punishment or go on without fear or repent without danger and without scruple be confident of Heaven And now if Moral Theologie relie upon such notices as these I thought my work was at an end before I had well finished the first steps of my progression The whole summ of affairs was in danger and therefore I need not trouble my self or others with consideration of the particulars I therefore thought it necessary first to undermine these false foundations and since an inquiry into the minutes of conscience is commonly the work of persons that live holily I ought to take care that this be accounted necessary and all false warrants to the contrary be cancell'd that there might be many idonei auditores persons competent to hear and read and such who ought to be promoted and assisted in their holy intendments And I bless God there are very many such and though iniquity does abound yet Gods grace is conspicuous and remarkable in the lives of very many to whom I shall design all the labours of my life as being dear to God and my dear Brethren in the service of Jesus But I would fain have the Churches as full as I could before I begin and therefore I esteem'd it necessary to publish these Papers before my other as containing the greatest lines of Conscience and the most general cases of our whole life even all the doctrine of Repentance upon which all the hopes of man depend through Jesus Christ. But I have other purposes also in the publication of this Book The Ministers of the Church of Rome who ever love to fish in troubled waters and to oppress the miserable and afflicted if they differ from them in a proposition use all the means they can to perswade our people that the man that is afflicted is not alive that the Church of England now it is a persecuted Church is no Church at all and though blessed be God our Propositions and Doctrines and Liturgie and Communion are sufficiently vindicated in despite of all their petty oppositions and trifling arrests yet they will never leave making noises and outcries which for my part I can easily neglect as finding them to be nothing but noise But yet I am willing to try the Rights and Excellencies of a Church with them upon other accounts by such indications as are the most proper tokens of life I mean propositions of Holiness the necessities of a holy life for certainly that Church is most to be followed who brings us nearest to God and they make our approaches nearest who teach us to be most holy and whose Doctrines command the most excellent and severest lives But if it shall appear that the prevailing Doctrines in the Church of Rome do consequently teach or directly warrant impiety or which is all one are too easie in promising pardon and for it have no defences but distinctions of their own inventing I suppose it will be a greater reproof to their confidence and bold pretensions than a discourse against one of their immaterial propositions that have neither certainty nor usefulness But I had rather that they would preach severity than be reprov'd for their careless propositions and therefore am well pleased that even amongst themselves some are so convinc'd of the weakness of their usual Ministeries of Repentance that as much as they dare they call upon the Priests to be
more deliberate in their absolutions and severe in their impositions of satisfactions requiring a longer time of Repentance before the penitents be reconcil'd Monsieur Arnauld of the Sorbon hath appeared publickly in reproof of a frequent and easie Communion without the just and long preparations of Repentance and its proper exercises and Ministery Petavius the Jesuit hath oppos'd him the one cries The present Church the other The Ancient Church and as Petavius is too hard for his adversary in the present Authority so Monsieur Arnauld hath the clearest advantage in the pretensions of Antiquity and the arguments of Truth from which Petavius and his abettor Bagot the Jesuit have no escape or defensative but by distinguishing Repentance into Solemn and Sacramental which is just as if they should say Repentance is twofold one such as was taught and practis'd by the Primitive Church the other that which is in use this day in the Church of Rome for there is not so much as one pregnant testimony in Antiquity for the first four hundred years that there was any Repentance thought of but Repentance toward God and sometimes perform'd in the Church in which after their stations were perform'd they were admitted to the holy Communion excepting only in the danger or article of death in which they hastened the Communion and enjoyn'd the stations to be afterwards completed in case they did recover and if they did not they left the event to God But this question of theirs can never be ended upon the new principles nor shall be freely argued because of their interest For whoever are obliged to profess some false propositions shall never from thence find out an intire truth but like caskes in a troubled sea sometimes they will be under water sometimes above For the productions of error are infinite but most commonly monstrous and in the fairest of them there will be some crooked or deformed part But of the thing it self I have given such accounts as I could being ingaged on no side and the servant of no interest and have endeavour'd to represent the dangers of every sinner the difficulty of obtaining pardon the many parts and progressions of Repentance the severity of the Primitive Church their rigid Doctrines and austere Disciplines the degrees of easiness and complyings that came in by negligence and I desire that the effect should be that all the pious and religious Curates of Souls in the Church of England would endeavour to produce so much fear and reverence caution and wariness in all their penitents that they should be willing to undergo more severe methods in their restitution than now they do that men should not dare to approach to the holy Sacrament as soon as ever their foul hands are wet with a drop of holy rain but that they should expect the periods of life and when they have given to their Curate fair testimony of a hearty Repentance and know it to be so within themselves they may with comfort to all parties communicate with holiness and joy For I conceive this to be that event of things which was design'd by S. Paul in that excellent advice Obey them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 submit your selves viz. to their ordering and discipline because they watch for your souls as they that must give accounts for them that they may do it with joy I am sure we cannot give accounts of souls of which we have no notice and though we had reason to rescue them from the yoke of bondage which the unjust laws and fetters of annual and private Confession as it was by them ordered did make men to complain of yet I believe we should be all unwilling our Charges should exchange these fetters for worse and by shaking off the laws of Confession accidentally entertain the tyranny of sin It was neither fit that all should be tied to it nor yet that all should throw it off There are some sins and some cases and some persons to whom an actual Ministery and personal provision and conduct by the Priests Office were better than food or physick It were therefore very well if great sinners could be invited to bear the yoke of holy discipline and do their Repentances under the conduct of those who must give an account of them that they would inquire into the state of their souls that they would submit them to be judged by those who are justly and rightly appointed over them or such whom they are permitted to chuse and then that we would apply our selves to understand the secrets of Religion the measures of the Spirit the conduct of Souls the advantages and disadvantages of things and persons the ways of life and death the lahyrinths of temptation and all the remedies of sin the publick and private the great and little lines of Conscience and all those ways by which men may be assisted and promoted in the ways of godliness for such knowledge as it is most difficult and secret untaught and unregarded so it is most necessary and for want of it the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is oftentimes given to them that are in the gall of bitterness that which is holy is given to Dogs Indeed neither we nor our Forefathers could help it always and the Discipline of the Church could seize but upon few all were invited but none but the willing could receive the benefit but however it were pity that men upon the account of little and trifling objections should be discouraged from doing themselves benefit and from enabling us with greater advantages to do our duty to them It was of old observed of the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they obey the laws and by the excellency of their own lives excel the perfection of the laws and it is not well if we shall be earnest to tell them that such a thing is not necessary if we know it to be good For in this present dissolution of manners to tell the people concerning any good thing that it is not necessary is to tempt them to let it alone The Presbyterian Ministers who are of the Church of England just as the Irish are English have obtained such power with their Proselytes that they take some account of the Souls of such as they please before they admit them to their communion in Sacraments they do it to secure them to their party or else make such accounts to be as their Shibboleth to discern their Jews from the men of Ephraim but it were very well we would do that for Conscience for Charity and for Piety which others do for Interest or Zeal and that we would be careful to use all those Ministeries and be earnest for all those Doctrines which visibly in the causes of things are apt to produce holiness and severe living It is no matter whether by these arts any Sect or Name be promoted it is certain Christian Religion would and that 's the real interest of us all
that those who are under our Charges should know the force of the Resurrection of Christ and the conduct of the Spirit and live according to the purity of God and the light of the Gospel To this let us cooperate with all wisdom and earnestness and knowledge and spiritual understanding And there is no better way in the world to do this than by ministring to persons singly in the conduct of their Repentance which as it is the work of every man so there are but few persons who need not the conduct of a spiritual guide in the beginnings and progressions of it To the assistance of this work I have now put my Symbol having by the sad experience of my own miseries and the calamities of others to whose restitution I have been called to minister been taught something of the secret of Souls and I have reason to think that the words of our dearest Lord to S. Peter were also spoken to me Tu autem conversus confirma fratres I hope I have received many of the mercies of a repenting sinner and I have felt the turnings and varieties of spiritual entercourses and I have often observed the advantages in ministring to others and am most confident that the greatest benefits of our office may with best effect be communicated to souls in personal and particular Ministrations In the following book I have given advices and have asserted many truths in order to all this I have endeavoured to break in pieces almost all those propositions upon the confidence of which men have been negligent of severe and strict living I have cancell'd some false grounds upon which many answers in Moral Theologie us'd to be made to inquiries in Cases of Conscience I have according to my weak ability described all the necessities and great inducement of a holy life and have endeavoured to do it so plainly that it may be useful to every man and so inoffensively that it may hurt no man I know but one Objection which I am likely to meet withall excepting those of my infirmity and disability which I cannot answer but by protesting the piety of my purposes but this only that in the Chapter of Original sin I speak otherwise than is spoken commonly in the Church of England whos 's ninth Article affirms that the natural propensity to evil and the perpetual lusting of the flesh against the spirit deserves the anger of God and damnation against which I so earnestly seem to dispute in the sixth Chapter of my Book To this I answer that it is one thing to say a thing in its own nature deserves damnation and another to say it is damnable to all those persons in whom it is subjected The thing it self that is our corrupted nature or our nature of corruption does leave us in the state of separation from God by being unable to bear us to Heaven imperfection of nature can never carry us to the perfections of glory and this I conceive to be all that our Church intends for that in the state of nature we can only fall short of Heaven and be condemn'd to a poena damni is the severest thing that any sober person owns and this I say that Nature alone cannot bring us to God without the regeneration of the Spirit and the grace of God we can never go to Heaven but because this Nature was not spoil'd by Infants but by persons of reason and we are all admitted to a new Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Adam presently after his fall that is even before we were born as much as we were to a participation of sin before we were born no man can perish actually for that because he is reconcil'd by this He that says every sin is damnable and deserves the anger of God says true but yet some persons that sin of mere infirmity are accounted by God in the rank of innocent persons So it is in this Article Concupiscence remains in the regenerate and yet concupiscence hath the nature of sin but it brings not condemnation These words explain the 〈◊〉 Original imperfection is such a thing as is even in the regenerate and it is of the nature of sin that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many but yet it is not daâ—â—ing because as it is subjected in unconsenting persons it loses its own natural venome and relation to guiltiness that is it may of it self in its abstracted nature be a sin and deserve Gods anger viz. in some persons in all them that consent to it but that which will always be in persons that shall never be damned that is in infants and regenerate shall 〈◊〉 damn them And this is the main of what I affirm And since the Church of England intended that Article against the Doctrine of the Pelagians I suppose I shall not be thought to recede from the spirit and sence of the Article though I use differing manners of expression because my way of explicating this question does most of all destroy the Pelagian Heresie since although I am desirous to acquit the dispensation of God and his Justice from my imputation or suspicion of wrong and am loth to put our sins upon the account of another yet I impute all our evils to the imperfections of our nature and the malice of our choice which does most of all demonstrate not only the necessity of Grace but also of Infant Baptism and then to accuse this Doctrine of Pelagianism or any newer name of Heresie will seem like impotency and weakness of spirit but there will be nothing of truth or learning in it And although this Article was penn'd according to the style of the Schools as they then did loâ—e to speak yet the hardest word in it is capable of such a sence as complies with the intendment of that whole sixth Chapter For though the Church of England professes her self fallible and consequently that all her truths may be peaceably improved yet I do think that she is not actually deceiv'd and also that divers eminently learned do consent in my sence of that Article However I am so truly zealous for her honour and peace that I wholly submit all that I say there or any where else to her most prudent judgment And though I may most easily be deceived yet I have given my reasons for what I say and desire to be tried by them not by prejudice and numbers and zeal and if any man resolves to understand the Article in any other sence than what I have now explicated all that I shall say is that it may be I cannot reconcile my Doctrine to his explication it is enough that it is consistent with the Article it self in its best understanding and compliance with the truth it self and the justification of God However he that explicates the Article and thinks it means as he says does all the honour he can to the Authority whose words if he does not understand yet the sanction
that 's a full account of this particular since the Laws of our Religion require of us a holy life but the Religion could demand of strangers nothing but to believe and at first to promise to obey and then to 〈◊〉 it accordingly if they shall live Now to do this was never too late and this is all which is affirmed by S. Cyprian 65. S. Hierome affirm'd Nunquam sera est conversio latro de cruce transiit ad Paradisum And S. Austin De nullo desperandum est quamdiu patientia Dei ad poenitentiam adducit and again De quocunque pessimo in hâc vitâ constituto utique non est desperandum Ne◠pro illo imprudentèr oratur de quo non desperatur Concerning the words of S. Hierome the same answer will serve which I gave to the words of S. Cyprian because his instance is of the Thief upon the Cross who then came first to Christ and his case was as if a Heathen were new converted to Christianity Baptizatus ad horam securus hinc exit was the Rule of the Church But God requires more holiness of Christians than he did of strangers and therefore he also expects a longer and more laborious Repentance But of this I have given account in the case of Demetrianus S. Austins words press not at all All that he sayes is this We must despair of no man so long as the mercy of God leadeth him to repentance It is true we must not absolutely despair but neither must we presume without a warrant nay hope as long as God calls effectually But when the severity of God cuts him off from repentance by allowing him no time or not time enough to finish what is required the case is wholly differing But S. Chrysostome speaks words which are not easie to be reconciled to the former doctrine The words of S. Chrysostome are these Take heed of saying that there is a place of pardon onely for them that have sinn'd but little For if you please suppose any one abounding with all maliciousness and that hath done all things which shut men from the Kingdome let this man be not a Heathen but a Christian and accepted of God but afterwards an Whoremonger an Adulterer an effeminate person unnaturally lustfull a thief a drunkard a slanderer and one that hath diligently committed such crimes truly I will not be to him an author of despairing although he had persevered in these wickednesses to an extreme old age Truly neither would I. But neither could he nor any man else be forward to warrant his particular But if the remaining portion of his old age be well imployed according as the time is and the spending of that time and the earnestness of the repentance and the greatness of the grief and the heartiness of the return and the fulness of the restitution and the zeal of amends and the abundance of charity and the largeness of the devotion so we approach to very many degrees of hope But there is difference between the case of an extreme old age and a death-bed That may have more time and better faculties and fitted opportunities and a clearer choice and a more perfect resistance between temptation and grace But for the state of death-bed although there is in that also some variety yet the best is very bad and the worst is stark naught but concerning the event of both God only is the Judge Only it is of great use that Chrysostom says in the same Letters to Theodorus Quódque est majoris facilitatis argumentum etiamsi non omnem prae se fert poenitentiam brevem illam exiguo tempore factam non abnuit sed magnâ mercede compensat Even a dying person ought not to despair and leave off to do those little things of which only there is then left to him a possibility because even that imperfect Repentance done in that little time God rejects not but will give to it a great reward So he did to Ahab And whatsoever is good shall have a good some way or other it shall find a recompence but every recompence is not eternal glory and every good thing shall not be recompensed with Heaven To the same purpose is that of Coelestinus reproving them that denied repentance to persons qui obitûs sui tempore hoc animae suae cupiunt remedio subveniri who at the time of their death desired to be admitted to it Horremus fateor tantae impietatis aliquem reperiri ut de Dei pietate desperet quasi non posset ad se quovis tempore concurrenti succurrere periclitantem sub onere peccatorum hominem pondere quo se expedire desiderat liberare I confess saith he we abhor that any one should be found to be of so great impiety as to despair of Gods mercy as if he could not at any time relieve him that comes to him and ease him that runs to be eased of the burthen of his sins Quid hoc rogo aliud est c. What else is this but to add death to the dying man and to kill his soul with cruelty by denying that he can be absolved since God is most ready to help and inviting to repentance thus promises saying In what day soever the sinner shall be converted his sins shall not be imputed to him and again I would not the death of a sinner but that he should be converted and live He therefore takes salvation from a man who denies him his hoped for repentance in the time of his death and he despairs of the clemency of God who does not believe it sufficient to help the dying man in a moment of time The Thief on the Cross hanging on Christs right hand had lost his reward if the repentance of one hour had not helped him When he was in pain he repented and obtain'd Paradise by one discourse Therefore the true conversion to God of dying persons is to be accounted of by the mind rather than by time Thus far S. Coelestine The summ of which is this That dying persons must not be thrust into despair Because Gods mercy is infinite and his power is infinite He can do what he please and he may do more than we know of even more than he hath promised and therefore they that are spiritual must not refuse to do all that they can to such miserable persons And in all this there is nothing to be reproved but that the good man by incompetent arguments goes about to prove what he had a mind to If the hindring such persons to despair be all that he intends it is well if more be intended his arguments will not do it 66. Afterwards in the descending ages of the Church things grew worse and it began to be good doctrine even in the days of S. Isidore Nullus desperare debet veniam etiamsi circa finem vitae ad poenitentiam convertatur Vnumquemque enim Deus de suo fine non
shall all likewise perish Neither does God exacting or describing Repentance in several lines use any respect of persons but with the same measures he will deal with all For when there is a difference in the Divine mercy it is in giving time and grace to repent not in sparing one and condemning another who die equally criminal and impenitent Those little lines of hopes are not upon either of these foundations For whatsoever is known or revealed is against these persons and does certainly condemn them Why then are they bidden to hope and repent I answer once for all It is upon something that we know not And if they be not sav'd we know not how they cannot expect to be saved by any thing that is revealed in their particular When S. Peter had declar'd to Simon Magus that he was in the gall of bitterness and yet made him pray if peradventure the thought of his heart might be forgiven him he did not by any thing that was reveal'd know that he should be pardoned but by something that he did not know there might be hope It is at no hand to be dissembled out of tenderness and pity to such persons but to be affirmed openly there is not revealed any thing to them that may bid them be in any degree confident But he that hath a deadly wound whom the Chirurgeons affirm to be hopeless yet is willing to receive Cordials and to be dress'd 2. If in the measures of life and death which are described in large characters there be any lines so indefinite and comprehensive that they who preach and declare the doctrines do not fully take in all that God intends upon the account of our weakness and ignorance there may be some little rushes and twiggs to support their sinking hopes For although the matters of duty and the conditions of life and death are so plain and legible that we can all understand our obligation yet things are seldome so described that we can give the final sentence concerning others There is a secret in these things which nothing shall open but the day of Judgment No man may judge his brother that is no man can or ought to say This man is damn'd and yet we know that he that dies an impenitent Traytor or Rebel or adulterer is damn'd But yet that Adulterous Natta or the Rebel Cinna or the Traytor sâ—â—ti line is actually damn'd that we know not The reason is because our duty is described for us to guide and walk our selves by not to judge and sentence others And even the judgment of the Church who hath authority to judge and sentence yet it is only for amendment it is universal it is declarative it is conditional not personal final decretory and eternal For otherwise does man judge otherwise does God II. There is some variety in the case and in the person and in the degrees of Repentance There is a period beyond which God will not admit a man to pardon but when it is we know not There is a minimum Religionis the least measure of Religion the lowest degree of acceptability but what it is we cannot tell There is also a proper measure for every one but no man can fathom it And the duties and parts of Repentance consist in the terms of a great distance and latitude and we cannot tell when a man first begins to be safe and when he is newly escaped from the regions of sin and when he begins his state of grace Now as God abates great measures of his wrath and forgives all that is past if we return betimes and live twenty years in piety and repentance so he does if the man do so nineteen years and eighteen and still shortning till you come to a year or any the least time that can do the work of Repentance and exterminate his vicious habit Now because Abraham begg'd for the pardon of Sodom if there should be found fifty righteous there and then abated five and then five more and then ten more till he came to ten alone and it is supposed that Abraham first gave out and that God would have pardon'd the City for one righteous mans sake if Abraham had still persevered to ask if any man will suppose that it may be done so in the abatements of time to be made to a returning sinner though I say it is a strange diminution to come from years to one day yet I will say nothing against it but that length or shortness of time makes nothing to the mercies of God but it makes very much to the duty of man because every action requires some time and every habit much more Now we have reason to say that the condition of a dying penitent after a whole wicked life is desperate because so far as we understand things habits are not to be extinguish'd and the contraries acquir'd but with long time and study But if there be any secret way by which the Spirit of God does work faster and produce undiscerned miracles we ought to adore that goodness by which it is so and they that can believe this may hope the other In the mean time neither the one nor the other is revealed and so it stands as it did in the whole Question IV. We find in the instance of Abrahams faith that against hope he believed in hope that is that he had great arguments on both sides and therefore that in defiance of one he would hope in the other because this could not fail him but the other could If it can be brought to pass that a dying man can hope after a wicked life it is a hope against hope and of this all that I can say is that it is no contradiction in the thing to affirm that a dying penitent who hath contracted vicious habits hath not time left him to perform that repentance which God requires of habitual sinners under the pains of eternal death and yet to bid such a person do what he can do and pray if peradventure God will be intreated Because that little hopes which he is bid to have are not warranted or relying upon pretence of any particular revelation contrary to the so many expressions of severe duty and stricter conditions but are plac'd upon the foundation of the Divine Power and such little proportions and similitudes of things and guesses and conjectures of kind persons as can only be sufficient to make the dying man try what can be done V. The first ages of the Church did exactly use this method of Doctrine and Discipline In some cases whereof I shall afterwards give account they refus'd to declare them pardon'd to minister Gods pardon to dying penitents but yet would not bid them despair but refer them to the Divine judgment which if it be reduc'd to the causes of things if we believe they proceeded reasonably must mean this that they knew of no revelation concerning the pardon of such persons but whether God would or no pardon
