defiance of a new-sprung Heresie The Fathers of Nice fram'd the Gloria Patri against the Arians Saint Austin compos'd a Hymn against the Donatists Saint Hierome added the sicut erat in principio against the Macedonians Saint Ambrose fram'd the Te Deum upon occasion of St. Austins Baptism but took care to make the Hymn to be of most solemn adoration and yet of prudent institution and publick Confession that according to the advice of St. Paul we might sing with grace in our hearts to the Lord and at the same time teach and admonish one another too Now this cannot be done but in set forms of prayer for in new devotions and uncertain forms we may also have an ambulatory faith and new Articles may be offered before every Sermon and at every convention the Church can have no security to the contrary nor the Article any stable foundation or advantageous insinuation either into judgment or memory of the persons to be informed or perswaded but like Abrahams sacrifice as soon as his back is turn'd the birds shall eat it up Quid quod haec oratio quae sanandis mentibus adhibetur descendere in nos debet Remedia non prosunt nisi immorentur A cursory Prayer shall have a transient effect when the hand is off the impression also is gone Sect. 109. EIGHTHLY Without the description of publick forms of prayer there can be no security given in the matter of our prayers but we may burn assa foetida for incense and the Marrow of a mans bones instead of the fat of Rams and of all things in the world we should be most curious that our prayers be not turned into sin and yet if they be not prescribed and pre-considered nothing can secure them antecedently the people shall go to Church but without confidence that they shall return with a blessing for they know not whether God shall have a present made of a holy oblation or else whether the minister will stand in the gap or make the gap wider But this I touch'd upon before Sect. 110. NINTHLY They preserve the authority and sacredness of Government and possibly they are therefore decried that the reputation of authority may decline together For as God hath made it the great Cancel between the Clergy and the People that they are deputed to speak to God for them so is it the great distinction of the persons in that order that the Rulers shall judge between the Ministers and the People in relation to God with what addresses they shall come before God and intercede for the people for so St. Paul enjoyns that the spirits of the Prophets should be submitted to the Prophets viz. to be discern'd and judg'd by them which thing is not practicable in permissions of every Minister to pray what forms he pleases every day Sect. 111. TENTHLY Publick forms of Liturgy are also the great securities and basis to the religion and piety of the people for circumstances govern them most and the very determination of a publick office and the appointment of that office at certain times engages their spirits the first to an habitual the latter to an actual devotion It is all that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many men know of their Religion and they cannot any way know it better than by those Forms of prayer which publish their faith and their devotion to God and all the world and which by an admirable expedient reduces their faith into practice and places their Religion in their understanding and affections And therefore St. Paul when he was to give an account of his Religion he did it not by a mere recitation of the Articles but by giving account of his Liturgy and the manner of his worship After that way which they call haeresie so worship I the God of my Fathers And the best worship is the best religion and therefore I am not to trust any man to make my manner of worshipping unless I durst trust him to be the Dictator of my Religion and a Form of Prayer made by a private man is also my Religion made by a private man So that we must say after the manner that G. the Minister of B. shall conceive and speak so worship I the God of my Fathers and if that be reasonable or pious let all the world judge Sect. 112. ELEVENTHLY But when authority shall consider and determine upon a form of Liturgy and this be used and practised in a Church there is an admirable conjunction in the Religion and great co-operation towards the glory of God The authority of the injunction adds great reputation to the devotion and takes off the contempt which from the no-authority of single and private persons must be consequent to their conceived prayers and the publick practice of it and union of spirits in the devotion satisfies the world in the nature of it and the Religion of the Church Sect. 113. TWELFTHLY But nothing can answer for the great scandal which all wise persons and all good persons in the world must needs receive when there is no publick testimony consigned that such a whole Nation or a Church hath any thing that can be called Religion and those little umbrages that are are casual as chance it self alterable as time and shall be good when those infinite numbers of men that are trusted with it shall please to be honest or shall have the good luck not to be mistaken Sect. 114. THIRTEENTHLY I will not now instance in the vain-glory that is appendent to these new made every-days forms of prayer and that some have been so vain like the Orators Quintilian speaks of ut verbum petant quo incipiant that they have published their ex tempore faculty upon experiment and scenical bravery you shall name the instance and they shall compose the form Amongst whom also the gift of the man is more than the devotion of the man nor will I consider that then this gift is esteemed best when his prayer is longest and if he takes a complacency in his gift as who is not apt to do it he will be sure to extend his prayer till a suspicious and scrupulous man would be apt to say his Prayer pressed hard upon that which our blessed Saviour reprehended in the Pharisees who thought to be heard for their much babling I know it was observed by a very wise man that the vanity of spirit and popular opinion that grows great and talks loudly of his abilities that can speak ex tempore may not only be the incentive but a helper of the faculty and make a man not only to love it but to be the more able to do it Addit ad dicendum etiam pudor stimulos addit dicendorum expectata laus mirumque videri potest quod cum stylus secreto gaudeat atque omnes arbitros reformidet extemporalis actio auditorum frequentiâ ut miles congestu signorum excitatur Namque difficiliorem concitationem exprimit
decreed it pro edicto So it is in the case of a Heretick The understanding which is judge condemns him not by an express sentence for he erres with as much simplicity in the result as he had malice in the principle But there is sententia lata à jure his will which is his law that hath condemned him And this is gathered from that saying of S. Paul 2 Tim. 3.13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived First they are evil men malice and peevishness is in their wills then they turn Hereticks and seduce others and while they grow worse and worse the errour is master of their understanding they are deceived themselves given over to believe a lie saith the Apostle They first play the knave and then play the fool they first sell themselves to the purchase of vain-glory or ill ends and then they become possessed with a lying spirit and believe those things heartily which if they were honest they should with Gods grace discover and disclaim So that now we see that bona fides in falso articulo a hearty perswasion in a false article does not alwaies make the errour to be esteemed involuntary but then only when it is as innocent in the principle as it is confident in the present perswasion And such persons who by their ill lives and vitious actions or manifest designs for by their fruits ye shall know them give testimony of such criminal indispositions so as competent judges by humane and prudent estimate may so judge them then they are to be declared Hereticks and avoided And if this were not true it were vain that the Apostle commands us to avoid an Heretick For no external act can pass upon a man for a crime that is not cognoscible 12. Now every man that erres though in a matter of consequence so long as the foundation is intire cannot be suspected justly guilty of a crime to give his errour a formality of heresie for we see many a good man miserably deceived as we shall make it appear afterwards and he that is the best amongst men certainly hath so much humility to think he may be easily deceived and twenty to one but he is in some thing or other yet if his errour be not voluntary and part of an ill life then because he lives a good life he is a good man and therefore no Heretick No man is a Heretick against his will And if it be pretended that every man that is deceived is therefore proud because he does not submit his understanding to the authority of God or Man respectively and so his errour becomes a heresie To this I answer That there is no Christian man but will submit his understanding to God and believes whatsoever he hath said but always provided he knows that God hath said so else he must do his duty by a readiness to obey when he shall know it But for obedience or humility of the understanding towards men that is a thing of another consideration and it must first be made evident that his understanding must be submitted to men and who those men are must