no purgation can no way be put off by any pretences For he means it of the time after death before the day of judgment which is directly oppos'd to the doctrine of the Church of Rome and unless you will suppose that S. Gregory believ'd two Purgatories it is certain he did not believe the Roman for he taught that the purgation which he calls Baptism by fire and the saving yet so as by fire was to be perform'd at the day of judgment and the curiosity of that trial is the fierceness of that fire as Nicetas expounds S. Gregories words in his oration in sancta lumina So that S. Gregory affirming that this world is the place of purgation and that after this world there is no purgation could not have spoken any thing more direct against the Roman Purgatory S. Hilary In Psalm and S. Macarius speak of two states after death and no more True says E. W. but they are the two final states That is true too in some sense for it is either of eternal good or evil but to one of these states they are consigned and determined at the time of their death at which time every one is sent either to the bosom of Abraham or to a place of pain where they are reserved to the sentence of the great day S. Hillary's words are these There is no stay or delaying For the day of judgement is either an eternal retribution of beatitude or of pain But the time of our death hath every one in his laws whiles either Abraham viz. the bosom of Abraham or pain reserves every one unto the Judgment These words need no Commentary He that can reconcile these to the Roman Purgatory Homil. 22. vide etiam homil 26. will be a most mighty man in controversie And so also are the words of S. Macarius when they go out of the body the quires of Angels receive their souls and carry them to their proper place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a pure world and so lead them to the Lord. Such words as these are often repeated by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Ancient Church I sum them up with the saying of S. Athanasius De Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is not death that happens to the righteous but a translation For they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest And as a man would go out of prison so do the Saints go out of this troublesome life unto those good things which are prepared for them Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in Purgatory by Joh. Gerson in his querela defunctorum and Sr. Tho. More in his supplication of souls and it will be found that the doctrine of the Fathers differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome as much as heaven and hell rest and labor horrid torments and great joy I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo Letter p. 18. which one of my adversaries could not find because the printer was mistaken It is the 91. Epistle so known and so us'd by the Roman writers in the Qu. of Confession that if he be a man of learning it cannot be suppos'd but he knew where to find them The words are these But if any of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being intercepted by any obstacle falls from the benefit of the present Indulgences and before he comes to the constituted remedies shall end his temporal life by humane condition or frailty that which abiding in the body he hath not received being out of the flesh he cannot Now against these words of S. Leo set the present doctrine of the Church of Rome that what is not finished of penances here a man may pay in Purgatory and let the world judge whether S. Leo was in this point a Roman Catholic Indeed S. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away but I hope the Roman Doctors will excuse the Saint because the distinction is but new and modern But this Testimony of S. Gregory must not go for a single Testimony That which abiding in the body could not be receiv'd out of the body cannot that is when the soul is gone out of the body as death finds them so shall the day of judgment find them And this was the sense of the whole Church for after death there is no change of state before the General Trial no passing from pain to rest in the state of separation and therefore either there are no Purgatory pains or if there be there is no ease of them before the day of judgment and the Prayers and Masses of the Church cannot give remedy to one poor soul and this must of necessity be confessed by the Roman Doctors or else they must shew that ever any one Catholic Father did teach that after death and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECTION III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholic nor Apostolic 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 Catholic faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus P. 18. 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 finde 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 sense 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
Alexandria defines the Church to be Clem. Alex. strom lib. pag. 715. edit Paris A. D. 1629. the Congregation of the Elect. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Church I do not mean the place but the gathering or heap of the Elect for this is the better Temple for the receiving the greatness of the dignity of God For that living thing which is of great price to him who is worthy of all price yea to whose price nothing is too great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is consecrated by the excellency of holiness But more full is that of Saint Austin De Papt contr Donatist lib. â— cap 51. 52. who spends two chapters in affirming that onely they who serve God faithfully are the Church of God The temple of God is holy which Temple ye are For this is in the good and faithful and the holy servants of God scattered every where and combin'd by a spiritual union in the same communion of Sacraments whether they know one another by face or no. Others it is certain are so said to be in the House of God that they do not pertain to the structure of the house nor to the society of fructifying and peace-making justice but are as chaff in the wheat For we cannot deny that they are in the house the Apostle Paul saying That in a great house there are not onely vessels of gold and silver but wood and earth some for honour and some for dishonour And a little before I do not speak rashly when I say Some are so in the house of God that they also are that very house of God which is said to be built upon a rock which is called the onely dove the fair spouse without spot or wrinkle the garden shut up a fountain sealed a pit of living water a fruitful paradise This is the house which hath received the Keys and the power of loosing and binding whosoever shall despise this house reproving and correcting him he saith let him be as an heathen and a Publican And then he proceeds to describe who are this house by the characters of sanctity S. Aug. lib. 2. câ—ntâ— Cresâ—n cap. 21. vide eund lib. â— contr Petâ— cap. ult l. â— de bapt cap. 3. l. 6. c. 3. of charity and unity Propter malam pollutámque conscientiam damnati à Christo jam in corpore Christi non sunt quod est Ecclesia quoniam non potest Christus habere damnata membra Those who are condemned by Christ for their evil and polluted consciences are not in Christs body which is the Church for Christ hath no damned members And this besides that it is expressly taught in the Augustan Confession Mali quidem sunt in Ecclesiâ— sed non de Ecclesiâ quia mali non suâ—t de regnâ—â— ei sed de regn Diaboli Vide etiam Gregor M. lib. 28. Moral c 9. it is also the Doctrine of divers Roman Doctors that wicked men are not true members of the body of the Church but equivocally So Alexander of Hales Hugo and Aquinas as they are quoted by Turrecremata so Petrus à Soto Melchior Canus Lib. 1. cap. 57. apud B. ll l. 3. cap. 9. De Ecclesiâ milâ—tante and others as Bellarmine himself confesses so that if it be said that evil men are in the Church it is true but they are not of the Church as S. John's expression is for if they had been of us they would have tarried with us which words seem to be of the same sense with those Fathers who affirm the Church to be The number of the predestinate whom God loves to the end But however the wicked are onely in the body of the Church Tract 3. in Epist. Johan Bellar. ubi suprà Sect. Idem Augustinus as peccant humours and excrements and hair and putrefaction so said S. Austin as Bellarmine quotes him and the same thing in almost the same words is set down by * Coster ap logpro parte 3â— Enchirid. c. 12. Sect. Qui non Coster the Jesuit and when Bellarmine attempts to answer this saying of S. Austin he says he means that the wicked are not in the Church in the same manner as the godly are that is not as living members which though it be put in the place of an Answer to amuse the young fellows that are captivated with the admirable method of Ob. and Sol. yet it plainly confesses the point in question viz. that the wicked are not members of Christs body and if they be not then to them belong not the Privileges and Promises which God gave and promised to his Church for they were given for the sake of the Saints onely Ibid. Sect. Respondeo Augustiâ—um saith S. Austin and Bellarmine confesses it But I need not be digging the Cisterns for this truth Christ himself hath taught it to us very plainly Joh. 15. 14. Joh. 14. 21. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you not upon any other terms and I hope none but friends are parts of Christs mystical body members of the Church whereof he is head and the onely condition of this ver 15. is if we do whatsoever Christ commands us And that this very blessing and promise of knowing and understanding the will of God appertains onely to the godly Christ declares in the very next words Henceforth I call you not servants for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth but I have called you friends for all things I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you So that being the friends of God is the onely way to know the will of God None are infallible but they that are holy and they shall certainly be directed by Christ and the Spirit of Christ. Joh. 7 17. If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of my self said our Blessed Lord. And S. John 1 Joh. 2. 27. said Ye have received the unction from above and that anointing teacheth you all things The Spirit of God is the great teacher of all truth to the Church but they that grieve the holy Spirit of God they that quench the Spirit they that defile his Temple from these men he will surely depart That he shall abide with men unto the end of the world is a promise not belonging to them but to them that keep his Commandments The external parts of Religion may be ministred by wicked persons and by wicked persons may be received but the secrets of the Kingdom the spiritual excellencies of the Gospel that is truth and holiness a saving and an unreprovable faith and an indefectible love to be United to Christ and to be members of his body these are the portions of Saints not of wicked persons whether Clergy or Laity The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom Prov. 10. 31. and the lips of the righteous know what is acceptable said
things we cannot certainly know that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church how shall the poor Roman Catholick be at rest in his inquiry Here is in all this nothing but uncertainty of truth or certainty of error And what is needful to be added more I might tire my self and my Reader if I should enumerate all that were very considerable in this inquiry I shall not therefore insist upon their uncertainties in their great and considerable Questions about the number of the Sacraments which to be Seven is with them an Article of Faith and yet since there is not amongst them any authentick definition of a Sacrament and it is not nor cannot be a matter of Faith to tell what is the form of a Sacrament therefore it is impossible it should be a matter of Faith to tell how many they are for in this case they cannot tell the number unless they know for what reason they are to be accounted so The Fathers and School-men differ greatly in the definition of a Sacrament and consequently in the numbring of them S. Cyprian and S. Bernard reckon washing the Disciples feet to be a Sacrament and S. Austin called omnem ritunt cultus Divini a Sacrament and otherwhile he says there are but two and the Schoolmen dispute whether or no a Sacrament can be defin'd And by the Council of Trent Clandestine Marriages are said to be a Sacrament and yet that the Church always detested them which indeed might very well be for the blessed Eucharist is a Sacrament but yet private Masses and Communions the Ancient Church always did detest except in the cases of necessity But then when at Trent they declar'd them to be Nullities it would be very hard to prove them to be Sacraments All the whole affair in their Sacrament of Order is a body of contingent propositions They cannot agree where the Apostles receiv'd their several Orders by what form of words and whether at one time or by parts and in the Institution of the Lord's Supper the same words by which some of them say they were made Priests they generally expound them to signifie a duty of the Laity as well as the Clergy Hoc facite which signifies one thing to the Priest and another to the People and yet there is no mark of difference They cannot agree where or by whom extreme Unction was instituted They cannot tell whether any Wafer be actually transubstantiated because they never can know by Divine Faith whether the supposed Priest be a real Priest or had right intention and yet they certainly do worship it in the midst of all Uncertainties But I will add nothing more but this what Wonder is it if all things in the Church of Rome be Uncertain when they cannot dare not trust their reason or their senses in the wonderful invention of Transubstantiation and when many of their wisest Doctors profess that their pretended infallibility does finally rely upon prudential motives I conclude this therefore with the words of S. Austin Remotis ergo omnibus talibus De Vnit. Eccles cap. 16. c. All things therefore being remov'd let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the Sermons and Rumors of the Africans Romans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the Letters of any disputers not in signs and deceitful Miracles because against these things we are warned and prepar'd by the word of the Lord But in the praescript of the Law of the Prophets of the Psalms of the Evangelists and all the Canonical authorities of the Holy Books And that 's my next undertaking to show the firmness of the foundation and the Great Principle of the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland even the Holy Scriptures SECTION II. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the great foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion THis question is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England and therefore it supposes that it is amongst them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God and that they are so is deliver'd to us by the current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity and they who thus are first lead into this belief find upon trial great after-proofs by arguments both external and internal and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth that they are Gods Word an adhesion I say so perfect as excludes all manner of practical doubting Now then amongst us so perswaded the Question is Whether or no the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of our faith and contain in them all things necessary to salvation or Is there any other word of God besides the Scriptures which delivers any points of faith or doctrines of life necessary to salvation This was the state of the Question till yesterday And although the Church of Rome affirm'd Tradition to be a part of the object of faith and that without the addition of doctrine and practises deliver'd by tradition the Scriptures were not a perfect rule but together with tradition they are yet now two or three Gentlemen have got upon the Coach-wheel and have raised a cloud of dust enough to put out the eyes even of their own party Vid. hist. â—oncil Trident. sub Paul 3. A. D. 1546. making them not to see what till now all their Seers told them and Tradition is not onely a suppletory to the deficiencies of Scripture but it is now the onely record of faith But because this is too bold and impossible an attempt and hath lately been sufficiently reprov'd by some learned persons of our Church I shall therefore not trouble my self with such a frontless errour and illusion but speak that truth which by justifying the Scripture's fulness and perfection will overthrow the doctrine of the Roman Church denying it and ex abundanti cast down this new mud-wall thrown into a dirty heap by M. W. and his under-dawber M. S. who with great pleasure behold and wonder at their own work and call it a Marble Building 1. That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners a full and perfect Declaration of the will of God is therefore certain because we have no other For if we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the Scriptures to be the word of God the same grounds prove that nothing else is These indeed have a Testimony that is credible as any thing that makes faith to men The universal testimony of all Christians In respect of which S. Austin said Evangelio non crederem c. I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church that is of the universal Church did not move me The Apostles at first own'd these Writings the Churches receiv'd them they transmitted them to their posterity they grounded their faith upon them they proved their propositions by them by them
the word Internal every new thing shall pass for the word of God so it shall do also under the Roman pretence For not he that makes a Law but he that expounds the Law gives the final measures of Good or Evil. It follows from hence that nothing but the Scripture's sufficiencie can be a sufficient limit to the inundation of evils which may enter from these parties relying upon the same false Principle My Last argugument is from Tradition it self For 7. If we enquire upon what grounds the primitive Church did rely for their whole Religion we shall find they knew none else but the Scriptures Vbi Scriptum was their first inquiry Do the Prophets and the Apostles the Evangelists or the Epistles say so Read it there and then teach it else reject it they call upon their Charges in the words of Christ Search the Scriptures they affirm that the Scriptures are full that they are a perfect Rule that they contain all things necessary to salvation and from hence they confuted all Heresies This I shall clearly prove by abundant testimonies Of which though many of them have been already observ'd by very many learned persons yet because I have added others not so noted and have collected with diligence and care and have rescued them from Elusory answers I have therefore chosen to represent them together hoping they may be of more usefulness than trouble because I have here made a trial whether the Church of Rome be in good earnest or no when she pretends to follow Tradition or how it is that she expects a tradition shall be prov'd For this Doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency I now shall prove by a full tradition therefore if she believes Tradition let her acknowledge this tradition which is so fully prov'd and if this do not amount to a full probation then it is but reasonable to expect from them that they never obtrude upon us any thing for tradition or any tradition for necessary to be believed till they have proved it such by proofs more and more clear than this Essay concerning the sufficiency and perfection of the Divine Scriptures I begin with S. Irenaeus * Rectissimè quidem scientes quia Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt quippe à verbo Dei Spiritu ejus dictae lib. 2. cap. 47. We know that the Scriptures are perfect for they are spoken by the word of God and by his Spirit Therefore * Lib. 4. c. 66. Legite diligentius id quod ab Apostolis est Evangelium nobis datum legite diligentius Prophetas invenietis Vniversam actionem omnem doctrinam Domini nostri praedicatam in ipsis read diligently the Gospel given unto us by the Apostles and read diligently the Prophets and you shall find every action and the whole doctrine and the whole passion of our Lord preached in them And indeed we have receiv'd the Oeconomy of our salvation by no other but by those by whom the Gospel came to us which truly they then preached but afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures which was to be the pillar and ground to our Faith These are the words of this Saint who was one of the most ancient Fathers of the Church a Greek by birth by his dignity and imployment a Bishop in France and so most likely to know the sense and rule of the Eastern and Western Churches Next to S. Irenaeus Strom. lib. 7. P. 757 edit Parâ—s 1629. we have the Doctrine of S. Clemens of Alexandria in these words He hath lost the being a man of God and of being faithful to the Lord who hath kicked against Tradition Ecclesiastical and hath turned to the opinions of humane Heresies What is this Tradition Ecclesiastical and where is it to be found That follows But he who returning out of Error obeys the Scriptures and hath permitted his life to truth he is of a Man in a manner made a God For the Lord is the principle of our Doctrine who by the Prophets and the Gospel and the blessed Apostles at sundry times and in divers manners leads us from the beginning to the end He that is faithful of himself is worthy of faith in the Voice and Scripture of the Lord which is usually exercis'd through the Lord to the benefit of men for this Scripture we use for the finding out of things this we use as the rule of judging But if it be not enough to speak our opinions absolutely but that we must prove what we say we expect no testimony that is given by men but by the voice of the Lord we prove the Question and this is more worthy of belief than any demonstration or rather it is the only demonstration by which knowledge they who have tasted of the Scriptures alone are faithful Afterwards he tells how the Scriptures are a perfect demonstration of the Faith Perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves concerning themselves we speak or perswade demonstratively of the Faith Although even they that go after Heresies do dare to use the Scriptures of the Prophets But first they use not all neither them that are perfect nor as the whole body and contexture of the Prophecy does dictate but choosing out those things which are spoken ambiguously they draw them to their own opinion Then he tells how we shall best use and understand the Scriptures Let every one consider what is agreeable to the Almighty Lord God and what becomes him and in that let him confirm every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures out of those and the like Scriptures And he adds that It is the guise of Hereticks when they are overcome by shewing that they oppose Scriptures Yet still they chuse to follow that which to them seems evident rather than that which is spoken of the Lord by the Prophets and by the Gospel and what is prov'd and confirm'd by the testimony of the Apostles and at last concludes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 755. they become impious because they believe not the Scriptures and a little before this he asks the Hereticks Will they deny or will they grant there is any demonstration I suppose they will all grant there is except those who also deny that there are senses But if there be any demonstration it is necessary to descend to Questions and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Scriptures themselves to learn demonstratively how the Heresies are fallen and on the contrary how the most perfect knowledge is in the truth and the ancient Church But again they that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 untill they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves And after this adds his advice to Christians To wax old in the Scriptures and thence to seek for demonstrations These things he spoke not only by way of
Scriptures not because of the difficulty of things to be inquir'd but because without such testimony they are not to be believ'd For so are his very words and therefore whether they be easie or hard if they be not in Scripture the Questions will be indeterminable That is the sense of Origen ' s argument In Epist. ad Rom. lib 3. But more plainly yet After these things as his custom is he will affirm or prove from the holy Scriptures what he had said and also gives an example to the Doctors of the Church that those things which they speak to the people they should prove them not as produc'd by their own sentences but defended by divine testimonies for if he so great and such an Apostle believes not that the authority of his saying can be sufficient unless he teaches that those things which he says are written in the Law and the Prophets how much rather ought we who are the least observe this thing that we do not when we teach produce our own but the sentences of the Holy Ghost Add to this what he says in another place Tract 23. in Matth. As our Saviour impos'd silence upon the Sadduces by the word of his Doctrine and faithfully convinc'd that false opinion which they thought to be truth so also shall the followers of Christ do by the examples of Scripture by which according to sound Doctrine every voice of Pharaoh ought to be silent The next in order is S. Cyprian who indeed speaks for tradition not meaning the modus tradendi but the doctrina tradita for it is such a tradition as is in Scripture the doctrine deliver'd first by word of mouth and then consigned in Scripture Epist. ad Pompeium Let nothing be innovated but that is deliver'd Whence is that tradition whether descending from the Lord's and from the Evangelical authority or coming from the Commandments and Epistles of the Apostles For that those things are to be done which are written God witnesses and propounds to Jesus Nave saying The Book of this Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate in it day and night that thou maist observe to do all things which are written Our Lord also sending his Apostles commands the nations to be baptized and taught that they may observe all things whatsoever he hath commanded If therefore it be either commanded in the Gospel or in the Epistles of the Apostles that they that come from any Heresie should not be baptiz'd but that hands should be imposed upon them unto repentance then let even this holy tradition be observ'd This Doctrine and Counsel of S. Cyprian lib. 4. de Bapt. contra Donatist cap. 3. c. 5. Bellarmine says was one of the Errors of S. Cyprian but S. Austin commends it as the best way And this procedure is also the same that the Church in the descending ages always followed of which there can in the world be no plainer testimony given than in the words of S. Cyril of Jerusalem and it was in the High Questions of the Holy and mysterious Trinity Catech. â— 5. 12. 16. 18. Illuminat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. 