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
say this may be a final event I find no warrant for that and think it only to be an intermedial event that is though Adam's sin left us there yet God did not leave us there but instantly gave us Christ as a remedy and now what in particular shall be the state of Unbaptized infants so dying I do not profess to know or teach because God hath kept it as a secret I only know that he is a gracious Father and from his goodness nothing but goodness is to be expected and that is since neither Scripture nor any Father till about Saint Augustine's time did teach the poor Babes could die not onely once for Adam's sin but twice and for ever I can never think that I do my duty to GOD if I think or speak any thing of him that seems so unjust or so much against his goodness And therefore although by Baptism or by the ordinary Ministery Infants are new born and rescued from the state of Adam's account which metonymically may be called a remitting of Original sin that is a receiving them from the punishment of Adam's sin or the state of evil whither in him they are devolved yet Baptism does but consider that grace which God gives in Jesus Christ and he gives it more ways than one to them that desire Baptism to them that die for Christianity and the Church even in Origen's time and before that did account the Babes that died in Bethlehem by the Sword of Herod to be Saints and I do not doubt but he gives it many ways that we know not of And therefore S. Bernard and many others do suppose that the want of Baptism is supplied by the Baptism of the H. Ghost To which purpose the 87 Epistle of S. Bernard is worth the reading But this I add that those who affirmed that Infants without actual Baptism could not be saved affirmed the same also of them if they wanted the H. Eucharist as is to be seen in Paulinus epigr. 6. The writer of Hypognosticon lib. 5. S. Augustin Hom. 10. Serm. 8. de verbis Apostoli 107 Epistle to Vitalis And since no Church did ever enjoyn to any Catechumen any Penance or Repentance for Original sin it seems horrible and unreasonable that any man can be damned for that for which no man is bound to repent SECT V. The Doctrine of Antiquity in this whole matter The summe of all is this 18. I. ORiginal Sin is Adam's sin imputed to us to many evil effects II. It brings death and the evils of this life III. Our evils and necessity being brought upon us bring in a flood of passions which are hard to be bridled or mortified IV. It hath left us in pure naturals disrobed of such aids extraordinary as Adam had V. It deprives us of all title to Heaven or supernatural happiness that is it neither hath in it strength to live a spiritual life nor title to a heavenly VI. It leaves in us our natural concupiscence and makes it much worse Thus far I admit and explicate this Article But all that I desire of the usual Propositions which are variously taught now adays is this I. Original sin is not an inherent evil not a sin properly but metonymically that is it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain but no sin II. It does not destroy our liberty which we had naturally III. It does not introduce a natural necessity of sinning IV. It does not damn any Infant to the Eternal Pains of Hell And now how consonant my explication of the Article is to the first and best antiquity besides the testimonies I have already brought here concerning some parts of it will appear by the following authorities speaking to the other parts of it and to the whole Question S. Ignatius the Martyr in his Epistle to the Magnesians hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man be a pious man He is a man of God if he be impious he is of the Devil not made so by nature but by his own choice and sentence by which words he excludes nature and affirms our natural liberty to be the cause of our good or evil that is we are in fault but not Adam so as we are And it is remarkable that Ignatius hath said nothing to the contrary of this or to infirm the force of these words and they who would fain have alledged him to contrary purposes cite him calling Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old iniquity which appellative is proper enough but of no efficacy in this question Dionysius the Areopagite if he be the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy does very well explicate this Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When in the beginning humane nature foolishly fell from the state of good things which God gave it it was then entred into a life of passions and the end of the corruption of Death This sentence of his differs not from that of S. Chrysostome before alledged for when man grew miserable by Adam's fall and was disrobed of his aids he grew passionate and peevish and tempted and sick and died This is all his account of Adam's story and it is a very true one But the writer was of a later date not much before S. Austin's time as it is supposed but a learned and a Catholick believer 19. Concerning Justin Martyr I have already given this account that he did not think the liberty of choice impaired by Adam's sin but in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew he gives no account of Original sin but this that Christ was not crucified or born as if himself did need it but for the sake of Mankind which by Adam fell into death and the deception of the Serpent besides all that which men commit wickedly upon their own stock of impiety So that the effect of Adam's sin was death and being abused by the Devil for this very reason to rescue us from the effects of this deception and death and to redeem us from our impiety Christ was born and died But all this meddles not with any thing of the present Questions for to this all interests excepting the Pelagians and Socinians will subscribe It is material which is spoken by him or some under his name in the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no man who is by nature born to sin and do wickedly but hath sinned and done wickedly But he is by nature born to sin who by the choice of his free-will is author to himself of doing what he will whether it be good or bad But an infant as being not indued with any such power it appears sufficiently that he is not by nature born to sin These words when they had been handled as men pleased and turned to such sences as they thought they could escape by at last they appear to be the words of one who understood nothing
I explicate it is wholly against the Pelagians for they wholly deny Original sin affirming that Adam did us no hurt by his sin except only by his example These Men are also followed by the Anabaptists who say that death is so natural that it is not by Adam's fall so much as made actual The Albigenses were of the same opinion The Socinians affirm that Adam's sin was the occasion of bringing eternal death into the World but that it no way relates to us not so much as by imputation But I having shewed in what sence Adam's sin is imputed to us am so far either from agreeing with any of these or from being singular that I have the acknowledgment of an adversary even of Bellarmine himself that it is the doctrine of the Church and he laboriously endeavours to prove that Original sin is meerly ours by imputation Add to this that he also affirms that when Zuinglius says that Original sin is not properly a sin but metonymically that is the effect of one sin and the cause of many that in so saying he agrees with the Catholicks Now these being the main affirmatives of my discourse it is plain that I am not alone but more are with me than against me Now though he is pleased afterwards to contradict himself and say it is veri nominis peccatum yet because I understood not how to reconcile the opposite parts of a contradiction or tell how the same thing should be really a sin and yet be so but by a figure onely how it should be properly a sin and yet onely metonymically and how it should be the effect of sin and yet that sin whereof it is an effect I confess here I stick to my reason and my proposition and leave Bellarmine and his Catholicks to themselves 25. And indeed they that say Original sin is any thing really any thing besides Adam's sin imputed to us to certain purposes that is effecting in us certain evils which dispose to worse they are according to the nature of error infinitely divided and agree in nothing but in this that none of them can prove what they say Anselme Bonaventure Gabriel and others say that Original sin is nothing but a want of Original righteousness Others say that they say something of truth but not enough for a privation can never be a positive sin and if it be not positive it cannot be inherent and therefore that it is necessary that they add indignitatem habendi a certain unworthiness to have it being in every man that is the sin But then if it be asked what makes them unworthy if it be not the want of Original righteousness and that then they are not two things but one seemingly and none really they are not yet agreed upon an answer Aquinas and his Scholars say Original sin is a certain spot upon the soul. Melancthon considering that concupiscence or the faculty of desiring or the tendency to an object could not be a sin fancied Original sin to be an actual depraved desire Illyrious says it is the substantial image of the Devil Scotus and Durandus say it is nothing but a meer guilt that is an obligation passed upon us to suffer the evil effects of it which indeed is most moderate of all the opinions of the School and differs not at all or scarce discernibly from that of Albertus Pighius and Catharinus who say that Original sin is nothing but the disobedience of Adam imputed to us But the Lutherans affirm it to be the depravation of humane nature without relation to the sin of Adam but a vileness that is in us The Church of Rome of late sayes that besides the want of Original righteousness with an habitual aversion from God it is a guiltiness and a spot but it is nothing of Concupiscence that being the effect of it only But the Protestants of Mr. Calvin's perswasion affirm that concupiscence is the main of it and is a sin before and after Baptism but amongst all this infinite uncertainty the Church of England speaks moderate words apt to be construed to the purposes of all peaceable men that desire her communion 26. Thus every one talks of Original sin and agree that there is such a thing but what it is they agree not and therefore in such infinite Variety he were of a strange imperious spirit that would confine others to his particular fancy For my own part now that I have shown what the Doctrine of the purest Ages was what uncertainty there is of late in the Question what great consent there is in some of the main parts of what I affirm and that in the contrary particulars Men cannot agree I shall not be ashamed to profess what company I now keep in my opinion of the Article no worse Men than Zuinglius Stapulensis the great Erasmus and the incomparable Hugo Grotius who also says there are multi in Gallia qui eandem sententiam magnis same argumentis tuentur many in France which with great argument defend the same sentence that is who explicate the article intirely as I do and as S. Chrysostome and Theodoret did of old in compliance with those H. Fathers that went before them with whom although I do not desire to erre yet I suppose their great names are guard sufficient against prejudices and trifling noises and an amulet against the Names of Arminian Socinian Pelagian and I cannot tell what Monsters of appellatives But these are but Boyes tricks and arguments of Women I expect from all that are wiser to examine whether this Opinion does not or whether the contrary does better explicate the truth with greater reason and to better purposes of Piety let it be examined which best glorifies God and does honour to his justice and the reputation of his Goodness which does with more advantage serve the interest of holy living and which is more apt to patronize carelesness and sin These are the measures of wise and good men the other are the measures of Faires and Markets where fancy and noise do govern SECT VI. An Exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England concerning Original sin according to Scripture and Reason 27. AFter all this it is pretended and talked of that my Doctrine of Original sin is against the Ninth Article of the Church of England and that my attempt to reconcile them was ineffective Now although this be nothing to the truth or falshood of my Doctrine yet it is much concerning the reputation of it Concerning which I cannot be so much displeased that any man should so undervalue my reason as I am highly content that they do so very much value her Authority But then to acquit my self and my Doctrine from being contrary to the Article all that I can do is to expound the Article and make it appear that not only the words of it are capable of a fair construction but also that it is reasonable they should be expounded so
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
in our first access to Christ because they for whom Christ and his Martyr S. Stephen prayed were not yet converted and so were to be saved by Baptismal Repentance Then the Power of the Keys is exercised and the gates of the Kingdom are opened then we enter into the Covenant of mercy and pardon and promise faith and perpetual obedience to the laws of Jesus and upon that condition forgiveness is promised and exhibited offer'd and consign'd but never after for it is in Christianity for all great sins as in the Civil Law for theft Qui eâ mente alienum quid contrectavit ut lucrifaceret tametsi mutato consilio id Domino postea reddidit fur est nemo enim tali peccato poenitentiâ suâ nocens esse desinit said Vlpian and Gaius Repentance does not here take off the punishment nor the stain And so it seems to be in Christianity in which every baptized person having stipulated for obedience is upon those terms admitted to pardon and consequently if he fails of his duty he shall fail of the grace 8. But that this objection may proceed no further it is certain that it is an infinite lessening of the mercy of God in Jesus Christ to confine pardon of sins only to the Font. For that even lapsed Christians may be restored by repentance and be pardoned appears in the story of the incestuous Corinthian and the precept of S. Paul to the spiritual man or the Curate of souls If any man be overtaken in a fault ye which are spiritual restore such a man in the spirit of meekness considering thy self lest thou also be tempted The Christian might fall and the Corinthian did so and the Minister himself he who had the ministery of restitution and reconciliation was also in danger and yet they all might be restored To the same sence is that of S. James Is any man sick among you let him send for the Presbyters of the Church and let them pray over him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although he was a doer of sins they shall be forgiven him For there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sin that is not unto death And therefore when S. Austin in his first Book de Sermone Dei had said that there is some sin so great that it cannot be remitted he retracts his words with this clause addendum fuit c. I should have added If in so great perverseness of mind he ends his life For we must not despair of the worst sinner we may not despair of any since we ought to pray for all 9. For it is beyond exception or doubt that it was the great work of the Apostles and of the whole new Testament to engage men in a perpetual repentance For since all men do sin all men must repent or all men must perish And very many periods of Scripture are directed to lapsed Christians baptized persons fallen into grievous crimes calling them to repentance So Simon Peter to Simon Magus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repent of thy wickedness and to the Corinthian Christians S. Paul urges the purpose of his legation We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God The Spirit of God reprov'd some of the Asian Churches for foul misdemeanours and even some of the Angels the Asian Bishops calling upon them to return to their first love and to repent and to do their first works and to the very Gnosticks and filthiest Hereticks he gave space to repent and threatned extermination to them if they did not do it speedily For 10. Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the admission of us to the Covenant of Faith and Repentance or as Mark the Anchoret call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the introduction to repentance or that state of life that is full of labour and care and amendment of our faults for that is the best life that any man can live and therefore repentance hath its progress after baptism as it hath its beginning before for first repentance is unto baptism and then baptism unto repentance And if it were otherwise the Church had but ill provided for the state of her sons and daughters by commanding the baptism of Infants For if repentance were not allowed after then their early baptism would take from them all hopes of repentance and destroy the mercies of the Gospel and make it now to all Christendom a law of works in the greater instances because since in our infancy we neither need nor can perform repentance if to them that sin after baptism repentance be denied it is in the whole denied to them for ever to repent But God hath provided better things for us and such which accompany salvation 11. For besides those many things which have been already consider'd our admission to the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a perpetual entertainment of our hopes because then and there is really exhibited to us the body that was broken and the blood that was shed for remission of sins still it is applied and that application could not be necessary to be done anew if there were not new necessities and still we are invited to do actions of repentance to examine our selves and so to eat all which as things are order'd would be infinitely useless to mankind if it did not mean pardon to Christians falling into foul sins even after baptism 12. I shall add no more but the words of S. Paul to the Corinthians Lest when I come again my God will humble me among you and that I shall bewail many who have sinn'd already and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed Here is a fierce accusation of some of them for the foulest and the basest crimes and a reproof of their not repenting and a threatning them with censures Ecclesiastical I suppose this article to be sufficiently concluded from the premises The necessity of which proof they only will best believe who are severely penitent and full of apprehension and fear of the Divine anger because they have highly deserved it However I have serv'd my own needs in it and the need of those whose consciences have been or shall be so timorous as mine hath deserved to be But against the universality of this doctrine there are two grand objections The one is the severer practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church denying repentance to some kind of sinners after baptism The other the usual discourses and opinions concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost Of these I shall give account in the two following Sections SECT III. Of the Difficulty of obtaining Pardon The Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 13. NOvatianus and Novatus said that the Church had not power to minister pardon of sins except only in Baptism which proposition when they had well digested and considered they did thus explicate That there are some capital sins crying and clamorous into
which if a Christian did fall after baptism the Church had nothing to do with him she could not absolve him 14. This opinion of theirs was a branch of the elder Heresie of Montanus which had abus'd Tertullian who fiercely declaims against the decree of Pope Zephyrinus because against the custom of his Decessors he admitted adulterers to repentance while at the same time he refus'd idolaters and murderers And this their severity did not seem to be put upon the account of a present necessity or their own zeal or for the avoiding scandal or their love of holiness but upon the nature of the thing it self and the sentences of Scripture An old man of whom Irenaeus makes mention said Non debemus superbi esse neque reprehendere veteres ne fortè post agnitionem Dei agentes aliquid quod non placet Deo remissionem non habeamus ultrà delictorum excludamur à regno ejus We must not be proud and reprove our Fathers lest after the knowledge of God we doing something that does not please God we may no more have remission of our sins but be excluded from his Kingdom To the same purpose is that Canon made by the Gallic Bishops against the false accusers of their brethren ut ad exitum ne communicent that they should not be admitted to the Communion or peace of the Church no not at their death And Pacianus Bishop of Barcinona gives a severe account of the doctrine of the Spanish Churches even in his time and of their refusing to admit idolaters murderers and adulterers to repentance Other sins may be cured by the exercise of good works But these three kill like the breath of a Basilisk and are to be feared like a deadly arrow They that were guilty of such crimes did despair What have I done to you was it not in your power to have let it alone Did no man admonish you Did none foretel the event Was the Church silent Did the Gospels say nothing Did the Apostles threaten nothing Did the Priest intreat nothing of you why do you seek for late comforts Then you might have sought for them when they were to be had But they that pronounce such men happy do but abuse you 15. This opinion and the consequent practice had its fate in several places to live longer or die sooner And in Africa the decree of Zephyrinus for the admission of penitent adulterers was not admitted even by the Orthodox and Catholicks but they dissented placidly and modestly and governed their own Churches by the old severity For there was then no thought of any necessity that other Churches should obey the sanctions of the Pope or the decrees of Rome but they retain'd the old Discipline But yet the piety and the reasonableness of the decree of Zephyrinus prevail'd by little and little and adulterers were admitted but the severity stuck longer upon idolaters or apostates for they were not to be admitted to the peace of the Church although they should afterwards suffer martyrdom for the name of Christ and for this they pretended the words of S. Paul Non possunt admitti secundum Apostolum as S. Cyprian expresly affirms and the same is the sentence of the first Canon of the Council of Eliberis 16. When they began to remit of this rigor which they did in or about S. Cyprians time they did admit these great criminals to repentance Once but no more as appears in Tertullian the Council of Eliberis the Synod at Syde in Pamphylia against the Messalians S. Ambrose S. Austin and Macedonius which makes it suspicious that the words of Origen are interpolated saying In gravioribus criminibus semel tantùm vel rarò poenitentiae conceditur locus But once or but seldom so the words are now but the practice of that age was not so remiss for they gave once and no more as appears in the foregoing Authors and in the eleventh Canon of the third Council of Toledo For as S. Clemens of Alexandria affirms Apparet sed non est poenitentia saepe petere de iis quae saepe peccantur It is but a seeming repentance that falls often after a frequent return 17. But this gentleness for it was the greatest they then had they ministred to such only as desir'd it in their health and in the days in which they could live the lives of penitents and make amends for their folly For if men had liv'd wickedly and on their death-bed desir'd to be admitted to repentance and pardon they refus'd them utterly as appears in that excellent Epistle of S. Cyprian to Antonianus Prohibendos omnino censuimus à specommunionis pacis si in infirmitate atque periculo coeperint deprecari at no hand are those to be admitted to Church communion who repent only in their danger and weakness because not repentance of their fault but the hasty warning of instant or approaching death compell'd them neither is he worthy in death to receive the comfort who did not think he was to die And consequently to this severity in his Sermon de lapsis he advises that every man should confess his sin while his confession can be admitted while his satisfaction may be acceptable and his pardon ratified by God The same was decreed by the Fathers in the Synod of Arles 18. This was severe if we judge of it by the manners and propositions of the present age But iniquity did so abound and was so far from being cured by this severe discipline that it made this discipline to be intolerable and useless And therefore even from this also they did quickly retire For in the time of Innocentius and S. Austin they began not only to impose penances on dying penitents but even after a wicked life to reconcile them They then first began to do it but as it usually happens in first attempts and insolent actions they were fearful and knew not the event and would warrant nothing To hinder them that are in peril of death from the use of the last remedy is hard and impious but to promise any thing in so late a cure is temerarious So Salvian and S. Chrysostome to Theodorus would not have such persons despaired so neither nourish'd up by hope only it is better nihil inexpertum relinquere quà m morientem nolle curare to try every way rather than that the dying penitent should fail for want of help But Isidore said plainly He who living wickedly repents in the time of his death as his damnation is uncertain so his pardon is doubtful 19. This was the most dangerous indulgence and easiness of doctrine that had as yet entred into the Church but now it was tumbling and therefore could not stop here but presently down went all severity All sinners and at all times and as often as they would might be admitted to repentance and pardon whether they could or could not perform the