also be certain before it will be adjudged a sin not to submit But if I mistake not Christs saying call no man master upon earth is so great a prejudice against this pretence as I doubt it will go near wholly to make it invalid So that as the worshipping of Angels is an humility indeed but it is voluntary and a will-will-worship to an ill sence not to be excused by the excellency of humility nor the vertue of Religion so is the relying upon the judgement of man an humility too but such as comes not under that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that obedience of Faith which is the duty of every Christian but intrenches upon that duty which we owe to Christ as an acknowledgement that he is our great Master and the Prince of the Catholick Church But whether it be or be not if that be the Question whether the disagreeing person be to be determined by the dictates of men I am sure the dictates of men must not determine him in that Question but it must be settled by some higher principle So that if of that Question the disagreeing person does opine or believe or err bonâ fide he is not therefore to be judged a Heretick because he submits not his understanding because till it be sufficiently made certain to him that he is bound to submit he may innocently and piously disagree and this not submitting is therefore not a crime and so cannot make a heresy because without a crime he may lawfully doubt whether he be bound to submit or no for that 's the Question And if in such Questions which have influence upon a whole systeme of Theology a man may doubt lawfully if he doubts heartily because the authority of men being the thing in Question cannot be the judge of this Question and therefore being rejected or which is all one being questioned that is not believed cannot render the doubting person guilty of pride and by consequence not of heresy much more may particular questions be doubted of and the authority of men examined and yet the doubting person be humble enough and therefore no Heretick for all this pretence And it would be considered that humility is a duty in great ones as well as in Idiots And as inferiours must not disagree without reason so neither must superiours subscribe to others without sufficient authority evidence and necessity too And if rebellion be pride so is tyranny and it being in materiâ intellectuali both may be guilty of pride of understanding sometimes the one in imposing sometimes the other in a causless disagreeing but in the inferiours it is then only the want of humility when the guides impose or prescribe what God hath also taught and then it is the disobeying Gods dictates not mans that makes the sin But then this consideration will also intervene that as no dictate of God obliges men to believe it unless I know it to be such So neither will any of the dictates of my superiours engage my faith unless I also know or have no reason to dis-believe but that they are warranted to teach them to me therefore because God hath taught the same to them which if I once know or have no reason to think the contrary if I disagree my sin is not in resisting humane authority but divine And therefore the whole business of submitting our understanding to humane authority comes to nothing for either it resolves into the direct duty of submitting to God or if it be spoken of abstractly it is no duty at all 13. But this pretence of a necessity of humbling the understanding is none of the meanest arts whereby some persons have invaded and usurpt a power over mens faith and consciences and therefore we shall examine the pretence afterwards and try if God hath invested any Man or company
with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation 17. But for the Article itself We all say that Christ is there present some way or other extraordinary and it will not be amiss to worship him at that time when he gives himself to us in so mysterious a manner and with so great advantages especially since the whole Office is a consociation of divers actions of Religion and worship Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of Religion to communicate and to offer a Divine worship is given to Christ and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that Sacrament and it is no more in the Church of Rome but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence which errour is wholly seated in the understanding and does not communicate with the will For all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of Divine adoration and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever and before they venture to pass an act of adoration they believe the bread to be annihilated or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime which they formally hate and we materially avoid This consideration was concerning the Doctrine itself 18. Secondly And now for any danger to mens persons for suffering such a Doctrine this I shall say that if they who doe it are not formally guilty of Idolatry there is no danger that they whom they perswade to it should be guilty And what persons soever believe it to be Idolatry to worship the Sacrament while that perswasion remains will never be brought to it there is no fear of that and he that perswades them to doe it by altering their perswasions and beliefs does no hurt but altering the Opinions of the men and abusing their understandings but when they believe it to be no Idolatry then their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will that from thence onely it hath its being criminall 19. Thirdly However if it were Idolatry I think the precept of God to the Jews of killing false and idolatrous Prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to doe For in the case of the Apostles and the men of Samaria when James and John would have called for fire to destroy them even as Elias did under Moses Law Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own Spirit and taught them a lesson of greater sweetness and consigned this truth to all Ages of the Church that such severity is not consistent with the meekness which Christ by his example and Sermons hath made a precept Evangelicall At most it was but a judiciall Law and no more of Argument to make it necessary to us then the Mosaicall precepts of putting Adulterers to death and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousie 20. And thus in these two Instances I have given account what is to be done in Toleration of diversity of Opinions The result of which is principally this Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Commonwealth be safe For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a Question rather politicall then religious for as for the concernments of Religion these Instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular and by one of these all particulars may be judged 21. And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jews in a Commonwealth whose interest is served by their inhabitation and yet upon equal grounds of State and policy not to permit differing Sects of Christians For although possibly there is more danger mens perswasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian as if they be turned from Christian to Jew or Moor as many are daily in Spain and Portugall 22. And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no power over them qui forâ—s sunt as Jews are For it is true the Church in the capacity of spiritual regiments hath nothing to doe with them because they are not her Diocese yet the Prince hath to doe with them when they are subjects of his regiment They may not be Excommunicate any more then a stone may be killed because they are not of the Christian Communion but they â—re living persons parts of the Commonwealth infinitely deceived in their Religion and very dangerous if they offer to perswade men to their Opinions and are the greatest enemies of Christ whose honour and the interest of whose service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintain And when the question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death the Church hath equally nothing to doe with them both for she hath nothing to doe with the temporall sword but the Prince whose subjects equally Christians and Jews are hath equal power over their persons for a Christian is no more a Subject then a Jew is the Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death so that the Jew by being no Christian is not forâ—s or any more an exempt person for his body or his life then the Christian is And yet in all Churches where the Secular power hath temporal reason to tolerate the Jews they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion Which thing is of more consideration because the Jews are direct Blasphemers of the Son of God and Blasphemy by their own Law the Law of Moses is made capital and might with greater reason be inflicted upon them who acknowledge its obligation then urged upon Christians as an Authority enabling Princes to put them to death who are accused of accidental and consecutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively which yet they hate and disavow with much zeal and heartiness of perswasion And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the houshold of Faith for at least they are children though they be but rebellious children and if they were not what hath the mother to doe with them any more then with the Jews they are in some relation or habitude of the family for they are consigned with the same Baptism profess the same Faith delivered by the Apostles are erected in the same hope and look for the same glory to be revealed to them at the coming of their common Lord and Saviour to whose service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans yet not worse Have no company with