4. Illuminat concerning which he advises them to retain that zeal in their minds which by heads and summaries is expounded to you but if God grant shall according to my strength be demonstrated to you by Scripture a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it behooveth us not to deliver no not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of Faith without the holy Scriptures Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith not which is from our inventions but from the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures To the same purpose in the Dissuasive was produced the Testimony of S. Basil S. Basil. moral but the words which were not there set down at large Reg. 8. c. 12. edit Paris 1547. ex officinâ Carol â—uillard are these What 's proper for the faithful man That with a certain fulness of mind he believes the force of those things to be true which are spoken in the Scripture and that he rejects nothing and that he dares not to decree any thing that is new For whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin but Faith is by hearing Vide etiam Epist. 80. Stemus itaque arbitratui à Deo inspiratae Scripturae Questio erat an dicendum in Deo tres hypostases vnam naturam apud Bellar. de verbo Dei non scripio lib. 4. cap. 11. Sect. Alium locum and hearing by the word of God without doubt since whatsoever is without the Scripture is not of Faith Vide etiam Reg. 72. c. 1. cum tiâ—ulo praefixo capiti it is a Sin These words are so plain as no Paraphrase is needful to illustrate them to which may be added those fiercer words of the same Saint It is a manifest defection from the Faith and a conviction of Pride Homil. de vera fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. either to reject any thing of what is written or to introduce any thing that is not since our Lord Jesus Christ hath said My sheep hear my voice and a little before he said the same thing A stranger they will not follow but will fly from him because they know not the voice of strangers By which words S. Basil plainly declares that the whole voice and words of Christ are set down in Scripture and that all things else is the voice of strangers And therefore the Apostle does most vehemently forbid by an example taken from men lest any thing of those which are in Scripture be taken away or which God forbid any thing be added To these words Bellarmine and his followers that write against the Dissuasive answer that S. Basil speaks against adding to the Scripture things contrary to it and things so strange from it as to be invented out of their own head and that he also speaks of certain particular Heresies 〈◊〉 in the Prâ—face 2. Which endeavour to escape from the pressure of these words is therefore very vain because S. Basil was not then disputing against any particular Heresies as teaching any thing against Scripture or of their own head but he was about to describe the whole Christian Faith And that he may do this with faithfulness and simplicity and without reproof he declares he will do it from the holy Scriptures for it is infidelity and pride to do otherwise and therefore what is not in the Scriptures if it be added to the faith it is contrary to it as contrary as unfaithfulness or infidelity and what soever is not deliver'd by the Spirit of God is an invention of man if offer'd as a part of the Christian Faith And therefore Bellarmine and and his followers make here a distinction where there is no
difference S. Basil here declar'd that as formerly he had it always fixt in mind to fly every voice every sentence which is a stranger to the doctrine of the Lord so now also at this time Ibidem in seqâ—entibus viz. when he was to set down the whole Christian Faith Neither can there be hence any escaping by saying * Truth will out pag. 3. that nothing indeed is to be added to the Scriptures but yet to the faith something is to be reckoned which is not in Scripture For although the Church of Rome does that also putting more into the Canon than was among the Jews acknowledged or by the Primitive Church of Christians yet besides this S. Basil having having said Vbi supra Whatsoever is not in the Scriptures is not of faith and therefore it is a sin he says also by certain consequence That to add to the Scriptures is all one as to add to the Faith And therefore he exhorts even the Novices to study the Scriptures In Regul brev reg 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to his 95th question Whether it be fit for Novices presently to learn the things of the Scripture he answers It is right and it is necessary that those things which appertain to use every one should learn from the Scriptures both for the replenishing of their mind with piety as also that they may not be accustomed to humane traditions By which words he not onely declares that by the Scriptures our minds are abundantly fill'd with piety but that humane traditions by which he means every thing that is not contain'd in Scripture are not to be receiv'd but ought to be and are best of all banish'd from our minds by entertaining of Scripture To the same purpose are his words in his Ethicks Moral Regul 26. Whatsoever we say or do ought to be confirm'd by the testimony of Divinity inspired by Scriptures both for the full persuasion of the good and the confusion or damnation of evil things There 's your rule that 's the ground of all true faith And therefore S. Athanasius speaking concerning the Nicene Council Epist. ad Epicteâ—um Corinthiorum Episc. made no scruple that the question was sufficiently determin'd concerning the proper Divinity of the Son of God because it was determin'd and the faith was expounded according to the Scriptures and affirms that the faith so determin'd was sufficient for the reproof of all impiety meaning in the Article of Christ's Divinity and for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in Christ. De Incarnat Nay he affirms that the Catholick Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Which words I the rather remark Idem Athanas. in Exhort ad Monachos because this Article of the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father is brought as an instance by the Romanists of the necessity of tradition to make up the insufficiency of Scripture But not in this onely but for the preaching of the truth indefinitely Moral contra Gentiles in 〈◊〉 that is the whole truth of the Gospel he affirms the Scriptures to be sufficient For writing to Macarius a Priest of Alexandria he tells him that the knowledge of true and divine religion and piety does not much need the ministery of man and that he might abundantly draw this forth from the divine books and letters for truly the holy and divinely-inspir'd Scriptures are sufficient for the preaching of the truth Coloniae ex officâ—â— Melcâ—â—â—â—â— Novefiani 1548. ad omnem instructionem veritatis so the Latine Translation for the whole instruction of truth or the instruction of all truth But because Macarius desir'd rather to hear others teach him this doctrine and true religion than himself to draw it from Scripture S. Athanasius tells him that there are many written monuments of the Holy Fathers and our masters which if men will diligently read over he shall learn the interpretation of Scriptures and obtain that notion of truth which he desires Which is perfectly the same advice which the Church of England commands her Sons that they shall teach nothing but what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church draw forth from Scriptures The same principal doctrine in the whole is taught frequently by S. Chrysostom Homil. 58. 〈◊〉 Johan who compares the Scriptures to a Door which is shut to hinder the hereticks from entring in and introduce us to God and to the knowledge of God This surely is sufficient if it does this it does all that we need and if it does not S. Chrysostom was greatly deceiv'd and so are we and so were all the Church of God in all the first ages But he is constant in the same affirmative Homil 9. in 2 Timoth. If there be need to learn or to be ignorant thence we shall learn it Idem in Psal. 95. versus finem if to confute or argue that which is false thence we shall draw it if to be corrected or chastis'd to exhortation if any thing be wanting for our comfort and that we ought to have it nevertheless from thence from the Scriptures we learn it That the man be perfect therefore without it he cannot be perfected In stead of me he saith thou hast the Scriptures if thou desirest to learn any thing hence thou mayest But if he writes these things to Timothy who was fill'd with the holy Spirit how much more must we think these things spoken to us To the same purpose he discourses largely in his eighth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews Homil. 9. in Coloss. in 2 Thess. 2. which is here too long to transcribe Let no man look for another master Homil. 49. in Matth. 23. oper imperfecti Thou hast the Oracles of God No man teaches thee like to them Because ever since heresie did infest those Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who would know the truth of faith but that of the Divine Scripture but now by no means is it known by them who would know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures De verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Sextò profert Bellarmine very learnedly sayes that these words were put into this book by the Arians but because he offers at no pretence of reason for any such interpolation and it being without cause to suspect it though the Author of it had been an Arian because the Arians were never noted to differ from the Church in the point of the Scriptures sufficiency I look upon this as a pitiful shift of a man that resolved to say any thing rather than confess his errour And at last he concludes with many words to the same purpose Our Lord therefore knowing what confusion of things would be in the
is the end of writing the Gospel as having life through Christ is the end of this belief Rom. 10 8. and all this is more fully explicated by S. Paul's Creed Mâ—tth 10. 32. This is the word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Marc. 8. 38. and shalt believe in thine heart Luc. 9. 26. 12. 8. that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved 2 Tim. 2. 12. This is the word of faith Apocal. 3. 5. which if we confess with our mouths and entertain and believe in our heart that is do live according to it we shall certainly be sav'd If we acknowledge Christ to be our Lord that is our Law-giver and our Saviour to rescue us from our sins and their just consequents we have all faith and nothing else can be the foundation but such Articles which are the confession of those two truths Christ Jesus our Lord Christ Jesus our Saviour that by Faith we be brought unto Obedience and Love by this love we be brought to Christ and by Christ unto God this is the whole complexion of the Christian faith the Oeconomy of our salvation There are many other doctrines of Christianity of admirable use and fitted to great purposes of knowledge and Government Rom. 10. 8. but the word of faith as S. Paul calls it that which the Apostles preach'd viz. to all and as of particular remark and universal efficacy and absolute sufficiency to salvation is that which is describ'd by himself in those few words now quoted Other foundation than this no man can lay that is Jesus Christ. Every thing else is but a superstructure and though it may if it be good be of advantage yet if it be amiss so the foundation be kept it will only be matter of loss and detriment but consistent with salvation And therefore S. Paul judged that he would know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified And this is the summe total of all This is the Gospel so S. Paul most fully I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you which also ye have received and wherein ye stand by which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you unless ye have believed in vain And what is this Gospel this word preach'd and received that by which we stand and that by which we are sav'd It is nothing but this I deliver'd unto you first of all that which I receiv'd how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures This was the traditum the depositum this was the Evangelium Christ died he died for our sins and he rose again for us and this being the great Tradition by which they tried the Spirits yet was it laid up in Scriptures 1 Cor. 3. 11. That Christ died was according to the Scriptures that he rose again was according to the Scriptures and that S. Paul twice * 1 Cor. 15. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 2. 2. and that so immediately remarks this is not without mystery but it can imply to us nothing but this that our whole faith is laid up in the Scriptures and this faith is perfected as to the essentiality of it in the Death and Resurrection of Christ as being the whole Oeconomy of our pardon and Justification And it is yet further remarkable that when S. Paul as he often does renews and repeats this Christian Creed 1 Cor. 4. 6. he calls upon us Rom. 12. 3. not to be wise above what is written and to be wise unto sobriety Which he afterwards expounding says vers 5. He that prophesies let him do it according to the proportion of Faith that is if he will enlarge himself he may and prophesie greatly but still to keep himself to the analogy of Faith not to go beyond that not to be wiser than that measure of sobriety And if we observe the three Sermons of S. Peter the Sermon of S. Philip and S. Silas Acts 2. 24. 3. 12. the Sermons of S. Paul often preached in the Synagogues they were all but this that Jesus Christ is the Son of God that he is the Lord of all Acts 8. 12. 37 38. that he is the Christ of God that God anointed him Acts 9. 20. 17. 2. 16. 31. 1â— 2. 18. 2. 