stations and injunctions of the penitents and this took off the edge of publick and Ecclesiastical repentance and to this succeeded private repentance where none but God and the Priest were witnesses and because this was a recession from the old discipline and of it self an abuse or but the reliques of discipline at the best and therefore not necessary because it was but an imperfect supply of something that was better this also is in some places â—aid aside in others too much abus'd But of that in its place 20. But now that I may give an account concerning the first severity Concerning their not admitting those three sorts of Criminals to repentance but denying it to none else I consider 1. That there is no place of Scripture that was pretended to exclude those three Capital sins from hopes of pardon For one of them there was of which I shall give account in the following periods but for murder and adultery there were very many authorities of Scripture to prove them pardonable but none to prove them unpardonable 2. What can be pretended why idolatry murder and adultery should be less pardonable if repented of than Incest Treason Heresie Sodomy or Sacriledge These were not denied and yet some of them are greater Criminals than some that were but the value is set upon crimes as men please 3. That even in these three cases the Church did allow Repentance in the very beginning appears beyond exception in Irenaeus who writes concerning the women seduced by the Heretick Marck and so guilty of both Adulteries carnal and spiritual that they were admitted to repentance 4. S. Clemens of Alexandria affirms indefinitely concerning all persons lapsed after Baptism that they may be restored and pardon'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that fall into sins after Baptism must be chastened For those things which were committed before Baptism are pardoned but they which are committed afterwards are to be purged For it is certain that God did not shut up the fountain which he opened in Baptism Then he smote the Rock and the stream flowed out and it became a river and ran in dry places 5. It is more than probable that in Egypt it was very ordinary to admit lapsed persons and even Idolaters â—o repentance because of the strange levity of the Nation and that even the Bishops did at the coming of Hadrianus the Emperor devote themselves to Serapis Illi qui Serapim colunt Christiani sunt devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi Episcopos dicunt So the Emperor testifies in his letters to Servianus For it is not to be suppos'd that it was part of their perswasion that they might lawfully do it or that it was solemn and usual so to do but that to avoid persecution they did chuse rather to seem unconstant and changeable than to be kill'd especially in that Nation which was tota levis pendula ad omnia famae momenta volans as these letters say light and inconstant tossed about with every noise of fame and variety These Bishops after the departure of Caesar without peradventure did many of them return to their charges and they and their Priests pardon'd each other just as the Libellatici and the Thurificati did in Carthage and all Africa as S. Cyprian relates 6. In Ephrem Syrus there is a form of Confession and of Prayer for the pardon of foul sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Have mercy on my sins my injustices my covetousness which some render unnatural lusts my adulteries and fornications my idle and filthy speakings If these after Baptism are pardonable Quid non speremus the former severity must be understood not to be their Doctrine but their Discipline 21. And the same is to be said concerning their giving Repentance but to those whom they did admit after Baptism we find it expresly affirm'd by the next ages that the purpose of their Fathers was only for Discipline and caution So S. Austin The Church did cautiously and healthfully provide that penitents should but once be admitted lest a frequent remedy should become contemptible yet who dares say Why do ye again spare this man who after his first repentance is again intangled in the snares of sin 22. So that whereas some of them use to say of certain sins that after Baptism or after the first relapse they are unpardonable we must know that in the style of the Church Vnpardonable signified such to which by the Discipline and Customs of the Church pardon was not ministred They were called Vnpardonable not because God would not pardon them but because he alone could this we learn from those words of Tertullian Salvâ illâ poenitentiae specie post fidem quae aut levioribus delictiâ— veniam ab Episcopo consequi poterit aut majoribus irremissibilibus à Deo solo The lighter or lesser sins might obtain pardon from the Ministery of the Bishop Hoc satis est ipsi caetera mando Deo The greatest and the Vnpardonable could obtain it of God alone So that when they did deny to absolve some certain Criminals after Baptism or after a relapse they did not affirm the sins to be unpardonable as we understand the word Novatus himself did not for as Socrates reports he wrote to all the Churches every where that they should not admit them that had sacrificed to the Mysteries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to exhort them to repentance and yet to leave their pardon and absolution to him who is able and hath authority to forgive sins And the same also was the doctrine of Acesius his great Disciple for which Constantine in Eusebius reprov'd him Some single men have despair'd but there was never any Sect of men that seal'd up the Divine Mercy by the locks and bars of Despair much less did any good Christians ever do it 23. And this we find expresly verified by the French Bishops in a Synod there held about the time of Pope Zephyrinus Poenitentia ab his qui daemonibus sanctificant agenda ad diem mortis non sine spetamen remissionis quam ab eo planè sperare debebunt qui ejus largitatem solus obtinet tam dives misericordiae est ut nemo desperet Although the Criminal must do penance to his dying day that is the Church will not absolve or admit him to her communion yet he must not be without hope of pardon which yet is not to be hop'd for from the Church but from him who is so rich in mercy that no man may despair and not long after this S. Cyprian said Though we leave them in their separation from us yet we have and do exhort them to repent if by any means they can receive indulgence from him who can perform it 24. Now if it be enquired what real effect this had upon the persons or souls of the offending relapsing persons the consideration is weighty and material For to say the Church
could not absolve such persons in plain speaking seems to mean that since the Church ministers nothing of her own but is the Minister of the Divine mercy she had no commission to promise pardon to such persons If God had promised pardon to such Criminals it is certain the Church was bound to preach it but if she could not declare preach or exhibite any such promise then there was no such promise and therefore their sending them to God was but a put off or a civil answer saying that God might do it if he please but he had not signified his pleasure concerning them and whether they who sinn'd so foully after Baptism were pardonable was no where revealed and therefore all the Ministers of Religion were bound to say they were unpardonable that is God never said he would pardon them which is the full sence of the word Vnpardonable For he that says any sin is unpardonable does not mean that God cannot pardon it but that he will not or that he hath not said he will 25. And upon the same account it seem'd unreasonable to S. Ambrose that the Church should impose penances and not release the penitents He complain'd of the Novatians for so doing Cùm utique veniam negando incentivum auferant poenitentiae The penitents could have little encouragement to perform the injunctions of their Confessors when after they had done them they should not be admitted to the Churches communion And indeed the case was hard when it should be remembred that whatsoever the Church did bind on Earth was bound in Heaven and if they retain'd them below God would do so above and therefore we find in Scripture that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give repentance being the purpose of Christ's coming and the grace of the Gospel does mean to give the effect of Repentance that is pardon And since Gods method is such by giving the grace and admitting us to do the duty he consequently brings to that mercy which is the end of that duty it is fit that should also be the method of the Church 26. For the ballancing of this Consideration we are further to consider that though the Church had power to pardon in all things where God had declar'd he would yet because in some sins the malice was so great the scandal so intolerable the effect so mischievous the nature of them so contradictory to the excellent laws of Christianity the Church many times could not give a competent judgment whether any man that had committed great sins had made his amends and done a sufficient penance and the Church not knowing whether their Repentance was worthy and acceptable to God she could not pronounce their pardon that is she could not tell them whether upon those terms God had or would pardon them in the present disposition 27. For after great crimes the state of a sinner is very deplorable by reason of his uncertain pardon not that it is uncertain whether God will pardon the truly penitent but that it is uncertain who is so and all the ingredients into the judgment that is to be made are such things which men cannot well discern they cannot tell in what measures God will exact the Repentance what sorrow is sufficient what fruits acceptable what is expiatory and what rejected according to the saying of Solomon Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin they cannot tell how long God will forbear at what time his anger is final and when he will refuse to hear or what aggravations of the crime God looks on nor can they make an estimate which is greater the example of the sin or the example of the punishment And therefore in such great cases the Church had reason to refuse to give pardon which she could minister neither certainly nor prudently nor as the case then stood safely or piously 28. But yet she enjoyn'd Penances that is all the solemnities of Repentance and to them the sinners stood bound in Earth and consequently in Heaven according to the words of our blessed Saviour but she bound them no further She intended charity and relief to them not ruine and death eternal On this she had no direct power and if the penitent were obedient to her Discipline then neither could they be prejudic'd by her indirect power she sent them to God for pardon and made them to prepare themselves accordingly Her injunction of Penances was medicinal and her refusing to admit them to the Communion was an act of caution fitted to the present necessities of the Church Nonnullae ideò poscunt poenitentiam ut statim sibi reddi communionem velint Hae non tam se solvere cupiunt quà m sacerdotem ligare Some demand penances that they may have speedy communion These do not so much desire themselves to be loosed as to have the Priest bound that is such hasty proceedings do not any good to the penitent but much hurt to him that ministers This the Primitive Church avoided and this was the whole effect which that Discipline had upon the souls of the penitents But for their Doctrine S. Austin is a sufficient witness Sed neque de ipsis â—riminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in Sanctâ Ecclesiâ Dei desperanda est misericordia agentibus poenitentiam secundum modum sui cujusque peccati They ought not to despair of Gods mercy even to the greatest sinners if they be the greatest penitents that is if they repent according to the measure of their sins Only in the making their judgments concerning the measures of Repentance they differ'd from our practices Ecclesiastical Repentance and Absolution was not only an exercise of the duty and an assisting of the penitent in his return but it was also a warranting or ensuring the pardon which because in many cases the Church could not so well do she did better in not undertaking it that is in not pronouncing Absolution 29. For the pardon of sins committed after Baptism not being described in full measures and though it be sufficiently signifi'd that any sin may be pardon'd yet it not being told upon what conditions this or that great one shall the Church did well and warily not to be too forward for as S. Paul said I am conscious to my self in nothing yet I am not hereby justified so we may say in Repentance I have repented and do so but I am not hereby justified because that is a secret which until the day of Judgment we shall not understand for every repenting is not sufficient He that repents worthily let his sin be what it will shall certainly be pardon'd but after great crimes who does repent worthily is a matter of harder judgment than the manners of the present age will allow us to make and so secret that they thought it not amiss very often to be backward in pronouncing the Criminal absolved 30. But then all this whole affair must needs be a mighty arrest to
drawn to the condemnation and final excision of such persons who after baptism fall into any great sin of which they are willing to repent 38. There is also something peculiar in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renewing such men to repentance that is these men are not to be redintegrate and put into the former condition they cannot be restored to any other gracious Covenant of repentance since they have despis'd this Other persons who hold fast their profession and forget not that they were cleansed in baptism they in case they do fall into sin may proceed in the same method in their first renovation to repentance that is in their being solemnly admitted to the method and state of repentance for all sins known and unknown But when this renovation is renounc'd when they despise the whole Oeconomy when they reject this grace and throw away the Covenant there is nothing left for such but a fearful looking for of judgment for these persons are incapable of the mercies of the Gospel they are out of the way For there being but one way of salvation viz. by Jesus Christ whom they renounce neither Moses nor Nature nor any other name can restore them And 2. Their case is so bad and they so impious and malicious that no man hath power to perswade such men to accept of pardon by those means which they so disown For there is no means of salvation but this one and this one they hate and will not have they will not return to the old and there is none left by which they can be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renewed and therefore their condition is desperate 39. But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or impossible is also of special importance and consideration It is impossible to renew such For impossible is not to be understood in the natural sence but in the legal and moral There are degrees of impossibility and therefore they are not all absolute and supreme So when the law hath condemned a criminal we usually say it is impossible for him to escape meaning that the law is clearly against him Magnus ab infernis revocetur Tulliâ—s umbris Et te defendat Regulus ipse licèt Non potes absolvi That is your cause is lost you are inexcusable there is no apology no pleading for you and that the same is here meant we understand by those parallel words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is left no sacrifice for him alluding to Moses's law in which for them that sinn'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a high hand for them that despised Moses's law there was no sacrifice appointed which Ben Maimon expounds saying that for Apostates there was no sacrifice in the Law So that it is impossible to renew such means that it is ordinarily impossible we have in the discipline of the Church no door of reconciliation If he repents of this he is not the same man but if he remains so the Church hath no promise to be heard if she prays for him which is the last thing that the Church can do To absolve him is to warrant him that in this case is absolutely impossible but to pray for him is to put him into some hopes and for that she hath in this case no commission For this is the sin unto death of which S. John speaks and gives no incouragement to pray So that impossible does signifie in sensu forensi a state of sin which is sentenc'd by the Law to be capital and damning but here it signifies the highest degree of that deadliness and impossibility as there are degrees of malignity and desperation in mortal diseases for of all evils this state here described is the worst And therefore here is an impossibility 40. But besides all other sences of this word it is certain by the whole frame of the place and the very analogy of the Gospel that this impossibility here mentioned is not an impossibility of the thing but only relative to the person It is impossible to restore him whose state of evil is contrary to pardon and restitution as being a renouncing the Gospel that is the whole Covenant of pardon and repentance Such is that parallel expression used by S. John He that is born of God sinneth not neither indeed can he that is it is impossible he cannot sin for the seed of God remaineth in him Now this does not signifie that a good man cannot possibly sin if he would that is it does not signifie a natural or an absolute impossibility but such as relates to the present state and condition of the person being contrary to sin the same with that of S. Paul Be ye led by the Spirit for the spirit lusteth against the flesh so that ye cannot do the things which ye would viz. which the flesh would fain tempt you to A good man cannot sin that is very hardly can he be brought to chuse or to delight in it he cannot sin without a horrible trouble and uneasiness to himself so on the other side such Apostates as the Apostle speaks of cannot be renewed that is without extreme difficulty and a perfect contradiction to that state in which they are for the present lost But if this man will repent with a repentance proportion'd to that evil which he hath committed that he ought not to despair of pardon in the Court of Heaven we have the affirmation of Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that confess and acknowledge him to be Christ and for whatsoever cause go from him to the secular conversation viz. to Heathenism or Judaism c. denying that he is Christ and not confessing him again before their death they can never be saved So that this impossibility concerns not those that return and do confess him but those that wilfully and maliciously reject this only way of salvation as false and deceitful and never return to the confession of it again which is the greatest sin against the Holy Ghost of which I am in the next place to give a more particular account SECT V. 41. HE that speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall never be forgiven him in this world nor in the world to come so said our blessed Saviour Origen and the Novatians after him when the Scholars of Novatus to justifie their Masters Schism from the Church had chang'd the good old discipline into a new and evil doctrine said that all the sins of Christians committed after Baptism are sins against the Holy Ghost by whom in Baptism they have been illuminated and by him they were taught in the Gospel and by him they were consign'd in confirmation and promoted in all the assistances and Conduct of grace and they gave this reason for it Because the Father is in all Creatures the Son only in the Reasonable and the Holy Spirit in Christians against which if they prevaricate they shall not be pardon'd while the sins of Heathens as being only against
not the injur'd person and therefore cannot have the power of giving pardon properly and sufficiently and effectively and confession is not an amends to him and the duty it self of Confession is not an enumeration of particulars but a condemnation of the sin which is an humiliation before the offended party yet confession to a Priest the minister of pardon and reconciliation the Curate of souls and the Guide of Consciences is of so great use and benefit to all that are heavy laden with their sins that they who carelesly and causlesly neglect it are neither lovers of the peace of consciences nor are careful for the advantages of their souls 43. For the publication of our sins to the minister of holy things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Basil Is just like the manifestation of the diseases of our body to the Physician for God hath appointed them as spiritual Physicians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to heal sinners by the antidote of repentance said the Fathers in the first Roman Council under Simplicius Their office is to comfort the comfortless to instruct the ignorant to reduce the wanderers to restore them that are overtaken in a fault to reconcile the penitent to strengthen the weak and to incourage their labours to advise remedies against sins and to separate the vile from the precious to drive scandals far from the Church and as much as may be to secure the innocent lambs from the pollutions of the infected Now in all these regards the penitent may have advantages from the Ecclesiastical ministrations There are many cases of conscience which the penitent cannot determine many necessities which he does not perceive many duties which he omits many abatements of duty which he ignorantly or presumptuously does make much partiality in the determination of his own interests and to build up a soul requires so much wisdom so much severity so many arts such caution and observance such variety of notices great learning great prudence great piety that as all Ministers are not worthy of that charge and secret imployment and conduct of others in the more mysterious and difficult parts of Religion so it is certain there are not many of the people that can worthily and sufficiently do it themselves and therefore although we are not to tell a lie for a good end and that it cannot be said that God hath by an express law required it or that it is necessary in the nature of things yet to some persons it hath put on so many degrees of charity and prudence and is so apt to minister to their superinduc'd needs that although to do it is not a necessary obedience yet it is a necessary charity it is not necessary in respect of a positive express Commandment yet it is in order to certain ends which cannot be so well provided for by any other instrument it hath not in it an absolute but it may have a relative and a superinduc'd necessity Coelestique viro quis te deceperit error Dicito pro culpâ ne scelus esse putet Now here a particular enumeration is the confession that is proper to this ministery because the minister must be instructed first in the particulars which also points out to us the manner of his assistances and of our obligation it is that we may receive helps by his office and abilities which can be better applied by how much more minute and particular the enumeration or confession is and of this circumstance there can be no other consideration excepting that the enumeration of shames and follies before a holy man is a very great restraint to the gayeties of a confident or of a tempted person For though a man dares sin in the presence of God yet he dares not let his friend or his enemy see him do a foul act Tam facile pronum est superos contemnere testes Si mortalis idem nemo sciat And therefore that a reverend man shall see his shame and with a severe and a broad eye look and stare upon his dishonour must needs be a great part of Gods restraining grace and of great use to the mortification and prevention of sin 44. One thing more there is which is highly considerable in this part or ministery of repentance It is a great part of that preparation which is necessary for him who needs and for him who desires absolution Ecclesiastical Some do need and some do desire it and it is of advantage to both They that need it and are bound to seek it are such who being publickly noted by the Church are bound by her Censures and Discipline that is such who because they have given evil example to all and encouragement in evil to some to them that are easie and apt to take are tied by the publication of their repentance their open return and publick amends to restore the Church so far as they can to that state of good things from whence their sin did or was apt to draw her This indeed is necessary and can in no regard be excused if particular persons do not submit themselves to it unless the Church her self will not demand it or advise it and then if there be an error or a possibility to have it otherwise the Governours of the Church are only answerable And in this sence are those decretory sayings and earnest advices of the ancient Doctors to be understood Laicus si peccet ipse suum non potest auferre peccatum sed indiget Sacerdote ut possit remissionem peccatorum accipere said Origen If any of the people sin himself cannot take away his own sin but must shew himself to the Priest that he may obtain pardon For they who are spotted with sins unless they be cured with the Priestly authority cannot be in the bosome of the Church said Fabianus Martyr And as express are those words of S. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It behoveth every one that is under authority to keep â—o motion of their hearts secret but to lay the secrets of their heart naked before them who are intrusted to take care of them that are weak or sick That is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publick penitents who are placed in the station of the mourners must not do their business imperfectly but make a perfect narrative of their whole case to the penitentiary Minister and such persons who are under discipline or under notorious sins must make their Exomologesis that is do Ecclesiastical repentance before them who are the Trustees and Stewards of the mysteries of God Quâ sine nullus remissione potietur said a Father to S. John de Gradibus without which Exomologesis or publick Ecclesiastical confession or amends no man shall obtain pardon meaning the peace of the Church For to this sence we are to understand the doctrine of the holy Fathers and we learn it from S. Austin Rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae
does but declare it so it effects it not 71. VIII And after all it is certain that the words of absolution effect no more than they signifie If therefore they do pardon the sin yet they do not naturally change the disposition or the real habit of the sinner And if the words can effect more they may be changed to signifie what they do effect for to signifie is less than to effect Can therefore the Church use this form of absolution I do by the power committed unto me change thy Attrition into Contrition The answer to this is not yet made for their pretence is so new and so wholly unexamined that they have not yet considered any thing of it It will therefore suffice for our institution in this useful material and practical question that no such words were instituted by Christ nor any thing like them no such were used by the Primitive Church no such power pretended And as this new doctrine of the Roman Church contains in it huge estrangements and distances from the spirit of Christianity is another kind of thing than the doctrine and practice of the Apostolical and succeeding ages of the Church did publish or exercise so it is a perfect destruction to the necessity of holy life it is a device only to advance the Priests office and to depress the necessity of holy dispositions it is a trick to make the graces of Gods holy Spirit to be bought and sold and that a man may at a price become holy in an instant just as if a Teacher of Musick should undertake to convey skill to his Scholar and fell the art and transmit it in an hour it is a device to make dispositions by art and in effect requires little or nothing of duty to God so they pay regard to the Priest But I shall need to oppose no more against it but those excellent words and pious meditation of Salvian Non levi agendum est contritione ut debita illa redimantur quibus mors aeterna debetur nec transitoriâ opus est satisfactione pro malis illis propter quae paratus est ignis aeternus It is not a light contrition by which those debts can be redeem'd to which eternal death is due neither can a transitory satisfaction serve for those evils for which God hath prepared the vengeance of eternal fire SECT VI. Of Penances or Satisfactions 72. IN the Primitive Church the word Satisfaction was the whole word for all the parts and exercises of repentance according to those words of Lactantius Poenitentiam proposuit ut si peccata nostra confessi Deo satisfecerimus veniam consequamur He propounded repentance that if we confessing our sins to God make amends or satisfaction we may obtain pardon Where it is evident that Satisfaction does not signifie in the modern sence of the word a full payment to the Divine Justice but by the exercises of repentance a deprecation of our fault and a begging pardon Satisfaction and pardon are not consistent if satisfaction signifie rigorously When the whole debt is paid there is nothing to be forgiven The Bishops and Priests in the Primitive Church would never give pardon till their satisfactions were performed To confess their sins to be sorrowful for them to express their sorrow to punish the guilty person to do actions contrary to their former sins this was their amends or Satisfaction and this ought to be ours So we find the word used in best Classick Authors So Plautus brings in Alcmena angry with Amphitruo Quin ego illum aut deseram Aut satisfaciat mihi atque adjuret insuper Nolle esse dicta quae in me insontem protulit i. e. I will leave him unless he give me satisfaction and swear that he wishes that to be unsaid which he spake against my innocence for that was the form of giving satisfaction to wish it undone or unspoken and to add an oath that they believe the person did not deserve that wrong as we find it in Terence Adelph Ego vestra haec novi nollem factum jusjurandum dabitur esse te indignum injuriâ hâc Concerning which who please to see more testimonies of the true sence and use of the word Satisfactions may please to look upon Lambinus in Plauti Amphitr and Laevinus Torrentius upon Suetonius in Julio Exomologesis or Confession was the word which as I noted formerly was of most frequent use in the Church Si de exomologesi retractas gehennam in corde considera quam tibi exomologesis extinguet He that retracts his sins by confessing and condemning them extinguishes the flames of Hell So Tertullian The same with that of S. Cyprian Deo patri misericordi precibus operibus suis satisfacere possunt They may satisfie God our Father and merciful by prayers and good works that is they may by these deprecate their fault and obtain mercy and pardon for their sins Peccatum suum satisfactione humili simplici confitentes So Cyprian confessing their sins with humble and simple satisfaction plainly intimating that Confession or Exomologesis was the same with that which they called Satisfaction And both of them were nothing but the publick exercise of repentance according to the present usages of their Churches as appears evidently in those words of Gennadius Poenitentiae satisfactionem esse causas peccatorum exscindere nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere To cut off the causes of sins and no more to entertain their whispers and temptations is the satisfaction of repentance and like this is that of Lactantius Potest reduci liberari si eum poeniteat actorum ad meliora conversus satisfaciat Deo The sinner may be brought back and freed if he repents of what is done and satisfies or makes amends to God by being turned to better courses And the whole process of this is well described by Tertullian Exomologesis est quâ delictum Domino nostrum confitemur non quidem ut ignaro sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur confessione poenitentia nascitur penitentiâ Deus mitigatur we must confess our sins to God not as if he did not know them already but because our satisfaction is dispos'd and order'd by confession by confession our repentance hath birth and production and by repentance God is appeased 73. Things being thus we need not immerge our selves in the trifling controversies of our later Schools about the just value of every work and how much every penance weighs and whether God is so satisfied with our penal works that in justice he must take off so much as we put on and is tied also to take our accounts Certain it is if God should weigh our sins with the same value as we weigh our own good works all our actions and sufferings would be found infinitely too light in the balance Therefore it were better that we should do what we can and humbly beg of God to weigh them both with vast allowances of