all the benefits which before were the consequents of Conformity and Unity will be lost and if they be not valuable I leave it to all them to consider who know the inconveniences of Publick disunion and the Publick disunion that is certainly consequent to them who do not communicate in any common forms of Worship and to think that the Directory will bring Conformity is as if one should say that all who are under the same Hemisphere are joyned in communi patriâ and will love like Country-men For under the Directory there will be as different religions and as different desires and as differing forms as there are several varieties of Men and manners under the one half of Heaven who yet breath under the same half of the Globe Sect. 139. BUT ask again what benefit can the publick receive by this form or this no form For I know not whether to call it Shall the matter of Prayers be better in all Churches shall God be better served shall the Word of God and the best Patterns of Prayers be always exactly followed It is well if it be But there is no security given us by the Directory for the particulars and special instances of the matter are left at every Mans dispose for all that and we must depend upon the honesty of every particular for it and if any man proves an Heretick or a Knave then he may introduce what impiety he please into the publick forms of Gods Worship and there is no law made to prevent it and it must be cured afterward if it can but before-hand it is not prevented at all by the Directory which trusts every man Sect. 140. BUT I observe that all the benefit which is pretended is that it will make an able Ministry Maximus verò studiorum fructus est praemium quoddam amplissimum longi laboris ex tempore dicendi facultas said an excellent person And it is very true to be able to speak excellent things without long considering is an effect of a long industry and greatest learning but certainly the greatest enemy in the world to its production Much learning and long use of speaking may enable a man to speak upon sudden occasions but speaking without consideration will never make much learning Nec quisquam tantum fidit ingenio ut sibi speret incipienti statim posse contingere sed sicut in cogitatione praecipimus ita facilitatem quoque extemporalâ—m à parvis initiis paulatim perducemus ad summam And to offer that as a means of getting learning which cannot be done at all as it ought but after learning is already gotten in a very great degree is highest mistaking I confess I am very much from believing the allegation and so will every man be that considers what kind of men they are that have been most zealous for that way of conceived Prayer I am sure that very few of the learnedst very many ignorants most those who have made least abode in the Schools of the Prophets And that I may disgrace no mans person we see Trades-men of the most illiberal arts and women pretend to it and do it with as many words and that 's the main thing with as much confidence and speciousness of spirit as the best amongst them Sed nec tumultuarii nec fortuiti sermonis contextum mirabor unquam quem jurgantibus etiam mulierculis superfluere video said Quintilian And it is but a small portion of learning that will serve a man to make conceived Forms of Prayer which they may have easily upon the stock of other men or upon their own fancy or upon any thing in which no learning is required He that knows not this knows nothing of the craft that may be in the Preachers trade But what Is God better served I would fain see any authority or any reason or any probability for that I am sure ignorant men offer him none of the best sacrifices ex tempore and learned men will be sure to deliberate and know God is then better served when he is served by a publick than when by a private Spirit I cannot imagine what accruements will hence come to the Publick it may be some advantages may be to the private interests of men For there are a sort of men whom our Blessed Saviour noted Who do devour Widows houses and for a pretence make long Prayers They make Prayers and they make them long by this means they receive double advantages for they get reputation to their ability and to their piety And although the Common-Prayer-Book in the Preface to the Directory be charged with unnecessary length yet we see that most of these men they that are most eminent or would be thought so make their Prayers longer and will not lose the benefits which their credit gets and they by their credit for making their Prayers Sect. 141. ADDE this that there is no promise in Scripture that he who prays ex tempore shall be heard the better or that he shall be assisted at all to such purposes and therefore to innovate in so high a matter without a warrant to command us or a promise to warrant us is no better than vanity in the thing and presumption in the person He therefore that considers that this way of Prayer is without all manner of precedent in the Primitive Church against the example of all famous Churches in all Christendom in the whole descent of XV Ages without all command or warrant of Scripture that it is unreasonable in the nature of the thing against prudence and the best wisdom of humanity because it is without Deliberation that it is innovation in a high degree without that authority which is truly and by inherent and Ancient right to command and prescribe to us in external Forms of Worship that it is much to the disgrace of the first Reformers of our Religion that it gives encouragement to the Church of Rome to quarrel with some reason and more pretence against our Reformation as being by the Directory confessed to have been done in much blindness and therefore might erre in the excess as well as in the defect throwing out too much as casting off too little which is the more likely because they wanted no zeal to carry them far enough He that considers the universal deformity of publick Worship and the no means of Union no Symbol of publick Communion being publickly consigned that all Heresies may with the same authority be brought into our Prayers and offered to God in the behalf of the people with the same authority that any truth may all the particular matter of our Prayers being left to the choice of all men of all perswasions and then observes that actually there are in many places Heresie and Blasphemy and Impertinency and illiterate Rudenesses put into the Devotion of the most solemn Days and the most publick Meetings and then lastly that there are divers parts of Liturgie for which no
reckoned and in others respersed over this Treatise But to return to the present objection it is observable that S. Cyril does not say it is not bread though the sense suppose it to be so for that would have supposed the taste to have been deceived which he affirms not and if he had we could not have believed him but he says though the sense perceive it to be bread so that it is still bread else the taste would not perceive it to be so but it is more and the sense does not perceive it for it is the body of our Lord here then is his own answer plainly opposed to the objection he says it is not bread that is it is not meer bread and so say we he says that it is the body of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antitype of the Lords body and so say we He says the sense perceives it to be bread but it is more than the sense perceives so he implies and so we affirm and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tells us and our understanding too for all it learns besides The like to this are the words of S. Chrysostome where he says We cannot be deceived by his words but our sense is often deceived look not at what is before us but observe Christs words Nothing sensible is given to us but things insensible by things sensible c. This and many higher things than this are in S. Chrysostome not only relating to this but to the other Sacrament also Think not thou receivest the body from a man but fire from the tongue of a Seraphim that for the Eucharist and for Baptism this The Priest baptizes thee not but God holds thy head In the same sence that these admit in the same sence we may understand his other words they are Tragical and high but may have a sober sence but literally they sound a contradiction that nothing sensible should be given us in the Sacrament and yet that nothing insensible should be given but what is conveyed by things sensible but it is not worth the while to stay here Only this the words of S. Chrysostome are good counsel and such as we follow for in this case we do not finally rely upon sense or resolve all into it but we trust it only for so much as it ought to be trusted for but we do not finally rest upon it but upon faith and look not on the things proposed but attend to the words of Christ and though we see it to be bread we also believe it to be his body in that sence which he intended SECT XI The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 1. WHEN we discourse of mysteries of Faith and Articles of Religion it is certain that the greatest reason in the world to which all other reasons must yield is this God hath