31. that he was crucified and raised again from the dead and that repentance and remission of sins was to be preach'd in his name But as the Spirit of God did purpose for ever with strictness to retain the simplicity of Faith so also he was pleas'd so far to descant upon the plain ground as to make the mystery of godliness to be clearly understood by all men And therefore that we might see it necessary to believe in Jesus it was necessary we should understand he was a person to be relied upon that he was infinitely credible powerful and wise just and holy and that we might perceive it necessary and profitable to obey him it was fit we understood Why that is What good would follow him that is obedient and what evil to the refractory This was all and this indeed was the necessary appendage of the simple and pure word of Faith and this the Apostles drew into a Symbol and particular minute of Articles Now although the first was sufficient yet they knowing it was fit we should understand this simplicity with the investiture of some circumstances and yet knowing that it was not fit the simplicity of Faith should be troubled with new matter were pleased to draw the whole into a Scheme sufficient and intelligible but nothing perplex'd nothing impertinent and this the Church hath call'd the Apostles Creed which contains all that which is necessary to be inquir'd after and believ'd by an Universal and prime necessity True it is other things may become necessary by accident and collateral obligations and if we come to know what God in the abundance of his wisdom and goodness hath spoken to mankind we are bound to believe it but the case is different Many things may be necessary to be believ'd that we may acknowledge God's veracity and so also many things are necessary to be done in obedience to the empire and dictates of the conscience which oftentimes hath authority when she hath no reason and is a peremptory Judge when she is no wise Counsellour But though these things are true yet nothing is a necessary Article of Faith but that which ministers necessarily to the great designs of the Gospel that is a life conformable to God a God-like life and an imitation of of the Holy Jesus To believe and to have faith in the Evangelical sense are things very different Every man is bound to have Faith in all the proper objects of it But only some men are
Ruffinus says The Apostles being to separate and go to their several charges appointed Normam futurae praedicationis regulam dandam credentibus unanimitatis fidei suae indicium the Rule of what they were to preach to all the world the measure for believers the Index of Faith and Unity Not any speech not so much as one even of them that went before them in the faith was admitted or heard by the Church By this Creed the foldings of infidelity are loosed by this the gate of life is set open by this the glory of Confession is shewn It is short in words but great in Sacraments It confirms all men with the perfection of believing with the desire of confessing with the confidence of the Resurrection Whatsoever was prefigured in the Patriarchs whatsoever is declar'd in the Scriptures whatsoever was foretold in the Prophets of God who was not begotten Serm. 131. de tempore sive Serm. 2. de exposit Symboli ad Competenteâ— of the Son of God who is the onely begotten of God or the Holy Spirit c. Totum hoc breviter juxta oraculum propheticum Symbolum in se continet confitendo So S. Austin who also cals it The fulness of them that believe It is the rule of faith the short the certain rule which the Apostles comprehended in twelve Sentences that the believers might hold the Catholick Vnity and convince the heretical pravity The comprehension and perfection of our faith Serm. 181. de tempore Hom. 115. The short and perfect Confession of the Catholick Symbol is consigned with so many Sentences of the twelve Apostles Epist. 13. ad Pulcher. Augustum is so furnished with celestial ammunition that all the opinions of Hereticks may be cut off with that sword alone said Pope Leo. I could adde many more testimonies declaring the simplicity of the Christian faith and the fulness and sufficiency of the Apostolical Creed But I summe them up in the words of Rabanus Maurus In the Apostles Creed there are but few words Lib. 2. de institut Clericorum cap. 56. but it contains all Religion Omnia in eo continentur Sacramenta for they were summarily gathered together from the whole Scriptures by the Apostles that because many Believers cannot read or if they can yet by their secular affairs are hindred that they do not read the Scriptures retaining these in their hearts they may have enough of saving knowledge Now then since the whole Catholick Church of God in the primitive ages having not only declar'd that all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contain'd in the plain places of Scripture but that all which the Apostles knew necessary they gathered together in a Symbol or form of Confession and esteem'd the belief of this sufficient unto salvation and that they requir'd no more in credendis as of necessity to Eternal life but the simple belief of these articles these things ought to remain in their own form and order For what is and what is not necessary is either such by the Nature of the Articles themselves or by the Oeconomy of Gods Commandment and what God did command and what necessary effect every Article had the Apostles onely could tell and others from them They that pretend to a power of doing so as the Apostles did have shown their want of skill and by that confess their want of power of doing that which to do is beyond their skill For which sins are venial and which are mortal all the Doctors of the Church of Rome cannot tell and how then can they tell this of Errors when they cannot tell it of Actions But if any man will search into the harder things or any more secret Sacrament of Religion by that means to raise up his mind to the contemplation of heavenly things and to a contempt of things below he may do it if he please so that he do not impose the belief of his own speculations upon others or compel them to confess what they know not and what they cannot find in Scriptures or did not receive from the Apostles We find by experience that a long act of Parliament or an Indenture and Covenant that is of great length ends none but causes many contentions and when many things are defin'd and definitions spun out into declarations men believe less and know nothing more And what is Man that he who knows so little of his own body of the things done privately in his own house of the nature of the meat he eates nay that knows so little of his own Heart and is so great a stranger to the secret courses of Nature I say what is man that in the things of God he should be asham'd to say This is a secret This God onely knows S. Athanas. ep ad Serapion This he hath not reveal'd This I admire but I understand not I believe but I understand it to be a mystery And cannot a man enjoy the gift which God gives and do what he commands but he must dispute the Philosophy of the gift or the Metaphysicks of a Command Cannot a man eat Oysters unless he wrangle about the number of the senses which that poor animal hath and will not condited Mushromes be swallowed down unless you first tell whether they differ specifically from a spunge S. Basil. de Spir. S. c. 13. Is it not enough for me to believe the words of Christ saying This is my body and cannot I take it thankfully and believe it heartily and confess it joyfully but I must pry into the secret and examine it by the rules of Aristotle and Porphyry and find out the nature and the undiscernable philosophy of the manner of its change and torment my own brains and distract my heart and torment my Brethren and lose my charity and hazard the loss of all the benefits intended to me by the Holy Body because I break those few words into more questions than the holy bread is into particles to be eaten Is it not enough that I believe that whether we live or die we are the Lord's in case we serve him faithfully but we must descend into hell and inquire after the secrets of the dead and dream of the circumstances of the state of separation and damn our Brethren if they will not allow us and themselves to be half damn'd in Purgatory Is it not enough that we are Christians that is that we put all our hope in God who freely giveth us all things by his Son Jesus Christ that we are redeemed by his death that he rose again for our justification that we are made members of his body in Baptism that he gives us of his Spirit that being dead to the lusts of this world we should live according to his doctrine and example that is that we do no evil that we do what good we can that we love God and love our Brother that we suffer patiently and do good things in expectation of better even of
The Question is made What is meant by it They that have a mind to it understand it easily enough it was a declaration of the coming of the Messias into the world the great proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Shiloh or he that was to come For whereas the Jews were the Inclosure and peculiar people of God at the comming of the Messias it should be so no more but the Gentiles being called and the sound of the Gospel going into all the world it was no more the Church of the Jews but Ecclesia totius mundi the Church of the Universe the Universal or Catholick Church of Jews and Gentiles of all people and all Languages Now this great and glorious mystery we confess in this Article that is we confess that God hath given to his Son the Heathen for an Inheritance and the utmost parts of the world for a possession that God is no respecter of persons Acts 10. 35. but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him This is the plain sense of the Article and renders the Article also highly considerable and represents it as Fundamental and it is agreeable with the very Oeconomy of the Gospel and determines one of the greatest questions that ever were in the world the dispute between the Jews and Gentiles and is not only easie and intelligible but greatly for Edification Now then let us see how the Church of Rome by her Head and Members expound or declare this Article I believe the Holy Catholick Church so it is in the Apostles Creed I believe one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church so the Nicene Creed Here is no difference and no Commentary but the same thing with the addition of one word to the same sense onely it includes also the first Founders of this Catholick Church as if it had been said I believe that the Church of Christ is disseminated over the world and not limited to the Jewish pale and that this Church was founded by the Apostles upon the rock Christ Jesus But the Church of Rome hath handled this Article after another manner she hath explain'd it so clearly that no wise man can believe it she hath declar'd the Article so as to make it a new one and made an addition to it that destroys the principal Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiarum Matrem Magistram agnosco I acknowledge the holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches And at the end of this declaration of the Creed it is added as at the end of the Athanasian This is the true Catholick faith without which no man can be saved And this is the Creed of Pope Pius the fourth enjoyn'd to be sworn by all Ecclesiasticks secular or Religious Now let it be considered Whether this Declaration be not a new Article and not onely so but a destruction to the old 1. The Apostolical Creed professes to believe the Catholick or Universal Church The Pope limits it and calls it the Catholick Roman Church that by all he means some and the Vniversal means but particular But besides this 2. It is certain this must be a piece of a new Creed since it is plain the Apostles did no more intend the Roman Church should be comprehended under the Catholick Church than as every other Church which was then or should be after And why Roman should be put in and not the Ephesine the Caesarean or the Hierosolymitan it is not to be imagined 3. This must needs be a new Article because the full sense and mystery of the old Article was perfect and complete before the Roman Church was in being I believe the holy Catholick Church was an Article of faith before there was any Roman Church at all 4. The interposing the Roman into the Creed as equal and of the extent with the Catholick is not onely a false but a malicious addition For they having perpetually in their mouths That out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation and now against the truth simplicity interest and design of the Apostolical Creed having made the Roman and Catholick to be all one they have also establish'd this doctrine as virtual part of the Creed that out of the Communion of the Church of Rome there is no Salvation to be hoped for and so by this means damn all the Christians of the world who are not of their Communion and that is the far biggest part of the Catholick Church 5. How intolerable a thing it is to put the word Roman to expound Catholick in the Creed when it is confess'd among * Driedo de dogmat Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. p. 3. themselves that it is not of faith that the Apostolick Church cannot be separated from the Roman and * Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. Sect. At secundum Bellarmine proves this because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition that affirms it and then if ever they be separated and the Apostolick be remov'd to Constantinople then the Creed must be chang'd again and it must run thus I believe the holy Catholick and Apostolick Constantinopolitan Church 6. There is in this declaration of the Apostolical Creed a manifest untruth decreed enjoyn'd profess'd and commanded to be sworn to and that is that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches when it is confessed that S. Peter sate Bishop at Antioch seven years before his pretended coming to Rome and that Hierusalem is the Mother of all Churches For the Law went forth out of Sion and the Word of the Lord from Hierusalem Apud Baron AD. 382. n 15. and therefore the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople in the Consecration of S. Cyril said Vide etiam S. Basil tom 2. ep 30. Greg. Theol. We shew unto you Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem which is the Mother of all other Churches The like is said of the Church of Cesarea with an exception onely of Jerusalem quae prope mater omnium Ecclesiarum fuit ab initio nune quoque est nominatur quam Christiana respublica velut centrum suum circulus undique observat How this saying of S. Gregory the Divine can consist with the new Roman Creed I leave it to the Roman Doctors to consider In the mean time it is impossible that it should be true that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches not onely because it is not imaginable she could beget her own Grand-mother but for another pretty reason which Bellarmine hath invented Though the Ancients every where call the Roman Church the Mother of all Churches Lib. 1. de Rom. and that all Bishops had their Consecration and Dignity from her Pontif. c. 23. Sect. Secunda ratio yet this seems not to be true but in that sense because Peter was Bishop of Rome he ordain'd all the Apostles and all other Bishops by himself or by others Otherwise since