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
be defended against captious objectors It is hard when men will not be patient of truth because another man offers it to them and they did not first take it in or if they did were not pleas'd to own it But from your Lordship I expect and am sure to find the effects of your piety wisdom and learning and that an error for being popular shall not prevail against so necessary though unobserved truth A necessary truth I call it because without this I do not understand how we can declare Gods righteousness and justifie him with whom unrighteousness cannot dwell But if men of a contrary opinion 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 it were well My Lord if men would not trouble themselves or the Church with impertinent contradictions but patiently give leave to have truth advanced and God justified in his sayings and in his judgments and the Church improved and all errors confuted that what did so prosperously begin the Reformation may be admitted to bring it to perfection that men may no longer go quà itur but quà eundum est THE Bishop of ROCHESTER'S Letter TO D r. TAYLOR WITH AN Account of the particulars there given in Charge Worthy Sir LET me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2.5 which are urged by some Ancients and to remember how often he calls Concupiscence Sin whereby it is urg'd that although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to Persons not to Natures I confess I find not the Fathers so fully and plainly speaking of Original Sin till Pelagius had pudled the stream but after this you may find S. Jerome in Hos. saying In Paradiso omnes praevaricati sunt in Adamo And S. Ambrose in Rom. 1.5 Manifestum est omnes peccasse in Adam quasi in massâ ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores quia ex eo sumus omnes and as Greg. 39. Hom. in Ezek. Sine culpâ in mundo esse non potest qui in nundum cum culpâ venit But S. Austin is so frequent so full and clear in his assertions that his words and reasons will require your most judicious examinations and more strict weighing of them He saith Epist. 107. Scimus secundùm Adam nos primâ nativitate contagium mortis contrahere nec liberamur à supplicio mortis aeternae nisi per gratiam renascamur in Christo Id. de verb. Apost Ser. 4. Peccatum à primo homine in omnes homines pertranstit etenim illud peccatum non in fonte mansit sed pertransiit and Rom. 5. ubi â—e invenit venundatum sub peccato trahentem peccatum primi hominis habentem peccatum antequam possis habere arbitrium Id. de praedestin grat c. 2. Si infans unius diei non sit sine peccato qui proprium habere non potuit conficitur ut illud traxerit alienum de quo Apost Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum quod qui negat negat profectò nos esse mortales quoniam mors est poenae peccati Sequitur necesse est poena peccatum Id. enchir c. 9.29 Sola gratia redemptos discernit à perditis quos in unam perditionis massam concreverat ab origine ducta communis contagio Id. de peccator mer. remiss l. 1. c. 3. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis Quid potest aut potuit nasci ex servo nisi servus ideo sicut omnis homo ab Adamo est ita omnis homo per Adamum servus est peccati Rom. 5. Falluntur ergo omnino qui dicunt mortem solam non peccatum transiisse in genus humanum Prosper resp ad articulum Augustino falsò impositum Omnes homines praevaricationis reos damnationi obnoxiâ—s nasci periturosque nisi in Christo renascamur asserimus Tho. 12. q. 8. Secundum fidem Catholicam tenendum est quod primum peccatum primi hominis originaliter transit in posteros propter quod etiam pueri mox nati deferuntur ad baptismum ab interiore culpâ abluendi Contrarium est haeresis Pelag. unde peccatum quod sic à primo parente derivatur dicitur Originale sicut peccatum quod ab animâ derivatur ad membra corporis dicitur actuale Bonavent in 2. sent dist 31. Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum originale tribuitur ratione Naturae corpus infectum traducitur quia persona Adae infecit naturam natura infecit personam Animae enim inficitur à carne per colligantiam quum unita carni traxit ad se alterius proprietates Lombar 2. Sent. dist 31. Peccatum originale per corruptionem carnis in animâ fit in vase enim dignoscitur vitium esse quod vinum accescit If you take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity it may conduce to the satisfaction of those who urge it for a proof of Original Sin Now that the work may prosper under your hands to the manifestation of Gods glory the edification of the Church and the satisfaction of all good Christians is the hearty prayer of Your fellow servant in our most Blessed Lord Christ Jesu JO. ROFFENS My Lord I Perceive that you have a great Charity to every one of the sons of the Church that your Lordship refuses not to solicite their objections and to take care that every man be answered that can make objections against my Doctrine but as your charity makes you refuse no work or labour of love so shall my duty and obedience make me ready to perform any commandment that can be relative to so excellent a principle I am indeed sorry your Lordship is thus haunted with objections about the Question of Original Sin but because you are pleas'd to hand them to me I cannot think them so inconsiderable as in themselves they seem for what your Lordship thinks worthy the reporting from others I must think are fit to be answered and returned by me In your Lordships of November 10. these things I am to reply to Let me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2.5 The words are these Even when we were dead in sins God hath quickned us together with Christ which words I do not at all suppose relate to the matter of Original Sin but to the state of Heathen sins habitual Idolatries and impurities in which the world was dead before the great Reformation by Christ. And I do not know any Expositor of note that suspects any other sence of it and the second Verse of that Chapter makes it so certain and plain that it is too visible to insist upon it
Popery and Faction did teach indifferency For I have shewn that Christianity does not punish corporally persons erring spiritually but indeed Popery does the Donatists and Circumcellians and Arrians and the Itaciani they of old did in the middle Ages the patrons of Images did and the Papists at this day doe and have done ever since they were taught it by their St. Dominick Seventhly And yet after all this I have something more to exempt my self from the clamour of this Objection For let all Errours be as much and as zealously suppressed as may be the Doctrine of the following Discourse contradicts not that but let it be done by such means as are proper instruments of their suppression by Preaching and Disputation so that neither of them breed disturbance by charity and sweetness by holiness of life assiduity of exhortation by the word of God and prayer For these ways are most natural most prudent most peaceable and effectual Onely let not men be hasty in calling every dislik'd Opinion by the name of Heresie and when they have resolved that they will call it so let them use the erring person like a brother not beat him like a dog or convince him with a gibbet or vex him out of his understanding and perswasions And now if men will still say I perswade to indifferency there is no help for me for I have given reasons against it I must bear it as well as I can I am not yet without remedy as they are for patience will help me and reason will not cure them let them take their course and I 'le take mine Only I will take leave to consider this and they would do well to do so too that unless Faith be kept within its own latitude and not call'd out to patrocinate every less necessary Opinion and the interest of every Sect or peevish person and if damnation be pronounced against Christians believing the Creed and living good lives because they are deceived or are said to be deceived in some Opinions less necessary there is no way in the world to satisfie unlearned persons in the choice of their Religion or to appease the unquietness of a scrupulous Conscience For suppose an honest Citizen whose imployment and parts will not enable him to judge the disputes and arguings of great Clerks sees Factions commenced and managed with much bitterness by persons who might on either hand be fit enough to guide him when if he follows either he is disquieted and pronounced damned by the other who also if he be the most unreasonable in his Opinion will perhaps be more furious in his sentence what shall this man do where shall he rest the soal of his foot Vpon the Doctrine of the Church where he lives Well but that he hears declaimed against perpetually and other Churches claim highly and pretend fairly for truth and condemn his Church If I tell him that he must live a good life and believe the Creed and not trouble himself with their disputes or interest himself in Sects and Factions I speak reason because no Law of God ties him to believe more then what is of essential necessity and whatsoever he shall come to know to be revealed by God Now if he believes his Creed he believes all that is necessary to all or of it self and if he do his moral endeavour beside he can do no more toward finding out all the rest and then he is secured But then if this will secure him why do men press farther and pretend every Opinion as necessary and that in so high a degree that if they all said true or any two indeed of them in 500 Sects which are in the world and for ought I know there may be 5000 it is 500 to one but that every man is damned for every Sect damns all but itself and that is damn'd of 499 and it is excellent fortune then if that escape And there is the same reason in every one of them that is it is extreme unreasonableness in all of them to pronounce damnation against such persons against whom clearly and dogmatically Holy Scripture hath not In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur in favoribus quod est maximum saith the Law and therefore we should say any thing or make any excuse that is in any degree reasonable rather then condemn all the world to Hell especially if we consider these two things that we ourselves are as apt to be deceived as any are and that they who are deceived when they used their moral industry that they might not be deceived if they perish for this they perish for what they could not help But however if the best security in the World be not in neglecting all Sects and subdivisions of men and fixing ourselves on points necessary and plain and on honest and pious endeavours according to our several capacities and opportunities for all the rest if I say all this be not through the mercies of God the best security to all unlearned persons and learned too where shall we fix where shall we either have peace or security If you bid me follow your Doctrine you must tell me why and perhaps when you have I am not able to judge or if I be as able as other people are yet when I have judged I may be deceived too and so may you or any man else you bid me follow so that I am not whit the nearer truth or peace And then if we look abroad and consider how there is scarce any Church but is highly charg'd by many adversaries in many things possibly we may see a reason to charge every one of them in some things and what shall we doe then The Church of Rome hath spots enough and all the world is inquisitive enough to find out more and to represent these to her greatest disadvantage The Greek Churches denies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son If that be false Doctrine she is highly to blame if it be not then all the Western Churches are to blame for saying the contrary And there is no Church that is in prosperity but alters her Doctrine every Age either by bringing in new Doctrines or by contradicting her old which shews that none are satisfied with themselves or with their own Confessions And since all Churches believe themselves fallible that only excepted which all other Churches say is most of all deceived it were strange if in so many Articles which make up their several bodies of Confessions they had not mistaken every one of them in some thing or other The Lutheran Churches maintain Consubstantiation the Zuinglians are Sacramentaries the Calvinists are fierce in the matters of absolute Predetermination and all these reject Episcopacy which the Primitive Church would have made no doubt to have called Heresie The Socinians profess a portentous number of strange Opinions they deny the Holy Trinity and the Satisfaction of our Blessed Saviour The Anabaptists laugh at Paedo-baptism the Ethiopian Churches
are Nestorian Where then shall we fix our confidence or joyn Communion To pitch upon any one of these is to throw the Dice if Salvation be to be had onely in one of them and that every errour that by chance hath made a Sect and is distinguished by a name be damnable If this consideration does not deceive me we have no other help in the midst of these distractions and dis-unions but all of us to be united in that common term which as it does constitute the Church in its being such so it is the Medium of the Communion of Saints and that is the Creed of the Apostles and in all other things an honest endeavour to find out what Truths we can and a charitable and and mutual permission to others that disagree from us and our Opinions I am sure this may satisfie us for it will secure us but I know not any thing else that will and no man can be reasonably prswaded or satisfied in any else unless he throws himself upon chance or absolute predestination or his own confidence in every one of which it is two to one at least but he may miscarry Thus far I thought I had reason on my side and I suppose I have made it good upon its proper grounds in the pages following But then if the result be that men must be permitted in their Opinions and that Christians must not persecute Christians I have also as much reason to reprove all those oblique Arts which are not direct Persecutions of mens persons but they are indirect proceedings ungentle and unchristian servants of faction and interest provocations to zeal and animosities and destructive of learning and ingenuity And these are suppressing all the monuments of their Adversaries forcing them to recant and burning their Books For it is a strange industry and an importune diligence that was used by our fore-fathers of all those Heresies which gave them battel and imployment we have absolutely no Record or Monument but what themselves who are adversaries have transmitted to us and we know that Adversaries especially such who observed all opportunities to discredit both the persons and Doctrines of the Enemy are not alwaies the best records or witnesses of such transactions We see it now in this very Age in the present Distemperatures that parties are no good Registers of the actions of the adverse side And if we cannot be confident of the truth of a story now now I say that it is possible for any man and likely that the interessed adversary will discover the imposture it is far more unlikely that after-Ages should know any other truth but such as serves the ends of the representers I am sure such things were never taught us by Christ and his Apostles and if we were sure that our selves spoke truth or that truth were able to justifie herself it were better if to preserve a Doctrine we did not destroy a Commandment and out of zeal pretending to Christian Religion lose the glories and rewards of ingenuity and Christian simplicity Of the same consideration is mending of Authors not to their own mind but to ours that is to mend them so as to spoil them forbidding the publication of Books in which there is nothing impious or against the publick interest leaving out clauses in Translations disgracing mens persons charging disavowed Doctrines upon men and the persons of the men with the consequents of their Doctrine which they deny either to be true or to be consequent false reporting of Disputations and Conferences burning Books by the hand of the hang-man and all such Arts which shew that we either distrust God for the maintenance of his truth or that we distrust the cause or distrust our selves and our abilities I will say no more of these but only concerning the last I shall transcribe a passage out of Tacitus in the life of Julius Agricola who gives this account of it Veniam non petissem nisi incursaturus tam saeva infesta virtutibus tempora Legimus cùm Aruleno Rustico Paetus Thrasea Herennio Senecioni Priscus Helvidius laudati essent capitale fuisse neque in ipsos modo authores sed in libros quoque eorum saevitum delegato Triumviris ministerio ut monumenta clarissimorum ingeniorum in comitio ac foro urerentur scil illo igne vocem populi Rom. libertatem Senatus conscientiam generis humani aboleri arbitrabantur expulsis insuper sapientiae professoribus atque omni bona arte in exilium acta ne quid usquam honestum occurreret It is but an illiterate policy to think that such indirect and uningenuous proceedings can among wise and free men disgrace the Authors and disrepute their Discourses And I have seen that the price hath been trebled upon a forbidden or a condemn'd Book and some men in policy have got a prohibition that their impression might be the more certainly vendible and the Author himself thought considerable The best way is to leave tricks and devices and to fall upon that way which the best Ages of the Church did use With the strength of Argument and Allegations of Scripture and modesty of deportment and meekness and charity to the persons of men they converted misbelievers stopped the mouths of Adversaries asserted Truth and discountenanced errour and those other stratagems and Arts of support and maintenance to Doctrines were the issues of Heretical brains The old Catholicks had nothing to secure themselves but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of truth and plain dealing Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus Ut quisque lingua est nequior Solvunt ligantque quaestionum vincula Per syllogismos plectiles Vae captiosis Sycophantarum strophis Vae versipelli astutiae Nodos tenaces recta rumpit regula Infesta discertantibus Idcirco mundi stulta deligit Deus Ut concidant Sophistica And to my understanding it is a plain art and design of the Devil to make us so in love with our own Opinions as to call them Faith and Religion that we may be proud in our understanding and besides that by our zeal in our Opinions we grow cool in our piety and practical duties he also by this earnest contention does directly destroy good life by engagement of Zealots to do any thing rather then be overcome and lose their beloved Propositions But I would fain know why is not any vitious habit as bad or worse then a false Opinion Why are we so zealous against those we call Hereticks and yet great friends with drunkards fornicatours and swearers and intemperate and idle persons Is it because we are commanded by the Apostle to reject a Heretick after two admonitions and not bid such a one God speed It is good reason why we should be zealous against such persons provided we mistake them not For those of whom these Apostles speak are such as deny Christ to be come in the flesh such as deny an Article of Creed and in such odious things it is not safe
their Adversaries that speak so much reason and Scripture against them I have instanced in the Roman Religion but I wish it may be considered also how far mens doctrines in other Sects serve mens temporal ends so far that it would not be unreasonable or unnecessary to attempt to cure some of their distemperatures or misperswasions by the salutary precepts of sanctitie and holy life Sure enough if it did not more concern their reputation and their lasting interest to be counted true believers rather then good livers they would rather endeavour to live well then to be accounted of a right Opinion in things beside the Creed For my own particular I cannot but expect that God in his Justice should enlarge the bounds of the Turkish Empire or some other way punish Christians by reason of their pertinacious disputing about things unnecessary undeterminable and unprofitable and for their hating and persecuting their brethen which should be as dear to them as their own lives for not consenting to one another's follies and senseless vanities How many volumes have been writ about Angels about immaculate Conception about Original sin when that all that is solid Reason or clear Revelation in all these three Articles may be reasonably enough comprised in fourty lines And in these trifles and impertinencies men are curiously busie while they neglect those glorious precepts of Christianity and holy life which are the glories of our Religion and would enable us to a happy eternity My Lord Thus far my thoughts have carried me and then I thought I had reason to go further and to examine the proper grounds upon which these perswasions might rely and stand firm in case any body should contest against them For possibly men may be angry at me and my design for I do all them great displeasure who think no end is then well served when their interest is disserved and but that I have writ so untowardly and heavily that I am not worth a confutation possibly some or other might be writing against me But then I must tell them I am prepared of an answer beforehand For I think I have spoken reason in my Book and examined it with all the severity I have and if after all this I be deceived this confirms me in my first opinion and becomes a new Argument to me that I have spoken reason for it furnishes me with a new instance that it is necessary there should be a mutual compliance and Toleration because even then when a man thinks he hath most reason to be confident he may easily be deceived For I am sure I have no other design but the prosecution and advantage of Truth and I may truely use the words of Gregory Nazianzen Non studemus paci in detrimentum verae doctrinae ut facilitatis mansuetudinis famam colligamus but I have writ this because I thought it was necessary and seasonable and charitable and agreeable to the great precepts and design of Christianity consonant to the practice of the Apostles and of the best Ages of the Church most agreeable to Scripture and Reason to Revelation and the nature of the thing and it is such a Doctrine that if there be variety in humane affairs if the event of things be not setled in a durable consistence but is changeable every one of us all may have need of it I shall onely therefore desire that they who will reade it may come to the reading it with as much simplicity of purposes and unmixed desires of truth as I did to the writing it and that no man trouble himself with me or my discourse that thinks beforehand that his Opinion cannot be reasonably altered If he thinks me to be mistaken before he tries let him also think that he may be mistaken too and that he who judges before he hears is mistaken though he gives a right sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was good counsel But at a venture I shall leave this sentence of Solomon to his consideration A wise man feareth and departeth from evil but a fool rageth and is confident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a trick of boys and bold young fellows says Aristotle but they who either know themselves or things or persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peradventure yea peradventure no is very often the wisest determination of a Question For there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle notes foolish and unlearned Questions and it were better to stop the current of such fopperies by silence then by disputing them convey them to posterity And many things there are of more profit which yet are of no more certainty and therefore boldness of assertion except it be in matters of Faith and clearest Revelation is an Argument of the vanity of the man never of the truth of the Proposition for to such matters the saying of Xenophanes in Varro is pertinent and applicable Hominis est haec opinari Dei scire God only knows them and we conjecture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And although I be as desirous to know what I should and what I should not as any of my brethren the sons of Adam yet I find that the more I search the farther I am from being satisfied and make but few discoveries save of my own ignorance and therefore I am desirous to follow the example of a very wise personage Julius Agricola of whom Tacitus gave this testimony RetinuÃtque quod est difficillimum ex scientia modum or that I may take my precedent from within the pale of the Church it was the saying of S. Austin Mallem quidem eorum quae à me quaesivisti habere scientiam quam ignorantiam sed quia id nondum potui magis eligo cautam ignorantiam confiteri quam falsam scientiam profiteri And these words do very much express my sense But if there be any man so confident as Luther sometime was who said that he could expound all Scripture or so vain as Eckius who in his Chrysopassus ventur'd upon the highest and most mysterious Question of Predestination ut in ea juveniles possit calores exercere such persons as these or any that is furious in his opinion will scorn me and my Discourse but I shall not be much mov'd at it onely I shall wish that I had as much knowledge as they think me to want and they as much as they believe themselves to have In the mean time modesty were better for us both and indeed for all men For when men indeed are knowing amongst other things they are able to separate certainties from uncertainties If they be not knowing it is pitty that their ignorance should be triumphant or discompose the publick peace or private confidence And now my Lord that I have inscrib'd this Book to your Lordship although it be a design of doing honour to myself that I have mark'd it with so honour'd and beloved a Name might possibly need as much excuse as it does pardon but that your