said it therefore it is true Now if God had expresly said This which seems to be bread is my body in the natural sence or to that purpose there had been no more to be said in the affair all reasons against it had been but sophismes When Christ hath said This is my body no man that pretends to Christianity doubts of the truth of these words all men submitting their understanding to the obedience of Faith But since Christ did not affirm that he spake it in the natural sence but there are not only in Scripture many prejudices but in common sense much evidence against it if reason also protests against the Article it is the voice of God and to be heard in this question For Nunquam aliud natura aliud sapientia dicit And this the rather because there are so many ways to verifie the words of Christ without this strange and new doctrine of Transubstantiation that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason whereas the words of Christ may be many ways verified if Transubstantiation be condemned as first if Picus Mirandula's proposition be true which in Rome he offered to dispute publickly that Paneitas possit suppositare corpus Domini which I suppose if it be expounded in sensible terms means that it may be bread and Christs body too or secondly if Luthers and the ancient Schoolmens way be true that Christs body be present together with the bread In that sence Christs words might be true though no Transubstantiation and this is the sence which is followed by the Greek Church 3. If Boquinus's way be true that between the bread and Christs body there were a communication of proprieties as there is between the Deity and humanity of our blessed Saviour then as we say God gave himself for us and the blessed Virgin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God and God suffered and rose again meaning that God did it according to his assumed humanity so we may say this is Christs body by the communication of the Idioms or proprieties to the bread with which it is united 4. If our way be admitted that Christ is there after a real spiritual manner the words of Christ are true without any need of admitting Transubstantiation 5. I could instance in the way of Johannes Longus in his Annotations upon the second Apology of Justin Martyr Hoc est corpus meum that is My body is this that is is nourishment spiritual as this is Natural 6. The way of Johannes Caâ—panus would afford me a sixth instance Hoc est corpus meum that is meum as it is mea creatura 7. Johannes à Lasco Bucer and the Socinians refer hoc to the whole ministery and mean that to be representative of Christs body 8. If Rupertus the Abbots way were admitted which was confuted by Algerus and is almost like that of Boquinus that between Christs body and the consecrate symbols there was an hypostatical union then both substances would remain and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hypostasis this is the body of Christ. Many more I could reckon all which or any of which if it were admitted the words of Christ stand true and uncontradicted and therefore it is a huge folly to quarrel at them that admit not Transubstantiation and to say they deny the words of Christ. And therefore it must not now be said Reason is not to be heard against an Article of Faith for that this is an Article of Faith cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ which are capable of so many meanings Therefore reason in this case is to be heard by them that will give a reason of their faith as it is commanded in Scripture much less is that to be admitted which Fisher or Flued the Jesuit was bold to say to King James that because Transubstantiation seems so much against reason therefore it is to be admitted as if faith were more faith for being against reason Against this for the present I shall oppose the excellent words of S. Austin
the nature of the imployment for I love not to be as S. Paul calls it one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disputers of this world For I suppose skill in Controversies as they are now us'd to be the worst part of learning and time is the worst spent in them and men the least benefited by them that is when the Questions are curious and impertinent intricate and unexplicable not to make men better but to make a Sect. But when the Propositions disputed are of the foundation of Faith or lead to good life or naturally do good to single persons or publick Societies then they are part of the depositum of Christianity of the Analogy of faith and for this we are by the Apostle commanded to contend earnestly and therefore Controversies may become necessary but because they are not often so but oftentimes useless and always troublesome and as an ill diet makes an ill habit of body so does the frequent use of controversies baffle the understanding and makes it crafty to deceive others it self remaining instructed in nothing but useless notions and words of contingent signification and distinctions without difference which minister to pride and contention and teach men to be pertinacious troublesome and uncharitable therefore I love them not But because by the Apostolical Rule I am tyed to do all things without murmurings as well as without disputings I consider'd it over again and found my self reliev'd by the subject matter and the grand consequent of the present Questions For in the present affair the case is not so as in the others here the Questions are such that the Church of Rome declares them to reach a◠far as eternity and damn all that are not of their opinions and the Protestants have much more reason to fear concerning the Papists such who are not excus'd by ignorance that their condition is very sad and deplorable and that it is charity to snatch them as a brand from the fire and indeed the Church of Rome maintains Propositions which if the Ancient Doctors of the Church may be believ'd are apt to separate from God I instance in their superaddition of Articles and Propositions derived only from a pretended tradition and not contain'd in Scripture Now the doing of this is a great sin and a great danger Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus detrahentibus destinatum said Tertullian I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenus fear the woe that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it S. Basil says Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity and a most certain sign of pride to introduce any thing that is not written in the Scriptures our blessed Saviour having said My sheep hear my voice and the voice of strangers they will not hear and to detract from Scriptures or add any thing to the Faith that is not there is most vehemently forbidden by the Apostle saying If it be but a mans Testament nemo superordinat no man adds to it And says also This was the Will of the Testator And Theophilus Alexandrinus says plainly It is the part of a Devillish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in the authority of the holy Scriptures and therefore S. Athanasius affirms that the Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being immodestiae vaecordia an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Now let any man judge whether it be not our duty and a necessary work of charity and the proper office of our Ministery to perswade our charges from the immodesty of an evil heart from having a Devillish spirit from doing that which is vehemently forbidden by the Apostle from infidelity and pride and lastly from that eternal Woe which is denounc'd against them that add other words and doctrines than what is contain'd in the Scriptures and say Dominus dixit The Lord hath said it and he hath not said it If we had put these severe censures upon the Popish doctrine of Tradition we should have been thought uncharitable but because the holy Fathers do so we ought to be charitable and snatch our Charges from the ambient flame And thus it is in the question of Images Dubium non est quin Religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est said Lactantius Without all peradventure where ever an Image is meaning for worship there is no Religion and that we ought rather to die than pollute our Faith with such impieties said Origen It is against the Law of Nature it being expresly forbidden by the second Commandment as Irenaeus affirms Tertullian Cyprian and S. Augustine and therefore is it not great reason we should contend for that Faith which forbids all worship of Images and oppose the superstition of such Guides who do teach their people to give them veneration to prevaricate the Moral Law and the very Law of Nature and do that which whosoever does has no Religion We know Idolatry is a damnable sin and we also know that the Roman Church with all the artifices she could use never can justifie her self or acquit the common practices from Idolatry and yet if it were but suspicious that it is Idolatry it were enough to awaken us for God is a jealous God and will not endure any such causes of suspicion and motives of jealousie I instance but once more The Primitive Church did excommunicate them that did not receive the holy Sacrament in both kinds and S. Ambrose says that he who receives the Mystery other ways than Christ appointed that is but in one kind when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord and he cannot have Devotion Now this thing we ought not to suffer that our people by so doing should remain unworthy of the Lord and for ever be indevout or cozen'd with a false shew of devotion or fall by following evil Guides into the sentence of Excommunication These matters are not trifling and when we see these errors frequently taught and own'd as the only true Religion and yet are such evils which the Fathers say are the way of damnation we have reason to hope that all wise and good men lovers of souls will confess that we are within the circles of our duty when we teach our people to decline the crooked ways and to walk in the ways of Scripture and Christianity But we have observed amongst the generality of the Irish such a declension of Christianity so great credulity to believe every superstitious story such confidence in vanity such groundless pertinacy such vicious lives so little sense of true Religion and the fear of God so much care to obey the Priests and so little to obey God such intolerable ignorance such fond Oaths and manners of swearing thinking