all the Apostles constituted very many Bishops in divers places if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter certainly the greatest part of Bishops will not deduce their original from Peter This is Bellarmine's argument by which he hath perfectly overthrown that clause of Pius quartus his Creed that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches He confesses she is not unless S. Peter did consecrate all the Apostles he might have added No nor then neither unless Peter had made the Apostles to be Bishops after himself was Bishop of Rome for what is that to the Roman Church if he did this before he was the Roman Bishop But then that Peter made all the Apostles Bishops is so ridiculous a dream that in the world nothing is more unwarrantable For besides that S. Paul was consecrated by none but Christ himself it is certain that he ordain'd Timothy and Titus and that the succession in those Churches ran from the same Original in the same Line and there is no Record in Scripture that ever S. Peter ordain'd any not any one of the Apostles who receiv'd their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit in the same times altogether which thing is also affirm'd by a Institut moral part 2 l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Altera opinio Azorius and b De tripl virt Theolog. disp 10. Sect. 1. n. 5. 7. Suarez who also quotes for it the Authority of S. c Quaest. Vet. N. Test. q. 97. Austin and the Gloss. So that from first to last it appears that the Roman Church is not the Mother-Church and yet every Priest is sworn to live and die in the belief of it that she is However it is plain that this assumentum and shred of the Roman Creed is such a declaration of the old Article of believing the Catholick Church that it is not onely a direct new Article of faith but destroys the old By thus handling the Creed of the Catholick Church we shall best understand what they mean when they affirm that the Pope can interpret Scripture authoritativè and he can make Scripture Ad quem pertinet sacram Scripturam authoritativè interpretari Ejus enim est interpretari cujus est condere He that can make Scripture can make new Articles of faith surely Much to the same Purpose are the words of Pope Innocent the fourth Innocent 4. in cap. super eo de Bigamis He cannot onely interpret the Gospel but adde to it Indeed if he have power to expound it authoritativè that is as good as making it for by that means he can adde to it or take from the sense of it But that the Pope can do this that is can interpret the Scriptures authoritativè sententialitèr obligatoriè so as it is not lawful to hold the contrary is affirm'd by Augustinus Triumphus a Qu. 67. a. 2. Turrecremata b Lib. 2. c. 107. and Hervey c De potestate Papae And Cardinal Hosius d De expresso Dei verbo in Epilogo goes beyond this saying That although the words of the Scripture be not open yet being uttered in the sense of the Church they are the express words of God but uttered in any other sense are not the express word of God but rather of the Devil To these I only adde what we are taught by another Cardinal who perswading the Bohemians to accept the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind tells them and it is that I said before If the Church Card. Cusan Epâ—st 2. ad Bâ—hâ—mâ—s de usu Communionis p. 833. viz. of Rome for that is with them the Catholick Church or if the Pope that is the Virtual Church do expound any Evangelical sense contrary to what the current sense and practice of the Catholick Primitive Church did not that but this present interpretation must be taken for the way of Salvation For God changes his judgement as the Church does Epist. 3. p. 838. So that it is no wonder that the Pope can make new Articles or new Scriptures or new Gospel it seems the Church of Rome can make contrary Gospel that if in the primitive Church to receive in both kindes was via salutis because it was understood then to be a precept Evangelical afterwards the way of Salvation shall be changed and the precept Evangelical must be understood To take it in one kind But this is denyed by Balduinus In 1. Decret de summa Trinitate fide Cathol n. 44. 15. dist Canones who to the Question Whether can the Pope find out new Articles of Faith say's I answer Yes But not contrary It seems the Doctors differ upon that point but that which the Cardinal of Cusa the Legat of P. Nicolas the fifth taught the Bohemians was how they should answer their objection for they said if Christ commanded one thing and the Council or the Pope or the Prelates commanded contrary they would not obey the Church but Christ. But how greatly they were mistaken the Cardinal Legat told them Epist 2. ad Bohemos p. 834. edit Basil. A. D. 1565. Possible non est Scripturam quamcunque sive ipsa praeceptum sive consilium contineat in eos qui apud Ecclesiam existunt plus auctoritatis ligandi haebere aut solvendi fideles quà m ipsa Ecclesia voluerit aut verbo aut opere expresserit and in the third Epistle he tells them The authority of the Church is to be preferr'd before the Scriptures In piorum Clypeo qu 29. artit 5. The same also is taught by Elysius Nepolitanus It matters not what the primitive Church did no nor much what the Apostolical did Pighius Hierarch l. 1. c. 2. For the Apostles indeed wrote some certain things not that they should rule our Faith and our Religion but that they should be under it that is they submit the Scriptures to the Faith nay even to the Practice of the Church For the Pope can change the Gospel said Henry the Master of the Roman Palace Ad legatos â—ohemicos sub Felice Papa A. D. 1447. vide Polan in Dan. 11. 371. and according to place and time give it another sense insomuch that if any man should not believe Christ to be the true God and man if the Pope thought so too he should not be damn'd said the Cardinal of S. Angelo And Silvester Prierias * Sylvest Prierias cont Lutherum Conclu 56. expressly affirmed that the authority of the Church of Rome and the Pope's is greater than the authority of the Scriptures These things being so notorious I wonder with what confidence Bellarmine can say That the Catholicks meaning his own parties do not subject the Scripture but preferre it before Councils and that there is no controversie in this when the contrary is so plain in the pre-alledged testimonies but because his conscience check'd him in the particular he thinks to escape with a distinction
the infallibility or the authority of the Church but upon an implicite Faith you can no more establish a building than you can number that which is not Besides this an implicite Faith in the Articles of the Church of Rome is not sense it is not Faith at all that is not explicite Faith comes by hearing and not by not hearing and the people of the Roman Church believe one proposition explicitely that is that their Church cannot erre and then indeed they are ready to believe any thing they tell them but as yet they believe nothing but the infallibility of their Guides and to call that Faith which is but a readiness or disposition to have it is like filling a man's belly with the meat he shall eat to morow night an act of Understanding antedated But when it is consider'd in it's own intrinsick nature and meaning it effects this proposition that these things are indeed no objects of that Faith by which we are to be sav'd for it is strange that men having the use of reason should hope to be sav'd by the merit of a Faith that believes nothing that knows nothing that understands nothing but that our Faith is completed in the essential notices of the Evangelical Covenant in the propositions which every Christian man and woman is bound to know and that the other propositions are but arts of Empire and devices of Government or the Scholastick confidence of Opinions something to amuse consciences and such by which the mystick persons may become more knowing and rever'd than their poor Parishioners 3. The Church of Rome determines trifles and inconsiderable propositions and adopts them into the family of faith Of this nature are many things which the Popes determine in their chairs and send them into the world as oracles What a dangerous thing would it be esteem'd to any Roman Catholick if he should dare to question Whether the Consecration of the Bread and Wine be to be done by the prayer of the Priest or by the mystick words of Hoc est corpus meum said ove the Elements For that by the force of those words said with right intention the bread is transsubstantiated Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. cap. 12. Sect. Est igitur and made the body of Christ Ecclesia Catholica magno consensu docet said Bellarmine so it is also in the Council of Florence in the Instruction of the Armenians Lib. 1. Sent. dist 8. so it is taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent so it is agreed by the Master of the Sentences and his Scholars by Gratian and the Lawyers and so it is determin'd in the law it self Cap. Cum Martha extr de celebratione Missarum And yet this is no certain thing and not so agreeable to the spirituality of the Gospel to suppose such a change made by the saying so many words And therefore although the Church does well in using all the words of Institution at the Consecration for so they are carefully recited in the Liturgies of S. James S. Clement S. Basil S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose the Anaphora of the Syrians Inter Evangelistas quae omittuntur ab uno supplentur ab alio Innocentius de offic in the Universal Canon of the Ethiopians only they do not do this so carefully in the Roman Missal but leave out words very considerable words which S. Luke and S. Paul recite viz. which is broken for you Missae l. 3. c. 17. or which is given for you and to the words of Consecration of the Chalice they add words which Christ did not speak in the Institution and Benediction yet besides this generally the Greek Fathers and divers of the Latine do expressly teach that the Consecration of the elements is made by the prayers of the Church recited by the Bishop or Priest For the Scripture tells us that Christ took the bread he blessed it and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat It is to be supposed that Christ consecrated it before he gave it to them and yet if he did all the Consecration was effected by his Benediction of it And if as the Romanists contend Christ gave the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the two Disciples at Emmaus it is certain there is no record of any other Consecration but by Christs blessing or praying over the elements It is indeed possible that something more might be done than was set down but nothing less and therefore this Consecration was not done without the Benediction and therefore Hoc est corpus meum alone cannot do it at least there is no warrant for it in Christs Example And when S. Peter in his Ministery did found and establish Churches Orationum ordinem quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur à S. Petro primò fuisse institutum said Isidore Remigius Hugo de S. Victore and Alphonsus à Castro S. Peter first instituted the order of Prayers by which the sacrifices offer'd to God were consecrated and in the Liturgy of S. James after the words of Institution are recited over the Elements there is a Prayer of Consecration O Lord make this Bread to be the body of thy Christ c. Which words although Bellarmine troubles himself to answer as Cardinal Bessarion did before him yet we shall find his answers to no purpose expounding the prayer to be onely a Confirmation or an Amen to what was done before for if that Consecration was made before that Prayer how comes S. James to call it Bread after Consecration And as weak are his other answers saying The Prayer means that God would make it so to us not in it self which although S. James hath nothing to warrant that Exposition yet it is true upon another account that is because the Bread becomes Christs body onely to us to them who communicate worthily but never to the wicked and it is not Christs body but in the using it and that worthily too And therefore his third Answer which he uses first is certainly the best and that is the answer which Bessarion makes That for ought they know the order of the words is chang'd and that the Prayer should be set before not after the words of Consecration Against which although it is sufficient to oppose that for ought they or we know the order is not chang'd for to this day and always so far as any record remains the Greeks kept the same order of the words and the Greek Fathers had their sentiment and doctrine agreeable to it And as in S. James his Liturgy so in the Missal said to be of S. Clement the same order is observed and after the words of the Institution or Declaration God is invocated to send his Holy Spirit to make the oblation to become the body and bloud of Christ. And in pursuance of this Justin Martyr calls it Apol. 2. lib. 8. cont Celsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad quorum preces