〈◊〉 and yet there was no such Tradition but a mistake in Papias but I find it nowhere spoke against till Dionysius of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book and converted Coracian the Egyptian from the opinion Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some Ages upon the meer Authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolical And so it happened in the case of the Arrian heresie which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolical as Theodoret reports and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture than from Tradition they would have fail'd much in so good a cause for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made and desired to be tryed by the Fathers of the first three hundred years which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended a clear Tradition because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle But that this trial was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius although at other times confidently and truly pretended it was an Argument the Tradition was not so clear but both sides might with some fairness pretend to it And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresie the Heretick Arâ—emon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition because the medium was plausible and consisting of so many particulars that it was hard to be redargued pretended a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victors time inclusively and till Zephyrinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth so as possibly to abuse the Church had not been worthy of confutation which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer out of whom Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender But I observe from hence that it was usual to pretend to Tradition and that it was easier pretended than confuted and I doubt not but oftener done than discovered A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Hereticks whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party would be judged by custome and Tradition Ecclesiastical See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination either that probation was not accounted by S. Syprian and the Bishops both of Asia and Africk to be a good Argument and sufficient to determine them or there was no certain Tradition against them for unless one of these two doe it nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth unless peradventure S. Cyprian Firmilian the Bishops of Galatia Cappadocia and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition for they knew of none such and some of them expresly denied it And the sixth general Synod approves of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundum traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptization and therefore there could be no Tradition Universal against it or if there were they knew not of it but much for the contrary and then it would be remembred that a conceal'd Tradition was like a silent Thunder or a Law not promulgated it neither was known nor was obligatory And I shall observe this too that this very Tradition was so obscure and was so obscurely delivered silently proclaimed that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it but by a consequence which he thought probable and credible as appears in his discourse against the Donatists The Apostles saith S. Austin prescribed nothing in this particular But this custome which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition as many other things which the Catholick Church observes That 's all the ground and all the reason nay the Church did waver concerning that Question and before the decision of a Council Cyprian and others might dissent without breach of charity It was plain then there was no clear Tradition in the Question possibly there might be a custome in some Churches postnate to the times of the Apostles but nothing that was obligatory no Tradition Apostolical But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it and S. Austin confuted the Pelagians in the Question of Original sin by the custome of exorcism and insufflation which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition which yet was then and is now so impossible to be proved that he that shall affirm it shall gain only the reputation of a bold man and a confident 4. Secondly I consider if the report of Traditions in the Primitive times so near the Ages Apostolical was so uncertain that they were fain to aym at them by conjectures and grope as in the dark the uncertainty is much increased since because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost which yet if they had continued they might have been good records to us as Clemens Romanus Egesippus Nepos Coracion Dionysius Areopagite of Alexandria of Corinth Firmilian and many more And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted than now they can it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences since so many Sects have been so many wars so many corruptions in Authors so many Authors lost so much ignorance hath intervened and so many interests have been served that now the rule is to be altered and whereas it was of old time credible that that was Apostolical whose beginning they knew not now quite contrary we cannot safely believe them to be Apostolical unless we do know their beginning to have been from the Apostles For this consisting of probabilities and particulars which put together make up a moral demonstration the Argument which I now urge hath been growing these fifteen hundred years and if anciently there was so much as to evacuate the Authority of Tradition much more is there now absolutely to destroy it when all the particulars which time and infinite variety of humane accidents have been amassing together are now concentred and are united by way of constipation Because every Age and every great change and every heresie and every interest hath increased the difficulty of finding out true Traditions 5. Thirdly There are very many Traditions which are lost and
Tradition descends upon us with unequal certainty it would be very unequal to require of us an absolute belief of every thing not written for fear we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolical And since no thing can require our supreme assent but that which is truly Catholick and Apostolick and to such a Tradition is required as Irenaeus says the consent of all those Churches which the Apostles planted and where they did preside this topick will be of so little use in judging heresies that beside what is deposited in Scripture it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture it self and as it is now received even in that there is some variety 8. And therefore there is wholly a mistake in this business for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition and with much earnestness and some clamour they call upon Hereticks to conform to or to be tryed by Tradition it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamental points of Christianity which were also recorded in Scripture But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consign'd they called to that testimony they had which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolical whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they have been taught Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolical Christum accepisse calicem dixisse sanguinem suum esse docuisse nodum oblationem novi Testamenti quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum And the Fathers in these Ages confute Hereticks by Ecclesiastical Tradition that is they confront against their impious and blasphemous doctrines that Religion which the Apostles having taught to the Churches where they did preside their Successors did still preach and for a long while together suffered not the enemy to sow tares amongst their wheat And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions were nothing but such fundamental truths which were in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Irenaeus in Eusebius observes in the instance of Polycarpus and it is manifest by considering what heresies they fought against the heresies of Ebion Cerinthus Nicolaitans Valentinians Carpocratians persons that denied the Son of God the Unity of the Godhead that preached impurity that practised Sorcery and Witch-craft And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them than Scripture was because the publick Doctrine of all the Apostolical Churches was at first more known and famous than many parts of the Scripture and because some Hereticks denied S. Lukes Gospel some received none but S. Matthews some rejected all S. Pauls Epistles and it was a long time before the whole Canon was consigned by universal testimony some Churches having one part some another Rome her self had not all so that in this case the Argument from Tradition was the most famous the most certain and the most prudent And now according to this rule they had more Traditions than we have and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written and their necessity was less as the knowledge of them was ascertained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths All that great mysteriousness of Christs Priest-hood the unity of his Sacrifice Christs Advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven and many other excellent Doctrines might very well be accounted Traditions before S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews was published to all the World but now they are written truths and if they had not possibly we might either have lost them quite or doubted of them as we doe of many other Traditions by reason of the insufficiency of the propounder And therefore it was that S. Peter took order that the Gospel should be Writ for he had promised that he would doe something which after his decease should have these things in remembrance He knew it was not safe trusting the report of men where the fountain might quickly run dry or be corrupted so insensibly that no cure could be found for it nor any just notice taken of it till it were incurable And indeed there is scarce any thing but what is written in Scripture that can with any confidence of Argument pretend to derive from the Apostles except rituals and manners of ministration but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a current that we may see a visible channel and trace it to the Primitive fountains It is said to be a Tradition Apostolical that no Priest should baptize without chrism and the command of the Bishop Suppose it were yet we cannot be obliged to believe it with much confidence because we have but little proof for it scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were this is but a ritual of which in passing by I shall give that account That suppose this and many more rituals did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolical which yet but very few doe yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such rituals because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles are expired and gone out in a desuetude such as are abstinence from bloud and from things strangled the coenobitick life of secular persons the colledge of widows to worship standing upon the Lords day to give milk and honey to the newly baptized and many more of the like nature now there having been no mark to distinguish the necessity of one from the indifferency of the other they are all alike necessary or alike indifferent If the former why does no Church observe them If the latter why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them but the adiaphorous S. Paul gave order that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife The Church of Rome will not allow so much other Churches allow more The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday as appears in their Canons the Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday and not on Wednesday The Apostes had their Agapae or love Feasts we should believe them scandalous They used a kiss of charity in ordinary addresses the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Masse other Churches quite omit it The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugal Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles which to them is an Argument who believe them such and yet the Church of Rome by no means will endure it nay more Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84. Canons Apostolical which Clemens collected scarce six or eight are observed by the Latine Church and Peresius gives this account of it In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantu◠aliis pro temporis materiae qualitate aut obliteratis aut totius
Ecclesiae magisterio abrogatis Now it were good that they which take a liberty to themselves should also allow the same to others So that for one thing or other all Traditions excepting those very few that are absolutely universal will lose all their obligation and become no competent medium to confine mens practices or limit their faiths or determine their perswasions Either for the difficulty of their being proved the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them or the indifferency of the thing transmitted all Traditions both ritual and doctrinal are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying 9. Sixthly To which I adde by way of confirmation that there are some things called Traditions and are offered to be proved to us by a Testimony which is either false or not extant Clemens of Alexandria pretended it a Tradition that the Apostles preached to them that died in infidelity even after their death and then raised them to life but he proved it only by the Testimony of the Book of Hermes he affirmed it to be a Tradition Apostolical that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophie but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphal Books of Peter and Paul Tertullian and S. Basil pretended it an Apostolical Tradition to sign in the aire with the sign of the Cross but this was only consigned to them in the Gospel of Nicodemus But to instance once for all in the Epistle of Marcellus to the Bishop of Antioch where he affirmes that it is the Canon of the Apostles praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis non posse Concilia celebrari And yet there is no such Canon extant nor ever was for ought appears in any Record we have and yet the Collection of the Canons is so intire that though it hath something more than what was Apostolical yet it hath nothing less And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the Canons of the Apostles I consider that there cannot in the world a greater instance be given how easie it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions For 1. to the first 50 which many did admit for Apostolical 35 more were added which most men now count spurious all men call dubious and some of them univerally condemned by peremptory sentence even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection as 65.67 and 8â…˜ Canons For the first 50 it is evident that there are some things so mixt with them and no mark of difference left that the credit of all is much impaired insomuch that Isidor of Sevil says they were Apocryphal made by Hereticks and published under the title Apostolical but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them And yet they have prevailed so far amongst some that Damascen is of opinion they should be received equally with the Canonical writings of the Apostles One thing only I observe and we shall find it true in most writings whose Authority is urged in Questions of Theologie that the Authority of the Tradition is not it which moves the assent but the nature of the thing and because such a Canon is delivered they do not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered but disbelieve the Tradition if they do not like the matter and so do not judge of the matter by the Tradition but of the Tradition by the matter And thus the Church of Rome rejects the 84. or 85. Canon of the Apostles not because it is delivered with less Authority than the last 35 are but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise than it is at Rome Thus also the fifth Canon amongst the first 50 because it approves the marriage of Priests and Deacons does not perswade them to approve of it too but it self becomes suspected for approving it So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolical Authority or else that the reputation of such Traditions is kept up to serve their own ends and therefore when they encounter them they are no more to be upheld which what else is it but to teach all the world to contemn such pretences and undervalue Traditions and to supply to others a reason why they should doe that which to them that give the occasion is most unreasonable 10. Seventhly The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only means of proving Tradition and sometimes their dictates and doctrine being the Tradition pretended of necessity to be imitated it is considerable that men in their estimate of it take their rise from several Ages and differing Testimonies and are not agreed about the competency of their Testimony and the reasons that on each side make them differ are such as make the authority it self the less authentick and more repudiable Some will allow only of the three first Ages as being most pure most persecuted and therefore most holy least interested serving fewer designes having fewest factions and therefore more likely to speak the truth for Gods sake and its own as best complying with their great end of acquiring Heaven in recompence of losing their lives Others say that those Ages being persecuted minded the present Doctrines proportionable to their purposes and constitution of the Ages and make little or nothing of those Questions which at this day vex Christendome And both speak true The first Ages speak greatest truth but least pertinently The next Ages the Ages of the four general Councils spake something not much more pertinently to the present Questions but were not so likely to speak true by reason of their dispositions contrary to the capacity and circumstance of the first Ages and if they speak wisely as Doctors yet not certainly as witnesses of such propositions which the first Ages noted not and yet unless they had noted could not possibly be Traditions And therefore either of them will be less useless as to our present affairs For indeed the Questions which now are the publick trouble were not considered or thought upon for many hundred years and therefore prime Tradition there is none as to our purpose and it will be an insufficient medium to be used or pretended in the determination and to dispute concerning the truth or necessity of Traditions in the Questions of our times is as if Historians disputing about a Question in the English Story should fall on wrangling whether Livie or Plutarch were the best Writers And the earnest disputes about Traditions are to no better purpose For no Church at this day admits the one half of those things which certainly by the Fathers were called Traditions Apostolical and no Testimony of ancient Writers does consign the one half of the present Questions to be or not to be traditions So that they who admit only the doctrine and testimony of the first Ages cannot be determined in most of their doubts which now trouble us because their writings are of matters wholly differing from the present disputes and they which
eats the Lamb not within this House is prophane he that is not in the Ark of Noah perishes in the inundation of waters He that gathers not with this Bishop he scatters and he that belongeth not to Christ must needs belong to Antichrist And that 's his final sentence But if you would have all this proved by an infallible Argument Optatus of Milevis in Africa supplies it to us from the very name of Peter For therefore Christ gave him the cognomination of Cephas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that S. Peter was the visible Head of the Catholick Church Dignum patellâ operculum This long harangue must needs be full of tragedy to all them that take liberty to themselves to follow Scripture and their best Guides if it happens in that liberty that they depart from the perswasions of the Communion of Rome But indeed if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it this Scene is the most unhandsomly laid and the worst carried of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendome 3. First Against the Allegations of Scripture I shall lay no greater prejudice then this that if a person dis-interested should see them and consider what the products of them might possibly be the last thing that he would think of would be how that any of these places should serve the ends or pretences of the Church of Rome For to instance in one of the particulars that man had need have a strong fancy who imagines that because Christ prayed for S. Peter that being he had design'd him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did mean to constitute a Church his faith might not fail for it was necessary that no bitterness or stopping should be in one of the first springs lest the current be either spoil'd or obstructed that therefore the faith of Pope Alexander VI. or Gregory or Clement 1500 years after should be preserved by virtue of that prayer which the form of words the time the occasion the manner of the address the effect it self and all the circumstances of the action and person did determine to be personal And when it was more then personal S. Peter did not represent his Successors at Rome but the whole Catholick Church say Aquinas and the Divines of the University of Paris Volunt enim pro sola Ecclesia esse oratum says Bellarmine of them and the gloss upon the Canon Law plainly denies the effect of this prayer at all to appertain to the Pope Quaere de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hîc dicitur quòd non possit errare an de ipso Papa qui Ecclesia dicitur sed certum est quòd Papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa Congregatio fidelium hîc dicitur Ecclesia talis Ecclesia non potest non esse nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesia voluntate labiorum suorum non fraudabitur But there is a little danger in this Argument when we well consider it but it is likely to redound on the head of them whose turns it should serve For it may be remembred that for all this prayer of Christ for S. Peter the good man fell foully and denied his Master shamefully And shall Christ's prayer be of greater efficacy for his Successors for whom it was made but indirectly and by consequence then for himself for whom it was directly and in the first intention And if not then for all this Argument the Popes may deny Christ as well as their chief predecessor Peter But it would not be forgotten how the Roman Doctors will by no means allow that S. Peter was then the chief Bishop or Pope when he denied his Master But then much less was he chosen chief Bishop when the prayer was made for him because the prayer was made before his fall that is before that time in which it is confessed he was not as yet made Pope And how then the whole Succession of the Papacy should be entitled to it passes the length of my hand to span But then also if it be supposed and allowed that these words shall intail infallibility upon the Chair of Rome why shall not also all the Apostolical Sees be infallible as well as Rome why shall not Constantinople or Byzantium where S. Andrew sate why shall not Ephesus where S. John sate or Jerusalem where S. James sate for Christ prayed for them all ut Pater sanctificaret eos suâ veritate Joh. 17. 4. Secondly For tibi dabo claves was it personal or not If it were then the Bishops of Rome have nothing to do with it If it were not then by what Argument will it be made evident that S. Peter in the promise represented onely his Successors and not the whole Colledge of Apostles and the whole Hierarchy For if S. Peter was chief of the Apostles and Head of the Church he might fair enough be the representative of the whole Colledge and receive it in their right as well as his own which also is certain that it was so for the same promise of binding and loosing which certainly was all that the Keys were given for was made afterward to all the Apostles Matt. 18. and the power of remitting and retaining which in reason and according to the style of the Church is the same thing in other words was actually given to all the Apostles and unless that was the performing the first and second promise we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when or whether yet or no the promise be performed That promise I say which did not pertain to Peter principally and by origination and to the rest by Communication society and adherence but that promise which was made to Peter first but not for himself but for all the Colledge and for all their Successors and then made the second time to them all without representation but in diffusion and perform'd to all alike in presence except S. Thomas And if he went to S. Peter to derive it from him I know not I find no record for that but that Christ conveyed the promise to him by the same Commission the Church yet never doubted nor had she any reason But this matter is too notorious I say no more to it but repeat the words and Argument of S. Austin Si hoc Petro tantùm dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia if the Keys were onely given and so promised to S. Peter that the Church hath not the Keys then the Church can neither bind nor loose remit nor retain which God forbid If any man should endeavour to answer this Argument I leave him and S. Austin to contest it 5. Thirdly For Pasce oves there is little in that Allegation besides the boldness of the Objectors for were not all the Apostles bound to feed Christ's sheep had they not all the Commission from Christ and Christ's Spirit immediately S. Paul had certainly Did not S. Peter himself say to all
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
particulars as being of less difficulty And he that considers how many notes there are given to know the true Church by no less then 15 by Bellarmine and concerning every one of them almost whether it be a certain note or no there are very many questions and uncertainties and when it is resolved which are the notes there is more dispute about the application of these notes then of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will quickly be satisfied that he had better sit still then to go round about a difficult and troublesome passage and at last get no farther but return to the place from whence he first set out And there is one note amongst the rest Holiness of Doctrine that is so as to have nothing false either in Doctrina fidei or morum for so Bellarmine explicates it which supposes all your Controversies judged before they can be tried by the Authority of the Church and when we have found out all true Doctrine for that is necessary to judge of the Church by that as Saint Austin's counsel is Ecclesiam in verbis Christi investigemus then we are bound to follow because we judge it true not because the Church hath said it and this is to judge of the Church by her Doctrine not of the Doctrine by the Church And indeed it is the best and onely way But then how to judge of that Doctrine will be afterwards enquired into In the mean time the Church that is the Governours of the Churches are to judge for themselves and for all those who cannot judge for themselves For others they must know that their Governours judge for them too so as to keep them in peace and obedience though not for the determination of their private perswasions For the Oeconomy of the Church requires that her Authority be received by all her children Now this Authority is Divine in its original for it derives immediately from Christ but it is humane in its ministration We are to be led like men not like beasts A Rule is prescribed for the Guides themselves to follow as we are to follow the Guides and although in matters indeterminable or ambiguous the presumption lies on behalf of the Governours for we doe nothing for Authority if we suffer it not to weigh that part down of an indifferency and a question which she chuses yet if there be error manifestus as it often happens or if the Church-Governours themselves be rent into innumerable Sects as it is this day in Christendom then we are to be as wise as we can in chusing our Guides and then to follow so long as that reason remains for which we first chose them And even in that Government which was an immediate Sanction of God I mean the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Synagogue where God had consign'd the High-Priest's Authority with a menace of death to them that should disobey that all the world might know the meaning and extent of such precepts and that there is a limit beyond which they cannot command and we ought not to obey it came once to that pass that if the Priest had been obeyed in his Conciliary Decrees the whole Nation had been bound to believe the condemnation of our Blessed Saviour to have been just and at another time the Apostles must no more have preached in the name of JESUS But here was manifest errour And the case is the same to every man that invincibly and therefore innocently believes it so Deo potiùs quà m hominibus is our rule in such cases For although every man is bound to follow his Guide unless he believes his Guide to mislead him yet when he sees reason against his Guide it is best to follow his reason for though in this he may fall into errour yet he will escape the sin he may doe violence to Truth but never to his own Conscience and an honest errour is better then an hypocriticall profession of truth or a violent luxation of the understanding since if he retains his honesty and simplicity he cannot erre in a matter of Faith or absolute necessity God's goodness hath secured all honest and carefull persons from that for other things he must follow the best guides he can and he cannot be obliged to follow better then God hath given him 3. And there is yet another way pretended of infallible Expositions of Scripture and that is by the Spirit But of this I shall say no more but that it is impertinent as to this Question For put case the Spirit is given to some men enabling them to expound infallibly yet because this is but a private assistance and cannot be proved to others this infallible assistance may determine my own assent but shall not inable me to prescribe to others because it were unreasonable I should unless I could prove to him that I have the Spirit and so can secure him from being deceived if he relies upon me In this case I may say as S. Paul in the case of praying with the Spirit He verily giveth thanks well but the other is not edified So that let this pretence be as true as it will it is sufficient that it cannot be of consideration in this Question 4. The result of all is this Since it is not reasonable to limit and prescribe to all mens understandings by any external Rule in the interpretation of difficult places of Scripture which is our Rule since no man nor company of men is secure from errour or can secure us that they are free from malice interest and design and since all the ways by which we usually are taught as Tradition Councils Decretalls c. are very uncertain in the matter in their authority in their being legitimate and natural and many of them certainly false and nothing certain but the Divine Authority of Scripture in which all that is necessary is plain and much of that that is not necessary is very obscure intricate and involv'd either we must set up our rest onely upon Articles of Faith and plain places and be incurious of other obscurer revelations which is a duty for persons of private understandings and of no publick function or if we will search farther to which in some measure the Guides of others are obliged it remains we enquire how men may determine themselves so as to doe their duty to God and not to disserve the Church that every such man may doe what he is bound to in his personal capacity and as he relates to the publick as a publick minister SECT X. Of the authority of Reason and that it proceeding upon best grounds is the best Judge 1. HEre then I consider that although no man may be trusted to judge for all others unless this person were infallible and authorized so to doe which no man nor no company of men is yet every man may be trusted to judge for himself I say every man that can judge at all as for others they are to be saved as it pleaseth