which Pope John the Eighth severely reprov'd them and commanded them to do so no more but being better inform'd he wrote a letter to their Prince Sfentoputero in which he affirms that it is not contrary to faith and found doctrine to say Mass and other prayers in the Slavonian tongue and adds this reason because he that Hebrew Greek and Latin hath made the others also for his glory and this also he confirms with the authority of S. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians and some other Scriptures only he commanded for the decorum of the business the Gospel should first be said in Latin and then in the Slavonian tongue But just two hundred years after this the Tables were turned and though formerly these things were permitted yet so were many things in the Primitive Church but upon better examination they have been corrected And therefore P. Gregory the seventh wrote to Vratislaus of Bohemia that he could not permit the celebration of the divine offices in the Slavonian tongue and he commanded the Prince to oppose the people herein with all his forces Here the world was strangely altered and yet S. Paul's Epistle was not condemned of heresie and no Council had decreed that all vulgar languages were prophane and no reason can yet be imagined why the change was made unless it were to separate the Priest from the people by a wall of Latin and to nurse stupendious ignorance in them by not permitting to them learning enough to understand their publick prayers in which every man was greatly concerned Neither may this be called a slight matter for besides that Gregory the seventh thought it so considerable that it was a just cause of a war or persecution for he commanded the Prince of Bohemia to oppose the people in it with all his forces besides this I say to pray to God with the understanding is much better than praying with the tongue that alone can be a good prayer this alone can never and then the loss of all those advantages which are in prayers truly understood the excellency of devotion the passion of desires the ascent of the mind to God the adherence to and acts of confidence in him the intellectual conversation with God most agreeable to a rational being the melting affections the pulses of the heart to and from God to and from our selves the promoting and exercising of our hopes all these and very many more which can never be intire but in the prayers and devotions of the heart and can never be in any degree but in the same in which the prayers are acts of love and wisdom of the will and the understanding will be lost to the greatest part of the Catholick Church if the mouth be set open and the soul be gag'd so that it shall be the word of the mouth but not the word of the mind All these things being added to what was said in this article by the Disswasive will more than make it clear that in this article the consequents of which are very great the Church of Rome hath causelesly troubled Christendom and innovated against the Primitive Church and against her own ancient doctrines and practices and even against the Apostle But they care for none of these things Some of their own Bigots profess the thing in the very worst of all these expressions for so Reynolds and Gifford in their Calvino Turcismus complain that such horrid and stupendious evils have followed the translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages that they are of force enough ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi Divina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Although they did rely upon the authority Apostolical or Divine yet they ought to be taken away So that it is to no purpose to urge Scripture or any argument in the world against the Roman Church in this article for if God himself command it to be translated yet it is not sufficient and therefore these men must be left to their own way of understanding for beyond the law of God we have no argument I will only remind them that it is a curse which God threatens to his rebellious people I will speak to this people with men of another tongue and by strange lips and they shall not understand This is the curse which the Church of Rome contends earnestly for in behalf of their people SECT VI. Of the Worship of Images THAT society of Christians will not easily be reformed that think themselves oblig'd to dispute for the worship of Images the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaick Religion and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue and no man can excuse but witty persons that can be bound by no words which they can interpret to a sence contradictory to the design of the common a thing for the hating of and abstaining from which the Jews were so remark'd by all the world and by which as by a distinctive cognizance they were separated from all other Nations and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day and for the not observing of which they are intolerably scandaliz'd at those societies of Christians who without any necessity in the thing without any pretence of any Law of God for no good and for no wise end and not without infinite danger at least of idolatry retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones Such men as these are too hard for all laws and for all arguments so certain it is that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understanding that if in the will and interests of men there be a perverseness and a non-compliance and that it is not bent by prudent and wise â—lexures and obedience to God and the plain words of God in Scripture nothing can ever prevail neither David nor his Sling nor all the worthies of his army In this question I have said enough in the Disswasive and also in the Ductor Dubitantium but to the arguments and fulness of the perswasion they neither have nor can they say any thing that is material but according to their usual method like flies they search up and down and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore or would make their proselytes believe so I shall therefore first vindicate those few quotations which the Epistles of his brethren except against for there are many and those most pregnant which they take no notice of as bearing in them too clear a conviction 2. I shall answer such testimonies which some of them steal out of Bellarmine and which they esteem as absolutely their best And 3. I shall add something in confirmation of that truth of God which I here have undertaken to defend First for the questioned quotations against the worship of Images S. Cyril was nam'd in the Disswasive as denying that the Christians
other hereticks It is most likely here it might go away But however the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular The authority of S. Austin reprehending the worship of images was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent in which describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion he presses it on to â—ssue Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name Follow not the troops of the unskilful who in true religion it self either are superstitious or so given to lusts that they have forgotten what they have promis'd to God I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchres and pictures I know that there are many who live luxuriously over the graves of the dead That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vitious is plain and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons But see what follows But how vain how hurtful how sacrilegious they are I have purpos'd to shew in another volume Then addressing himself to the Manichees who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholicks did reproach the Catholick Church he says Now I admonish you â—hat at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholick Church by reproaching the manners the of these men viz. worshippers of pictures and sepulchres and livers riotously over the dead whom she her self condemns and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct By these words now cited it appears plainly that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians who in his time did worship pictures were not only superstitious but condemned by the Church This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said but that he did say so we have his own words for witness Yea but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of Pictures alone what then Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious and their actions vain hurtful and