should place our hope in Man Tom. 9. operum Augâ—st Scola Parad. cap. 3. And S. Austin if at least he be the author of the Scala Paradisi says The office of baptizing the Lord granted unto many but the power and authority of remitting sins in Baptism he retained unto himself alone wherefore S. John antonomasticè discretivè by way of distinction and singularity affirms that He it is who baptizes with the holy Ghost And I shall apply this to the power of the Keys in the ministery of repentance by the words of S. Cyprian De operibus Cardâ—nalibus Christi inter Cypriani opera sed varius Arnâ—lâ—i Bonaevalleâ—sis Remissio peccatorum sive per Baptismum sive per alia Sacramenta donetur propriè Spiritûs Sancti est ipsi soli hujus efficientiae privilegium manet As therefore the Bishop or the Priest can give the holy Ghost to a repenting sinner so he can give him pardon and no otherwise that is by prayer and the ministery of the Sacraments to persons fitly disposed who also can and have received the holy Ghost without any such ministery of man as appears in S. Peter's Question What hinders these men to be baptized who have received the holy Ghost as well as we And it is done every day and every hour in the Communion of Saints in the Immissions and visitations from heaven which the Saints of God daily receive and often perceive and feel Every man is bound by the cords of his own sins which ropes and bands the Apostles can loose imitating therein their Master who said to them Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Solvunt autem eos Apostoli sermone Dei Lib. 6. Comment in Isai. cap. 14. testimoniis Scripturarum exhortatione virtutum saith S. Hierom. For the word of God which is intrusted to the Ministery of the Church is that rule and measure by which God will judge us all at the last day and therefore by the word of God we stand or fall we are bound or loosed which word when the Ministers of the Gospel dispense rightly they bind or loose and what they so bind or loose on earth God will bind and loose in heaven That is by the same measures he will judge the man by which he hath commanded his Ministers to judge them by that is they preach remission of sins to the penitent and God will make it good and they threaten eternal death to the impenitent and God will inflict it But other powers of binding and loosing than what hath been already instanc'd those words of Christ prove not And these powers and no other do we find us'd by the Apostles 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. To us saith S. Paul is committed the word of reconciliation Now then we are Embassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled to God Christ is the great Minister of Reconciliation we are his Embassadours to the people to that purpose and we are to preach to them and to exhort them to pray them and to pray for them and we also by our Ministery reconcile them and we pardon their sins for God hath set us over the people to that purpose but then it is also in that manner that God set the Priest over the leprous Lev. 13. 44. v. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The priest with pollution shall pollute them and the priest shall cleanse him that is shall declare him so And it is in the same manner that God set the Prophet Jeremy over the nations Jer. 1. 10. to root out and to pull down and to destroy to throw down to build and to plant that is by putting his word into his mouth to do all this to preach all this to promise or to threaten respectively all this The Ministers of the Gospel do pardon sins just as they save men 1 Tim. 4. 16. This doing thou shalt save thy self and them that hear thee that is by attending to and continuing in the doctrine of Christ and he that converts a sinner from the errour of his way saves a soul from death and covers a multitude of sins Jam. 5. 20. Bringing the man to repentance persuading him to turn from vanity to the living God thus he brings pardon to him and salvation And if it be said that a lay-man can do this I answer It is very well for him if he does and he can if it please God to assist him but the ordinary ministery is appointed to Bishops and Priests so that although a lay-man do it extraordinarily that can be no prejudice to the ordinary power of the Keys in the hands of the Clergy which is but a ministery of prayer of the Word and Sacraments according to the saying of their own Ferus upon this place Christ in this word shews how and to what use he at this time gave them the Holy Ghost John 20. to wit for the remission of sins neither for the Apostles themselves alone sed ut eundem Spiritum eandemque remissionem peccatorum Verbo praedicationis Sacramentis verbo annexis distribuerent And again he brings in Christ saying I therefore chuse you and I seal your hearts by the Holy Ghost unto the word of the Gospel and confirm you that going into the world ye may preach the Gospel to every Creature and that ye may distribute that very remission by the word of the Gospel and the Sacraments For the words of Christ are general and indefinite and they are comprehensive of the whole power and ministery Ecclesiastical and in those parts of it which are evident and confessed viz. preaching remission of sins and Baptism a special enumeration of our sins is neither naturally necessary nor esteemed so by custom nor made so by vertue of these words of Christ therefore it is no way necessary neither have they at all proved it so by Scripture And to this I add only what Ambrosius Pelargus a Divine of the Elector of Triers said in the Council of Trent Hist. Concil Tâ—id A. D. 155. sub Julio Teâ—â—io That the words of our Lord Quorum remiseritis were perhaps not expounded by any Father for an institution of the Sacrament of Penance and that by some they were understood of Baptism by others of any other thing by which pardon of sins is received But since there is no necessity declar'd in Scripture of confessing all our sins to a Priest no mention of sacramental penance or confession it must needs seem strange that a doctrine of which there is no Commandment in Scripture no direction for the manner of doing so difficult a work no Office or Officer describ'd to any such purpose that a doctrine I say of which in the fountains of salvation there is no spring should yet become in process of time to be the condition of salvation And yet for preaching
praying baptizing communicating we have precept upon precept and line upon line we have in Scripture three Epistles written to two Bishops in which the Episcopal Office is abundantly describ'd and excellent Canons established and the parts of their duty enumerated and yet no care taken about the Office of Father Confessor Indeed we find a pious exhortation to all spiritual persons that If any man be overtaken in a fault they should restore such a one in the spirit of meekness restore him that is to the publick peace and communion of the Church from which by his delinquency he fell and restore him also by the word of his proper Ministery to the favour of God by exhortations to him by reproving of him by praying for him and besides this we have some little limits more which the Church of Rome if they please may make good use of in this Question 1 Tim. 5. 20. such as are That they who sin should be rebuk'd before all men that others also may fear which indeed is a good warranty for publick Discipline but very little for private Confession And Saint Paul charges Timothy that he should should lay hands suddenly on no man that he be not partaker of other mens sins which is a good caution against the Roman way of absolving them that confess as soon as they have confess'd before they have made their Satisfactions The same Apostle speaks also of some that creep into houses and lead captive silly women I should have thought he had intended it against such as then abus'd Auricular Confession it being so like what they do now but that S. Paul knew nothing of these lately-introduced practices and lastly he commands every one that is to receive the Holy Communion to examine himself and so let him eat he forgot it seems to enjoyn them to go to confession to be examin'd which certainly he could never have done more opportunely than here and if it had been necessary he could never have omitted it more undecently But it seems the first Christians were admitted upon other terms by the Apostles than they are at this day by the Roman Clergy And indeed it were infinitely strange that since in the Old Testament remission of sins was given to every one that confessed to God turn'd from his evil way * Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18. that * Ezek. 18. 22. in the New Testament * Ezek. 33. 15. 16. to which liberty is a special priviledge * Isai. 30. 15. secundum and the imposed yoke of Christ infinitely more easie than the burden of the Law * LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Repentance is the very formality of the Gospel-Covenant and yet that pardon of our sins shall not be given to us Christians on so easie terms as it was to the Jews but an intolerable new burden shall be made a new condition of obtaining pardon And this will appear yet the more strange when we consider that all the Sermons of the Prophets concerning Repentance were not derivations from Moses's Law but Homilies Evangelical and went before to prepare the way of the Lord and John Baptist was the last of them and that in this matter the Sermons of the Prophets were but the Gospel antedated and in this affair there was no change but to the better and to a clearer manifestation of the Divine mercy and the sweet yoke of Christ The Disciples of Christ preach'd the same doctrine of Repentance that the Baptist did and the Baptist the same that the Prophets did and there was no difference Christ was the same in all and he that commanded his Disciples to fast to God alone in private intended that all the parts of Repentance transacted between God and our consciences should be as sufficient as that one of Fasting and that other of Prayer and it is said so in all for if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness It it is God alone that can cleanse our hearts and he that cleanses us he alone does forgive us and this is upon our confession to him his justice and faithfulness is at stake for it and therefore it supposes a promise which we often find upon our confessions made to God but it was never promised upon confession made to the Priest But now in the next place if we consider Whether this thing be reasonable to impose such a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples which upon their Fathers was not put in the Old Testament nor ever commanded in the New we shall find that although many good things might be consequent to the religious and free and prudent use of Confession yet by changing into a Doctrine of God that which at most is but a Commandment of man it will not by all the contingent good make recompence for the intolerable evils it introduces And here first I consider that many times things seem profitable to us and may minister to good ends but God judges them useless and dangerous for he judges not as we judge The worshipping of Angels and the abstaining from meats which some false Apostles introduc'd look'd well and pretended to humility and mortificatioh of the body but the Apostle approv'd them not and of the same mind was the succeeding ages of the Church who condemned the dry Diet and the ascetick Fasts of Montanus though they were pretended only for discipline but when they came to be impos'd they grew intolerable Certainly men liv'd better lives when by the discipline of the Church sinners were brought to publick stations and penance than now they do by all the advantages real or pretended from Auricular Confession and yet the Church thought fit to lay it aside and nothing is left but the shadow of it 2. This whole topick can only by a prudential consideration and can no way inferre a Divine institution for though it was as convenient before Christ as since might have had the same effects upon the publick or private good then as now yet God was not pleased to appoint it in almost forty ages and we say He hath not done it yet However let it be consider'd that there being some things which S. Paul says are not to be so much as nam'd amongst Christians it must needs look undecently that all men all women should come and make the Priests Ears a Common-shoar to empty all their filthiness and that which a modest man would blush to hear he must be us'd to and it is the greatest part of his imployment to attend to True it is that a Physician must see and handle the impurest Ulcers but it is because the Cure does not depend upon the Patient but upon the Physician who by general advertisement cannot cure the Patient unless he had an Universal medicine which the Priest hath the medicine of Repentance which can indifferently cure all sins whether the Priest know them or no.