of Prophecy had not attested the Divinity both of his Person and his Office we should have wanted many degrees of confidence which now we have upon the truth of Christian Religion But now since we are foretold by this surer word of prophecy that is the prediction of Jesus Christ that Antichâ—ist should come in all wonders and signs and lying miracles and that the Church saw much of that already verified in Simon Magus Apollonius Tyaneus and Manetho and divers Hereticks it is now come to that pass that the Argument in its best advantage proves nothing so much as that the Doctrine which it pretends to prove is to be suspected because it was foretold that false doctrine should be obtruded under such pretences But then when not onely true Miracles are an insufficient argument to prove a Truth since the establishment of Christianity but that the Miracles themselves are false and spurious it makes that Doctrine in whose defence they come justly to be suspected because they are a demonstration that the interessed persons use all means leave nothing unattempted to prove their propositions but since they so fail as to bring nothing from God but something from the Devil for its justification it 's a great sign that the Doctrine is false because we know the Devil unless it be against his will does nothing to prove a true proposition that makes against him And now then those persons who will endure no man of another Opinion might doe well to remember how by their Exorcisms their Devils tricks at Lowdon and the other side pretending to cure mad folks and persons bewitched and the many discoveries of their juggling they have given so much reason to their adversaries to suspect their Doctrine that either they must not be ready to condemn their persons who are made suspicious by their indirect proceeding in attestation of that which they value so high as to call their Religion or else they must condemn themselves for making the scandal active and effectual 6. As for false Legends it will be of the same consideration because they are false Testimonies of Miracles that were never done which differs onely from the other as a lie in words from a lie in action but of this we have witness enough in that Decree of Pope Leo X. Session the eleventh of the last Lateran Council where he excommunicates all the forgers and inventers of Visions and false Miracles which is a testimony that it was then a practice so publick as to need a Law for its suppression And if any man shall doubt whether it were so or not let him see the Centum gravamina of the Princes of Germany where it is highly complain'd of But the extreme stupidity and sottishness of the inventers of lying stories is so great as to give occasion to some persons to suspect the truth of all Church-story witness the Legend of Lombardy of the Authour of which the Bishop of the Canaries gives this Testimony In illo enim libro miraculorum monstra saepius quà m vera miracula legas Hanc homo scripsit ferrei oris plumbei cordis animi certè parùm severi prudentis But I need not descend so low for S. Gregory and Ven. Bede themselves reported Miracles for the authority of which they onely had the report of the common people and it is not certain that S. Hierome had so much in his stories of S. Paul and S. Anthony and the Fauns and the Satyrs which appeared to them and desired their prayers But I shall onely by way of eminency note what Sir Thomas More says in his Epistle to Ruthal the King's Secretary before the Dialogue of Lucian Philopseudes that therefore he undertook the translation of that Dialogue to free the world from a Superstition that crept in under the face and title of Religion For such lies says he are transmitted to us with such authority that a certain Impostor had perswaded S. Austin that the very Fable which Lucian scoffs and makes sport withall in that Dialogue was a real story and acted in his own days The Epistle is worth the reading to this purpose but he says this abuse grew to such a height that scarce any life of any Saint or Martyr is truly related but is full of lies and lying wonders and some persons thought they served God if they did honour to God's Saints by inventing some prodigious story or Miracle for their reputation So that now it is no wonder if the most pious men are apt to believe and the greatest Historians are easie enough to report such Stories which serving to a good end are also consigned by the report of persons otherwise pious and prudent enough I will not instance in Vincentius his Speculum Turonensis Thomas Cantipratanus John Herolt Vitae Patrum nor the Revelations of Saint Brigit though confirmed by two Popes Martin V. and Boniface IX Even the best and most deliberate amongst them Lippoman Surius Lipsius Bzovius and Baronius are so full of Fables that they cause great disreputation to the other Monuments and Records of Antiquity and yet doe no advantage to the cause under which they serve and take pay They doe no good and much hurt but yet accidentally they may procure this advantage to Charity since they doe none to Faith that since they have so abused the credit of Story that our confidences want much of that support we should receive from her records of Antiquity yet the men that dissent and are scandalized by such proceedings should be excused if they should chance to be afraid of truth that hath put on garments of imposture and since much violence is done to the truth and certainty of their judging let none be done to their liberty of judging since they cannot meet a right Guide let them have a charitable Judge And since it is one very great argument against Simon Magus and against Mahomet that we can prove their Miracles to be Impostures it is much to be pitied if timorous and suspicious persons shall invincibly and honestly less apprehend a Truth which they see conveyed by such a testimony which we all use as an argument to reprove the Mahometan Superstition 7. Sixthly Here also comes in all the weaknesses and trifling prejudices which operate not by their own strength but by advantage taken from the weakness of some understandings Some men by a Proverb or a common saying are determined to the belief of a Proposition for which they have no argument better then such a proverbial sentence And when divers of the common people in Jerusalem were ready to yield their understandings to the belief of the Messias they were turned clearly from their apprehensions by that Proverb Look and see does any good thing come from Galilee and this When Christ comes no man knows from whence he is but this man was known of what parents of what City And thus the weakness of their understanding was abused and that
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
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
ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leave her in an errour that whatsoever is new is not onely suspicious but false which are suppositions pious and plausible enough And if the Church of Rome had communicated Infants so long as she hath prayed to Saints or baptized Infants the communicating would have been believed with as much confidence as the other Articles are and the dissentients with as much impatience rejected But this consideration is to be enlarged upon all those particulars which as they are apt to abuse the persons of the men and amuse their understandings so they are instruments of their excuse and by making their errours to be invincible and their Opinions though false yet not criminall make it also to be an effect of reason and charity to permit the men a liberty of their Conscience and let them answer to God for themselves and their own Opinions Such as are the beauty and splendour of their Church their pompous Service the stateliness and solennity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the antiquity of many of their Doctrines the continuall Succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed S. Peter the supposall and pretence of his personal prerogatives the advantages which the conjunction of the Imperial Seat with their Episcopal hath brought to that See the flattering expressions of minor Bishops which by being old Records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of people which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes an apparent consent with some elder Ages in many matters Doctrinal the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personal Opinions of the Fathers which they with infinite clamours see to be cried up to be a Doctrine of the Church of that time the great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide the great differences which are commenced amongst their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophesying unto a very great licentiousness their happiness of being instruments in converting divers Nations the advantages of Monarchicall Government the benefit of which as well as the inconveniences which though they feel they consider not they daily do enjoy the piety and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women the single life of their Priests and Bishops the riches of their Church the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for Faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate their Miracles false or true substantial or imaginary the casualties and accidents that have happened to their Adversaries which being chances of humanity are attributed to several causes according as the fancies of men and their interests are pleased or satisfied the temporal felicity of their Professors the oblique arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and amongsâ— many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacy fasten upon all that disagree from them These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore fathers which had actual possession and seisure of mens understandings before the opposite professions had a name and so much the rather because Religion hath more advantages upon the fancy and affections then it hath upon Philosophie and severe discourses and therefore is the more easily perswaded upon such grounds as these which are more apt to amuse then to satisfie the understanding 3. Secondly If we consider the Doctrines themselves we shall find them to be superstructures ill built and worse managed but yet they keep the foundation they build upon God in Jesus Christ they profess the Apostles Creed they retain Faith and repentance as the supporters of all our hopes of Heaven and believe many more Truths then can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation And therefore all the wisest personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding So that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures But then on the other side if we take account of their Doctrines as they relate to good life or are consistent or inconsistent with civil Government we shall have other considerations 4. Thirdly For I consider that many of their Doctrines do accidentally teach or lead to ill life and it will appear to any man that considers the result of these Propositions Attrition which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin or as others say a sorrow for sin commenced upon any reason of a religious hope or fear or desire or any thing else is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of Penance to receive absolution and be justified before God by taking away the guilt of all his sins and the obligation to eternall pains So that already the fear of Hell is quite removed upon conditions so easie that many men take more pains to get a groat then by this Doctrine we are obliged to for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sins of a whole life of the most vicious person in the world And but that they affright their people with a fear of Purgatory or with the severity of Penances in case they will not venture for Purgatory for by their Doctrine they may chuse or refuse either there would be nothing in their Doctrine or Discipline to impede and slacken their proclivity to sin But then they have as easie a cure for that too with a little more charge sometimes but most commonly with less trouble For there are so many Confraternities so many priviledged Churches Altars Monasteries Coemeteries Offices Festivals and so free a concession of Indulgences appendant to all these and a thousand fine devices to take away the fear of Purgatory to commute or expiate Penances that in no Sect of men do they with more ease and cheapness reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of Heaven then in the Roman Communion 5. And indeed if men would consider things upon their true grounds the Church of Rome should be more reproved upon Doctrines that infer ill life then upon such as are contrariant to Faith For false superstructures do not always destroy Faith but many of the Doctrines they teach if they were prosecuted to the utmost issue would destroy good life And therefore my quarrell with the Church of Rome is greater
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
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
if he had not been rescued by the Civil Power But men have too much neglected all the ministeries of Grace and this most especially and have not given themselves to a right understanding of it and so neglected it yet more But because the prejudice which these parts of the Christian Church have suffered for want of it is very great as will appear by enumeration of the many and great Blessings consequent to it I am not without hope that it may be a service acceptable to God and an useful ministery to the Souls of my Charges if by instructing them that know not and exhorting them that know I set forward the practice of this Holy Rite and give reasons why the people ought to love it and to desire it and how they are to understand and practise it and consequently with what dutious affections they are to relate to those persons whom God hath in so special and signal manner made to be for their good and eternal benefit the Ministers of the Spirit and Salvation S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachias my Predecessor in the See of Down and Connor reports that it was the care of that good Prelate to renew the rite of Confirmation in his Diocese where it had been long neglected and gone into desuetude It being too much our case in Ireland I find the same necessity and am oblig'd to the same procedure for the same reason and in pursuance of so excellent an example Hoc enim est Evangelizare Christum said S. Austin non tantùm docere quae sunt dicenda de Christo sed etiam quae observanda ei qui accedit ad compagem corporis Christi For this is to preach the Gospel not only to teach those things which are to be said of Christ but those also which are to be observed by every one who desires to be confederated into the Society of the Body of Christ which is his Church that is not only the doctrines of good Life but the Mysteries of Godliness and the Rituals of Religion which issue from a Divine fountain are to be declar'd by him who would fully preach the Gospel In order to which performance I shall declare 1. The Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation 2. That this Rite was to be a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministration 3. That it was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Churches 4. That this Rite was appropriate to the Ministery of Bishops 5. That Prayer and Imposition of the Bishop's hands did make the whole Ritual and though other things were added yet they were not necessary or any thing of the Institution 6. That many great Graces and Blessings were consequent to the worthy reception and due ministration of it 7. I shall add something of the manner of Preparation to it and Reception of it SECT I. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation IN the Church of Rome they have determin'd Confirmation to be a Sacrament proprii nominis properly and really and yet their Doctors have some of them at least been paulò iniquiores a little unequal and unjust to their proposition insomuch that from themselves we have had the greatest opposition in this Article Bonacina and Henriquez allow the proposition but make the Sacrament to be so unnecessary that a little excuse may justifie the omission and almost neglect of it And Loemelius and Daniel à Jesu and generally the English Jesuits have to serve some ends of their own Family and Order disputed it almost into contempt that by representing it as unnecessary they might do all the ministeries Ecclesiastical in England without the assistance of Bishops their Superiors whom they therefore love not because they are so But the Theological Faculty of Paris have condemn'd their Doctrine as temerarious and savouring of Heresie and in the later Schools have approv'd rather the Doctrine of Gamachaeus Estius Kellison and Bellarmine who indeed do follow the Doctrine of the most Eminent persons in the Ancient School Richard of Armagh Scotus Hugo Cavalli and Gerson the Learned Chancellor of Paris who following the Old Roman order Amalarius and Albinus do all teach Confirmation to be of great and pious Use of Divine Original and to many purposes necessary according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church Whether Confirmation be a Sacrament of no is of no use to dispute and if it be disputed it can never be prov'd to be so as Baptism and the Lord's Supper that is as generally necessary to Salvation but though it be no Sacrament it cannot follow that it is not of very great Use and holiness and as a Man is never the less tied to Repentance though it be no Sacrament so neither is he ever the less oblig'd to receive Confirmation though it be as it ought acknowledg'd to be of an Use and Nature inferior to the two Sacraments of Divine direct and immediate institution It is certain that the Fathers in a large Symbolical and general sence call it a Sacrament but mean not the same thing by that word when they apply it to Confirmation as they do when they apply it to Baptism and the Lord's Supper That it is an excellent and Divine Ordinance to purposes Spiritual that it comes from God and ministers in our way to God that is all we are concern'd to inquire after and this I shall endeavour to prove not only against the Jesuits but against all Opponents of what side soever My First Argument from Scripture is what I learn from Optatus and S. Cyril Optatus writing against the Donatists hath these words Christ descended into the water not that in him who is God was any thing that could be made cleaner but that the water was to precede the future Vnction for the initiating and ordaining and fulfilling the mysteries of Baptism He was wash'd when he was in the hands of John then followed the order of the mystery and the Father finish'd what the Son did ask and what the Holy Ghost declar'd The Heavens were open'd God the Father anointed him the Spiritual Vnction presently descended in the likeness of a Dove and sate upon his head and was spred all over him and he was called the Christ when he was the anointed of the Father To whom also lest Imposition of hands should seem to be wanting the voice of God was heard from the cloud saying This is my Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him That which Optatus says is this that upon and in Christ's person Baptism Confirmation and Ordination were consecrated and first appointed He was Baptized by S. John he was Confirm'd by the Holy Spirit and anointed with Spiritual Unction in order to that great work of obedience to his Father's will and he was Consecrated by the voice of God from Heaven In all things Christ is the Head and the
but because the Apostle speaking of the Foundation in which Baptism is and is reckoned one of the principal parts in the Foundation there needed no Absolution but Baptismal for they and we believing one Baptism for the Remission of Sins this is all the Absolution that can be at first and in the Foundation The other was secunda post naufragium tabula it came in after when men had made a shipwrack of their good conscience and were as S. Peter says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forgetful of the former cleansing and purification and washing of their old sins Secondly It cannot be meant of Ordination and this is also evident 1. Because the Apostle says he would thence-forth leave to speak of the Foundation and go on to perfection that is to higher Mysteries Now in Rituals of which he speaks there is none higher than Ordination 2. The Apostle saying he would speak no more of Imposition of Hands goes presently to discourse of the mysteriousness of the Evangelical Priesthood and the honour of that vocation by which it is evident he spake nothing of Ordination in the Catechism or Narrative of Fundamentals 3. This also appears from the context not only because Laying on of hands is immediately set after Baptism but also because in the very next words of his Discourse he does enumerate and apportion to Baptism and Confirmation their proper and proportioned effects to Baptism illumination according to the perpetual style of the Church of God calling Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an enlightning and to Confirmation he reckons tasting the Heavenly gift and being made partakers of the Holy Ghost by the thing signified declaring the Sign and by the mystery the Rite Upon these words S. Chrysostom discoursing says That all these are Fundamental Articles that i◠that we ought to Repent from dead works to be Baptized into the Faith of Christ and be made worthy of the gift of the Spirit who is given by Imposition of Hands and we are to be taught the mysteries of the Resurrection and Eternal Judgment This Catechism says he is perfect so that if any man have Faith in God and being baptized is also confirmed and so tastes the Heavenly gift and partakes of the Holy Ghost and by hope of the Resurrection tastes of the good things of the World to come if he falls away from this state and turns Apostate from this whole Dispensation digging down and turning up these Foundations he shall never be built again he can never be Baptized again and never be Confirmed any more God will not begin again and go over with him again he cannot be made a Christian twice If he remains upon these Foundations though he sins he may be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Repentance and by a Resuscitation of the Spirit if he have not wholly quenched him but if he renounces the whole Covenant disown and cancel these Foundations he is desperate he can never be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Title and Oeconomy of Repentance This is the full explication of this excellent place and any other ways it cannot reasonably be explicated but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come no Sence no Mystery can be made of it or drawn from it but by the interposition of Confirmation the whole context is clear rational and intelligible This then is that Imposition of hands of which the Apostle speaks Vnus hic locus abunde testatur c. saith Calvin This one place doth abundantly witness that the original of this Rite or Ceremony was from the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom for by this Rite of Imposition of hands they receiv'd the Holy Ghost Fo◠though the Spirit of God was given extra-regularly and at all times as God was pleas'd to do great things yet this Imposition of hands was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this was the Ministery of the Spirit For so we receive Christ when we hear and obey his word we eat Christ by Faith and we live by his Spirit and yet the Blessed Eucharist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ministery of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now as the Lord's Supper is appointed ritually to convey Christ's Body and Bloud to us so is Confirmation ordain'd ritually to give unto us the Spirit of God And though by accident and by the overflowings of the Spirit it may come to pass that a man does receive perfective graces alone and without Ministeries external yet such a man without a miracle is not a perfect Christian ex statuum vitae dispositione but in the ordinary ways and appointment of God and until he receive this Imposition of hands and be Confirmed is to be accounted an imperfect Christian. But of this afterwards I shall observe one thing more out of this testimony of S. Paul He calls it the Doctrine of Baptisms and Laying on of hands by which it does not only appear to be a lasting ministery because no part of the Christian Doctrine could change or be abolished but hence also it appears to be of Divine institution For if it were not S. Paul had beed guilty of that which our Blessed Saviour reproves in the Scribes and Pharisees and should have taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Which because it cannot be suppos'd it must follow that this Doctrine of Confirmation or Imposition of hands is Apostolical and Divine The Argument is clear and not easie to be reprov'd SECT II. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery YEA but what is this to us It belong'd to the days of wonder and extraordinary The Holy Ghost breath'd upon the Apostles and Apostolical men but then he breath'd his last recedente gratiâ recessit disciplina when the Grace departed we had no further use of the Ceremony In answer to this I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by divers particulars evince plainly that this Ministery of Confirmation was not temporary and relative only to the Acts of the Apostles but was to descend to the Church for ever This indeed is done already in the preceding Section in which it is clearly manifested that Christ himself made the Baptism of the Spirit to be necessary to the Church He declar'd the fruits of this Baptism and did particularly relate it to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church at and after that glorious Pentecost He sanctified it and commended it by his Example just as in order to Baptism he sanctified the Floud Jordan and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin viz. by his great Example and fulfilling this righteousness also This Doctrine the Apostles first found in their own persons and Experience and practised to all their Converts after Baptism by a solemn and external Rite and all this passed into an Evangelical Doctrine the whole mystery being signified by the external Rite in the words of the Apostle as before it was by Christ expressing