sacrilegious But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these because he says it of the others too But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitious I know not what this offer of an answer means certain it is when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post he wries his back and shrinks from the blow though he knows he cannot get loose In the Margent of the Dissuasive there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at but the Letter says that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose That is now to be tryed The purpose for which they were brought is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margent the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry and to the condemnation of the Roman doctrine as the first was of the Roman practice The words are these Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side or that because the Father is said to sit it is to be supposed that he does it with bended knees lest we fall into that sacriledge for which the Apostle execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man For for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart So S. Austin Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section as more relating to the proper matter of it as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God but here it serves without any sensible error and where ever it is it throws a stone at them and hits them But of this more in the sequel But the third testimony however it pleases A. L. to deny it does speak home to this part of the question and condemns the Roman hypothesis the words are these See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote or that ye make shapes and images But it adds also saying Your God is a consuming fire and a zealous God These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God be so blames the Scriptures that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books concerning the not worshipping of images as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images Therefore he would seem to favour images which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect meaning the sect of the Manichees who to comply with the Pagans did retain the worship of images And now the three testimonies are verified and though this was an unnecessary trouble to me and I fear it may be so to my Reader yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this that in S. Austins sence that which Romanists do now the Manichees did then only these did it to comply with the Heathens and those out of direct and meer superstition But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that which the Jews did in this viz. that which was written Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God thou shalt not make an idol to thee and such like things and in the latter place he affirms that the second Commandment is moral viz. that all of the Decalogue are so but only the fourth I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul he says Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos ejus non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question and does great effort to the Roman practices E. W. takes notice of it and his best answer to it is that it hath often been answered already He says true it hath been answered
both often and many ways The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bishops who in the 36. Canon decreed this placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches That 's the decree The reason they give is ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls So that there are two propositions 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures ne quod colitur adoratur By which Mark E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches illi soli servies but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls or 2. defaced by the Heathen the first of these is Bellarmines the latter is Perrons answer But too childish to need a severer consideration But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames upon boards or cloth as it is in many Churches in Rome and other places 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches for fear of spoiling one kind of them they might have permitted others though not these 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think that in that age in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images they should be so curious to preserve their pictures and reserve them for â—doration 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution ne quod colitur adoratur and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it is so unlike the religion of Christians the piety of those ages the Oeconomy of the Church and the analogy of the Commandment that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him that shall so perversly invent an Unreasonable Commentary rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony But some are wiser and consider that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd but that they be not in the Churches and that what is adorable be not there painted and not be not there spoiled The not painting them is the utmost of their design not the preserving them for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls and preserved well enough and easily repaired upon decay therefore this is too childish to blot them out for fear they be spoiled and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out Agobardus Bishop of Lions above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis imaginibus which was published by Papirius Massonus and thus illustrates it Recte saith he nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere Nec quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition not the ridiculous preserving the pictures So it was Understood then But then 2. Agobardus reads it Nec not Ne quod colitur which reading makes the latter part of the Canon to be part of the sanction and no reason of the former decree pictures must not be made in Churches neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius that the Canon is not genuine is plainly confuted this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius and so many ages after the Council And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron who tells a story that in Granada in memory of this Council they use frames for pictures and paint none upon the wall at this day It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sence of the Patrons of images and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches Now then let this Canon be confronted with the Council of Trent Sess. 25. decret de S. S. invoc Imagines Christi Deiparae virginis aliorum sanctorâ—m in templis praesertim habendas retinendas that the images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saints be had and kept especially in Churches and in the world there cannot be a greater contradiction between two than there is between Eliberis and Trent the old and the new Church for the new Church not only commands pictures and images to be kept in Churches but paints them upon walls and neither fears thieves nor moisture There are divers other little answers amongst the Roman Doctors to this uneasie objection but they are only such as venture at the telling the secret reasons why the Council so decreed as Alan Cope saith it was so decreed lest the Christians should take them for Gods or lest the Heathen should think the Christians worshipped them so Sanders But it matters not for what reason they decreed Only if either of these say true then Bellarmine and Perron are false in their conjectures of the reason But it matters not for suppose all these reasons were concentred in the decree yet the decree it self is not observ'd at this day in the Roman Church but a doctrine and practice quite contrary introduced And therefore my opinion is that Melchior Canus answers best aut nimis duras aut parum rationi consentaneas à Consiliis provincialibus interdum editas non est negandum Qualis illa non impudenter modo verum etiam impie à Concilio Elibertino de tollendis imaginibus By this we may see not only how irreverently the Roman Doctors use the Fathers when they are not for their turns but we may also perceive how the Canon condemns the Roman doctrine and practice in the matter of images The next inquiry is concerning matter of History relating to the second Synod of Nice in the East and that of Francfurt in the West In the Dissuasive it was said that Eginardus Hincmarus Aventinus c. affirmed 1. That the Bishops assembled at Francfurt and condemned the Synod of Nice 2. That they commanded it should not be called a General Council 3. They published a book under the name of the