in this affair Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a witness Haeres 75. but because I cited no words of his and my adversaries have cited them for me but imperfectly and left out the words where the argument lies I shall set them down at length 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We make mention of the just and of sinners for sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them For the just the Fathers the Patriarchs the Prophets Evangelists and Martyrs Confessors Bishops and Anachorets that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour we separate these from the rank of other men and give due worship to his Divine Majesty while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had a thousand times more righteousness than they have Now first here is mention made of all in their prayers and oblations and yet no mention made that the Church prays for one sort and only gives thanks for the other Letter pag. 10. Truth will out pag. 25. as these Gentlemen the objectors falsely pretend But here is a double separation made of the righteous departed one is from the worser sort of sinners the other from the most righteous Saviour True it is they believ'd they had more need to pray for some than for others but if they did not pray for all when they made mention of all how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death for the resurrection holiness and glorification of Christ And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints and did not pray for mercy for them too how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ So that I think the testimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent In Psal. 36. Conc. 2. To. 8. p. 120. To which greater light is given by the words of S. Austin Who is he for whom no man prays but only he who interceeds for all men viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet by the example of S. Austin who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint and the Church of Rome believes so too yet he prayed for pardon for her Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed for he could not mean any thing else and because he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed but affirm'd it to be needless to pray for them viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead or else he had said nothing against his adversary or for his own cause S. Cyril though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet is confessed to have said these words A. L p. 11. Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops and finally for all who among us have departed this life Believing it to be a very great help of the souls Mysta Catech. 5. for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful sacrifice If S. Cyril means what his words signifie then the Church did pray for departed Saints for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints but suppose that yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the militant Church yet the case is the same for they prayed for all the departed And 2. They offered the dreadful sacrifice for them all 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then went to Purgatory which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own the case is plain that prayer and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak argument to prove Purgatory Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this as he supposes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word us'd in the memorials of Saints does not alwayes signifie praying for one but it may signifie giving of thanks This is true but it is to no purpose for when ever it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we pray for such a one that must signifie to pray for and not to give thanks and that 's our present case and therefore no escape here can be made the words of S. Cyril are very plain The third allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks which is so plain evident and notorious and so confess'd even by these Gentlemen the objectors that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the letter acknowledges So it is in the Liturgy of S. James Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day make them to rest in the land of the living in thy Kingdom and the delights of Paradise Thus far this Gentleman quoted S. James and I wonder that he shall urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own allegation Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory Certainly Abraham and Moses and Elias and the Blessed Virgin did not and S. Stephen did not and the Apostles that died before this Liturgy was made did not and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox prayed that they might rest in the land of the living c. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory In the other Liturgies also the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself as the Reader may see in the letter if it be worth the reading But because he sets down what he list and makes breaches and Rabbet holes to pop in as he please I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sense and practice of the Greek Canon in this question And first for S. James his Liturgy Biblioth Sanct. 1. 6. Annot. 345 Sect. Jacob. Apostolus which being merrily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it he is pleased to call the Mass of S. James Sixtus Senensis gives this account of it James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ so that he shews they are not yet arriv'd at the place of expected blessedness But the form of the prayer is after this manner Domine Deus noster c. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day Make them to rest in the region of the living in thy Kingdom in the delights of Paradise in the bosom of Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers from whence are banished grief sorrow and sighing where the light of thy countenance is president and perpetually
shines In the Liturgy of S. Basil Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Andrea Masio ex Syriaco conversa which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria is this prayer Be mindful O Lord of them which are dead and departed out of this life and of the Orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles unto this day have clearly professed the right word of faith and namely of Ignatius Dionysius Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory Nay not only for these but they pray for the very Martyrs O Lord remember them who have resisted or stood unto blood for religion and have fed thy holy flock with righteousness and holiness Certainly this is not giving of 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 S. James expresses it And in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt attributed to S. Basil Greg. Naz. and S. 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 S. John Baptist the forerunner and Martyr S. Stephen the first Deacon and first Martyr S. 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 S. 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 Eccles. hier Cap. 7. in theoria 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 S. Gregory Naz. Naz. in fuâ—â—s Caesarii orat 10. 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 â—reated soul yet he presently prays 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 Missa latina Antiqua edit Argentinae 1557. pag. 52. 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 prays 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 S. Austin De curapto mortuis cap. 4. 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 prays for all persons that died in the Christian and Catholic faith And therefore I wonder how it should drop from S. Austins pen De verbis Apostoli Serm. 17. 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 Catholic Church I remember that when it was ask'd of Pope Innocent by the Archbishop of Lyons Sacramentarium Gregor antiquum why the prayer that was in the old Missal for the soul of Pope Leo
which might stick to him by the great noises of the Roman Doctors made upon their pretence of the Fathers being on their side yet I would not so rely upon these testimonies but that I thought fit to give some little Essay of this doctrine out of the Fathers themselves To this purpose is alleged Justin M. saying of the Eucharist that it was a figure which our Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion These were quoted not as the words but as the doctrine of that Saint and the Letter will needs suppose me to mean those words which are as I find in 259 and 260. page of the Paris edition 1615. The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread which the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion These are Justins words in that place with which I have nothing to do as I shall shew by and by But because Card. Perron intends to make advantage of them I shall wrest them first out of his hands and then give an account of the doctrine of this holy man in the present article both out of this place and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist which our Lord deliver'd us to do therefore says the Cardinal the Eucharistical bread is the truth since the Cake was the figure or the shadow To which I answer that though the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread yet so might that bread be a figure of something else Just as baptism I mean the external rite which although it self be but the outward part and is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or figure of the inward washing by the spirit of grace and represents our being buried with Christ in his death yet it is an accomplishment in some sense of those many figures by which according to the doctrine of the Fathers it was prefigured Such as in S. Peter the waters of the deluge in Tertullian were the waters of Jordan into which Naaman descended in S. Austin the waters of sprinkling These were types and to these baptism did succeed and represented the same thing which they represented and effected or exhibited the thing it did represent and therefore in this sense they prefigur'd baptism And yet that this is but a figure still we have S. Peters warrant The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh 1 Pet. 3. 21. but the answer of a good conscience towards God The waters of the floud were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a type of the waters of baptism the waters of baptism were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a type answering to a type and yet even here there is a typical representing and signifying part and beyond that there is the veritas or the thing signified by both So it is in the oblation of the Cake and the Eucharistical bread that was a type of this and this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or correspondent of that a type answering to a type a figure to a figure and both of them did and do respectively represent a thing yet more secret For as S. Austin said these and those are divers in the sign but equal in the thing signified divers in the visible species but the same in the intelligible signification those were promissive and these demonstrative or as others express it those were pronunciative and these of the Gospel are contestative A. D. 1547. So Friar Gregory of Padua noted in the Council of Trent And that this was the sense of Justin M. appears to him that considers what he says 1. He does not say the Cake is a type of the bread but the oblation of the Cake that is that whole rite of offering a Cake after the Leper was cleansed in token of thankfulness and for his legal purity was a type of the bread of the Eucharist which for the remembrance of the passion which he suffer'd for these men whose minds are purged from all perverseness Jesus Christ our Lord commanded to make or do To do what To do bread or to make bread No but to make bread to be Eucharistical to be a memorial of the Passion to represent the death of Christ so that it is not the Cake and the bread that are the type and the Antitype but the oblation of the Cake was the figure and the Celebration of Christs memorial and the Eucharist are the thing presignified and prefigur'd But then it remains that the Eucharistical bread is but the instrument of a memorial or recordation which still supposes something beyond this and by this to be figured and represented For as the Apostle says Our Fathers did eat of the same spiritual meat that is they eat Christ but they eat him in figure that is in an external symbol so do we only theirs is abolished and ours succeeds the old and shall abide for ever Nay the very words us'd by Justin M. do evince this it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is an Eucharist it is still but bread and therefore there is a body of which this is but an outward argument a vehicle a chanel and conveyance and that is the body of Christ for the Eucharistical bread is both bread and Christs body too For it is a good argument to say this is bread Eucharistical therefore this is bread and if it be bread still it must be a figure of the bread of life and this is that which I affirmed to be the sense of Justin M. The like expression to this is in his second Apology It is not common bread meaning that it is sanctified and made Eucharistical But here it may be the argument will not hold it is not common bread therefore it is bread for I remember that Cardinall Perron hath some instances against this way of arguing For the Dove that descended upon Christs head was not a common Dove and yet it follows not therefore this was a Dove The three that appeared to Abraham were not common men therefore they were men it follows not This is the sophistry of the Cardinal for the confutation of which I have so much Logic left as to prove this to be a fallacy and it will soon appear if it be reduc'd to a regular proposition This bread is not common therefore this bread is extraordinary bread A propositione tertii adjecti ad propositionem secundi adjecti valet consequentia si subjectum supponat realiter Reg. Dialect Vide Sect. 5. n. 10. Of Christs real presence and spiritual but therefore this is bread still here the Consequence is good and is so still when the subject of the proposition is something real and not in appearance only Because whatsoever is but in appearance and pretence is a Non-Ens in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits And therefore it follows not This is not a common dove therefore it is