first Council of Arles decreed concerning the Arrians that if they had been Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they should not be re-baptized Manus tantùm eis imponatur ut accipiant Spiritum Sanctum that is Let them be Confirm'd let there be Imposition of hands that they may receive the Holy Ghost The same is decreed by the second Council of Arles in the case of the Bonasiact But I also find it in a greater record in the General Council of Constantinople where Hereticks are commanded upon their Conversion to be received secundùm constitutum Officium there was an Office appointed for it and it is in the Greeks Euchologion sigillatos primò scil Vnctos Vnguento Chrismatis c. signantes eos dicimus Sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti It is the form of Confirmation used to this day in the Greek Church So many Fathers testifying the practice of the Church and teaching this Doctrine and so many more Fathers as were assembled in six Councils all giving witness to this holy Rite and that in pursuance also of Scripture are too great a Cloud of Witnesses to be despised by any man that calls himself a Christian. SECT IV. The BISHOPS were always and the only Ministers of Confirmation SAint Chrysostom asking the reason why the Samaritans who were Baptized by Philip could not from him and by his Ministery receive the Holy Ghost answers Perhaps this was done for the honour of the Apostles to distinguish the supereminent dignity which they bore in the Church from all inferior Ministrations but this answer not satisfying he adds Hoc donum non habebat erat enim ex Septem illis id quod magìs videtur dicendum Vnde meâ sententiâ hic Philippus unus ex septem erat secundus à Stephano ideo Baptizans Spiritum Sanctum non dabat neque enim facultatem habebat hoc enim donum solorum Apostolorum erat This Gift they had not who Baptized the Samaritans which thing is rather to be said than the other for Philip was one of the Seven and in my opinion next to S. Stephen therefore though he Baptized yet he gave not the Holy Ghost for he had no power so to do for this Gift was proper only to the Apostles Nam virtutem quidem acceperant Diaconi faciendi Signa non autem dandi aliis Spiritum Sanctum igitur hoc erat in Apostolis singulare unde praecipuos non alios videmus hoc facere The Ministers that Baptized had a power of doing Signs and working Miracles but not of giving the Holy Spirit therefore this Gift was peculiar to the Apostles whence it comes to pass that we see the chiefs in the Church and no other to do this S. Dionys says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is need of a Bishop to Confirm the Baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this was the ancient custom of the Church And this was wont to be done by the Bishops for conservation of Unity in the Church of Christ said S. Ambrose A solis Episcopis By Bishops only said S. Austin For the Bishops succeeded in the place and ordinary Office of the Apostles said S. Hierom. And therefore in his Dialogue against the Luciferians it is said That this observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend that the Bishops only might by Imposition of Hands confer the Holy Ghost that it comes from Scripture that it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that it is done for the prevention of Schisms that the safety of the Church depends upon it But the words of P. Innocentius I. in his first Epistle and third Chapter and published in the first Tome of the Councils are very full to this particular De consignandis Infantibus manifestum est non ab alio quà m ab Episcopo fieri licere nam Presbyteri licèt sâ—nt Sacerdotes Pontificatûs tamen apicem non habent haec autem Pontificibus solis deberi ut vel consignent vel paracletum Spiritum tradant non solùm consuetudo Ecclesiastica demonstrat verùm illa lectio Actuum Apostolorum quae asserit Petrum Joannem esse directos qui jam Baptizatis traderent Spiritum Sanctum Concerning Confirmation of Infants it is manifest it is not Lawful to be done by any other than by the Bishop for although the Presbyters be Priests yet they have not the Summity of Episcopacy But that these things are only due to Bishops is â—ot only demonstrated by the custom of the Church but by that of the Acts of the Apostles where Peter and John were sent to minister the Holy Ghost to them that were Baptized Optatus proves Macarius to be no Bishop because he was not conversant in the Episcopal Office and Imposed hands on none that were Baptized Hoc unum à majoribus fit id est à summis Pontificibus quod à minoribus perfici non potest said P. Melchiades This of Confirmation is only done by the greater Ministers that is by the Bishops and cannot be done by the lesser This was the constant Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Church and derived from the practice and tradition of the Apostles and recorded in their Acts written by S. Luke For this is our great Rule in this case what they did in Rituals and consigned to Posterity is our Example and our warranty we see it done thus and by these men and by no others and no otherwise and we have no other authority and we have no reason to go another way The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luke the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Chrysostom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philo and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Governour in Ecclesiasticals his Office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach such things as are not set down in Books their Practice is a Sermon their Example in these things must be our Rule or else we must walk irregularly and have no Rule but Chance and Humour Empire and Usurpation and therefore much rather when it is recorded in Holy Writ must this Observation be esteemed Sacred and inviolable But how if a Bishop be not to be had or not ready S. Ambrose is pretended to have answered Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus A Presbyter may consign if the Bishop be not present and Amalarius affirms Sylvestrum Papam praevidentem quantum periculosum iter arriperet qui sine Confirmatione maneret quantum potuit subvenisse propter absentiam Episcoporum necessitate addidisse ut à Presbytero Vngerentur That Pope Sylvester fore-seeing how dangerous a Journey he takes who abides without Confirmation brought remedy as far as he could and commanded that in the absence of Bishops they should be anointed by the Priest and therefore it is by some supposed that factum valet sieri non debuit The thing ought
this of Confirmation was never permitted to mere Presbyters Innocentius III a great Canonist and of great authority gives a full evidence in this particular Per frontis Chrismationem manûs Impositio designatur quia per eam Spirituâ— Sanctus per augmentum datur robur Vnde cùm caeteras unctiones simplex Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere hanc non nisi summus Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere idest Episcopus conferre By anointing of the forehead the Imposition of hands is design'd because by that the Holy Ghost is given for increase and strength therefore when a single Priest may give the other Unctions yet this cannot be done but by the chief Priest that is the Bishop And therefore to the Question What shall be done if a Bishop may not be had the same Innocentius answers It is safer and without danger wholly to omit it than to have it rashly and without authority ministred by any other Cùm umbra quaedam ostendatur in operâ— veritas autem non subeat in essectu for it iâ— a mere shadow without truth or real effect when any one else does it but the person whom God hath appointed to this ministration And no approved man of the Church did ever say the contrary till Richard Primate of Armagh commenced a new Opinion from whence Thomas of Walden says that Wiclef borrowed his Doctrine to trouble the Church in this particular What the Doctrine of the ancient Church was in the purest times I have already I hope sufficiently declared what it was afterwards when the Ceremony of Chrism was as much remarked as the Rite to which it ministred we find fully declared by Rabanus Maurus Signatur Baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in Capitis summitate per Pontificem verò in Fronte ut priori Vnctione significetur Spiritùs Sancti super ipsum descensio ad habitationem Deo consecrandum in secunda quoque ut ejus Spiritûs Sancti septiformis gratia cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis scientiae virtutis venire in hominem declaretur Tunc enim ipse Spiritus Sanctus post mundata benedicta corpora atque animas liberè à Patre descendit ut unà cum sua visitatione sanctificaret illustraret nunc in hominem ad hoc venit ut Signaculum fidei quod in fronte suscepit faciat cum donis coelestibus repletum suâ gratiâ confortatum intrepidè audacter coram Regibus Potestatibus hujus seculi portare ac nomen Christi liberâ voce praedicare In Baptism the Baptized was anointed on the top of the Head in Confirmation on the Forehead by that was signified that the Holy Ghost was preparing a habitation for himself by this was declared the descent of the Holy Spirit with his seven-fold Gifts with all fulness of knowledge and spiritual understanding These things were signified by the appendant Ceremony but the Rites were ever distinguished and did not only signifie and declare but effect these Graces by the ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands The Ceremony the Church instituted and us'd as she pleas'd and gave in what circumstances they would chuse and new propositions entred and customs chang'd and deputations were made and the Bishops in whom by Christ was plac'd the fulness of Ecclesiastical power concredited to the Priests and Deacons so much as their occasions and necessities permitted and because in those ages and places where the external Ceremony was regarded it may be more than the inward Mystery or the Rite of Divine appointment they were apt to believe that the Chrism or exterior Unction delegated to the Priests Ministery after the Episcopal consecration of it might supply the want of Episcopal Confirmation it came to pass that new opinions were enterâ—ain'd and the Regulars the Friers and the Jesuits who were always too little friends to the Episcopal power from which they would fain have been wholly exempted publickly taught in England especially that Chrism ministred by them with leave from the Pope did do all that which ordinarily was to be done in Episcopal Confirmation For as Tertullian complain'd in his time Quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi eoâ— necessitas coegit aliter disponendi instrumenta Doctrinae They who had purposes of teaching new Doctrines were constrain'd otherwise to dispose of the Instruments and Rituals appertaining to their Doctrines These men to serve ends destroyed the Article and overthrew the ancient Discipline and Unity of the Primitive Church But they were justly censur'd by the Theological Faculty at Paris and the Censure well defended by Hallier one of the Doctors of the Sorbon whither I refer the Reader that is curious in little things But for the main It was ever call'd Confirmatio Episcopalis impositio manuum Episcoporum which our English word well expresses and perfectly retains the use we know it by the common name of Bishopping of Children I shall no farther insist upon it only I shall observe that there is a vain distinction brought into the Schools and Glosses of the Canon Law of a Minister ordinary and extraordinary all allowing that the Bishop is appointed the ordinary Minister of Confirmation but they would fain innovate and pretend that in some cases others may be Ministers extraordinary This device is of infinite danger to the destruction of the whole Sacred Order of the Ministery and disparks the inclosures and lays all in common and makes men supreme controllers of the Orders of God and relies upon a false Principle for in true Divinity and by the Oeconomy of the Spirit of God there can be no Minister of any Divine Ordinance but he that is of Divine appointment there can be none but the ordinary Minister I do not say that God is tied to this way he cannot be tied but by himself and therefore Christ gave a special Commission to Ananias to baptize and to confirm S. Paul and he gave the Spirit to Cornelius even before he was baptized and he ordained S. Paul to be an Apostle without the ministery of man But this I say That though God can make Ministers extraordinary yet Man cannot and they that go about to do so usurp the Power of Christ and snatch from his hand what he never intended to part with The Apostles admitted others into a part of their care and of their power but when they intended to imploy them in any ministery they gave them so much of their Order as would enable them but a person of a lower Order could never be deputed Minister of actions appropriate to the higher which is the case of Confirmation by the Practice and Tradition of the Apostles and by the Universal Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Catholick Church by which Bishops only the Successors of the Apostles were alone the Ministers of Confirmation and therefore if any man else usurp it let them answer it they do hurt indeed to themselves but no benefit to others to whom
indearments and an habitual worthiness An old friend is like old wine which when a man hath drunk he doth not desire new because he saith the old is better But every old friend was new once and if he be worthy keep the new one till he become old 10. After all this treat thy friend nobly love to be with him do to him all the worthinesses of love and fair endearment according to thy capacity and his Bear with his infirmities till they approach towards being criminal but never dissemble with him never despise him never leave him Give him gifts and upbraid him not and refuse not his kindnesses and be sure never to despise the smallness or the impropriety of them Confirmatur amor beneficio accepto A gift saith Solomon fasteneth friendships For as an eye that dwells long upon a Star must be refreshed with lesser beauties and strengthened with greens and Looking-glasses lest the sight become amazed with too great a splendor So must the love of friends sometimes be refreshed with material and low Caresses lest by striving to be too divine it become less humane It must be allowed its share of both It is humane in giving pardon and fair construction and openness and ingenuity and keeping secrets it hath something that is divine because it is beneficent but much because it is eternal POSTSCRIPT MADAM IF you shall think it fit that these Papers pass further than your own eye and Closet I desire they may be consign'd into the hands of my worthy friend Dr. Wedderburne For I do not only expose all my sickness to his cure but I submit my weaknesses to his censure being as confident to find of him charity for what is pardonable as remedy for what is curable But indeed Madam I look upon that worthy man as an Idea of Friendship and if I had no other notices of Friendship or conversation to instruct me than His it were sufficient For whatsoever I can say of Friendship I can say of His and as all that know Him reckon Him amongst the best Physicians so I know Him worthy to be reckoned amongst the best Friends TWO LETTERS TO PERSONS Changed in their RELIGION The First to a Gentlewoman Seduced to the Church of Rome The other to a Person Returning to the Church of England Volo Solidum Perenne THE FIRST LETTER M. B. I WAS desirous of an opportunity in London to have discoursed with you concerning something of nearest concernment to you but the multitude of my little affairs hindred me and have brought upon you this trouble to read a long Letter which yet I hope you will be more willing to do because it comes from one who hath a great respect to your person and a very great charity to your soul. I must confess I was on your behalf troubled when I heard you were fallen from the Communion of the Church of England and entred into a voluntary unnecessary Schism and departure from the Laws of the King and the Communion of those with whom you have always lived in charity going against those Laws in the defence and profession of which your Husband died going from the Religion in which you were Baptized in which for so many years you lived piously and hoped for Heaven and all this without any sufficient reason without necessity or just scandal ministred to you and to aggravate all this you did it in a time when the Church of England was persecuted when she was marked with the Characterisms of her Lord the marks of the Cross of Jesus that is when she suffered for a holy cause and a holy conscience when the Church of England was more glorious than at any time before Even when she could shew more Martyrs and Confessors than any Church this day in Christendom even then when a King died in the profession of her Religion and thousands of Priests learned and pious men suffered the spoiling of their goods rather than they would forsake one Article of so excellent a Religion So that seriously it is not easily to be imagined that any thing should move you unless it be that which troubled the perverse Jews and the Heathen Greek Scandalum crucis the scandal of the Cross. You stumbled at that Rock of offence You left us because we were afflicted lessened in outward circumstances and wrapped in a cloud But give me leave only to remind you of that sad saying of the Scripture that you may avoid the consequent of it They that fall on this stone shall be broken in pieces but they on whom it shall fall shall be grinded to powder And if we should consider things but prudently it is a great argument that the sons of our Church are very conscientious and just in their perswasions when it is evident that we have no temporal end to serve nothing but the great end of our souls all our hopes of preferment are gone all secular regards only we still have Truth on our sides and we are not willing with the loss of Truth to change from a persecuted to a prosperous Church from a Reformed to a Church that will not be reformed lest we give scandal to good people that suffer for a holy conscience and weaken the hands of the afflicted of which if you had been more careful you would have remained much more innocent But I pray give me leave to consider for you because you in your change considered so little for your self What fault what false doctrine what wicked and dangerous Proposition what defect what amiss did you find in the Doctrine and Liturgy and Discipline of the Church of England For its Doctrine It is certain it professes the belief of all that is written in the Old and New Testament all that which is in the three Creeds the Apostolical the Nicene and that of Athanasius and whatsoever was decreed in the four General Councils or in any other truly such and whatsoever was condemned in these our Church hath legally declared it to be Heresie And upon these accounts above four whole Ages of the Church went to Heaven they baptized all their Catechumens into this Faith their hopes of Heaven was upon this and a good life their Saints and Martyrs lived and died in this alone they denied Communion to none that professed this Faith This is the Catholick Faith so saith the Creed of Athanasius and unless a company of men have power to alter the Faith of God whosoever live and die in this Faith are intirely Catholick and Christian. So that the Church of England hath the same Faith without dispute that the Church had for 400 or 500 years and therefore there could be nothing wanting here to Saving Faith if we live according to our belief 2. For the Liturgy of the Church of England I shall not need to say much because the case will be every evident First Because the disputers of the Church of Rome have not been very forward to object any thing against it
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
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-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
Quest. Whether without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry we may not render Divine worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host according to his Humane Nature in that Host Answ. We may not render Divine worship to him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry Because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idolatry For Idolum nihil est in mundo saith S. Paul and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens for it is not true there is no such thing He is present there by his Divine power and his Divine Blessing and the fruits of his Body the real effective consequents of his Passion but for any other Presence it is Idolum it is nothing in the world Adore Christ in Heaven for the Heavens must contain him till the time of restitution of all things And if you in the reception of the Holy Sacrament worship him whom you know to be in Heaven you cannot be concerned in duty to worship him in the Host as you call it any more than to worship him in the Host at Nostre Dame when you are at S. Peter's in Rome for you see him no more in one place than in another and if to believe him to be there in the Host at Nostre Dame be sufficient to cause you to worship him there then you are to do so to him at Rome though you be not present for you believe him there you know as much of Him by Faith in both places and as little by sense in either But however this is a thing of infinite danger God is a jealous God He spake it in the matter of external worship and of Idolatry and therefore do nothing that is like worshipping a mere creature nothing that is like worshipping that which you are not sure it is God and if you can believe the Bread when it is blessed by the Priest is God Almighty you can if you please believe any thing else To the other parts of your Question viz. Whether the same body be present really and Substantially because we believe it to be there or whether do we believe it to be there because God hath manifestly revealed it to be so and therefore we revere and adore it accordingly I answer 1. I do not know whether or no you do believe Him to be there really and Substantially 2. If you do believe it so I do not know what you mean by really and Substantially 3. Whatsoever you do mean by it if you do believe it to be there really and Substantially in any sence I cannot tell why you believe it to be so you best know your own reasons and motives of belief for my part I believe it to be there really in the sence I have explicated in my Book and for those reasons which I have there alledged but that we are to adore it upon that account I no way understand If it be Transubstantiated and you are sure of it then you may pray to it and put your trust in it and believe the Holy Bread to be coeternal with the Father and with the Holy Ghost But it is strange that the Bread being consecrated by the power of the Holy Ghost should be turn'd into the substance and nature of God and of the Son of God if so does not the Son at that time proceed from the Holy Ghost and not the Holy Ghost from the Son But I am ashamed of the horrible proposition Sir I pray God keep you from these extremest dangers I love and value you and will pray for you and be Dear Sir Your very affectionate Friend to serve you JER TAYLOR March 13. 1657 8 THE END THE TABLE THough the whole Volume consists of divers Tractates of several Titles yet because one course or order of numbers runs through all the pages till you come to pag. 1070 where begins the Discourse of Confirmation and a new account of 70 pages more reaching to the end of all therefore it was not necessary to trouble this Index with the several Titles of the Books and Discourses Where then the number of the page has the letter b with it as it has for no more then 70 of the last pages the Reader is referred to the Book of Confirmation and the Discourse of Friendship c. But where the number of the page hath not that letter with it he is directed to the rest of the Volume Note also that n stands for the marginall number and ss sect § stands for the Section in those parts of the Volume that are so divided A. Absolution OF the forms of it that have been used page 838 num 53. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial form of absolution in their Liturgies 837 n. 50 52. and 838 n. 54. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841 n. 58. The usefulness of that kind of absolution 841 n. 59. Judicial absolution by the Priest is not that which Christ intended in giving the power of remitting and retaining sins 837 n. 50. and 841 n. 60. Absolution Ecclesiastical 835 n. 44. Attrition joyned with Priestly absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64.830 n. 33. The Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. A Deacon in the ancient Church might give absolution 484. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. The promise of Quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Absolution upon confession to a Priest does not make Attrition equal to Contrition 842 n. 62 64. The severity of the Primitive Church in denying absolution to greater criminals was not their doctrine but their discipline 805 n. 21. Accident What is the definitive notion of it 236 sect 11. Acts. The usuall acts of repentance 845 n. 74. To communicate in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 sect 3. What repentance single acts of sin require 646 n. 43. A single act of sin is cut off by the exercise of the contrary vertue 647 n. 45. A single act of vertue is not sufficient to be opposed against a single act of Vice 647 n. 46. How a single act of sin is sometimes habitual 648 n. 49 50. Some acts of sin require more then a moral revocation or opposing a contrary act of vertue in repentance 648 n. 50. Single acts of sin without a habit give a denomination 641 n. 25. Book of Acts Apostles Chap. 13.48 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 28. and 835 n. 44. Adam Concupiscence is not wholly an effect of his sin 752 n. 11. How we can be liable to the punishment of his sin when we were not guilty of it 752 n. 12. How we are sinners in Adam ibid. The effect of his fall upon
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. 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. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15