Rule is general and it summs up this whole Question 62. X. A mans will hath no infirmity but when it wants the grace of God that is whatsoever the will chuses is imputed to it for good or bad For the will can suffer no violence it is subject to nothing and to no person but to God and his laws and therefore when ever it does amiss it sins directly against him The will hath no necessity but what God and her self imposes for it can chuse in despight of all arguments and notices from the understanding For if it can despise an argument from reason it can also despise an argument from sense if it can refuse a good argument it can also refuse a foolish one if it can chuse and not yield to religion it can also chuse and not yield to interest If it can reject profit it can reject pleasure if it can refuse every argument it can refuse all and will because it will it can as well be malicious as do unreasonably and there could be no sin at all if the will never did amiss but when it were deceived and even when the will chuses pleasure before Heaven it is not because that seems better but because it will chuse against all reason only upon its own account For it is certain he that chuses any thing upon that which he knows is but a seeming and a fallacious reason may if he please do it without all reason and so the will can do against reason in despight of powers and hopes and interest and threatning * And therefore whatsoever is voluntarily chosen let it be taken care of that it be good for if it be not there can no excuse come from thence 63. The will is the only fountain and proper principle of sin insomuch as the fact is no sin if it be involuntary but the willing is a sin though no act follows Latro est etiam antequam inquinet manus said Seneca Fecit enim quisquam quantum voluit If he hath will'd it he hath done it before God To this purpose is that saying of Tertullian Voluntas sacti origo est quae ne tunc quidem liberatur cùm aliqua difficultas perpetrationem ejus intercepit Ipsa enim sibi imputatur nec excusari poterit per illam perficiendi infelicitatem operata quod suum fuerat Want of power excuses every thing but the will because this always hath power to do its own work and what cannot be done besides as it is nothing to the will so it is nothing to its excuse To will is the formality of sin and therefore whatever action had its commission from thence is not a sin of infirmity For nothing is a sin of infirmity but what is in some sence involuntary 64. The summ is this Sin puts on its excuse and becomes a sin of infirmity upon no account but upon the account of ignorance or something analogical to it such as are inadvertency or surprise which are to ignorance as acts are to habits The weak brother in S. Paul's dialect is he that hath no knowledge For since nothing leads the will but the understanding unless it goes alone and moves by its own act or principle if the understanding be inculpably misled the will may be in error but not in sin it is abused but shall not be condemned For no man can be tied to do more or better than he understands for that would be to do more than he can If the understanding abuse the will there is evil in it but no sin but if the will abuse the understanding then it is criminal That is where the man understands not or cannot consider or deliberate all his actions by being less humane are less imputable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But where there is no knowledge there is no power and no choice and no sin They increase and decrease by each others measures S. James his rule is the full measure of this discourse To him that knoweth to do good and doth it not to him it is sin The same with that of Philo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To him that sins ignorantly pardon is given that is easily but he who sins knowingly hath no excuse And therefore the Hebrews use to oppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ignorance that is the issues of a wicked from the issues of a weak mind according to that saying of our blessed Saviour If ye were blind ye should have no sin that is no great or very unpardonable sin Ignorance where of it self it is no sin keeps the action innocent but as the principle is polluted so also is the emanation SECT VIII Practical Advices to be added to the foregoing Considerations 65. I. SINCE our weak nature is the original of our imperfections and sinful infirmities it is of great concernment that we treat our natures so as to make them aptly to minister to religion but not to vice Nature must be preserved as a servant but not indulged to as a Mistress for she is apt to be petulant and after the manner of women quae faciunt graviora coactae Imperio sexus She will insult impotently and rule tyrannically Natures provisions of meat and drink are to be retrench'd and moderate that she may not be luxuriant and irregular but she ought to be refreshed so as to be useful and healthful and chearful even in the days of expiation and sorrow For he that fasts to kill his lust and by fasting grows peevish which to very many men is a natural effect of fasting and was sadly experimented in S. Hierome hath only altered the signification of his evil and it is not easily known whether the beast that is wanton or the beast that is curst be aptest to goar and if in such cases the first evil should be cured yet the man is not 66. But there are in nature some things which are the instruments of vertue and vice too some things which of themselves indeed are culpable but yet such which do minister to glorious events and such which as they are not easily corrigible so they are not safe to be done away Dabo maximae famae viros inter admiranda propositos quos si quis corrigit delet Sic enim vitia virtutibus immixta sunt ut illas sicum tractura sint If the natural anger of some men be taken off you will also extinguish their courage or make them unfit for government Vice and vertue sometimes go together in these cases that which we call vicious is in many degrees of it a natural infirmity and must be tempered as well as it can but it neither can nor indeed ought to be extinguished and therefore as we must take care that nature run not into extravagancies so for the unalterable portions of infirmity they ought to be the matter of humility and watchfulness but not of scruple and vexation However we must be careful that nature be
for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the publick tranquillity as the Republick hath nothing to doe upon the ground of all the former discourses so if the Church meddles with them where they do not derive into ill life either in the person or in the consequent or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion which is all one for that those fundamental Articles are of greatest necessity in order to a vertuous and godly life which is wholly built upon them and therefore are principally necessary if she meddles farther otherwise then by preaching and conferring and exhortation she becomes tyrannical in her government makes herself an immediate judge of Consciences and perswasions lords it over their Faith destroys unity and charity and as he that dogmatizes the Opinion becomes criminal if he troubles the Church with an immodest peevish and pertinacious proposall of his Article not simply necessary so the Church does not do her duty if she so condemns it pro tribunali as to enjoyn him and all her subjects to believe the contrary And as there may be pertinacy in Doctrine so there may be pertinacy in judging and both are faults The peace of the Church and the unity of her Doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave that is the Creed for Articles of mere belief and the precepts of Jesus Christ and the practicall rules of piety which are most plain and easie and without controversie set down in the Gospels and writings of the Apostles But to multiply Articles and adopt them into the family of the Faith and to require assent to such Articles which as Saint Paul's phrase is are of doubtfull disputation equal to that assent we give to matters of Faith is to build a tower upon the top of a Bulrush and the farther the effect of such proceedings does extend the worse they are the very making such a Law is unreasonable the inflicting spiritual censures upon them that cannot doe so much violence to their understanding as to obey it is unjust and ineffectuall but to punish the person with death or with corporal infliction indeed it is effectuall but it is therefore tyrannicall We have seen what the Church may doe towards restraining false or differing Opinions next I shall consider by way of Corollary what the Prince may doe as for his interest and onely in securing his people and serving the ends of true Religion SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to severall Religions 1. FOR upon these very grounds we may easily give account of that great Question Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give Toleration to several Religions For first It is a great fault that men will call the several Sects of Christians by the names of several Religions The Religion of Jesus Christ is the form of sound Doctrine and wholsome words which is set down in Scripture indefinitely actually conveyed to us by plain places and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles Those impertinencies which the wantonnesse and vanity of men hath commenced which their interests have promoted which serve not Truth so much as their own ends are far from being distinct Religions for matters of Opinion are no parts of the Worship of God nor in order to it but as they promote obedience to his Commandments and when they contribute towards it are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they do or pretend to serve And such are all the Sects and all the pretences of Christians but pieces and minutes of Christianity if they do serve the great end as every man for his own Sect and interest believes for his share it does 2. Toleration hath a double sense or purpose For sometimes by it men understand a publick licence and exercise of a Sect sometimes it is onely