a Dove because if this be model'd into a right proposition nihil supponit there is no subject in it for it cannot in this case be said This Dove is no common Dove but this which is like a Dove is not a common Dove and these persons which look like men are not common men And the rule for this and the reason too is Non entis nulla sunt praedicata To which also this may be added that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it the negation is not the adjective but the substantive part of the praedicate It is no common Dove where the negative term relates to the Dove not to common It is no Dove and the words not common are also aequivocal and as it can signifie extraordinary so it can signifie Natural But if the subject of the proposition be something real then the consequent is good as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan all red you may say This is no common Pigeon and your argument is still good therefore it is a Pigeon So if you take sugred bread or bread made of Indian wheat you saying this is no common bread do mean it is extraordinary or unusual but it is bread still and so if it be said this bread is Eucharistical it will follow rightly therefore this is bread For in this case the praedicate is only an infinite or Negative term but the subject is suppos'd and affirm'd And this is also more apparent if the proposition be affirmative and the terms be not infinite as it is in the present case This bread is Eucharistical I have now I suppose clear'd the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sense and the truth but his sense will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation For speaking that of the Prophet Isai Panis dabitur ei aqua ejus fidelis he hath these words It appears sufficiently That in this prophecy he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath deliver'd to us to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him for whose sake he was made passible and of the Cup which for the recordation of his bloud he delivered to them to do that is give thanks or celebrate the Eucharist These are the words of Justin Where 1. According to the first simplicity of the primitive Church he treates of this mystery according to the style of the Evangelists and S. Paul and indeed of our Blessed Lord himself commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabric of this mystery he must have said Pag. 296. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bread made his body though this also would not have done their work for them but when he says he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body the bread must needs be the sign figure and representation of that body 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it still it is wine when the Eucharist is made when the faithful have given thanks and if it be bread still we also grant it to be Christs body and then there is a figure and the thing figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sense of Iustin Martyr Oratio 2. in Pascha And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Paschal Lamb a figure of a figure of which I shall yet give an account in this Section But to make this yet more clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not receive these as common bread or common drink but as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh and for our salvation had flesh and bloud so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and bloud are nourished by change is the flesh and bloud of the incarnate Iesus Here S. Justin compares the consecration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ the thing with the thing to shew it is not common bread but bread made Christs body he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other as Cardinal Perron would fain have it believed * Sic solemâ—â— loqui ficut panis est vita corporis ita verbum Dei est vita animae Non scil eundem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connot ando sed similem analogicum effectum â—triusque nutrimenti observando for if it were so it would not only destroy an article of Christian faith but even of the Roman too for if the changes were in the same manner then either the man is Transubstantiated into God or else the bread is not Transubstantiated into Christs body but the first cannot be because it would destroy the hypostatical Union and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person but for the latter part of the Dilemma viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence and therefore the Cardinal labours to no purpose and without consideration of what may follow But now these words make very much against the Roman hypothesis and directly proves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consecrated bread that is after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body and therefore to be Christs body only spiritually and Sacramentally unless it can be two substances at the same time Christs body and bread in the Natural sense which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christs body should be Transubstantiated into our body and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread This argument relies upon the concurrent testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides Iustin Martyr Lib. 4. c. 34. lib. 5. c. 2. especially S. Irenaeus and certainly destroys the whole Roman article of Transubstantiation for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body then it is still the substance of bread for accidents do not nourish and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another But of this enough Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive but his words though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone A. L. only one of them says that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd for the first three chapters are not extant well but the words are and the last chapter is which is there quoted and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended and not omit the Cypher which I suppose he would if he had foreseen he should
have been written against by so learned an adversary But to let them agree as well as they can the words of Eusebius Demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the N. T. to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful bloud So the words are translated in the Dissuasive But the letter translates them thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful bloud as is the institute of the new Testament out of his last chapter I translated as well as I could the Greek words I have set in the Margent that every one that understands may see I did him right and indeed to do my Adversary right when he goes about to change not to mend the translation he only changes the order of the words but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it for he acknowledges the main Question viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain figns on the Table but then that I may do my self right and the question too whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him and made him to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is so far off it and hath no relation to it and not to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which it is joyn'd and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it hath a substantive of its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he repeats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements the symbols of the body and bloud But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity or an innocent perswasion But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend he hath these words fully to our purpose Lib. 5. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First our Lord and Saviour and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastick Laws by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing bloud Et lib. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again By the wine which is the symbol of his bloud he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death and believe in his bloud Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the image figure or representation of his own body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again He received not the sacrifices of bloud nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ordained we should use bread the symbol of his own body So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament S. Macarius is cited in the Dissuasive in these words Macarius homil 27. In the Church is offered bread and wine the Antitype of his flesh and bloud and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. * Pag. 22. A. L. saith Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar or an antitype his flesh and bloud Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says yet I cannot but note that they who gave him this answer may be asham'd for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer First he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted 2. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of apposition expresly against the mind of S. Macarius and against the very Grammar of his words And after all he studies to abuse his Author and yet gets no good by it himself for if it were in the words as he hath invented it or some body else for him yet it makes against him as much saying bread and wine exhibite Christs body which is indeed true though not here said by the Saint but is directly against the Roman article because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius which in the Dissuasive are translated exactly as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent There now only remains the authority of S. Austin Pag. ibid. which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England and assert to his own party I cited five places out of S. Austin to the last of which but one he gives this answer that S. Austin hath no such words in that book that is in the 10. book against Faustus the Manichee Concerning which I am to inform the Gentleman a little better These words that which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice are in the 10. book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume as the other But the following words in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee * Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsa◠veritatem reddebatur po◠ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur lib. 20. c. 21. contr Faustum Manich. All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together into a close order like a continued discourse but all of them are S. Austins words as appears in the places set down in the Margent But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed but to the words he hath nothing to say To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but only the eating it in that gross carnal and sensible manner as the Capharnaites conceiv'd To which I reply that it is true that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words and although the Roman error
difference in the Scripture or in the Primitive Church so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest yet it must by the same reason mean all there being at that time no difference known 3. It is call'd sacriledge to divide one and the same mystery meaning that to receive one without the other is to divide the body from the bloud for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out and therefore the title of the Canon is thus express'd Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacèrdos non debet accipere and that the so doing viz. by receiving one without the other cannot be without sacriledge 4. Now suppose at last that the Priests only are concern'd in this Canon yet even then also they are abundantly reprov'd because even the Priests in the Church of Rome unless they consecrate communicate but in one kind 5. It is also remarkable that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacrifice sometime only a sacrament as Friar Ant. Mondolphus said in the Council of Trent yet the arguments by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the half communion do destroy this distinction viz. that of Christs ministring to the Disciples at Emaus and S. Paul in the Ship in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds and consequently no sacrifice for there is mention made only of blessing the bread for they receiv'd that which was blessed and therefore either the consecration was imperfect or the reception was intire To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People which distinction though it be in this article nothing to the purpose yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils which my Adversaries put me often to fight with His words are these He viz. the Apostle S. Paul saith In Corinth 11. Indignum dicet esse Domino qui alitèr mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore Ideóque praemonet ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad Eucharistiam Domini quoniam futurum est judicium ut quemadmodum accedit unusquisque veddat causas in Die Domini Jesu Christi quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt corporis sanguinis Domini 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 bloud of our Lord. One of my Adversaries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be understood only of the Priest A. L. p 4. 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 Serm. 1. de eleemos but in S. Cyprian speaking to a rich Matron Locuples dives Dominicum celebrare te credis corban omnino non respicis Doest 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 Saint Paul He that eats this bread and drinks the Cup of the Lord Unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud 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 bloud 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 Disp. 5. de sacra coena and of Vossius that the Apostles represented the persons of all the faithful Christ saying to them take eate 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 Lib. de corp sang Domini cap. 15. and therefore Paschasius Radbertus who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christs incarnation so expounds the precept without any haesitation Bibite ex hoc omnes i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes Drink ye all of this as
These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God he 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 sense 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 condicibus 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. pag. 57. 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 Pag. 57. 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 adoration 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 perversely 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 repair'd 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 eolitur adoratur in parietibus deping atur 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 sense 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
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 man 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 tryannidi servientes homines Unicum illud est nulli Communicabile Dei nomen lignis lapidibusque imposuerunt 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 teste 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 imaginable 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 so should confidently say Eusebius hath nothing to this purpose viz. to condemn the picturing of God Synod 7. act 6. when his words are so famous that they are recorded in the seventh Synod and the words were occasioned by a solemn message sent to Eusebius by the sister of Constantius and wife of Licinius lately turned from being Pagan to be Christian desiring Eusebius to send her the picture of our Lord Jesus to which he answers Quia vero de quadam imagine quasi Christi scripsisti hanc volens tibi à nobis mitti quam dicis qualèm hanc quam perhibes Christi imaginem Utrum veram incommutabilem natura characteres suos portantem An istam quam propter nos suscepit servi formae schemate circumamictus Sed de forma quidem Dei nec ipse arbitror te quaerere semel ab ipso edoctam quoniam neque patrem quis novit nisi filius neque ipsum filium novit quis aliquando digne nisi solus pater qui eum genuit And a little after Quis ergo hujusmodi dignitatis gloriae vibrantes praefulgentes splendores exarare potuisset mortuis inanimatis Coloribus scripturis Umbraticis And then speaking of the glory of Christ in Mount Thabor he proceeds Ergo si tunc incarnata ejus forma tantam virtutem sortita est ab inhabitante in se Divinitate mutata quid oportet dicere cum mortalitate exutus corruptione ablutus speciem servilis formae in gloriam Domini Dei commutavit Where besides that Eusebius thinks it unlawful to make a picture of Christ and therefore consequently much more to make a picture of God he also tells Constantia he supposes she did not offer at any desire of that Well for these three of the Fathers we are well enough but for the rest the objector says that they speak only against representing God as in his own essence shape or form To this I answer that God hath no shape or form and therefore these Fathers could not speak against making images of a thing that was not and as for the images of his essence no Christian no Heathen ever pretended to it and no man or beast can be pictured so No Painter can paint an Essence And therefore although this distinction was lately made in the Roman Schools yet the Fathers knew nothing of it and the Roman Doctors can make nothing of it for the reasons now told But the Gentleman saith that some of their Church allow only and practise the picturing those forms wherein God hath appeared It is very well they do no more but I pray in what forms did God the Father ever appear or the Holy and Mysterious Trinity Or suppose they had does it follow they may be painted We saw but now out of Eusebius that it was not esteemed lawful to picture Christ though he did appear in a humane body And although it is supposed that the Holy Ghost did appear in the shape of a Dove Concil â— P. Caâ— 82. yet it is forbidden by the sixth General Council to paint Christ like a Lamb or the Holy Spirit like a Dove Add to this where did ever the Holy and Blessed Trinity appear like three faces joyned in one or like an old man with Christ crucified leaning on his breast and a Dove hovering over them and yet however the objector is pleas'd to mince the matter yet the doing this is ubique inter Catholicos recepta and that not only to be seen but to be ador'd as I prov'd a little above by testimonies of their own The next charge is concerning S. Hierom that he says no such thing which matter will soon be at an end if we see the Commentary he makes on these words of Isaiah Cui ergo similem fecisti Deum In Cap. 40. Isai. To whom do you liken God Aâ—t quam imaginem ponetis ei qui spiritus est in omnibus est ubique discurrit terram quasi pugillo continet Simulque irridet stultitiam nationum quod artifex sive Faber aerarius aut auriâ—ex aâ—t argentarius Deum sibi faciant Or what image will ye make for him who is a Spirit and is in all things and runs every where and holds the earth in his fist And he laughs at the folly of the nations that an Artist or a Brasier or a Goldsmith or a Silversmith makes a God