16 17 18. explained 782 n. 32. and Chap. 5.24 He that is in Christ hath crucified the flesh with the affections explained 794 n. 58. and Chap. 5.17 The spirit lusteth against the flesh explained 810 n. 40. Gelasius Bishop of Rome was the authour of the Book de duabus naturis contra Eutychetem 265 § 12. His words about Transubstantiation considered Genesis Chap. 6. v. 5. Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart onely evil explained 720 n. 47. and Chap. 8. v. 21. The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth explained 721 n. 48. H. Ghost The Divinity of the Holy Ghost was not decreed at Nice 424. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. What is the sin against the Holy Ghost 810 n. 43. Final impenitence proved not to be the sin against the Holy Ghost 811 n. 42. That the sin against the Holy Ghost is pardonable 812 n. 48. In what sense it is affirmed in Scripture that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come 812 n. 52 53. Glory Concerning the degrees of eternal glory 968 n. 5. God Of his power to doe things impossible 233 § 11. Ubiquity an incommunicable attribute of God's 237 § 12. and 241. To picture God the Father or the Trinity is against the Primitive practice 307. The Romanists teach that the Pope hath power to dispense with all the laws of God 342. No man is tempted of God 737 n. 90. Gospel The difference between it and the Law 574. Of the possibility of keeping the Evangelical Law 576. What is required in the Gospel 588 n. 9. It is nothing else but faith and repentance 599 n. 1 2. The righteousness of the Law and Gospel how they differ 673 n. 46. Grace Pope Adrian taught that a man out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. The Romanists attribute the conveying of Grace to things of their own inventing 337 § 11. They teach that the Sacraments do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. To be in the state of Grace is of very large signification 643 n. 31. The just measures and latitude of a man's being in the state of Grace 643 n. 32. How it works 679. n. 52. ad 56. What it signifieth to be in the state of Grace 643 n. 31. There is a transcendent habit of Grace and what it is 685. n. 68. How the necessity of Grace is consistent with the doctrine of Free-will 754 n. 15. By the strengths of mere Nature men cannot get to heaven 885. Greek Photius was the first authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latine Church 109 § 33. The Greek Church receive not the Article of Transubstantiation Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 175. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory 297. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory 510. Gregory Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself Universal Bishop 310. Guilt It cannot properly be traduced from one person to another 902 915. Against that notion That guilt cleaveth to the nature though not to the person 910. H. Habits A Single act of sin without a habit gives a denomination 641 n. 25. Sins are damnable that cannot be habitual 641 n. 24. A sinful habit hath a guilt distinct from that of the act 659 n. 1. Sinful habits require a distinct manner of repentance 669 n. 31. Seven objections against that Assertion answered 675 n. 51. Of infused habits 676. The method of mortifying vicious habits 690 691 n. 9 10. How and in what cases a single act may be accounted habitual 648 n. 50. Of sinful habits and their threefold capacity 659 n. 4. 'T is not true to affirm That every reluctancy to an act of vertue that proceeds from the habit of the contrary vice if it be overcome increases the reward 661 n. 6. ad 9. A vicious habit adds many degrees of aversation from God 669 n. 9. Evil habits do not only imply a facility but a kind of necessity 662 n. 11. A vicious habit makes our repentances the more difficult 663 n. 14. A vicious habit makes us swallow a great sin as easily as the least 664 n. 15. It keeps us always out of God's favour 665 n. 18. A sinful habit denominates the man guilty though he exert no actions 666 n. 23. Smaller sins if habitual discompose our state of Grace 667 n. 24. Habitual concupiscence needs pardon as much as natural 667 n. 26. Saint Augustine endeavours to prove that a sinful habit has a special sinfulness distinct from that of evil actions and Pelagius did gainsay it 667 n. 26. Every habit of vice is naturally expelled by a habit of vertue 669 n. 34. Though to extirpate a vicious habit by a contrary habit is not meritorious of pardon yet it is necessary in order to the obtaining pardon 670 n. 36. To oppose a habit against a habit is a more proper and effectual remedy then to oppose an act of sorrow or repentance against an act of sin 670 n. 38. In re morali there is no such thing as infused habits 676 n. 53. Hands Of laying on of hands in absolution 838 n. 54. Imposition of hands was twice solemnly had in repentance 840 841 n. 57. Heathen Their practice in their hymns and prayers to their gods pag. 3 n. 11. They could not worship an Image terminativè 338. The Heathens did condemn the worship of Images 546. Heaven In a natural state we cannot hope for Heaven 737 n. 85. Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 6. v. 1 2. Of the foundation of laying on of hands explained 10 11 b. That the Apostle there in speaking of the laying on of hands means Confirmation and not either Absolution or Ordination 10 11 b. Chap. 9.28 expl 712 n. 15. Chap. 7.27 expl 712. n. 17. Chap. 5.23 explained 712. Chap. 6.4 5 6. explained ibid. Chap. 10.26 explained 809 n. 36. Hell The Article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. Heresie How Aërius could be an Heretick seeing his errour was against no fundamental doctrine 150 § 48. The notion of Heresie was anciently more comprehensive then now it is ibid. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes right but separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The Heresie of the Acephali what it was ibid. A Son or Wife they absolve from duty if the Father or Husband be heretical 345. The Pope takes upon him to depose Kings not heretical 345. The Fathers style some hereticks that are not 376. An heretical Pope is no Pope 401. What Popes have been heretical ibid. and 402. The validity of Baptism by hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. Divers hereticks did worship the picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. Pope John XXII
sin 673 n. 47. M. Malefactors BEing condemned by the customs of Spain they are allowed respite till their Confessor supposeth them competently prepared 678 n 56. Man The weakness and frailty of humane nature 734 n. 82. in his body soul and spirit 735 n. 83. and 486. Mark Chap. 12.34 explained 780 n. 26. Chap. 12.32 explained 809. Justin Martyr His testimony against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. and 522 523. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Mass. A Cardinal in his last Will took order to have fifty thousand Masses said for his soul 320. Indulgences make not the multitude of Masses less necessary 320 c. 2. § 4. Pope John VIII gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue 534. Saint Matthew Chap. 26.11 Me ye have not always explained 222 § 9. Chap. 28.20 I am with you always to the end of the world explained ibid. Chap. 18.17 Dic Ecclesiae explained 389. Chap. 15.9 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472 477. Chap. 5.19 one of the least of these Commandments 615 616 n. 18. Chap. 5.19 explained ibid n. 18. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 622 n. 34. Chap. 12.32 explained 810. Chap. 15.48 explained 582 n. 40 43. Chap. 5.22 shall be guilty of judgement 621 n. 34. Mercy God's Mercy and Justice reconciled about his exacting the Law 580. Merit Pope Adrian taught that one out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The difference between them 596 n. 1. Millenaries Their opinion how much it spread and prevailed in the ancient Church 976 n. 3. Miracles The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Of those now-adays wrought by the Romanists 452. The Dominicans and Franciscans brought Miracles on both sides in proof both for and against the immaculate Conception 1019. Of false Miracles and Legends 1020. Miracles not a sufficient argument to prove a doctrine ibid. Canus his opinion of the Legenda Lombardica ibid. The Pope in the Lateran Council made a decree against false Miracles 1020. Montanus His Heresie mistaken by Epiphanius 955 n. 18. Moral The difference between the Moral Regenerate and Prophane man in committing sin 782 n. 33. and 820 n. 1. Mortal Sin Between the least mortal sin and greatest venial sin no man can distinguish 610 n. 2. Mortification It is a precept not a counsel 672 n. 44. The method of mortifying vicious habits 691 n. 10 11. The benefits of it 690. n. 6. Mysterie The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist like other mysteries is not to be searched into as to the manner of it too curiously 182 § 1. N. Nature OF the use of that word in the controversie of Transubstantiation 251 § 12. By the strength of it alone men cannot get to heaven 885. The state of nature 770 n. 1 2. c. 8. § 1. What the phrase by nature means 723 n. 48. By it alone we cannot be saved 737 n. 86. The use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 n. 35. Necessity Of that distinction Necessitas praecepti and medii 8. b. There is in us no natural necessity of sinning 754 n. 15. Nicolaitans The authour of that Heresie vindicated from false imputations 953 n. 17. Novatians Their doctrine opposed 802 n. 8. A great objection of theirs proposed 806 n. 24. and answered 807 n. 26. O. Obedience ARguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577 n. 15. ad 19. Obstinacy Two kinds of it the one sinful the other not so 951 n. 10. Opinion A man is not to be charged with the odious consequents of his opinion 1024. Sometimes on both sides of the Opinion it is pretended that the Proposition promotes the honour of God ibid. How hard it is not to be deceived in weighing some Opinions of Religion 1026. Ordination Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop ibid. Ordo and gradus were at first used promiscuously 98 § 31. How strangely some of the Church of Rome do define Orders 99 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had Episcopal Ordinaâ—ion but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Presbyters could not ordain 102 § 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters 103 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches without Bishops 105 § 32. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters 145 146 § 44. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. The Romanists give distinct Ordination to their Exorcists 336. Origen His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. Original sin In what sense it is damnable 570. How that doctrine is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Some Romanists in this doctrine have receded as much from the definitions of their Church as this Authour from the English and without offence 571. Original sin is manifest in the many effects of it 869. The true doctrine of Original sin 869 870 896. The errours in that Article 871. There are sixteen several and famous opinions in the Article of Original sin 877. Against that Proposition Original sin makes us liable to damnation yet none are damned for it 878 n. 5. 879 n. 6 7. The ill consequence of the mistakes in this doctrine 883 884. If Infants are not under the guilt of original sin why are they baptized That objection answered 884. The difficulties that Saint Augustine and others found in explicating the traduction of original sin 896. The Authour's doctrine about Original sin It is proved that it contradicts not the Ninth Article of the Church of England 898 899. Concupiscence is not it 911. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Adam's sin made us not heirs of damnation ibid. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 37. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a natural efficiency 717 n. 39. nor because we were in the loins of Adam 717 n. 40. nor because of the will and decree of God 717 n. 41. Objections out of Scripture against this doctrine answered 720 n. 46. Vid. Sin The Authour affirmeth not that there is no such thing as original sin 747 748 n. 1. He is not singular in his doctrine 762 n. 24 26. The want of original righteousness is no sin 752 n. 10. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of Original sin 761 n. 22. With what variety the doctrine of Original sin was anciently taught 761 n. 23. How much they are divided amongst themselves who say that Original sin is in us formally a sin 762 n. 25. Original sin
suspend or depose without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. In the Primitive Church they might not officiaâ—e without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. In Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. They had not the power of voting in Councils 136 § 41. The Council of Basil was the first in which they in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. They as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council held Acts 15. pag. 137 § 41. Saint Cyprian's authority alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in the government of the Church answered 145 146 § 44. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. The Presbyter's assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose 147 § 44. Presbyters at first had no distinct Cure 136 § 50. The signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 165 § 51. There were some Presbyters of whom it was not required to preach 167 § 51. Priest What the Penitentiary Priest was and by whom taken away 473 474 492 493. That the Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. Whether Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 21. b. What is the power of Priests in order to pardoning sin 838. Of the forms of Absolution given by the Priest 838. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841. Confession to a Priest is no part of Contrition 833 n. 41. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834 n. 43. Auricular confession to a Priest whence it descended 833 n. 41. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857. Absolution by a Priest is not that which Christ intended by the power of remitting and retaining sins 841 n. 60. Attrition joyned with the Priest's Absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64. Primitive Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. Principle First Principles are not necessary in all Discourses 356. Probable That any probable opinion may safely be followed 324 c. 2. § 7. The ill consequents of that doctrine 325. What makes an opinion probable 324 c. 2. § 7. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. Instances to shew that to follow the opinion of a probable Doctor will make the worst sins seem lawful 326. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as Demonstration where is no shew of reason against it 362. Prohibitions Whether the Secular power can give them against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. Prophane The difference in committing sin between the prophane moral and regenerate man 782. Proverb A Proverb contrary to truth is a great prejudice to a man's understanding 798. Avoid all Proverbs by which evil life is encouraged ibid. Psalms The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Laodicea 23 n. 91 92. Psalm 51.5 explained 721 n. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 724 n. 53. Punishment The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. God punisheth not one sin with another 859 n. 112. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment 618 n. 24. We should by our choice make that temporal punishment penitential that God inflicts 859 n. 113. An instance of that practice out of Eusebius ibid. Purgatory An account of some false Propositions without which the doctrine of Purgatory cannot be maintained 294. The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. Simon Magus had the first notion of Purgatory 294. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The Fire of purgation that the Fathers speak of is not the Romanists Purgatory 295. Those silly Legends upon which they ground Purgatory 296 c. 1. § 4. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory 297. The authority of Fathers against it 297 c. 1. § 4. When the doctrine of Purgatory was first brought into the Church 495. Of Purgatory and the testimonies of Roffensis and Pol. Virgil against it justified 500. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Instances out of the Latine Missal where prayers were made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no Article of Faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. The testimony of Otho Frisingensis against Purgatory considered 509. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory 510. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers 512. The testimony of Saint Cyprian Saint Dionysius Saint Justin Martyr against Purgatory 513 514. Q. Questions IN those about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Those that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. Sundry Questions as Whether the practice of the Primitive Fathers denying Ecclesiastical repentance to Idolaters and Murtherers and Adulterers and them onely be warrantable 805. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Whether Attrition with Absolution pardoneth sin 842. Whether it be possible to keep the Law 579. Whether Perfection be consistent with Repentance 579 c. 1. ss 3. per tot Whether sinful Habits require a distinct manner of Repentance 652. Whether every single deliberate act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour c. 4. ss 2. per tot Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause but not in the effect is to be punished 719 n. 44. and 785. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 771. and 748 4. How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible Law 580 n. 32. Since God imposeth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisedom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581 n. 35. If so many acts of sin taken singly and alone do damn how can any man be saved 642 643 n. 28. Whether one is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it 653. and 654 n. 7 8. sequ R. Real Presence THis like
other Mysteries is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. Reason The power of it in matters of Religion 230 231 § 11. It is the best Judge of Controversies 1014. Reason and authority are not things inconsistent 1015. The variety of mens understandings in apprehending the consequent of things as in the instances of Surge Petre macta comede and the trial between the two Missals of Saint Ambrose and Saint Gregory 1016. Reformed Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops 105 § 32. Of the harmony of Confessions set out by the Reformed Churches 899. Regenerate The falseness of that proposition That natural corruption in the Regenerate still remains and is in them a sin 876. The state of unregenerate men 773. Between the regenerate and the wicked person there is a middle state 774 n. 29. An unregenerate man may be convinced of and clearly instructed in his duty and approve the Law 780. An unregenerate man may with his will delight in goodness and delight in it earnestly 781. The contention between the Flesh and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration but onely the contention between the Flesh and the Spirit 781. The difference between the Regenerate Profane and Moral man in their sinning 782 n. 33. Whence come so frequent sins in regenerate persons 783. How sin can be consistent with the regenerate estate 783 n. 35. Unwillingness to sin no sign of Regeneration 784 n. 36. An unregenerate person may not onely desire to doe things morally good but even spirituall also 784 n. 37. The difference between a regenerate and unregenerate man 786 787. An unregenerate man may leave many sins not onely for temporal interest but out of reverence of the Divine Law 785 n. 39. An unregenerate man may doe many good things for Heaven and yet never come there 786 n. 40. An unregenerate man may have received the Spirit of God and yet be in a state of distance from God 786 n. 41. It is not the propriety of the regenerate man to feel a contention within him concerning the doing good or evil 788 n. 43. The regenerate man hath not onely received the Spirit of God but is wholly led by him 788. n. 44. Arguments to prove that St. Paul Rom. 7. speaks not of the Regenerate man 773 n. 10. Religion If it be seated onely in the understanding not accepted to Salvation 780. The character and properties of perfect Religion 583 584 n. 44. ad 48. Remission of Sin What is the power of remitting and retaining sin 836 n. 47. Repentance The Roman doctrine about Repentance 312 c. 2. § 1. They teach that Repentance is not necessary till the article of death 312. Their Church enjoyns not the internal but the external ritual Repentance 313. What Contrition is 314. The Church of Rome makes Contrition unnecessary 314. According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and satisfies not the Conscience 315 c. 2. § 2. The Roman Doctors prevaricate in the whole Doctrine of Repentance 321. What the Penitentiary Priest was and by whom taken away 473 474 492 493. The Controversie between Monsieur Arnauld Petavius about Repentance 568. The Covenant of Repentance when it began 574 575. How Repentance and Perfection Evangelical are consistent Chap. 1. ss 3. per tot n. 47. That Proposition rejected That every sinner must in his Repentance pass under the terrours of the Law 587. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how they differ 596 597. All that was insupportable in Moses's Law was onely the want of this 580 n. 33. Of the notion of Repentance when joyned with Faith 599 n. 1. It is a whole change of state and life 597. The parts of it 599 n. 9. and 820 n. 2. The difference between the Repentance preached to the Jews and the Gentiles 601 n. 5 6 7. It may be called Conversion 602 n. 10. Repentance onely makes sins venial 622 n. 34. What Repentance single acts of sin require 646 n. 43. A general Repentance when sufficient 647 n. 47. Some acts of sin require more then a moral revocation or opposing a contrary act of vertue in Repentance 648 n. 50. That Proposition proved That no man is bound to repent of his sin instantly after the committing it 654. The danger of deferring Repentance 654 655. Deferring Repentance differs but by accident from final impenitence ibid. How the severities of Repentance were retrenched in several Ages 804 n. 14 15 16. The severity of the Primitive Church in denying Absolution to greater Criminals upon their Repentance was not their Doctrine but their Discipline 805 n. 21. Repentance of sinful Habits to be performed in a distinct manner 669 n. 31. Seven Objections against that Proposition answered 675. Objections against the Repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The Objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against death-bed repentance 682 n. 66. The manner of repentance in habitual sinners who begin Repentance betimes 687 n. 1. The manner of repentance by which habitual sins must be cured in them who return not till old age 691 n. 12. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations shewing how dangerous it is to delay Repentance 853 n. 98. and 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have taken out of the Writings of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the Ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of Repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The penitent in the opinion of the Jewish Doctors preferred above the just and innocent 801. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The practice of the ancient Fathers excluding from repentance murtherers adulterers and idolaters 804 805. Penitential sorrow is rather in the understanding then the affections 823 n. 12. Penitential sorrow is not to be estimated by the measures of sense 823 n. 15. and 824 n. 17. A double solemn imposition of hands in Repentance 840 n. 57. As our Repentance is so is our pardon 846. A man must not judge of his Repentance by his tears nor by any one manner of expression 850 n. 99. He that suspects his Repentance should use the suspicion as a means to improve his Repentance 850. Meditations that will dispose the heart to Repentance 851 n. 88. No man can be said truly to have grieved for sin which at any time after remembers it with pleasure 851 n. 92. The Repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Sorrow for sin is but a sign or instrument of Repentance 853 n. 99. That Repentance preached to the Jews was in different methods from that preached to the
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
be the best way of proving the immortality of the Soul 357. Aristotle believed the Soul of man to be divine and not of the body 718 n. 41. There is no difference between the inferiour and superiour faculties of the Soul 728 n. 68. and 825 n. 19. The frailty of man's Soul 734 n. 83. Spirit Whether the ordinary gifts of the Spirit be immediate infusions of faculties and abilities or an improvement of our natural powers and means 4 n. 15. ad 34. How the Holy Spirit did inspire the Apostles and Writers of the New Testament as to the very words 8 n. 32. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. What a Spirit is as to nature 236 § 11. How a Spirit is in place 236 § 11. The Holy Spirit perfects our Redemption 1. b. The Spirit of God 1. b. The frailty of the spirit of man 735 n. 83. The rule of the Spirit in us 782. To have received the Spirit is not an inseparable propriety of the regenerate 786. What the Spirit of God doth in us 787. The regenerate man hath not onely received the Spirit of God but is wholly led by him 788. Sublapsarians Their Doctrine in five Propositions 872. It is not much better then the Supralapsarian 873. Against this way 886 n. 8. Substance What a Substance is 236 § 11. Aquinas says that the Body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a Body but a Substance this Notion considered 238 § 11. Succession Of the succession of Bishops 402 403. Supererogation How it and Christian perfection differ 590 591 n. 16 17. What it is 786. Superlative This is usually exprest by a synonymal word by an Hebraism 909. Supralapsarians Their Doctrine 871. T. Tears A Man by them must not judge of his Repentance nor by any other one way of expression 850 n. 86. Temptation Every temptation to sin if overcome increases not the reward 661 n. 7. No man is tempted of God 737 n. 86. The violence of a temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin 743. Testament In a humane or Divine Testament figurative words may be admitted 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's aenigmatical Testament 210 § 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What they were 835 n. 44. Theodoret. His words about Transubstantiation considered 264 265 § 12. Theology The power of Reason in matters of Theology 230 231 § 11. It findeth a medium between Vertue and Vice 673. Thief on the Cross. Why his Repentance was accepted 681 n. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What that word means 637 n 10. 1. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 4. v. 8. explained 860 n. 114. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 808 n. 31. Chap. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 152 § 48. and 166 § 51. Chap. 3.15 16. the pillar and ground of truth explained 386 387. Chap. 1.5 6. explained 949 n. 8. 2. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2. v. 4. explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 162 § 49. Epistle to Titus Chap. 5.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 30. Tradition Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments not Tradition 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 then that 354. Oral Tradition was useful to convey matter of fact onely not Doctrines 354 355 358. Oral Tradition a very uncertain means to convey down a Doctrine 356. The Romanists have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. The doctrine of the Scriptures sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. What Tradition is and what the word meaneth 420 § 3. When and in what case Tradition is an useful Topick 421. It is necessary in the Church because the Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Tradition urged by the Ancients was not oral 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. 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 too 425 426. The validity of Baptism by 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. The observation of the Lord's Day relieth not upon Tradition 428. Instances wherein oral Tradition has failed in conveyance 431. Saint Augustine's Rule to try Apostolical Traditions 432. Some Traditions said to be Apostolical have proceeded from the testimony of one man alone and he none of them 432. Of the means of proving a Tradition to be Apostolical 433. Of Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule to discern Apostolical Tradition 434. In the Question about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for Auricular Confession 490. Of what use Tradition is in expounding Scripture 976. It is no sufficient medium to end Controversies 976 sect 5. per tot It was pretended by the Arians and divers other hereticks as well as the Orthodox 977 n. 3. The report of Tradition was uncertain even in the Ages Apostolical 978 n. 4. Tradition could not be made use of to determine the Controversie about Easter between the Churches of the East and West because both sides pretended it 979 n. 7. What Tradition it was the Fathers used to appeal to 979 n. 8. Transubstantiation The arts by which the Romanists have managed this Article Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 174. It is acknowledged by the Romanists that this doctrine cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. How many figurative terms there are in the words of Institution 211 212 § 6. If this doctrine be true then the truth of Christian Religion which relieth upon the evidence of Sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument with our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and a Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses in fit circumstances be not to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. Irenaeus mentions an Impostour that essayed to counterfeit Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it 228 § 10. The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation are proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Picus Mirandula offered to maintain in Rome this Thesis Paneitas potest suppositare corpus Domini 230 § 11. How many ways the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum may be verified without Transubstantiation 230 231 § 11. The folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to
give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The