an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause and as they mean to answer to God Both these are very much to the same purpose unlesse some persons whom we are bound to satisfie be scandalized and then the Prince is bound to doe as he is bound to satisfie To God it is all one For abstracting from the offence of persons which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publickly or privately to doe actions of Religion concerning which we are not perswaded that they are truly holy To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light the thing is the same onely the Circumstance of publick and private is different which cannot be concerned in any thing nor can it concern any thing but the matter of Scandal and relation to the minds and fantasies of certain persons 3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute And the Question whether the Prince may tolerate divers perswasions is no more then whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his Opinion Now in this case he is just so to tolerate diversity of perswasions as he is to tolerate publick actions for no Opinion is judicable nor no person punishable but for a sin and if his Opinion by reason of its managing or its effect be a sin in itself or becomes a sin to the person then as he is to doe towards other sins so to that Opinion or man so opining But to believe so or not so when there is no more but mere believing is not in his power to enjoyn therefore not to punish And it is not onely lawfull to tolerate disagreeing Perswasions but the Authority of God onely is competent to take notice of it and infallible to determine it and fit to judge and therefore no humane Authority is sufficient to doe all those things which can justifie the inflicting temporal punishments upon such as doe not conform in their perswasions to a Rule or Authority which is not onely fallible but supposed by the disagreeing person to be actually deceived 4. But I consider that in the Toleration of a different Opinion Religion is not properly and immediately concerned so as in any degree to be endangered For it may be safe in diversity of perswasions and it is also a part of Christian Religion that the liberty of mens Consciences should be preserved in all things where God hath not set a limit and made a restraint that the Soul of man should be free and acknowledge no Master but Jesus Christ that matters spiritual should not be restrained by punishments corporal that the same meekness and charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity that gave it foundation and increment and firmness in its first publication that Conclusions should not be more dogmatical then the virtual resolution
and signifies as much as Vnity can mean and every consent and every pleasure and every benefit and every society is the Mother or the Daughter of friendship Some friendships are made by nature some by contract some by interest and some by souls And in proportion to these ways of Uniting so the friendships are greater or less vertuous or natural profitable or holy or all this together Nature makes excellent friendships of which we observe something in social Plants growing better in each others neighbourhood than where they stand singly And in Animals it is more notorious whose friendships extend so far as to herd and dwell together to play and feed to defend and fight for one another and to cry in absence and to rejoyce in one anothers presence But these friendships have other names less noble they are Sympathy or they are Instinct But if to this natural friendship there be Reason superadded something will come in upon the stock of Reason which will ennoble it But because no Rivers can rise higher than Fountains Reason shall draw out all the dispositions which are in Nature and establish them into friendships but they cannot surmount the communications of Nature Nature can make no friendships greater than her own excellencies Nature is the way of contracting necessary friendships that is by nature such friendships are contracted without which we cannot live and be educated or be well or be at all In this scene that of Parents and Children is the greatest which indeed is begun in nature but is actuated by society and mutual endearments For Parents love their Children because they love themselves Children being but like emissions of water symbolical or indeed the same with the fountain and they in their posterity see the images and instruments of a civil immortality But if Parents and Children do not live together we see their friendships and their loves are much abated and supported only by fame and duty by customs and religion which to nature are but artificial pillars and make this friendship to be complicated and to pass from its own kind to another That of Children to their Parents is not properly friendship but gratitude and interest and religion and whatever can supervene of the nature of friendship comes in upon another account upon society and worthiness and choice This relation on either hand makes great Dearnesses But it hath special and proper significations of it and there is a special duty incumbent on each other respectively This friendship and social relation is not equal and there is too much authority on one side and too much fear on the other to make equal friendships and therefore although this is one of the kinds of friendship that is of a social and relative love and conversation yet in the more proper use of the word Friendship does do some things which Father and Son do not I instance in the free and open communicating counsels and the evenness and pleasantness of conversation and consequently the significations of the paternal and filial love as they are divers in themselves and unequal and therefore another kind of friendship than we mean in our inquiry so they are such a duty which no other friendship can annul because their mutual duty is bound upon them by religion long before any other friendships can be contracted and therefore having first possession must abide for ever The duty and love to Parents must not yield to religion much less to any new friendships and our Parents are to be preferred before the Corban and are at no hand to be laid aside but when they engage against God That is in the rights which this relation and kind of friendship challenges as its propriety it is supreme and cannot give place to any other friendships till the Father gives his right away and God or the Laws consent to it as in the case of marriage emancipation and adoption to another family in which cases though love and gratitude are still obliging yet the societies and duties of relation are very much altered which in the proper and best friendships can never be at all But then this also is true That the social relations of Parents and Children not having in them all the capacities of a proper friendship cannot challenge all the significations of it that is it is no prejudice to the duty I owe there to pay all the dearnesseâ— which are due here and to friends there are some things due which the other cannot challenge I mean my secret and my equal conversation and the pleasures and interests of these and the consequents of all Next to this is the society and dearness of Brothers and Sisters which usually is very great amongst worthy persons but if it be considered what it is in it self it is but very little there is very often a likeness of natural temper and there is a social life under the same roof and they are commanded to love one another and they are equals in many instances and are endeared by conversation when it is merry and pleasant innocent and simple without art and without design But Brothers pass not into noble friendships upon the stock of that relation they have fair dispositions and advantages and are more easie and ready to ferment into the greatest dearnesses if all things else be answerable Nature disposes them well towards it but in this inquiry if we ask what duty is passed upon a Brother to a Brother even for being so I answer that religion and our Parents and God and the Laws appoint what measures they please but nature passes but very little and friendship less and this we see apparently in those Brothers who live asunder and contract new relations and dwell in other societies There is no love no friendship without the entercouse of conversation Friendships indeed may last longer than our abode together but they were first contracted by it and established by pleasure and benefit and unless it be the best kind of friendship which that of Brothers in that mere capacity is not it dies when it wants the proper nutriment and support and to this purpose is that which was spoken by Solomon Better is a neighbour that is near than a Brother that is far off that is although ordinarily Brothers are first possessed of the entries and fancies of friendship because they are of the first societies and conversations yet when that ceases and the Brother goes away so that he does no advantage no benefit of entercourse the neighbour that dwells by me with whom if I converse at all either he is my enemy and does and receives evil or if we converse in worthinesses and benefit and pleasant communication he is better in the laws and measures of friendship than my distant Brother And it is observable that Brother is indeed a word of friendship and charity and of mutual endearment and so is a title of the bravest society yet in all the Scripture there are no